Gayoung Son
Aline Tiemann
Marius Rubo
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Cognitive Psychology, Perception and Research Methods, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- 2Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
Social VR is growing in popularity, with more users engaging in interactive VR platforms. A key aspect of these experiences is social presence, the feeling of being with others, which is essential in fostering meaningful connections and improving user engagement. While spatial presence and body ownership are considered important for social presence, interpersonal factors such as another person’s warmth or competence play an important role as well. In this study (N = 128), we examined the relationships between these four perceptions (spatial presence, body ownership, a partner’s warmth and competence) and social presence in social VR, both individually and while accounting for their combined effects. Multivariate analyses showed that spatial presence and partner warmth were robustly associated with social presence, whereas body ownership and competence were not significantly related to social presence. These patterns were consistent across interactions using anonymous avatars and non–anonymous avatars. We conclude that interpersonal perceptions, particularly warmth, should be considered alongside user experience variables when studying social presence. Furthermore, anonymized interactions in social VR likely preserve the underlying processes that support social presence.
1 Introduction
The number of users engaging with virtual reality (VR) applications is consistently increasing (Steam Charts, 2024). With the ongoing advancement of these technologies, social presence–the perception of being with others in the virtual environment–gains increasing importance as a crucial factor for enhancing the realism and effectiveness of social interactions, making virtual experiences more immersive and meaningful (Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022; van Brakel et al., 2023). To achieve a sense of social presence within a virtual context, certain prerequisites appear to be necessary. An individual may need to establish spatial presence within the virtual environment before experiencing social presence with others (Hartmann et al., 2015). Furthermore, considering the importance of body language in interactions, perception of body ownership in a virtual space might also be essential to attain presence (Gall et al., 2021). Indeed, higher levels of spatial presence and body ownership have been correlated with increased levels of social presence (Slater et al., 2010; Guy et al., 2023; Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022; Sykownik et al., 2023; Yassien et al., 2020).
While research often assessed the role of spatial presence and body ownership in VR, interpersonal factors such as perceived warmth and competence of others (Fiske et al., 2007) were also found to enhance social presence (Yoganathan et al., 2021). Indeed, individuals feel more socially present with agents if they display more realistic and empathetic behaviors, including interactive cues such as nodding, mutual gaze or longer eye contact (Aburumman et al., 2022; Sajjadi et al., 2019). Similarly, the perception of an agent’s competence has been robustly associated with factors related to social presence (Lee and Sun, 2022; Belanche et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2022). Thus, the manner in which the interaction partner engages and responds in VR appears to play a role in the sense of being present with them. Considering these interpersonal factors may be essential in gaining a deeper understanding of social interactions in virtual environments.
Although significant research has been conducted on spatial presence, body ownership, and social presence in VR, the relationship between these factors in real–time social VR interactions remains underexplored (Oh et al., 2018). Most studies focus on interactions with artificial agents, making it unclear whether the findings apply to scenarios involving human interaction partners (Oh et al., 2018; Bujic et al., 2021). Similarly, while the effect of perceived warmth and competence in social interactions was examined with artificial agents displayed on computer screens (McKee et al., 2024; Harris-Watson et al., 2023) or in virtual reality (Demeure et al., 2011), and even service robots (Belanche et al., 2021), research on how these perceptions manifest in human–to–human interactions within social VR remains limited. Furthermore, the experience of the virtual environment (spatial presence and body ownership) is likely interconnected with social perception (warmth and competence), highlighting the need for research in a comprehensive model.
To address this research gap, we examined dyadic interactions in social VR under both anonymized and non–anonymized conditions. We investigated variables influencing social presence, including spatial presence, body ownership, interaction partner’s perceived warmth and competence. We uniquely focused on human–to–human interactions in social VR, which utilized real–time expression of various non–verbal modalities such as head, eye and mouth movements as well as facial expressions and gestures.
2 Related work
2.1 Social interaction in virtual reality
Social VR allows people to interact in a virtual environment in a manner similar to real–life social interactions (Smith and Neff, 2018; McVeigh-Schultz et al., 2019; Maloney et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Son and Rubo, 2025), but, similarly to videoconferencing, allows for communication at a distance (Oh et al., 2023). Compared to traditional communication mediums, social VR has the potential to create a strong sense of presence and connection between users (Oh et al., 2023; Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022; van Brakel et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2022). As social VR platforms become more prevalent, understanding how to optimize social presence is crucial for designing immersive and engaging user experiences.
2.2 Social presence
Social presence is essential for creating realistic social interactions in VR, referring to the feeling of “being there with someone else” and implies a psychological connection with an interaction partner (Biocca et al., 2003; Short et al., 1976; Yoo and Alavi, 2001). This subjective experience is particularly crucial in social VR, where interaction–whether with a human or an agent–is the central defining feature (Oh et al., 2018). Social presence significantly influences individuals’ interactions in the virtual world, and its enhancement has been linked to positive outcomes such as improved user experiences (Moreira Kares et al., 2025), increased social relatedness (Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022), perception of social support (van Brakel et al., 2023), care and empathy (Cohen et al., 2021) as well as trust and enjoyment (Hassanein and Head, 2007; Ratan et al., 2022). Furthermore, higher social presence is associated with more realistic behaviors in VR, akin to face–to–face interactions (Oh et al., 2018). Therefore, maximizing social presence is essential for authentic social interactions and desired interpersonal outcomes in virtual environments (Kreijns et al., 2021; Slater et al., 2010).
