Rocio Martinez

Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison

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.

How do different humanness measures relate? Confronting the attribution of secondary emotions, human uniqueness, and human nature traits

ABSTRACT The present research examines the relationship between the infrahumanization approach and the two-dimensional model of humanness: an issue that has received very little empirical attention. In Study 1, we created three unknown groups (Humanized, Animalized, and Mechanized) granting/denying them Human Nature (HN) and Human Uniqueness (HU) traits. The attribution of primary/secondary emotions was measured. As expected, participants attributed more secondary emotions to the humanized compared to dehumanized groups. Importantly, both animalized and mechanized groups were attributed similar amounts of secondary emotions. In Study 2, the groups were described in terms of their capacity to express secondary emotions. We measured the attribution of HN/HU traits. Results showed that the infrahumanized group was denied both HU/HN traits. The results highlight the importance of considering the common aspects of both approaches in understanding processes of dehumanization.

Interacting with dehumanized others? Only if they are objectified

Members of dehumanized groups are somehow accepted in a variety of menial roles. Three studies verified when and why people might approach members of animalistically and mechanistically dehumanized groups. In Studies 1 and 2, participants showed a greater intention to interact with (Study 1) and attributed higher ratings of success (Study 2) to members of an animalistically dehumanized group in a social context. On the contrary, participants expected that members of a mechanistically dehumanized group would be more successful and were preferred to interact with in a professional context. In Study 3, the psychological process underlying these preferences was investigated. Interestingly, results showed that the objectification of dehumanized group members led participants to interact with them. Taken together these studies show that people approach dehumanized others not because they are liked, but because they are objectified.

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

Forms of committed relationships, including formal marriage arrangements between men and women, exist in almost every culture (Bell, 1997). Yet, similarly to many other psychological constructs (Henrich et al., 2010), marital satisfaction and its correlates have been investigated almost exclusively in Western countries (e.g., Bradbury et al., 2000). Meanwhile, marital relationships are heavily guided by culturally determined norms, customs, and expectations (for review see Berscheid, 1995; Fiske et al., 1998). While we acknowledge the differences existing both between- and within-cultures, we measured marital satisfaction and several factors that might potentially correlate with it based on self-report data from individuals across 33 countries. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the raw data available for anybody interested in further examining any relations between them and other country-level scores obtained elsewhere. Below, we review the central variables that are likely to be related to marital satisfaction. Gender Gender has long been identified in the literature as a predictor of marital satisfaction (Bernard, 1972). Specifically, early works suggested that men report being more satisfied with their marriages compared to women in both Western (e.g., Schumm et al., 1998) and non-Western (e.g., Rostami et al., 2014) cultures. However, sex differences in marital satisfaction may differ across cultures due to traditional sex roles (Pardo et al., 2012) and larger-scale cultural variables, such as sex egalitarianism (Taniguchi and Kaufman, 2013).

Animalizing the disadvantaged, mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socio-economic status and attribution of humanity: SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND HUMANITY

Differences between groups in socio-economic status (SES) are becoming more salient nowadays. In this context, we examined the animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization that both low and high-SES groups may experience respectively by conducting three studies. In study 1, we manipulated the SES of two fictitious groups (low vs. high-SES) and measured the humanity ascribed to them. Results showed that the low-SES group was animalized in comparison with the high-SES group, which was mechanized. In study 2, we manipulated the humanity of two fictitious groups by describing them as animals or machines and measured the perceived SES of the groups. Participants tended to attribute lower SES to the group described as animals and higher SES to the group described as machines. Finally, in study 3, we used an Implicit Association Test to replicate the results of studies 1 and 2. Taken together, these studies show that low-SES groups are considered as animal-like whereas high-SES groups are seen as robot-like. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to the justification of income inequality within our society.

Global Study of Social Odor Awareness

Olfaction plays an important role in human social communication, including multiple domains in which people often rely on their sense of smell in the social context. The importance of the sense of smell and its role can however vary inter-individually and culturally. Despite the growing body of literature on differences in olfactory performance or hedonic preferences across the globe, the aspects of a given culture as well as culturally universal individual differences affecting odor awareness in human social life remain unknown. Here, we conducted a large-scale analysis of data collected from 10 794 participants from 52 study sites from 44 countries all over the world. The aim of our research was to explore the potential individual and country-level correlates of odor awareness in the social context. The results show that the individual characteristics were more strongly related than country-level factors to self-reported odor awareness in different social contexts. A model including individual-level predictors (gender, age, material situation, education, and preferred social distance) provided a relatively good fit to the data, but adding country-level predictors (Human Development Index, population density, and average temperature) did not improve model parameters. Although there were some cross-cultural differences in social odor awareness, the main differentiating role was played by the individual differences. This suggests that people living in different cultures and different climate conditions may still share some similar patterns of odor awareness if they share other individual-level characteristics.

Corrigendum: Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33 countries [Front. Psychol., 8, (2017) (1199)] DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01199

[This corrects the article on p. 1199 in vol. 8, PMID: 28785230.].