Interpersonal Distance in Immersive Virtual Environments

Digital immersive virtual environment technology (IVET) enables behavioral scientists to conduct ecologically realistic experiments with near-perfect experimental control. The authors employed IVET to study the interpersonal distance maintained between participants and virtual humans. In Study 1, participants traversed a three-dimensional virtual room in which a virtual human stood. In Study 2, a virtual human approached participants. In both studies, participant gender, virtual human gender, virtual human gaze behavior, and whether virtual humans were allegedly controlled by humans (i.e., avatars) or computers (i.e., agents) were varied. Results indicated that participants maintained greater distance from virtual humans when approaching their fronts compared to their backs. In addition, participants gave more personal space to virtual agents who engaged them in mutual gaze. Moreover, when virtual humans invaded their personal space, participants moved farthest from virtual human agents. The advantages and disadvantages of IVET for the study of human behavior are discussed.

[1]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.

[2]  Albert Mehbabian.  Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. , 1967 .

[3]  A. Mehrabian.  Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. , 1967, The Journal of communication.

[4]  Relationship between Sociability and Personal Space Preference at Two Different Times of Day , 1972, Perceptual and motor skills.

[5]  Bylaws of Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc , 1975 .

[6]  William Ickes,et al.  The Role of Sex and Self-Monitoring in Unstructured Dyadic Interactions , 1977 .

[7]  V. Noreika,et al.  Environmental Psychology , 2018 .

[8]  M. Walker,et al.  Interpersonal distance as a function of situationally induced anxiety. , 1978, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[9]  Shelley Masion Rosenberg.  Bodily Communication , 1978 .

[10]  L. Hayduk.  Personal space: Where we now stand. , 1983 .

[11]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy , 1984 .

[12]  M. Argyle.  Bodily communication, 2nd ed. , 1988 .

[13]  Judith A. Hall.  Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressive style. , 1990 .

[14]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .

[15]  Valerie Manusov,et al.  Reacting to Changes in Nonverbal Behaviors Relational Satisfaction and Adaptation Patterns in Romantic Dyads , 1995 .

[16]  F. Biocca,et al.  Communication in the age of virtual reality , 1995 .

[17]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[18]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Three Theories of Nonverbal Immediacy Exchange. , 1998 .

[19]  Mel Slater,et al.  Small group behaviour in a virtual and real environment , 1998 .

[20]  J. Loomis,et al.  Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[21]  Jae-Shin Lee,et al.  Isn't That Spatial?: Distance and Communication in a 2-D Virtual Environment , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[22]  Thomas A. DeFanti.  Better than Being There: Next Millennium Networks , 2000, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[23]  Ralph Schroeder,et al.  Small-Group Behavior in a Virtual and Real Environment: A Comparative Study , 2000, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[24]  K. Williams,et al.  Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Equilibrium Theory Revisited: Mutual Gaze and Personal Space in Virtual Environments , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[26]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Intelligent Agents Who Wear Your Face: Users' Reactions to the Virtual Self , 2001, IVA.

[27]  Crystal L. Hoyt,et al.  Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology , 2002 .

[28]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Gaze and task performance in shared virtual environments , 2002, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[29]  Marcel J. T. Reinders,et al.  Scale-invariant segmentation of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR images with inherent scale selection , 2002, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[30]  M. Patterson,et al.  Passing Encounters: Patterns of Recognition and Avoidance in Pedestrians , 2002 .

[31]  Jim Blascovich,et al.  A theoretical model of social influence for increasing the utility of collaborative virtual environments , 2002, CVE '02.

[32]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Nonverbal communication interface for collaborative virtual environments , 1999, Virtual Reality.