2.3 Spatial presence and body ownership
Spatial presence refers to “the feeling of being there” and constitutes a significant user experience variable (Schubert, 2003; Slater, 2009). It reflects the extent to which users feel physically present in the virtual environment, rather than observing it externally (Hartmann et al., 2015). This sense of being “inside” the virtual world is foundational for creating immersive experiences and can occur even when the user is alone in the environment (Slater, 2009).
When users are represented in the virtual environment by means of an avatar, embodiment–the sense of experiencing the avatar as part of one’s own body–is important because the avatar serves as the primary channel for communication and expression. Having a virtual body is essential for social interactions, contributing to a natural user experience by enabling lifelike engagement through various non–verbal cues (Gonzalez-Franco and Peck, 2018; Smith and Neff, 2018). Higher embodiment has been consistently associated with increased presence (Slater et al., 2010; Slater, 2009; Schubert, 2003; Schubert et al., 2001).
Among the key dimensions of embodiment, body ownership is considered the most important (Mottelson et al., 2023), receiving the most attention due to its early and significant manipulation in experimental paradigms (Maselli and Slater, 2013; Ehrsson et al., 2005). Despite its importance, the social effects of embodiment, and body ownership in particular, remain understudied (Bujic et al., 2021).
Both spatial presence and body ownership have been consistently linked to social presence, with higher levels of presence and body ownership associated with enhanced social presence in virtual environments (Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022; Sykownik et al., 2023; Yassien et al., 2020; Guy et al., 2023; Slater et al., 2010). Based on these findings, we hypothesize that:
2.4 Perception of the interaction partner
Compared to VR environments in which the user is alone, social presence is significantly influenced by the characteristics of the interaction partner and users’ perceptions of them, extending beyond the immersive qualities of the medium (Oh et al., 2018). It is shaped not only by the medium’s ability to transmit social cues but also by the social affordances of the environment and group dynamics such as trust and cohesion (Kreijns et al., 2021; Short et al., 1976). It has been proposed that social presence emerges from the qualities of the interaction partner, particularly through intimacy (e.g., proximity, eye contact) and immediacy (e.g., warmth, interest) (Wiener and Mehrabian, 1968; Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997).
In fact, people feel more socially present in the virtual scene if the behavior of an agent is more realistic and warmer, such as through longer eye contact or nodding (Oh et al., 2018; Aburumman et al., 2022), indicating that social perceptions influence emotional and behavioral responses toward others, thereby shaping how users interact with others in virtual environments. A large body of research indicates that social perceptions can be organized along two broad factors: interpersonal warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2002; 2007; Cuddy et al., 2011), which together account for up to 73% of first impressions (Wojciszke, 1994; Cuddy et al., 2011).
Warmth, reflecting perceived friendliness and positive intentions (Fiske et al., 2007), is closely related to immediacy and plays a key role in enhancing social presence. Research shows that warmth and related attributes such as empathy (Morelli et al., 2015) and intimacy (Jolink et al., 2021) positively influence social interactions, even in interactions with service robots (Belanche et al., 2021) and agents displayed on 2D screens (McKee et al., 2024; Harris-Watson et al., 2023).
Competence reflects perceived ability and knowledge (Fiske et al., 2007; Legood et al., 2022; McAllister, 1995; Cook and Wall, 1980; Butler, 1991). Competent interaction partners are viewed as capable and efficient, which fosters collaboration and engagement (McAllister, 1995; Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002). In human-agent interactions, competence has been robustly linked to user expectations and behavioral intentions (Belanche et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2022), indicating that it may play an important role in enhancing social presence in social VR.
