This study investigated interpersonal distances kept towards pedestrians in different social dynamics, individual pedestrians, pairs of pedestrians, and groups of pedestrians. In detail, we analyzed approaching behavior in a lively virtual reality city center that subjects could explore freely. When evaluating the distances kept toward individuals, we observed a median distance corresponding to the social space of the individuals (Hall, 1966). This result substantiates our main hypothesis, suggesting that in casual virtual interactions, participants maintain a distance akin to Hall’s delimitation of social space (Hall, 1966). Such a pattern stands in accordance with recent literature (Bailenson et al., 2003; Hecht et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2022), concluding that personal space and non-verbal interactions in virtual reality follow the same implicit rules as in real-world settings. Considering the approaching behavior towards pairs or groups of pedestrians, we found no difference between the different social conditions. This result supported our hypothesis 2A: There is no difference between the approaching behavior towards individuals and that towards pairs or groups of pedestrians. Our observations suggest that an individual's social space remains consistent, irrespective of their engagement in diverse social dynamics. Overall, we showed that unknown pedestrians in a public setting are being approached up to and including their social space but rarely enter their personal space regardless of the social situation.
Interestingly, as opposed to approaching behavior towards individual subjects, the distances kept towards pairs and groups of people were surprising in light of current research findings. Studying proxemics behavior with a stop-distance-task revealed higher levels of discomfort (Llobera et al., 2010) and the wish to keep a bigger distance (Bönsch et al., 2018) when approached by a group instead of a single person. The present results oppose these findings to some degree, demonstrating that subjects interact with pairs or groups of pedestrians at the same distance as individuals. Several factors might elucidate the observed disparity between our findings and previous studies. Primarily, differences in study designs could be a contributing factor. Contrary to studies where stationary participants were approached by pedestrians (as seen in Llobera et al., 2010; Bönsch et al., 2018), our research emphasized interpersonal distances within a free exploration framework. Allowing for self-motion could have resulted in less anxiety and led to consistent proximities between subjects and individuals or groups. Additionally, the design and behavior of our virtual pedestrians might have influenced participant behavior. Specifically, the avatars in our virtual environment were passive, lacking responsiveness to participants, and avoided direct eye contact - a factor previously highlighted for its impact on interpersonal distances (Bailenson et al., 2003). However, as individuals were approached at similar distances, as shown in the literature (Hall, 1966; Bailenson et al., 2003; Hecht et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2022), this seems a less likely possibility. Taken together, how far being active in the approach towards individuals, pairs, and groups influences preferred interpersonal distances deserves attention in future work.
Besides different social dynamics, additional factors could have affected the present results as they have been shown to influence proxemic behavior. First, it has been proven that the rotation of the approached person affects the distance kept toward them (Bailenson et al., 2003; Hecht et al., 2019). Generally, when approaching a person from the back, a smaller distance is kept than when approaching them from the front (Bailenson et al., 2003; Hecht et al., 2019), something the current study does not consider. Furthermore, as the current data was collected as part of a more extensive study, additional factors influencing proxemics behavior were not controlled for. These factors relate to fundamental cultural differences (Hall, ET, 1966; Little, 1968; Sorokowska et al., 2017) or environmental factors (Sorokowska et al., 2017; Little, 1968). Environmental factors are tough to control in a VR setup. For example, the setting within the virtual scene might differ from the actual temperature in the room subjects are sitting in while wearing the head-mounted display. Finally, personal factors such as age (Iachini et al., 2016; Webb & Weber, 2003; Willis, 1966) and gender (Bailenson et al., 2003; Hecht et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2022; Iachini et al., 2016; Webb & Weber, 2003) of both the subject and pedestrian can influence proxemics behavior. Overall, while our results give further insight into proxemics behavior towards pairs and groups of individuals, additional factors could play an important role and remain to be investigated.