Cited by 1,032Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIOnline and Blended Learning

A Systematic Review of Social Presence: Definition, Antecedents, and Implications

Open access
Oh, Catherine S., Bailenson, Jeremy N., Welch, Gregory F.·2018·Frontiers in Robotics and AI

Abstract

Social presence, or the feeling of being there with a "real" person, is a crucial component of interactions that take place in virtual reality. This paper reviews the concept, antecedents, and implications of social presence, with a focus on the literature regarding the predictors of social presence. The article begins by exploring the concept of social presence, distinguishing it from two other dimensions of presence-telepresence and self-presence. After establishing the definition of social presence, the article offers a systematic review of 233 separate findings identified from 152 studies that investigate the factors (i.e., immersive qualities, contextual differences, and individual psychological traits) that predict social presence. Finally, the paper discusses the implications of heightened social presence and when it does and does not enhance one's experience in a virtual environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frobt.2018.00114

Cites

196 of 196 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Through avatars in networked virtual environments, IVR offers older adults the opportunity to connect with others in a more meaningful way compared with other communication mediums.

    “Through the incorporation of avatars into networked virtual environments, IVR also offers older adults the opportunity to connect with others in a more meaningful way compared with other communication mediums [6] where meeting in person may not be possible—a reality forced upon many of us during the COVID-19 pandemic [7].”

    From Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction describes VR as a medium for social interaction and says it is purported to afford greater social presence than other technology-mediated communication. The Findings report greater social presence for avatar-mediated and other richer media than for text chat, but do not establish superiority over communication media generally. These passages do not address older adults or show that their connections are more meaningful. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intuitive interfaces and human-like feedback help individuals regain confidence in problem-solving, compensating for the control lost due to mortality salience, thereby increasing preference for anthropomorphized products.

    “Specifically, intuitive interfaces and human-like feedback help individuals regain confidence in problem-solving, compensating for the control lost due to mortality salience, thereby increasing preference for anthropomorphized products [29].”

    From Anthropomorphic Design in Mortality Salience Situations: Exploring Emotional and Non-Emotional Mechanisms Enhancing Consumer Purchase Intentions (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Findings section reports that human-like feedback, such as an agent nodding appropriately, can increase perceived social presence. It does not address mortality salience, restored problem-solving confidence or control, or a resulting preference for anthropomorphized products (searched: mortality salience, control, and the claimed confidence mechanism). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mortality salience often leads to a reduced sense of control; however, anthropomorphic design, through its human-like understanding and feedback mechanisms, effectively enhances users' sense of control.

    “Mortality salience often leads to a reduced sense of control; however, anthropomorphic design, through its human-like understanding and feedback mechanisms, effectively enhances users’ sense of control [29].”

    From Anthropomorphic Design in Mortality Salience Situations: Exploring Emotional and Non-Emotional Mechanisms Enhancing Consumer Purchase Intentions (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Findings sections on immersive qualities and social presence report that human-like behavior and appropriate feedback can increase perceived social presence, not users’ sense of control. Searches for mortality salience, reduced control, and anthropomorphism-related control found no passage addressing either claimed effect. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

