Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981746›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2025

Close encounters: Interpersonal proximity amplifies social appraisals.

Kristina Veranic, Andrew P Bayliss, Mintao Zhao, Ian D Stephen, Louise Ewing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Close encounters: Interpersonal proximity amplifies social appraisals.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Kristina VeranicUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Andrew P BaylissUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Mintao ZhaoUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Ian D StephenBournemouth University, Poole, UK.
Louise EwingUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5263-1267

Funding

Fundação Bial 147/18Leverhulme Trust RPG-2023-106
6 · The paper itself

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

Interpersonal RelationsJudgmentPsychological DistanceSocial PerceptionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleTrustYoung Adultbody perceptionface perceptioninterpersonal distanceperson perceptiontrait attribution

Identifiers

PMID39981746
PMCPMC12256726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.