Am I Better in VR with a Real Audience?

  • Romain TerrierEmail author
  • Nicolas Martin
  • Jérémy Lacoche
  • Valérie Gouranton
  • Bruno Arnaldi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11542)


We present an experimental study using virtual reality (VR) to investigate the effects of a real audience on social inhibition. The study compares a multi-user application, locally or remotely shared. The application engages one user and a real audience (i.e., local or remote conditions) and a control condition where the user is alone (i.e., alone condition). The differences have been explored by analyzing the objective performance (i.e., type and answering time) of users when performing a categorization of numbers task in VR. Moreover, the subjective feelings and perceptions (i.e., perceptions of others, stress, cognitive workload, presence) of each user have been compared in relation to the location of the real audience. The results showed that in the presence of a real audience (in the local and remote conditions), user performance is affected by social inhibitions. Furthermore, users are even more influenced when the audience does not share the same room, despite others are less perceived.


Virtual Reality Social influence Audience 


  1. 1.
    Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A.C., Swinth, K.R., Hoyt, C.L., Bailenson, J.N.: Target article: immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol. Inq. 13(2), 103–124 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blascovich, J., Mendes, W.B., Hunter, S.B., Salomon, K.: Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77(1), 68 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bond, C.F., Titus, L.J.: Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychol. Bull. 94(2), 265 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Byers, J.C.: Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary? In: Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety l. Taylor and Francis (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chartrand, T.L., Bargh, J.A.: The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76(6), 893 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claypoole, V.L., Dewar, A.R., Fraulini, N.W., Szalma, J.L.: Effects of social facilitation on perceived workload, subjective stress, and vigilance-related anxiety. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1169–1173 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cottrell, N.B., Wack, D.L., Sekerak, G.J., Rittle, R.H.: Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9(3), 245 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J.A.: The perception-behavior expressway: automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 33, pp. 1–40. Academic Press (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emmerich, K., Masuch, M.: Watch me play: does social facilitation apply to digital games? In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2018, pp. 100:1–100:12 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gueorguieva, R., Krystal, J.H.: Move over anova: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the archives of general psychiatry. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 61(3), 310–317 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerin, B., Innes, J.M.: Social facilitation and social monitoring: a new look at Zajonc’s mere presence hypothesis. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 21(1), 7–18 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guerin, B.: Mere presence effects in humans: a review. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22(1), 38–77 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helton, W.S., Näswall, K.: Short stress state questionnaire. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 31(1), 20–30 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henchy, T., Glass, D.C.: Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10(4), 446 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoyt, C.L., Blascovich, J., Swinth, K.R.: Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12(2), 183–195 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Innes, J.M., Young, R.F.: The effect of presence of an audience, evaluation apprehension and objective self-awareness on learning. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 11(1), 35–42 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jamieson, J.P., Peters, B.J., Greenwood, E.J., Altose, A.J.: Reappraising stress arousal improves performance and reduces evaluation anxiety in classroom exam situations. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7(6), 579–587 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knowles, E.S.: Social physics and the effects of others: tests of the effects of audience size and distance on social judgments and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45(6), 1263 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kushnir, T.: Stress and social facilitation: the effects of the presence of an instructor on student nurses’ behaviour. J. Adv. Nurs. 11(1), 13–19 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lemoine, J.E., Roland-Lévy, C.: The effect of the presence of an audience on risk-taking while gambling: the social shield. Soc. Influence 12(2–3), 101–114 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanchez-Vives, M.V., Slater, M.: From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6(4), 332 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schroeder, R.: Being there together and the future of connected presence. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 15(4), 438–454 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skarratt, P.A., Cole, G.G., Kingstone, A.: Social inhibition of return. Acta Psychol. 134(1), 48–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Usoh, M., Schroeder, R.: Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: a comparative study. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 9(1), 37–51 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smeesters, D., Wheeler, S.C., Kay, A.C.: Indirect prime-to-behavior effects: the role of perceptions of the self, others, and situations in connecting primed constructs to social behavior. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 259–317. Academic Press (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Steed, A., Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Bullock, A., Tromp, J.: Leadership and collaboration in shared virtual environments. In: Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality (Cat. No. 99CB36316), pp. 112–115, March 1999Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stotland, E., Zander, A.: Effects of public and private failure on self-evaluation. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 56(2), 223–229 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Swinth, K.R., Blascovich, J.: Perceiving and responding to others: human-human and human-computer social interaction in collaborative virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Workshop on PRESENCE, vol. 392 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., Slater, M.: Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 9(5), 497–503 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Velho, L., Lucio, D., Carvalho, L.: Situated participatory virtual reality. In: Proceedings of XVI Simposio Brasileiro de Jogos e Entretenimento Digital (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wienrich, C., Gross, R., Kretschmer, F., Müller-Plath, G.: Developing and proving a framework for reaction time experiments in VR to objectively measure social interaction with virtual agents. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 191–198, March 2018Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolf, L.K., Bazargani, N., Kilford, E.J., Dumontheil, I., Blakemore, S.J.: The audience effect in adolescence depends on who’s looking over your shoulder. J. Adolesc. 43, 5–14 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yu, R.F., Wu, X.: Working alone or in the presence of others: exploring social facilitation in baggage x-ray security screening tasks. Ergonomics 58(6), 857–865 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zajonc, R.B.: Social facilitation. Science 149(3681), 269–274 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romain Terrier
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nicolas Martin
    • 1
  • Jérémy Lacoche
    • 1
    • 3
  • Valérie Gouranton
    • 2
  • Bruno Arnaldi
    • 2
  1. 1.IRT b<>comRennesFrance
  2. 2.Univ Rennes, INSA Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISARennesFrance
  3. 3.Orange LabsRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations