Interpersonal space (IPS) is the area surrounding our own bodies in which we interact comfortably with other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, keeping larger IPS than usual, along with wearing a face mask, is one of the most effective measures to slow down the COVID-19 outbreak. Here, we explore the contribution of actual and perceived risk of contagion and anxiety levels in regulating our preferred social distance from other people during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. In this study, 1293 individuals from six Italian regions with different levels of actual risk of infection participated in an online survey assessing their perceived risk to be infected, level of anxiety and IPS. Two tasks were adopted as measures of interpersonal distance: the Interpersonal Visual Analogue Scale and a questionnaire evaluating interpersonal distance with and without face mask. The results showed that the IPS regulation was affected by how people subjectively perceived COVID-19 risk and the related level of anxiety, not by actual objective risk. This clarifies that the role of threat in prompting avoidant behaviors expressed in increased IPS does not merely reflect environmental events but rather how they are subjectively experienced and represented.

This study assesses the influence of valence and arousal of element/landmarks along a route on the spatio-temporal representation of the route itself. Participants watched a movie of a virtual route containing landmarks with high arousal and positive (HP) or negative valence (HN), or landmarks with low arousal and positive (LP) or negative valence (LN). Afterwards, they had to (a) imagine walking distances between landmarks, (b) indicate the position of the landmarks along the route, (c) judge the spatial and temporal length of the route, and (d) draw the route. Results showed that the tasks were differentially influenced by the valence and arousal levels. Specifically, participants were more accurate in representing distances between positive, rather than negative, landmarks and in localizing positive high arousing landmarks. Moreover, the high arousing landmarks improved performance at the route drawing task. Finally, participants in the negative and low arousing conditions judged the route as being metrically and temporally longer than participants in positive and high arousing conditions. These results are interpreted in the light of theories about the effects of emotions on memory processes and the “feelings-as-information” theory. In brief, the results support the idea that representations of a route reflect a combination of cognitive and emotional processes.

Several studies have shown that spatial information is encoded using two types of reference systems: egocentric (body-based) and/or allocentric (environment-based). However, most studies have been conducted in static situations, neglecting the fact that when we explore the environment, the objects closest to us are also those we encounter first, while those we encounter later are usually those closest to other environmental objects/elements. In this study, participants were shown with two stimuli on a computer screen, each depicting a different geometric object, placed at different distances from them and an external reference (i.e., a bar). The crucial manipulation was that the stimuli were shown sequentially. After participants had memorized the position of both stimuli, they had to indicate which object appeared closest to them (egocentric judgment) or which object appeared closest to the bar (allocentric judgment). The results showed that egocentric judgements were facilitated when the object closest to them was presented first, whereas allocentric judgements were facilitated when the object closest to the bar was presented second. These results show that temporal order has a different effect on egocentric and allocentric frames of reference, presumably rooted in the embodied way in which individuals dynamically explore the environment.

Separate research lines have shown that the way we process spatial information is influenced by individual factors, such as personality traits and basic spatial abilities. Alongside, recent studies suggest that environmental landmarks can be represented differently depending on their emotional content. However, to our knowledge, no study has addressed so far the issue of whether there is a relationship between individual factors and the way we represent and use spatial information that conveys emotional content. Therefore, this exploratory study aimed to (i) investigate the relationship between personality traits and the use of spatial strategies in relation to emotional stimuli; (ii) investigate if a different pattern emerges according to a body- or object-based spatial encodings. After watching movies of routes characterized by positive, negative, or neutral landmarks, participants performed a “route continuation” (RC, i.e., left/right decision) and a “distance comparison” task (DC, i.e., what was the landmark closest to X?). Furthermore, participants performed a mental rotation task (MR), the Corsi block tapping (CBT), and the Bergen right-left discrimination tests (B-RL). Personality traits were assessed through the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI). Results showed that a better performance at the RC task was associated with higher scores at CBT tasks in the positive condition and at B-RL test and agreeableness scale from TIPI in both positive and neutral conditions. Instead, the MR task positively correlated with the DC task in all conditions. In sum, individuals’ spatial abilities, personality traits, and task requests influenced the way emotionally laden landmarks were memorized.

Keeping a large interpersonal space (IPS) is one of the most important measures to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. The IPS is automatically modulated according to primary affiliation and defence needs aimed at protecting our physical and psychological well-being. Through a multicentric online survey (1293 respondents) in six Italian regions during the lockdown (April-May 2020), we investigated the psychological and situational factors that influenced the regulation of IPS and psychological well-being. The results showed that the IPS was modulated according to perceived rather than actual risk of COVID-19 infection. This perception was influenced by institutional communication and citizen satisfaction in local Healthcare Systems. Higher levels of anxiety, stress and feeling of insecurity, exacerbated by situational factors linked to the context of life, led to an increase in IPS at the expense of psychological well-being. Instead, the possibility to go out and seeing other people wearing a face-mask reduced the IPS. The findings provide useful insights into pandemic management to bring human behaviour in line with the recommendations of public health experts.