Abstract
Interpersonal touch is an essential component of human non-verbal communication, facilitating social affiliation and bonding. With the widespread use of digital interfaces and online platforms in all realms of human interactions, there are fewer opportunities for communicating through touch. Popular online platforms that virtually simulate human interactions rely primarily on visual and auditory modalities, providing limited or no capacity for the exchange of tactile cues. Previous studies of virtual interactions have explored the simulation of social touch using haptic devices, but little is known about how the visual representation of interpersonal touch is perceived and integrated into a virtual social experience. In two studies we examined how the exchange of virtual touch mediated by simulated 3-dimensional human characters, or avatars, within an online virtual environment influenced affiliation towards an unfamiliar interaction partner. Surprisingly, the exchange of virtual touch negatively affected the perceived closeness and affiliation to the partner and the social evaluation of the interaction but did not affect the level of physiological arousal during the interaction. These results indicate that the visual representation of social touch is sufficient to virtually communicate touch-related cues that impact social affiliation, but the influence of touch may be dependent on the interaction context.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Interpersonal touch is frequently used as part of a repertoire of human non-verbal behaviours to communicate social meaning1,2,3 and plays an essential role in establishing and maintaining social bonds4,5,6,7. Touch is unique as a modality of non-verbal communication in that it requires close physical proximity between individuals to transmit information3. Even brief instances of interpersonal touch can influence social affiliation and prosocial behavior8,9, including positive social evaluation and attraction10,11,12, helping13, participation14, and compliance15,16. Interpersonal touch is also an inherently multimodal communication signal1,17. The perception of the touch stimulus, and even its somatosensory processing18, is modulated by relevant visual, auditory, and other cues about the socioemotional context of the touch and the identity of the toucher17,19,20,21. This multimodal nature of the touch experience is of particular interest at a time when innovations in social and virtual technologies22, alongside increased demand for remote and hybrid connectivity23,24, are propelling human interactions into the digital realm and limiting the exchange of touch25,26,27. Reduced opportunities for interpersonal touch26 became especially concerning during the COVID-19 pandemic that triggered widespread social distancing practices28,29,30 and an ensuing increase in online interactions31.
Advancements in digital technologies have included the development of haptic devices that can be used to produce vibro-tactile stimulation of the skin to simulate touch sensation22,32. However, haptic devices have yet to be widely incorporated into the digital platforms that are commonly used for online interactions. The primary means of exchanging interpersonal touch through digital interfaces at present is through visual representations, from simple features such as hug emoji or gifs33,34 to realistic simulation of touch gestures and even intimate interactions within online social virtual worlds and games35,36. Social virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life, IMVU, The Sims) in particular enable an immersive interaction experience where users can socialize in a virtual environment in the form of an avatar37, a 3D animated virtual character that represents the user37,38. Users tend to position their avatars in relation to each other in ways that align with typical social norms of the real world, with physical proximity and contact a common occurrence between pairs and groups of avatars interacting together36,39,40. Users often describe feeling like their avatar represents their own body and that the actions of the avatar are their own actions38,41. While the tactile component of physical contact between avatars is absent, visual components of these interactions are readily depicted on the screen36. Given the multimodal nature of social touch, an outstanding question is whether virtually simulating touch through the visual modality can serve as an effective means to communicate its social function.
Studies of multi-sensory integration in the experience of touch demonstrate that the manipulation of visual sensory input can give rise to the perception of touch21, with visual cues playing a dominant role in body perception42,43. A well-studies phenomenon referred to as the rubber hand illusion42,44 produces a sense of physical ownership of a rubber hand. This illusion can also be produced in various virtual reality (VR) set-ups45,46,47, with participants reporting feeling touch when viewing their virtual hand being touched by a virtual object. The illusory ownership of a virtual hand can also extend to the whole virtual body48,49,50. Furthermore, the intensity and pleasantness of virtual touch can be perceived differently depending on the type of virtual touch stimuli observed51, as well as who delivers the touch and to which part of the body52. Virtual touch stimuli can also be distinguished by different physiological responses as measured by skin conductance51,52. These findings demonstrate that the perception of touch and even its quality can be simulated through virtual interfaces; however, less is known about the social function of visualizing interpersonal touch in a virtual setting.
Classic studies demonstrate that interpersonal touch can facilitate social affiliation between strangers8. In a scenario referred to as the Midas Touch, a brief touch received from another person during a causal interaction increases helping behaviour, compliance, as well as liking for the toucher and the social exchange that occurred10,11,12,13,15. This effect can also be observed when touch is mediated remotely, through vibrotactile stimulation applied to the skin, during an online interaction53,54. Here, we devised a scenario in a virtual social environment where interpersonal touch is exchanged between avatars without tactile input. To promote the ecological validity of the study, we customized an existing virtual environment within IMVU (IMVU.com), a publicly accessible online social virtual world. IMVU is a popular online chatroom-based virtual world composed of thousands of virtual rooms generated by users, where users typically interact with each other via human-like avatars. A previous study conducted within the public IMVU platform demonstrated that interpersonal touch between avatars was frequently observed, especially in the context of dancing36. We thus employed a partner dance interaction that involved virtual touch or no touch between participant and confederate avatars and then assessed social affiliation towards the confederate. We hypothesized that virtual touch experienced through the visual modality would promote social affiliation as indicated by (1) closer seating distance to the confederate avatar after the dance and (2) self-reported impressions of closeness and affiliation towards the person behind the confederate avatar. We also assessed the physiological response to the virtual touch experience by measuring skin conductance, heart rate, and heart rate variability. As remotely mediated social touch has been shown to increase physiological arousal20,55, we hypothesized that virtual touch during the partner dance would stimulate greater physiological arousal than no touch.
Methods (Study 1)
All study procedures were approved by the University of Toronto Mississauga Ethics Review Committee (2017-026) and were conducted in accordance with the principles of the revised Helsinki Declaration. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Participants
Sixty-two undergraduate students (40 females) who were at least 18 years of age and reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing were recruited to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the virtual Touch or virtual No-Touch condition. All participants interacted with an opposite sex avatar. Participants identifying their sex as male were paired with avatars exhibiting female secondary sexual characteristics, and vice versa for participants identifying their sex as female. One male participant from the No-Touch condition was excluded from the study due to oppositional behavior during the experiment, for a final total of 61 study participants. An a priori power analysis with an alpha of 0.05 and power = 0.8 (G*Power version 3.1.9.7, Dusseldorf, DE) showed that the estimated minimum sample size to detect a medium-large effect size for a two-tailed independent samples t-test is N = 52. Therefore, the obtained sample size is sufficient to test the study hypothesis.
Virtual environment and avatars
The virtual environment was a private virtual chat room within the online IMVU platform (IMVU.com). The environment represented a tropical island surrounded by water, with a central swimming pool and pool deck area, a large sitting and dancing area with a disc-jockey booth, a beach area, and palm trees dispersed around the island (Fig. 1a). The environment also contained areas on which participants could click to place their avatar in a pose (e.g., sitting, standing) or an animation (e.g., playing a game of limbo, picking up seashells, yoga movements). The animations included three standard salsa style partner dances available in the IMVU software and appropriate for a general audience. The dances were portrayed through a series of changes in avatar body position in a repeating loop with instrumental salsa music playing in the background (see Supplementary Videos S1 and S2). In the Virtual Touch condition, dance animations involved the exchange of physical contact between avatars, including touching of the hands, torsos, or legs (Fig. 2a). In the Virtual No-Touch condition, there was no physical contact between avatars and instead avatars danced facing each other (Fig. 2b).
Representative still images of the virtual graphics seen by participants. (a) An aerial view of the virtual environment. (b) The couch scene used to measure interpersonal distance. Female (c) and male (d) confederate avatars used to interact with participants’ avatars.
Still images of avatar dancing animations. Representative avatar positioning in the Touch (a) and No Touch (b) conditions during the virtual dance interaction. Pictured here are the male and female confederate avatars used in both studies.
Each participant interacted with an opposite-sex confederate avatar (Fig. 1c,d). Two confederate avatars were selected from among standard avatars available within the IMVU platform and their appearance was styled using available customization features. The avatars’ clothing fully covered their torso, arms, and legs. The physical appearance of the male and female confederate avatars was matched as closely as possible in terms of clothing, hair color, skin color, and accessories. Avatars in the virtual environment could interact by typing in a chat box at the bottom of the screen, after which corresponding chat bubbles appeared above the avatars’ heads.
Materials and procedure
The experiment took place in a window-less room, where a computer monitor connected to a PC computer was installed on a desk with a web camera placed on top of the monitor approximately at eye level with the participant. Participants were invited to sit on a chair in front of the monitor, were introduced to the study procedures, and provided written consent to participate. They were then asked to wear a wristband device on their non-dominant hand (E4 wristband, Empatica Inc.) that collected physiological measures during the experiment. The experimenter made sure not to touch the participant in any way while the participants settled into the experimental space and put on the wristband device. With their permission, participants were observed via webcam and remote screen sharing software (TeamViewer) during the experiment to ensure that they were paying attention to the screen and in case they encountered technical problems while they were participating in the experiment.
A diagram of the sequence of procedures is presented in Fig. 3. At the start of the experiment, participants were asked to remain seated and relax for 5 min alone in the experiment room to acclimate to the setting. Next, the experimenter returned to the room and provided participants with a paper invitation listing an itinerary of activities to be completed in the virtual environment, including virtual salsa dance lessons at the end. The experimenter then left the room and participants watched a 6 min introductory video providing an overview of the procedures involved in creating an avatar, moving about in the virtual world, and completing activities around the virtual island while interacting with another avatar. The last 2 min of the introductory video demonstrated two avatars engaging in the three dance animations specific to the participant’s experimental condition (Virtual Touch or No Touch; see Supplementary Videos S1 and S2).
Experiment timeline for Study 1.
Next, the experimenter entered the room to further instruct participants on what will happen during the session, including how to access IMVU, create an avatar, and proceed with the activities on the virtual island. Participants were given a temporary email address to activate their IMVU account and instructions to create their own avatar, after which participants were again left alone in the room. The participants were instructed to create their avatar in a way that the avatar resembled them physically as much as possible. Next, participants entered a practice virtual environment, a standard penthouse apartment provided by IMVU, to acclimate to navigating the environment and the avatar. The practice session lasted up to a maximum of 5 min. Finally, participants received a digital invite to enter the virtual island. The instructions indicated that when they enter the virtual island, participants will meet a second avatar who is another participant completing the experiment simultaneously in a different room. Participants were instructed to interact with the second avatar by typing in the chat. The second avatar was controlled by a confederate research assistant who operated the avatar from another computer in a separate room.
Once participants entered the virtual island environment, the confederate avatar started to chat by typing “Hello” and asking the participant to join them in sitting on the virtual couch. The couch had 6 seating locations and the confederate avatar was already seated on the couch at the second position from the left, leaving the other 5 spots open for the participant’s avatar (Fig. 1b). The confederate avatar continued to chat with the participant as they completed the activities on the virtual island. The activities included exploring the pool area, playing volleyball and limbo, exploring a pirate ship and treasure chest, driving a boat on water, picking up seashells and building a sandcastle at the beach, and yoga practice.
The confederate had a script of chat prompts to maintain a consistent flow of conversation across participants. The prompts focused on the activities on the virtual island. The confederate responded to the participant’s chat messages in a friendly way and steered away from personal topics. The chat exchanges were recorded and quantified to ensure that the chat characteristics were consistent across study conditions.
For the last “dance lesson” activity, participants danced with the confederate to three salsa routines, with each dance routine lasting approximately 1 min. Following the dance activity, the confederate returned to sit on the virtual couch and asked the participant to join them. The confederate avatar sat at the second position from the left, in the same way as at the start of the virtual interaction. The virtual experience on the island ranged from 20 to 25 min on average. The experimenter entered the room once during this time to briefly check on the participant and to also reinforce the impression that they were not the ones controlling the other avatar. When the virtual interaction ended, participants were asked to complete questionnaires provided on the same computer.
Measures
Interpersonal distance
Interpersonal distance refers to the physical space between individuals and is considered as a component of non-verbal communication56,57. It can be used as a behavioral indicator of social affiliation, where closer proximity typically signals affiliation and greater distance signals avoidance or exclusion58,59,60. Studies in virtual settings demonstrate that interpersonal distance is a relevant factor in how individuals position their avatars in relation to other avatars within the same virtual representation of physical space39,61,62. The distance between avatars interacting in virtual settings affects the behavioural, self-report, and physiological responses to the interaction57,63,64. In the present study, interpersonal distance was used as a behavioral readout of the influence of virtual touch on social affiliation. We recorded how far participants positioned their avatar in relation to the confederate avatar on the virtual 6-seater couch at the start and the end of the virtual interaction. Recorded measures included the number of sitting spaces (range 0–3) the participant avatar left between themselves and the confederate avatar at the start and the end of the virtual interaction, as well as the difference in sitting spaces between these two time points.
Self-report measures
Participants completed self-report measures in the following order: Inclusion of Other in the Self scale, Interpersonal Impressions questionnaire, previous experience, and demographic questions. Qualtrics software (www.qualtrics.com) was used to administer the questions.
Demographics and previous experience
In the demographic portion of the questionnaire, participants were asked to report their sex and age. Participants also answered questions regarding their prior experience in virtual worlds, including whether they previously played in an online virtual environment (Yes/No) and how often (5-point scale from “Never” to “Daily”), and whether they have ever played in IMVU and how often. The results were divided into two categories representing little virtual experience (“Never” or “Once per year”) or frequent virtual experience (“Once per month,” “Weekly,” or “Daily”).
Perceived closeness
The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS)65 was used to measure participants’ perception of closeness towards the person behind the other avatar. Using the online continuous version of the IOS scale66, participants were asked to respond to the following prompt “Please use the diagram below to describe how you currently feel towards the person behind the other avatar.” Participants responded by moving a sliding cursor on a computer screen to adjust the position of two circles in relation to each other on a horizontal axis. The left circle was identified on the screen with the word “Self” and the right circle with the word “Other.” In the starting position, the circles were farthest from each other (two circle widths apart, recorded as 0 arbitrary units). The closest possible position allowed for the circles to overlap completely (recorded as 300 arbitrary units). The measure of Perceived Closeness was the distance participants moved the cursor to bring the circles together, with higher values indicating greater closeness.
Interpersonal impressions
Participants’ Interpersonal Impressions were measured with 12 questions in two categories. The first category included five questions related to the experience of interacting with the person controlling the other avatar (“I felt like I was close to the other person during our interactions”, “I feel like I got to know the other person well”, “I liked exploring the island with the other person”, “I liked having a conversation with the other person”, “I liked dancing with the other person”). The second category included seven questions adapted from67 regarding affiliation towards the person controlling the other avatar (e.g., “I like the other person a lot”, “I feel I could talk to the other person easily”, “I feel comfortable with the other person”, “I would enjoy interacting with the other person again”, “If I had the opportunity, I would like to meet the other person in real life”, “I feel I could trust the other person with a secret”, “I am friends with the other person”). Questions were rated on a 7-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
Physiological measures
A wristband device (Empatica E4) was used to collect and report information on electrodermal activity (EDA), heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) throughout the experiments. Physiological measures were collected in the same way in both Study 1 and 2 and data from both studies were combined due to the loss of some data that resulted in reduced sample sizes. The procedures are described in further detail in Study 2.
Statistical analysis
Independent sample t-tests were used to compare the mean scores between participants in the Touch and No Touch condition on the Inclusion of Other in Self scale, Interpersonal Impressions questionnaire, and participant age. Chi-squared tests were used to compare the numbers of male and female participants and prior experience in virtual worlds across the two study conditions. An independent samples non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the seating distance between avatars across the two study conditions. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the seating distance before and after the virtual experience in each study condition.
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 28.0 (IBM Corp., Somers, NY) with the rejection level set at p < 0.05. All data are presented in figures as means ± SEM, unless otherwise indicated.
Results (Study 1)
Demographics and previous experience
Demographic and previous experience results are presented in Table 1. A t-test analysis revealed no significant difference across the Touch and No-Touch conditions in participant age. Chi square analyses revealed that participants in the two conditions also did not differ in the number of those reporting male and female sex or in prior experience in online virtual worlds. Only 4 participants (2 in each condition) had prior experience using IMVU.
Chat exchanges
The chat exchanges between each participant and the confederate were quantified to examine how they compared across study conditions. T-test comparisons showed that there were no significant differences between the Touch and No Touch conditions in the number of messages sent by the confederate (Touch: M = 76.5, SD = 15.5; No Touch: M = 79.9, SD = 14.4; t(59) = 0.87, p = 0.389, d = 0.23) and the participants (Touch: M = 52.9, SD = 21.1; No Touch: M = 54.1, SD = 17.5; t(59) = 0.25, p = 0.802, d = 0.06) or in the total message word count for the confederate (Touch: M = 417.3, SD = 117.8; No Touch: M = 422.3, SD = 70.3; t(58) = 0.20, p = 0.844, d = 0.05) and the participants (Touch: M = 210.2, SD = 133.9; No Touch: M = 195.4, SD = 93.7; t(58) = 0.49, p = 0.624, d = 0.13).
Interpersonal distance
The seating distance (Table 2) between the participant and confederate avatar before and after the virtual interaction was used as a measure of interpersonal distance. Independent samples non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests revealed that there were no significant differences between the Touch (start: Mdn = 0; end: Mdn = 1) and No Touch (start: Mdn = 0; end: Mdn = 1) conditions in seating distance at the start (U = 445, p = 0.961, r = 0.00), as well as at the end (U = 425, p = 0.700, r = 0.01) of the virtual interaction. A related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that there was no significant difference when comparing seating distance before and after the virtual interaction in both the Touch (Z = 1.16, p = 0.248, r = 0.20) and No Touch (Z = 1.11, p = 0.265, r = 0.20) conditions.
Perceived closeness
The IOS scale was used to measure the participants’ perceived interpersonal closeness to the partner avatar. An independent samples t-tests revealed that participants in the No Touch condition indicated significantly greater closeness towards the person behind the other avatar compared to participants in the Touch condition, t(58) = 3.02, p = 0.004, d = 0.78 (Fig. 4a).
Reported closeness to the person behind the partner avatar on the Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale (IOS). Increasing values (mean ± SEM) indicate closer proximity of the self to the other. In both Study 1 (a) and 2 (b), participants in the No Touch condition indicated significantly greater closeness towards the person behind the other avatar compared to participants in the Touch condition. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Interpersonal impressions
Participants’ impressions of the virtual interaction experience and the partner avatar were assessed using 12 Interpersonal Impressions questions. Figure 5a shows the average responses of the participants to each of the questions and Fig. 5b shows the pooled average responses for questions in the interpersonal experience (questions 1–5) and affiliation (questions 6–12) categories. An independent samples t-tests revealed that participants in the No Touch condition reported a significantly more positive impression of their interpersonal experience, t(59) = 2.28, p = 0.027, d = 0.58, and affiliation towards the person behind the other avatar, t(59) = 2.45, p = 0.017, d = 0.63.
Responses on the Interpersonal Impressions questionnaire. (a, c) Mean (± SEM) agreement scores on each of the Interpersonal Experience (Q1–5) and Interpersonal Affiliation (Q6–12) questions in Study 1 and 2. (b, d) Pooled mean (± SEM) agreement scores on questions in the Interpersonal Experience and Affiliation categories in Study 1 and 2. Participants in the No Touch condition reported a significantly more positive impression of their interpersonal experience in both Study 1 and 2, and significantly greater affiliation towards the person behind the other avatar in Study 1. *p < 0.05.
Physiological responses
Physiological responses of participants were assessed throughout the experiment. Electrodermal and cardiac data from Study 1 and Study 2 were collapsed together to account for the low sample size of collected data in each study. The results are presented together in Study 2.
Exploratory analyses of sex differences
Information about participants’ sex was collected for pairing with opposite-sex avatars. We conducted exploratory analyses to assess whether participants’ reported sex had any effects on perceived closeness (IOS scale) and interpersonal impressions (interpersonal affiliation and experience) of the partner avatar. Two-way ANOVAs with the factors of condition (Touch, No Touch) and sex (Female, Male) revealed no significant main effects of sex and no interactions with the experimental condition in any of these measures (see Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 for details).
Discussion (Study 1)
The results of Study 1 demonstrate that the experience of exchanging interpersonal virtual touch with another avatar through the visual modality reduces self-reported social affiliation, including perceived closeness and impressions, towards the person behind the other avatar. This finding does not support our hypothesis that virtual touch would enhance social affiliation, as is typically observed in face-to-face interactions10,11,12 and when interpersonal touch is mediated remotely via a haptic device53,54. To confirm these findings, we conducted a replication study in a new cohort of participants (Study 2) and focused more directly on the virtual touch interaction itself. In Study 2, participants were invited to proceed to the virtual dance lesson with the confederate avatar directly after meeting them in the virtual environment. As in Study 1, participants were assigned to a Touch or a No Touch condition.
Methods (Study 2)
All study procedures were approved by the University of Toronto Mississauga Ethics Review Committee (2017-026) and were conducted in accordance with the principles of the revised Helsinki Declaration. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Participants
Based on the medium-large effect sizes from the self-report measures obtained in Study 1, we estimated that approximately 40 participants would be sufficient to detect a medium-large effect size for a two-tailed independent samples t-test with an alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.8 (G*Power version 3.1.9.7, Dusseldorf, DE). Thirty-nine undergraduate students (23 females) who were at least 18 years of age and reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing were recruited to participate in the study. As in the first study, participants were randomly assigned to either the virtual Touch or virtual No-Touch condition and all participants interacted with an opposite sex avatar. One female participant from the Touch condition did not complete the experiment due to a fire alarm, for a final total of 38 study participants.
Materials and procedure
The materials and procedures were the same as in Study 1, except for the following modifications: instead of engaging in 20 min of activities on the virtual island with the confederate avatar, participants only engaged in the salsa dance lessons. The virtual island in Study 2 also featured a disc-jockey (DJ) character who danced along with the music at the DJ booth and instructed the participant and confederate avatars via chat messages when to sit on the virtual couch and when to start and stop the dance lessons. The virtual experience on the island lasted about 10 min in total.
The confederate avatar maintained a minimum amount of chat with the participant by exchanging pleasantries according to a pre-determined script. The chat exchanges were recorded and quantified to ensure that the chat characteristics were consistent across study conditions.
Measures
Interpersonal distance
The seating distance between each participant’s avatar in relation to the confederate avatar on the virtual 6-seater couch at the start and the end of the virtual interaction was recorded in the same way as in Study 1.
