ArticleScientific reports2021
Contextual modulation of preferred social distance during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cue Sources and Cue Utilization Patterns of Social Mentalizing during Two-Person Interactions.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Editorial: Physical and psychological proximity in humans: From the body to the mind and vice-versa.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Social distancing between personal belongings during the COVID-19 pandemic.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Assessing Interpersonal Proximity Evaluation in the COVID-19 Era: Evidence From the Affective Priming Task.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Pointers to Interventions for Promoting COVID-19 Protective Measures in Tourism: A Modelling Approach Using Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, Theory of Planned Behaviour, and Health Belief Model.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social distancing during a pandemic might be influenced by different attitudes: people may decide to reduce the risk and protect themselves from viral contagion, or they can opt to maintain their habits and be more exposed to the infection. To better understand the underlying motivating attitudes, we asked participants to indicate in an online platform the interpersonal distance from different social targets with professional/social behaviors considered more or less exposed to the virus. We selected five different social targets: a cohabitant, a friend working in a hospital, a friend landed from an international flight, a friend who is back from a cycling ride, or a stranger. In order to measure the realistic and the symbolic perceived threat, we administered the Brief 10-item COVID-19 threat scale. Moreover, in order to measure the risk attitude in different domains, the participants were also asked to fill in the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking DOSPERT scale. Results reveal a general preference for an increased distance from a stranger and the friends who are considered to be more exposed to the virus: the friend working in a hospital or landed from an international flight. Moreover, the interpersonal distance from friends is influenced by the perception of Realistic Threat measured through the Integrated Covid Threat Scale and the Health/Safety Risk Perception/Assumption as measured by the DOSPERT scale. Our results show the flexible and context-dependent nature of our representation of other people: as the social categories are not unchangeable fixed entities, the bodily (e.g., spatial) attitudes towards them are an object of continuous attunement.
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.