Communication in virtual environments: The influence of spatial cues and gender on verbal behavior

RUNNING HEAD: SPATIAL CUES AND GENDER ON VERBAL BEHAVIOR 1

Communication in Virtual Environments: The Influence of Spatial

Cues and Gender on Verbal Behavior

Jennifer Wua, Erica Mattinglyb, & Philipp Kraemera

Departments of Psychologya and Modern and Classical Languages,

Literatures and Culturesb

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY, USA 40506

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


Corresponding author:Jennifer WuDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of [email protected]

Abstract

As communication technologies continue to evolve, more

people will engage in virtual social interactions. With this

trend comes an increasing need for research on behavior within

virtual worlds. This study contributes to that agenda by focusing

on the influence of physical attributes of a virtual setting and

gender on verbal behavior expressed by mixed-gender dyads in a

virtual world. Computerized text analyses revealed linguistic

differences as a function of both the physical and social

complexity of virtual settings and gender. The latter differences

included both quantitative and qualitative features of written

communication. These results add important new discoveries to the

literature on virtual psychology and highlight the value of using

text analysis tools to investigate virtual interactions.


Key Words: Virtual Environments, Linguistic Analysis, Language,

Second Life, Social Context, Gender Differences, Spatial Cues,

Social Interaction

1. Introduction

The focus of the present study is the question of how

characteristics of an online Virtual World (VW) affect verbal

behavior in social interactions. The technological developments

of the past two decades have introduced new opportunities for

online communication and social connection. Especially popular VW: Virtual WorldAP: Amusement Park


among these venues are VWs. The value and potential of VWs for

social connection lies in part on the opportunity these platforms

provide for business, education, and clinical applications due to

their cost-effective, physically safe, and geographically-

accessible affordances (Yee, 2014). Computer-mediated

communication in general has been shown to produce healthy, long-

lasting social interactions. People who have communicated through

computer-mediated systems prior to meeting face-to-face report

greater likeability and intimacy for their partner (Ramirez &

Zhang, 2007).

Utilizing VWs for social connection can be particularly

beneficial for individuals who might have difficulty socializing

in the real world (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013). For example, shy

individuals have been found to experience less communication

apprehension in interactions within a VW (Hammick & Lee, 2014).

Further, online communication facilitates lasting connections

that transfer into the physical world (Yee, 2014). The potential

applications and effectiveness of using VW for positive and

beneficial social interactions drive the need for continued

research on the psychological impact of VW attributes.


VWs enable both the graphic representation of users through

virtual “bodies” called avatars and the creation of virtual

locations that are both true to and unique from physical

environments. Through customization of avatar appearance, a user

can immerse in a VW, feeling and acting as though they are

physically present in virtual space and experiencing interactions

that occur there (Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005; You & Sundar,

2013). Immersion in a VW functions through different types of

presence: physical presence, social presence, and co-presence,

all of which are positively correlated and lead to greater

satisfaction (Bulu, 2012).

Our study focuses on two types of presence. Physical presence is

defined as a stronger sense of ‘being there’ in the virtual

space, a sensation similar to what individuals experience by

being in a specific location in the real world (Held & Durlach,

1992; Ijsselsteijn, de Ridder, Freeman, & Avons, 2000). Social

presence is the sense of being amongst others who are also

immersed in the same VW space controlling their own avatars (Held

& Durlach, 1992; Ijsselsteijn et al., 2000). Both kinds of

presence have been found to lead to positive social interaction


outcomes (Slater, Sadagic, Usoh, & Schroeder, 2000). Sallnas

(2005) demonstrated that participants perform better on a

collaborative, decision-making activity within an environment

that elicits greater physical and social presence. The

established connection between presence and positive interaction

outcomes prompts examination of how greater presence might

influence virtual interactions in ways that lead to beneficial

application of VW for other endeavors.

