Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
letter
. 2023 Feb 17;83:103529. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2023.103529

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

Hyeon-Seung Lee 1, Tatiana M Baxter 1, Taylor C Griffith 1, Katrina Rbeiz 1, Sohee Park 1,⁎
PMCID: PMC9936786  PMID: 36857869

1. Introduction

Public health strategies such as social distancing may have significantly impacted mental health and interpersonal behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic (Dean et al., 2021, Lee et al., 2020, Tso and Park, 2020). One valid way to examine interpersonal familiarity and intimacy is through the estimation of the social comfort distance between people known as the preferred interpersonal distance (IPD) (Hall, 1966, Hayduk, 1978). Fear of contagion and social distancing likely would increase one’s preference for keeping others at bay, but IPD would also depend on the lived experience in cultural contexts. We examined pandemic-related changes in IPD and psychosocial wellbeing in two countries with vastly different infection rates and societal responses to the pandemic: the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the United States of America (US).

2. Methods

From July through November 2020, participants from the US (N = 400) and Korea (N = 376) completed an anonymous online survey. This period was marked by relatively low infection rates and a return to social activities prior to the re-emergence of COVID variants. This study received an exempt status from the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (#200337).

Procedure: We administered a picture IPD task, which required participants to mark on a diagram one’s preferred distance for strangers, acquaintances and close persons. Changes in IPD during the pandemic was calculated by subtracting the pre-pandemic national baseline IPDs reported in Sorokowska et al. (2017) from the IPDs of the current study. To assess general mental health, we administered the Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36; Rand Corporation), Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995), Prodromal Questionnaire-16 (PQ-16; Ising et al., 2012), Social Network Index (SNI; Cohen, 1997) and the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996). Individual response to the pandemic was estimated by the degree of concern and social distancing practices using 5-point Likert scales.

3. Results

There were significant main effects of culture (F 1, 774 = 500.39, p < .001 ***, ηp =.39), interpersonal condition (stranger, acquaintance, close person) (F 2, 773 = 483.67, p < .001 ***, ηp =.56) and condition-by-culture interaction (F 2, 773 = 98.66, p < .001 ***, ηp =.20). Contrast analyses showed that for strangers, IPDs were increased in both countries but this change was greater in the US (F 1, 774 = 374.82, p < .001 ***, ηp =.33). For acquaintances, IPD was increased in the US but unchanged in Korea (F 1, 774 = 550.38, p < .001 ***, ηp =.42). For close persons, IPD increased in the US but decreased in Korea (F 1, 774 = 104.37, p < .001 ***, ηp =.12). See Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Comparisons of IPD between pre-pandemic data and the current study between cultures. Notes. Pattern filled bars represent pre-pandemic data from Sorokowska et al. (2017) and colored bars represent the current study’s data. Error bar: ± SE (standard error). * ** : Bonferroni-corrected p < .001; NS: not significant.

Psychological distress score computed from SF-36 and DASS (see Dean et al., 2021) was poorer in the US than in Korea (F 1, 770 = 12.57, p  < .001 ***, ηp =.06). Psychosis risk was notably higher in the US (19.55%) compared to Korea (11.90%)(F 1770 = 18.13, p  < .001 ***, ηp =.09).

Hierarchical linear regression showed that the best model to predict IPD changes consisted of the basic model (with demographics) with COVID response (COVID concern and social distancing practice) and psychological distress (F 13, 727 = 16.04, p < .001 ***, adj R 2 = 22.59%, AIC = 8727.06). Social isolation indices (SNI and loneliness) and psychosis risk were not significant predictor for IPD change. In coefficient statistics, COVID concern (B = 22.35, t = 4.07, p < .001 ***), psychological distress (B = 2.59, t = 3.76, p = .002 **) and social distancing practices (B = 30.45, t = 3.71, p = .002 **) were significant predictors of IPD change in the US. In Korea, COVID concern (B = 16.89, t = 4.57, p < .001 ***) alone was a significant predictor.

4. Discussion

Pandemic-induced changes in IPD depended on the intimacy of the relationship and culture. Korean participants pulled those in their intimate circles even closer than before and were comfortable maintaining a normal (pre-pandemic) distance between themselves and their extended social group (acquaintances); this suggests intact levels of trust for those in their wider social network. In contrast, IPDs were universally increased in the US, regardless of the closeness of the relationship, indicating an overall preference for keeping distance.

Cultural differences were also observed in the predictors of IPD change. COVID concern was significant predictor of IPD change in both countries. In the US, psychological distress and social distancing practices were also significant predictors but not in Korea. Greater psychological distress in the US predicted the preference for more physically distant interactions in the US than in Korea.

Overall, estrangement from others and associated increases in IPDs may be behavioral manifestations of underlying psychological distress due to the pandemic. In other words, IPDs may be a valid behavioral indicator for psychosocial well-being and social trust. Our findings also highlight the importance of sociocultural factors in interpreting mental health outcomes. In the US, there was a widespread discord surrounding the pandemic (e.g., vaccination, masking), creating a divide between individuals who adhered to public health guidelines and those who opposed them, which may have exacerbated social estrangement. In contrast, there was high degree of consensus and social cohesion around pandemic-related policies in Korea, which may explain unchanged IPDs for acquaintances.

In summary, although the generalizability of internet-based study that skewed towards youth and female respondents is a limitation, the clear cultural differences in response to worldwide disaster and divergent mental health outcomes are important to consider.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Endowment.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sunil Shenoy, Jason Scott, Hafsah Diakhate, Catie Rast and all the members of the Park Lab for their help during the pandemic.

Conflict of Interest statement

Authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. Cohen S. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA Assoc. 1997;277(24):1940–1944. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540480040036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dean D.J., Tso I.F., Giersch A., Lee H.S., Baxter T., Griffith T., et al. Cross-cultural comparisons of psychosocial distress in the USA, South Korea, France, and Hong Kong during the initial phase of COVID-19. Psychiatry Res. 2021;295 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hall E.T. Doubleday; New York: 1966. The Hidden Dimension. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hayduk L.A. Personal space: an evaluative and orienting overview. Psychol. Bull. 1978;85(1):117. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ising H.K., Veling W., Loewy R.L., Rietveld M.W., Rietdijk J., Dragt S., et al. The validity of the 16-item version of the prodromal questionnaire (PQ-16) to screen for ultra high risk of developing psychosis in the general help-seeking population. Schizophr. Bull. 2012;38(6):1288–1296. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbs068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lee H.S., Dean D., Baxter T., Griffith T., Park S. Deterioration of mental health despite successful control of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea. Psychiatry Res. 2020;295 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lovibond P.F., Lovibond S.H. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav. Res Ther. 1995;33:335–343. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Russell D.W. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J. Pers. Assess. 1996;66(1):20–40. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sorokowska A., Sorokowski P., Hilpert P., Cantarero K., Frackowiak T., Ahmadi K., et al. Preferred IPDs: a global comparison. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2017;48(4):577–592. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tso I., Park S. Alarming levels of psychiatric symptoms and the role of loneliness during the COVID-19 epidemic: a case study of Hong Kong. Psychiatry Res. 2020;293 doi: 10.31234/osf.io/wv9y2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Asian Journal of Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES