The influence of anxiety and personality factors on comfort and reachability space: a correlational study
Open accessAbstract
Although the effects of several personality factors on interpersonal space (i.e. social space within personal comfort area) are well documented, it is not clear whether they also extend to peripersonal space (i.e. reaching space). Indeed, no study has directly compared these spaces in relation to personality and anxiety factors even though such a comparison would help to clarify to what extent they share similar mechanisms and characteristics. The aim of the present paper was to investigate whether personality dimensions and anxiety levels are associated with reaching and comfort distances. Seventy university students (35 females) were administered the Big Five Questionnaire and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; afterwards, they had to provide reachability- and comfort-distance judgments towards human confederates while standing still (passive) or walking towards them (active). The correlation analyses showed that both spaces were positively related to anxiety and negatively correlated with the Dynamism in the active condition. Moreover, in the passive condition higher Emotional Stability was related to shorter comfort distance, while higher cognitive Openness was associated with shorter reachability distance. The implications of these results are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 73
- Authors
- Iachini, T., Ruggiero, G., Ruotolo, F., Schiano di Cola, A., & Senese, V. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Iachini, Tina
- Venue
- Cognitive Processing
- Published
- 2015-08-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 255-258
- ISSN
- 1612-4782 (ISSN-L)
- 1612-4790
- OpenAlex
- W1029461005
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Cognitive Processing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Keywords
- personal space, peripersonal space, social space, anxiety, personality, Big Five personality traits, emotional stability, openness to experience, dynamism
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Personal Space, Personality, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Statistics as Topic, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review