{"title":"虚拟观察者会影响我们的行为吗?虚拟环境中的社会促进:一个小型综述","authors":"Radoslaw Sterna, P. Strojny, K. Rȩbilas","doi":"10.32872/spb.v14i3.30091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The social facilitation effect describes the change in the performance of the task under the influence of the presence of observers. The effect itself consists of two components: social facilitation in simple tasks and social inhibition in complex tasks. In the context of the dynamic development of new technologies, the question of the possible influence on human behavior by virtual characters gains importance. We attempted to critically describe and summarize current research on social facilitation in order to answer the question of whether it occurs in virtual environments. We found 13 relevant studies, 3 of which demonstrated social facilitation, 4 social inhibition and 1 demonstrated the whole effect. The conclusions drawn from the analysis are ambiguous. Firstly, we identified that 12 out of 13 analyzed studies failed to show the whole effect. Secondly, we encountered several shortcomings of the summarized research that further complicated its interpretation. The shortcomings: presence of the researcher, unclear usage of “agent” and “avatar”, evaluation of activation, no pilot tests of observers and no description of how their characteristics are generated, among others, are discussed. Furthermore, we investigated the effect sizes and their variability. The average effect size for social facilitation was g = 0.18, CI [-0.28; 0.64] and for social inhibition g = -0.18, CI [-0.40; 0.04]. In social facilitation, a substantial level of heterogeneity was detected. Finally, we conclude that it is still too early to provide a definite answer to the question of whether social facilitation exists in Virtual Environments. We recommend limiting evaluation activation to the lowest possible level, conducting pilot tests prior to the experiment, avoiding the presence of the researcher in the experimental room and a clear distinction of “agent” and “avatar”, as measures to achieve a better quality in future research.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Virtual Observers Affect Our Behavior? Social Facilitation in Virtual Environments: A Mini-Review\",\"authors\":\"Radoslaw Sterna, P. Strojny, K. Rȩbilas\",\"doi\":\"10.32872/spb.v14i3.30091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The social facilitation effect describes the change in the performance of the task under the influence of the presence of observers. The effect itself consists of two components: social facilitation in simple tasks and social inhibition in complex tasks. In the context of the dynamic development of new technologies, the question of the possible influence on human behavior by virtual characters gains importance. We attempted to critically describe and summarize current research on social facilitation in order to answer the question of whether it occurs in virtual environments. We found 13 relevant studies, 3 of which demonstrated social facilitation, 4 social inhibition and 1 demonstrated the whole effect. The conclusions drawn from the analysis are ambiguous. Firstly, we identified that 12 out of 13 analyzed studies failed to show the whole effect. Secondly, we encountered several shortcomings of the summarized research that further complicated its interpretation. The shortcomings: presence of the researcher, unclear usage of “agent” and “avatar”, evaluation of activation, no pilot tests of observers and no description of how their characteristics are generated, among others, are discussed. Furthermore, we investigated the effect sizes and their variability. The average effect size for social facilitation was g = 0.18, CI [-0.28; 0.64] and for social inhibition g = -0.18, CI [-0.40; 0.04]. In social facilitation, a substantial level of heterogeneity was detected. Finally, we conclude that it is still too early to provide a definite answer to the question of whether social facilitation exists in Virtual Environments. We recommend limiting evaluation activation to the lowest possible level, conducting pilot tests prior to the experiment, avoiding the presence of the researcher in the experimental room and a clear distinction of “agent” and “avatar”, as measures to achieve a better quality in future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Psychological Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Psychological Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.v14i3.30091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.v14i3.30091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
摘要
社会促进效应描述的是在观察者存在的影响下任务表现的变化。这种效应本身由两部分组成:简单任务中的社会促进作用和复杂任务中的社会抑制作用。在新技术不断发展的背景下,虚拟人物对人类行为可能产生的影响问题变得越来越重要。我们试图批判性地描述和总结当前关于社会促进的研究,以回答它是否发生在虚拟环境中的问题。我们找到了13项相关研究,其中3项研究显示社会促进作用,4项研究显示社会抑制作用,1项研究显示整体效应。从分析中得出的结论是模棱两可的。首先,我们发现13项分析研究中有12项未能显示出整体效果。其次,我们遇到了总结研究的几个不足,进一步使其解释复杂化。缺点:研究人员的存在,“代理”和“化身”的使用不明确,激活评估,没有对观察员进行试点测试,没有描述如何产生他们的特征,等等。此外,我们还研究了效应量及其变异性。社会促进的平均效应量为g = 0.18, CI [-0.28;0.64]社会抑制g = -0.18, CI [-0.40;0.04]。在社会促进方面,发现了大量的异质性。最后,我们得出结论,对于虚拟环境中是否存在社会促进这个问题,现在给出一个明确的答案还为时过早。我们建议将评估激活限制在尽可能低的水平,在实验前进行试点测试,避免研究人员出现在实验室内,并明确区分“代理”和“化身”,作为在未来研究中实现更好质量的措施。
Can Virtual Observers Affect Our Behavior? Social Facilitation in Virtual Environments: A Mini-Review
The social facilitation effect describes the change in the performance of the task under the influence of the presence of observers. The effect itself consists of two components: social facilitation in simple tasks and social inhibition in complex tasks. In the context of the dynamic development of new technologies, the question of the possible influence on human behavior by virtual characters gains importance. We attempted to critically describe and summarize current research on social facilitation in order to answer the question of whether it occurs in virtual environments. We found 13 relevant studies, 3 of which demonstrated social facilitation, 4 social inhibition and 1 demonstrated the whole effect. The conclusions drawn from the analysis are ambiguous. Firstly, we identified that 12 out of 13 analyzed studies failed to show the whole effect. Secondly, we encountered several shortcomings of the summarized research that further complicated its interpretation. The shortcomings: presence of the researcher, unclear usage of “agent” and “avatar”, evaluation of activation, no pilot tests of observers and no description of how their characteristics are generated, among others, are discussed. Furthermore, we investigated the effect sizes and their variability. The average effect size for social facilitation was g = 0.18, CI [-0.28; 0.64] and for social inhibition g = -0.18, CI [-0.40; 0.04]. In social facilitation, a substantial level of heterogeneity was detected. Finally, we conclude that it is still too early to provide a definite answer to the question of whether social facilitation exists in Virtual Environments. We recommend limiting evaluation activation to the lowest possible level, conducting pilot tests prior to the experiment, avoiding the presence of the researcher in the experimental room and a clear distinction of “agent” and “avatar”, as measures to achieve a better quality in future research.