Individuals clearly exhibit sensitivity to aspects of online

environments by continuously frequenting particular online spaces

they like when seeking to develop social relationships (Levine,

2000). Different degrees of physical and social presence fostered

by aspects of virtual environments can contribute to differential

preferences for particular online spaces used to meet new people

and establish connections. Prior research has established that a

higher number of spatial cues (a larger number of three-

dimensional visual simulations of objects) can induce greater

physical and social presence. Just like in the real world, visual

stimuli and objects in a virtual environment provide context for

the activities that occur within it, fostering physical presence.


Individuals report increased physical presence, social presence,

enjoyment, and overall satisfaction after immersion in a virtual

environment with more spatial cues (Horvath & Lombard, 2010).

Goel, Johnson, Junglas, and Ives (2013) explain the connection

between spatial cues and social interaction by the Spatial Model

of Interaction and Awareness-Attention Theory (Benford & Fahlen,

1993; Davenport & Beck, 2001). The former posits that properties

of virtual environments provide cues fundamental to interactions

within them; Awareness-Attention Theory suggests that individuals

will be aware of these environmental cues and will consequently

become more attentive to subsequent interactions in those

environments. By shifting awareness to attention, Goel et al.

(2013) suggests that individuals experience deeper immersion in

environments permeated with spatial cues. Therefore, aspects of

the virtual environment, as true of real environments, shape the

way an individual perceives a location and provides a social

context for the virtual interactions in that space.

As theory suggests that spatial cues can be a critical

component to meaningful virtual experiences, our study explores

how the presence or absence of these cues can influence verbal


behavior. Our study aims to expand previous findings that used

self-report measures by utilizing indices of verbal behavior as

indicators of social interaction. If increased physical presence

leads to increased social presence and more spatial cues lead to

greater immersion and stronger social context, then we

hypothesize that individuals in an environment with more spatial

cues will experience a stronger social connection with others

that they meet there. Consequently, they will display different

verbal behaviors during the virtual interaction depending on the

amount of social presence and the social context invoked by the

environment. We expect those differences to be characterized by

measures of collaborative dialogue that will increase in an

environment with more spatial cues.

Another important dimension of this study concerns gender.

Many real world studies found evidence supporting gender

differences in verbal behavior. For instance, some studies have

found that men emit more spatial references (Mulac & Lundell,

1994) and women have a tendency to organize shorter sentences by

often omitting linguistic function words, such as pronouns and

prepositions (Pennebaker, 2011; Kucukyilmaz, Cambazoglu, Aykanat,


& Can, 2006). Online spaces offer venues where novel gender

influences and dynamics can develop that might vary from trends

found in the real world. Men particularly have been found to

dominate online forum discussions with greater verbosity -

sometimes to the point where women will leave online spaces

(Herring, 2000; Sussman & Tyson, 2000). Clearly, the influence of

gender is an especially critical variable in virtual

interactions, but this variable has yet to be extensively

explored.

The results of a study by Fox, Bailenson, and Tricase (2013)

support the value of investigations of gender as a factor in

virtual interactions. This study revealed that women who embodied

female avatars with hyper-sexualized appearances experienced

shifts in self-perception that resulted in more body-related

thoughts and greater rape myth acceptance. Such findings indicate

that not only does gender influence experience within a VW, but

also that aspects of gender relevant to real world social norms

and culture (rape myth acceptance) can play a role in VW

experiences. Accordingly, we examined whether males and females

express differences in verbal behavior in mixed-gender virtual


interactions. Further, we examined whether such differences might

be modulated by the presence of spatial cues within a virtual

environment.

We utilized automated text analysis to measure differences

in verbal behavior as a function of spatial cues in the virtual

environment and gender. Despite its rich potential, text analysis

of discourse in VWs has not received much attention. The present

study used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), one of the

most popular automated text analysis tools in use today

(Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007). This program makes it

possible to compute basic linguistic statistics (e.g., overall

word count, words per sentence), assignment of linguistic

function (e.g., parts of speech, and separation of words into

dimensional categories), linguistic psychological referents

(e.g., cognitive and social processes), and frequency of common

content category references (e.g., work, money, space). These

analytical dimensions are collated in terms of 74 linguistic

categories that compute relative category occurrences

(percentages) with respect to the entire text sample. Although

some categories are purely grammatical, such as ‘a,’ ‘an’ and


‘the’ representing the ‘articles’ class, more abstract

categories, such as indicants of social processes, are computed

by LIWC by categorizing words from predetermined dictionaries.

For example, words registered as being related to ‘death’ include

‘bury,’ ‘coffin’ and ‘kill’ (Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer,

2003).

Two studies encourage our study of presence promoted by

spatial cues and gender influences on verbal behavior. Heller &

Proctor (2014) analyzed differences in conversations of

individuals who chatted with Freudbot, a computer agent

simulating Freud, in a VW location or through a text-only medium.

Those conversations which occurred in VW were significantly

higher in particular measures of LIWC categories: personal

pronouns, cognition, biology, past, and present. Such evidence

demonstrates that differences in verbal behavior can be detected

in short-term, undirected interactions. More directly related to

our current study, Kramer, Oh, & Fussell (2006) found significant

variations in specific measures of conversation logs related to

four different conditions of computer-mediated communication that

differed in levels of presence. Participants were given the task


of collaborating to assemble a robot. The medium was either audio

only, video conferencing with the camera focused on the

workspace, video conferencing that included the ability to draw

on the video feed, or face-to-face. Self-reported presence scores

correlated positively with the use of 'we' pronouns and

correlated negatively with the use of 'you' pronouns, supporting

the idea that greater presence promotes collaboration in

interactions. Additionally, presence scores also correlated

positively with increased use of references to local and remote

space (deixis). Such evidence demonstrates the link between

verbal behavior and the presence invoked by virtual environments

and indicates that linguistic metrics can be utilized in

investigations of how virtual environments can shape the social

interactions that occur within them.

Kramer et al. (2006) prompts our examination of various

measures of linguistic behavior through LIWC that we couple with

an investigation of whether gender factors in verbal behavior

differences. We anticipate that differences in linguistic metrics

related to collaboration and inclusion will arise similar to

Kramer et al’s (2006) findings of presence with “we” and “you”


pronouns. Our study aims to expand our understanding of how

presence, increased in an easily manipulated way, can influence

social interactions and include gender, a well-established factor

in verbal behavior, in that examination.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Thirty-two participants from a pool of students at the

University of Kentucky, half of them male and half of them

female, were given course credit for their participation. This

study used a 2x2 mixed-factor design. The within-subjects

variable consisted of the virtual environment in which the social

interaction occurred: Amusement Park (AP) or Lab. The between-

subjects factor was gender. Participants were divided randomly

into two groups that differed in terms of the order in which they

experienced the two environments. Their partner in each setting

was a different avatar controlled by the same real world

confederate.

2.2. Materials

The VW utilized for this experiment, Second Life (SL), can

be downloaded free of charge at the website, www.secondlife.com.


SL is intended for general public use and utilizes a desktop

interface with a keyboard and mouse control. The procedure for

this study involved three separate SL locations and a physical

test room that contained a table with a desktop computer and two

chairs. The three SL locations included a starting location and

two locations in which interactions occurred. The starting

location was a simple conference room space with tables. The Lab

environment was an enclosed room with minimal visual stimuli or

characteristics that would promote conversation. The Lab had dark

walls and no interactive content other than a couch and chairs on

which the two avatars could sit. The AP, on the other hand, had a

wealth of interactive objects including carnival games and a

variety of moving, flashing visual stimuli. There were also

virtual objects that avatars could touch to receive messages,

acquire content, or explore for entertainment (e.g., AP rides and

a fun house).

The confederate used different avatars in each interaction

(shown in Figure A). Appearance customization in SL can be

accomplished through choosing from one of many default avatar

options, which range from human or animal to vehicle or fantasy


characters. SL avatar appearances can be further changed by using

editing menus to adjust appearance and characteristics such as

height and size of the nose. The avatars used by the confederate

in this experiment were human and always of the opposite gender

of the participant.