57 of the 253 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Alge B. J. Wiethoff C. Klein H. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proces. 91, 26– 37. 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00524-1 · DOI
  2. Alghamdi M. Regenbrecht H. Hoermann S. Langlotz T. Aldridge C. (2016). Social presence and mode of videocommunication in a collaborative virtual environment, in Proceedings of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems. (Chiayi: AISeL).
  3. Aymerich-Franch L. Karutz C. Bailenson J. N. (2012). Effects of facial and voice similarity on presence in a public speaking virtual environment, in Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference (Philadelphia, PA).
  4. Bente G. Eschenburg F. Aelker L. (2007). Effects of simulated gaze on social presence, person perception and personality attribution in avatar-mediated communication, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Barcelona).
  5. Biocca F. Harms C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the networked minds theory and measure, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Porto).
  6. Biocca F. Harms C. Gregg J. (2001). The networked minds measure of social presence: pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity, in Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Philadelphia, PA).
  7. Casanueva J. S. Blake E. H. (2001). The effects of avatars on co-presence in a collaborative virtual environment,in Annual Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT2001) (Pretoria).
  8. Cummings J. J. Bailenson J. N. Fidler M. J. (2012). How immersive is enough? A foundation for a meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on measured presence, in Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference (Philadelphia, PA).
  9. Cummings J. J. Wertz B. (2018). Technological predictors of social presence: A foundation for a meta-analytic review and empirical concept explication, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Prague).
  10. Dalzel-Job S. (2014). Social Interaction in Virtual Environments: the Relationship Between Mutual Gaze, Task Performance And Social Presence. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
  11. de Greef H. P. (2014). Video communication best for female friends? in Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference (Vienna).
  12. DeSchryver M. Mishra P. Koehleer M. Francis A. (2009). Moodle vs. Facebook: Does using Facebook for discussions in an online course enhance perceived social presence and student interaction? in Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education), 329– 336.
  13. Gimpel H. Huber J. Sarikaya S. (2016). Customer satisfaction in digital service encounters: The role of media richness, social presence, and cultural distance, in Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (Istanbul).
  14. Harms C. Biocca F. (2004). Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds social presence measure, in Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Valencia).
  15. Hauber J. Regenbrecht H. Hills A. Cockburn A. Billinghurst M. (2005). Social presence in two-and three-dimensional videoconferencing, in Proceedings of 8th Annual International Workshop on Presence. (London).
  16. Hayes A. (2015). The Experience of Physical and Social Presence in a Virtual Learning Environment as Impacted by the Affordance of Movement Enabled by Motion Tracking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, USA.
  17. Hills A. (2005). Social Presence and Communication Quality in Videoconferencing. Unpublished bachelor dissertation, University of Otago, New Zealand.
  18. IJsselsteijn W. Van Den Hoogen W. Klimmt C. De Kort Y. Lindley C. Mathiak K. (2008). Measuring the experience of digital game enjoyment, in Proceedings of Measuring Behavior (Wageningen).
  19. Jordan J. Mortensen J. Oliveira M. Slater M. Tay B. K. Kim J. (2002). Collaboration in a mediated haptic environment, in Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Workshop on Presence. (Porto).
  20. Kothgassner O. D. Kafka J. X. Rudyk J. Beutl L. Hlavacs H. Felnhofer A. (2014). Does social exclusion hurt virtually like it hurts in real-life? the role of agency and social presence in the perception and experience of social exclusion, in Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference (Vienna).
  21. Lanier J. (2014). “Perspective of Jaron Lanier,” in Handbook of Virtual Environments, eds Hale K. Stanney K. M. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), xiii– xvii
  22. Lee K. M. Jeong E. J. Park N. Ryu S. (2007). Effects of networked interactivity in educational games: Mediating effects of social presence, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Barcelona).
  23. Lombard M. Ditton T. B. Crane D. Davis B. Gil-Egui G. Horvath K. (2000). Measuring presence: a literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Presence (Delft).
  24. Lombard M. Ditton T. B. Weinstein L. (2009). Measuring (tele)presence: the Temple Presence Inventory, in Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Presence (Los Angeles, CA).
  25. Nowak K. L. (2001). Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Presence (Philadelphia, PA).
  26. Pan X. Gillies M. Slater M. (2008). The impact of avatar blushing on the duration of interaction between a real and virtual person, in Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Workshop on Presence October 26– 28 (Edinburgh).
  27. Ratan R. A. Hasler B. (2009). Self-presence standardized: Introducing the self-presence questionnaire (SPQ), in Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Los Angeles, CA).
  28. Rauh C. Renfro S. (2004). Feedback delay effects in video monitor communication, Paper presented at: 54th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (New Orleans, LA).
  29. Shimoda T. A. (2007). Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it hundreds of times: intelligent agents, feedback loops, and relevant advice, in 57th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (San Francisco, CA).
  30. Takatalo J. (2002). Presence and Flow in Virtual Environments: An Explorative Study. Master's thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
  31. Zelenkauskaite A. Bucy E. (2009). Presence, participation, and political text-on-television: testing a converged technology, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Los Angeles, CA).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oh, C. S., Bailenson, J. N., & Welch, G. F.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Oh, Catherine S.
Venue
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
Published
2018-10-15
Volume
5
Pages
114-114
ISSN
2296-9144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2896735034
Cited by
1,032
References
253
Citations by year
2026: 174 · 2025: 206 · 2024: 167 · 2023: 168 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Robotics and AI (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1800961)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-17-1, N00014-17-1-2927, N00014, N00014-17)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
social presence, telepresence, self-presence, virtual reality, contextual factors, individual psychological characteristics, virtual worlds, human-robot interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review