Although much research has focused on the effects of warmth and competence on social presence in human–agent and –robot interactions (Belanche et al., 2021; McKee et al., 2024; Harris-Watson et al., 2023; Lee and Sun, 2022; Schmid et al., 2022), less research has been conducted in the context of human–to–human interactions in virtual reality. An earlier study from Jin (2012) found that discrepancies in perceived partner attributes–such as competence–between face–to–face and avatar–based interactions negatively impact social presence. Based on previous work, we hypothesize that:
2.5 The role of anonymity
In social VR, avatars serve as a primary means of communication (Smith and Neff, 2018), and their resemblance–or lack thereof–to users’ real–world appearances can influence the importance of social cues (Rahill and Sebrechts, 2021; Hussain and Griffiths, 2008). Earlier research found that visual anonymity may reduce personal identity, increase reliance on group norms (Reicher et al., 1995; Spears and Lea, 1992), and lead to uninhibited, less normative behavior (Suler, 2004), potentially diminishing the role of individual warmth and competence on social presence. Consequently, the role of interpersonal variables such as warmth and competence may be less pronounced in anonymous settings, impacting their relationship to social presence in VR environments. Prior analyses found no significant differences in social presence, spatial presence, or body ownership between anonymous and non–anonymous conditions (Son and Rubo, 2025). This challenges the idea that anonymity alone drives behavioral changes in VR and highlights the need to explore its effects on interpersonal judgments and social dynamics more deeply. We therefore hypothesize that:
2.6 The present work
In a previously reported analysis (Son and Rubo, 2025), we observed that verbal and non-verbal patterns in social VR were comparable to those observed in face-to-face interactions, validating this artificial environment as a tool to study naturalistic interactions. Interestingly, an anonymization of the situation (realized by using generic as opposed to self–similar avatars in a non-anonymized condition) did not result in disinhibited social behavior, although such effects were observed in other forms of distance communication (Suler, 2004). The present analysis more deeply explores the sense of social presence in social VR interactions and how it relates to other experiences in virtual environments. Previous research suggests that spatial presence, body ownership, and interpersonal perceptions such as a partner’s perceived warmth and competence are likely interrelated in their associations with social presence due to their shared role in enhancing immersion and connection within a virtual environment (Sanchez-Vives and Slater, 2005; Oh et al., 2018). Here we assessed and directly compared these relationships in a comparatively large sample of participants interacting in a relatively realistic virtual setting. Specifically, our first aim was to assess the individual association of each variable with social presence, hypothesizing positive relationships. The second aim was to analyze their combined effects on social presence across conditions.
3 Methods
3.1 Participants
Self–reports from a user study involving 128 participants (105 women, 22 men, 1 undisclosed) were analyzed. The majority of the participants were students from the University of Bern, with a mean age of 22.60 years (SD = 3.57, 18–57). Participants were excluded if they could not speak the experimental language or otherwise experienced communication problems (9 dyads excluded and replaced). Participants were excluded if they had a relationship beyond casual acquaintance. While five participants (3.91%) indicated recognizing their partner and described them as someone they were acquainted with, none reported having a more personal relationship. Other exclusion criteria included neurological illnesses, use of medication affecting the central nervous system, or significant visual impairments. The majority of participants identified as Swiss nationals (119 participants, multiple nationalities possible; 92.97%). Seven participants reported non–European nationalities, including Afghanistan, Australia, Bolivia, Canada and New Zealand. 98 participants had one or no previous experience with VR (76.59%), and no participants regularly used VR.
3.2 Study procedure
Participants were randomly paired and interacted with each other in VR while embodying an anonymous (generic avatar) or a non-anonymous avatar (self-similar: an avatar resembling themselves). Each dyad was assigned to the same condition. Participants were physically separated and interacted only through the VR platform. For participants in the anonymous condition, an avatar matched for gender was randomly selected from a pool of existing avatars. For participants in the non-anonymous condition, personalized avatars from their portrait photo were generated, and manually adjusted for facial, hair, eye, and body details. Both avatar types included only the head, upper body, and white hand silhouettes, wearing identical white t-shirts.
Before interaction, participants answered demographic and baseline questionnaires. They then were introduced to the virtual environment individually and given time to get accustomed to their avatar (see Figure 1). A virtual mirror within the environment allowed participants to view their avatar appearance. Adjustments to avatar proportions and eye tracking were made based on participant feedback. After initiating the connection with the other participant, the experimenters left the room. All further instructions were provided with a pre–recorded computerized female voice and as keywords on a virtual display in the environment. Participants were instructed to hold a natural conversation on various different topics for 30 min. The duration of the conversation was informed by previous studies on dyadic interactions (e.g., Asher et al., 2020; Shatz et al., 2024). After the interaction in VR, participants completed questionnaires including social presence, spatial presence, body ownership as well as perceived warmth and competence of their interaction partner.
Figure 1
Figure 1. In Social VR, users share the same virtual environment (top image) while physically located in different places (bottom images). The top image shows the individuals interacting through the VR setup, while the bottom two images show the individuals photographed at the same time.
3.3 Hard– and software
For the VR experience, we used the Meta Quest Pro headset (Meta, 2024b), with a resolution of 1800 x 1920 and an update rate set to 90 frames per second. The virtual environment and networking were custom developed in Unity (Unity Technologies, 2024) using Fish-Net Networking (First Gear Games, 2024) and were run on a Windows 11 desktop laptop (32 GB RAM, Intel Core i9-13900HX CPU, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GPU). The network communication operated at a tick rate of 120 Hz. Participant behavior were tracked through built–in sensors of the headset and synchronized with the virtual avatar of the participant. The virtual avatars were generated using Character Creator 4 (Reallusion, 2024). Each virtual avatar was designed to accurately convey the participant’s behavior, including eye movements, blinking, facial expressions and gestures, driven by live–streamed data from Meta’s API (Meta, 2024a). In addition, Salsa Lip-Sync was utilized to enhance lip synchronizations (Crazy Minnow Studio, 2024) and Dissonance Voice Chat for voice chat (Placeholder Software, 2024). Avatars generated from portrait photos were exchanged between the computers using AvatarTransferPro (Rubo, 2024).
3.4 Measures
Social presence, the sense of being with an interaction partner in a virtual environment, was measured using the Social Presence Scale (SPS) (Herrera et al., 2018), with participants rating five items (e.g., “I felt like my partner was present”) on a 7-point scale (Cronbach’s
Spatial presence, the illusion of being in the virtual environment, was assessed with the General and Spatial Presence subscales of the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) (Schubert et al., 2001), using six items (e.g.,“In the computer-generated world I had a sense of being there”) rated on a 7-point scale
Body ownership, the sense of having a virtual body, was measured with the Body Ownership subscale of the Embodiment Questionnaire (Gonzalez-Franco and Peck, 2018), using five items (e.g., “It seemed as if I might have more than one body”) on a 7-point scale (
Warmth and competence were evaluated using the 4-item Stereotypes Scale (Cuddy et al., 2007), which measures perceptions of the interaction partner’s social traits. Warmth (“warm,” “friendly”) and competence (“competent,” “capable”) were rated on a five-point scale. Composite scores were calculated by averaging the respective items.
3.5 Data analysis
All analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2023). The variables were z-standardized to facilitate comparison of effects. The relationships between the dependent variables (presence, body ownership, perceived warmth, competence) and social presence was examined using linear regressions (H1-4). The relative contributions of dependent variables (H5-6) were assessed with multivariate regression analyses, conducted separately and combined for the anonymous and non-anonymous conditions. Multivariate regression estimated the relationship strength and direction between each variable and the outcome while accounting for the influence of other variables and the interrelationships among them. Significance was determined with an F-Test at an alpha of 5%.
4 Results
4.1 H1-4: Spatial presence, body ownership, warmth, and competence
As previously reported (Son and Rubo, 2025), there were no significant differences in mean spatial presence, body ownership, and social presence between anonymous and non-anonymous conditions. Similarly, mean perceived partner warmth (
A series of regression models were conducted to examine the relationship between the factors and social presence. A summary of the findings is shown in Table 1. Across the entire sample, analysis showed that presence, body ownership, and warmth were significant and positively associated with social presence. Both presence (
Table 1
Table 1. Regression analysis of factors associated with social presence by group. beta = standardized regression weight. Unique
In the results for the anonymous condition, presence was positively associated with social presence (
4.2 H5-6: Multivariate regression
Figure 2 shows the standardized regression coefficients illustrating the relationships between the dependent variables and social presence in three groups (anonymous, non–anonymous, and both conditions combined). The multivariate regression models for each group were statistically significant (anonymous:
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relationships between user experiences and interpersonal perceptions with the sense of social presence. Estimates are standardized beta coefficients reflecting the multivariate regression analyses. Values in brackets represent 95% confidence intervals. * indicates
The effect of presence was statistically significant and positive across both groups: anonymous (
When including condition as a predictor in the combined model, the results reinforced the previously observed pattern: presence (
5 Discussion
We investigated factors associated with the sense of social presence in dyadic interactions within social VR, contrasting spatial presence and body ownership with partner’s perceived warmth and competence. Dyads interacted using either anonymous or non–anonymous avatars. Overall, participants reported high levels of social presence, spatial presence, body ownership, warmth, and competence.
For Hypothesis 1, a clear pattern emerged: spatial presence was significantly associated with social presence in both the overall sample and within each condition (anonymous and non-anonymous). These findings align with previous research showing a positive relationship between spatial presence and social presence (Oh et al., 2018; Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022; Sykownik et al., 2023). The consistency across both conditions suggests that spatial presence is universally important for fostering a sense of social presence in virtual spaces, regardless of anonymity.
For Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, the patterns were less consistent. In Hypothesis 2, body ownership was significantly associated with social presence in the anonymous condition but did not reach significance in the non–anonymous condition. This finding partially supports prior studies, which have linked a stronger sense of body ownership to increased social presence with interaction partners (Guy et al., 2023; Slater et al., 2010; Yassien et al., 2020).
For Hypothesis 3, warmth was significantly associated with social presence in the overall sample and non–anonymous condition. In the anonymous group, the result was marginally significant, following the same pattern. This suggests that perceiving an interaction partner as warm and friendly contributes to a greater sense of social presence, consistent with prior findings (Cafaro et al., 2016; Randhavane et al., 2019).
In Hypothesis 4, partner competence was not significantly associated with social presence in the overall sample or anonymous condition, but reached significance in the non-anonymous condition. This partial finding regarding the role of competence aligns with earlier studies involving agents, which indicated that both warmth and perceived competence can affect interaction outcomes (Koelsch et al., 2021; McKee et al., 2024).
5.1 Multivariate relationships with social presence
Given the likely interrelationships among the variables, we conducted multivariate regression analyses to better understand their collective relationship with social presence. Indeed, the variables showed high intercorrelations, making it necessary to account for each other. When examined together, results were robust across both conditions (anonymous and non–anonymous), highlighting the necessity of considering these variables collectively when assessing their relationships with social presence.
