Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 5–14 | Cite as

Virtual interpersonal touch: Haptic interaction and copresence in collaborative virtual environments

  • Jeremy N. Bailenson
  • Nick Yee


As digital communication becomes more commonplace and sensory rich, understanding the manner in which people interact with one another is crucial. In the current study, we examined the manners in which people touch digital representations of people, and compared those behaviors to the manner in which they touch digital representations of nonhuman objects. Results demonstrated that people used less force when touching people than other nonhuman objects, and that people touched the face with less force than the torso area. Finally, male digital representations were touched with more force than female representations by subjects of both genders. We discuss the implications of these data to the development of haptic communication systems as well as for a methodology of measuring the amount of copresence in virtual environments.


Presence Social touch Haptic interaction Collaborative virtual environments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bailenson JN, Aharoni E, Beall A, Guadagno R, Dimov A, Blascovich J (2004) Comparing behavioral and self-report measures of embodied agents social presence in immersive virtual environments. Paper presented at the 7th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailenson JN, Beall A, Blascovich J (2002) Mutual gaze and task performance in shared virtual environments. J Vis Comput Animat 13:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall A, Loomis J (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailenson JN, Swinth K, Hoyt C, Persky S, Dimov A, Blascovich J (2005) The independent and interactive effects of embodied agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in Immersive Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 14:379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailenson JN, Yee N (2005) Digital chameleons: automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychol Sci 16:814–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailenson JN, Yee N, Brave S, Merget D, Koslow D (2007) Virtual interpersonal touch: expressing and recognizing emotions through haptic devices. Hum Comput Interact 22(3):(in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bente G, Rüggenberg S, Tietz B, Wortberg S (2004) Measuring behavioral correlates of social presence in virtual encounters. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, May 27–31Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall A, Swinth K, Hoyt C, Bailenson J (2002) Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol Inq 13(2):103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brave S, Ishii H, Dahley A (1998) Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication. Proceedings of CSCW ’98: Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brave S, Nass C, Sirinian E (2001) Force-feedback in computer-mediated communication. In: Stephanidis C (ed) Universal access in HCI: Toward an information society for all, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 145–150Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burgoon J (1991) Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. J Nonverbal Behav 15:233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burgoon J, Walther J (1990) Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Commun Res 17:232–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgoon J, Bonito J, Bengtsson B, Ramirez A, Dunbar N, Miczo N (2000) Testing the interactivity model: communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of collaborative work. J Manage Inf Syst 16:33–56Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chaplin WF, Phillips JB, Brown JD, Clanton NR, Stein JL (2000) Handshaking, gender, personality, and first impressions. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang A, O’Modhrain S, Jacob R, Gunther E, Ishii H (2002) ComTouch: Design of a Vibrotactile Communication Device Proc. Paper presented at the ACM DIS 2002 Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Churchill EF, Snowdon D, Munro A (eds) (2001) Collaborative Virtual Environments. Digital Places and Spaces for Interaction. Springer Verlag: London, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crusco AH, Wetzel CG (1984) The Midas touch: the effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 10:512–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fogg B, Cutler L, Arnold P, Eisback C (1998) HandJive: a device for interpersonal haptic entertainment. Paper presented at the CHI ‘98: Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garau M, Slater M, Pertaub D, Razzaque S (2005) The responses of people to virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 14:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldberg K, Wallace R (1993) Denta-Dentata. Paper presented at the SIGGRAPH ‘93: International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive TechniquesGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JKL (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:1464–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ho C, Basdogan C, Slater M, Durlach N, Shrinivasan M (1998) An experiment on the influence of haptic communication on the sense of being together. Paper presented at the BT Presence WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoffman HG (2004) Virtual Reality Therapy. Scientific American Magazine, August 2004Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hubbard A, Tsuji A, Williams C, Seatriz V (2003) Effects of touch on gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. J Appl Soc Psychol 33:2427–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim J, Kim H, Tay B, Manivannan M, Srinivasan M, Jordan J, Mortensen J, Oliviera M, Slater M (2004) Transatlantic touch: a study of haptic collaboration over long distance. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 13:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lanier J (2001) Virtually there. April, 66–75. Scientific American, April, pp 66–75Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee KM (2004) Presence, explicated. Commun Theory 14:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee K, Nass C (2004) The multiple source effect and synthesized speech: doubly disembodied language as a conceptual framework. Human Commun Res 30:182–207Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loomis JM (1992) Distal attribution and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1:113–119Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mantovani F (2001) Virtual reality learning: potential and challenges for the use of 3d environments in education and training. Towards cyber-psychology: mind, cognitions and society in the internet age. IOS Press, Amsterdam, ch. 12Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marsella S, Gratch J, Rickel J (2003) Expressive behaviors for virtual worlds, in life-like characters tools, affective functions and applications. In: Prendinger H, Ishizuka M (eds) Springer Cognitive Technologies SeriesGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meehan M, Insko B, Whitton M, Brooks F (2002) Physiological measures of presence in stressful virtual environments. ACM Trans Graph 21:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noma S, Miyasato M (1997) Embodying concept with haptic interface for thinking. Proceedings of 13th Human Interface Symposium pp 11–16Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oakley I, Brewster S, Gray P (2001) Solving multi target haptic problems in menu interaction. Extended Abstracts of ACM CHI 2001, pp 357–358Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parise S, Kiesler SB, Sproull S, Waters K (1996) My partner is a real dog: cooperation with social agents. Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp 399–408Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, televisions, and new media like real people and places (reprint edition): Center for the Study of Language and InformationGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rizzo A, Morie JF, Williams J, Pair J, Buckwalter JG (2004) Human emotional state and its relevance to military VR training. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Computer InteractionGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sallnas E, Rassmus-Grohn K, Sjostrom C (2001) Supporting presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM TOCHI 7:461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Slater M (2004) How colorful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 13:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sproull L, Kiesler S (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manage Sci 32:1492–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stephen R, Zweigenhaft R (1985) The effect on tipping of a waitress touching male and female customers. J Soc Psychol 126:141–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Strong R, Gaver W (1996) Feather, scent and shaker: supporting simple intimacy. CHI’96 Extended Abstracts, p 444Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    White N, Back D (1986) Telephonic Arm Wrestling, from
  44. 44.
    Woodcock B (2005) MMOG Chart, from
  45. 45.
    Yee N (2006) The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 15:309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations