ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2025
Close encounters: Interpersonal proximity amplifies social appraisals.
Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural and relational factors in interpersonal distance regulation: evidence from a 2D screen-based task in Spain, Italy, and Japan.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Close encounters: Interpersonal proximity amplifies social appraisals.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
- Exploring Comfort and Entertainment: The Impact of Campus Design on Student Social Interaction - Insights from Bahrain.F1000Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social appraisals reflect the rapid integration of available perceptual information with broader contextual factors (e.g., intentions). While interpersonal distance affects both information availability and social context, how it changes trait impressions remains unknown. Over four experiments, we used a novel paradigm to address this question. In Experiment 1, we assessed participants' attributions of attractiveness, competence, dominance and trustworthiness of life size full body images of people when they appeared at near (1 m) and far (4 m) distances. Proximity amplified the relative magnitude of both positive and negative socio-evaluative impressions. However, this effect of proximity leading to more extreme positive or negative ratings was selectively weaker for aesthetic (attractiveness) judgements. In Experiment 2 (size) and Experiment 3 (spatial frequency), we held distance constant while manipulating visual cues relating to implied distance, revealing broadly similar results to Experiment 1. In Experiment 4, we used the interpersonal comfort distance paradigm to confirm that our life-sized projected images elicited similar comfort distance to interacting with a real person, helping to validate our general approach. These findings demonstrate the crucial role of interpersonal distance in impression judgements.
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.