Accepted Manuscript May I experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? An answer from a simulated job interview D. Villani, C. Repetto, P. Cipresso, G. Riva PII: DOI: Reference:

S0953-5438(12)00042-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.008 INTCOM 1840

To appear in:

Interacting with Computers

Please cite this article as: Villani, D., Repetto, C., Cipresso, P., Riva, G., May I experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? An answer from a simulated job interview, Interacting with Computers (2012), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

May I experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? An answer from a simulated job interview Villani, D.1, Repetto, C. 1, Cipresso, P. 2, Riva, G. 1-2

1

Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan,

Italy 2 Applied

Technology for Neuro-Psychology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Via Pellizza

da Volpedo 41, 20149 Milano, Italy

Corresponding author: Villani Daniela, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy Email: [email protected] Phone number: 0039-0272342600 Fax number: 0039-0272342280

May I experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? An answer from a simulated job interview

Abstract Is it possible to experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? According to the well known definition of presence as "disappearance of mediation", the answer is no: technology is a barrier, a mediating tool that can only reduce the level of presence experienced in an interaction. However, the increasing diffusion of a technology like augmented reality that adds a technological layer of information to the real world suggests the opposite: the experience of “being there” may be influenced by the ability of “making sense there”. To explore this issue we used a sample of 20 university students to evaluate the level of presence experienced in two different settings: an immersive virtual reality job simulation and a real world simulation that was identical to its VR counterpart (same interviewer, same questions) but without technological mediation and without any social and cultural cues in the environment that may give a better meaning to both the task and its social context. Self-report data, and in particular the scores in the Spatial Presence and the Ecological Validity ITC-SOPI scales, suggest that experienced presence was higher during the virtual interview than in the real world simulation. This interpretation was confirmed by subjective (higher in VR) but not by objective (Skin Conductance) anxiety scores. These data suggest a vision of presence as a social construction, in which reality is co-constructed in the relationship between actors and their environments through the mediation of physical and cultural artifacts. Key words: presence, virtual reality, job interview, anxiety state

1

1. Introduction According to the scientific literature, the most known and used definition of presence is the one introduced by Lombard and Ditton [1]: presence is a function of our experience of a given medium, and specifically the “perceptual illusion of non-mediation” produced by means of the disappearance of the medium from the conscious attention of the subject. A corollary of this vision, which is clearly reflected by the work of many researchers in the area [2-6], is that mediated presence (telepresence) can be at best equal to, but not higher than, the presence experienced in the real world. But is this true? A critical issue, as noted by Riva and colleagues, is that presence in real world is not always the same [7]: “Imagine that you are walking through an European street, admiring the old buildings around you. At the end of the road you notice a big building, and you begin to move closer to it. As you get within a certain distance, you suddenly realize that it is an ancient stadium whose exterior is clothed in white marble…You are “there”. In front of you there is an old ruin and around you different tourists are shooting at it. Suddenly, a woman holding a white umbrella starts to speak [telling the history of this stadium, the Colosseum]… After these words, you are still “there”, but your presence in that place is totally different. Now you are “aware” that this old stadium held 50,000 people and had all kinds of events, from wild animal hunts to gladiators to actual sea battles.” (pp. 19-20). This example shows that the experience of “being there” is clearly influenced by the ability of “making sense there”. And this is true for virtual environments as well, as shown in an experimental research carried out by Gorini and colleagues [8]. In their experiment, eighty-four students, randomly assigned to four groups, were asked to find a blood container inside a virtual hospital in an immersive or nonimmersive condition and with or without an emotionally related narrative. Their data show that providing a narrative explaining the context and the meaning of the virtual experience produced a significant increase in the experienced level of presence. Apparently, the connecting variable between presence and meaning is the emotional response [8, 9]: the narrative produces a higher physiological activation that strengthens the subjects‟ sense of presence. The link between the sense of presence and the emotional responses has been identified as a critical topic to investigate [10]. Many researchers addressed this issue both with clinical and non clinical samples. For example, Robillard, Bouchard, Fournier, and Renaud [11] compared the reactions to the exposure to feared virtual environments of two groups, a phobic group and a non-anxious control group, and they found a strong bivariate relationship between self reported presence and anxiety. These findings were replicated by Price et al. [12], who claimed that an increased amount of presence was related to an increased amount of anxiety in individuals with a specific phobia. On the other hand, experiments carried out with non pathological participants underlined that the level of presence is a 2

