Perry et al. (Personal space)

interpersonal distance

the distance between ppl → show how comfortable ppl feel w others

personal space

the invisible boundaries arounds our bodies, if crossed, make us feel uncomfortable

empathy

a person’s ability to understand the thoughts, feelings & experiences of others

social hormones

oxytocin is a social hormons that plays a role in social bonding

Hall’s zone of personal space

intimate → personal → social → public

social salience hypthesis

oxytocin increases attention to social cues and affects how a person processes thoses cues and responds differently

amygdala and oxytocin relationship (3)

• amygdala regulate interpersonal distance

• oxytocin regulates amygdala activities’

• damnage to amygdala → reduced need for interpersonal distance

aims

to investigate how oxytocin affects preferred interpersonal distance for those who scored high or low on empathy traits

research method

laboratory experiment

experimental design

repeated measure

→ half Ps take experiment 1 then 2, other halp take experiment 2 then 1 = counterbalance

sample (4)

• 54 males

• volunteer sampling → Ps receive course credit

• 19-32 yo

• undergraduates

experiment 1 IV (3)

• empathy:

  • high (IRI ≥ 40)

  • low (IRI ≤ 33)

• treatment:

  • oxytocin

  • placebo (saline)

• conditions:

  • strangers

  • authorities

  • friends

  • ball

experiment 1 DV

=> interpersonal distance preferred

• measure by the % of remaining distance between the P and stopped protagonist

• higher % = P needs more space

experiment 2 IV (3)

• empathy:

  • high (IRI ≥ 40)

  • low (IRI ≤ 33)

• treatment:

  • oxytocin

  • placebo (saline)

• conditions:

  • postitions of chairs

  • positions of table and plants

experiment 2 DV (2)

• mean preferred distance between chairs (in cm)

• mean preferred angle between chairs (in degree)

data collection techniques (2)

• questionnairs: interpersonal reactivity index to assess empathy level

• standardised test:

  • experiment 1: CID paradigm

  • experiment 2: choosing room task

procedures: oxytocin adminisatrion & empathy assessment (4)

• Ps visit laboratory to do experiment 1 first then next week on the same day and time, the Ps visit to do experiment 2

• double-blind: neither the researchers or the Ps know what conditions the Ps were taking (oxytocin vs placebo)

• Ps were randomly give nasal spray with oxytocin/placebo

• Ps waited 45 mins and in the mean time, they take IRI questionnaires

procedures: experiment 1 - CID (6)

=> 4 figures, 3 times from each entrance, 96 trials in total

• the 4 words of conditions are shown on computer

• Ps gazed at fixed point for 0.5 sec

• circular room w stick figure (P) in the centre appears on screene

• from 1/8 entrance, the protagonists appear & approach P

• P has to press space bar to stop protagonists

procedures: experiment 2 - choosing room task (5)

• Ps informed to choose a room to talk w another P about personal topic

• P were shown coloured pictures of 2 very similar rooms that contained identical chairs, table & a plant

• 84 pairs of room, shown twice, Ps pick left/right

• only 1 IV differ each trial (position of chairs/table & plant)

• preferences for chairs positions (measure of interpersonal distance) and table & plant positions (control condition) are compared

controls (5)

• double-blind

• counterbalanced

• all Ps waited for 45 mins before experiment start

• the same 3 secs animation (CID) were used

• fixation point ensure attention

ethical issues (3)

• informed consent

• deception: in experiment 2, the Ps were told that they need to choose a room to discuss personal topics which may cause distress

• debrief after experiment 2

result: experiment 1 of oxytocin x empathy

• high empathy: oxytocin reduces preferred distance

  • oxytocin (23%) vs placebo (26%)

• low empathy: oxytocin increases preferred distance

  • oxytocin (30%) vs placebo (27%)

result: experiment 1 of oxytocin x empathy x condition

• oxytocin: stranger (40%) > authority (31%) > ball (14%) > friend (8%)

• placebo: stranger (39%) > authority (34%) > ball (21%) > friend (11%)

result: experiment 2 mean distance between chairs (oxytocin x empathy)

• oxytocin: low empathy (80 cm) > high empathy (78 cm)

• placebo: high empathy (80) > low empathy (78)

conclusions (2)

=> oxytocin affects preferred interpersonal distance dependent on empathy level. high empathy individuals prefer closer distances after oxytocin compared to the placebo

=> preferred interpersonal distance increased with the use of oxytocin for individuals with low empathy scores compared to the placebo

strengths (2)

• validity: double blind → avoid researcher bias & demand characteristics

• objectivity: quantitative data (% and mean distance)

• high standardisation: computer program for CID and the rooms were shown for 2 secs

weaknesses (3)

• generalisability: all male → not generalisable to female population

• validity: bias may exists in the questionnaire (self-report)

• low ecological validity: uses of computer program doesn’t represent social cues and expressions that only present in real-life situation

issues & debates: application to everyday life

• oxytocin may not be an effective treatment for individuals with social deficit disorders (e.g. ASD)

issues & debates: individual vs situational

• individual differences in level of empathy determin the effect of oxytocin has on a person’s social behaviours

• oxytocin administration resulted in predictable outcomes in behaviours → situations promoting oxytocin release could influence social behaviours