2.3. Procedure

Participants were told that the experimental procedure

examined social interaction in a virtual environment and that

they had been assigned two different conversation partners who

were also participants (actually a confederate). The participant

was brought into the physical test room where the experimenter

sat next to the participant at the computer and guided them

through the study. The experimenter helped the participant log

into SL using an account pre-made for this study and familiarized

them with the SL interface. Participants freely chose an avatar

from among the default appearance options. When the participant

became confident using the SL controls, the experimenter

instructed them to teleport to their first location where the

confederate awaited them, appearing as a human avatar of the

opposite gender of the participant. Participants interacted with


the confederate avatar during two successive interactions: one

within the AP and one in the Lab. The order of the locations was

counterbalanced. Each of the two interactions lasted for 10

minutes.

The participant and confederate communicated through a text

messaging system available within SL. The confederate followed

scripted guidelines for the interaction. The confederate’s

primary task was to facilitate collaborative exploration of the

environment and engage the participant in conversation about the

environment and the VW in general. For that purpose, the

confederate asked targeted questions such as: What do you want to

do? What do you think of this place? Should we check it out?

Conversation logs were recorded for each interaction.

2.4. Measures

Each participant's contribution to conversations with the

confederate were transcribed and analyzed with LIWC. Each

participant's written responses were summarized according to

scores of LIWC categories related to their overall participation

in conversation, categories previously used in Kramer et al’s

(2006) study, and categories that indicate collaboration. Thus,


we report scores for the following measures: (1) Word Count (WC),

tabulated as the total number of words each participant expressed

within their conversation; (2) First Person Plural Pronouns (FPP)

such as ‘we’, ‘our’, ‘us’; (3) Second Person Pronouns (SPP) such

as ‘you’ and ‘your’; (4) frequency of terms referring to

characteristics of locative position (SPACE), such as ‘here’,

‘down’, ‘empty’; (5) frequency of Inclusive reference terms

(INCL), such as ‘with’, ‘and’, and ‘also’; (6) frequency of

language indicating agreement (ASSENT), such as ‘ok’, ‘sure’, and

‘I agree’; (7). frequency of Exclusive reference terms (EXCL),

such as ‘except’, ‘but’, and ‘without’;

3. Results

Separate multivariate ANOVAs were calculated using a split-

plot design for each of the 7 linguistic variables in addition to

effect sizes. The two independent variables for these analyses

consisted of Gender and Virtual Environment (VE). For WC, the

Gender x VE interaction was statistically significant, F(1,29) =

13.8, p < .01. In addition, both the main effect of Gender,

F(1,29) = 6.97, p < .02, and VE, F(1,29) = 122.87, p < .01, were

also statistically significant. As can be seen in Table A,


females expressed more words than males in both environments, but

the differences between the genders was greatest in the Lab as

demonstrated by the large effect size shown in Table B (Cohen,

1988).

A subset of our analyses examined measures aimed to

replicate Kramer et al.’s (2006) findings of presence correlating

with higher use of ‘we’ pronouns, lower use of ‘you’ pronouns,

and an increased use of words associated with physical space. Our

measures were respectively FPP, SPP, and SPACE. Results indicated

a significant effect of VE on FPP (F(1,29)=12.22, p < .01), but

neither Gender or the Gender x VE interaction was significant.

There were higher FPP scores by both genders in the AP with a

large effect size in females and a medium effect size in males

between the two environments (See Table B). For SPP, there was no

significant main effect of Gender or VE nor was the Gender x VE

interaction significant, although there was a medium effect size

between genders in AP. For SPACE scores, only the main effect of

Gender was significant, F(1,29) = 9.22, p < .01. Tables A and B

illustrate that men employed more references to SPACE with a

large effect size for the differences between the environments


and a medium effect size for the differences between the

environments for females.