Self-report measures
At the end of the virtual interaction, participants were asked to complete the same self-report measures as in Study 1.
Physiological measures
A wristband device (Empatica E4) was used to collect and report information on electrodermal activity (EDA), heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) throughout the experiments. Recordings from the hotoplethysmography were sampled at 64 Hz and used in the estimation of HR and HRV. EDA data was obtained from the electrodermal activity sensor and sampled at 4 Hz. The Empatica E4 has been shown to produce reliable and consistent HR and HRV data when compared to other validated tools68,69. While the device does result in significantly different absolute values for EDA measures, this has been shown to result from recording at the wrist as opposed to the fingers70,71. Skin conductance data obtained from this device has yielded high stress discrimination power71. Participants put the device on themselves to avoid physical contact with the experimenter. They were instructed to wear the device on their non-dominant hand with the electrodes positioned on the inside of the wrist, lined up in parallel with the ring finger. Participants were asked to remove any jewelry, watch, or wristband worn on that wrist.
All data from the wristband device were extracted through the Empatica Connect online platform (https://www.empatica.com/connect/). Data for five continuous time periods (events) were extracted (see Fig. 3): the final 2 min of the initial rest period (Rest), 2 min while watching the introduction video of the virtual environment (Video Pre-Dance), 2 min while watching the virtual dance on the introductory video (Video Dance), 2 min prior to participating in the virtual dance for Study 1 and the final two min spent in the virtual penthouse for Study 2 (Virtual Pre-Dance), and the first 2 min while participating in the virtual dance (Virtual Dance).
EDA data were processed using the continuous decomposition analysis via the Ledalab extension for MATLab r2018a to separate the tonic and phasic components of the signal. Default deconvolution parameters were used. Physiological arousal during each 2 min event was measured as the mean tonic skin conductance level (SCL) and the frequency of skin conductance responses (SCR). The minimum signal amplitude for detecting SCRs was set at 0.05 μS.
Cardiac data were analyzed using Standard Kubios HRV software. The data were visually screened for artifacts and corrected for using the artifact correction tool in Kubios HRV with the threshold set at the lowest setting. Based on these parameters, any intervals deviating by more than 0.45 s from the average interbeat interval of that participant were marked as an artifact and removed. The average heart beats per minute (HR) and standard deviation of the interbeat intervals (SDNN) were used to assess heart rate and heart rate variability, respectively, during each 2 min event. SDNN was chosen instead of other commonly reported measures of HRV, such as the root mean squared differences of successive difference of intervals (RMSSD), as SDNN values collected from the Empatica E4 are more reliable and consistent with other validated sensors69.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analyses for behavioral and self-report measures were the same as in Study 1. Data for Study 1 and Study 2 were analyzed separately, except for physiological measures.
Data for physiological measures from Study 1 and Study 2 were analyzed together due to the loss of some data leading to reduced sample sizes. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare measures of EDA and cardiac activity at the end of the initial rest period between participants assigned to the two conditions (Touch, No Touch). Three-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to assess the change in EDA and cardiac activity across the within-subjects factors of event (Pre-Dance, Dance) and media (Video, Virtual), and the between-subjects factor of condition (Touch, No Touch). The same analyses were also conducted with data from each study treated separately and the results are included in Supplementary Tables S3–S6.
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 28.0 (IBM Corp., Somers, NY) and GraphPad Prism 9.4.1 (San Diego, CA) with the rejection level set at p < 0.05. All data are presented in figures as means ± SEM, unless otherwise indicated.
Results (Study 2)
Demographics and previous experience
Demographic and experience results are presented in Table 1. A t-test analysis revealed no significant difference across the Touch and No-Touch conditions in participant age. Chi square analyses revealed that participants in the two conditions also did not differ in the number of those reporting male and female sex or in prior experience in online virtual worlds. No participants had prior experience using IMVU.
Chat exchanges
The chat exchanges between each participant and the confederate were quantified to examine how they compared across study conditions. Two participants in the Touch condition did not engage in any chat with the confederate and their data were not included in this analysis. T-test comparisons showed that there were no significant differences between the Touch and No Touch conditions in the number of messages sent by the confederate (Touch: M = 21.1, SD = 4.3; No Touch: M = 23.1, SD = 3.3; t(34) = 1.58, p = 0.124, d = 0.52) and the participants (Touch: M = 17.5, SD = 6.1; No Touch: M = 19.5, SD = 4.4; t(34) = 1.15, p = 0.259, d = 0.34) or in the total message word count for the confederate (Touch: M = 95.5, SD = 20.0; No Touch: M = 103.6, SD = 15.2; t(34) = 1.38, p = 0.178, d = 0.46) and the participants (Touch: M = 78.2, SD = 33.8; No Touch: M = 85.0, SD = 33.0; t(34) = 0.61, p = 0.544, d = 0.20).
Interpersonal distance
The seating distance (Table 2) between the participant and confederate avatar before and after the virtual interaction was again used as a measure of interpersonal distance. Independent samples non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests revealed that there was a significant difference between the Touch (Mdn = 0) and No Touch (Mdn = 1) conditions in seating distance at the start (U = 66, p = 0.010, r = 0.45) of the virtual interaction, but no significant difference between the Touch (Mdn = 0) and No Touch (Mdn = 1) conditions at the end (U = 114, p = 0.695, r = 0.07). A related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that there was no significant difference when comparing seating distance before and after the virtual interaction in both the Touch (Z = 0.59, p = 0.558, r = 0.16) and No Touch (Z = 1.73, p = 0.083, r = 0.40) conditions.
Interpersonal closeness
The IOS was again used to measure the participants’ perceived interpersonal closeness to the partner avatar. Similarly to Study 1, an independent samples t-tests revealed that participants in the No Touch condition indicated significantly greater closeness towards the person behind the other avatar compared to participants in the Touch condition, t(36) = 2.50, p = 0.017, d = 0.81 (Fig. 4b).
Interpersonal impressions
Participants’ impressions of the virtual interaction experience and the partner avatar were again assessed using 12 Interpersonal Impressions questions. Figure 5c shows the average responses of the participants to each of the questions and Fig. 5d shows the pooled average responses for questions in the interpersonal experience (questions 1–5) and affiliation (questions 6–12) categories. An independent samples t-tests revealed that participants in the No Touch condition reported a significantly more positive impression of their interpersonal experience, t(36) = 2.69, p = 0.011, d = 0.87, but the difference across conditions in interpersonal affiliation was not significant, t(36) = 1.28, p = 0.212, d = 0.41.
Physiological responses
Participants’ physiological responses were measured using a wristband device (Empatica E4) throughout the experiment and data were analyzed for five continuous 2 min time periods (events; see Fig. 3). Electrodermal and cardiac data from Study 1 and Study 2 were analyzed together to account for the low sample size of available data in each study.
Electrodermal activity
After data extraction and processing, complete data were available from 41 participants in the Touch condition and 44 participants in the No Touch condition. An independent samples t-test on the absolute SCL values during the initial rest period revealed no significant differences between participants assigned to the Touch (M = 0.64, SD = 0.98) and No Touch condition (M = 0.36, SD = 0.54). A repeated measures three-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of media, F(1, 83) = 8.75, p = 0.004, ηp2 = 0.10, where the SCL was higher when the participants were actively interacting as avatars in the virtual environment compared to passively watching a video of avatars interacting in the same environment (Fig. 6a). There was also a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 83) = 4.94, p < 0.029, ηp2 = 0.06, where participants in the Touch condition had higher SCL levels overall than participants in the No Touch condition. There was also significant interaction between media and condition, F(1, 83) = 4.36, p < 0.040, ηp2 = 0.05. Follow-up simple effects analyses revealed that participants in the Touch condition had significantly higher SCL levels than participants in the No Touch condition when actively interacting in the virtual environment F(1, 83) = 4.99, p < 0.028 ηp2 = 0.06. However, there was no significant difference between conditions when participants were passively watching a video of avatars interacting F(1, 83) = 3.77, p < 0.056, ηp2 = 0.04. There were no other significant main effects or interactions. Results of the same analyses of SCL values conducted separately for Study 1 and Study 2 are available in Supplementary Table S3.
Physiological responses to Video and Virtual stimuli. (a) Participants in the Touch condition had significantly higher skin conductance level (SCL) values compared to the No Touch condition during virtual interactions. (b) Adjusted skin conductance responses (SCRs) were significantly more frequent during virtual interactions compared to video watching. The frequency of SCRs was also significantly higher during the Dance events compared to the Pre-Dance events. (c) Mean heart rate (HR) was significantly lower during virtual interactions compared to video watching. (d) Conversely, heart rate variability, measured by the mean standard deviation of the interbeat intervals (SDNN), was significantly higher during virtual interactions compared to video watching. All values represent mean (± SEM); *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
An independent samples t-test on the SCR frequency during the initial rest period revealed a significant difference between participants assigned to the Touch (M = 16.24, SD = 4.0) and No Touch condition (M = 6.89, SD = 2.07), t(83) = 2.136, p = 0.0356, d = 0.46. To account for this baseline difference, we subtracted the values obtained during the rest period from values obtained during the other events of interest. A repeated measures three-way ANOVA on the corrected values revealed a significant main effect of media, F(1, 83) = 15.19, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.15, where the frequency of SCRs was higher when the participants were actively interacting as avatars in the virtual environment compared to passively watching a video of avatars interacting in the same environment (Fig. 6b). There was also a significant main effect of event, F(1, 83) = 6.69, p = 0.011, ηp2 = 0.07, where the frequency of SCRs was higher during the Dance events compared to the Pre-Dance events. There were no other significant main effects or significant interactions. Results of the same analyses of SCR frequency conducted separately for Study 1 and Study 2 are available in Supplementary Table S4.
Cardiac activity
After data extraction and processing, complete data were available from 22 participants in the Touch condition and 20 participants in the No Touch condition. An independent samples t-test analysis of the absolute HR values during the initial rest period revealed no significant differences between participants assigned to the Touch (M = 85.37, SD = 13.73) and No Touch condition (M = 83.20, SD = 12.17). A repeated measures three-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of media, F(1, 40) = 26.50, p < 0.0001, ηp2 = 0.40, where mean HR was lower when the participants were actively interacting as avatars in the virtual environment compared to passively watching a video of avatars interacting in the same environment (Fig. 6c). There were no other significant effects or significant interactions. Results of the same analyses of HR values conducted separately for Study 1 and Study 2 are available in Supplementary Table S5.
An independent samples t-test analysis of the absolute SDNN values during the initial rest period revealed no significant differences between participants in the Touch (M = 46.73, SD = 20.59) and No Touch condition (M = 45.75, SD = 16.69). A repeated measures three-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of media, F(1, 40) = 16.38, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.29, where SDNN values were higher when the participants were actively interacting as avatars in the virtual environment compared to passively watching a video of avatars interacting in the same environment (Fig. 6d). There were no other significant main effects or significant interactions. Results of the same analyses of SDNN values conducted separately for Study 1 and Study 2 are available in Supplementary Table S6.
Exploratory analyses of sex differences
We again conducted exploratory analyses to assess whether participants’ reported sex had any effects on perceived closeness (IOS scale) and interpersonal impressions (interpersonal affiliation and experience) of the partner avatar. Two-way ANOVAs with the factors of condition (Touch, No Touch) and sex (Female, Male) revealed no significant main effects of sex and no interactions with the experimental condition in any of these measures (see Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 for details).
Discussion (Study 2)
The results of Study 2 replicate the results of Study 1 and demonstrate that the experience of exchanging interpersonal virtual touch with another avatar through the visual modality reduces self-reported social affiliation, including perceived closeness and impressions, towards the person behind the other avatar. Interpersonal impressions scores were lower in Study 2 than in Study 1, consistent with a shorter duration of time for participants to get to know their interaction partner, however the negative effects of touch on affiliation persisted.
Physiological measures taken during the experiment show that across both Touch and No Touch conditions, actively engaging in the virtual environment and interacting with another avatar increased skin conductance and heart rate variability, and decreased heart rate, compared to passively watching video scenes of the virtual environment and avatar interactions. Participants in the Touch condition also showed greater tonic skin conductance than those in the No Touch condition during the virtual portion of the experiment, but there was no significant difference when comparing the time period before the partner dance to the period during the dance, when virtual touch occurred.
General discussion
In two studies we examined whether the experience of exchanging interpersonal touch with another virtual avatar during a dancing interaction, without any tactile input, would effectively function as a non-verbal signal to promote social affiliation. The results demonstrate that virtual touch impacted how participants perceived the virtual interaction, although in the opposite direction than expected. Across both studies, participants in the virtual touch condition reported significantly lower closeness towards the person behind the other avatar compared to participants in the condition where no virtual touch was exchanged. The same pattern of results was also obtained for self-reported impressions of the interpersonal experience with the virtual avatar. In Study 1, participants who exchanged virtual touch also reported significantly lower interpersonal affiliation towards the person behind the other avatar compared to those who did not exchange touch, but this effect was not significant in Study 2 when the overall duration of the interaction was shorter. The experience of virtual touch did not affect the interpersonal distance that participants maintained between their avatar and the partner avatar at the end of the interaction and also did not affect physiological arousal during the virtual touch component of the interaction.
The direction of the results was somewhat surprising as we hypothesized that experiencing virtual touch would promote rather than impede social affiliation, consistent with previous studies employing face-to-face scenarios involving touch10,11,12 and remotely-mediated touch set-ups53,54. However, there is evidence from studies of in-person human touch17 and mediated touch interactions20,72 demonstrating that receiving touch, especially from strangers, can cause discomfort. Studies point to the role of contextual cues from the senses other than touch that can readily modify how the tactile component of the touch is perceived17,19,20,21,73. The same touch stimulus can be felt and perceived differently and carry a different affective valence, either promoting or impeding social affiliation, depending on contextual cues from the other senses73. In the present study, contextual cues communicated through the visual modality provided all of the sensory information about the touch experience as no tactile sensation was available. The visualized features of the virtual social interaction, the partner avatar, and/or the virtual environment, which were novel to the participants, likely contributed to shifting the perception of the virtual touch experience towards social aversion, as seen in previous studies of mediated touch from a stranger20,72.
The duration of touch between avatars and areas of the body where touch occurred may have contributed to how virtual touch was experienced. Social touch can be classified according to the duration and quality of physical contact3. Midas touch involves a brief, intentional touch referred to as a simple touch. The physical contact represented virtually in the present study was closer to prolonged touch, which typically involves a longer duration of contact as well as the application of pressure, as in holding hands or embracing3. This type of touch is often used to convey affection in face-to-face interactions74. We chose an interaction scenario where a longer duration of physical contact would conventionally occur (i.e., partner dancing) to ensure that participants were aware of the contact taking place, as it was only represented through visual cues. However, it’s possible that this longer duration of touch, having a more affectionate connotation, led to discomfort in the interaction compared to the same scenario where no touch occurred. Furthermore, touch was exchanged across different areas of the body of the avatars, including the hands, torso, and upper legs. Areas of the body such as the hands and arms are reported as more appropriate to receive a touch from a stranger than the torso7. The more intimate form of touch used here may have contributed to the experience being perceived as aversive compared to studies that employ a touch to the arm, shoulder, or hand, as seen in typical Midas touch scenarios that promote social affiliation towards a stranger10,11,12,13,15.
The present results demonstrate that participants reliably responded to the virtual touch manipulation, showing that the representation of virtual touch through the visual modality can impact one’s impressions about the experience and their interaction partner. A similar study that examined the influence of prosocial gestures between robot-like avatars showed that virtual touch, without tactile input, also affected how the participants evaluated the interaction35. Specifically, exchanging prosocial gestures that included touch (high fives or hugs) with a fellow robot avatar within a video-game environment increased self-reported relatedness to the other player compared to not exchanging any gestures or receiving negative gestures (teasing or laughter)35. Although the direction of findings in this study are opposite to ours, the contextual differences between the two studies, both in the nature of the interactions (e.g., brief vs. long duration) and the types of avatars used (i.e., depictions of robots vs. humans), likely contributed to these opposite effects. For instance, embodying a human compared to a robot avatar has been shown to lead to a higher sense of body ownership, greater connection to reality, and less risky behaviors in a virtual environment75. Nevertheless, both the findings of 35 and our own demonstrate that simulating the tactile component of touch in a virtual setting is not necessary to convey social signals communicated by the act of touching; the visualized physical contact cues themselves can direct how the social experience is perceived. Taken together, the findings of the present study alongside previous work suggest that, as with in-person touch, the influence of virtual touch on how a social interaction is perceived depends on the interaction context.
In studies of in-person touch, body language and vocal cues, such as facial expressions and tone of voice, may contribute to unconscious bias on the part of the confederate when not blinded. However, the experimenter controlling the confederate avatar in the present studies had no in-person interactions with the participants. In addition, all visual features of avatar interactions were automated and there were no voice exchanges between avatars. Given these features of the experiment, it’s highly unlikely that unconscious cues were a confounding factor in the present studies. In fact, virtual set-ups have been proposed as an effective solution to avoiding confederate bias in studying the social influence of touch53.
There was no evidence in the present study that virtual touch affected social behaviour in the virtual environment. Studies have previously shown that interpersonal distance between individuals can be used as an indicator of social affiliation58,60 and that interpersonal distance influences how avatars position themselves in relation to other avatars in virtual environments36,39,40. However, the virtual touch manipulation used here did not have an influence on how close participants positioned their avatar to sit beside the confederate avatar. In real-world interactions, interpersonal distance involves multi-sensory signaling of social information, including proximity as well as body posture, eye gaze, and potentially smell. It is possible that the representation of interpersonal distance in our virtual set-up was not a strong enough social cue.
Consistent with previous studies76,77, participants had different physiological responses when exploring the virtual environment and/or interacting with another avatar compared to passively watching a video of the same environment. Participants from both Touch and No Touch conditions had higher skin conductance responses during the virtual component of the experiment compared to video watching. Both groups also showed a significant decrease in heart rate and a significant increase in heart rate variability during the virtual component. However, there was little evidence that dancing in the virtual environment affected physiological responses when compared to virtual activities prior to dancing. A significant increase in skin conductance responses was observed during the Dance event compared to the Pre-Dance event, but only when the video and virtual components of the experiment were considered together (i.e., main effect of event). Participants in the Touch condition also had significantly higher tonic skin conductance compared to those in the No Touch condition, although this pattern was observed both prior to and during the virtual dance. Overall, there was no clear evidence to indicate that the experience of virtual touch had a measurable effect on physiological responding compared to other virtual activities. A previous study of the physiological responses to virtual touch showed that viewing touch on one’s virtual body in first-person produces stronger skin conductance responses than viewing the same stimulus in third-person51. The present studies employed the third-person view, which may have led to less robust skin conductance responses to virtual touch.
The visual representation of virtual touch employed in the present studies inherently involved a depiction of physical proximity between avatars. There is evidence that the processing of interpersonal touch and interpersonal distance cues is related. For instance, when visual input is maintained but haptic input is switching from objectual to interpersonal touch, faster responses are provided in body-related mental representation tasks, as if targets are perceived at a closer distance to one’s own body78. Comfort with interpersonal distance and social touch are also associated79, and both are influenced by adverse life experience and linked by underlying neural processing80. Furthermore, mental disorders that are characterized by increased social distancing, such as depression81, can affect neural processing of social touch stimuli82. This body of evidence indicates that the role of social distance cues in the visual representation of social touch, as well as individual preferences regarding social proximity and comfort with touch83, are important to consider in future investigations of virtual touch interactions.
The response to social touch can be influenced by other interpersonal factors, such as one’s familiarity and relationship with the toucher7,20,72, one’s cultural background84,85,86, as well as the gender and/or sex of the toucher and the person being touched8,19,84. In the present studies, we asked participants about their sex to standardize pairing with an opposite sex avatar. Although our pre-planned analyses were not powered to examine the contribution of sex to the main outcomes of interest, exploratory analyses revealed that participants’ sex did not significantly influence any of the social affiliation measures and did not interact with the touch condition. As we only examined the exchange of virtual touch between opposite-sex participants and avatars, further investigation of the influence of participant and avatar sex, as well as gender identity and sexual orientation is needed. There is evidence to indicate that these factors have an influence on how social touch and virtual touch are perceived52,87,88, with the virtual context adding a further level of complexity where the sex of participants’ and their avatars’ bodies can be made to differ87.
Given the relevance of touch in social interactions and the development of increasingly complex and immersive virtual spaces, such as the metaverse, understanding how virtual touch is experienced in these contexts requires greater consideration25,89. The important role of traditional forms of touch in wellbeing83 and its stress-buffering effects are well documented90,91. A growing body of work also demonstrates that experiences in virtual environments can impact the offline self with respect to self-perception, well-being, and health behaviors41,92,93,94. An intriguing possibility is that virtual touch interactions may also impact aspects of health and well-being offline. These impacts may be both positive or negative, depending on how the context and how the virtual touch interaction is perceived. For instance, sharing virtual touch with a familiar individual may bring comfort at a distance, as previously demonstrated in haptic exchanges20,95. On the other hand, being exposed to inappropriate touching in virtual reality environments, as reported in some existing metaverse settings96, may lead to real-world mental health impacts. As shown in the present study, virtual touch has real social implications and the parameters of its influence require more thorough investigation.
There are several limitations to consider when interpreting the results of the present studies. The participant sample consisted of undergraduate students, which limits the generalizability of the findings to a younger population of adults who are generally accustomed to social interactions mediated via digital technologies. As mentioned above, the exchange of virtual touch employed here was limited to opposite-sex avatar dyads. Also, the influence of participant sex was only examined in an exploratory fashion and the contribution of gender and sexual orientation was not considered. Finally, the studies were conducted within one type of virtual setting. Further examination of the social implications of virtual touch in other settings, such as virtual reality environments, should include a larger and more diverse sample population.
Conclusion
The findings of the present study demonstrate that exchanging virtual touch between human-like avatars lead to lower social affiliation toward the interaction partner. Importantly, virtual touch was only represented through visual cues indicating that this modality is sufficient to communicate interpersonal touch signals that impact social affiliation. These findings indicate that the social communication function of touch extends to virtual simulations without physical feedback and have implications for understanding how intimate interpersonal exchanges impact social experiences in virtual environments such as the metaverse. Future studies should extend these findings to a larger and more diverse sample and investigate how different typologies of virtual social touch alongside individual differences may contribute to the impact of the virtual touch experience.
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Fairhurst, M. T., McGlone, F. & Croy, I. Affective touch: A communication channel for social exchange. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 43, 54–61 (2022).
Hertenstein, M. J., Verkamp, J. M., Kerestes, A. M. & Holmes, R. M. The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: A review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 132, 5–94 (2006).
Morrison, I., Löken, L. S. & Olausson, H. The skin as a social organ. Exp. Brain Res. 204, 305–314 (2010).
Cascio, C. J., Moore, D. & McGlone, F. Social touch and human development. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 35, 5–11 (2019).
Dunbar, R. I. M. The social role of touch in humans and primates: Behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34, 260–268 (2010).
Jablonski, N. G. Social and affective touch in primates and its role in the evolution of social cohesion. Neuroscience 464, 117–125 (2021).
Suvilehto, J. T., Glerean, E., Dunbar, R. I. M., Hari, R. & Nummenmaa, L. Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 13811–13816 (2015).
Gallace, A. & Spence, C. The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34, 246–259 (2010).
Schirmer, A., Wijaya, M. T. & Liu, S. The Midas effect: How somatosensory impressions shape affect and other-concern. In Affective Touch and the Neurophysiology of CT Afferents (eds Olausson, H. et al.) 283–299 (Springer, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6418-5_17
Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B. & Baesler, E. J. Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Hum. Commun. Res. 19, 237–263 (1992).
Fisher, J. D., Rytting, M. & Heslin, R. Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39, 416–421 (1976).
Legg, A. M. & Wilson, J. H. Instructor touch enhanced college students’ evaluations. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 16, 317–327 (2013).
Guéguen, N. & Fischer-Lokou, J. Another evaluation of touch and helping behavior. Psychol. Rep. 92, 62–64 (2003).
Guéguen, N. Nonverbal encouragement of participation in a course: The effect of touching. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 7, 89–98 (2004).
Crusco, A. H. & Wetzel, C. G. The Midas touch: The effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 10, 512–517 (1984).
Joule, R.-V. & Guéguen, N. Touch, compliance, and awareness of tactile contact. Percept. Mot. Skills 104, 581–588 (2007).
Ellingsen, D. M., Leknes, S., Loseth, G., Wessberg, J. & Olausson, H. The neurobiology shaping affective touch: Expectation, motivation, and meaning in the multisensory context. Front. Psychol. 6, 1986 (2015).
Gazzola, V. et al. Primary somatosensory cortex discriminates affective significance in social touch. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, E1657–E1666 (2012).
Harjunen, V. J., Spapé, M., Ahmed, I., Jacucci, G. & Ravaja, N. Individual differences in affective touch: Behavioral inhibition and gender define how an interpersonal touch is perceived. Personal. Individ. Differ. 107, 88–95 (2017).
Ipakchian Askari, S. et al. Receiving a mediated touch from your partner vs a male stranger: How visual feedback of touch and its sender influence touch experience. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2021.3085185 (2021).
Spence, C. Multisensory contributions to affective touch. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 43, 40–45 (2022).
Pyun, K. R., Rogers, J. A. & Ko, S. H. Materials and devices for immersive virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 841–843 (2022).
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. The Social Net: Understanding Our Online Behavior (OUP Oxford, 2013).
Moglia, M., Hopkins, J. & Bardoel, A. Telework, hybrid work and the united nation’s sustainable development goals: Towards policy coherence. Sustainability 13, 9222 (2021).
Della Longa, L., Valori, I. & Farroni, T. Interpersonal affective touch in a virtual world: Feeling the social presence of others to overcome loneliness. Front. Psychol. 12, 795283 (2022).
Field, T. Touch 2nd edn. (MIT Press, 2014).
Lomanowska, A. M. & Guitton, M. J. Online intimacy and well-being in the digital age. Internet Interv. 4, 138–144 (2016).
Durkin, J., Jackson, D. & Usher, K. Touch in times of COVID-19: Touch hunger hurts. J. Clin. Nurs. 30, e4–e5 (2021).
Noone, C. & McKenna-Plumley, P. E. Lonely for touch? A narrative review on the role of touch in loneliness. Behav. Change 39, 157–167 (2022).
von Mohr, M., Kirsch, L. P. & Fotopoulou, A. Social touch deprivation during COVID-19: Effects on psychological wellbeing and craving interpersonal touch. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 210287 (2021).
Vargo, D., Zhu, L., Benwell, B. & Yan, Z. Digital technology use during COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 3, 13–24 (2021).
Huisman, G. Social touch technology: A survey of haptic technology for social touch. IEEE Trans. Haptics 10, 391–408 (2017).
Kaye, L. K., Malone, S. A. & Wall, H. J. Emojis: Insights, affordances, and possibilities for psychological science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 66–68 (2017).
Meredith, J. Conversation analysis, cyberpsychology and online interaction. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 14, e12529 (2020).
Lew, V. K. et al. Relatedness in gaming: The effect in-game touch has on player connection. SN Appl. Sci. 2, 59 (2019).
Sadowski, A. S. & Lomanowska, A. M. Virtual intimacy: Propensity for physical contact between avatars in an online virtual environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 78, 1–9 (2018).
Messinger, P. R. et al. Virtual worlds—Past, present, and future: New directions in social computing. Decis. Support Syst. 47, 204–228 (2009).
Schultze, U. Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: A review. J. Inf. Technol. 25, 434–449 (2010).
Lomanowska, A. M. & Guitton, M. J. Spatial proximity to others determines how humans inhabit virtual worlds. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 318–323 (2012).
Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F. & Merget, D. The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 10, 115–121 (2007).
Behm-Morawitz, E. Mirrored selves: The influence of self-presence in a virtual world on health, appearance, and well-being. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 119–128 (2013).
Botvinick, M. & Cohen, J. Rubber hands ‘feel’touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 756–756 (1998).
Ehrsson, H. H., Spence, C. & Passingham, R. E. That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305, 875–877 (2004).
Riemer, M., Trojan, J., Beauchamp, M. & Fuchs, X. The rubber hand universe: On the impact of methodological differences in the rubber hand illusion. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 104, 268–280 (2019).
Ijsselsteijn, W. A., de Kort, Y. A. W. & Haans, A. Is this my hand i see before me? The rubber hand illusion in reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 15, 455–464 (2006).
Kilteni, K., Normand, J.-M., Sanchez-Vives, M. V. & Slater, M. Extending body space in immersive virtual reality: A very long arm illusion. PLOS ONE 7, e40867 (2012).
Slater, M., Pérez Marcos, D., Ehrsson, H. & Sanchez-Vives, M. Towards a digital body: The virtual arm illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2, 6 (2008).
Ehrsson, H. H. Chapter 8—Multisensory processes in body ownership. In Multisensory Perception (eds Sathian, K. & Ramachandran, V. S.) 179–200 (Academic Press, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812492-5.00008-5
Kilteni, K., Maselli, A., Kording, K. P. & Slater, M. Over my fake body: body ownership illusions for studying the multisensory basis of own-body perception. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9, 141 (2015).
Slater, M., Spanlang, B., Sanchez-Vives, M. V. & Blanke, O. First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLOS ONE 5, e10564 (2010).
Fusaro, M., Tieri, G. & Aglioti, S. M. Seeing pain and pleasure on self and others: Behavioral and psychophysiological reactivity in immersive virtual reality. J. Neurophysiol. 116, 2656–2662 (2016).
Fusaro, M., Lisi, M. P., Tieri, G. & Aglioti, S. M. Heterosexual, gay, and lesbian people’s reactivity to virtual caresses on their embodied avatars’ taboo zones. Sci. Rep. 11, 2221 (2021).
Haans, A., de Bruijn, R. & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. A virtual Midas touch? Touch, compliance, and confederate bias in mediated communication. J. Nonverbal Behav. 38, 301–311 (2014).
