Human spatial behavior has been the focus of hundreds of previous research studies. However, the conclusions and generalizability of previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences were limited by some important methodological and sampling issues. The objective of the present study was to compare preferred interpersonal distances across the world and to overcome the problems observed in previous studies. We present an extensive analysis of interpersonal distances over a large data set (N = 8,943 participants from 42 countries). We attempted to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants, and some attributes of their cultures. Our study indicates that individual characteristics (age and gender) influence interpersonal space preferences and that some variation in results can be explained by temperature in a given region. We also present objective values of preferred interpersonal distances in different regions, which might be used as a reference data point in future studies.

The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI, Bodenmann, 2008) assesses how couples support each other when facing individual (e.g., workload) and common (e.g., parenting) stressors. Specifically, the DCI measures partners' perceptions of their own (Self) and their partners' behaviors (Partner) when facing individual stressors, and partners' common coping behaviors when facing common stressors (Common). To date, the DCI has been validated in 6 different languages from individualistic Western cultures; however, because culture can affect interpersonal interactions, it is unknown whether the DCI is a reliable measure of coping behaviors for couples living in collectivistic Eastern cultures. Based on data from 474 Chinese couples (N = 948 individuals), the current study examined the Chinese version of the DCI's factorial structure, measurement invariance (MI), and construct validity of test scores. Using 3 cultural groups (China, Switzerland, and the United States [U.S.]), confirmatory factor analysis revealed a 5-factor structure regarding Self and Partner and a 2-factor structure regarding Common dyadic coping (DC). Results from analyses of MI indicated that the DCI subscales met the criteria for configural, metric, and full/partial scalar invariance across cultures (Chinese-Swiss and Chinese-U.S.) and genders (Chinese men and women). Results further revealed good construct validity of the DCI test scores. In all, the Chinese version of the DCI can be used for measuring Chinese couples' coping behaviors, and is available for cross-cultural studies examining DC behaviors between Western and Eastern cultures. (PsycINFO Database Record

Marital Satisfaction, Sex, Age, Marriage Duration, Religion, Number of Children, Economic Status, Education, and Collectivistic Values: Data from 33 Countries

The “mental number line” (MNL) is a form of spatial numeric representation that associates small and large numbers with the left and right spaces, respectively. This spatio-numeric organization can be found in adult humans and has been related to cultural factors such as writing and reading habits. Yet, both human newborns and birds order numbers consistently with an MNL, thus raising the question of whether culture is a main explanation for MNL. Here, we explored the numeric sense of honey bees and show that after being trained to associate numbers with a sucrose reward, they order numbers not previously experienced from left to right according to their magnitude. Importantly, the location of a number on that scale varies with the reference number previously trained and does not depend on low-level cues present on numeric stimuli. We provide a series of neural explanations for this effect based on the extensive knowledge accumulated on the neural underpinnings of visual processing in honey bees and conclude that the MNL is a form of numeric representation that is evolutionarily conserved across nervous systems endowed with a sense of number, irrespective of their neural complexity.