Transcription

CUERPO DIRECTIVOMg. Amelia Herrera LavanchyUniversidad de La Serena, ChileDirectorDr. Juan Guillermo Mansilla SepúlvedaUniversidad Católica de Temuco, ChileMg. Cecilia Jofré MuñozUniversidad San Sebastián, ChileEditorOBU - CHILEMg. Mario Lagomarsino MontoyaUniversidad Adventista de Chile, ChileEditor CientíficoDr. Luiz Alberto David AraujoPontificia Universidade Católica de Sao Paulo, BrasilDr. Claudio Llanos ReyesPontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, ChileEditor Europa del EsteDr. Aleksandar Ivanov KatrandzhievUniversidad Suroeste "Neofit Rilski", BulgariaDr. Werner MackenbachUniversidad de Potsdam, AlemaniaUniversidad de Costa Rica, Costa RicaCuerpo AsistenteMg. Rocío del Pilar Martínez MarínUniversidad de Santander, ColombiaTraductora: InglésLic. Pauline Corthorn EscuderoEditorial Cuadernos de Sofía, ChilePh. D. Natalia MilanesioUniversidad de Houston, Estados UnidosPortadaLic. Graciela Pantigoso de Los SantosEditorial Cuadernos de Sofía, ChileDra. Patricia Virginia Moggia MünchmeyerPontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, ChilePh. D. Maritza MonteroUniversidad Central de Venezuela, VenezuelaCOMITÉ EDITORIALDra. Carolina Aroca TolozaUniversidad de Chile, ChileDr. Jaime Bassa MercadoUniversidad de Valparaíso, ChileDra. Heloísa BellottoUniversidad de Sao Paulo, BrasilDra. Nidia BurgosUniversidad Nacional del Sur, ArgentinaMg. María Eugenia CamposUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDr. Francisco José Francisco CarreraUniversidad de Valladolid, EspañaMg. Keri GonzálezUniversidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México, MéxicoDr. Pablo Guadarrama GonzálezUniversidad Central de Las Villas, CubaDra. Eleonora PenchevaUniversidad Suroeste Neofit Rilski, BulgariaDra. Rosa María Regueiro FerreiraUniversidad de La Coruña, EspañaMg. David Ruete ZúñigaUniversidad Nacional Andrés Bello, ChileDr. Andrés Saavedra BarahonaUniversidad San Clemente de Ojrid de Sofía, BulgariaDr. Efraín Sánchez CabraAcademia Colombiana de Historia, ColombiaDra. Mirka SeitzUniversidad del Salvador, ArgentinaPh. D. Stefan Todorov KapralovSouth West University, Bulgaria

COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO INTERNACIONALDra. Manuela GarauCentro Studi Sea, ItaliaComité Científico Internacional de HonorDr. Adolfo A. AbadíaUniversidad ICESI, ColombiaDr. Carlo Ginzburg GinzburgScuola Normale Superiore de Pisa, ItaliaUniversidad de California Los Ángeles, Estados UnidosDr. Carlos Antonio Aguirre RojasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDr. Francisco Luis Girardo GutiérrezInstituto Tecnológico Metropolitano, ColombiaDr. Martino ContuUniversidad de Sassari, ItaliaJosé Manuel González FreireUniversidad de Colima, MéxicoDr. Luiz Alberto David AraujoPontificia Universidad Católica de Sao Paulo, BrasilDra. Antonia Heredia HerreraUniversidad Internacional de Andalucía, EspañaDra. Patricia BrognaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDr. Eduardo Gomes OnofreUniversidade Estadual da Paraíba, BrasilDr. Horacio Capel SáezUniversidad de Barcelona, EspañaDr. Miguel León-PortillaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDr. Javier Carreón GuillénUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDr. Miguel Ángel Mateo SauraInstituto de Estudios Albacetenses “Don Juan Manuel”,EspañaDr. Lancelot CowieUniversidad West Indies, Trinidad y TobagoDra. Isabel Cruz Ovalle de AmenabarUniversidad de Los Andes, ChileDr. Carlos Tulio da Silva MedeirosDiálogos em MERCOSUR, Brasil Dr. Álvaro Márquez-FernándezUniversidad del Zulia, VenezuelaDr. Rodolfo Cruz VadilloUniversidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla,MéxicoDr. Oscar Ortega ArangoUniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán, MéxicoDr. Adolfo Omar CuetoUniversidad Nacional de Cuyo, ArgentinaDr. Antonio-Carlos Pereira MenautUniversidad Santiago de Compostela, EspañaDr. Miguel Ángel de MarcoUniversidad de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaDr. José Sergio Puig EspinosaDilemas Contemporáneos, MéxicoDra. Emma de Ramón AcevedoUniversidad de Chile, ChileDra. Francesca RandazzoUniversidad Nacional AutónomaHondurasDr. Gerardo Echeita SarrionandiaUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid, EspañaDr. Antonio Hermosa AndújarUniversidad de Sevilla, EspañaDra. Patricia GaleanaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicodeDra. Yolando RicardoUniversidad de La Habana, CubaDr. Manuel Alves da RochaUniversidade Católica de Angola AngolaMg. Arnaldo Rodríguez EspinozaUniversidad Estatal a Distancia, Costa RicaHonduras,