There was no significant difference in INCL scores due to

Gender or VE, nor was the Gender x VE interaction significant. In

terms of ASSENT, evidence was found for a significant main effect

of VE, F(1,29) = 9.72, p < .01, with a large effect size for

females and a medium effect size for males (See Table B). Table A

indicates that more ASSENT terms were expressed by both genders

in the AP. For EXCL scores, there was a significant main effect

of VE, F(1,29) = 5.29, p < .03. Table A illustrates that EXCL

scores were higher in the Lab than the AP. A large effect size

between groups of males in the two different VE (shown in Table

B) indicates that verbal behavior in male participants within the

Lab and AP drive the main effect.

Furthermore, a qualitative examination of the conversation

logs was conducted by generating word clouds for the different VE

conditions in this study to further illuminate what kind of

dialogue contributed to the differences in measures associated

with collaboration. Creating the word clouds was accomplished

through the use of RStudio with the word cloud package.


Beforehand, the raw text was stripped of white space,

punctuation, numbers, and linguistic function words (words

necessary to connect sentences for overall meaning but have

little semantic content, i.e. articles, prepositions, or

conjunctions). Thus, only words with words with heavy semantic

content appear in the word clouds, unlike ‘the’ or ‘and.’ For the

purposes of this study, we decided to also strip the terms

‘haha’, ‘yeah’, ‘lol’, ‘sure’, ‘yea’, and ‘hahah’ from the raw

data, as these are likely evidence of phatic conversation rather

than content. Through the word cloud package, we set the

frequency threshold for inclusion so that only words, out of

those not previously excluded, with a minimum frequency of 5 or

above would appear in the word cloud.

A word cloud was created from the dialogue for each

environment to further illustrate the differences in conversation

implied by findings of ASSENT, FPP, and EXCL. Through this

method, we could gather insight on the word frequency trends

while also depicting the variance in WC across each gender and

environment. Figure B and C show the word cloud generated from

the interactions in AP and Lab respectively. The AP word cloud


shows fewer words and the most frequent word is ‘yes’. Other

prominent words are ‘lets’, ‘hey’, and ‘can’, while words that

particularly stand out for contributing to a theme include

‘ride’, ‘avatar’, ‘see’, and ‘around’, which suggest

conversations about SL and exploration. The word cloud from the

Lab included a greater variety of words with the most frequent

including ‘thats’, ‘just’, ‘know’, and ‘like’. Words also

appeared that related to student life, possibly arising because

all participants were students and had such experiences in

common, such as ‘psych’, ‘school’, and ‘major’.

4. Discussion

This study examined whether linguistic patterns in dyadic VW

interactions are influenced by the amount of visual stimuli or

spatial cues within the virtual environment and the participant's

gender. Conversation logs were analyzed with the text analysis

program LIWC (Pennebaker et al., 2007) in terms of seven pre-

selected measures. The measures were selected based on the aims

of our study to replicate previous findings of Kramer et al.

(2006) and our interest in verbal behavior reflective of

collaboration and community. We included measures of FPP, SPP,


and SPACE, which Kraemer et al.’s (2006) study established are

correlated with presence. The results indicate that both gender

and the amount of spatial cues in the virtual environment affect

verbal behavior. In some cases, the impact of these variables was

consistent with previous research, but in other cases, our

findings deviated from past work.

With respect to the aim of this study to replicate past

research related to presence through the influence of spatial

cues and visual stimuli in the virtual environment, several

findings emerged. Results of our study align with the trend found

by Kramer et al. (2006) and replicated by Heller & Proctor

(2014), suggesting that increasing presence led to greater use of

particular verbal behaviors. For both genders, measures of FPP

were higher in the AP than the Lab and effect sizes indicate that

this difference is particularly robust in both males and females.

This finding aligns with our hypothesis that the manipulation of

spatial cues leads to greater social context and increases

presence. What is incongruent with Kramer et al.’s (2006) study

is that we found no effects for SPP and no VE effect for SPACE.


We did find a main effect of gender on SPACE scores, which

contrasts with results found in the real world (Newman et al.,

2008). This result demonstrates the value of VWs to provide an

additional medium in which to examine behaviors and phenomenon

found in the real world. As we did not design our study to

isolate the influence of gender on verbal behavior, we limit our

interpretation of this deviance from trends found in the real

world. We highlight with this finding the contribution of VW

technology to the research of psychological phenomena studied in

the real world.

In addition to our findings for FPP, ASSENT scores were

higher in the AP than the Lab with a robust difference indicated

by a medium effect size. This pattern of results is consistent

with the hypothesis that being in the AP induced more

collaborative interaction within the dyads resulting in a more

positive interaction than occurred in the Lab. As predicted,

these measures indicate greater use of cooperative terms such as

'we', 'ok', 'I agree.' That participants are sensitive to the

virtual settings in which they interact and adjust their verbal

behavior accordingly supports the Spatial Model of Interaction


and Awareness-Attention Theory (Goel et al., 2013; Benford &

Fahlen, 1993; Davenport & Beck, 2001). Participants do indeed

appear to immerse psychologically in the simulated environments

in which they find themselves and act differently in environments

with differing numbers of spatial cues.

Increased use of FPP and ASSENT terms suggests heightened

social presence, which reaffirms the connection between presence

and spatial cues uncovered by Horvath & Lombard (2010) and the

ability of VW to evoke psychological realism (Jarmon, 2009). In

addition to our quantitative measures of FPP and ASSENT, we refer

to our wordclouds in understanding what substantial differences

occurred in conversations within the two VE. Our collection of

words frequently used in the AP include very few nouns and

indicate amicable conversation referencing aspects of the

environment such as avatars and “ride”, presumably an object or

invitation to interact with the carnival attractions. The most

frequently used word, ‘yes’, shows high agreeableness from the

participant. Thus, evidence suggests the interpretation that

conversations focused on engaging together within the VE. The

word cloud from the Lab demonstrates that conversations did not


extend far beyond topics that would be discussed in real world

meetings. Most nouns referred to school and everyday

pleasantries, suggesting small-talk conversation more than

engaging interactions.

Although we found no significant difference in participants’

use of INCL references between the two environments, EXCL scores

were higher for both genders in the Lab than the AP. Terms in

this category reflect a heightened use of language implying

exclusion where they are continually emphasizing omission of a

concept, e. g. ‘without,’ ‘except,’ or ‘but.’ Aligning with our

conclusion for increased sense of collaboration in the AP, the

use of these terms suggests that the speaker is less open and

cooperative. Therefore, the higher EXCL scores in the Lab might

indicate that interactions within that environment did not

generate a sense of collaboration or rapport with their partner.

Analogous to our conclusion regarding more positive interactions

in the AP, we suggest that the lack of spatial cues in the Lab

environment resulted in lessened social presence, which

consequently made participants feel less comfortable with their

confederate partner.


In examining interactions between gender and virtual

environment, females were found to express more words than males

in each of the two environments, but the discrepancy between the

genders was more pronounced in the Lab, an environment with fewer

spatial cues. The main effects and the interaction for this

measure showed impressively large effect sizes. This pattern

deviates from what has been found in the real world (Newman et

al., 2008), and it demonstrates how computer-mediated

communication can offer opportunities to redefine basic

linguistic patterns in social interactions. Specifically, the

spatial cues of the virtual setting modulated the magnitude of

the gender difference in words expressed. Interestingly, more

words were expressed in the comparatively bland Lab. One

explanation for this difference is that the AP elicited more

behaviors that competed with verbalization. Perhaps while being

more engaged in the environment, participants were less invested

in conversation. Alternatively, the lack of stimulation in the

Lab may have fostered more conversation. These hypotheses deserve

further examination.

4.1. Conclusions


Given the aims of this study to examine the influence of

spatial cues and physical presence in virtual interaction as well

as offer a VW counterpart to the real world literature on

location and gender in verbal behavior, our study did not include

measurements of immersion. As such, attribution of the

differences found in verbal behavior between the Lab and AP

environments to greater social presence can only be speculated

based on theory. In addition, stability of verbal measures

examined through LIWC has not been established within SL (Yee,

Harris, Jabon, & Bailenson, 2011), so this study only included

conversation logs from one conversation.

While this study can illustrate immediate differences in

verbal behavior due to the amount of spatial cues in the

environment, a more thorough examination is needed to determine

whether those differences would continue in a lengthier virtual

acquaintance or over repeated conversations. Our quantitative

analyses of LIWC measures demonstrate robust effect sizes for all

significant effects found. A caution for interpretation must be

made that while they indicate the value of text analysis and

provide behavioral measures of presence, they are limited in the


scope of what they can reveal about social interactions as a

whole. Further research must be made to verify the implications

that spatial cues can directly and definitively lead to more

positive social connection in virtual interactions.

The value of the current study lies in the findings that

deviate from what is found in the real world and provide evidence

from virtual environments pertinent to phenomena for which

conflicting results have been found in the real world, namely WC

and SPACE. Virtual environments may offer a space where we can

interact that is isolated from real-world dynamics or

communication patterns that impede positive, productive

interactions. Given the evidence that manipulating spatial cues

in an environment can influence verbal behavior indicative of

collaboration, future research investigating whether spatial cues

and social contexts of environments can be conducive to community

activities such as group learning or support groups may reveal

beneficial uses of VW.


References


Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2013). The social net: Understanding our

online behavior, (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Benford, S.D. & Fahlen, L.E. (1993) A spatial model of

interaction in large virtual environments. In: Proceedings of

the Third European Conference on CSCW IEC- SCW’93, Milano,

Italy.

Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence,

and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 58(1),

154-161.

Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2012). Linguistic Inquiry and

Word Count (LIWC): Pronounced “Luke,” . . . and Other Useful

Facts. In P. McCarthy, & C. Boonthum- Denecke (Eds.) Applied

Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation and Resolution (pp.

206-229). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Curtis, A. R. (2010). Why and How to Get Started in a Virtual

World. Retrieved from:

http://www2.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/ResourcesForCourses/

PDFs/ Why_and_How_To_Get_Started_in_a_Virtual_World.pdf


Davenport, T. & Beck, D. (2001) The Attention Economy:

Understanding the New Currency of Business. Harvard Business

School Press, Boston, MA, USA.

Fox, J., Bailenson, J. N., & Tricase, L. (2013). The embodiment

of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences

of self-objectification via avatars. Computers in Human

Behavior, 29(3), 930-938.

Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I., & Ives, B. (2013) Predicting

users’ return to virtual worlds: a social perspective.

Information Systems Journal, 23, 35-63.

Hammick, J. K., & Lee, M. J. (2014). Do shy people feel less

communication apprehension online? The effects of virtual

reality on the relationship between personality characteristics

and communication outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 302-

310.

Held, R. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Telepresence. Presence:

Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1 (1), 102-112.

Heller, B., & Procter, M. (2014). Conversational Agents in

Virtual Worlds: Immersion and the Conversational Record. Inter-


Disciplinary.Net. Retrieved from: http://www.inter- disciplinary.net/at-the-

interface/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/heller-procter_elvw4.pdf.

Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and

implications. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

Journal, 18(1).

Hirsh, J.B., & Peterson, J.B. (2009). Personality and language

use in self-narratives. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 524-527.

Horvath, K., & Lombard, M. (2010). Social and Spatial Presence:

An Application to Optimize Human-Computer

Interaction. PsychNology Journal,8(1), 85-114.

Ijsselsteijn, W. A., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., & Avons, S. E.

(2000). Presence: concept, determinants, and measurement.

In Electronic Imaging (pp. 520-529). International Society for

Optics and Photonics.

Jarmon, L. (2009). An Ecology of Embodied Interaction: Pedagogy

and homo virtualis. Journal ofs Research, 2(1), 3-9.

Kramer, A. D., Oh, L. M., & Fussell, S. R. (2006). Using

linguistic features to measure presence in computer-mediated

communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in

computing systems (pp. 913-916). ACM.


Kucukyilmaz, T., Cambazoglu, B. B., Aykanat, C., & Can, F.

(2006). Chat mining for gender prediction. Advances in

Information Systems: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4243, 274-283.

Levine, D., (2000). Virtual Attraction: What Rocks Your

Boat. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 3, 565-573.

Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social

life: A psychometric analysis of students’ daily social

environments and natural conversations. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 84, 857–870.

Mulac, A.,&Lundell,T. L. (1994). Effects of gender-linked

language differences in adults’ written discourse:

Multivariate tests of language effects. Language and Communication,

14, 299-309.

Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J.

W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of

14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211-236.

Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns. New

Scientist, 211(2828), 42-45.

Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007).

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2007. Mahwah:


Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003).

Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our

selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.

Ramirez Jr, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline:

The effect of modality switching on relational

communication. Communication Monographs,74(3), 287- 310.

Sallnäs, E. (2005). Effects of communication mode on social

presence, virtual presence, and performance in collaborative

virtual environments. Presence,14(4), 434-449.

Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to

consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews

Neuroscience, 6(4), 332-339.

Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Usoh, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Small-

group behavior in a virtual and real environment: A

comparative study. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual

environments, 9(1), 37-51.

Sussman, N. M., & Tyson, D. H. (2000). Sex and power: Gender

differences in computer- mediated interactions. Computers in Human

Behavior, 16(4), 381-394.


Yee, N. (2014). The Proteus Paradox: How Online Games and Virtual Worlds

Change Us-and how They Don't. Yale University Press.

Yee, N., Harris, H., Jabon, M., & Bailenson, J. N. (2011). The

expression of personality in virtual worlds. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 2, 5-12.

You, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2013). I feel for my avatar: Embodied

perception in VEs. Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13), 3135-3138.

Table A. Descriptives Female MaleM SD M SD

Lab WC 151.18 36.66 99.71 43.29AP WC 54.59 22.55 53.23 26.22


Lab FPP 0.47 0.66 0.77 1.32AP FPP 1.99 2.53 2.15 2.83Lab SPP 4.25 1.51 4.64 2.43AP SPP 3.81 2.39 5.46 3.55

Lab SPACE 4.55 1.63 7.24 4.38AP SPACE 5.73 3.08 8.29 5.17Lab INCL 2.70 1.54 2.83 1.96AP INCL 3.28 3.38 2.27 2.70

LabASSENT 6.04 3.25 5.49 2.87

AP ASSENT 10.15 7.54 7.53 6.45Lab EXCL 3.26 1.21 3.62 1.92AP EXCL 2.77 2.79 1.68 1.75

Notes. Measures with significant differences are bolded.


Table B. Cohen's d Effect SizesGender in Lab Gender in AP VE in Females VE in Males

WC 1.28 0.06 3.17 1.30FPP -0.28 -0.06 -0.82 -0.63SPP -0.19 -0.54 0.22 -0.27SPACE -0.81 -0.60 -0.48 -0.22INCL -0.07 0.33 -0.22 0.24ASSENT 0.18 0.37 -0.71 -0.41EXCL -0.22 0.47 0.23 1.06

Note. Large effect sizes are bolded.


Figure A. Confederate Avatars

Array of avatar appearances used by confederate as interaction partners.


Figure B. AP Word cloud

Illustration of words used in conversations in AP with high frequency


Figure C. Lab Word cloud


Illustration of words used in conversations in Lab with high frequency


Acknowledgements

Funding in support of this project was provided through the

University of Kentucky Chellgren Center for Undergraduate

Excellence Endowment.

Communication in virtual environments: The influence of spatial cues and gender on verbal behavior

Documents

Transcript of Communication in virtual environments: The influence of spatial cues and gender on verbal behavior