How well do we do social distancing?

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-24 DOI:10.1177/17470218231195247
Naohide Yamamoto, Mia Nightingale
{"title":"How well do we do social distancing?","authors":"Naohide Yamamoto, Mia Nightingale","doi":"10.1177/17470218231195247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>N</i> = 153) were asked to stand exactly 1.5 m away from a researcher, and resultant interpersonal distances showed that while their mean was close to the correct 1.5 m distance, they exhibited large individual differences. These results suggest that a number of people would not stay sufficiently away from others even when they intend to do proper social distancing. Given this outcome, it is suggested that official health advice include measures that compensate for this tendency.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1106-1112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231195247","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 (N = 153) were asked to stand exactly 1.5 m away from a researcher, and resultant interpersonal distances showed that while their mean was close to the correct 1.5 m distance, they exhibited large individual differences. These results suggest that a number of people would not stay sufficiently away from others even when they intend to do proper social distancing. Given this outcome, it is suggested that official health advice include measures that compensate for this tendency.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们的社会疏离做得如何?
在 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间,全球许多司法管辖区都引入了 "社会距离 "规则,指示人们与他人保持一定距离。一般来说,这一规则的实施方式只是告诉人们应与他人保持多少米或多少英尺的距离,而没有给出如何测量指定距离的精确指示。因此,只有当人们能够通过空间感知来衡量这一距离时,这一规则才会有效。为了从这一角度考察该规则的有效性,本研究通过实证调查了解了当人们依靠自己的感知来判断距离时,会与他人保持多少距离。参与者(153 人)被要求站在距离研究人员 1.5 米远的地方,由此得出的人际距离显示,虽然他们的平均值接近正确的 1.5 米距离,但却表现出很大的个体差异。这些结果表明,许多人即使有意保持适当的社交距离,也不会与他人保持足够的距离。鉴于这一结果,建议在官方健康建议中纳入弥补这一倾向的措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Reasoning in social versus non-social domains and its relation to autistic traits. When is a causal illusion an illusion? Separating discriminability and bias in human contingency judgements. Advancing an account of hierarchical dual-task control: A focused review on abstract higher-level task representations in dual-task situations. The effect of chronic academic stress on attentional bias towards value-associated stimuli. Is the precedence of social re-orienting only inherent to the initiators?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1