Dr. Miguel Rojas MixCoordinador la Cumbre de Rectores UniversidadesEstatales América Latina y el CaribeDr. Luis Alberto RomeroCONICET / Universidad de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaDra. Maura de la Caridad Salabarría RoigDilemas Contemporáneos, MéxicoDr. Adalberto Santana HernándezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDr. Juan Antonio SedaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaDr. Saulo Cesar Paulino e SilvaUniversidad de Sao Paulo, BrasilDr. Miguel Ángel Verdugo AlonsoUniversidad de Salamanca, EspañaDr. Josep Vives RegoUniversidad de Barcelona, EspañaDr. Eugenio Raúl ZaffaroniUniversidad de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaDra. Blanca Estela Zardel JacoboUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoDra. Noemí BrentaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaPh. D. Juan R. CocaUniversidad de Valladolid, EspañaDr. Antonio Colomer VialdelUniversidad Politécnica de Valencia, EspañaDr. Christian Daniel CwikUniversidad de Colonia, AlemaniaDr. Eric de LéséulecINS HEA, FranciaDr. Andrés Di Masso TardittiUniversidad de Barcelona, EspañaPh. D. Mauricio DimantUniversidad Hebrea de Jerusalén, IsraelDr. Jorge Enrique Elías CaroUniversidad de Magdalena, ColombiaDra. Claudia Lorena FonsecaUniversidad Federal de Pelotas, BrasilDra. Ada Gallegos Ruiz ConejoUniversidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, PerúComité Científico InternacionalDra. Carmen González y González de MesaUniversidad de Oviedo, EspañaMg. Paola AceitunoUniversidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, ChilePh. D. Valentin KitanovUniversidad Suroeste Neofit Rilski, BulgariaPh. D. María José Aguilar IdañezUniversidad Castilla-La Mancha, EspañaMg. Luis Oporto OrdóñezUniversidad Mayor San Andrés, BoliviaDra. Elian AraujoUniversidad de Mackenzie, BrasilDr. Patricio QuirogaUniversidad de Valparaíso, ChileMg. Rumyana Atanasova PopovaUniversidad Suroeste Neofit Rilski, BulgariaDr. Gino Ríos PatioUniversidad de San Martín de Porres, PerúDra. Ana Bénard da CostaInstituto Universitario de Lisboa, PortugalCentro de Estudios Africanos, PortugalDr. Carlos Manuel Rodríguez ArrechavaletaUniversidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, MéxicoDra. Alina Bestard RevillaUniversidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y elDeporte, CubaDra. Vivian RomeuUniversidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, México

Dra. María Laura SalinasUniversidad Nacional del Nordeste, ArgentinaDra. Jaqueline VassalloUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba, ArgentinaDr. Stefano SantasiliaUniversidad della Calabria, ItaliaDr. Evandro Viera OuriquesUniversidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, BrasilMg. Silvia Laura Vargas LópezUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, MéxicoDra. María Luisa Zagalaz SánchezUniversidad de Jaén, EspañaDra. Maja ZawierzeniecUniversidad Wszechnica Polska, PoloniaEditorial Cuadernos de SofíaSantiago – ChileOBU – C HILE

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Indización, Repositorios y Bases de Datos AcadémicasRevista Inclusiones, se encuentra indizada en:CATÁLOGODR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020BIBLIOTECA UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓNDR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020ISSN 0719-4706 - Volumen 7 / Número Especial / Octubre – Diciembre 2020 pp. 289-306SPATIAL REGULATION OF PERSONAL BEHAVIOR UNDER CONDITIONSOF THE ACCELERATING COVID-19 PANDEMICDr. Оleh KhmiliarIvan Chernyakhovsky National Defense University of Ukraine, UkraineORCID iD: Dr. Ihor PopovychKherson State University, UkraineORCID iD: [email protected] Antonina HrysKostiuk Institute of Psychology of the NAPS of Ukraine, UkraineORCID iD: @gmail.comDr. Mariya PavliukInterregional Academy of Personnel Management, UkraineORCID iD: mail.comDr. Nataliia ZavatskaVolodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University, UkraineORCID iD: gmail.comDr. Olga LytvynenkoOdesa National I. I. Mechnikov University, UkraineORCID iD: [email protected] Olena BlynovaKherson State University, UkraineORCID iD: gmail.comFecha de Recepción: 15 de julio de 2020 – Fecha Revisión: 23 de julio de 2020Fecha de Aceptación: 19 de septiembre 2020 – Fecha de Publicación: 01 de octubre de 2020AbstractThe purpose of the study is to examine spatial regulation of personal behavior under conditions ofthe accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. The research uses proxemics as a symbol of regulation ofthe research participants’ behavior. It shows that keeping a safe distance has reflected on changesin individual-typological personality traits and on transformation of some nations from “contact” into“distant” ones. The paper substantiates that it is important to know the laws of proxemics languageto optimize high-quality interaction. It outlines in a methodological aspect that distance between asender and a receiver of a message is the most symbolic and relevant feature in the process ofinteraction. Research results. The study establishes that spatial regulation of personal behavior issignificantly affected by such internal symbols as social prestige, introversion-extraversion, theoverall volume and content of the message. It proves that that messages with personal and nonpersonal information influence personal behavior regulation. Personal messages are usuallytransmitted in the intimate and personal spaces. Non-personal messages are transmitted in all fourDR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 290spaces of proxemic interaction: intimate, personal, social and public. The study generalizes thatregulation of personal behavior mainly depends on proxemic indexes.KeywordsSymbol – Proxemics – Interaction – Symbolic RegulationPara Citar este Artículo:Khmiliar, Oleh; Popovych, Ihor; Hrys, Antonina; Pavliuk, Mariya; Zavatska, Nataliia; Lytvynenko,Olga y Blynova, Olena. Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of theAccelerating COVID-19 Pandemic. Revista Inclusiones Vol: 7 num Especial (2020): 289-306.Licencia Creative Commons Atributtion Nom-Comercial 3.0 Unported(CC BY-NC 3.0)Licencia InternacionalDR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 291IntroductionIn the process of defining the role of a symbol in the regulation of personalbehavior, scholars rake into consideration the fact that the symbol is a meaningfulconstruct of an object1. The symbol captures the essence of a psychic phenomenon andthe genesis of knowledge concerning this notion2. The symbol functions simultaneously asa code, which contains sensory-intuitive patterns of mental reflection, which is transmittedto another person and a psycholinguistic unit of language that contains thoughts, feelingsand images in a coded form. The symbol serves as a method of orientation andrecognition of the unknown through the conversion of the unconscious information intothoughts, feelings and imagination3. These processes in the system of “person-person”interaction presuppose the identification of transmitted messages, the mutualunderstanding and the realization of a team4. The proxemic system plays an important rolein the structure of the symbolic regulation of behavior5. According to Hall, proxemicsregulates micro space while a message is being transmitted6. Symbolic regulationdepends on the size of “personal space”; emotional coloring and personal “value”7; variousreactions related to the violation of boundaries and other people’s intervention into thepersonal space8. Personal space is dynamic: when the distance is shortened, emotionalstress increases and vice versa. An intervention into the personal space zone leads tochanges in the behavior of the subject, his posture, for example9. According to Argyale’shypothesis concerning the balance between such symbolic behavior structures astouching, eye contact and distance, the intensity of each of them is inversely proportionalto the intensity of others. If one of the elements is implemented more intensively, theintensity of others decreases. For example, the bigger the distance is and the less possibletouches are, the more intense the eye contact is10.A. Cheryl, “Proxemic Behavior: A Study of Extrusion”, The Journal of Social Psychology, num1315 (1991): 697-702. y V. N. Giri, “Culture and Communication Style”, Review of Communication,Vol: 6 num 1-2 (2006): 124-130.2 V. V. Klimenko, Psychological mechanisms of human praxis (Kyiv: Slovo, 2013).3 C. Z. Dolphin, “Beyond hall: Variables in the use of personal space in intercultural transactions”,Howard Journal of Communications, Vol: 1 num 1 (1988): 23-38.4 O. F. Кhmiliar, “A Symbolic Construct as a Man – World Relations Mediator”, The AdvancedScience Open Access Journal, num 11 (2013): 71-74. y O. F. Khmiliar, “Psychology of the symbolicregulation of the behaviour of a personality”. Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. Kyiv:G. S. Kostyuk Institute of Psychology of the NAPS of Ukraine. 2017.5 A. Bazilenko; N. Barna y O. Lytvynenko, “Psychological Factors of Students’ Social Activity”,Social Walfare Interdisciplinary Approach, Vol: 2 num 9 (2019): 56-66. y O. D. Lytvynenko, “Sociopsychological Principles of Development of the Adaptive Potential of Youth in the Conditions ofModern Society”, Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. (Severodonetsk: Volodymyr Dahl EastUkrainian National University. 2019).6 E. T. Hall, Distance in your communication (London: 1965).7 O. Ye. Blynova y K. O. Kruglov, “The value of social capital for the psychological well-being ofemployees”, Insight: the psychological dimensions of society, num 1 (2019): 72-78. y I. R. Krupnyky N. V. Tkalenko, “Manipulative Behavior in the Professional Activities of Office Staff”. Insight: thepsychological dimensions of society, num 1 (2019): 96-101.8 M. Knapp y J. Hall, Nonverbal communication in human interaction (Sankt-Peterburg: PraymEvroznak, 2004).9 R. Sommer, Personal space: The Behavioral Basis of Design (NY: Prentice Hall, 1969) y A.Sorokowska; P. Sorokowski y P. Hilpert et al., “Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A GlobalComparison”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, num 22 (2017): 32-39.10 M. Argyale, Nonverbal communication in human social interaction. Nonverbal communication(Cambridge: 1972).1DR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 292V. Labunskaya et al., considering the problem of symbolic-proxemic regulationbelieves that the choice of a distance for interaction is determined by the social prestige ofpeople who send/receive messages as well as their ethnicity, gender, age and the natureof relationships between them. It is particularly important for a researcher to know therelations between the process of sending/receiving messages and physical location of thecommunicants in space. In this context proxemics is one of the main “tools” for both asender and a recipient of the message. Through the change of the position in space or bymoving around the communicants, the researchers influence some changes in the groupdynamics11.Modern proxemics is mainly concerned with verbal and nonverbal dialogic behaviorof people in the communicative spaces of different types as well as the impact of age,culture, social functions of the space and spatial objects that directly influence humanbeings12.The distance between a sender and a receiver is the most symbolic and relevant,when a message is being transmitted13. The distance depends on the symbols of sex,positive or negative perception of the message, olfactory symbols, volume of speaking, theability to touch the recipient, maintain eye contact and feel physical warmth14.The results of the longitudinal survey have made it possible to determine a group offactors affecting the choice of proxemic symbols for encoding and decoding a message.They are: gender, age, height, ethnocultural identity, the subject of conversation,conditions under which it takes place, physical characteristics and emotional state of thecommunicants, as well as the characteristics of personal relationships between them,character traits, etc.The purpose of the study is to examine spatial regulation of personal behaviorunder conditions of the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic and identify the proxemicsymbols, affecting the process of regulation of a message-sender’s and a messagereceiver’s behavior.Research MethodologyThe methodological starting points of our research in the context of spatialregulation of personal behavior under conditions of the accelerating COVID-19 pandemicare an approved methodological complex using psycho-diagnostic tools. This methodologyV. A. Labunskaya; Yu. A. Mendzheritskaya y E. D. Breus, “Psychology of impededcommunication (Moscow: Akademiya, 2001).12 T. Ballendat; N. Marquardt y S. Greenberg, “Proxemic Interaction: Designing for a Proximity andOrientation-Aware Environment”. ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops andSurfaces, ITS 2010, 121-130. y A. Perry; E. Levy-Gigi; G. Richter-Levin y S. G. Shamay-Tsoory,“Interpersonal distance and social anxiety in autistic spectrum disorders: A behavioral and ERPstudy”, Social Neuroscience, Vol: 10 num 4 (2015): 354-364.13 V. A. Labunskaya; Yu. A. Mendzheritskaya y E. D. Breus, “Psychology of y M. Peker;R. W. Booth y A. Eke, “Relationships among self‐construal, gender, social dominance orientation,and interpersonal distance”, J. Appl Soc Psychol., num 12 (2018): 1-12.14 A. Mazur, “Interpersonal Spacing on Public Benches in ‘Contact’ vs. ‘Noncontact’ Cultures”, TheJournal of Social Psychology, Vol: 101 num 1 (1977): 53-58. y R. Dibiase y J. Gunnoe, “Gender andCulture Differences in Touching Behavior”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol: 144 num 1(2004): 49-62.11DR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 293has been tested by researchers in the study of adaptation15, anxiety16, innovation17, as wellas in the study of mental states of expectation18 in various activities. All these experimentaland empirical studies contained elements of the research of spatial regulation of personalbehavior.In order to achieve the aim of the research, we conducted four series of apsychological experiment in February–May, 2020. The first series of the experiment wasaimed at clarifying the decoding features of proxemic space while dealing with people ofdifferent age groups. The participants of the experiment were people, who graduated fromhigher educational institutions (n 391) (officers, psychologists and volunteers) aged 18-45years, including 208 men and 183 women. The method “Portraits” was used with eachparticipant, who was asked to move on a comfortable distance regarding the pictures ofpeople placed in a “symbolic circle”. There were 12 portraits (6 male and 6 female). Thephotos in the “symbolic circle” were placed in random order, at equal distance from oneanother. Each photo (both male and female) showed a certain age of a person. 5 agegroups were used in the psychological experiment: 18 to 25 years old, 26 to 35 years old,36 to 45 years old, 46 to 50 years old, and above 50 years old.Having entered the “symbolic circle”, the participants of the experiment acted inaccordance with the following instruction: “Dear Sir/Madam, there are 12 photos of bothwomen and men in front of you. Please, look at them carefully and place yourself at themost comfortable distance, regarding each photo”. In some cases the instruction wasmade more accurate, a participant determined, what was the maximum distance at whichhe/she would allow individuals on the picture to get closer to him/her. To facilitate thedecoding of the participants’ actions in a certain symbolic zone, each picture wasnumbered in accordance with the age of the person represented on it.Concerning the results of the first series of the psychological experiment a protocolwas made, the interpretation of which made it possible to identify the role of proxemicsymbols in the process of regulating the behavior of people of different age groups.15O. Blynova; I. Chervinska; V. Kazibekova; H. Bokshan; S. Yakovleva; O. Zaverukha y I.Popovych, “Social and Psychological Manifestations of Professional Identity Crisis of LaborMigrants”, Revista Inclusiones, Vol: 7 num 3 (2020): 93-105. y A. Halian; I. Halian; I. Burlakova; R.Shevchenko; V. Lappo; I. Zhigarenko y I. Popovych, “Emotional Intelligence in the Structure ofAdaptation Process of Future Healthcare Professionals”, Revista Inclusiones, Vol: 7 num 3 (2020):447-46016 O. Kononenko; A. Kononenko; V. Stynska; O. Kachmar; L. Prokopiv; H. Katolyk y I. Popovych,“Research of the factor structure of the model of world view settings at a young age”, RevistaInclusiones, Vol: 7 num 3 (2020): 98-116.17 I. M. Halian; O. I. Halian; L. Ye. Gusak; H. I. Bokshan y I. S. Popovych, “CommunicativeCompetence in Training Future Language and Literature Teachers”, Revista Amazonia Investiga,Vol: 9 num 29 (2020): 530-541. y O. Tsiuniak; A. Pyslar; G. Lialiuk; V. Bondarenko; O. Kovtun; O.Los y I. Popovych, “Research of interdependence of variables and factor structure of masters’readiness for innovative pedagogical activity”, Revista Inclusiones, Vol: 7 num 3 (2020): 427-452.18 V. V. KhmilI y I. S. Popovych, “Philosophical and Psychological Dimensions of SocialExpectations of Personality”, Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, num 16(2019): 55-65 y I. Popovych; A. Borysiuk; L. Zahrai; O. Fedoruk; P. Nosov; S. Zinchenko yV. Mateichuk, “Constructing a Structural-Functional Model of Social Expectations of thePersonality”, Revista Inclusiones, Vol: 7 num Especial (2020): 154-167.DR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 294Results and DiscussionThe interpretation of the psychological experiment resultsThe results have shown: when people are not aware that they are being watched,women, unlike men, are inclined to speak at a shorter distance (regardless of the sex ofthe interlocutor).Most men are less careful about keeping a certain distance considering the natureof relationships, but in general they tend to keep a greater distance from the interlocutor asopposed to women19. The research found that 68.4% of men aged 18 to 25 years preferpersonal distance (46 cm - 1.2 m) while interacting with representatives of the same sexwhose age ranges from 18 to 50 years that mainly involves a visual eye contact to supportthe conversation. However, the introverts position themselves within 98 cm - 1.2 m whiletransferring or decoding messages, in other words, they tend to keep a more distance ofpersonal space while extroverts feel comfortable within 55 cm - 89 cm. In the intimatedistance (0-45 сm), which is usually characterized by a high trust, tactile contact and softspeech, only 7.5% of the research participants aged from 18 to 25 years acted effectivelyand only with the age group of 36 to 45 years.Another 14.0% of the participants feel comfortable within the distance of 1.2 m –3.6 m, i. e. in the social distance while interacting with men aged 46-50 years, and 10.1%of the participants chose the distance greater than 3.6 m. while interacting with thepersons of more than 50 years old.While regulating their own behavior with the opposite sex, 33.7% of men aged 1825 years develop interaction with their female peers and women aged 36-45 years withinintimate space of communication.While communicating with other age groups, 66.3% of men perform interactionwithin personal space (.46 сm - 1.2 m). Graphically the regulation of symbolic space whichis characteristic of the men aged 18-25 years is shown in Fig. 1.M. Kaitz; Y. Bar-Haim; M. Lehrer y E. Grossman, “Adult attachment style and interpersonaldistance”, Attachment & Human Development, Vol: 6 num 3 (2004): 285-304.DOI: 10.1080/14616730412331281520. y M. M. Mahniy, “Sociocultural determinants of humannonverbal behavior”, Visnik Chernigivskogo natsionalnogo pedagogichnogo universitetu byT. G. Shevchenko, Vol: 1 num 94, (2012): 276-280.19DR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 29568,47060504030142010,17,5100personal zoneintimate zonesocial zonepublic zoneFigure 1Regulation of symbolic space by persons aged 18-25 years in the “man-man”interaction link (%)The results of the experiment show that the men of 18-25 years age group comemuch closer to women than to men, while regulating their behavior. In this case nobodychose social or public space but preferred closer distance while positioning themselvestowards the photos of females. Therefore, for the male participants the age indicators ofbehavior regulation in the “man-man” interaction link are quite significant and an increasein age difference leads to an increase in proxemic distance of interaction between them.The analysis of the survey results concerning women aged 18-25 years showedthat their interaction in the “woman-man” link with 36-45 years old age group and olderthan 50 years falls into personal space in 53.8% of cases (see Fig. 2).DR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 29666,3706033,750403020100intimate zonepersonal zoneFigure 1Symbolic zone regulation by persons aged 18-25 years in the “man-woman”interaction link (%)Women feel comfortable interacting with the men aged 18-35 years in the intimatespace. The greatest distance at which the women aged 18-25 years felt comfortableinteracting with men was found for the men aged 46-50 years (9.8%) which was within thesocial space with an average of 2.45 m (see Fig. 3).53,8605036,44030209,8100intimate zonepersonal zonesocial zoneFigure 3Regulation of symbolic space by persons aged 18-25 years in the “woman-man”interaction link (%)DR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 297Examining the behavioral trends in the “woman-woman” link, in 87.7% of cases thewomen aged 18-25 interacted with women aged 18-45 years in the intimate space (seeFig. 4). Another 12.3% of women of the same age group interacted with the women aged46-50 years and older than 50 years within the personal space (1.10 m).87,790807060504012,33020100intimate zonepersonal zoneFigure 3Regulation of symbolic space by persons aged 18-25 years in the “woman-woman”interaction link (%)In comparison to the previous age group (see Table 1) the men aged 26-35 yearswho were examined interacting with each other in the “man-man” system at a greaterdistance.Age26-35years“Man-man” behavioral regulation (%)18-25 years26-35 years 36-45 7.746-50 yearsPb18.3ІPS12.538.712.5Pb36.350yearsand aboveІPS12.519.068.5Note: І – Intimate zone; P – personal zone; S – social zone; Pb – public zone.Table 1Regulation of symbolic space by men aged 26-35 years oldDR. OLEH KHMILIAR / DR. IHOR POPVYCH / DR. ANTONINA HRYS / DR. MARIYA PAVLIUK / DR. NATALIIA ZAVATSKADR. OLGA LYTVYNENKO / DR. OLENA BLYNOVA

REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 7 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2020Spatial Regulation of Personal Behavior under Conditions of the Accelerating COVID-19 Pandemic pág. 298Tabl

Rocío del Pilar Martínez Marín Universidad de Santander, Colombia Ph. D. Natalia Milanesio . Universidad de California Los Ángeles, Estados Unidos Dr. Francisco Luis Girardo Gutiérrez . The symbol captures the essence of a psychic phenome