Components of human experience in virtual environments

Computers in Human Behavior Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15 www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Components of human experience in virtual environments Jari Takatalo a

a,* ,

Go¨te Nyman a, Leif Laaksonen

b

Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland b CSC-Finnish IT Centre for Science, P.O. Box 405, CSC-Scientific Computing Ltd., Espoo 02101, Finland Available online 26 January 2007

Abstract Framework is presented for measuring human experience in virtual environment (VE). Human experience is defined as the content of direct observation or participation in an event. Both psychological and emotional properties are integrated into this ongoing person–environment interaction to give an experience meaning and value and to enhance its quality and intensity. The sense of presence, i.e., being in the VE is in the center of psychological study of a human experience in VEs. The ‘Big three’ structure of physical presence consists of perceptual, attentional and cognitive components. However, it is considered to ignore, e.g., emotional and ecological aspects in developing a holistic human experience. In this study, components of physical presence are integrated with three different measures of interaction and a set of motivational and cognitive-affective components. These components are integral in the theory of optimal experience, i.e., flow, which has been studied in various human activities. The results show, how these different experiential components relate each other in VE. It is also shown how common patterns can be found from various experiences and profiled to better understand human–computer interaction.  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Virtual environments; Experience; Sense of physical presence; Flow theory

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 50 33 00 911. E-mail address: jari.takatalo@helsinki.fi (J. Takatalo).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.11.003

2

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

1. Introduction 1.1. Human experience The online edition of the Visual Thesaurus (Visual Thesaurus, 2004) defines the word experience with the following key points: (1) experience has two meanings: it can be something one has gone trough and gained knowledge of or it can be the content of direct observation or participation in an event, (2) experience may have both mental and bodily states, and (3) it is closely related to feelings and emotional sensations. Direct observation or participation in an event requires ongoing interaction between person and an environment. The experienced content of this interaction is affected by the memory and knowledge based on previous experiences (Glenberg, 1997). This interpretation process gives an experience meaning and value (Dewey, 1934). The process also causes emotional changes in bodily states, which are felt as feelings. These ‘somatic markers’ provided by the body have an effect on perceptions, cognitions and behavior. This way the mind of the perceiver is linked to the body of the perceiver (Damasio, 1994). These bodily states also deepen the quality and intensity of the experience itself (Dewey, 1934). All subjective experiences are quantifiable only by the person experiencing them (Schuemie, van der Straaten, Krijn, & van der Mast, 2001). But, since almost all experiences arise from the interaction between a man and his environment there are common patterns in various experiences (Dewey, 1934). The investigation of these patterns in restricted environments such as 3D, interactive virtual environments (VEs), is likely to expand knowledge concerning both subjective experiences and interactive VEs. 1.2. Human experience in VEs There are special features in VEs that have an affect on human experience. VEs are capable of producing a sense of physical presence, which is defined, e.g., as the user’s feeling of ‘‘being there’’ in a mediated environment (IJsselsteijn, deRidder, Freeman, & Avons, 2000). It is also defined as the illusion of non-mediation in which the user no longer perceives the display medium (Lobard & Ditton, 1997). Thus, sense of presence is in the center of the psychological research in VEs (Schubert, Friedmann, & Regenbrecht, 1999). It is also used as a global measure to explain human experience in other media (Freeman, Avons, Meddis, Pearson, & IJsselsteijn, 2000). Interaction is acknowledged as one of the prime causes of presence in VEs by many authors (e.g., Draper, Kaber, & Usher, 1998; Lobard & Ditton, 1997; Steuer, 1992). Especially, ecological view (Flach & Holden, 1998; Zahorik & Jenison, 1998) emphasizes the role of functionality in generating presence experience. In this perspective presence is more related to the functionality of the VE than to its appearance (Flach & Holden, 1998). Some authors also emphasize the role of emotions in presence experience (e.g., Huang & Alessi, 1999). In real life presence and interactivity are difficult to define and measure. However, measures concerning how the well-defined VEs is perceived and how its functionality is evaluated have a clear role in the psychology of the virtual. As a holistic human experience is studied ‘‘it is not just what the organism perceives, but how it takes what it perceives’’ (Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1981, p.189). To study human experience from this viewpoint several other psychological and emotional components need to be examined. The theory of

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

3

optimal experience, i.e., flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) provides a variety of components forming the human experience. 1.3. Optimal experience – flow In the process of flow, the cognitive appraisal of the situation concerns balance between a person’s perceived skills and the challenges provided by the narrowed stimulus field of a particular situation. Flow has been studied among different cultures and socio-economic classes (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and it has been found to be a useful framework when studying a variety of human activities (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994). Human–computer interactions have such special characteristics that make them suitable to be described by using the flow construct (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990) in this dynamic state, individual’s attention is fully concentrated on the task at hand, elevating cognitive processing capacity beyond normal level and making intellectual performance easier and more pleasant. Such tasks should also provide a clear goal and instant feedback to the actor as well as increase the actor’s sense of control or lack the sense of worry of losing it. Although, a clear goal is needed, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) stresses that doing has a central role in the process. The interplay between the level of skills possessed and the challenges provided by the situation and its different experiential outcomes are considered in the eight-channel flow model in Fig. 1 (Massimini & Carli, 1988). Among the eight outcomes are arousal, control and valence as a positive correlate of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Arousal, control and valence are regarded as basic emotional dimensions (Wundt, 1897). They are ‘‘pervasive in organizing human judgments for a wide range of perceptual and symbolic stimuli’’ (Bradley & Lang, 1994).

Eight channel flow model High Arousal Anxiety

Challenge

Flow

Control Worry

Boredom

Apathy Relaxation

Low

Skill

High

Fig. 1. An eight-channel model for the analysis of experience by Massimini and Carli (1988).

4

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

The eight-channel flow model also shares similarities with functional theories of emotion (e.g., Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Frijda, 2000; Lazarus, 1991). These theories consider two different levels of situational appraisals. First, the situation is evaluated in terms of goals and concerns at a given time to the perceiver (Lazarus, 1991). Secondly, a variety of contextual appraisal components, e.g., pleasantness and sense of control, are combined and evaluated to determine which emotion is detached to a particular situation (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). 1.4. Presence and flow Previously the two concepts have been studied interdependently in an intercultural interaction in real life (Fontaine, 1992). (Tele)presence has been assumed to be a special type of flow experience that occurs during teleoperations (Draper et al., 1998). However, there are only few studies, in which presence and flow have been examined together in mediated environments. In Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) structural model of user experience in WWW, presence was measured with an eight item Self-reported Telepresence Scale (Kim & Biocca, 1997) and interactivity was measured only in terms of its speed. However, the components used in Novak et al. (2000) study to measure flow integrated a great deal of information from previous flow studies. Thus, their measure of flow could be considered quite comprehensive. The two studies of Gaggioli, Bassi, and Della Fave (2003) (no results available in January 2005) measured presence with Independent Television Commission-Sense of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI) by Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, and Davidoff (2001) and flow with Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988). In Novak et al. (2000) study challenge and arousal formed one higher order construct and skill and control formed another. They found, that greater skill, challenge and (tele)presence correspond directly to a greater flow. A significant relationship was also found between interactive speed and flow. Interactive speed was also positively related to challenges, which affected the focus of attention. Novak et al. (2000) concluded that a better measurement of presence as well as interactivity is needed to fully investigate the relationship between the concepts. 1.5. Framework for a human experience in VEs The purpose of this study was to find a way to profile patterns of various experiences received from the VE by using different components of both physical presence and flow. These included the ‘Big three’ (Laarni, 2003) physical presence components: the realness of the VE (presence as realism), the ability of the VE to induce a sense of spatial awareness to the user (presence as transportation) and the users psychological immersion, i.e., attention to the VE instead of the real world (presence as immersion). These components have been extracted in two factor analytical studies (Lessiter et al., 2001; Schubert, Friedmann, & Regenbrecht, 2001). According to Schuemie et al. (2001) Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) by Schubert et al. (2001) and ITC-SOPI by Lessiter et al. (2001) the two questionnaires introduced in these studies, are considered valid and reliable in the context of measuring the presence construct. Physical presence components were thought to cover perceptual and attentional aspects of being in the VE.

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

5

Other components included were measures of skill, challenge, personal relevance, three different aspects of interaction as well as arousal and control. These cognitive-emotional and motivational components were thought to deepen the understanding concerning the quality, intensity, value and meaning of the VE experience to the user. Also simple feeling scales measuring positive and negative feelings from the VE exposure were used. Positive feelings were valence, pleasant, impressed, playfulness, social richness of the medium (part of media richness) and sense of being there. Negative feelings were VE distracted and anxiety. These scales were used as a frame of reference for the framework composed of presence and flow components. 2. Methods 2.1. Technology used The study was conducted in the Experimental Virtual Environment (EVE), hosted by the Helsinki University of Technology (http://eve.hut.fi). EVE is a CAVE-type system, in which three 3 · 3 m walls surround the user. The participants were able to interact with the 3D-environment by a radio mouse, which was equipped with a six degrees of freedom tracking device. Before entering the EVE, all the participants were familiarized with the instructions of how to use the radio mouse. The software used was a modified version of the HCNav by Laakso (2001). The participants heard the few sounds used trough EVE’s 3D-audio system. For a more comprehensive description of the software and hardware used, see Laakso (2001) and Jalkanen (2000). 2.2. Participants An e-mail invitation to the test was sent to the psychology and cognitive science students in the University of Helsinki and to the staff list of the CSC-Finnish IT Centre for Science. The mail included an encouragement to forward it to all that might be interested in VEs. The resulting amount of participants in the study was 68 (43 males (63.2%) and 25 (36.8%) females). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 45 (M = 28.15 years, SD = 5.50). 2.3. Task and procedure The procedure started with a rehearsing period. Participants were instructed, if necessary, in finding an effective way to move around the EVE. The actual task was to go into the virtual five-bedroom house and explore it to find objects that do not belong into a normal house. In the house, there was no collision detection, thus the participants were able to walk trough walls and furniture. However, they were not encouraged to do so. There was only one ‘‘wrong’’ object at the time and when it was found the participants were instructed to collide it. The collision made an object disappear and produced a weak sound. At the same time another object turned up somewhere else in the house. There were a total of 11 objects in EVE. The idea of the task was to provide the participants meaningful activity in a virtual world for approximately 15 min. The whole procedure in EVE took 20–25 min. Afterwards the participants were asked to fill in the EVE – Experience Questionnaire (EVEQ).

6

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

2.4. EVE – Experience questionnaire (EVEQ) The items of the EVEQ were collected from the various questionnaires published in different articles (Fontaine, 1992; Havlena & Holbrook, 1986; Ghani & Deshpande, 1994; Kim & Biocca, 1997; McQuarrie & Munson, 1992; Novak et al., 2000; Usoh, Catena, Arman, & Slater, 2000; Webster & Martocchio, 1992; Witmer & Singer, 1998). Some of the items were collected from the various WWW pages. The IPQ (Schubert et al., 2001) was found from the http://www.igroup.org/pq/ipq/ and Television questionnaire (TQ) (Lombard et al., 2000) from http://astro.temple.edu/~lombard/P2qstnre.doc Some of the items were created in this study. Because the ITC-SOPI (Lessiter et al., 2001) is not available publicly in the WWW, permission to use it was asked from the authors and some of its items were used in this study. All the items were translated from English or Germany into Finnish. Those items having the same semantic meaning but different grammatical form were combined into one item. The aim of the combination was to reduce items but keep those measuring different aspects of the same phenomena. Most of the items from different questionnaires were transformed into a seven-point Likert-scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). Also sevenpoint semantic differentials were used. In the final version the different items were blended. 2.5. Construction of the scales Altogether, 124 EVEQ – variables were reduced into 19 uni-dimensional scales (Table 1). All the scales were formed in a principal factors analysis (PFA). Since the desirable subject to variable ratio in a factor analysis is 1:5 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) a PFA was conducted for the part of the data and the factor scores with Bartlett’s method were computed. The small amount of subjects restricted the maximum amount of variables in one PFA to 13. Because of the formation method, the criterions to include a variable into a PFA were critical. The variables were first grouped according to their usage in previous studies. The fit of a variable to the semantic meaning of the rest of the group was considered important. The fit of a group of variables to a PFA was measured with Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. KMO measures for all the factors were well above the critical threshold of 0.50. Also in every case the Bartlett’s test was significant (p < 0.001). Only those variables loading above 0.30 to the first factor were kept in a scale (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Factors explained 45–60% of the total variance and in most of the cases the second highest factor in the solution had an eigenvalue less than 1.0. The internal reliability of the formed scales was measured by using the Cronbach’s alpha. For more detailed description of EVEQ and scales used the reader is referred to Takatalo (2002). 3. Results 3.1. Three experiential dimensions The relationship between the 11 presence, interaction and flow scales was explored in as of a second order principal factor analysis (Table 2). Varimax rotation was used to rotate the solution. The critical cut-off level to include a variable into a factor was 0.30 as recommended

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

7

Table 1 A short description, alphas and number of items of the 19 scales used in this study Scale Scales for physical presence, interaction and flow Spatial (presence as transportation, spatial awareness, in side a place) Attention (presence as immersion, concentration to the VE in stead of the real world, loss of time) Real (presence as realness, VE was live and vivid) Action (active participant in VE, not passive, VE induced real motion feelings) Interaction SMR (evaluation of the VE interaction speed, mapping and range) Exploration (ability to explore the VE) Skill (perceived skill to use and act in VE) Challenge (perceived challenges provided by the VE) Personal relevance (involvement, importance, motivation and meaning) Control (sense of control over situation) Arousal (level of arousal evoked by the situation) Simple scales for different feelings Valence (ranging from negative to positive) Playful (creative, free, flexible, natural, live ) Being there (visited a virtual place in stead of being in a lab) Impressed (strong experience, VE was like magic, exciting) Pleasant (being and acting in VE was enjoy able and pleasant) Social richness (part of media richness, e.g., how warm, close and sensitive the media is experienced) Anxiety (acting and being in VE evoked anxiety and frustration) VE distracted (interface awareness, VE was difficult – easy to use )

Alpha

Number of items

0.84 0.90

9 11

0.83 0.82 0.81 0.74 0.91 0.84 0.87 0.82 0.67

6 7 4 3 11 6 7 4 4

0.86 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.77 0.84

5 9 5 9 6 7

0.82 0.61

7 4

Table 2 Structure matrices, eigenvalues and explained variances of the three dimensions of virtual experience Scale

Factor 1

2

3

Factor 1: physical presence Spatial Action Attention Real Arousal

0.89 0.82 0.72 0.71 0.52

0.01 0.30 0.08 0.22 0.28

0.27 0.10 0.17 0.13 0.16

Factor 2: situational involvement Challenge Personal relevance Interaction SMR

0.24 0.08 0.44

0.77 0.58 0.49

0.09 0.03 0.17

Factor 3: competence Exploration Control Skill

0.25 0.14 0.07

0.08 0.18 0.20

0.60 0.59 0.55

4.35 39.52%

1.66 15.10%

1.18 10.75%

Eigen value of the factor Variance explained by each factor

8

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). The factorability of the matrix was inspected with KMO (0.77) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.001). Three factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 were extracted and factor scores with Bartlett’s method were computed. The factors were named as Physical presence, Situational involvement and Competence. Factor scores were used as scales to measure different user experiences. Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scales were, respectively, 0.87, 0.67 and 0.61. 3.2. Experiential groups of participants To study various patterns of experiences among the participants, they were grouped according to 11 scales forming the above three dimensions. The groups were formed in a hierarchical cluster analysis using the Squared Euclidean distance measure. The standardized z-score of each variable was used in the analysis to eliminate the bias of the, e.g., differences in standard deviations and different type of scales used in the questionnaire (semantic differentials and seven-point Likert-scales) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). The agglomeration schedule of the Ward’s linkage supported a three clusters solution. However, a five clusters solution provided a richer depiction of the studied phenomena, serving the purposes of this study better. This type of an explorative use of the cluster analysis is supported by, e.g., Hair et al. (1995). Also significant differences (ANOVA) between the group means in all given scales justified the extracted solution (Table 3). The groups did not differentiate in any background variables (age, sex, education, computer use related questions or VR related questions). 3.3. Experiential content of the different groups High and steady profiles in three experiential dimensions were associated with higher scores in positive simple scales and lower in negative ones. Although, Groups 1 and 5 had differences in simple scale radars, their experiential content was considered positive as compared to the ‘middle’ groups, Groups 2, 3 and 4 (Fig. 2). Group 5 scored above sample mean in all three dimensions. Group 1 did not score above the group mean in Competence, but its profile in three dimensions can be regarded relatively high and steady. Characteristics for the ‘middle’ groups were high scores in one of the dimensions and low scores in other two. The simple scale radars of these groups were also incoherent. These were indications of problems during the visit in VE. To further inspect the differences between the positive and problem groups, Groups 1 and 5 were contrasted to each ‘middle’ group and Group 3 to Groups 2 and 4. Contrasts suggested that Group 2 was competent but not physically present (t(63) = 7.14, p < 0.001) or situationally involved (t(63) = 3.84, p < 0.001). Group 4 was situationally involved but not competent (t(63) = 4.71, p < 0.001) or physically present (t(63) = 9.67, p < 0.001). Group 3 scored lower in Physical presence (t(63) = 2.73, p < 0.01), Situational involvement (t(63) = 5.03, p < 0.001) and Competence (t(63) = 6.20, p < 0.001) as contrasted to Groups 1 and 5. However, it scored higher in Physical presence (t(63) = 4.30, p < 0.001) but lower in Situational involvement (t(63) = 3.30, p < 0.01) and Competence (t(63) = 4.01, p < 0.001) than the other ‘middle’ groups 2 and 4. The simple scale scores indicated that the quality of the experience was negative among the competent members of the Group 2. Although, they were not distracted by VE as