significant predictor of different emotional variables, including anxiety [13, 14]. In these researches subjective sense of presence was measured by using physiological measures that, together with self-reports and behavioral measures, represent one modality of presence assessment [15]. If on the one hand, the advantages of self-reports are their face validity and the easiness of use, on the other hand, a big disadvantage is that they are commonly used post immersion: in fact some researchers noticed that subjective measures produced unstable and inconsistent responses depending on a participant‟s prior experience [16]. In this sense behavioral and physiological measures, which aim to measure participant responses that are produced automatically and that are sensibly correlated with being present in a particular environment, represent alternative approaches to avoid the subjective nature of questionnaires. The premise behind these measures is that the more a participant feels present in a virtual environment, the more his responses to stimuli will nearly match those behaviors or physiological changes he would exhibit in an identical real environment. Furthermore, physiological measures have several advantages: they are more objective than subjective measures and they are a continuous measure, so that time-varying qualities of presence can be observed. According to Waterworth and colleagues [17], presence could be viewed as the feeling of being located in a perceived external world around the self, and this view underlines the emerging of “presence” and “absence” as opposite poles of experience in our relation to the self and the other. Total absence is a complete experiential absorption with the internal world of thought and imagination (the self), whereas total presence is a complete absorption in the external world (the other). The sense of presence allows us to place ourselves at a point along this continuum. Considering that absorption is related to the meaning of the experience and to the emotional involvement [18, 19], it is still not clear what happens in a virtual experience if the negative effect of mediation is countered by a positive effect produced by a higher emotional involvement. According to Mantovani and colleagues [20] we considered that the meaning of the presence experience in an environment, real or simulated, leads individuals to perceive themselves, objects, and eventually other people not only as situated in an external space but also as immersed in a sociocultural scenario connecting objects, people, and their interactions. Individuals experience „„reality‟‟ through interpretive grids that are generated by the preexisting social structures and live in a „„reality‟‟ that is usually a social space in which individuals learn to perceive, categorize, and use environmental affordances in ways that are meaningful and socially recognizable. This study aims to understand if it‟s possible to experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality and to reach this goal we compared a job interview simulation with and without technological mediation. 3

Around the world, job interview is one of the most frequently used methods to assess candidates for employment [21-23] and the most preferred both by supervisors [24] and by human resources practitioners [25]. The interview moment plays a critical role also for applicants: they perceive interviews as fair as other selection procedures [26] and they expect interviews as part of a selection process [27]. Obtaining a job interview is fundamental to job search success [28] and for this reason it often evokes feelings of anxiety and distress [29]. It is not surprising that anxiety is an inherent part of the interview process [30], as the employment interview is a highly evaluative situation [31]. Feelings of anxiety could be related both to the fact that the interviewer is usually a stranger and talking with strangers could provoke anxiety [32] and to the lack of control perceived by the applicants [33]. A widely accepted explanation about the emerging of anxiety is related to the “test-taking anxiety”. This view contains two principal components: performance anxiety, conceptualized as fear of failure, and behavioral anxiety that reflects the autonomic arousal due to the test-taking situation. Both these components were expected to be critical to job-interview situations, as job interviews could be considered as a type of test [34]. Applicant anxiety may bias the predictive validity of job interview and determine serious implications [35]. For this reason, it is important to realize structured situations helping applicants to reach a good performance and to reduce the risks of failure of their experience in a real job interview [36]. One of the first attempt to realize a job interview training was done by Venardos and colleagues [37]. They concluded that videotape interviews for modeling and feedback and the use of role playing as a job interview training procedure can produce significant improvement in interview skills if compared to previous performance and to an attention-placebo control treatment. Today, thanks to the advances in technologies, Virtual Reality (VR) could represent a valid chance to overcome the limits related to the exposure in real life. VR is a human computer interaction in which users are active participants in a computer generated three-dimensional world [38]. By using a head-mounted display (HMD), which has earphones and a display screen for each eye together with a motion tracking system, the participant views and hears a computer-generated Virtual Reality Environment (VRE) in the HMD so convincing that it allows participants to have experiences that mimic those of real world. Traditionally, VR has been applied in several fields [39] making participants free to explore and manage critical situations in a more controlled and costeffective setting than in vivo exposure. Indeed, VR has been proposed as a new medium for exposure therapy [40] that is safer than reproducing real world situations and less embarrassing and 4

