Teasing apart the effect of visibility and physical co-presence to examine the effect of CMC on interpersonal attraction

Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Teasing apart the effect of visibility and physical co-presence to examine the effect of CMC on interpersonal attraction Emmelyn A.J. Croes*, Marjolijn L. Antheunis, Alexander P. Schouten, Emiel J. Krahmer Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication (TiCC), Department of Communication and Information Sciences, School of Humanities, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, NL-5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 28 May 2015 Accepted 24 September 2015 Available online 5 November 2015

This study analyzed the possible difference in interpersonal attraction between communicators in cuerich computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FtF) communication. The first aim was to determine whether physical co-presence and visibility may account for differences in interpersonal attraction between interlocutors in CMC and FtF communication. The second aim was to assess social presence and identifiability as underlying mechanisms in the relation between communication medium and interpersonal attraction. An experiment among 105 unacquainted cross-sex dyads with a 2 (visible/ invisible)
2 (physical co-present/physically not co-present) between-subjects design, revealed that while visibility had a direct negative effect on interpersonal attraction, it positively influenced attraction through social presence and identifiability. In addition, people who were physically co-present were more attracted towards each other because they felt more social presence. Finally, both co-present and visible interactants were less attracted towards each other. This study provides support for social presence theory by revealing that both physical co-presence and visibility enhance social presence. In addition, our results have implications for theory and research regarding the effect of cue-rich CMC on interpersonal attraction. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Computer-mediated communication Interpersonal attraction Visibility Physical co-presence Social presence Identifiability

1. Introduction The study of the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on initial interactions has evolved from the early belief that CMC is inherently impersonal (e.g., Culnan & Markus, 1987; Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai, 2011) to the acceptance that CMC users can indeed communicate affection towards one another (Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther & Parks, 2002). Although recent studies on the effects of CMC demonstrate that emotionally intimate interactions are possible in CMC (e.g., Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2012; Walther, 1992), this research is mainly based on text-based CMC. However, present-day CMC applications are becoming increasingly rich, offering both verbal and nonverbal cues, and are no longer merely text-based. With the exception of haptic cues and smell, new CMC technologies are capable of transmitting many of the same cues as in face-to-face (FtF) communication. Hence which features of non-text-based mediated interactions help or hinder interpersonal attraction has remained largely unexplored. This

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.A.J. Croes). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.037 0747-5632/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

leads to the question of whether we can still expect a difference in interpersonal attraction between these communication modes and if so, what causes this difference. Based on earlier research on CMC effects, we propose that there are two factors that may explain differences in interpersonal attraction between non-text-based CMC, from now on referred to as cue-rich CMC, and FtF communication. The first factor is physical co-presence (Manstead, Lea, & Goh, 2011). When communicating via an electronic medium like a computer, communicators are geographically dispersed. It has been proposed that when communicators are physically co-present they are more likely to feel a sense of connection with one another which can, in turn, result in more interpersonal attraction (Mehrabian, 1969). Alternatively, a mediated conversation, compared to a physically co-present conversation, might provide some protection against the impact and perception of rejection cues. In this way, mediated interactions can arguably liberate communicators from the social constraints which exist in physically co-present interactions (Manstead et al., 2011) which can also lead to more interpersonal attraction. A second factor which may explain differences in interpersonal attraction between CMC and FtF communication is the aspect of visibility (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Depending on what medium they

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

are using, people interacting through CMC may not have visual cues available to them. In the present study, we analyze the effect the addition of a visual channel has on interpersonal outcomes. Studies show that conversations where both communicators can see each other are richer and allow for the transmission of more cues than invisible interactions (Tanis & Postmes, 2007). This, in turn, results in positive interaction outcomes (Grayson & Coventry, 1998). Alternatively, being invisible in an interaction implies that communicators are to some extent unidentifiable, which can lead them to feel a sense of freedom from social restrictions normally present in interactions with visibility (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Manstead et al., 2011). This can allow people to be more expressive in their feelings, whether affectionate or aggressive (LapidotLefler & Barak, 2012). Thus the first aim of our study is to discover what role physical co-presence and visibility play in interactions with regards to how interpersonal attraction is achieved. Furthermore, we propose that two underlying mechanisms mediate the relation between physical co-presence, visibility and interpersonal attraction. In this research we examine the role of social presence and identifiability as possible explanations for the enhancement or impairment of interpersonal attraction. Social presence is believed to enhance communicators' awareness of one another and, in turn, foster interpersonal relationships (Nowak & Biocca, 2003). Identifiability has also been found to increase awareness which can result in favorable interaction outcomes (Matheson & Zanna, 1988; Walther, 2011). When communicators feel less identifiable in a communication, and hence more anonymous, they may become less concerned with social evaluation and the focus of the conversation can become less personal and more task-oriented (Lea, Spears, & de Groot, 2001; Zimbardo, 1969). Thus, the second aim of this study is to examine the validity of two potential mediators that may account for the effects of cue-rich CMC on interpersonal attraction. In sum, this study aims to discover what aspects of cue-rich CMC interactions contribute to an enhancement of interpersonal attraction among its communicators. In most earlier studies, visibility and co-presence are confounded, such that participants that have mutual visibility are also co-present and participants who are physically distant often cannot see each other. However, in reality, the two are clearly different. Nowadays, with modern technology, it is increasingly common to be able to see each other while not being co-present. For this reason in this study we experimentally compare initial interactions between unacquainted individuals in four communication conditions: FtF communication, FtF communication with a screen separating the communicators to ensure mutual invisibility, audio-only communication and audiovisual communication. 2. Theory The primary focus of this study is to determine which aspects of cue-rich CMC enhance interpersonal attraction. Interpersonal attraction, or the positive feeling of liking towards another individual (Dickens & Perlman, 1981), is a frequently studied concept in the CMC literature and believed to be an important determinant for friendship formation (e.g., McKenna, Green & Gleason, 2002). In this study we focus on two concepts that are likely consequences of visible and/or co-present interaction conditions and have been consistently linked to positive interaction outcomes, namely social presence and identifiability (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Ogara, Koh, & Prybutok, 2014). These concepts may directly affect attraction, so these concepts might be mediators in the relation between visibility, physical co-presence and interpersonal attraction. For this reason we start by discussing how social presence and identifiability on their own may influence attraction. After that, we

469

propose how these concepts may function as underlying mechanisms in explaining the effects of visibility and co-presence on interpersonal attraction. 2.1. Social presence Social presence was originally defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the interactions and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) and later on simplified to “the feeling of being with another in a mediated environment” (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003, p. 14). Social presence is believed to be more easily achieved in communication environments that allow for the transmission of both verbal and nonverbal cues (Kim, Frank, & Kim, 2014). More specifically, according to Social Presence Theory (SPT), a reduction in the ability to transmit nonverbal cues in an interaction leads to an impairment in the ability to transmit and receive interpersonal impressions (Short et al., 1976; Walther, 1992). The theory assumes that social presence enhances involvement or engagement in an interaction resulting in more psychological closeness among participants (Biocca, Harms, & Gregg, 2001; Mehrabian, 1969). In the literature, social presence is linked to a variety of positive psychological effects such as immediacy (Biocca et al., 2003), involvement and intimacy (Walther, 1992). Immediacy is seen as a composite of involvement and affection and viewed as the perception of closeness and interpersonal attraction which is created through an interaction between two individuals (Houser, Horan, & Furler, 2007; Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005). When social presence is high, communicators in a mediated environment experience a sense of being together and hence interact as if they are physically present (Felnhofer et al., 2014). Moreover, social presence is believed to make the messages exchanged between people more personal and emotional (Rice & Love, 1987; Walther & Burgoon, 1992). As a result, interpersonal attraction among individuals is enhanced, both in an interaction and in the process of relationship development (Biocca et al., 2003; Short et al., 1976). Thus, social presence is a process with desirable outcomes and believed to carry primarily positive relational meanings (Manstead et al., 2011). For this reason our first hypothesis, which is visualized in Fig. 1 path 1, states: H1. Social presence enhances interpersonal attraction. 2.2. Identifiability A second concept that may influence interpersonal attraction is identifiability. Based on the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995) we expect that when individuals feel less identifiable, they are likely to be less attracted towards one another. SIDE states that when individuals feel less identifiable, their sense of individuality and self-awareness is reduced (Spears & Lea, 1992). As a result, interactants become deindividuated, that is separated from the consequences of their actions and are likely to “forget their audience” (Spears & Lea, 1994, p. 431). When individuals feel individuated they are less concerned with self-presentation and more likely to behave anti-normatively (Spears & Lea, 1994). Hence, interpersonal attraction is difficult to achieve. In contrast, when interlocutors feel identifiable they feel more self-aware and more aware of the people with whom they communicate (Haines & Mann, 2011). This can decrease the psychological distance between them and hence enhance interpersonal attraction (Walther, 1992). Research on identifiability supports the claim that once concerns about self-presentation fade, individuals shift their focus and

470

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

Fig. 1. Conceptual model displaying the hypotheses.

