Refraining from interaction can decrease fear of physical closeness during COVID-19

Perception of interpersonal distance and social distancing before and during COVID-19 pandemic

Since COVID-19 is easily transmitted among people in close physical proximity, the focus of epidemiological policy during the COVID-19 crisis included major restrictions on interpersonal distance. However, the way in which distance restrictions affected spatial perception is unclear. In the current study, we examined interpersonal distance preferences and perceptions at three time points: pre-pandemic, early post-pandemic, and late post-pandemic. The results indicate that following the pandemic outbreak, people perceived others as farther away than they actually were, suggesting that the distance restrictions were associated with an enlargement of perceived interpersonal distance. Interestingly, however, people maintained the same distance from one another as before the outbreak, indicating no change in actual distance behavior due to the risk of infection. These findings suggest that COVID-19 was associated with a change in the way distance is perceived, while in practice, people maintain the same distance as before. In contrast, COVID-related anxiety predicted both a preference for maintaining a greater distance and a bias toward underestimating perceived distance from others. Thus, individuals who were highly fearful of COVID-19 perceived other people to be closer than they actually were and preferred to maintain a larger distance from them. The results suggest that subjective risk can lead to an increased perception of danger and a subsequent change in behavior. Taken together, even when behaviors should logically change, the decision-making process can be based on distorted perceptions. This insight may be used to predict public compliance.

Perceived Interpersonal Distances: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Young Taiwanese and Young Southeast Asians during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Prior research on interpersonal distance (IPD) has predominantly concentrated on specific nationalities or population groups within their respective regions. There is a dearth of studies investigating IPD differences among individuals of distinct nationalities coexisting in the same geographical location. This study aimed to examine the variances in IPD between 100 young Taiwanese participants (comprising 50 males and 50 females) and 100 Southeast Asian individuals (including 50 males and 50 females). This study also considered factors affecting IPD, including target genders and mask-wearing conditions. The results of the four-way ANOVA indicate that target gender and mask-wearing conditions had a significant impact on IPD (p < 0.001). While there were no significant main effects for region and participant gender, there was a noteworthy interactive effect between these two variables on IPD. In general, Southeast Asian participants exhibited lower sensitivity to changes in IPD in response to the independent variables in comparison to their Taiwanese counterparts; in certain instances, their IPD did not notably increase when confronted with targets not wearing masks. While prior research typically indicated that women tend to maintain larger IPD than men, the current study observed this gender difference only among young Taiwanese participants. However, such a gender gap was absent among young individuals from Southeast Asia.