Proxemic Behaviors During Gay/Straight Interactions: An Automated Analysis Through Kinect Depth-Sensing Camera

Figures & data

Figure 1. The 25 body joints tracked by a Microsoft Kinect V2 (left); Spatial representation of the Volume index (right).

Figure 2. Interactive effects of implicit bias and topic on the discussion on participants’ volume. Gay condition. (Study 1).

Table 1. Main and interactive effects of study accomplices’ sexual orientation, conversation topic and implicit bias on interpersonal volume. Study 1.

Fixed Effect Omnibus tests
	F	Num df	Den df	p
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation (1 = gay; 2 = straight)	0.003	1	72.0	.954
Conversation topic (1 = neutral; 2 = intergroup-related)	8.14	1	532.0	.005
Participant’s sex (1 = male; 2 = female)	32.59	1	72.0	< .001
Kinect time window	0.42	3	532.1	.741
Study accomplice’s code	13.40	1	72.0	< .001
Implicit bias	0.09	1	71.9	.759
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Conversation topic	0.22	1	532.0	.636
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Implicit bias	1.17	1	71.9	.283
Conversation topic ✻ Implicit bias	1.55	1	532.0	.214
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Conversation topic ✻ Implicit bias	7.00	1	532.0	.008

Satterthwaite method for degrees of freedom. Participant’s sex, study accomplice’s code and Kinect time window were entered as covariates.

Table 2. Main and interactive effects of study accomplices’ sexual orientation, conversation topic, implicit bias and interpersonal volume on participants’ Stroop performance. Study 2.

Fixed Effect Omnibus tests
	F	Num df	Den df	p
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation (1 = gay; 2 = straight)	0.08	1	66.9	.782
Conversation topic (1 = neutral; 2 = intergroup-related)	0.26	1	493.9	.612
Participant’s sex (1 = male; 2 = female)	1.62	1	69.5	.207
Stroop task administration time (1 = first; 2 = second)	150.57	1	491.7	<.001
Implicit bias (IAT)	0.13	1	67.5	.720
Interpersonal volume	0.85	1	526.4	.358
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Conversation topic	13.94	1	493.1	<.001
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Implicit bias	0.08	1	67.7	.774
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Interpersonal volume	2.81	1	538.2	.094
Conversation topic ✻ Implicit bias	2.38	1	493.7	.123
Conversation topic ✻ Interpersonal volume	0.30	1	493.4	.584
Implicit bias ✻ Interpersonal volume	0.35	1	546.5	.556
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Conversation topic ✻ Implicit bias	0.52	1	493.9	.471
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Conversation topic ✻ Interpersonal volume	3.10	1	493.6	.079
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Implicit bias ✻ Interpersonal volume	5.05	1	546.5	.025
Conversation topic ✻ Implicit bias ✻ Interpersonal volume	6.760	1	493.4	.010
Study accomplice’s sexual orientation ✻ Conversation topic ✻ Implicit bias✻ Interpersonal volume	.736	1	493.5	.391

Satterthwaite method for degrees of freedom. Participant’s sex, study accomplice and Stroop task administration time were entered as covariates.

Figure 3. Interactive effects of implicit bias and interpersonal volume on Stroop latencies in milliseconds for the Gay condition (graph on the left) and the Straight condition (graph on the right). (Study 2).

Data Availability Statement

Data are available through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e8tza/?view_only=64c3a20c32c74a9cb52dd3701543212c).