ArticleHuman factors2020
Interpersonal Distance in the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis.
Article in Human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perception of interpersonal distance and social distancing before and during COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The relationship between interpersonal distance preference and estimation accuracy in autism.PloS one · 2024Article
- Refraining from interaction can decrease fear of physical closeness during COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Interdigitated Columnar Representation of Personal Space and Visual Space in Human Parietal Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Communicating and reading emotion with masked faces in the Covid era: A short review of the literature.Psychiatry research · 2022Review
- During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Face masks reduce interpersonal distance in virtual reality.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The COVID-19 Stress Perceived on Social Distance and Gender-Based Implications.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- How facial masks alter the interaction of gaze direction, head orientation, and emotion recognition.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Contextual modulation of preferred social distance during the Covid-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Psychological and physiological evidence for an initial 'Rough Sketch' calculation of personal space.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Physical distancing and the perception of interpersonal distance in the COVID-19 crisis.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- Perceived Risk of Infection Linked to Changes in Comfort in Social Situations From Before to During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMandatory rules for social distancing to curb the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic require individuals to maintain a critical interpersonal distance above 1.5 m. However, this contradicts our natural preference, which is closer to 1 m for non-intimate encounters, for example, when asking a stranger for directions.
objectiveThis review addresses how humans typically regulate interpersonal distances, in order to highlight the challenges of enforcing atypically large interpersonal distances.
methodTo understand the challenges posed by social distancing requirements, we integrate relevant contributions from visual perception, social perception, and human factors.
resultsTo date, research on preferred interpersonal distances suggests that social distancing could induce discomfort, heighten arousal, and decrease social signaling in the short term. While the protracted effects of social distancing are unclear, we propose hypotheses on the mid- to long-term consequences of violating preferred norms of interpersonal distances.
conclusionWe suggest that enforcing a physical distance of 1.5-2 m presents a serious challenge to behavioral norms. APPLICATION: We address how notifications, architectural design, and visualizations could be effectively applied to promote interpersonal distance requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.