Author
Listed:
- Laura Schmitz
- Arran T Reader
Abstract
During social interaction, humans prefer to keep a certain distance between themselves and other individuals. This preferred ‘interpersonal distance’ (IPD) is known to be sensitive to social context, and in the present study we aimed to further investigate the extent to which IPD is affected by the specific type of social interaction. In particular, we focused on the contrast between joint actions, where two or more individuals coordinate their actions in space and time to achieve a shared goal, and parallel actions, where individuals act alongside each other but individually. We predicted that joint action would be associated with a smaller preferred IPD compared to parallel action. Additionally, given that this research took place in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to assess whether IPD preferences are affected by individuals’ concerns about infection in general, as well as COVID-19 in particular. We predicted that higher individual concerns would be associated with greater preferred IPD. To test these hypotheses, we asked participants to imagine different social scenarios (involving either joint or parallel actions alongside a stranger) and indicate, on a visual scale, their preferred IPD. The results of two experiments (n = 211, n = 212) showed that participants preferred a shorter distance when they imagined acting jointly compared to when they imagined acting in parallel. Moreover, participants who reported higher discomfort for potential pathogen contact and who were more aware of the COVID-19 context in which the study took place preferred a larger IPD in general. Our results provide further evidence that different types of social interaction shape IPD preference. We discuss potential reasons for this phenomenon and highlight remaining questions for future research.
Suggested Citation
Laura Schmitz & Arran T Reader, 2023.
"Smaller preferred interpersonal distance for joint versus parallel action,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(5), pages 1-19, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0285202
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285202
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0285202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.