Haans, A. & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. The virtual midas touch: Helping behavior after a mediated social touch. IEEE Trans. Haptics 2, 136–140 (2009).
Haans, A. & Ijsselsteijn, W. I’m always touched by your presence, dear: Combining mediated social touch with morphologically correct visual feedback. (2009).
Hall, J. A., Horgan, T. G. & Murphy, N. A. Nonverbal communication. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70, 271–294 (2019).
McCall, C. Mapping social interactions: The science of proxemics. In Social Behavior from Rodents to Humans Vol. 30 (eds Wöhr, M. & Krach, S.) 295–308 (Springer International Publishing, 2015).
Mackinnon, S., Jordan, C. & Wilson, A. Birds of a feather sit together: Physical similarity predicts seating choice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 879–892 (2011).
Mazzoni, D., Marinucci, M., Monzani, D. & Pravettoni, G. The Social Exclusion Bench Tool (SEBT): A visual way of assessing interpersonal social exclusion. MethodsX 8, 101495 (2021).
Patterson, M. L. Interpersonal distance, affect, and equilibrium theory. J. Soc. Psychol. 101, 205–214 (1977).
Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C. & Loomis, J. M. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 819–833 (2003).
Friedman, D., Steed, A. & Slater, M. Spatial social behavior in second life. In Intelligent Virtual Agents (eds Pelachaud, C. et al.) 252–263 (Springer, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_23
Kroczek, L. O. H., Pfaller, M., Lange, B., Müller, M. & Mühlberger, A. Interpersonal distance during real-time social interaction: Insights from subjective experience, behavior, and physiology. Front. Psychiatry 11, 561 (2020).
Rivu, R., Zhou, Y., Welsch, R., Mäkelä, V. & Alt, F. When friends become strangers: Understanding the influence of avatar gender on interpersonal distance in virtual reality. In Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2021 (eds Ardito, C. et al.) 234–250 (Springer International Publishing, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85607-6_16
Aron, A., Aron, E. N. & Smollan, D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 596–612 (1992).
Le, B., Moss, W. B. & Mashek, D. Assessing relationship closeness online: Moving from an interval-scaled to continuous measure of including others in the self. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 25, 405–409 (2007).
Martin, L. J. et al. Reducing social stress elicits emotional contagion of pain in mouse and human strangers. Curr. Biol. 25, 326–332 (2015).
Milstein, N. & Gordon, I. Validating measures of electrodermal activity and heart rate variability derived from the empatica E4 utilized in research settings that involve interactive dyadic states. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 14, 148 (2020).
Schuurmans, A. A. et al. Validity of the Empatica E4 wristband to measure heart rate variability (HRV) parameters: A comparison to electrocardiography (ECG). J. Med. Syst. 44, 1–11 (2020).
Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G. & Berntson, G. Handbook of Psychophysiology (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Ollander, S., Godin, C., Campagne, A. & Charbonnier, S. A comparison of wearable and stationary sensors for stress detection. 004362–004366 (IEEE, 2016).
Smith, J. & MacLean, K. Communicating emotion through a haptic link: Design space and methodology. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 65, 376–387 (2007).
Ellingsen, D.-M. et al. In touch with your emotions: Oxytocin and touch change social impressions while others’ facial expressions can alter touch. Psychoneuroendocrinology 39, 11–20 (2014).
Jakubiak, B. K. & Feeney, B. C. Interpersonal touch as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during stress discussions. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 36, 2918–2936 (2019).
Gorisse, G., Christmann, O., Houzangbe, S. & Richir, S. From robot to virtual doppelganger: Impact of visual fidelity of avatars controlled in third-person perspective on embodiment and behavior in immersive virtual environments. Front. Robot. AI 6, 8 (2019).
Busscher, B., de Vliegher, D., Ling, Y. & Brinkman, W.-P. Physiological measures and self-report to evaluate neutral virtual reality worlds. J. CyberTherapy Rehabil. 4, 15–25 (2011).
Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Maldonado, J.L.-T. & Millán, C. L. Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison between Photographs, 360 Panoramas, and Virtual Reality. Appl. Ergon. 65, 398–409 (2017).
Martinez, V. R., Giovanola, Y. & Ionta, S. Social touch somatotopically affects mental body representations. Neuroscience 494, 178–186 (2022).
Andersen, P. A. & Sull, K. K. Out of touch, out of reach: Tactile predispositions as predictors of interpersonal distance. West. J. Speech Commun. 49, 57–72 (1985).
Maier, A. et al. Association of childhood maltreatment with interpersonal distance and social touch preferences in adulthood. Am. J. Psychiatry 177, 37–46 (2020).
Bornheimer, L. A., Le Verdugo, J. & Thompson, S. Depression mediates the relationships between hallucinations, delusions, and social isolation in first-episode psychosis. Soc. Work Res. 46, 332–341 (2022).
Mielacher, C. et al. Altered reward network responses to social touch in major depression. Psychol. Med. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291723001617 (2023).
Webb, A. & Peck, J. Individual differences in interpersonal touch: On the development, validation, and use of the “comfort with interpersonal touch” (CIT) scale. J. Consum. Psychol. 25, 60–77 (2015).
Dibiase, R. & Gunnoe, J. Gender and culture differences in touching behavior. J. Soc. Psychol. 144, 49–62 (2004).
Schirmer, A., Cham, C., Zhao, Z. & Croy, I. What makes touch comfortable? An Examination of touch giving and receiving in two cultures. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221105966 (2022).
Sorokowska, A. et al. Affective interpersonal touch in close relationships: A cross-cultural perspective. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47, 1705–1721 (2021).
Mello, M., Fusaro, M., Tieri, G. & Aglioti, S. M. Wearing same- and opposite-sex virtual bodies and seeing them caressed in intimate areas. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 75, 461–474 (2022).
Ebesu Hubbard, A. S., Tsuji, A. A., Williams, C. & Seatriz, V. Effects of touch on gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender Dyads1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33, 2427–2438 (2003).
Wiederhold, B. K. Haptics: Making the metaverse a touching experience. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.29278.editorial (2023).
Lim, K. Y. & Hong, W. Neural mechanisms of comforting: Prosocial touch and stress buffering. Horm. Behav. 153, 105391 (2023).
Morrison, I. Keep calm and cuddle on: Social touch as a stress buffer. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 2, 344–362 (2016).
Fox, J., Bailenson, J. N. & Tricase, L. The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 930–938 (2013).
Kruzan, K. P. & Won, A. S. Embodied well-being through two media technologies: Virtual reality and social media. New Media Soc. 21, 1734–1749 (2019).
Yee, N. & Bailenson, J. The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum. Commun. Res. 33, 271–290 (2007).
van Hattum, M. T., Huisman, G., Toet, A. & van Erp, J. B. F. Connected through mediated social touch: “Better than a like on facebook.” A longitudinal explorative field study among geographically separated romantic couples. Front. Psychol. 13, 817787 (2022).
Basu, T. The metaverse has a groping problem already. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/16/1042516/the-metaverse-has-a-groping-problem/ (2021).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ms. Una Neskovic for assistance with data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
G.S. and A.M.L. conceived and planned the experiments. G.S. and M.N. carried out the experiments. A.M.L., G.S., and M.Z. managed and analyzed the data. A.M.L., G.S., and M.Z. wrote the manuscript. R.P.B. and M.Z. critically revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results, provided critical feedback, and helped to shape the analysis and the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Saini, G., Zain, M., Noronha, M. et al. Virtually simulated interpersonal touch negatively affects perceived closeness and social affiliation to an avatar partner. Sci Rep 14, 1347 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51773-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51773-6
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
