Journal archive

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 67 , No. 4

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 47-88
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2023
Received 16 Jun 2023 Revised 02 Aug 2023 Accepted 04 Aug 2023

몰입형 소셜 VR 환경에서 아바타의 비언어적 커뮤니케이션 단서가 자기-노출에 미치는 영향 : 아바타 간 거리와 상대 아바타의 신체적 매력도를 중심으로
마혜현** ; 금세연 ; 방서여 ; 오준혁 ; 이진 ; 이병관***
**한양대학교 광고홍보학과 박사수료 (
한양대학교 광고홍보학과 박사과정
한양대학교 광고홍보학과 석사
한양대학교 광고홍보학과 석사과정
한양대학교 광고홍보학과 석사과정
***한양대학교 광고홍보학과 교수 (

The Influences of Nonverbal Communication Cues of Avatars on Self-Disclosure in Immersive Social VR : Focusing on Inter-Avatar Distance and Physical Attractiveness of the Interlocutor’s Avatar
HyeHyun Ma** ; Seo Yeon Keum ; Shuyu Pang ; JunHyeok Oh ; Jin Lee ; Byoungkwan Lee***
**Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Hanyang University, first author (
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Hanyang University
M.A. Graduate, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Hanyang University
M.A. Student, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Hanyang University
M.A. Student, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Hanyang University
***Professor, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Hanyang University, corresponding author (
Funding Information ▼


최근 개인이 사회적 상호작용에 참여할 수 있는 새로운 커뮤니케이션 채널로 몰입형 소셜 가상환경이 등장하였다. 사회적 상호작용 측면에서 대인 커뮤니케이션이 시작되는 초기 단계는 상대방과의 안정적인 관계를 형성할 수 있는 단초가 되는 중요한 지점이다. 실제 세계에서 개인 간 초기 상호작용에 대한 방대한 양의 문헌에도 불구하고, 몰입형 소셜 가상환경에서 초기 대인 커뮤니케이션에 대한 과학적 지식은 여전히 제한적이다. 이에 본 연구는 몰입형 소셜 가상환경에서의 사회적 상호작용 과정에서 아바타의 비언어적 커뮤니케이션 단서가 이용자의 커뮤니케이션 결과에 미치는 영향을 살펴보고자 한다. 구체적으로 말하자면, 몰입형 소셜 가상환경에서의 최초 상호작용에서 성별, 아바타 간 거리, 그리고 상대 아바타의 신체적 매력도가 개인의 자기-노출에 미치는 영향을 탐색하는 것이 본 연구의 주요 목적이다. 이를 위해 <Horizon Workrooms> 몰입형 소셜 가상환경 플랫폼을 통해 54명의 대학생들을 대상으로 실험실 연구를 진행하였으며, 각 시행에는 연구 참여자와 반대 성별의 공조자가 참여하였다. 2(성별: 남성 vs. 여성) × 2(아바타 간 거리: 가까운 거리 vs. 먼 거리) × 2(상대 아바타의 신체적 매력도: 고 vs. 저)의 집단 간 요인설계는 빈도주의 및 베이지안 접근법의 3-way ANOVA를 통해 분석되었다. 분석 결과, 성별, 아바타 간 거리, 상대 아바타의 신체적 매력도의 주효과를 발견하였다. 또한 이러한 자기-노출에 미치는 아바타 간 거리와 상대 아바타의 신체적 매력도의 약한 상호작용 효과도 확인되었다. 본 연구는 몰입형 소셜 가상환경에서 아바타를 통해 매개되는 비언어적 커뮤니케이션 단서의 잠재력을 검증하였다는 점에서 대인 커뮤니케이션에 대한 이론적 논의의 확장에 기여한다. 또한 아바타 간 초기 상호작용을 촉진하는 데 있어 타인에 대한 불확실성을 감소시킬 수 있는 시스템적 전략 수립에 대해 실무적 함의를 시사한다.


Initial entry stage of interpersonal interaction play a critical and indispensable role in the enduring relationships with others in one's social interaction. Despite the extensive body of literature addressing initial face-to-face communication, there have been very few studies on the initial stage of interpersonal communication in immersive social virtual reality (ISVR) environments. Within virtual spaces, interactions are facilitated by avatars, which serve as both the users' digital self-representations and agents. In this context, it is crucial to understand how these avatars' mediated communication cues influence the initial entry stages of virtual social interactions. This study aims to examine the influences of nonverbal communication cues exhibited by avatars on communication outcomes during initial interaction in ISVR. Specifically, the study investigates the influences of inter-avatar distance, avatar gender, and avatar attractiveness as nonverbal communication cues on individuals' self-disclosure during the initial interaction in context of ISVR. To this end, 54 college students participated in an experiment involving interactive sessions utilizing Meta's Horizon Workrooms, a VR work collaboration platform. During each session, participants engaged in interactions with confederates of the opposite sex, thereby fostering interpersonal engagements within the experimental context. The data observed from 2 (avatar gender: male vs. female) × 2 (inter-avatar distance: close vs. far) × 2 (physical attractiveness of the interlocutor's avatar: high vs. low) between-subjects design were analyzed using both frequentist and Bayesian approach. The results showed that there were significant main effects of inter-avatar distance, avatar gender, and avatar’s physical attractiveness on individuals' self-disclosure during the initial interaction in ISVR. Thus, participants employed self-disclosure strategies characterized by higher levels of quantity and intimacy when the inter-avatar distance was closer, when the avatar was female, or the avatar was attractive. Additionally, a weak interaction effect between inter-avatar distance and the physical attractiveness of the interlocutor's avatar on self-disclosure was found. The empirical findings of this study imply to emphasize the interrelation between the user's perception of personal spatial boundaries and the physical attractiveness of the interlocutor within the context of ISVR. This study sought to extend knowledge from the field of interpersonal communication to the realm of virtual space by verifying the potential impact of nonverbal communication cues mediated through avatars in an ISVR environments. This attempt will not only expand our conceptual and emprical understanding of social interactions, but also help lay a strong foundation for devising more effective communication strategies in technologically mediated social interactions in the future.

KeywordsAvatar Communication, Interpersonal Communication, Immersive Social VR, Self-Disclosure, Initial Interaction
키워드: 아바타 커뮤니케이션, 대인 커뮤니케이션, 몰입형 소셜 가상환경, 자기-노출, 초기 상호작용


This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University(HY-2022-3279)(이 논문은 한양대학교 교내연구지원 사업으로 연구됨(HY-2022-3279)).