costly. The rationale is simple: in VR the patient is intentionally confronted with the feared stimuli in a sheltered setting where patient can start to explore and act without feeling actually threatened [41]. Nothing the patient fears can “really” happen to him in VR. With such assurance, he can freely explore, experiment, feel, live and experience feelings and/or thoughts. VR thus becomes a very useful step before the real world [42]. Up to now, VR technology has not been used specifically to enhance skills to cope with a job interview. VR has been used successfully in the behavioral treatment of anxiety disorders [38, 43, 44] and in particular to reduce public speaking anxiety [45-48]. The principal aim of this study is to understand if it‟s possible to experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality, and to reach this goal we compared a job interview simulation in two settings. First of all it‟s important to underline that in this study the focus is on subjective presence and not on social presence. In fact, some definitions of social presence [49] include implicit or explicit references to some level of behavioral engagement, especially behavioral interaction or synchronization, such as eye contact, non-verbal mirroring, turn taking, either as the essence or an indicator of social presence, that have not been considered in this study. In particular, we aimed to test two hyphoteses: 1. The inclusion of social and cultural cues influences the sense of presence feeling. Specifically we considered that social and cultural cues can give a better meaning to both the task and its social context [50, 51] and that this is critical for the sense of presence feeling. In particular, comparing two different settings, an immersive virtual reality simulation, including social and cultural cues, and a real world simulation, identical to its VR counterpart (same interviewer, same questions) but without technological mediation and without any social and cultural cues, we expected a higher level of presence experienced within the mediated experience. 2. There is a relationship between the emotional response of participants and the sense of presence experienced during the simulations.

2. Method 2.1 Focus Group Before designing the virtual environment, a focus group was carried out in order to identify the environment‟s elements that people, who had never had a job interview, usually associated to the job interview setting. Ten students of the Catholic University of Milan were recruited following the 5

principle of the snowball sampling. During the focus group participants were encouraged to guess where a job interview would take place, focusing on the social and cultural cues that they would expect to find in this environment. The place expected for one-on-one interview was a tidy private office or a meeting room, with a desk and chairs arranged at right angles to each other and with books in full view. The analysis of the cues emerged from the focus group led to the design of the virtual environment described below. 2.2 Participants Fifty flyers were posted at Catholic University of Milan to attract participants and twenty-eight students applied to participate. We answered by mail specifying that we were interested in selecting final year or graduated students who had never had a job interview before. Twenty final year or graduated students, 10 males and 10 females, met the requisite. Participants‟ age ranged from 23 to 27 years (M = 24,2 years). They were asked to imagine that they had applied for a desirable job and that they were undergoing a job interview. 2.3 Design To compare virtual reality and real world simulations we carried out a within subjects experiment: this choice was motivated by the need of enhancing the statistical power of the tests even with a small sample [52]. The independent variable was the interview environment, with two levels: real environment vs virtual environment. In the real environment interview the setting of the interview was a lecture hall. Thus, the environment contained only the basic elements that are supposed to be referred to a job interview setting, i.e. a table and at least two chairs. A graduated student, who simulated the role of the interviewer, welcomed the participants playing the role of the applicants. The virtual environment interview was instead designed as a professional one, thus enriched of social and cultural cues that people associated to the job interview context (as reported in the focus group) (i.e. private office, furniture, books). A video of the same interviewer was displayed in the virtual world such that it appeared as though the interviewer was sitting near the virtual table. Figures 1 and 2 show a picture of the same interviewer in the virtual and the real environment respectively.