Scale

Physical presence Situational involvement Competence Pleasant Impressed Valence Being there Playfulness Social richness Anxiety VE distracted a

Group 1 n = 29, f = 13, m = 16

Group 2 n = 15, f = 3, m = 12

Group 3 n = 6, f = 0, m = 6

Group 4 n = 6, f = 3, m = 3

Group 5 n = 12, f = 6, m = 6

M

M

M

M

M

SD

SD

SD

SD

F

p

SD

0.36 0.37

0.53 0.78

0.62 0.52

0.51 0.43

0.06 1.24

0.79 0.28

1.77 0.22

0.27 0.84

0.87 0.26

0.64 0.81

30.10 9.40

0.001 0.001

0.18 0.16 0.35 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.03 0.23

0.52 0.89 0.69 0.96 0.67 0.76 0.73 0.80 0.75

0.51 0.45 0.35 0.24 0.38 0.41 0.49 0.13 0.03

0.59 0.71 0.58 0.71 0.85 0.93 0.61 0.74 0.57

1.12 0.93 1.47 0.77 0.14 0.84 0.26 0.53 0.52

0.30 0.87 0.64 0.89 0.53 0.95 0.69 0.83 0.76

0.78 0.14 0.70 0.18 1.81 0.77 0.95 0.24 0.05

0.64 0.73 1.31 1.40 0.44 0.35 0.55 1.03 0.74

0.78 0.75 0.69 0.68 0.79 0.66 1.00 0.73 0.82

0.44 0.52 0.63 0.45 0.50 0.62 0.66 0.36 0.64

21.62 6.52 12.81 6.23a 17.90 7.42 11.97 7.40a 5.85

0.001 0.001 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.010 0.001

Indicates Welch asymptotically F-distributed test in a case of an unequal variance across the groups.

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

Table 3 Group sizes (f = female, m = male) and their means, standard deviations and f-tests across the scales used

9

10

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

PHYSICALPRESENCE

SITUATIONAL INVOLVEMENT

COMPETENCE

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2

1 VEDISTRACTED

2

PLEASANT 3 IMPRESSED 2

VEDISTRACTED

1 ANXIETY

PLEASANT 3 2

IMPRESSED

VEDISTRACTED

1

0

SOCIAL RICHNESS VALENCE

3

PLAY ANXIETY FULL BEING THERE

0

SOCIAL RICHNESS VALENCE

4

PLEASANT 3 IMPRESSED 2

VEDISTRACTED

BEING THERE

0

SOCIAL RICHNESS VALENCE

IMPRESSED

2

VEDISTRACTED

1

1 PLAY ANXIETY FULL

5 PLEASANT 3

PLAY ANXIETY FULL BEING THERE

0

SOCIAL RICHNESS VALENCE

PLEASANT 3 IMPRESSED 2

1 PLAY ANXIETY FULL BEING THERE

0

SOCIAL RICHNESS VALENCE

PLAY FULL BEING THERE

Fig. 2. Mean profiles of the three experiential dimensions and eight simple scales among the five groups.

compared to the members of positive groups 1 and 5, their experience was less pleasant (t(63) = 3.75, p < 0.001), more negative in valence (t(24.77) = 2.79, p = 0.01) and more anxious (t(20.68) = 2.44, p < 0.05). The members of the Group 2 did not feel of being there (t(63) = 4.44, p < 0.001), playfulness (t(63) = 3.67, p < 0.001) or social richness (t(63) = 4.81, p < 0.001). Nor were they impressed by the VE (t(63) = 3.87, p < 0.001). The experience of the situationally involved members in Group 4 was as pleasant, positive in valence and low in anxiety as those of the Groups 1 and 5. The VE did not distract them. Although, Group 4 had a positive experience in VE, the quality of their experience was not as rich as compared to those of Groups 1 and 5. Members of the Group 4 did not feel of being there (t(63) = 7.95, p < 0.001), playfulness (t(63) = 3.61, p < 0.01) or social richness (t(63) = 5.00, p < 0.001). Neither were they impressed by the VE (t(63) = 3.78, p < 0.001). The somewhat physically present Group 3 differentiated from Groups 1 and 5 in all simple scales. Their experience was unpleasant (t(63) = 4.01, p < 0.001), more negative in valence (t(5.95) = 2.96, p < 0.05) and more anxious (t(5.73) = 2.59, p < 0.05). The members of the Group 3 did not feel of being there (t(63) = 2.28, p < 0.05), playfulness (t(63) = 3.82, p < 0.001), social richness (t(63) = 2.62, p < 0.001) and they were not impressed (t(63) = 3.78, p < 0.001). Although, the experience of the Group 3 was negative and poor as compared to Groups 1 and 5, they were more impressed (t(63) = 2.76, p < 0.01) and felt more of being there (t(63) = 3.04, p < 0.01) as compared to other ‘middle’ groups (Groups 2 and 4). 4. Conclusions A three dimensional framework to profile various experiences received from the VE was formed and tested. This explorative framework provides a holistic method to measure user experience by integrating perceptual, attentional, cognitive-affective and motivational components. The applied components have previously been used in studies measuring physical presence and flow in mediated environments. Thus, the framework was named

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

11

as Presence-Flow-framework (PFF). Based on the PFF, the various experiences of the 68 participants were grouped into five experiential groups. These groups showed that common patterns of various experiences could be found and study to understand more about the effects of the VE to the users. Participants having high and steady PFF-profile were considered to have feelings of being in VE and being active in there, perceiving VE to be real in some level and attracting their attention as well as inducing their arousal. They regarded VE personally relevant and evaluated it challenging and giving feedback from their actions, thus involving them and motivating them to act. All this was combined with the sense of control over situation as well as skill to explore VE without constraints. The simple feeling scale scores verified the PFF-findings. These participants experienced VE as pleasant and playful, they did not feel any anxiety and they were more impressed than distracted by the VE. They also considered VE as a media socially richer and felt that they visited a computer-generated place instead of staying in a lab during the test. These participants experienced VE emotionally more involving and had qualitatively rich and positive experience. Their experience included aspects of both presence and flow. To further analyze the causes and effects of the unsteady PFF-profiles of some of the participants is out of the scope of this study. It is concluded that being physically present, situationally involved or competent is not alone enough to create a positive and rich experience in VE. The participants having unsteady profile lacked feelings of playfulness and being there. VE was not regarded as impressive or socially rich. In some cases the experience was unpleasant, negative in valence and anxious. Some of these participants experienced, at least in some extent, physical presence but not flow. This indicates the role of presence as a prerequisite of flow in mediated environments (Novak et al., 2000). 4.1. Presence-flow-framework (PFF) The three dimensions of the PFF were named as Physical presence, Situational involvement and Competence. The first dimension of the framework included perceptual experiences from the VE. The following two dimensions included cognitive evaluation processes concerning the content of the VE in terms of personal relevance, situational opportunities for action and one’s personal abilities and capabilities while facing these opportunities. Two latter factors extend the eight-channel flow model (Massimini & Carli, 1988) by integrating the evaluation of the interactivity of the VE and personal relevance into it. Such interplay between different environmental appraisals in generating experiences shares similarities with appraisal theories of emotion (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Lazarus, 1991). The framework also included two out of the three basic emotions: arousal and control. The third basic emotional component, Valence, was left out from the framework and referred to the profiles of the framework. Although, an orthogonal rotation was used to extract the dimensions there was item cross-loadings between the factors, which are considered while the content of the three dimensions is evaluated. 4.2. Physical presence The first dimension included the ‘Big three’ (Laarni, 2003) physical presence components (Spatial, Attention, Real) consisting of items similar to those suggested by previous factor

12

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

analytical studies (Lessiter et al., 2001; Schubert et al., 2001). Included was also a scale measuring the feeling of acting (Action). Some of the items forming both Spatial and Action in this study were included into a Sense of Physical Space – factor in the Lessiter et al. (2001) study. The close relationship between these two bolsters the notion of coupling between perception and action as suggested by the ecological views (Flach & Holden, 1998; Zahorik & Jenison, 1998). However, these two cross-loaded on different factors: Spatial was more related to competences user possesses and Action to involving opportunities the situation provides. This shows how different perceptual aspects of physical presence are related to cognitive-affective evaluation process of user interaction. Also arousal loaded on this dimension. This supports the close relationship between arousal and attentional system of a person (Kahneman, 1973). As the used VE was highly immersive, it also supports findings, that the media form itself has an impact on the level of arousal (Simons, Detenber, Roedma, & Reiss, 1999). Dillon, Keogh, Freeman, and Davidoff (2000) concluded, that in some circumstances presence and physical arousal might be related. They also stressed that these two are sensitive to different aspects of mediated experience. 4.3. Situational involvement Second dimension consisted of scales concerning involving aspects of being and acting in VE. Included were situational evaluations in terms of personal relevance, challenges provided by the environment and its interaction speed, mapping and range (SMR) as suggested by Steuer (1992). The relationship between these three was supported in Novak et al. (2000) study, which also presented a close relationship between challenge and arousal. In the present study arousal cross-loaded in Situational involvement-dimension and challenge and interaction SMR cross-loaded on the Physical presence-dimension. This indicates a close relationship between physical presence, interactivity and challenges provided by the situation. It also shows that arousal is affected by both the form as well as the content of the VE. The role of the personal relevance in PFF should be examined more carefully in future studies. 4.4. Competence Competence-dimension evaluated environment in terms of user’s potential in the situation: perceived skills, sense of control and using those skills in the environment, i.e., to explore it. The relationship between skills and control is consistent with previous studies (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994; Novak et al., 2000). Exploration, one form of interaction, cross-loaded on the Physical presence-dimension. This strengthens the relationship between interactivity and presence. Novak et al. (2000) also found a positive relationship between personal relevance (importance) and skill. However, in this study personal relevance did not cross-load to the Competence-dimension. 4.5. Future work This study provided a new viewpoint to investigate a holistic human experience in VEs. Although, a larger sample would have ease the statistical analysis, the attempt to profile user experiences presented here showed promising results. These results were bolstered

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

13

by the previous presence and flow studies. To understand more about the causes and effects of the dynamical process leading to different experiences in VEs needs more detailed examination of the PFF-dimensions. The framework should also be tested with different media forms and contents as well as context of use. As the PFF is applied to different kinds of media and context of use it is likely to need modification accordingly. More components and even a fourth or fifth dimensions are needed. One extra dimension could be an emotional involvement-dimension including feeling scales such as valence. Because of the small sample-size these were introduced here as the point of reference to the current framework. Also measures covering specific aspects of presented content, e.g., social interaction should be included when necessary. The developmental process of the PFF should also include alternative methods to confirm the PFF-findings. Such methods could be measures of immersive tendencies (Witmer & Singer, 1998), qualitative data from the interviews and objective measures, e.g., behavioral data. The development of the framework for studying user experiences in VEs also increases the knowledge on how different experiences are related to our attitudes, beliefs, interpretations, expectations, values, goals and in the end behaviors that are created in a human–computer interaction. In the future, the limitless imagination of the mankind produces new devices with good graphics and audio. The added value of these devices depends greatly on how well they are capable of capturing the essential psychological phenomena producing desirable experiences. Although, these devices differ greatly from the applications like EVE, the basic interaction dynamics affecting the user experience are likely to be present. As the theory and practice concerning the human experience in mediated environments develops, the impact of these environments on our daily life can be better evaluated and designed to meet the needs of the user. Acknowledgements This project was conducted in co-operation between the CSC-Finnish IT Center for Science, the Telecommunication software and Multimedia Laboratory (TML) of the Helsinki University of Technology and the Psychology of the Digital Life-group in Department of Psychology at the University of Helsinki. The authors would like to thank Jyrki Hokkanen and Jarmo Pirhonen from CSC and Matti Gro¨hn, Tommi Ilmonen and Mikko Laakso from TML, who helped us out with the technology. Special thanks to Jukka Ha¨kkinen from the Nokia Research Center from the psychological insight and Pertti Keskivaara from the Department of Psychology at the University of Helsinki from the help with the stats. The Finnish Cultural Foundation provided financial help for the article work. References Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotions: the self-assessment mankind and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

14

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Modernization and the changing contexts of flow in work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 193–213). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company. Dillon, C., Keogh, E., Freeman, J., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Aroused and immersed: the psychophysiology of presence. Paper presented at the presence 2000 workshop, March 27–28, Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved November 2000 from the WWW: http://www.presence-research.com. Draper, J. V., Kaber, D. B., & Usher, J. M. (1998). Telepresence. Human Factors, 40, 354–375. Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). From appraisal to emotion: differences among unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 271–302. Flach, J. M., & Holden, J. G. (1998). The reality of experience: Gibson’s way. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 90–95. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). How direct is visual perception? Some reflections on Gibson’s ‘‘ecological approach’’. Cognition, 9, 139–196. Fontaine, G. (1992). The experience of a sense of presence in intercultural and international encounters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 482–490. Freeman, J., Avons, S. E., Meddis, R., Pearson, D. E., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2000). Using behavioural realism to estimate presence: a study of the utility of postural responses to motion-stimuli. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 149–164. Frijda, N. (2000). The psychologist point of view. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 59–74). New York: Guilford. Gaggioli, A., Bassi, M., & Della Fave, A. (2003). Quality of experience in virtual environments. In G. Riva, F. Davide, & W. A. Ijsselsteijn (Eds.), Being there: Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments (pp. 4–14). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human– computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 381–391. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. Havlena, W. J., & Holbrook, M. B. (1986). The varieties of consumption experience: comparing two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 394–404. Huang, M. P., & Alessi, N. E. (1999). Presence as an emotional experience. In J. D. Westwood, H. M. Hoffman, R. A. Robb, & D. Stredney (Eds.), Medicine meets virtual reality: The Convergence of physical and informational technologies options for a new era in healthcare (pp. 148–153). Amsterdam: IOS Press. IJsselsteijn, W., deRidder, H., Freeman, J., & Avons, S. E. (2000). Presence: concept, determinants and measurement. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, human vision and electronic imaging V (pp. 3959–3976). Presented at photonics west – human vision and electronic Imaging V, January 23–28, San Jose, USA. Jalkanen, J. (2000). Building a spatially immersive display-HUTCAVE. Licenciate Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kim, T., & Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: two dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory and persuasion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Laakso, M. (2001). Practical navigation in virtual architectural environments. Master’s Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland. Laarni, J. (2003). Measuring spatial presence. Presentation in seminar on perception and user interfaces, May 22, University of Helsinki, Finland. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive–motivational–relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–833. Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. D. (2001). A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITCsense of presence inventory. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10, 282–297. Lobard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., Crane, D., Davis, B., Gil-Egui, G., Horvath, K. et al. (2000). Measuring presence: a literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument. Paper presented at the presence 2000 workshop, March 27–28, Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved March 2001 from the WWW: http://nimbus.temple.edu/~mlombard/P2000.htm.

J. Takatalo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1–15

15

Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 288–306). New York: Cambridge University Press. McQuarrie, E. F., & Munson, J. M. (1992). A revised product involvement inventory: improved usability and validity. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 108–115. Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19, 22–44. Schubert, T. W., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (1999). Embodied presence in virtual environments. In R. Paton & I. Neilson (Eds.), Visual representations and interpretations (pp. 268–278). London: Springer-Verlag. Schubert, T. W., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 10, 266–281. Schuemie, M. J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & van der Mast, C. A. P. G. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 183–201. Simons, R. F., Detenber, B. H., Roedma, T. M., & Reiss, J. E. (1999). Emotion-processing in three systems: the medium and the message. Psychophysiology, 36, 619–627. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 72–92. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Takatalo, J. (2002). Presence and flow in virtual environments: An explorative study. Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Available on WWW: http://eve.hut.fi. Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., & Slater, M. (2000). Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 497–503. Visual thesaurus is created by the Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton University. Available on WWW: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/online/index.html (November 2004). Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16, 201–226. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225–240. Wundt, W. M. (1897). Outlines of psychology [C.H. Judd, Trans.]. Retrieved April 2002 from the WWW: http:// psychclassics.yorku.ca/Wundt/Outlines/. Zahorik, P., & Jenison, R. L. (1998). Presence as being-in-the-world. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 78–89.