For Hypothesis 5, social presence was significantly related to spatial presence and interpersonal warmth, but not to body ownership and interpersonal competence, partially confirming the hypothesis. Spatial presence was the most robust factor associated with social presence, closely followed by interpersonal warmth. These findings suggest that when participants interact with each other in the virtual space, their focus shifts more toward feeling present in the virtual environment and the perceived warmth of their interaction partner, rather than their own body or perceived competence of the partner. This aligns with the prominence of warmth as a key factor, potentially due to how participants allocate their attention and cognitive resources (Sweller, 2011) – when participants focus on the interaction with their partner, there may not be enough cognitive resources left to focus on their own bodies (Mojzisch et al., 2006).
Results did not support Hypothesis 6, which posited that the relationships between interpersonal variables and social presence would be weakened in anonymous interactions. Warmth remained a significant variable associated with social presence even when participants embodied anonymous avatars. This finding suggests that perceptions of the interaction partner’s warmth is highly related to the feeling of social presence regardless of anonymity, highlighting that warmth is crucial also in situations where identity cues are minimized.
The findings highlight the importance of both spatial presence and partner warmth for successful social interaction in virtual environments. Partner warmth, reflecting positive emotional engagement, plays a significant role, aligning with previous research suggesting that warmth is often valued over competence in social decision–making (Eisenbruch and Krasnow, 2022). According to Eisenbruch and Krasnow (2022), this preference for warmth may have evolved because, throughout human history, the warmth of potential cooperative partners was more predictive of future relationship benefits than competence, a priority that persists in social interactions today.
5.2 Limitations and future research directions
Here we report the importance of spatial presence and interpersonal warmth compared to body ownership and competence in fostering social presence during real–time interactions in social VR. This research aimed to address a gap in the field by focusing on human-to-human interactions in VR, an area that has received limited attention compared to interactions with artificial agents (Belanche et al., 2021; McKee et al., 2024; Harris-Watson et al., 2023; Lee and Sun, 2022; Schmid et al., 2022). By including mostly first-time VR users, we were able to examine the effects of multiple variables on social presence without a strong bias of user experience with VR. Familiarity and skill with VR applications may impact how easily users may feel socially present with interaction partners in VR, which should be investigated in future research.
Several factors constrain the extent to which our findings can be generalized. For example, different cultural norms around non-verbal behavior (such as the amount of eye-contact) may influence the relationship between perceived partner warmth and social presence which should be taken into account (Golson et al., 2021; Heinrichs et al., 2006). Previous research has shown that attitudes towards VR utilization are influenced by cultural differences (Monteiro et al., 2022) as well as differences in socioeconomic status and educational attainment (Xu et al., 2022), which may impact how users interact in social VR. Furthermore, the sample primarily consisted of female participants. Participants were psychology students from the University of Bern, albeit recruited from a larger pool of more than 1,300 potential interaction partners. Although none of the dyads reported knowing each other well beforehand, the knowledge that their partner is also a student may have influenced interactions, potentially affecting perceptions of social presence.
While we utilized programs which are currently easily accessible for research and capable of producing highly realistic avatars, the avatars were nonetheless limited in quality. Moreover, we only collected selfCreport data, which introduces typical limitations, including social desirability bias (Paulhus and Vazire, 2007). Indeed, the partner’s warmth and competence were rated very highly, which may also have been due to social desirability. It is also important to note that the study did not employ an experimental design aimed at predicting social presence, as it was a cross-sectional approach. Future research should systematically manipulate variables such as presence, body ownership, warmth, and competence to better understand their specific influences on social presence in social VR.
6 Conclusion
We analyzed self–reports from 128 participants who interacted in dyads within a newly developed social VR program. Social presence–the feeling of being present with the other in the virtual environment–was robustly associated with spatial presence and perceived warmth of the interaction partner, regardless of whether interactions were anonymous or non–anonymous. In contrast, body ownership and perceived competence were less influential, suggesting that their impact on social presence becomes negligible when spatial presence and warmth are considered. Future investigations into social presence and its contributing factors in social VR interactions may benefit from taking interpersonal perceptions into account.
Data availability statement
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://osf.io/qwbm8/files/osfstorage.
Ethics statement
This study was approved by the local ethics committee at the University of Bern (Ref-No. 2023–09–01). The study conformed to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. and was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
GS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Project administration, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. AT: Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. MR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation to MR (SNSF, Grant Number PZ00P1_208909).