6

Fig. 1 Virtual Reality Interview

Fig. 2 Real life Interview

The interview questions were general in nature, in order to allow participants to answer as if they were being interviewed for a job that they would like to have. The entire interview included 8 questions and was split in half, yelding two set of four questions each. One set of questions was administered during the real interview, and the other during the virtual one. In this way each participant received all the questions, undergoing both virtual and real interview. The order of the sessions (virtual vs real), and the order of the set of questions (questions 1 to 4 vs question 5 to 8) were randomized over participants. As recommended by Spector [53], efforts were made to keep the items relatively short in length, to base them on concrete ideas, to include only straightforward language, and to ensure that each item described only one idea. The complete list of questions is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Questions posed during both real and virtual job interviews First part of the interview: 1. Let‟s start talking about you. What are your expectations and goals? What do you like doing? 2. Please tell me about the positions you have held, why are you interested in this position? 3. Why do you think that a graduated candidate like you could be suitable for this position? 4. Where do you see yourself in five years time? What are your expectations and goals? Second part of the interview: 5. Let‟s talk about your personality. What are three adjectives that better describe you? 6. What type of leader are you? 7. Can you describe an experience you have had that would prepare you to exert your leadership skill on the workplace? 8. How do you feel about the possibility of being transferred?

2.4 Tools The virtual environment was developed by using NeuroVR, a cost-free virtual reality platform based on open-source software, which allows non-expert users to easily modify the virtual scenes, 7

in order to best suit the needs of the clinical setting and that has been adapted here for the specific goal. For this experiment the environment was modeled on a typical manager‟s office, according to expectations emerging from a previous focus group session, and was meant to represent a place that would make the student feel at a job interview. Exploration in the immersive VR environment was possible by using a portable computer (Fujitsu Siemens AMILO Processor, Pentium Core 2 Duo with an ATI Radeon HD3450, 512 Mb, graphic card) and a Head-Mounted Display (Sony Glasstron PLM S-700). In particular, we decided to use the HMD, which is not commonly used in this setting, to reduce the impact of the external variables. 2.5 Measures Level of anxiety and sense of presence experienced by participants were the dependent variables. Anxiety was measured by combining subjective and objective measures. The State Trait Anxiety Inventory [54] is a self-report questionnaire that assesses both state and trait anxiety levels. We used the State Anxiety subscale (STAI-S), a 20-item measures in which participants rate their level of anxiety to each item on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 to 4), to evaluate the “transitory emotional states”. This measure has good internal consistency [55] and good concurrent validity [56]. The Italian versions of the STAI have been validated [57] and Cronbach‟s alpha of the subscales‟ Italian-validated versions ranges between 0.83 and 0.92. Specifically, it was used as a manipulation check to measure anxiety levels at the end of each part of the interview. The sense of presence was measured by using the ITC–Sense of Presence Inventory- ITC-SOPI [58], a subjective presence measure designed to be relevant across media and across content and including two parts, during and after a media experience. The questions are related to several content areas deemed relevant to presence on the basis of theoretical and empirical papers: sense of space, involvement, attention, distraction, control and manipulation, realness, naturalness, time, behavioral realism, co-presence, personal relevance, arousal, and negative effects. Each item rates on a 5-point Likert scale (1 to 5). Specifically the questionnaire considers four dimensions: Physical space (a sense of physical placement in the mediated environment and interaction with, and control over, parts of the mediated environment), Engagement (a tendency to feel psychologically involved and to enjoy the content), Ecological Validity (a tendency to perceive the mediated environment as lifelike and real) and Negative effects (adverse physiological reactions). This questionnaire shows a good internal reliability, since alpha scores are high for all the factors (ranging from 0.94 to 0.76). Furthermore, we measured Skin Conductance (SC) (via the BioGraph Infiniti Procomp) according 8