become psychologically removed from each other (Burgoon et al., 2002). Consequently, interactions become more impersonal and less comfortable (Lea et al., 2001; Zimbardo, 1969). This can cause unpleasant interaction conditions which encourage selfish and antisocial behavior (Bohnet & Frey, 1999; Hoffman, McCabe, & Smith, 1996; Lea et al., 2001). As a result, interlocutors evaluate one another more negatively and thus interpersonal relations and attraction between communicators is hindered (Lea et al., 2001; Matheson & Zanna, 1988). Thus, based on SIDE and empirical research, we suggest that when individuals feel identifiable, selfawareness is enhanced which can result in more interpersonal attraction, which is why we pose the following hypothesis, visualized in Fig. 1 path 2: H2. Perceived identifiability enhances interpersonal attraction. 2.3. Physical co-presence The first factor that may explain differences in interpersonal attraction is physical co-presence, which is defined as two communicators sharing the same physical environment (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Interpersonal attraction between communicators is believed to be higher when they are physically co-present compared to when they are physically distant (Burgoon et al., 2002; Mehrabian, 1969). When interlocutors are not co-present, they often feel less socially engaged with one another because they have to work harder to create a synchronized, smooth-flowing conversation (Biocca & Harms, 2002; Brennan & Ohaeri, 1999; Mehrabian, 1969). Physical co-presence may stimulate both social presence and identifiability. First, social presence is different from physical copresence: co-presence requires communicators to share the same physical environment, while social presence is experienced when a mediated interaction successfully mimics a physically co-present interaction (Lee, 2004). Although physical co-presence is not a necessary condition for social presence to be experienced, it is believed that maximum levels of social presence are found in physically co-present interactions where communicators are physically close (Biocca et al., 2001; Burgoon et al., 2002; Foppa, 1995). As previously discussed, social presence is believed to increase intimacy and, as a result, enhance interpersonal attraction in interpersonal interactions (Manstead et al., 2011). Therefore we pose the following hypothesis, visualized in Fig. 1 (path 3a and path 1): H3a. Physical co-presence enhances feelings of social presence which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction.

Second, studies show that when communicators are not physically co-present, they feel more depersonalized and anonymous and hence less identifiable (Brennan & Ohaeri, 1999). Identifiability is related to the concept of anonymity: the more identified individuals are to one another, the less anonymous they will feel (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). Being physically distant can enhance feelings of anonymity and hence reduce identifiability, as communication is mediated and even rich mediated interactions lack the directness of FtF communication. Thus, interactants often perceive themselves to be less identifiable in mediated physically distant interactions (Fioravanti, Dettore, & Casale, 2012) which we suggest can hinder interpersonal attraction in dyadic interactions. In contrast, perceived identifiability is expected to foster interpersonal attraction. Therefore, our next hypothesis, which is visualized in Fig. 1 (path 3b and path 2) reads: H3b. Physical co-presence enhances feelings of identifiability which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction.

2.4. Visibility A second factor that may explain differences in interpersonal attraction is visibility. While in non-mediated, physically copresent interactions communicators can almost always see each other, this differs in mediated interactions. Research on the effects of visibility mostly finds that adding video to a communication format is a vast improvement to the quality of an interaction over audio-only or text-based interactions (Bohannon, Herbert, Pelz, & Rantanen, 2012; Olson, Olson, & Meader, 1995; Whittaker & O'Conaill, 1997). An interaction without visibility suggests interacting through a more fragile communication channel because of the inability to transmit nonverbal cues or social context cues (Alibali, Heath, & Myers, 2001; Walther & Burgoon, 1992). What people look like, what body language they use, what facial expressions they show; all of this is absent in interactions where interlocutors are invisible which can result in unfavorable interaction outcomes (Mehrabian, 1969). Moreover, in social interactions the loss of the visual channel could be of more significance than the loss of the auditory channel, as the visual channel offers more social information about interlocutors and hence reduces uncertainty among them (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Peter, Valkenburg, & Schouten, 2007; Ramirez & Burgoon, 2004). The effect of visibility on interpersonal attraction may also be explained by both identifiability and social presence. Adding a visual channel to a conversation, on top of an auditory channel, presumably enhances interlocutors' identifiability. When communicators cannot see each other they are visually anonymous to one

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

another which can reduce feelings of identifiability (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). When participants are visually anonymous they are likely to feel less identifiable which can lead to more task-oriented conversations and reduce interpersonal attraction (Jessup, Connolly, & Tansik, 1990). Individuals who feel unidentifiable often feel less self-aware and exposed which can result in negative disinhibition whereby individuals damage one's own or the other's self-image through verbal attacks or other negative behaviors (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). In contrast, visibility and mutual gaze in particular have been found to enhance feelings of identifiability, while lack of eye-contact has been found to result in unpleasant interaction outcomes (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). Thus, visibility presumably enhances feelings of identifiability and identifiability is likely to positively influence interpersonal attraction. For this reason we state the next hypothesis, visualized in Fig. 1 (path 4a and path 2): H4a. Visibility enhances feelings of identifiability which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction. Second, the effect of visibility on interpersonal attraction may be explained by social presence. One of the most important reasons for adding a visual channel to communication is believed to be the transmission of social presence (Nowak & Biocca, 2003). Much of the information received in an interpersonal interaction comes from the visual channel and visual information is believed to influence social presence more so than other sensory channels (Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002; Witmer & Singer, 1998). Studies show that real-time audio or audiovisual channels, compared to text based platforms, significantly enhance the social presence of an interac€mer, & Eschenburg, 2008). tion (Bente, Rüggenberg, Kra The notion that mediated interactions are low in social presence is based on the idea that CMC is text-based and therefore unable to transmit nonverbal cues which are believed to enhance the social meaning of an interaction (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). According to SPT, important relational information is derived from nonverbal cues such as physical appearance, voice quality and facial expressions which require mutual visibility (Short et al., 1976). However, Alibali et al. (2001) proposed that the continuity of an interaction is not directly influenced by visibility but is mediated by social presence. More specifically, as bandwidth becomes wider, media allow for more social presence and as a result, communication becomes more friendly and emotional (Rice & Love, 1987) which results in higher levels of interpersonal attraction. Hence, the following hypothesis is posed which is visualized in Fig. 1 (path 4b and path 1): H4b. Visibility enhances feelings of social presence which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction.

