Perry et al.

(personal
space)
Asim Masood
asimmm196@gmail.com
+923002626209
BACKGROUND
 Perry was interested in the effects of oxytocin on people’s preferred
interpersonal distances, depending on whether they were high or low in the
trait of empathy

 The amygdala has been shown to play a role in preferred interpersonal

distances as this region of the brain is affected by oxytocin

 People who feel discomfort with an interpersonal space that is too close, is
likely to have higher levels of amygdala activity

 Specifically, Perry tested whether people with different empathy abilities were
influenced by oxytocin in the same or different ways when asked about their
personal space preferences. This is referred to as interaction effect which is
when two or more IV’s combine together to affect the DV
PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED
 Interpersonal distance (personal space): refers to the distance between two
people and an individual’s preferred distance may vary depending on their
relationship with others

 Edward T.Hall introduced the idea of interpersonal distance in 1966 and

proposed four zones of space:
1. Intimate: used between romantic partners or very close family members and
involves all senses
2. Personal: used with other people in everyday interactions, in which we can see,
touch and hear the other person
3. Social: used in formal interactions with others in which we may use louder voices,
body movements and eye contact
4. Public: Used to keep distance from public figures (e.g. someone making a
speech), in which a loud voice and body movements can usually feature
 Oxytocin: a social hormone found in humans that plays a role in social bonding,
childbirth and breastfeeding and has been seen to promote prosocial
behaviour

 Empathy: understanding someone else’s experience by perceiving it from their

point of view

 Social salience: the importance or attention someone gives to cues from

another person such as body language or expressions

 Social cues: facial expressions or body language people use to send messages
across to one another, e.g. smiling to indicate happiness

 Social salience hypothesis: this predicts that oxytocin increases attention to

social cues which affects the way a person may process these cues and
respond in different ways depending on the social setting
 AIM
 To investigate how oxytocin affects preferred interpersonal distance for
those scoring high or low in empathy traits

 To test the differential effect of the social hormone oxytocin on personal

space preference in relation to a person’s empathy ability
 METHOD AND DESIGN
 Research Method Technique:

 Lab experiment: conducted at a lab at the University of

Haifa, Israel

 Self Report: IRI online questionnaire

Experiment 1
 Independent Variable:
1. Empathy: operationalized as being “high” (over 40) or “low” (under 33)
2. Treatment: operationalized by giving oxytocin or placebo
3. Condition: operationalized by “stranger”, “authority”, “friend” or “ball”

 Dependent Variable: Preferred interpersonal distance: operationalized using the

Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm

 Experimental Design:
 For IV of empathy: Independent measures design
 For IV of treatment: Repeated measures design
 For IV of condition: Repeated measures design
Experiment 2
 Independent Variable:
1. Empathy: operationalized as being “high” or “low”
2. Treatment: operationalized by giving oxytocin or control
3. Condition: operationalized by positioning of chairs (experimental condition) or positioning of table
and plant (control condition)

 Dependent Variable: Task of ‘choosing rooms’: operationalized by mean average preferred

distance between the two chairs (in centimeters) and mean average preferred angle of the
two chairs (in degrees)

 Experimental Design:
 For IV of empathy: Independent measures design
 For IV of treatment: Repeated measures design
 For IV of condition: Repeated measures design

 Sampling Method: Volunteer sampling

SAMPLE
 54 male participants

 Undergraduates from the University of Haifa, Israel

 Age range 19 to 32 years, with a mean age of 25 years

 They received either course credit or payment for participation

 5 of the participants were left handed, with normal or corrected-to-

normal eye sight and no history of psychiatric or neurological disorders
APPARATUS
PROCEDURE
 Participants attended the university to complete experiment 1 and then
returned exactly one week later for experiment 2. The order of the two
experiments was counterbalanced (half the participants completed
experiment 1 in week 1, and experiment 2 in week 2, whereas the other
half did the opposite)

 Oxytocin administration: The participants were randomly administered a

treatment of either a solution of 24 international units in 250ml of
intranasal (IN) oxytocin, or a placebo in the form of saline solution

