The effect of height and shoulder-to-hip ratio on interpersonal space in virtual environment

  • Farid PazhoohiEmail author
  • Carlos Silva
  • João Lamas
  • Sandra Mouta
  • Jorge Santos
  • Joana Arantes
Original Article


Previous research has associated men’s physical features such as height and Shoulder-to-Hip Ratio (SHR) with dominance. Proxemics literature has suggested that the interpersonal space (comfort distance) increases in threatening and uncomfortable situations and decreases in unthreatening and comfortable situations. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the effect of different heights and SHRs on comfortable interpersonal distance by systematic manipulation of virtual confederates bodily features. More specifically, participants determined their comfort distances from virtual male confederates with different heights and SHRs in a virtual environment. We hypothesized that a virtual confederate’s height and SHR influences the perception of interpersonal dominance; and consequently interpersonal space increases for taller and broader confederates as a result of increased interpersonal dominance. Results showed that comfortable interpersonal distance was positively associated with height for male participants, but not for female participants. No effect was found for shoulder width, neither for male nor female participants. Results were discussed in terms of the importance of height as a signal of dominance and fighting ability.


Interpersonal space Comfort distance Height Shoulder-to-hip ratio Dominance Fighting ability 



This study was supported by Bial Foundation Grant 143/14. FP receives funding from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) Portugal through grant SFRH/BD/114366/2016; JA receives funding from FCT Portugal through grant IF/01298/2014.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2007). The relation between physical aggression, size and strength, among a sample of young Indian men. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 627–633. Scholar
  2. Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2009). The relation between mate value, entitlement, physical aggression, size and strength among a sample of young Indian men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(5), 315–321. Scholar
  3. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 819–833. Scholar
  4. Batres, C., Re, D. E., & Perrett, D. I. (2015). Influence of perceived height, masculinity, and age on each other and on perceptions of dominance in male faces. Perception, 44(11), 1293–1309.
  5. Blaker, N. M., & van Vugt, M. (2014). The status-size hypothesis: How cues of physical size and social status influence each other. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy & C. Anderson (Eds.), The Psychology of Social Status (pp. 119–137). New York:Springer. Scholar
  6. Blascovich, J. (2002). Social influence within immersive virtual environments. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars (pp. 127–145). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bombari, D., Mast, M. S., Canadas, E., & Bachmann, M. (2015). Studying social interactions through immersive virtual environment technology: virtues, pitfalls, and future challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 869. Scholar
  8. Braun, M. F., & Bryan, A. (2006). Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 806–819. Scholar
  9. Coello, Y., Bourgeois, J., & Iachini, T. (2012). Embodied perception of reachable space: how do we manage threatening objects? Cognitive Processing, 13(S1), 131–135. Scholar
  10. Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival’s body build. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(5), 335–341. Scholar
  11. Dixson, B. J., Dixson, A. F., Bishop, P. J., & Parish, A. (2010). Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: A New Zealand–U.S. comparative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 798–806. Scholar
  12. Duguid, M. M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). Living large the powerful overestimate their own height. Psychological Science, 23(1), 36–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis, L. (1994). The high and the mighty among man and beast: How universal is the relationship between height (or body size) and social status. In L. Ellis (Ed.), Social Stratification and Socioeconomic Inequality, Vol. 2 (pp. 93–112). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Felipe, N. J., & Sommer, R. (1966). Invasions of Personal Space. Social Problems, 14(2), 206–214. Scholar
  15. Fessler, D. M., Holbrook, C., & Snyder, J. K. (2012). Weapons make the man (larger): Formidability is represented as size and strength in humans. PloS ONE, 7(4), e32751. Scholar
  16. Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1167–1183. Scholar
  17. Freeman, D., Evans, N., Lister, R., Antley, A., Dunn, G., & Slater, M. (2014). Height, social comparison, and paranoia: An immersive virtual reality experimental study. Psychiatry Research, 218(3), 348–352. Scholar
  18. Gallup, A. C., White, D. D., & Gallup, G. G. (2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 423–429. Scholar
  19. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  20. Hammes, J. A. (1964). The personal distance effect as a function of esthetic stimulus, anxiety and sex. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(3), 353–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, A. K., Hunt, J., Welling, L. L. M., Cárdenas, R. A., Rotella, M. A., Wheatley, J. R., Dawood, K., Shriver, M., & Puts, D. A. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men’s traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(5), 334–341. Scholar
  22. Horvath, T. (1981). Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10(1), 21–24. Scholar
  23. Hughes, S. M., Dispenza, F., & Gallup, G. G. (2004). Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 295–304. Scholar
  24. Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178. Scholar
  25. Iachini, T., Coello, Y., Frassinetti, F., Senese, V. P., Galante, F., & Ruggiero, G. (2016). Peripersonal and interpersonal space in virtual and real environments: Effects of gender and age. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 154–164. Scholar
  26. Iachini, T., Ruggiero, G., Ruotolo, F., & Vinciguerra, M. (2014). Motor resources in peripersonal space are intrinsic to spatial encoding: Evidence from motor interference. Acta Psychologica, 153, 20–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 428–441. Scholar
  28. Kennedy, D. P., Gläscher, J., Tyszka, J. M., & Adolphs, R. (2009). Personal space regulation by the human amygdala. Nature Neuroscience, 12(10), 1226–1227. Scholar
  29. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 227–244. Scholar
  30. Lechelt, E. C. (1975). Occupational affiliation and ratings of physical height and personal esteem. Psychological Reports, 36(3), 943–946. Scholar
  31. Maisey, D., Vale, E., Cornelissen, P., & Tovée, M. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. The Lancet, 353(9163), 1500. Scholar
  32. Massar, K., & Buunk, A. P. (2009). Rivals in the mind’s eye: Jealous responses after subliminal exposure to body shapes. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 129–134. Scholar
  33. McElligott, A. G., Gammell, M. P., Harty, H. C., Paini, D. R., Murphy, D. T., Walsh, J. T., & Hayden, T. J. (2001). Sexual size dimorphism in fallow deer (Dama dama): Do larger, heavier males gain greater mating success? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 49(4), 266–272. Scholar
  34. Melamed, T. (1992). Personality correlates of physical height. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(12), 1349–1350. Scholar
  35. Parker, G. A. (1974). Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47(1), 223–243.
  36. Pawłowski, B. (2003). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 270(1516), 709–712. Scholar
  37. Pazhoohi, F., Hosseinchari, M., & Doyle, J. F. (2012). Iranian men’s waist-to-hip ratios, shoulder-to-hip ratios, body esteem and self-efficacy. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 61–67. Scholar
  38. Quesque, F., Ruggiero, G., Mouta, S., Santos, J., Iachini, T., & Coello, Y. (2017). Keeping you at arm’s length: Modifying peripersonal space influences interpersonal distance. Psychological Research, 81(4),709–720. Scholar
  39. Rashidi, M., Keshtkaran, K., Zabihidan, S., Hosseinchari, M., & Pazhoohi, F. (2012). Effect of different professions’ clothing on children’s height perception. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 1038–1042. Scholar
  40. Ruggiero, G., Frassinetti, F., Coello, Y., Rapuano, M., di Cola, A. S., & Iachini, T. (2017). The effect of facial expressions on peripersonal and interpersonal spaces. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1232–1240. Scholar
  41. Schuett, G. W. (1997). Body size and agonistic experience affect dominance and mating success in male copperheads. Animal Behaviour, 54(1), 213–224. Scholar
  42. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, G. H. (1953). Size-distance judgments of human faces (projected images). The Journal of General Psychology, 49(1), 45–64. Scholar
  44. Sorokowski, P. (2010). Politicians’ estimated height as an indicator of their popularity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(7), 1302–1309. Scholar
  45. Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2013). Tall claims? Sense and nonsense about the importance of height of US presidents. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 159–171. Scholar
  46. Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PloS ONE, 10(2), e0117860. Scholar
  47. Sundstrom, E., & Altman, I. (1976). Interpersonal relationships and personal space: Research review and theoretical model. Human Ecology, 4(1), 47–67. Scholar
  48. Taffou, M., & Viaud-Delmon, I. (2014). Cynophobic fear adaptively extends peri-personal space. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5, 122. Scholar
  49. Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331(6016), 477–480. Scholar
  50. Watkins, C. D., Fraccaro, P. J., Smith, F. G., Vukovic, J., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2010). Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men. Behavioral Ecology, 21(5), 943–947. Scholar
  51. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271–290. Scholar
  52. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285–312. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farid Pazhoohi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carlos Silva
    • 2
    • 3
  • João Lamas
    • 2
  • Sandra Mouta
    • 2
  • Jorge Santos
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Joana Arantes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Basic Psychology, School of PsychologyUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Centre for Computer GraphicsGuimarãesPortugal
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsSchool of Engineering University of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  4. 4.Center AlgoritmiUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations