Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37542430›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024

How well do we do social distancing?

Naohide Yamamoto, Mia Nightingale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Naohide YamamotoSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9734-7470
Mia NightingaleSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many jurisdictions around the world introduced a "social distance" rule under which people are instructed to keep a certain distance from others. Generally, this rule is implemented simply by telling people how many metres or feet of separation should be kept, without giving them precise instructions as to how the specified distance can be measured. Consequently, the rule is effective only to the extent that people are able to gauge this distance through their space perception. To examine the effectiveness of the rule from this point of view, this study empirically investigated how much distance people would leave from another person when they relied on their perception of this distance. Participants (

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansPandemicsPhysical DistancingCoronavirusCOVID-19distance judgementdistance perceptioninterpersonal distancephysical distancing

Identifiers

PMID37542430
PMCPMC11032622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.