Interpersonal distance regulation and psychological wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparison between the USA and Korea

Altered representation of peripersonal and interpersonal space in psychopathology

The space surrounding the body, and the regulation of this buffer zone play a central role in adaptive behavior, with direct implications for psychopathology. The physical distance that we choose to maintain between ourselves and others for social comfort is known as Interpersonal Distance (IPD), whereas the action space that marks the perceptual border between the self and the external world is known as Peripersonal Space (PPS ). While both IPD and PPS represent personal space, they are distinct constructs, each associated with different methodologies. Here we review the existing literature on IPD and PPS to elucidate their distinct and common contributions to psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, autism, anxiety, and others. Altered representation and regulation of IPD and PPS were associated with clinical symptoms and social impairments across a wide range of psychiatric disorders, underscoring the important role of the self-other boundary and personal space regulation in adaptive social behavior. Future research should clarify the relationship between IPD and PPS and specify risk factors for self-other boundary dysregulation and associated psychopathologies.

Perceived Interpersonal Distances: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Young Taiwanese and Young Southeast Asians during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Prior research on interpersonal distance (IPD) has predominantly concentrated on specific nationalities or population groups within their respective regions. There is a dearth of studies investigating IPD differences among individuals of distinct nationalities coexisting in the same geographical location. This study aimed to examine the variances in IPD between 100 young Taiwanese participants (comprising 50 males and 50 females) and 100 Southeast Asian individuals (including 50 males and 50 females). This study also considered factors affecting IPD, including target genders and mask-wearing conditions. The results of the four-way ANOVA indicate that target gender and mask-wearing conditions had a significant impact on IPD (p < 0.001). While there were no significant main effects for region and participant gender, there was a noteworthy interactive effect between these two variables on IPD. In general, Southeast Asian participants exhibited lower sensitivity to changes in IPD in response to the independent variables in comparison to their Taiwanese counterparts; in certain instances, their IPD did not notably increase when confronted with targets not wearing masks. While prior research typically indicated that women tend to maintain larger IPD than men, the current study observed this gender difference only among young Taiwanese participants. However, such a gender gap was absent among young individuals from Southeast Asia.