Keywords
face
mimics
distance
touch
gestures
language
signs
COVID-19 pandemic
How to Cite
Abstract
The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed how people communicated. From day to day the public space started to be filled with signage unknown to people before.The character of the signage (visual-textual), aimed at enforcing a specific kind of behaviour, which to a large extent affected the most basic forms and ways of communication. It was assumed that the visual messages which were placed in the public space, could create a severe contradiction of intuitive innate human behaviour, mainly forcing people to implement unnatural behaviour. The signs analysed in the study referred to: 1.im- posed social distance of at least 1,5-2m; 2. imposed face covers – limiting non-verbal facial clues; 3. prohibition of certain gestures/greetings – imposition of the new ones; 4. promotion of hygenic habits – hands washing. Therefore, it was assumed that the quality of human communication could significantly deteriorate. Furthermore, it was also assumed that in addition to visual messages also the language used on signs could build a negative image of the public space and of any kind of interaction as creating dangerous health hazards. All of the above assumptions were analysed with the use of questionnaires and in reference to the theory concerning the meaning of space, distance, face mimics and gestures. Further, they served to assess the perception of the public space during the pandemic times.
References
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist 36, 715–729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.36.7.715
Baldwin, W. M. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin 112, 461–484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.3.461
Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination, behavior matching and interactional synchrony in fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. In: Feldman, R. S. & Rime, S. (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Crivelli, C., & Fridlund, A. J. (2018). Facial Displays Are Tools for Social Influence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22(5), 388–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.006
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The Repertoire or Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage and Coding. Semiotica 1, 49–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1972). Hand Movements. Journal of Communication 22(4), 353–374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1972.tb00163.x
Fidan, F. Z. (2017). The Islamic Veil, the Domestic Environment, and Femininity. In: Levine, M. P. (Ed.). Perception of Beauty, 189–204. IntechOpenDownloads. https://www.intechopen.com/books/5925.[accessed:17.09.2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69802
Grześkowiak, M. (2010). Trans-city or Inter-city? The co-existence of majority and minority languages in the urban space: a comparative case study of London and Warsaw linguistic landscapes. Scripta de Communicatione Posnaniensi. Poznań: Zakład graficzny UAM.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology 9.2(3), 83–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/200975
Henneberg, M., Simpson, E., & Stephan, C. (2003). Human Face in Biological Anthropology: Craniometry, Evolution and Forensic Identification. In: Katsikitis, M. (Ed.), The Human Face. Measurement and Meaning. Springer, Boston, MA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1063-5_2
Jack, R. E., & Schyns, Ph. G. (2015). The Human Face as a Dynamic Tool for Social Communication. Current Biology 25(14), 621–634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.052
Jałowiecki, B. & Szczepański, M. S. (2006). Miasto i przestrzeń w perspektywie socjologicznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR.
Janda-Dębek, B. (2003). Daleko czy blisko. Dystans interakcyjny w wybranych sytuacjach społecznych. Prace Psychologiczne LVI. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Psychologia społeczna. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. New York: Holt-Rinehart-Winston.
Marquardt, N., & Greenberg, S. (2012). Informing the Design of Proxemic Interactions. IEEE Pervasive Computing 11(2),14–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2012.15
Mheidly, N., Fares, M. Y., Zalzale, H., & Fares, J. (2020). Effect of Face Masks on Interpersonal Communication During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front Public Health 8:582191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.582191
Morreale, S. P, Spitzberg, B. H., & Barge, J. K. (2007). Komunikacja między ludźmi: motywacja, wiedza i umiejętności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Puppel, J., & Puppel, S. (2025). Going Beyond Words. An outline of nonverbal communication. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Schlögl, M., & Jones, Ch. A. (2020). Maintaining Our Humanity Through the Mask: Mindful Communication During COVID-19. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 68(5), 12–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16488
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Tuan, Y. (2001). Space And Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Marta Koszko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.