3. Method 3.1. Sample and procedure For this study an experiment was conducted with a 2 (visible/ invisible)
2 (physical co-present/physically not co-present) between-subjects design. Participants were 210 undergraduate students (105 male and 105 female). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 32 years old (M ¼ 21.50; SD ¼ 2.53). Half of the students were recruited from communication courses while the other half of the students came from a variety of other undergraduate courses. The recruitment of students from different disciplines was done to ensure that the students did not know each other. All dyads were cross-sex and consisted of a communication student paired with a student from another discipline. To ensure that the participants

471

within a dyad were unacquainted they were asked to indicate whether they knew the other person prior to the interaction. None indicated they knew the person they were communicating with beforehand. The dyads were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: co-present and visible communication (N ¼ 31 dyads), co-present communication and invisible, where a screen separated the participants (N ¼ 25 dyads), not co-present and visible, where participants communicated using audiovisual CMC (N ¼ 25 dyads) and not co-present and invisible, where participants used audioonly CMC (N ¼ 24 dyads). The participants were asked to report to different rooms on different floors at the start of the experiment to ensure they did not see each other beforehand. Participants in the not co-present conditions interacted with each other from different rooms on different floors within the same building, while participants in the co-present conditions were brought to the same room for their interaction. Before the experiment started, all participants signed a consent form signifying their participation in the experiment as well as an agreement of confidentiality. The task given to the participants was a get-acquainted task where they were simply asked to get to know each other; which is common in this line of CMC research (e.g., Antheunis et al., 2012; Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Participants were instructed to talk freely about anything they wanted. Participants interacted for 12 min in all four conditions. The interaction was stopped by the experimenter who entered the room after exactly 12 min. In the conditions where participants were not physically copresent they communicated via an Eye-catcher. The Eye-catcher is a form of videoconferencing that, unlike a regular webcam, ensures eye-contact between the interactants because of an invisible high-resolution camera located directly behind the screen. Therefore, participants are able to look at the screen and make eyecontact with one another at the same time (Shahid, Krahmer, & Swerts, 2012). Two Eye-catchers were placed in different rooms from which the participants communicated with one another. In the audio-only condition the same Eye-catcher was used as in the audiovisual condition, except the screen was turned off. In this way, participants could only hear each other and not see each other. In the physically co-present conditions, the conversation took place in an experimental room. One participant was led to the room, while the other waited in another room. At the start of the experiment, this participant was brought to the room after which the experiment began. In the physically co-present condition, participants sat across from each other in a chair with a table in between them. In the physically co-present condition with the screen the set up was the same with the exception of an opaque screen which separated the participants and ensured mutual invisibility. So in this condition, participants sat across from each other while having a conversation while they could not see each other. After the interaction, participants individually filled out a survey with questions regarding the conversation they just had. In the copresent conditions, participants were led to different rooms to do so. After the experiment all participants were orally debriefed and either given course credit for their participants or offered a small reward (5 euros). 3.2. Measurement 3.2.1. Social presence To measure the social presence of individuals in a dyad, participants were asked five questions with regard to their felt social presence. These items were derived from a social presence scale by Nowak and Biocca (2003) with the wording slightly adapted and translated to fit our experiment. These items were “during the

472

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

conversation I was able to assess my interaction partner's reactions,” “during the conversation I had the feeling I was face-toface with my interaction partner,” “during the conversation I had the feeling I was in the same room as my interaction partner,” “during the conversation I had the feeling my interaction partner seemed real,” and “during the conversation I had the feeling I could really get to know my interaction partner.” The response categories ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and the scale's reliability was acceptable with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.61 (M ¼ 3.52; SD ¼ 0.62). 3.2.2. Identifiability To measure perceived identifiability of the participants during the interaction, they were asked to what extent they felt anonymous, unknown, unidentified (reverse-coded) and identified. Participants rated these items on a 10-point bipolar adjective scale. The items were based on earlier research by Rains (2007) and Qian and Scott (2007). The four items formed a one-dimensional scale with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89 (M ¼ 6.14; SD ¼ 2.06). 3.2.3. Interpersonal attraction Interpersonal attraction was measured with seven items based on the measurement of interpersonal attraction by McCroskey, McCroskey, and Richmond (2006). These items were “I think my conversation partner could be a friend of mine,” “I think my conversation partner and I could never establish a friendship with each other,” (reverse-coded) “I think I could have a friendly chat with my conversation partner,” “I don't think my conversation partner would fit into my circle of friends,” (reverse-coded) “I think my conversation partner would be pleasant to be with,” “I think my conversation partner is unpleasant to be around,” (reverse-coded) and “I think I could become close friends with my conversation partner.” We also added an eight item labeled “I would like to meet up with my conversation partner again.” The response categories ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). These eight items formed a one-dimensional scale with a reliable Cronbach's alpha of 0.85 (M ¼ 3.50; SD ¼ 0.58). 4. Results In order to test the hypotheses of this study a moderated mediation analysis was done according to Preacher and Hayes' moderated mediation model which looks at conditional indirect effects. So besides direct and indirect effects, the model tests whether the magnitude of these effects change at a particular value of a moderator (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Thus, the model allows for the analysis of both mediators and moderators in a single model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We used this model to account for possible interaction effects between the independent variables visibility and physical co-presence. We used bootstrapping to test the mediated effects for significance, based on 10,000 bootstrap samples, together with 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (Bca CI's). To test the hypotheses, a moderated mediation model was run, with visibility as the independent variable, interpersonal attraction as the dependent variable and physical co-presence as a moderator. Additionally, the mediator variables were identifiability and social presence.

The second hypothesis stated that identifiability would enhance interpersonal attraction. There was a trend towards significance for the effect of identifiability on interpersonal attraction, b ¼ 0.047, SE ¼ 0.024, p ¼ .054. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. 4.2. Mediation analysis Hypothesis 3a proposed that physical co-presence enhances feelings of social presence which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction. First we tested if there was a direct effect of physical copresence on interpersonal attraction. However, there was none, b ¼ 0.097, SE ¼ 0.085, p ¼ .255. Physical co-presence had a direct effect on social presence, b ¼ 0.425, SE ¼ 0.079, p < .001. The mediating effect of social presence was also significant with a point estimate of 0.097, SE ¼ 0.036, 95% Bca CI: [0.036, 0.181]. Hypothesis 3a was supported: physical co-presence did result in higher feelings of social presence and this resulted in more interpersonal attraction. Hypothesis 3b stated that physical co-presence enhances feelings of identifiability which, in turn, results in higher levels of interpersonal attraction. There was no significant effect of physical co-presence on identifiability, b ¼ 0.455, SE ¼ 0.235, p ¼ .054. The mediating effect of identifiability was not significant either, point estimate 0.021, SE ¼ 0.018, 95% Bca CI: [0.074, 0.000]. Therefore, Hypothesis 3b was not supported. According to Hypothesis 4a, visibility enhances feelings of identifiability which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction. Visibility had a direct negative effect on interpersonal attraction, b ¼ 0.203, SE ¼ 0.094, p ¼ .033. In addition, there was also a positive effect of visibility on identifiability, b ¼ 2.355, SE ¼ 0.235, p < .001. The mediating effect of identifiability was also significant, point estimate 0.111, SE ¼ 0.059, 95% Bca CI: [0.001, 0.238]. This finding supports Hypothesis 4a: visibility enhances feelings of identifiability which enhances interpersonal attraction. Hypothesis 4b posed that visibility enhances feelings of social presence which, in turn, enhances interpersonal attraction. Visibility had a direct effect on social presence, b ¼ 0.253, SE ¼ 0.079, p ¼ .002. There was also a mediating effect of social presence, point estimate 0.058, SE ¼ 0.025, 95% Bca CI: [0.019, 0.123]. Hypothesis 4b was supported; visibility was found to enhance perceived social presence which, in turn, enhanced interpersonal attraction. Fig. 2 displays a model with the results of the analyses. 4.3. Interaction effects Besides the effects reported above, the moderated mediation analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect between physical co-presence and visibility. First, the analysis revealed that there was a significant interaction effect between physical copresence and visibility on interpersonal attraction (b ¼ 0.25, p ¼ .035). More specifically, being both visible and co-present reduced interpersonal attraction, after controlling for the mediators. Thus, both being physically co-present and visible (i.e., FtF communication) negatively influenced interpersonal attraction, but only after the mediators were included in the model. The means and standard deviations of all mediating, moderating and outcome variables are displayed in Table 1.

4.1. Effects of the mediators on interpersonal attraction

5. Discussion

Our first hypothesis predicted that social presence would enhance interpersonal attraction. The effect of social presence on interpersonal attraction was significant, b ¼ 0.229, SE ¼ 0.072, p ¼ .002. In line with our first hypothesis, social presence enhanced interpersonal attraction. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

The focus of the present study was to compare initial interactions in cue-rich CMC and FtF communication and the effect on interpersonal attraction. The first goal was to discover the effect of physical co-presence and visibility on interpersonal attraction. Second, we wanted to analyze social presence and identifiability as

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

473

Fig. 2. Results of the analysis displaying the underlying mechanisms social presence and perceived anonymity mediating the effect of physical co-presence and visibility on interpersonal attraction. The coefficients represent the unstandardized coefficients. Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

possible underlying mechanisms for the relation between those factors and interpersonal attraction. 5.1. Physical co-presence In line with our expectations, we found that being physically copresent increases social presence which then enhances interpersonal attraction among interlocutors. This finding is consistent with SPT and earlier research on social presence, which states that maximum social presence is found in physically co-present interactions (IJsselsteijn, van Baren, & van Lanen, 2003; Lee, 2004; Short et al., 1976). Our findings reinforce this contention but also show that social presence is a predictor of interpersonal attraction. This is also in line with social presence research, which finds that social presence in mediated interactions positively influences feelings of psychological accessibility, connectedness and the overall quality of an interaction (Burgoon et al., 2002; Shahid et al., 2012). So our findings confirm that co-present situations indeed increase feelings of social presence and this, in turn, can enhance interpersonal attraction. 5.2. Visibility The second factor we examined was visibility. First, as expected, visibility in an interaction enhanced feelings of identifiability. This means that visibility in an interaction is important, as the addition of visual nonverbal cues ensures that communicators feel identifiable. In addition, we found support for the claim that communicators' perceptions of how identifiable they are positively influence interpersonal attraction. Second, in line with our predictions, visibility was found to enhance social presence and social presence was significantly related to interpersonal attraction. This finding is in line with SPT and social presence research which suggests that the enhancement of nonverbal cues in an interaction positively impacts interpersonal impressions and closeness (Werkhoven, Schraagen, & Punte, 2001). Our findings show support for the fact that social presence is increased when interlocutors can see each other and

this social presence also positively impacts how much they like each other. Finally, contrary to our expectations, visibility negatively influenced interpersonal attraction; interactants liked each other more in the invisible conditions, compared to the visible conditions. Thus, although visibility had a positive effect on interpersonal attraction via identifiability, the direct effect of visibility on interpersonal attraction was negative. This may suggest that not all individuals benefit from being visible to each other. Instead certain individuals may feel more socially anxious in visible interactions and hence interpersonal attraction is reduced (Burgoon, Buller, White, Afifi, & Buslig, 1999; Philippot & Douilliez, 2011). Research has shown that for socially anxious individuals being watched by others is one of the main sources of discomfort (Philippot & Douilliez, 2011). Moreover while extraverted people may appreciate being able to see each other, studies show that for shy individuals adding a video channel to a communication can be very unattractive (Manstead et al., 2011). This is related to many anxiety provoking factors such as the fact that individuals are directly confronted by the nonverbal messages of another (Philippot & Douilliez, 2011). Especially for shy and socially anxious individuals conversations without visibility are seen as safer social exchanges than FtF communication (Manstead et al., 2011). Thus it seems that both physical co-presence and visibility affect interpersonal attraction but via different processes. People who are at the same location like each other more than people who are physically separated because they feel more socially present. Moreover, people like each other more when they can see each other compared to when they cannot see each other because they feel more identifiable and socially present. Finally, visibility on its own negatively influences interpersonal attraction. 5.3. Interaction effects While we only found a direct effect of visibility on interpersonal attraction and no significant effect for physical co-presence, we did find an interaction effect of both factors on interpersonal attraction.

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for all variables per condition. Dependent variable

Interpersonal attraction Identifiability Social presence

Visible (n ¼ 105)

Invisible (n ¼ 105)

Co-present

Not co-present

Co-present

Not co-present

3.47 (0.55) 7.00 (1.27) 3.92 (0.52)

3.50 (0.55) 7.51 (1.63) 3.31 (0.61)

3.53 (0.72) 4.70 (1.98) 3.48 (0.54)

3.52 (0.72) 5.09 (1.92) 3.27 (0.54)

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.

474

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

More specifically, communicators who were both visible and physically co-present, so FtF, were less attracted towards each other. It may be that for some people, being visible and co-present creates more comfortable interaction conditions and hence more positive outcomes, while for others visibility and co-presence may be anxiety-provoking in initial interactions. We reflect more thoroughly on this assumption in the following section of this paper. 5.4. Implications and suggestions for future research Our study has several implications for theory and future studies on the effects of CMC on interpersonal attraction. First, our findings have implications for research on the effects of CMC on interpersonal attraction. The results of our study are in contrast with ample CMC research which found that there was more social presence (Tu, 2002) and interpersonal attraction in text-based CMC (e.g., Antheunis et al., 2012; Walther et al., 2005). Contrary to those findings, this study revealed that visible interaction conditions enhanced both social presence and identifiability which, in turn, enhanced interpersonal attraction. In addition, we found that being co-present enhanced social presence which increased interpersonal attraction. Since our study is one of the first to consider cuerich CMC in this context, our findings are likely to deviate from what previous studies found, as those mainly considered textbased CMC. Based on previous research and these findings it seems that CMC cannot be placed on a continuum, from cue-poor to cue-rich, with regards to social presence. While previous studies find social presence can be achieved in text-based CMC (e.g., Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Tu, 2002), the present study shows that cue-rich CMC platforms allowing for mutual visibility also enhance social presence. However, a more extensive study is needed where FtF communication is compared to multiple forms of CMC, ranging from cue-rich audiovisual to cue-poor text-based CMC. Therefore, future research could investigate how the findings of the current study relate to both cue-rich and text-based forms of CMC. Second, previous CMC research is most often based on a comparison between FtF communication and a single form of CMC, focusing for instance on text-based CMC (e.g., Walther et al., 2005), text-based CMC with a visual channel (e.g., Antheunis et al., 2012) or audiovisual CMC (e.g., Burgoon et al., 2002). This not only makes it difficult to draw a comparison across these studies, but also makes it difficult to determine what specific aspect of a mediated or non-mediated interaction results in the enhancement of interpersonal attraction. Moreover, with cue-poorer CMC modalities, compared to richer platforms, other processes may account for the enhancement of interpersonal attraction. The present study is the first to separately consider aspects like physical co-presence and visibility in relation to interpersonal attraction. Thus, this study provides more insight into how interpersonal attraction in CMC is accomplished. Based on these findings we highlight the importance of underlying mechanisms like social presence and identifiability in terms of how interpersonal attraction is achieved. Third, since we found a negative direct effect of visibility on interpersonal attraction it might be that visible interaction conditions are only beneficial for certain types of individuals, while for others mutual visibility is anxiety-provoking (Philippot & Douilliez, 2011). In addition, our results show that individuals in the FtF condition were less attracted to each other than dyads in the other three conditions. So, co-present interaction conditions may also be unattractive for some people (Manstead et al., 2011). Moreover, since the direct effect of physical co-presence before inclusion of the mediators was zero, and the direct effect of visibility was negative, this suggests that there is a third mediator that may explain this negative interaction effect.

Thus the aforementioned effects of the conditions on interpersonal attraction are likely canceled out by a third mediator which was not investigated in the current study. We suggest that these conflicting effects may be related to inhibition to self-disclose. Some people may value the co-presence and visibility of FtF interactions because it makes them feel more socially present and identifiable. For other people, however, the co-presence and visibility of FtF interactions makes them feel more inhibited which can result in less self-disclosure. Specifically the absence of physical copresence is believed to liberate communicators as less social skill is required and individuals feel more in control of the interaction as they feel more anonymous (Philippot & Douilliez, 2011). It has been suggested that being invisible results in more self-disclosure (McKenna & Bargh, 2000) which can result in more interpersonal attraction (Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007). Future studies could analyze self-disclosure along with other possible processes that may influence the relationship between co-presence, visibility and interpersonal attraction, both in a positive and a negative way. Fourth, our results reveal that physical co-presence only influenced interpersonal attraction when the underlying mechanism of social presence was taken into account. This highlights the importance of social presence with regards to how interpersonal interaction is achieved in both physically co-present and visible interaction conditions. Our findings also reveal a direct effect of social presence on interpersonal attraction, which is in line with social presence research and SPT. In addition, both visibility and physical co-presence were found to be significant antecedents of social presence. This finding has implications for both SPT and research, as previous studies have not yet unraveled which specific aspects of an interaction contribute to the enhancement of social presence. Ample social presence research has demonstrated that visual information greatly influences communicators' social presence (Nowak & Biocca, 2003; Witmer & Singer, 1998). Moreover, according to SPT, social presence is highest in FtF interactions, where individuals are physically co-present and derive relational information from nonverbal cues, such as physical appearance, bodily movements and facial expressions (Short et al., 1976). In line with what SPT assumes, we found that both the aspect of physically ‘being there’ as well as being able to see each other impacts the social presence individuals feel. Fifth, we found individuals' feelings of identifiability were not only enhanced by the availability of visual cues, but also by the absence of physical co-presence. As the means in Table 1 show, there were two main effects of visibility and co-presence on identifiability. As for visibility, people felt most identifiable in the visible conditions. Second, we also found a main effect for co-presence; people felt more identifiable in the mediated conditions and this finding opposes claims made in previous research (e.g., LapidotLefler & Barak, 2012). This may be explained by the fact that communicating in CMC is found to be a very reflective experience (Joinson, 2001). More specifically, interactions in CMC have been found to be higher in private self-awareness compared to nonmediated interactions (Matheson & Zanna, 1988). Interlocutors high in private self-awareness are believed to be more introspective and more self-evaluative which implies that they feel identifiable. Previous studies have linked this heightened self-awareness in CMC to the fact that in CMC more attention is placed on the self and how one comes across because the interaction takes place with the interposition of a monitor. Moreover, in audiovisual interactions individuals can be confronted by an image of another person on a screen and a camera is used to establish mutual visibility. This also explains why participants in the current study felt less identifiable in a co-present, invisible condition compared to an audio-only condition where they communicated through a monitor with a camera. This can increase one's self-awareness and hence increase

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

one's sense of identifiability. 6. Conclusion The goal of this study was to discover which aspects of cue-rich CMC, compared to FtF communication, result in more interpersonal attraction and what underlying mechanisms might explain this relation. Our results revealed that in initial interactions, visibility directly influenced interpersonal attraction and this effect was negative. This suggests that visible interaction conditions may not result in interpersonal attraction for everyone and certain personality characteristics may need to be taken into account in future studies. Moreover, we found several indirect effects that show that different processes may lead to interpersonal attraction in different conditions. Physical co-presence enhances interpersonal attraction through social presence, while visibility may stimulate the development of interpersonal attraction because it provides social presence and make people feel identifiable. However, both physical co-presence and visibility together may reduce interpersonal attraction because it makes people feel more inhibited to selfdisclose, thereby reducing interpersonal attraction. Finally, this study provides support for SPT by highlighting the importance of physical co-presence and visibility with regards to social presence and interpersonal attraction. References Alibali, M. W., Heath, D. C., & Myers, H. J. (2001). Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: some gestures are meant to be seen. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 169e188. 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, 757e780. Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: an experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 831e836. €mer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Kra networking: increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34, 287e318. Biocca, F., & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: contribution to the networked minds theory and measure. In F. Gouveia (Ed.), Proceedings of Presence, 2002 (pp. 1e36). Porto: Fernando Pessoa University. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12, 456e480. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Gregg, J. (2001). The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at the 4th annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA. Bohannon, L. S., Herbert, A. M., Pelz, J. B., & Rantanen, E. M. (2012). Eye contact and video-mediated communication: a review. Displays, 34, 177e185. Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: comment. American Economic Review, 335e339. Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? The costs and benefits of hedging. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 24, 227e235. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657e677. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. L. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 669e686. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 13, 127e149. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420e443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dickens, W. J., & Perlman, D. (1981). Friendship over the life-cycle. Personal Relationships, 2, 91e122. Felnhofer, A., Kothgassner, O. D., Hauk, N., Beutl, L., Hlavacs, H., & Kryspin-Exner, I. (2014). Physical and social presence in collaborative virtual environments: exploring age and gender differences with respect to empathy. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 272e279. Fioravanti, G., Dettore, D., & Casale, S. (2012). Adolescent internet addition: testing the association between self-esteem, the perception of internet attributes, and

475

preference for online social interactions. Cyberpsychology, 15, 318e323. Foppa, K. (1995). On mutual understanding and agreement in dialogues. In I. Markova, C. F. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 149e175). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 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, 70e100. Grayson, D., & Coventry, L. (1998). The effects of visual proxemic information in video mediated communication. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30, 30e39. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8e26. Haines, R., & Mann, J. E. C. (2011). A new perspective on de-individuation via computer mediated communication. European Journal of Information Systems, 20, 156e167. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86, 653e660. Houser, M. L., Horan, S. M., & Furler, L. A. (2007). Predicting relational outcomes: an investigation of thin slice judgments in speed dating. Human Communication, 10, 69e81. IJsselsteijn, W., van Baren, J., & van Lanen, F. (2003). Staying in touch: social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media. Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part II), 2, 924e928. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. A. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: the deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 21, 333e348. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177e192. Kim, D., Frank, M. G., & Kim, S. T. (2014). Emotional display behavior in different forms of computer mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 222e229. Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 434e443. Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526e537. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27e50. Manstead, A. S. R., Lea, M., & Goh, J. (2011). Facing the future: emotion communication and the presence of others in the age of video-mediated communication. €mer (Eds.), Face-to-face communication over the internet: In A. Kappas, & N. C. Kra Emotions in a web of culture, language and technology (pp. 144e175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221e233. McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1e31. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57e75. McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: what's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9e31. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 359e372. Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 481e494. Ogara, S. O., Koh, C. E., & Prybutok, V. R. (2014). Investigating factors affecting social presence and user satisfaction with mobile instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 453e459. Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., & Meader, D. K. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? In I. R. Katz, R. L. Mack, L. Marks, M. B. Rosson, & J. Nielsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 362e368). Colorado: ACM. Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2007). Precursors of adolescents' use of visual and audio devices during online communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2473e2487. Philippot, P., & Douilliez, C. (2011). Impact of social anxiety on the processing of emotional information in video-mediated interaction. In A. Kappas, & N. C. Kramer (Eds.), Face-to-face communication over the internet: Emotions in a web of culture, language and technology (pp. 127e143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879e891. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185e227. Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1428e1451. Rains, S. A. (2007). The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility

476

E.A.J. Croes et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 468e476

and influence in computer-mediated group communication: a test of two competing hypotheses. Communication Research, 34, 100e125. Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: the influence of information valence and modality and information richness on computer-mediated interaction. Communication Monographs, 71, 422e447. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161e198. Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85e108. Shahid, S., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2012). Video-mediated and co-present gameplay: effects of mutual gaze on game experience, expressiveness and perceived social presence. Interacting With Computers, 24, 292e305. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley. Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13, 70e90. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the ‘social’ in computer mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computermediated communication (pp. 30e65). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computermediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427e459. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communications. Management Science, 32, 1492e1512. Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2007). Two faces of anonymity: paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 955e970. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one

another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317e348. Tu, C. H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1, 1e24. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction e a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52e90. Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 4, 443e479. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computermediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50e88. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways e the interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36e65. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computermediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529e563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Werkhoven, P. J., Schraagen, J. M., & Punte, P. A. (2001). Seeing is believing: communication performance under isotropic teleconferencing conditions. Displays, 22, 137e149. Whittaker, S., & O'Conaill, B. (1997). The role of vision in face-to-face and mediated communication. In K. Finn, & A. J. Sellen (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 23e49). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225e240. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold, & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237e307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.