Perry et al.

• What was the psychology being investigated in Perry et al.: - INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE

  The invisible boundary around us in which we choose who can enter the boundary depending on the situation or our relationship with the other person

  
  

  - EMPATHY

  A person's ability to understand the thoughts, feelings and experiences of another. Cognitive empathy is a person's ability ti determine another person's emotional state whereas affective empathy is the ability to 'feel' that same emotional state

  
  

  - SOCIAL HORMONES

  Oxytocin is a social hormone that acts as a neurotransmitter and plays a role in social bonding, childbirth and breastfeeding. It has been seen to promote prosocial and approach behaviours. However, research has shown oxytocin can also lead to envy, risk aversion and feelings of hostility towards strangers. Dependent on empathy levels
• What is the background to Perry et al.: AMYGDALA plays a role in preferred interpersonal distance and it's activity is affected by the hormone oxytocin

  The more discomfort people feel with an interpersonal distance that is too close, the higher their levels of amygdala activity

  
  

  SOCIAL SALIENCE HYPOTHESIS predicts that oxytocin increases attention to social cues. One person may feel comfortable and relaxed in a social setting, while another may feel stressed and intimidated. Social salience may affect people in opposite ways.

  Social salience is the extent to which a particular target draws the attention of an observer or group. E.g. clothing that attracts little attention in one culture may stand out with high salience in another
• What was the aim and hypothesis of Perry et al.: To investigate how oxytocin affects preferred interpersonal distance for those scoring high or low in empathy traits

  
  

  Oxytocin will promote closeness among highly empathic participants but might have an opposite effect on those with low empathic traits
• How was Perry et al. considered to be ethical: - Written consent was taken from the PPs

  - Approval was given by ethical committee of the Medical Centre and University Board gave

  - The task of watching stooges and using a computer was not too stressful

  - They could press the space bar to stop the figure approaching, which allowed for protection against psychological harm and created a level of trust
• Describe the sample used in Perry et al.: - 54 male undergrad students from a Middle Eastern University

  - Aged between 19-32 years old

  - Volunteer sample. PPs received course credit or payment in exchange for their participation

  - 5 left-handed

  - No history of psychiatric or neurological conditions
• Describe how PPs received the oxytocin solution: - PPs had to self-administer the solution

  - Via the nose using a medicine dropper

  - 3 drops per nostril

  - Either solution of oxytocin or sterile placebo solution (RANDOMLY ADMINISTERED)

  - DOUBLE-BLIND TECHNIQUE used in which the experimenter nor the PP knew whether the PP had received the OT or the placebo which could reduce demand characteristics
• Describe how PPs were divided into different levels of empathy: INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX:

  - 28 item self-report measure

  - 4 seven-item subscales each assessing a different component of dispositional empathy: Empathetic Concern, Perspective Taking, Fantasy, Personal distress

  - Used a 5-item Likert Scale (A = does not describe me very well, E = describes me very well)

  - 20 PPs in high empathy group (scored 40 plus)

  - 20 PPs in low empathy group (scored 33 and under)

  - Scores added together
• Describe the procedure in Experiment 1 of Perry et al. and mention IVs and DV: Measured Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (dv)

  IV1: Empathy Level (high or low)

  IV2: Treatment (oxytocin or placebo)

  IV3: Condition (stranger, authority, friend or ball)

  
  

  INDEPENDENT MEASURES DESIGN

  
  

  1. The word friend, stranger, authority or ball appears on screen for 1s

  2. PP gazes at a fixation point which appears on the screen for 0.5s

  3. Next screen shows plan of a circular room with a stick person at the centre representing the PP for 1s

  4. Animation lasts up to 3s showing figure entering from one of 8 doors and approach centre of circle

  5. PP presses the spacebar on the keyboard when they want protagonist to stop

  
  

  - 96 trials with the four protagonists approving 3x from each of the 8 doors

  - Interpersonal distance was calculated as the percentage of distance remaining between the protagonist and central figure (0% = both figures touching and 100% = furthest distance)
• Describe the procedure in Experiment 2 of Perry et al. and mention IVs and DV: Mean Average Preferred Distance (dv)

  Mean Average Preferred Angle between different items of furniture in a room (dv)

  IV1: Distance between chairs/table and plant

  IV2: Angle of chairs' positions/table and plant

  
  

  REPEATED MEASURES DESIGN

  
  

  1. PPs told they had to plan the layout of a room where they would be having a conversation with another PP about a personal topic at the end of the 2 weeks of experiments

  2. Pairs of rooms had only one variable differed each trial: distance between chairs (20cm to 140cm in intervals of 20cm), distance between table and plant (200cm to 320cm in intervals of 20cm), Angle of chairs' position (0, 45, 90), Angel of positions of table and plant (0,45,90) - RANDOMLY CHOSEN

  3. 84 pairs of rooms shown TWICE, PP sat 60cm away from computer screen and shown each pair of rooms for 2s, they had to fixate on a point on a blank screen for 0.5s between each pair

  4. PPs asked to choose between the left or the right room

  5. No such personal conversation actually took place, at the end of the two weeks the PPs were informed of the true purpose of the study
• Describe the stimuli used in experiment 2 of Perry et al.: - Still coloured images of pairs of rooms where the chairs, table and plant were at slightly different angles and distances from each other

  - Each room had two identical chairs in the middle, a table on one side, a plant on the other, a closet, a lamp and a clock

  - Rooms created using Google Sketch Tools
• Describe the results obtained Experiment 1 in Perry et al.: - Oxytocin decreased the preferred mean distance from a protagonist in the high empathy group (placebo: 26.11% vs OT: 23.29%)

  - Oxytocin increased the preferred mean distance in the low empathy group (placebo: 26.98% vs OT: 30.20%)

  This difference HOWEVER was SMALL (p=0.09)

  - In high empathy group (placebo) there were SIGNIFICANT differences between the preferred distances for friend and authority, as well as friend and stranger

  - In OT condition, PPs were willing to be significantly closer to the ball than the stranger or authority figure

  
  

  - It was found that even with an imagined presence of FRIENDS, PP's emotions allowed them to be closer by entering their personal space (12.5), compared to the imagined presence of a stranger (39.8) *ONLY FOR LINKING ASSUMPTIONS Q*
• Describe the results obtained Experiment 2 in Perry et al.: - High empathy group chose closer chair distances in the OT condition compared to the placebo condition (78.07cm vs 80.58cm)

  - Low empathy group chose chairs further apart in the OT group compared to the control group (80.14cm vs 78.33cm) Opposite effect

  - OT did not have an effect on preferred chair angle for the high or the low empathy groups
• What were the conclusions drawn from Perry et al.: - Oxytocin affects preferred interpersonal distance (personal space), dependent on empathy levels. Those with high empathy preferred closer interpersonal distances after OT administration compared to a placebo

  - Oxytocin increased the preferred interpersonal distance for those with low empathy, compared to a placebo

  - Oxytocin may invoke closeness in highly empathetic people for interactions of a less threatening nature, as the effects of OT were more pronounced for the ball protagonist that the stranger or authority figure

  - Therefore OT doesn't just make everyone friendlier or want to be closer, its effect varies from person to person based on their empathy level
• Explain how one finding the study supports one of the assumptions: - PPs asked to 'imagine' the presence of others and let this influence their preferred interpersonal distances

  - This occurs via emotions

  - It was found that even with an imagined presence of FRIENDS, PP's emotions allowed them to be closer by entering their personal space (12.5), compared to the imagined presence of a stranger (39.8)
• How can Perry et al. be explained through the Individual vs Situational Debate: INDIVIDUAL:

  - Study highlights the role of individual differences such as personality and empathy, in shaping social behaviour

  - These traits influence how people respond to social stimuli, emphasising the importance of innate characteristics in determining interpersonal distance preferences

  - Study shows that OT's effects vary base on an individual's empathy levels, reinforcing the significance of personal space in social interactions, LINK TO RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

  
  

  SITUATIONAL:

  - Situational factors such as the type of approaching figure mediate interpersonal distance preferences

  - Situations that promote OT release may influence social cognition and behaviour.

  - OT levels may increase when socialising, touching, eye contact, playing with pets

  - Could be affected by environmental factors that increase OT, is not solely determined by personality but also by external cues
• How can Perry et al. be applied to everyday life? - Can be applied to healthcare settings to improve Patient-Provider Communication as awareness of a patient's comfort with physical proximity allows providers to adjust their approach and improve engagement and trust, build rapport

  - Can be used to improve social behaviour as OT administration may not be useful in helping individuals with social deficits for example if someone has a social disorder and has low empathy then OT would only increase their preferred interpersonal distance with others and strengthen social biases
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Perry et al.: + Double-blind technique, CONTROL OF EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES, able to establish c+e

  - Artificial Nature, LOW MUNDANE REALISM, low ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

  + STANDARDISED procedure, high reliability