1. Aczel, B., Hoekstra, R., Gelman, A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Klugkist, I. G., Rouder, J. N., ... & Vanpaemel, W. (2020). Discussion points for Bayesian inference. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 561-563.
2. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3. Ambrosio, A. P., & Fidalgo, M. I. R. (2020). Past, present and future of Virtual Reality: Analysis of its technological variables and definitions. Culture & History Digital Journal, 9(1), e010-e010.
4. Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2012). Interactive uncertainty reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 39(6), 757-780.
5. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177-190). Carnegie Press.
6. Aseeri, S., & Interrante, V. (2021). The influence of avatar representation on interpersonal communication in virtual social environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(5), 2608-2617.
7. Baccon, L. A., Chiarovano, E., & MacDougall, H. G. (2019). Virtual reality for teletherapy: Avatars may combine the benefits of face-to-face communication with the anonymity of online text-based communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(2), 158-165.
8. Bailenson, J. N., Beall, A. C., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Turk, M. (2004). Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 13(4), 428-441.
9. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 819-833.
10. Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16(10), 814-819.
11. Baker, S., Waycott, J., Carrasco, R., Kelly, R. M., Jones, A. J., Lilley, J., ... & Vetere, F. (2021, May). Avatar-mediated communication in social VR: An in-depth exploration of older adult interaction in an emerging communication platform. Paper presented at the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘21), Yokohama, Japan.
12. Ball, C., Huang, K.-T., & Francis, J. (2021). Virtual reality adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic: A uses and gratifications perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 65, 101728.
13. Barreda-Ángeles, M., & Hartmann, T. (2022). Psychological benefits of using social virtual reality platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic: The role of social and spatial presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107047.
14. Behrend, T., Toaddy, S., Thompson, L. F., & Sharek, D. J. (2012). The effects of avatar appearance on interviewer ratings in virtual employment interviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2128-2133.
15. Bell, J. T., & Fogler, H. S. (1995, June). The investigation and application of virtual reality as an educational tool. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, CA.
16. Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287-318.
17. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. Language and Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.
18. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1974). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112.
19. Biocca, F., & Levy, M. R. (1995). Virtual reality as a communication system. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 15-31). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Biocca, F., & Levy, M. R. (2013). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Routledge.
21. Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 103-124.
22. Bombari, D., Schmid Mast, M., Canadas, E., & Bachmann, M. (2015). Studying social interactions through immersive virtual environment technology: Virtues, pitfalls, and future challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 869.
23. Bond, B. J. (2009). He posted, she posted: Gender differences in self-disclosure on social network sites. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 6(2), 29-37.
24. Bönsch, A., Radke, S., Overath, H., Asché, L. M., Wendt, J., Vierjahn, T., ... & Kuhlen, T. W. (2018, March). Social VR: How personal space is affected by virtual agents' emotions. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Tuebingen/Reutlingen.
25. Bowers, S. (2018). The effects of avatar appearance and player-avatar interaction on prosocial and antisocial gameplay: A large scale field test. California State University, Fullerton.
26. Brundage, L. E., Derlega, V. J., & Cash, T. F. (1976). The effects of physical attractiveness and need for approval on self-disclosure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(1), 63-66.
27. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30-48.
28. Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131-146.
29. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education.
30. Croes, E. A., Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P., & Krahmer, E. J. (2019). Social attraction in video-mediated communication: The role of nonverbal affiliative behavior. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1210-1232.
31. Del Aguila, J., González-Gualda, L. M., Játiva, M. A., Fernández-Sotos, P., Fernández-Caballero, A., & García, A. S. (2021). How interpersonal distance between avatar and human influences facial affect recognition in immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
32. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Sage Publications, Inc.
33. Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2008). Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 153-174). Psychology Press.
34. Dincelli, E., & Yayla, A. (2022). Immersive virtual reality in the age of the Metaverse: A hybrid-narrative review based on the technology affordance perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 31(2).
35. Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 106-124.
36. Eastwick, P. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Is it a game? Evidence for social influence in the virtual world. Social Influence, 4(1), 18-32.
37. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 304-341.
38. Fortune Business Insights. (2022). Virtual reality market size, share & COVID-19 impact analysis, by component (hardware, software, and content), by device type (Head Mounted Display (HMD), VR simulator, VR glasses, treadmills & haptic gloves, and others), by industry (gaming, entertainment, automotive, retail, healthcare, education, aerospace & defense, manufacturing, and others), and regional forecast, 2023-2030. Retrieved 5/26/23 from
