Abstract: Individuals vary in their personal space (PS) size as reflected by the preferred distance to another person during social interactions. A previous study with adults showed that pathogen-relevant disgust proneness (DP) predicted PS magnitude. The present study investigated whether this association between DP and PS already exists in 8- to 12-year-old children (144 girls, 101 boys). The children answered a disgust questionnaire with the two trait dimensions “core disgust (contact with spoiled food and poor hygiene) and “death-relevant disgust” (imagined contact with dead and dying organisms). PS magnitude was assessed with a paper–pencil measure (drawing a PS bubble; Experiment 1) or with the stop-distance task (preferred distance to an approaching woman or man; Experiment 2). In both experiments, only death-related disgust predicted PS magnitude and only if the approaching person was male. The current study questions the relevance of pathogen-related disgust in children for regulating interpersonal distance.
Keywords personal space, disgust proneness, children
---
Over the course of human evolution, physical proximity to others has often been associated with an increased vulnerability to interpersonal violence and infectious disease (Neuberg & Schaller, 2016). Even today, most people would not consider it wise to spend too much time in close proximity to people that are displaying overtly aggressive behavior or recognizable symptoms of illness, as the first characteristic implies an increased risk for physical harm, whereas the second a transmission of pathogens. Both types of these threats elicit specific emotions fear and disgust, which in turn facilitate certain behavioral strategies, such as escape and active avoidance/rejection (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
These behaviors regulate interpersonal distance or “personal space” (PS). PS is defined as the region immediately surrounding our bodies. It can be conceptualized as an imaginary safety zone that should not be invaded by others (Hayduk, 1978). This zone has a variable magnitude, which is influenced by several characteristics of the approaching person as well of the person who is approached. For instance, biological sex moderates PS size. Women typically choose a greater distance to a male stranger relative to a female they have never met before. From a bio-evolutionary perspective, this response tendency seems to be adaptive because men are more physically aggressive than women and were historically more likely to participate in violent conflicts (Neuberg & Schaller, 2016).
Emotional states are also associated with PS size. We allow a smaller distance when we are happy and when someone is approaching us with a friendly face (Gessaroli, Santelli, di Pellegrino, & Frassinetti, 2013). On the other hand, facial expressions of anger lead to increased arousal and withdrawal even in very young children (4–24 months old; e.g., LoBue, Buss, Taber-Thomas, & Pérez-Edgar, 2017). There is also disgust-based interpersonal distancing. We try to maintain a greater distance to people who provoke feelings of disgust (e.g., because of signs of illness). Blacker and LoBou (2016) showed that children aged 6–7 years chose a greater distance to a confederate who was described as being sick. The best predictor of avoidance was the child’s knowledge about illness transmission and possible outcomes.
Finally, certain personality traits are associated with PS preferences. PS tends to be larger among anxious and introverted individuals (e.g., Pedersen, 1973; Sambo & Iannetti, 2013). Park (2015) conducted the first study on the association between the personality trait disgust proneness (DP) and PS size. He showed that individual differences in pathogen-relevant DP predicted PS magnitude independent of trait anxiety and introversion in a sample of adults. DP is the temporally stable tendency of an individual to experience disgust across different situations (Schienle & Rohrmann, 2011).
Disgust researchers generally agree that DP is a multidimensional construct (e.g., Olatunji et al., 2009; Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009; Tybur, Lieberman, Kurzban, & DeScioli, 2013). For example, Olatunji et al. (2009) conducted a large cross-cultural study to evaluate the factor structure of DP in eight countries. The authors identified three central dimensions labeled “core disgust” (e.g., “You are about to drink a glass of milk when you smell that it is spoiled”), “contamination disgust” (e.g., “I probably would not go to my favorite restaurant if I found out that the cook had a cold”), and “animal-reminder disgust” (e.g., “It would bother me tremendously to touch a dead body”). With partial overlap, Tybur, Lieberman, and Griskevicius (2009) and Tybur, Lieberman, Kurzban, and DeScioli (2013) described three DP domains with the functions of pathogen avoidance and functional decision-making in the domains of mate choice and morality.
These examples demonstrate that very consistently a disgust factor related to contamination risk could be identified. This factor is part of a disease-avoidance mechanism that motivates specific behaviors (e.g., grooming, cleaning, avoidance, distancing) aiming at reducing the risk of pathogen transmission (e.g., Tybur et al. 2009). A similar disgust dimension has also been identified in children. Schienle and Rohrmann (2011) constructed a DP measure for children. Two interrelated disgust factors were identified: core disgust and “death-related disgust.” The latter factor corresponds to the factor animal-reminder disgust as described by Olatunji et al. (2009) for adults.
The present investigation analyzed whether DP (core disgust; death-related disgust) is associated with PS size in children. Two different PS tasks were employed. In Experiment 1, 110 children were asked to draw a PS bubble around a silhouette representing their own person in order to describe the preferred interpersonal distance to a woman and a man. In the second experiment with 135 children, the stop-distance task (Kennedy, Gläscher, Tyszka, & Adolphs, 2009) was conducted. A female and a male adult slowly approached the children, who were instructed that the confederate would walk toward them until they said stop.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment