As social virtual reality (VR) continues to grow as a medium for digital communication, sustaining presence among communicators remains one of the main constructs that researchers and practitioners use to assess the quality of user experience. In the present paper, we explore language patterns as a behavioral link to presence. We accomplished this through an exploratory text analysis of over 4,800 min of conversation in social VR, consisting of over 130,000 spoken words from 126 participants. We observed that the use of self-references and collective references positively correlated to social presence and spatial presence. Furthermore, median interpersonal distance between communicators was positively associated with using impersonal pronouns, suggesting that participants who stood farther apart from their interlocutors tended to speak in more impersonal terms. Our work sheds light on the possible psychological mechanisms behind presence and the potential of using speech data to help build systems that enhance user engagement.
AlvidrezS.PeñaJ. (2020, December). Verbal mimicry predicts social distance and social attraction to an outgroup member in virtual reality. In 2020 IEEE international conference on artificial intelligence and virtual reality (AIVR) (pp. 68–73). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR50618.2020.00023
2.
AshokkumarA.PennebakerJ. W. (2022). Tracking group identity through natural language within groups. PNAS Nexus, 1(2), pgac022. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac022
3.
BailensonJ.BeamsB.BrownJ.DeVeauxC.HanE.QueirozA.RatanR.SantosoM.SrirangarajanT.TaoY.WangP. (2024). Seeing the world through digital prisms: Psychological implications of passthrough video usage in mixed reality. Technology, Mind, and Behavior (TMB). (In Press).
4.
BailensonJ. N.AharoniE.BeallA. C.GuadagnoR. E.DimovA.BlascovichJ. (2004, October). Comparing behavioral and self-report measures of embodied agents’ social presence in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Workshop on PRESENCE (Vol. 1105). IEEE.
5.
BailensonJ. N.BeallA. C.LoomisJ.BlascovichJ.TurkM. (2005). Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments. Human Communication Research, 31(4), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00881.x
6.
BlascovichJ. (2002). Social influence within immersive virtual environments. In SchroederR. (Ed.), The social life of avatars (pp. 127–145). Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0277-9_8
7.
BoydR. L. (2017). Psychological text analysis in the digital humanities. In Hai-JewS. (Ed.), Data analytics in digital humanities (pp. 161–189). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54499-1_7
8.
BoydR. L.SchwartzH. A. (2021). Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states of the field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967028
9.
ChungC.PennebakerJ. (2007). The psychological functions of function words. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343–359). Psychology Press.
10.
CohnM. A.MehlM. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15(10), 687–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00741.x
11.
CummingsJ. J.BailensonJ. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
12.
DeVeauxC.MarkowitzD. M.HanE.MillerM. R.HancockJ. T.BailensonJ. N. (2023, March). Descriptive linguistic patterns of group conversations in VR. In 2023 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW) (pp. 785–786). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW58643.2023.00235
13.
EglistonB.CarterM. (2022). The metaverse and how we’ll build it’: The political economy of Meta’s Reality Labs. New Media & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221119785
14.
EichertN.PeetersD.HagoortP. (2018). Language-driven anticipatory eye movements in virtual reality. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1102–1115. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0929-z
15.
EichstaedtJ. C.SmithR. J.MerchantR. M.UngarL. H.CrutchleyP.Preoţiuc-PietroD.AschD. A.SchwartzH. A. (2018). Facebook language predicts depression in medical records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(44), 11203–11208. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802331115
16.
FrommelJ.SaglV.DeppingA. E.JohansonC.MillerM. K.MandrykR. L. (2020). Recognizing affiliation: Using behavioural traces to predict the quality of social interactions in online games. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376446
17.
GullströmC.KortJ. (2016). Where did my office go? Is it in the cloud!? workshop on spatial and social connectedness in virtual and mediated work environments. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion, 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818052.2855525
18.
HanE.MillerM. R.DeVeauxC.JunH.NowakK. L.HancockJ. T., … BailensonJ. N. (2023). People, places, and time: A large-scale, longitudinal study of transformed avatars and environmental context in group interaction in the metaverse. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(2), zmac031. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac031
19.
HeeterC. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262
20.
HerreraF.OhS. Y.BailensonJ. N. (2020). Effect of behavioral realism on social interactions inside collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 27(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00324
21.
HughesM.RoyD. (2020). Keeper: An online synchronous conversation environment informed by in-person facilitation practices. Companion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406865.3418344
IrelandM. E.MehlM. R. (2014). Natural language use as a marker of personality. In HoltgravesT. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 201–237). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.001.0001
24.
JicolC.ClarkeC.TorE.YipH. L.YoonJ.BevanC.BowdenH.BrannE.CaterK.ColeR.DeeleyQ.EidinowE.O'NeillE.LutterothC.ProulxM. J. (2023). Imagine that! imaginative suggestibility affects presence in virtual reality. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581212
25.
JicolC.FelthamJ.YoonJ.ProulxM. J.O'NeillE.LutterothC. (2022). Designing and assessing a virtual reality simulation to build resilience to street harassment. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502129
26.
KacewiczE.PennebakerJ. W.DavisM.JeonM.GraesserA. C. (2014). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13502654
27.
KramerA. D. I.OhL. M.FussellS. R. (2006). Using linguistic features to measure presence in computer-mediated communication. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 913–916. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124907
MarkowitzD. M. (2018). Academy awards speeches reflect social status, cinematic roles, and winning expectations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(3), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17751012
30.
MarkowitzD. M. (2022a). Gender and ethnicity bias in medicine: A text analysis of 1.8 million critical care records. PNAS Nexus, 1(4), pgac157. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac157
31.
MarkowitzD. M. (2022b). Psychological trauma and emotional upheaval as revealed in academic writing: The case of COVID-19. Cognition and Emotion, 36(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.2022602
32.
MarkowitzD. M.SlovicP. (2020). Social, psychological, and demographic characteristics of dehumanization toward immigrants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17), 9260–9269. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921790117
33.
MillerM. R.DeVeauxC.HanE.RamN.BailensonJ. N. (2023, March). A large-scale study of proxemics and gaze in groups. In 2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 409–417). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR55154.2023.00056
34.
MillerM. R.SonalkarN.MabogunjeA.LeiferL.BailensonJ. (2021). Synchrony within triads using virtual reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479544
35.
OhC.HerreraF.BailensonJ. (2019). The effects of immersion and real-world distractions on virtual social interactions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(6), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0404
36.
OhS. Y.BailensonJ.KrämerN.LiB. (2016). Let the avatar brighten your smile: Effects of enhancing facial expressions in virtual environments. PloS one, 11(9), e0161794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161794
37.
PalomaresN. A.LeeE.-J. (2010). Virtual gender identity: The linguistic assimilation to gendered avatars in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351675
38.
PanY.SteedA. (2017). The impact of self-avatars on trust and collaboration in shared virtual environments. PloS one, 12(12), e0189078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189078
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.BoothR. J.AshokkumarA.FrancisM. E. (2022). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC-22 [Computer software]. Pennebaker Conglomerates. https://www.liwc.app.
41.
PfeifferT. (2012). Using virtual reality technology in linguistic research. 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW), 83–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2012.6180893
SerajS.BlackburnK. G.PennebakerJ. W. (2021). Language left behind on social media exposes the emotional and cognitive costs of a romantic breakup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(7), e2017154118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017154118
44.
SlaterM. (2004). How colorful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1162/1054746041944849
45.
SmithH. J.NeffM. (2018). Communication behavior in embodied virtual reality. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173863
46.
VoigtR.CampN. P.PrabhakaranV.HamiltonW. L.HeteyR. C.GriffithsC. M.JurgensD.JurafskyD.EberhardtJ. L. (2017). Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(25), 6521–6526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702413114
47.
WeisbergS. M.NewcombeN. S. (2017). Embodied cognition and STEM learning: Overview of a topical collection in CR:PI. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0071-6
48.
WuJ.MattinglyE.KraemerP. (2015). Communication in virtual environments: The influence of spatial cues and gender on verbal behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.039
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