39. Fox, J., Arena, D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual reality: A survival guide for the social scientist. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(3), 95-113.
40. Frank, M. G., & Gilovich, T. (1989). Effect of memory perspective on retrospective causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 399-403.
41. Freeman, G., & Acena, D. (2021, June). Hugging from a distance: Building interpersonal relationships in social virtual reality. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences (IMX ’21), New York.
42. Garofalo, S., Giovagnoli, S., Orsoni, M., Starita, F., & Benassi, M. (2022). Interaction effect: Are you doing the right thing? PLoS One, 17(7), e0271668.
43. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C.-H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), 70-100.
44. Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 260-287.
45. GlobaData. (2022). Virtual reality market size, share and trends analysis report by end-user type, product type and region and segment forecast to 2030. Retrieved 5/26/23 from
46. Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409-427). Cambridge University Press.
47. Greene, L. R. (1977). Effects of verbal evaluation feedback and interpersonal distance on behavioral compliance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24(1), 10-14.
48. Grigorovici, D. (2003). Persuasive effects of presence in immersive virtual environments. In G. Riva, F. Davide, & W. A. IJsselsteijn (Eds.), Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments (pp. 191-208). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Emerging Communication 5.
49. Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003-1026.
50. Hanum, A. S., Purwanto, E., & Sunawan, S. (2019). The effect of physical attractiveness and gender counselors on students self disclosure. Journal Bimbingan Konseling, 8(3), 31-39.
51. Harjunen, V. J., Spapé, M., Ahmed, I., Jacucci, G., & Ravaja, N. (2018). Persuaded by the machine: The effect of virtual nonverbal cues and individual differences on compliance in economic bargaining. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 384-394.
52. Hasler, B. S., & Friedman, D. A. (2012). Sociocultural conventions in avatar-mediated nonverbal communication: A cross-cultural analysis of virtual proxemics. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(3), 238-259.
53. Haugh, M., & Carbaugh, D. (2015). Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua, 34(4), 461-493.
54. Hennig-Thurau, T., Aliman, D. N., Herting, A. M., Cziehso, G. P., Linder, M., & Kübler, R. V. (2022). Social interactions in the Metaverse: Framework, initial evidence, and research roadmap. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51, 889-913.
55. Hinne, M., Gronau, Q. F., van den Bergh, D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). A conceptual introduction to Bayesian model averaging. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 200-215.
56. Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., & Neumann, M. M. (2006). The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 19-36.
57. Hoppe, A. H., vande Camp, F., & Stiefelhagen, R. (2021). Shisha: Enabling shared perspective with face-to-face collaboration using redirected avatars in virtual reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, USA, 4(CSCW3), 1-22.
58. Hoyt, C. L., Blascovich, J., & Swinth, K. R. (2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence, 12(2), 183-195.
59. Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2008). Why p values are not a useful measure of evidence in statistical significance testing. Theory & Psychology, 18(1), 69-88.
60. Hurler, K. (2023, February 7). Hey fellow kids: Meta is revamping horizon worlds to attract more teen users. Gizmodo. Retrieved 5/26/23 from
61. Iachini, T., Pagliaro, S., & Ruggiero, G. (2015). Near or far? It depends on my impression: Moral information and spatial behavior in virtual interactions. Acta Psychologica, 161, 131-136.
62. JASP Team. (2023). JASP (Version 0.17.3) [Computer software].
63. Jeffreys, H. (1998). The theory of probability. Oxford University Press.
64. Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. (1970). Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(3), 278-282.
65. Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373-387.
66. Kim, S. Y., Godager, E., Davis, B., & Jeong, I. (2021). Detective activity comparing frequentist (NHST) and Bayesian methods: Introducing Bayesian concepts to students of communication. Asian Communication Research, 18(1), 22-33.
67. Krikorian, D. H., Lee, J.-S., Chock, T. M., & Harms, C. (2000). Isn't that spatial?: Distance and communication in a 2-D virtual environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(4). JCMC541.
68. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936.
69. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). Hurry date: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 227-244.
70. Kyrlitsias, C., & Michael-Grigoriou, D. (2018). Asch conformity experiment using immersive virtual reality. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 29(5), e1804.
71. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M.(2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390-423.
72. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27-50.
73. Lindley, D. V. (1993). The analysis of experimental data: The appreciation of tea and wine. Teaching Statistics, 15(1), 22-25.
74. Maloney, D., Freeman, G., & Wohn, D. Y. (2020). "Talking without a voice" understanding non-verbal communication in social virtual reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, USA, 4(CSCW2), 1-25.
75. Massar, K., & Buunk, A. P. (2013). Gender differences in adolescent advertising response: The role of involvement and message claim. Psychology, 4(7), 547-552.
76. Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males' and females' processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 63-70.
77. Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 84-96.
78. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