Acknowledgments
We thank Luca Panico, Susanne Felder, Michelle Burki, Ana Rita Calcada da Silva and Michael Mozhacherry for their help in data collection.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aburumman, N., Gillies, M., Ward, J. A., and Hamilton, A. F. C. (2022). Nonverbal communication in virtual reality: nodding as a social signal in virtual interactions. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 164, 102819. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102819
Asher, M., Kauffmann, A., and Aderka, I. M. (2020). Out of sync: nonverbal synchrony in social anxiety disorder. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 8, 280–294. doi:10.1177/2167702619894566
Barreda-Angeles, M., and Hartmann, T. (2022). Psychological benefits of using social virtual reality platforms during the covid-19 pandemic: the role of social and spatial presence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 127, 107047. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107047
Belanche, D., Casalo, L. V., Schepers, J., and Flavian, C. (2021). Examining the effects of robots’ physical appearance, warmth, and competence in frontline services: the humanness-value-loyalty model. Psychol. and Mark. 38, 2357–2376. doi:10.1002/mar.21532
Biocca, F., Harms, C., and Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12, 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270
Bujic, M., Macey, A.-L., Järvelä, S., and Hamari, J. (2021). Playing with embodied social interaction: a thematic review of experiments on social aspects in gameful virtual reality. Interact. Comput. 33, 583–595. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwac012
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. J. Manag. 17, 643–663. doi:10.1177/014920639101700307
Cafaro, A., Ravenet, B., Ochs, M., Vilhjalmsson, H. H., and Pelachaud, C. (2016). The effects of interpersonal attitude of a group of agents on user’s presence and proxemics behavior. ACM Trans. Interact. Intelligent Syst. 6, 1–33. doi:10.1145/2914796
Cheng, R., Wu, N., Chen, S., and Han, B. (2022). “Reality check of metaverse: a first look at commercial social virtual reality platforms,” in 2022 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW) (IEEE), 141–148. doi:10.1109/vrw55335.2022.00040
Cohen, D., Landau, D. H., Friedman, D., Hasler, B. S., Levit-Binnun, N., and Golland, Y. (2021). Exposure to social suffering in virtual reality boosts compassion and facial synchrony. Comput. Hum. Behav. 122, 106781. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106781
Cook, J., and Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. J. Occup. Psychol. 53, 39–52. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
Crazy Minnow Studio (2024). Salsa lip-sync suite. Available online at: https://crazyminnowstudio.com (Accessed January 09, 2025).
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2007). The bias map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., and Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 31, 73–98. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004
Demeure, V., Niewiadomski, R., and Pelachaud, C. (2011). How is believability of a virtual agent related to warmth, competence, personification, and embodiment? Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 20, 431–448. doi:10.1162/pres_a_00065
Ehrsson, H. H., Holmes, N. P., and Passingham, R. E. (2005). Touching a rubber hand: feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. J. Neurosci. 25, 10564–10573. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0800-05.2005
Eisenbruch, A. B., and Krasnow, M. M. (2022). Why warmth matters more than competence: a new evolutionary approach. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1604–1623. doi:10.1177/17456916211071087
First Gear Games (2024). Fishnet networking for unity. Available online at: https://github.com/FirstGearGames/FishNet/ (Accessed January 09, 2025).
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., and Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cognitive Sci. 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., and Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Gall, D., Roth, D., Stauffert, J.-P., Zarges, J., and Latoschik, M. E. (2021). Embodiment in virtual reality intensifies emotional responses to virtual stimuli. Front. Psychol. 12, 674179. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674179
Golson, M. E., Ficklin, E., Haverkamp, C. R., McClain, M. B., and Harris, B. (2021). Cultural differences in social communication and interaction: a gap in autism research. Autism Res. 15, 208–214. doi:10.1002/aur.2657
Gonzalez-Franco, M., and Peck, T. C. (2018). Avatar embodiment. towards a standardized questionnaire. Front. Robotics AI 5, 74. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00074
Gunawardena, C. N., and Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. Am. J. Distance Educ. 11, 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970
Guy, M., Normand, J.-M., Jeunet-Kelway, C., and Moreau, G. (2023). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality and its assessment methods. Front. Virtual Real. 4. doi:10.3389/frvir.2023.1141683
Harris-Watson, A. M., Larson, L. E., Lauharatanahirun, N., DeChurch, L. A., and Contractor, N. S. (2023). Social perception in human-ai teams: warmth and competence predict receptivity to ai teammates. Comput. Hum. Behav. 145, 107765. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765
Hartmann, T., Wirth, W., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., and Böcking, S. (2015). “Spatial presence theory: state of the art and challenges ahead,”. Springer International Publishing, 115–135. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10190-3-7
Hassanein, K., and Head, M. (2007). Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 65, 689–708. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.018
Heinrichs, N., Rapee, R. M., Alden, L. A., Bögels, S., Hofmann, S. G., Ja Oh, K., et al. (2006). Cultural differences in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 44, 1187–1197. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.09.006
Hennig-Thurau, T., Aliman, D. N., Herting, A. M., Cziehso, G. P., Linder, M., and Kübler, R. V. (2022). Social interactions in the metaverse: framework, initial evidence, and research roadmap. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 51, 889–913. doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00908-0
Herrera, F., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., and Zaki, J. (2018). Building long-term empathy: a large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLOS ONE 13, e0204494. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204494
Hussain, Z., and Griffiths, M. D. (2008). Gender swapping and socializing in cyberspace: an exploratory study. CyberPsychology and Behav. 11, 47–53. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0020
Jin, S.-A. A. (2012). The virtual malleable self and the virtual identity discrepancy model: investigative frameworks for virtual possible selves and others in avatar-based identity construction and social interaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 2160–2168. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.022
Jolink, T. A., Chang, Y.-P., and Algoe, S. B. (2021). Perceived partner responsiveness forecasts behavioral intimacy as measured by affectionate touch. Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull. 48, 203–221. doi:10.1177/0146167221993349
Kanawattanachai, P., and Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J. Strategic Inf. Syst. 11, 187–213. doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(02)00019-7
Koelsch, L., Elisei, F., Ferrand, L., Chausse, P., Bailly, G., and Huguet, P. (2021). “Impact of social presence of humanoid robots: does competence matter?,” in Social robotics (Springer International Publishing), 729–739. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90525-5_64
Kreijns, K., Xu, K., and Weidlich, J. (2021). Social presence: conceptualization and measurement. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 139–170. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
Lee, S. K., and Sun, J. (2022). Testing a theoretical model of trust in human-machine communication: emotional experience and social presence. Behav. and Inf. Technol. 42, 2754–2767. doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2145998
Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., den Hartog, D., and van Knippenberg, D. (2022). A critical review of the conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical literature on cognition-based and affect-based trust. J. Manag. Stud. 60, 495–537. doi:10.1111/joms.12811
Maloney, D., Freeman, G., and Wohn, D. Y. (2020). Talking without a voice: understanding non-verbal communication in social virtual reality. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 4, 1–25. doi:10.1145/3415246
Maselli, A., and Slater, M. (2013). The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 83. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00083
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 24–59. doi:10.2307/256727
McKee, K. R., Bai, X., and Fiske, S. T. (2024). Warmth and competence in human-agent cooperation. Aut. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 38, 23. doi:10.1007/s10458-024-09649-6
McVeigh-Schultz, J., Kolesnichenko, A., and Isbister, K. (2019). Shaping pro-social interaction in vr: an emerging design framework. Proc. 2019 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (ACM) 19, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300794
Meta (2024a). Meta developer api. Available online at: https://developers.meta.com/horizon/ (Accessed: January 09, 2025).
Meta (2024b). Meta quest pro. Available online at: https://www.meta.com (Accessed: January 09, 2025).
Mojzisch, A., Schilbach, L., Helmert, J. R., Pannasch, S., Velichkovsky, B. M., and Vogeley, K. (2006). The effects of self-involvement on attention, arousal, and facial expression during social interaction with virtual others: a psychophysiological study. Soc. Neurosci. 1, 184–195. doi:10.1080/17470910600985621
Monteiro, D., Ma, T., Li, Y., Pan, Z., and Liang, H.-N. (2022). Cross-cultural factors influencing the adoption of virtual reality for practical learning. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 23, 1203–1216. doi:10.1007/s10209-022-00947-y
Moreira Kares, E., Tuomi, A., Caiola, V., Pillan, M., and Spallazzo, D. (2025). Social presence in shared virtual reality experience among older adults. Virtual Real. 29, 42. doi:10.1007/s10055-025-01117-0
Morelli, S. A., Lieberman, M. D., and Zaki, J. (2015). The emerging study of positive empathy. Soc. Personality Psychol. Compass 9, 57–68. doi:10.1111/spc3.12157
Mottelson, A., Muresan, A., Hornbaek, K., and Makransky, G. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of body ownership illusions in virtual reality. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interact. 30, 1–42. doi:10.1145/3590767
Oh, C. S., Bailenson, J. N., and Welch, G. F. (2018). A systematic review of social presence: definition, antecedents, and implications. Front. Robotics AI 5, 114. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00114
Oh, H. J., Kim, J., Chang, J. J., Park, N., and Lee, S. (2023). Social benefits of living in the metaverse: the relationships among social presence, supportive interaction, social self-efficacy, and feelings of loneliness. Comput. Hum. Behav. 139, 107498. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107498
Paulhus, D. L., and Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. Handb. Res. methods personality Psychol. 1, 224–239.
Placeholder Software (2024). Dissonance voice chat. Available online at: https://placeholder-software.co.uk/ (Accessed January 09, 2025).
Rahill, K. M., and Sebrechts, M. M. (2021). Effects of avatar player-similarity and player-construction on gaming performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 4, 100131. doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100131
Randhavane, T., Bera, A., Kapsaskis, K., Gray, K., and Manocha, D. (2019). Fva:modeling perceived friendliness of virtual agents using movement characteristics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25, 3135–3145. doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2932235
Ratan, R., Ucha, C., Lei, Y., Lim, C., Triwibowo, W., Yelon, S., et al. (2022). How do social presence and active learning in synchronous and asynchronous online classes relate to students’ perceived course gains? Comput. and Educ. 191, 104621. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104621
R Core Team (2023). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Reallusion (2024). Character creator 4. Available online at: https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/ (Accessed January 09, 2025).
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., and Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6, 161–198. doi:10.1080/14792779443000049
Rogers, S. L., Broadbent, R., Brown, J., Fraser, A., and Speelman, C. P. (2022). Realistic motion avatars are the future for social interaction in virtual reality. Front. Virtual Real. 2. doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.750729
Rubo, M. (2024). Avatartransferpro: a tool for automatic transfer of realistic personalized avatars in networked social virtual reality. SoftwareX 27, 101873. doi:10.1016/j.softx.2024.101873
Sajjadi, P., Hoffmann, L., Cimiano, P., and Kopp, S. (2019). A personality-based emotional model for embodied conversational agents: effects on perceived social presence and game experience of users. Entertain. Comput. 32, 100313. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2019.100313
Sanchez-Vives, M. V., and Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 332–339. doi:10.1038/nrn1651
Schmid, D., Staehelin, D., Bucher, A., Dolata, M., and Schwabe, G. (2022). Does social presence increase perceived competence?evaluating conversational agents in advice giving through a video-based survey. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 6, 1–22. doi:10.1145/3492845
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., and Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 10, 266–281. doi:10.1162/105474601300343603
Schubert, T. W. (2003). The sense of presence in virtual environments:: a three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness. Z. für Medien. 15, 69–71. doi:10.1026//1617-6383.15.2.69
Shatz, H., Asher, M., and Aderka, I. M. (2024). Catching a (sine) wave: temporal dynamics of nonverbal synchrony in social anxiety disorder. J. Anxiety Disord. 102, 102828. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102828
Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Slater, M. (2009). Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Front. Neurosci. 3, 214–220. doi:10.3389/neuro.01.029.2009
Slater, M., Spanlang, B., and Corominas, D. (2010). Simulating virtual environments within virtual environments as the basis for a psychophysics of presence. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 1–9. doi:10.1145/1778765.1778829
Smith, H. J., and Neff, M. (2018). Communication behavior in embodied virtual reality. Proc. 2018 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (ACM) 18, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173863
Son, G., and Rubo, M. (2025). Social virtual reality elicits natural interaction behavior with self-similar and generic avatars. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 199, 103488. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103488
Spears, R., and Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer- mediated communication. Contexts of computer-mediated communication. Editor Lea, M., (Hemel Hempsted United Kingdom: Wheatsheaf). 30–65.
Steam Charts (2024). VRChat - steam Charts. Available online at: https://steamcharts.com/app/438100#All (Accessed: January 11, 2024).
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behav. 7, 321C326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
Sweller, J. (2011). “Cognitive load theory,”. Elsevier, 37–76. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Sykownik, P., Karaosmanoglu, S., Emmerich, K., Steinicke, F., and Masuch, M. (2023). Vr almost there: simulating co-located multiplayer experiences in social virtual reality. Proc. 2023 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (ACM) 23, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581230
Unity Technologies (2024). Unity game engine. Available online at: https://unity.com (Accessed January 09, 2025).
van Brakel, V., Barreda-Angeles, M., and Hartmann, T. (2023). Feelings of presence and perceived social support in social virtual reality platforms. Comput. Hum. Behav. 139, 107523. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107523
Wei, X., Jin, X., and Fan, M. (2022). Communication in immersive social virtual reality: a systematic review of 10 years’ studies. Proc. Tenth Int. Symposium Chin. CHI (ACM) 2022, 27–37. doi:10.1145/3565698.3565767
Wiener, M., and Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within Language: immediacy, a channel in verbal communication
Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: construing actions in terms of competence or morality. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 67, 222–232. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.2.222
Xu, W., Liang, H.-N., Yu, K., Wen, S., Baghaei, N., and Tu, H. (2022). Acceptance of virtual reality exergames among Chinese older adults. Int. J. Human-Computer Interact. 39, 1134–1148. doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2098559
Yassien, A., ElAgroudy, P., Makled, E., and Abdennadher, S. (2020). A design space for social presence in vr. Proc. 11th Nordic Conf. Human-Computer Interact. Shap. Exp. Shap. Soc. (ACM) 20, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3419249.3420112
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V.-S., H. Kunz, W., and Toporowski, W. (2021). Check-in at the robo-desk: effects of automated social presence on social cognition and service implications. Tour. Manag. 85, 104309. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104309
Keywords: social presence, spatial presence, body ownership, interpersonal perception, warmth, competence, anonymity, social virtual reality
Citation: Son G, Tiemann A and Rubo M (2025) I am here with you: an examination of factors relating to social presence in social VR. Front. Virtual Real. 6:1558233. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2025.1558233
Received: 09 January 2025; Accepted: 14 March 2025;
Published: 31 March 2025.
Edited by:
Nadia Magnenat Thalmann, University of Geneva, SwitzerlandReviewed by:
Richard Skarbez, La Trobe University, AustraliaHai-Ning Liang, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China
Copyright © 2025 Son, Tiemann and Rubo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Gayoung Son, Z2F5b3VuZy5zb25AdW5pYmUuY2g=