Is she trying to kill me? No, this is not real, is it? : a study on the effect of playing a horror game in VR on fear

Is she trying to kill me? No, this is not real, is it?

BSc. S. J. F. Hendriks Master thesis

Graduate School of Communication University of Amsterdam

Abstract

Virtual reality has found to be the answer to multiple problems in different fields. Thereby, it has gained interest from the video game industry, resulting in many VR devices with a wide range of VR video games. Research on the effect of playing video games in VR is still scarce. Former research has found that VR leads to a stronger feeling of presence, which results in a stronger sense of emotions. This study investigates to what extant playing a video game in VR affects emotions, and if this effect is mediated by the feeling of presence. An experiment was held among 59 university students, comparing the effects of playing a horror game in VR (versus TV) and how this affects fear. Results showed that playing a video game in VR increased the feeling of being part of the game, leading to a stronger sense of fear. This study is thereby the first to shed new light on this knowledge gap, providing a new foundation on which future research can continue to expand the knowledge on the effects of playing video games in VR.

Introduction

In the past decade, virtual reality (VR) has provided successful solutions to numerous problems in various fields (Cellan-Jones, 2016; Morris, 2015). Thereby it increased the interest in VR technology from the consumer oriented market. For instance, VR is becoming a prominent way of playing video games (Martins, 2015). Sony and several other

manufacturers (e.g. Samsung, HTC, Oculus) have recently brought VR systems to the

consumer market. Although VR systems are rather new on the consumer market, they already have a wide range of games. Besides being used for playing video games, VR is used in several recovery programs, such as therapy for various types of phobia, such as spider phobia (Garcia-Palacios, Hoffman, Carlin, Furness, & Botella, 2002), social phobia (Klinger et al., 2005; Price, Mehta, Tone, & Anderson, 2011; Rosenberg, Baughman, & Bailenson, 2013), and fear of flying (Rothbaum, Hodges, Watson, Kessler, & Opdyke, 1996). Researchers have

shown that the effectiveness of VR in such recovery programs is mainly due to the immersive strength of VR (Bowman & McMahan, 2007). The more an individual is immersed, the stronger the emotional response (Price, Mehta, Tone, & Anderson, 2011). The strong emotional response elicit by VR helps patients to overcome their fears. Since VR triggers these strong emotional responses, it is most likely these responses also occur when playing video games in VR.

Although games come in many types and genres (Lemmens & Hendriks, 2016), they all share one fundamental defining characteristic: Games are an interactive form of media entertainment. In a strict sense, interactivity refers to the structure of the media technology (Kiousis, 2002). However, interactivity within video games is a process which includes both the gamer and the game. It means that the gamer is able to change what happens in the game by some motor action via an interface (Grodal, 2003). Contrary to regular interactivity, VR includes two new important factors. First, there is spatial presence, meaning that the audience can perceive themselves situated in the game. Second, there is plausible illusion, meaning that the audience gets the idea that in game events are really happening (Slater, 2009).

Although these factors do not directly affect the abilities to change what happens in the game, it does change how the player responds to the game. When a player is feeling more present within a certain virtual environment and has the feeling that the events happening are real, the more he or she will think about the consequences of their actions (Tamborini & Skalski, 2006). Therefore, playing a game in VR might not increase the abilities to change what happens in the game, but it should lead to a stronger feeling of spatial presence.

Research on video games with VR technology is scarce. There is a general

assumption that playing video games in VR lead to a stronger emotional experience (Riva et al., 2007). This assumption was confirmed by a study by Hupont and colleagues (2015), which showed that VR increased the feeling of presence, which increased the levels of

amazement, astonishment and excitement. This raises the question if other content, such as horror, would initiate the same reaction with different emotional responses such as fear, anxiety or disgust. Moreover, would an emotional response to such content be different in VR than on a TV. The statement by Zillmann (1996), that more negative affects (e.g. fear and disgust) in a horror movie lead to a more reported enjoyment afterwards, was confirmed in a study by Visch, Tan, and Molenaar (2010). According to Painter (2016), the horror, first-person shooter, and survival genres are the most anticipated by the VR community. Just like horror movies, horror and survival video games instigate fear. VR would therefore, according to Zillmann (1996), lead to more enjoyment. Since enjoyment is arguably the most important outcome of playing video games, this study will investigate if playing a horror game in VR will lead to a stronger sense of fear compared to playing it on a TV. Furthermore, this study will test if this effect is mediated by presence.

Theoretical Background Immersion and Presence

Immersion is a popular term that is widely used to describe the process in which an individual gets transferred from reality to a virtual environment. Although immersion is a widespread term, there is no consensus regarding the definition due to the multidisciplinary use of the concept (Georgiou & Kyza, 2017). When the term immersion is employed by researchers in the field of VR, they refer to immersion as a technical characteristic of a medium that helps the individual to shift from reality to the virtual presented environment. It has been introduced as a technical concept in the design of virtual environments, and was originally defined as the objective and measurable properties of a virtual environment (e.g. Bystrom, Barfield, & Hendriks, 1999; Nash, Edwards, Thompson, & Barfield, 2000). Furthermore, Slater and Wilbur (1997) state that immersion is the extent to which the medium ‘displays’ can deliver an inclusive, extensive, surrounding and vivid illusion of

reality to the senses of a human participant. Other researchers also argued that immersion is a psychological state of mind, describing the degree to which an individual believes he or she is present in the virtual environment (e.g. Witmer & Singer, 1998). More recent studies use the term presence to describe this psychological state of mind (Sill & Fear, 2005). In

agreement with these references, the concept immersion is regarded as the characteristics of a medium to transfer an individual from reality to the virtual environment, whereas presence describes the psychological state of an individual believing to be present in a virtual environment (e.g. Nash et al., 2000; Sill & Fear, 2005).

Similar to immersion, presence lacks consistency within its scientific definition. For instance, presence has been defined as a phenomenon wherein participants behave and feel like they are in a virtual world (Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005), whereas others describe presence as how realistically participants respond to the virtual environment, as well as their subjective sense of being present in the virtual environment (Smolentsev, Cornick, &

Blascovich, 2017). Because presence is a complex concept, it has been divided into three aspects: co-presence, social presence, and spatial presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). Both co-presence and social presence involve a subjective experience of being with others

(Youngblut, 2003). Social presence goes a step further than co-presence, by addressing social psychological ideas of personal interaction. It occurs when users feel that a form, behavior, or sensory experience indicates the presence of another individual (Biocca, Kim, & Choi,

2001a). Since this study merely involves a single player gaming experience, these concepts are not relevant to this study.

Spatial presence refers to the feeling of being spatially located in the mediated space (Coxon, Kelly, & Page, 2016), or how Lin (2017) describes it: ‘the feeling of being there’ (p 398). Therefore, when talking about video games, spatial presence is the best way to

The extent to which this sense of presence is experienced depends on the characteristics of the individual (Ling, Nefs, Brinkman, Qu, & Heynderickx, 2013), and to the technological characteristics (Cummings & Bailenson, 2016). Concerning the latter, a study found that a larger screen size led to significantly higher feelings of both physical and self-presence (Hou, Nam, Peng, & Lee, 2011). Because research has shown that VR elicits stronger experiences of presence than a TV (Van Dam, Forsberg, Laidlaw, LaViola, & Simpson, 2000; Weibel & Wissmath, 2011), the following hypothesis was formulated:

H1: Playing a video game in VR will result in a stronger feeling of spatial presence than playing it on a TV.

Fear

Fear is an emotion that is activated when we sense a significant and personally relevant danger in our environment (Easterling & Leventhal, 1989; Lang, 1984). Neurological studies have suggested that the amygdala is associated with fear (Davis, 1992), although a recent study argues that fear is a psychological construct rather than a biological construct within our brain (Adolphs, 2013). Fear can be induced in at least two different ways: perceptually and conceptually. Perceptual fear-related cues (e.g. zombies) are assumed to rapidly evoke physiological and behavioral fear reactions. Conceptually fear-related information (e.g. becoming a zombie through a virus) however, is expected to produce subjective fear reactions, but a weaker physiological activation (Hoffman, Alpers, & Alpi, 2008). Both techniques are used to induce fear in video games. According to a study on fear experiences in video games, some of the most fear-inducing elements in video games were darkness, zombies, the unknown, and jump-scares (Lynch & Martins, 2015). Apart from these in-game characteristics, audio is also an essential element for fear in video games (Lin, 2017).

Although these elements of fear in video games are similar to traditional media (e.g. film and television), the difference lies in the way in which audiences can interact with video games.

Watching a movie would be considered a passive way of media consumption compared to playing video games, which is an active form of media consumption (Jansz, 2005). In VR, players not only actively engage with the game content, but also experience this content as if they are facing it in a real environment (Slater, 2009). Based on

observations by Hoffman and colleagues (2008), a VR experience should lead to stronger physiological reactions than a TV experience. Also, when faced with conceptually fear-related cues, playing a horror game in VR should result in higher subjective fear ratings than when played on a TV. Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H2: Playing a horror game in VR will result in a stronger experience of fear than playing it on a TV.

Presence and Emotions

A substantial amount of research has found a relationship between immersion and

experienced emotions (Baños et al., 2004; Visch, Tan, & Molenaar, 2010). Multiple studies have shown that the feeling of presence increased the strength of experienced emotions (Baños et al., 2004; Riva et al., 2007). It has been suggested that presence is a necessary mediator that allows real emotions to be activated by a virtual environment (Parsons & Rizzo, 2008; Price, Mehta, Tone, & Anderson, 2011). A study on the use of VR to cure phobias examined whether VR was successful in the treatment of phobias (Price, Mehta, Tone, & Anderson, 2011), measuring both fear and presence. The results showed that total presence scores were significantly associated with self-reported fear ratings. This means that presence has a direct effect on experienced fear. Since it is expected that the feeling of presence depends on the immersive power of the technology, it is assumed that presence mediates the relationship between immersion and emotional experience. Therefore, the following

hypothesis was formulated:

Method Sample

Sixty-five students from the University of Amsterdam took part in the experiment. Six

participants were not able to finish the experiment, resulting in a total of 59 participants, aged 18-26 (M = 22.39, SD = 2.51). The majority was male (n = 46; 78%). All participants were attending university, either bachelor or masters, and there was a variety of ethnical

backgrounds (e.g. Brazilian, Dutch, Russian, German, Chinese, Korean). English was the preferred language for most participants (n = 37; 62.7%), the other participants (n = 22; 37.3%) preferred Dutch. All six dropouts were women who experienced nauseousness after playing the game in VR. This resulted in them ending the experiment within the first 10 minutes.

Participants were approached in multiple ways, such as asking directly and spreading flyers around campus. All individuals were informed about the fact that the experiment included playing a horror game. The only prerequisite for participating in the experiment was some experience in playing video games. All participants gave their informed consent and received a payment or credits for their collaboration. All participants were randomized in one of two conditions, resulting in 31 participants in the VR condition, and 28 in the TV

condition. Immersion

 VR

 TV Fear

Experimental Design and Materials

This experiment had a between subject design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: VR or TV. In both conditions participants played the horror game Resident Evil 7 (Capcom, 2017). This is the first horror video game for the PlayStation that is suitable for both VR and TV. The experimental group played Resident Evil 7 on the PlayStation VR, and the control group played it on a TV. Both groups played the exact same part of the game, using the same controller. Thus, the only difference between the groups was the players’ perception of the game world.

Procedure

A pilot test was held among 6 students of the University of Amsterdam. Their feedback indicated that some questions were vaguely formulated. Also, it came to our attention that an additional item had to be added to the fear scale. After improvements were made based on the feedback of the pilot test, participants contacted one of the researchers to make an

appointment to participate in the experiment. Upon arrival, the participant was randomized in one of the two conditions. After reading the disclaimer, reminding them that they were going to play a horror game and that they could stop playing at any time during the experiment, they provided informed consent. After signing, the researcher explained the process of the experiment. After completing the first part of the questionnaire, participants were aided with applying the heart rate monitor, a rubber band strapped around their chest (Polar). If the computer received a consistent heart rate, participants were asked to watch a 5-minute relaxation video to establish a baseline of their heart rate variability. Depending on the condition, one group watched the video on a TV screen, whereas the other group watched it in VR. Note that participants in both conditions watched the video on a ‘flat screen’, since the video was not compatible for VR. The video participants got to see was an episode of Netflix series Moving Art: Underwater (2015). The video consisted of an oceanic scenery, showing

nothing but fish living in the ocean with some classical music in the background. After 5 minutes, the video was paused. The participants in the experimental group were asked not to remove their VR headset. From there, the experimenter explained the procedure of the video game.

Participants were told that they had to enter the house, play a video tape that was located somewhere in the house, and to keep playing until a phone rang. During the game, the researchers recorded five jump scares. After they had reached the ringing telephone,

researchers entered the room, turned on the lights and help them to take off the VR or shut down the TV, and asked them to complete the last part of the questionnaire. The

questionnaire consisted of 21 questions, mostly with multiple items per question. The goal of the questionnaire was to measure level of fear, feeling of presence, level of hostility (before and after), and some control questions were added to see to what extent the participant had experience with playing horror video games. Also, some demographic information was collected (e.g. gender, age). Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants were offered some cookies and water, and received debriefing.

Measures

Subjective measure of fear. Immediately after their play session, participants answered a subjective self-reflection questionnaire. An existing scale for fear was used (Lin, 2017). This scale consisted of three statements and was found reliable ( = .88) in former research. During the pilot, we found that some people thought the game was scary, but the experience itself (especially on VR) was very exciting. Therefore, we anticipated

interpretation errors with the following statement: “the degree to which I do not want to recall the experience”, resulting in an additional item that was added to the scale. All statements were measured on a 10-point scale. The remaining statements to measure fear were: “the degree to which I was afraid”, “the degree to which I was frightened”, and “the degree to

which I was scared”. These four statements were applied in three questions throughout the questionnaire, referring to different phases in the game. This resulted in twelve items

measuring subjective fear. The twelve items relating fear were factor analysed using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. The analysis yielded two components with an Eigenvalue higher than 1. The first component explained 65.82% of the variance, whereas the second component explained 13.77% of the variance. The first factor, consisting of 9 items that loaded above .50, was found to make a reliable scale ( = .96, M = 5.97, SD = 2.14) After analysing the items in this factor, it was labelled as the ‘fear’ scale, because all items directly involved the measure of fear (e.g. “the degree to which I was frightened”, and “the degree to which I was scared”). The second factor only involved the likelihood of wanting to recall the experience. Since the goal was to measure fear, and not the likelihood of wanting to recall the experience, only the ‘fear’ component was used in the analyses.

Physiological measure of fear. HRV is the physiological phenomenon of variation in the time interval between heartbeats. It is measured by the variation in the beat-to-beat

interval. The method used to analyse HRV is known as RMSSD: the square root of the mean squared difference between adjacent normal to normal intervals. Pilot tests indicated 5 jump scares during the play session. When a jump scare moment was reached by a player, it was marked by the researcher, thereby allowing us to analyse the HRV for the following 20 seconds. The HRV after the five jump scares were averaged per participant and then compared among participants and conditions.

Presence. Presence was measured using three scales. The MEC-SPQ Spatial Situational model (SSM), the MEC-SPQ Spatial Presence: Self Location (SPSL), and the MEC-SPQ Spatial Presence: Possible Actions (SPPA) (Sacau, Laarni, Ravaja, & Hartmann, 2005). All scales were found reliable in former research (SSM:  = .82; SPSL:  = .90; SPPA:  = .82), and were measured on a 1 (Completely disagree) to 5 (Completely agree)

scale. The 6-item SSM scale measured to what extent the participant felt the in-game environment was an accurate representation of a plausible reality. Some examples from the SSM scale items are: “I had a precise idea of the spatial surroundings presented in the game” and “Even now, I still have a concrete mental image of the spatial environment”. Six

statements relating the spatial situational model were factor analysed using principal

component analysis with Varimax rotation. The analysis yielded a unidimensional solution, explaining 54.11% of all variance. All items loaded above .50. The scale was found reliable ( = .81, M = 3.91, SD = 0.65). The SPSL scale measures to what extent the participant felt to be a part of the game rather than being an observer. The SPSL scale consisted of 6 items. Some examples from the SPSL scale items are: “I had the feeling I was in the middle of the action rather than merely observing” and “It seemed as though I actually took part in the action in the game”. Six statements relating self-location were factor analysed using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. The analysis yielded a unidimensional solution, explaining 67.96% of all variance. All items loaded above .50. The scale was found reliable ( = .90, M = 3.44, SD = 0.92). Finally, the SPAA scale measures to what extent the

participant felt that they could interact with objects and people within the gaming

environment. The SPAA scale consisted of 5 items. Some examples from the SPAA scale items are: “I felt that I could move around among the objects in the game” and “It felt that I could interact with things in the game, as I do in real life”. Five statements relating possible actions were factor analysed using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. The analysis yielded a unidimensional solution, explaining 59.43% of all variance. All items loaded above .50. The scale was found reliable ( = .83, M = 3.35, SD = 0.83).

Results Spatial Presence

feeling of spatial presence than playing it on a TV, several independent-samples T-tests were performed. Since spatial presence was measured using three different scales, representing three different dimensions of spatial presence, means on all three scales were tested between TV and VR conditions. First, we wanted to determine whether people experienced a more plausible reality while playing the game in VR than on a TV (SSM). An independent-samples T-test showed a significant moderate difference in the expected direction, t(46.08) = 2.05, d = 0.53, p = .046, meaning that people who played Resident Evil 7 in VR (M = 4.07, SD = 0.50) experienced the game as a more plausible reality than those who played it on a TV (M = 3.73, SD = 0.75). The second step was to test if playing a horror game in VR resulted in a stronger feeling of spatial presence than playing it on a TV. In other words, to find out to what extent the participants felt they were part of the game rather than being an observer (SPSL). An independent-samples T-test showed a strong significant difference in the expected direction, t(57) = 3.98, d = 1.03, p < .001, meaning that playing a horror game in VR resulted in

stronger feelings of being part of the game (M = 3.84, SD = 0.71) than playing it on a TV (M = 2.99, SD = 0.93). The third step to test if playing a horror game in VR resulted in a stronger sense of spatial presence than playing it on a TV, was to find out to what extent the

participant felt that they could interact with objects and people within the gaming environment (SPPA). An independent-samples T-test yielded no statistically significant effect, t(57) = 1.10 , p = .277, meaning that playing a horror game in VR did not give players the stronger sense that they could interact more with objects and people within the gaming environment (M = 3.47, SD = 0.72), than playing it on a TV (M = 3.23, SD = 0.91). Physiological and Subjective Fear

To test the second hypothesis, that playing a horror game in VR will result in a stronger experience of fear than playing it on a TV, multiple independent-samples T-tests were executed. Since fear was measured both physiologically and subjectively, data from both

measures were evaluated. During the game, 5 scary moments were marked by the researchers to compare HRV on the exact same moments within the game between participants. Figure 1 represents the mean HRV for the 20 seconds after each of these scary moments between conditions. To see if there were any differences in HRV between conditions, six independent samples T-tests were conducted with the mean scores in HRV. Although consistently lower HRV across scary moments in the VR conditions, none of the five scary moments showed an immediate significant difference in mean HRV between conditions. The mean HRV across scary moments were aggregated into an overall mean HRV. An independent-samples T-test with the overall mean of HRV did show a significant moderate difference in the expected direction, t(43.38) = -2.56, d = -0.60, p = .029, meaning that the HRV among participants who played the horror game in VR was significantly lower (M = 49.76, SD = 29.15) than from those who played it on a TV (M = 74.47, SD = 50.15). Moreover, a multiple linear regression showed that playing Resident Evil 7 in VR significantly predicted a lower HRV, b = .25, t(56) = 2.08, p = .043, when controlling for the HRV baseline. Condition and baseline HRV also explained a significant proportion of variance in HRV, R2 = .18, F(2, 53) = 7.21, p = .002.

Regarding subjective fear, results indicated that playing a horror game in VR (M = 6.17, SD = 2.28) does result in a stronger sense of fear compared to playing it on a TV (M = 5.75, SD = 1.99). However, results of the independent-samples T-test showed no statistically significant difference, t(57) = 0.75 , p = .458, hereby contradicting the second hypothesis. When controlling for gender, we noticed that women (M = 6.91, SD = 1.45) had a

significantly stronger sense of fear than men (M = 5.70, SD = 2.24), t(29.96) = 2.33, d = -0.64, p = .027. When performing a multiple linear regression, playing Resident Evil 7 on a more immersive medium (VR) did not significantly predict a higher score on subjective fear when controlling for gender, b = -.10, t(56) = -.74, p = .464.