79. Miller, G. (2007). The promise of parallel universes. Science, 317(5843), 1341-1343.
80. Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1234-1244.
81. Mitchell, V. W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 3(4), 331-346.
82. Nakanishi, M. (1986). Perceptions of self-disclosure in initial interaction: A Japanese sample. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 167-190.
83. Nassiri, N., Powell, N., & Moore, D. (2010). Human interactions and personal space in collaborative virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 14, 229-240.
84. Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2005). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 153-178.
85. Oh, C. S., Bailenson, J. N., & Welch, G. F. (2018). A systematic review of social presence: Definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 114.
86. Okken, V., van Rompay, T., & Pruyn, A. (2013). Room to move: On spatial constraints and self-disclosure during intimate conversations. Environment and Behavior, 45(6), 737-760.
87. Palmer, M. T. (1995). Interpersonal communication and virtual reality: Mediating interpersonal relationships. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communicationin the age of virtual reality (pp. 277-299). Routledge.
88. Paul, I., Mohanty, S., & Sengupta, R. (2022). The role of social virtual world in increasing psychological resilience during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107036.
89. Peña, J., & Yoo, S.-C. (2014). Under pressure: Avatar appearance and cognitive load effects on attitudes, trustworthiness, bidding, and interpersonal distance in a virtual store. Presence, 23(1), 18-32.
90. Phillips, K. W., Rothbard, N. P., & Dumas, T. L. (2009). To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 710-732.
91. Ramirez, A., Jr., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 213-228.
92. Riva, G. (1999). Virtual reality as communication tool: A sociocognitive analysis. Presence, 8(4), 462-468.
93. Rouder, J. N., Haaf, J. M., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology, Part IV: Parameter estimation and Bayes factors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 102-113.
94. Schmid, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2019). Exploring Bayesian analyses of a small-sample-size factorial design in human systems integration: The effects of pilot incapacitation. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration, 1(2-4), 71-88.
95. Sheldon, P. (2013). Examining gender differences in self-disclosure on Facebook versus face-to-face. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 2(1).
96. Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., ... & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1), e39.
97. Smith, H. J., & Neff, M. (2018, April). Communication behavior in embodied virtual reality. Paper presented at the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘18), Montreal.
98. Steuer, J., Biocca, F., & Levy, M. R. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality, 33, 37-39.
99. Stokes, J., Fuehrer, A., & Childs, L. (1980). Gender differences in self-disclosure to various target persons. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(2), 192-198.
100. Sundstrom, E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: Effects of room size, intrusion, and goal blocking on nonverbal behavior, self-disclosure, and self-reported stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 645-654.
101. Sykownik, P., Maloney, D., Freeman, G., & Masuch, M. (2022, April). Something personal from the Metaverse: Goals, topics, and contextual factors of self-disclosure in commercial social VR. Paper presented at the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘22), New Orleans.
102. Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pace making and competition. The American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507-533.
103. Valkenburg, P. M., Sumter, S. R., & Peter, J. (2011). Gender differences in online and offline self-disclosure in pre-adolescence and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 253-269.
104. Van De Schoot, R., Winter, S. D., Ryan, O., Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M., & Depaoli, S. (2017). A systematic review of Bayesian articles in psychology: The last 25 years. Psychological Methods, 22(2), 217-239.
105. Van Den Bergh, D., Van Doorn, J., Marsman, M., Draws, T., Van Kesteren, E.-J., Derks, K., ... & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). Atutorial on conducting and interpreting a Bayesian ANOVA in JASP. L’Année Psychologique, 120(1), 73-96.
106. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., ... & Epskamp, S. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology, Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35-57.
107. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
108. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
109. Wei, X., Jin, X., & Fan, M. (2022, October). Communication in immersive social virtual reality: A systematic review of 10 years' studies. Paper presented at the 2022 Chinese CHI Conference: The Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI 2022), Guangzhou, China.
110. Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(3), 352-380.
111. Welsch, R., von Castell, C., Rettenberger, M., Turner, D., Hecht, H., & Fromberger, P. (2020). Sexual attraction modulates interpersonal distance and approach-avoidance movements towards virtual agents in males. PLoS One, 15(9), e0239935.
112. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research. Boston, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
113. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., ... & Jäncke, P. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493-525.
114. Wolf, E., Döllinger, N., Mal, D., Wenninger, S., Bartl, A., Botsch, M., ... & Wienrich, C. (2022). Does distance matter? Embodiment and perception of personalized avatars in relation to the self-observation distance in virtual reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3.
115. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271-290.
116. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 115-121.