 The drops were self administered by participants using a nasal dropper,

under the supervision of the experimenter with 3 drops in each nostril
 This was a double blind technique as neither participants, nor the experimenters
knew which condition the participant was in, in order to avoid demand
characteristics from the participants, and researcher bias from the
experimenter, hence improving validity

 Assessment of empathy: Once the solution was administered, the participants

completed the IRI online questionnaire in order to determine their level of
empathy

 This was a 28 – item self report rated on a 5 point Likert scale (from A = does not
describe me well, to E = does describe me well) with four 7 – item subscales all
relating to empathy

 These subscales include: Perspective Taking (cognitive empathy); Fantasy

(empathy for fictional characters); Empathic Concern (emotional empathy),
Personal Distress (self-focused responses to other’s suffering)
 Based on the results of the IRI, the participants were allocated to one of
two conditions – ‘high empathy’ (a total of 20 participants with an IRI
score of over 40, and mean age 24 years) and ‘low empathy’ conditions
(a total of 20 participants with an IRI score of under 33, and a mean age
of 26 years)

 After completing the IRI, participants were given three issues of a popular
Israeli nature magazine and waited in a quiet room for 45 minutes (to
allow the oxytocin to be absorbed by the central nervous system and
plateaus)

 This was done to keep any social interaction to a minimum

EXPERIMENT 1: The Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID)
Design

 The experiment used a modified version of an older paper-and-pencil

validated measure of CID

 A circle was presented on a computer screen and participants were

instructed to imagine themselves in the center of the room with another
person approaching them along a radius

 The participant had to indicate by pressing the keyboard space bar at

the point along the radius where they would want the person to stop
approaching
 The imaginary individual approaching would be referred to as a
protagonist

 The computer animation had options for the protagonist to be one of the
following conditions: a close friend, stranger, authority figure (boss or
teacher), or a rolling ball

 Each participant would be shown the name of the person approaching

for 1 second, followed by a fixation point for 0.5 seconds

 After this the participant would be shown a still picture of a circular room
with a figure at the center and an approaching figure at one of eight
entrances
 This was followed by a 3 second animation showing the figure approaching the center
of the circle

 The participant would have to imagine themselves in the center of the room and press
the space bar button to stop the protagonist from approaching

 The animation would stop when the participant pressed the space bar, or after 3
seconds when the two figures collided

 Each of the four figures appeared three times from each of the eight radii, resulting in
24 trials for each figure, and 96 trials in total

 Responses were calculated as the percentage of the remaining distance from the total
distance, with 0% representing the approaching figure reaching the inner figure, and
100% representing the approaching figure being stopped immediately
 According to the social salience hypothesis, we are predicting that oxytocin
would make the participants with higher levels of empathy pick closer
distances, whereas those with lower empathy would pick the choice of farther
distances

 Furthermore, oxytocin would have a different effect on people depending on

the protagonist

 Therefore, some people may prefer closeness only with known figures such as
friends or authority, but not with a stranger or ball, or perhaps even closeness
with any human figure, but not with the ball

 This experiment is testing personal space preference in the context of

approach-avoidance
EXPERIMENT 2: Choosing rooms

 After doing the two runs of the experiment (placebo and oxytocin), participants
were told they would be asked to sit in a room with another person to discuss
personal/intimate topics (this is not true though, therefore, deception)

 This experiment is testing personal space preference in the context of intimacy

 They were informed that they would be shown pairs of similar rooms and that
they would have to choose the room they preferred from each pair

 They were further told that at the end of the 2 weeks of experiments, the
computer would calculate an average room based on their preferences and
that the personal conversation would be held in a room designed according to
these preferences
 The computerized stimuli were coloured pictures with two identical chairs
in the middle, a table on one side, a cupboard, a plant, a lamp, and a
clock

 The experimental condition was ‘preferred distance between chairs’ and

consisted of the following stimuli: distance between chairs (20 – 140 cm
with intervals of 20 cm), and angle of chairs positions (0º: both facing
forwards, 45º each, or 90º: facing each other)

 The control condition was ‘preferred distance between table and plant’
and consisted of the following stimuli: distance between the table and
the plant (200 – 320 cm with intervals of 20 cm), and angle of the table
and plant positions (0º: both facing forwards, 45º each, or 90º: facing
each other)
 The experiment included 21 different pairs of chair distances, 21 different pairs
of table-plant differences, and three options for each pair of angles that was
repeated seven times, making it 21 pairs of comparative angles

 Each participant was shown a total of 84 pairs, each repeated twice to equal
168 pairs overall with the participant shown two rooms simultaneously in each
trial

 The two picture sets were shown on a computer screen for 2 seconds and the
participant had to select their preference

 Participants were then debriefed

 The mean preferred distance between chairs, between table and plant, and
the preferred angle for these furniture pairs was calculated
 CONTROLS
 All participants were administered the same amount of oxytocin or placebo in
each condition of 3 sprays in each nostril

 All participants were shown the same CID paradigm for the same amount of
time and the same number of trials (96 in each week), with the same order of
the figure approaching every time

 All participants were shown the same pairs of rooms twice in experiment 2

 All participants took the same IRI online questionnaire with the same rating
scales

 They were all given the same magazines and were told to wait for 45 minutes
 RESULTS
Experiment 1: CID
 The mean preferred distance of the participants for the IV of the four conditions of
protagonists was as follows: Stranger 39.8%, Authority 34.1%, Ball 20.2%, and Friend
12.4%, on the CID

 This suggests that overall, the participants preferred closer personal space with a friend
the most, and least with a stranger

 When we discuss the interaction effect of two IV’s (treatment and empathy combined)
on preferred distance, the participants mean percentage of preferred distance on the
CID was as follows: Oxytocin Group with High Empathy 23.2%, Oxytocin Group with Low
Empathy 30.2%, Placebo Group with High Empathy 26.1%, and Placebo Group with Low
Empathy 26.9%

 This suggests that people with high empathy prefer a closer personal space overall
compared to those with low empathy, and when combined with oxytocin, the
preferred distance is reduced for high empathizers, but increased for low empathizers
 When we talk about the interaction effect of all 3 IV’s (treatment x empathy x
condition), the CID mean percentage of preferred distance was as follows:
 High Empathy Participants in Oxytocin Group: Stranger 39.7%, Authority 30.5%, Ball
14.4%, and Friend 8.5%
 High Empathy Participants in Placebo Group: Stranger 38.5%, Authority 33.9%, Ball
20.9%, and Friend 11%
 Low Empathy Participants in Oxytocin Group: Stranger 40.8%, Authority 36.8%, Ball
26.8%, and Friend 16.3%
 Low Empathy Participants in Placebo Group: Stranger 40.1%, Authority 35.1%, Ball
18.6%, and Friend 14%
 This suggests that those with high empathy combined with oxytocin have much
less of a preferred personal distance with people known to them such as a
friend, as opposed to someone unknown to them or not known too well to them
such as a stranger or authority figure, and these distances were greater for
those with low empathy when combined with oxytocin
Experiment 2: Choosing Rooms
 There were differences in preferences for chair distance but not for preferred angles

 Participants in the high empathy group chose closer chair distances following oxytocin
administration than placebo administration

 Oxytocin had the opposite effect on those in the low empathy group

 The preferred distance between chairs for the groups was as follows:
 High Empathy Participants and Oxytocin Group: 78 cm
 High Empathy Participants and Placebo Group: 80.5 cm
 Low Empathy Participants and Oxytocin Group: 80 cm
 Low Empathy Participants and Placebo Group: 78 cm
 Therefore, interaction between oxytocin and empathy only had an
impact on the experimental condition (distance between chairs)

 There was no difference observed in the interaction of oxytocin and

empathy on the control condition (distance between plant and table)

 This shows that oxytocin did not affect the participant’s general
preferences, but only preferences that have a social context
CONCLUSION
 The administration of oxytocin enhances social cues in opposite ways for
individuals with different levels of empathy

 The social salience hypothesis was supported

 People with low empathy respond to oxytocin with a preference for increased
personal distance and those with high empathy respond to oxytocin with a
preference for decreased personal distance

 People need less personal space between themselves with their close friends
than they need with strangers
NATURE VS NURTURE DEBATE
 The study supports the nature side of the debate

 The role oxytocin has a biological effect on the individual’s attention to

social cues and preferences of personal distance as it is a hormone

 However, the study also supports the nurture side of the debate as
people’s preferences of being closer to their friends and further away
from strangers is due to cues that we learn from our environment

 Similarly, empathy levels can also be influenced by an individual’s

upbringing and interaction with their social environment
INDIVIDUAL VS SITUATIONAL DEBATE

 The study supports the situational explanation as preferences of personal

distance depend on the situation of who the other individual is, for
example the situation of being around a close friend would lead to a
preference of a closer personal space, whereas a situation of being
around a stranger or authority figure would lead to a further distance

 The study also supports the individual explanation as these preferences

of interpersonal space between people is also dependent on personal
traits such as an individual’s level of empathy being either high or low
APPLICATION TO EVERYDAY LIFE

 The findings of the study are useful to help us understand that

administration of oxytocin in individual with low empathy levels such as
people with autism, may not treat their lack of an ability to interact
socially, but in fact, worsen their condition

 The findings are also useful in helping us understand that people who
generally have low levels of empathy would not prefer close
interpersonal distances with others, so we should maintain our distance
with them and respect their personal space
EVALUATION
RELIABILITY

 Strength: The study has high levels of controls, for example, the number
of trials were the same (96) in experiment 1, and also for experiment 2,
and all participants were administered the same amount of oxytocin or
placebo, hence making the procedure standardized and easy to
replicate in order to test for reliability
VALIDITY

 Strength: The participants were deceived about having to meet

someone in experiment 2 for choosing the rooms, and this would avoid
demand characteristics as participants would be choosing the rooms
based on their actual preferences, hence increasing validity

 Strength: The experiments were counterbalanced as half the

participants completed experiment 1 first and then experiment 2,
whereas the other half did the opposite. This would ensure there are no
order effects, which increases validity
VALIDITY
 Strength: The procedure was a double blind technique which meant
that neither the participants, nor the researchers were aware which
condition (oxytocin or placebo) the participants were in, which reduces
demand characteristics, as well as researcher bias

 Weakness: There is a chance of order effects as there were multiple trials

for each condition (stranger, ball, authority, friend) in experiment 1, and
two trials of experiment 2, and as a result, participants may have shown
fatigue or practice effects

 Weakness: Participants may have given socially desirable responses on

the IRI questionnaire which can lower validity
GENERALISABILITY
 Weakness: The sample was not very large, of just 54 participants who
were all male, majority right handed, all from the same university in
Israel, and as a result, the findings cannot be applied to females, or to
people outside the university, or of other cultures as they are not
represented in the sample
ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
 Weakness: The study was conducted in the artificial and highly
controlled setting of a lab. Furthermore, the task of selecting preferred
personal distance was done through a computer animation rather than
through actual physical interaction with people, and as a result, it is not
something people experience in their everyday lives, and therefore, it
can be argued that the study lacks mundane realism
ETHICS
 Strength: The participants provided informed consent as they
volunteered to take part in the study

 Strength: The participants were debriefed at the end of the experiment

2

 Strength: The personal information of the participants was maintained

such as their identities, hence maintaining the guideline of
confidentiality
ETHICS
 Weakness: There may have been psychological harm as the participants
were told they would have to sit with an individual in a room and discuss
personal and intimate topics which may have made them feel
uncomfortable

 Weakness: The participants were deceived into believing that they

would actually have to meet someone in a room to discuss personal
topics, which was not true
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
 Strength: The study used an repeated measures design for two of the IV
conditions and this would ensure that individual differences such as
differences in personalities (other than empathy as this was an IV) would
not affect the results of the study, hence increasing validity

 Weakness: There can be practice or fatigue effects due to the fact that
a repeated measures design was the IV of condition (stranger, friend,
authority and ball)
DATA
 Strength: The study collected quantitative data which is objective and
numerical and allows for comparisons to be made, for example, the
percentage of preferred interpersonal spaces between the high empathy and
low empathy groups were compared for each of the four conditions of
stranger, authority, ball, and friend.

 Strength: The IRI questionnaire provided quantitative data through a rating

scale, which can allow us to determine the empathy levels of the participants
in order to allocate them into “high empathy” and “low empathy” conditions

 Weakness: The study lacks qualitative data as the responses were close ended
on the IRI questionnaire, and the percentages recorded for personal space
were quantitative and numerical