Figure 1. Overview mean HRV per scare between conditions. Presence as a Mediator between Immersion and Fear

The PROCESS 2.17 macro for SPSS was used to investigate the third hypothesis, that spatial presence mediates the effect of condition on fear. Therefore, separate tests were run for all three dimensions of spatial presence, both with subjective and objective measures of fear. An overview of all results of these analyses is given in Table 1. First, the results of the

PROCESS 2.17 analyses concerning subjective fear will be interpreted. Results indicated that condition was not a significant predictor of subjective fear (p = .458), meaning that no matter the condition one played the horror game in, no significant difference was found in subjective fear. Condition was a significant negative predictor of the SSM dimension of spatial

presence, b = -.34, SE = .16, p = .041, and the SPSL dimension of spatial presence, b = -.85, SE = .21, p < .001. Condition did not predict the score on SPPA (p = .278). Condition did not become a significant predictor of subjective fear after controlling for the mediator in the SSM dimension (p = .448), SPSL dimension (p = .263), or SPPA dimension (p = .724) of spatial presence, consistent with partial mediation. Approximately 1% of the variance in subjective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Scare 1 Scare 2 Scare 3 Scare 4 Scare 5 Scare M

fear was accounted for by the SSM dimension of spatial presence, about 23% of the variance in subjective fear was accounted for by the SPSL dimension of spatial presence, and close to 15% of the variance in subjective fear was accounted for by the SPPA dimension of spatial presence. This means that VR accounted for 39% of the variance in spatial presence scores. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples. These results indicated the indirect coefficient was significant for only the SPSL dimension of spatial presence, b = -1.05, SE = .37, 95% CI = -1.88, -.44. This means that only the SPSL dimension of spatial presence mediated the effect of VR on subjective fear.

Although the results did not show that condition was a significant predictor of subjective fear, results of the PROCESS 2.17 analyses did indicate that condition was a significant predictor of objective fear (HRV) (b = 24.71, SE = 12.74, p = .028). Condition was a significant negative predictor of the SSM dimension, b = -.35, SE = .17, p = .047, and the SPSL

dimension, b = -.90, SE = .22, p < .001. However, condition was not a significant predictor of the SPPA dimension (p = .268). Condition remained a significant predictor after controlling for the SSM dimension as a mediator (p = .033). Consistent with partial mediation, condition was no longer a significant predictor of objective fear (HRV) after controlling for the SPSL dimension as a mediator (p = .317). Approximately 9% of the variance in objective fear (HRV) was accounted for by the SSM dimension of spatial presence, about 16% of the variance in subjective fear was accounted for by the SPSL dimension of spatial presence, and close to 9% of the variance in subjective fear was accounted for by the SPPA dimension of spatial presence. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples. These results indicated the indirect coefficient was significant for only the SPSL dimension of spatial presence, b = 12.47, SE = 5.75, 95% CI = 2.99, 25.35. This means that only the SPSL dimension of spatial presence fully mediated the effect of condition on objective fear (HRV).

These results only partly confirmed the third hypothesis. The more immersive a medium is (VR versus TV), the stronger he or she feels as being a part of the game (SPSL dimension), resulting in a stronger sense of subjective and objective fear. However, a more immersive technology does not lead to a stronger feeling that the in-game environment was an accurate representation of a plausible reality (SSM dimension) or a stronger feeling that one could interact more with the environment (SPPA dimension).

Table 1

Coefficients and levels of significance for condition on fear with spatial presence as mediator.

X Y Z R2 A A’ B C

Condition Sub. fear SSM .01 -.42 -.45 -.34c -.09

“ Sub. fear SPSL .23 -.42 .64 -.85a 1.24a

“ Sub. fear SPPA .15 -.42 -.19 -.24 .98b

Condition Obj. fear SSM .09 24.71c 25.09c -.35c 1.07

“ Obj. fear SPSL .16 24.71c 12.24 -.90a -13.87c

“ Obj. fear SPPA .09 24.71c 24.07c -.25 -2.56

Note: a = p < .001, b = p < .01, c = p < .05 A B C A’ Condition (X) Fear (Y) Condition (X) Fear (Y) Spatial Presence (Z)

Discussion

This study addressed a new scientific gap by studying the effects of the immersive

technological possibilities of VR and how this affects gaming experiences. The expectation that the effect of VR on fear would be mediated by spatial presence was partly confirmed. As Slater (2009) stated, VR adds two important factors that influence interaction. One of those is spatial presence. Spatial presence was divided in three dimensions by Sacau and colleagues (2005). The first dimension, SSM, only partially mediated the effect of VR on fear. Although VR should lead to the feeling of a more realistic setting (Slater, 2009), the video game played by participants contained many fictional and unrealistic events, thereby creating the idea that the in-game environment was not a plausible reality, despite the players’ perception of the game world. Therefore, it was no surprise that there was found no full mediation by the SSM dimension. The second dimension of spatial presence, SPSL, fully mediated the effect of VR on fear. The SPSL dimension measured to what extent the participant felt to be a part of the game rather than being an observer. Coxon and colleagues (2016) defined spatial presence as the feeling of being spatially located in the mediated space. Since this is a vital function of VR technology (Slater, 2009), the finding of a full mediation by the SPSL dimension on the effect of VR on fear was expected. The last dimension of spatial presence, SPPA, only partially mediated the effect of VR on fear. The SPPA dimension measured to what extent the participant felt that they could interact with objects and people within the gaming

environment. Contrary to regular interactivity, VR includes two new factors: spatial presence and plausible illusion (Slater, 2009). However, these two factors do not directly affect the abilities to change what happens in the game. So, in both conditions, the interactions within the virtual environment were identical. Therefore, it was no surprise that there was found no full mediation by the SPPA dimension.

We only studied the horror video game genre and fear as an emotional response. Thereby leaving a broad palette within the same subject to be investigated (e.g. different video game genres, different emotional responses). Further research is needed to determine if playing other video game genres in VR also affects emotional responses. Another important note must be made when it comes to doing research on playing video games in VR. We noticed a substantial high dropout rate when it comes to women playing a video game in VR. All dropouts informed us that they became nauseous within 10 minutes due to disorientation, and not due to the content of the game. Future research on VR and video games should take into account that gender might affect the results due to different physiological responses to VR.

Conclusion

The main aim of this study was to examine to what extent spatial presence mediates the effect of VR on fear. In general, a full mediation was found for the SPSL dimension on the effect of VR on fear, thereby partially supporting the third hypothesis. A partial mediation was found for the SSM and SPPA dimensions on the effect of VR on fear. This means that spatial presence does mediate the effect of VR on fear, and especially through giving players the feeling that they are being part of the game, rather than being an observant. Playing a horror game in VR did lead to a stronger feeling that the in-game environment was an accurate representation of a plausible reality (SSM), and to a stronger feeling of being part of the game rather than being an observant (SPSL), supporting the first hypothesis. Playing a horror game in VR did not give players the stronger sense that they could interact more with objects and people within the gaming environment (SPPA). Playing a horror game in VR did lead in a lower HRV than playing it on a TV, supporting the second hypothesis. Playing a horror game in VR did lead to a stronger sense of fear, however these results were not statistically

References

Adolphs, R. (2013). The biology of fear. Current Biology, 23(2), 79-93.

Baños, R. M., Botella, C., Alcañiz, M., Liaño, V., Guerrero, B., & Rey, B. (2004). Immersion and emotion: their impact on the sense of presence. CyberPsychology &

Behavior, 7(6), 734-741.

Biocca, F., J. Kim, and Y. Choi. 2001a. “Visual touch in virtual environments: An exploratory study of presence, multimodal interfaces, and cross-modal sensory illusions. Presence, 10(3), 247–265.

Bowman, D. A., & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer, 40(7).

Bystrom, K. E., Barfield, W., & Hendrix, C. (1999). A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual

Environments, 8(2), 241-244.

Cellan-Jones, R. (2016). The year when VR goes from virtual to reality. BBC news. Technology section. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35205783.


Coxon, M., Kelly, N., & Page, S. (2016). Individual differences in virtual reality: Are spatial presence and spatial ability linked? Virtual Reality, 20(4), 203-212.

Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272-309.

Davis, M. (1992). The role of the amygdala in fear and anxiety. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 15(1), 353-375.

Easterling, D. V., & Leventhal, H. (1989). Contribution of concrete cognition to emotion: neutral symptoms as elicitors of worry about cancer. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74(5), 787.

Garcia-Palacios, A., Hoffman, H., Carlin, A., Furness, T. U., & Botella, C. (2002). Virtual reality in the treatment of spider phobia: a controlled study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(9), 983-993.

Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2017). The development and validation of the ARI

questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 24-37. Grodal, T. (2003). Stories for eye, ear, and muscles. The Video Game Theory Reader, 129-155.

disorders,” in Handbook of Anxiety and Related Disorders, eds M. M. Antony and M. B. Stein (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 34–46.


Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., & Lee, K. M. (2012). Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(2), 617-623.

Hupont, I., Gracia, J., Sanagustin, L., & Gracia, M. A. (2015). How do new visual immersive systems influence gaming QoE? A use case of serious gaming with Oculus Rift. In Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2015 Seventh International Workshop on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Jansz, J. (2005). The emotional appeal of violent video games for adolescent males. Communication Theory, 15(3), 219-241.

Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355-383. Klinger, E., Bouchard, S., Légeron, P., Roy, S., Lauer, F., Chemin, I., & Nugues, P. (2005).

Virtual reality therapy versus cognitive behavior therapy for social phobia: A preliminary controlled study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 76-88.

Lang, P. J. (1984). Cognition in emotion: Concept and action. Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior, 192-226.

Lemmens, J. S., & Hendriks, S. J. F. (2016). Addictive online games: Examining the relationship between game genres and Internet Gaming Disorder. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 270-276.

Lin, J. H. T. (2017). Fear in virtual reality (VR): Fear elements, coping reactions, immediate and next-day fright responses toward a survival horror zombie virtual reality

game. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 350-361.

Ling, Y., Nefs, H. T., Brinkman, W. P., Qu, C., & Heynderickx, I. (2013). The relationship between individual characteristics and experienced presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1519-1530.

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 3(2), 0-0.

Lynch, T., & Martins, N. (2015). Nothing to fear? An analysis of college students' fear experiences with video games. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(2), 298-317.

Martins, T. (2015). Video game trends for 2016: Virtual reality, further blurred lines between TV and gaming. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-1231-the-player-2016-20151231-story.html.


Nash, E. B., Edwards, G. W., Thompson, J. A., & Barfield, W. (2000). A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(1), 1-41.

Painter, L. (2016). Best VR games and experiences coming out in 2016: Horror, shooters & more. TechAdvisor. Retrieved from http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/buying-

advice/game/best-most-anticipated-vr-games-experiences-of-2016-horror- space-exploration-shooters-olympics-3639862/.

Parsons, T. D., & Rizzo, A. A. (2008). Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39(3), 250-261.

Price, M., Mehta, N., Tone, E. B., & Anderson, P. L. (2011). Does engagement with exposure yield better outcomes? Components of presence as a predictor of treatment response for virtual reality exposure therapy for social phobia. Journal of Anxiety

Disorders, 25(6), 763-770.

Resident Evil 7 [Computer software]. (2017). Osaka: Capcom.

Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C. S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., ... & Alcañiz, M. (2007). Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 45-56.

Rosenberg, R. S., Baughman, S. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2013). Virtual superheroes: Using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PloS one, 8(1), e55003.

Rothbaum, B. O., Hodges, L., Watson, B. A., Kessler, G. D., & Opdyke, D. (1996). Virtual reality exposure therapy in the treatment of fear of flying: A case report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(5), 477-481.

Sacau, A., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., & Hartmann, T. (2005). The impact of personality factors on the experience of spatial presence. In The 8th International Workshop on Presence (Presence 2005) (pp. 143-151).

Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4), 332-339.

Sill, J. M., & Fear, E. C. (2005). Tissue sensing adaptive radar for breast cancer detection: Study of immersion liquids. Electronics Letters, 41(3), 113-115.

Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549-3557.

Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603-616.

Smolentsev, A., Cornick, J. E., & Blascovich, J. (2017). Using a preamble to increase presence in digital virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 1-12.

Tamborini, R., & Skalski, P. (2006). The role of presence in the experience of electronic games. Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences, 225-240. Van Dam, A., Forsberg, A. S., Laidlaw, D. H., LaViola, J. J., & Simpson, R. M. (2000).

Immersive VR for scientific visualization: A progress report. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(6), 26-52.

Visch, V. T., Tan, E. S., & Molenaar, D. (2010). The emotional and cognitive effect of immersion in film viewing. Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1439-1445.

Weibel, D., & Wissmath, B. (2011). Immersion in computer games: The role of spatial presence and flow. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2011, 6. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A

presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225-240.

Youngblut, C. (2003). Experience of presence in virtual environments (No. IDA-D-2960). INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES ALEXANDRIA VA.

Zillmann, D. (1996). The psychology of suspense in dramatic exposition. Suspense: Conceptualizations, Theoretical Analyses, and Empirical Explorations, 199-231.