to several studies [59-63] that use this parameter as an important measure of physiological arousal related to the exposure to an emotional event. Physiological measures have also been recognized as useful for the study of human computer interaction (e.g. [64]) and SC is one of the most commonly examined and least intrusive physiological responses used to measure subjective presence [15]. Change in skin conductance measures the change in the conductivity of a person‟s skin. As stress increases, sweat increases on the palms. As sweat increases, the conductivity increases as well. Conductive changes of skin due to the activity of the sweat glands have been recognized as a direct measure of stress and arousal [65]. Therefore, this measure was used to assess how both mediated and not mediated experiences could influence the affective state of the participants. 2.6 Procedure Participants were greeted and taken to the research lab where they signed an informed consent and completed the STAI-S subscale. After that, applicants were interviewed both in real and virtual modalities and Skin Conductance was registered during the first and the second part of the interview. In order to control the interaction process between candidate and interviewer and to avoid intervening variables, during the interview the interviewer was instructed to avoid giving verbal and facial feedback to the candidate‟s answer. Like in the question and answers interview technique [66], the interviewer asked the questions and the candidate answered them and waited for the next one. In order to control the time of answering of the two groups of candidates, the real interviewer and the video interviewer waited three minutes before asking a new question. After each part, participants were asked to fill in the STAI-S questionnaire and the ITC-Sopi Questionnaire. In this way, each applicant participated in a total of two interview modalities, one real and one virtual, and each part lasted approximately 15 min.

3. Results First of all, the level of presence experienced in both settings was compared by using a T-test paired comparison (Real simulation vs. VR condition). Results showed significant statistical differences for "Spacial Presence" (2.238 ± 0.668 vs. 2.926 ± 0.681, p < .006) and "Ecological Validity" (2.840 ± 0.852 vs. 3.510 ± 0.837, p < .011). Specifically, both these factors of presence, related respectively to a sense of physical placement in the mediated environment and to a tendency to

9

perceive the mediated environment as real, showed higher scores in the VR simulation than in the real one. Then, subjective anxiety was investigated as measured by STAI State Pre-Post index, comparing the anxiety level experienced in both settings by using a T-test paired comparison. Results showed significant statistical differences (-1.30 ± 7.435 vs. 1.50 ± 7.075, p < .044) between the two modalities. Also in this case, VR induced a higher level of anxiety compared to real simulation. To verify mean differences in the Skin Conductance index, a repeated measures ANOVA (rmANOVA) was performed, with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction when needed, with the three times (Baseline, Virtual Reality and Real Simulation) as within-subjects conditions. Results showed that those mean scores for Skin Conductance statistically differed in a significant way between the three times of the experiment [F (1.317, 36) = 17.822, p < .001, partial η2 = .498]. In particular, post hoc tests were performed in order to identify the significant changes for Skin Conductance. Post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction revealed a significant statistical difference both between Baseline and Virtual Reality (4.211± 0.240 vs. 5.620 ± 0.315, respectively, p < .001) and between Baseline and Real Simulation (4.211± 0.240 vs. 5.420 ± 0.278, respectively, p < .002). Even if results showed an increase of Skin Conductance in both interview modalities, post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction didn‟t show statistical differences between VR and real simulation condition in mean scores (5.420 ± 0.278 vs. 5.620 ± 0.315, respectively, p > .05). Finally, the relationship existing between subjective anxiety and presence indexes was investigated. Tables 2 and 3 show the results of linear regressions between STAI-S index and presence factors for both real simulation and Virtual Reality. In particular, results showed an effect of all presence factors (spatial presence, engagement, ecological validity and negative effects) on anxiety state level after the interview in VR. This result doesn‟t happen in real simulation, where only the negative effect factor is related to the anxiety state level after the interview. Table 2. Coefficients of linear regression between STAI-S index and ITC-Sopi factors Table 1. Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients

V REAL R

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

B

Std. Error

Standardized Coefficients Beta

t

Sig.

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Spacial Presence

-0.003

0.017

-0.039

-0.165

0.871

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Engagement

-0.023

0.013

-0.389

-1.790

0.090

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Ecological Validity

-0.010

0.021

-0.112

-0.478

0.638

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Negative Effects

0.019

0.008

0.507

2.497

0.022

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Spacial Presence

-0.041

0.010

-0.692

-4.068

0.001

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Engagement

-0.035

0.011

-0.615

-3.308

0.004

10

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Ecological Validity

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Negative Effects

-0.053

0.012

-0.725

-4.465

< 0.001

0.029

0.006

0.744

4.724

< 0.001

Table 3. Model Summary of linear regression between STAI-S index and ITC-Sopi factors Table 2. Model Summary

VR

REAL

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Spacial Presence

0.39

0.002

-0.054

0.686

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Engagement

0.40

0.151

0.104

0.526

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Ecological Validity

0.10

0.013

-0.042

0.870

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Negative Effects

0.50

0.257

0.216

0.317

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Spacial Presence

0.70

0.479

0.450

0.505

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Engagement

0.60

0.378

0.344

0.526

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Ecological Validity

0.70

0.525

0.499

0.593

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Negative Effects

0.70

0.554

0.529

0.304

Figures 3 and 4 show the graphical representation of linear regressions between STAI-S index and presence factors respectively in real simulation and in Virtual reality.

11

Fig. 3 Graphical representation of linear regressions between STAI-S index and presence factors in real simulation

12

Fig. 4 Graphical representation of linear regressions between STAI-S index and presence factors in immersive VR

4. Discussion Is it possible to experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? According to the well known definition of presence introduced by Lombard and Ditton [1], the answer is no: technology is a barrier, a mediating tool that can only reduce the level of presence experienced in a mediated interaction. However, the increasing diffusion of a technology like augmented reality, that adds a technological layer of information to the real world, suggests the opposite: the experience of “being there” may be influenced by the ability of “making sense there”. Waterworth and colleagues [17] suggested that presence could be viewed as the feeling of being located in a perceived external world around the self. The sense of presence allows us to place ourselves at a point along a continuum between “presence”, the complete absorption in the external world (the other), and “absence”, the complete experiential absorption with the internal world of thought and imagination (the self). 13

Apparently, the connecting variable between presence and meaning is the emotional response: the content of the experience produces a higher physiological activation that strengthens the subjects‟ sense of presence [8, 14, 67]. From this perspective, a virtual experience could elicit a higher sense of presence if the meaning and the emotional engagement are higher than in real experience. To verify this possibility we compared the experienced feeling of presence in two different settings: an immersive virtual reality job interview simulation and a real world simulation that was identical to its VR counterpart (same interviewer, same questions) but without technological mediation and without any social and cultural cues in the environment that could give a better meaning to both the task and its social context [50, 51]. The choice of focusing on job interview was driven by two principal reasons: on the one hand, this kind of experience is strongly characterized by emotional involvement [29, 30], in particular it often evokes feelings of anxiety and distress related both to the fact that talking to strangers could provoke anxiety [32] and that applicants perceive a lack of control of the situation [33]. On the other hand, VR technology has not been used specifically to date to enhance skills to cope with a job interview and it could be a very useful step before the real world [42]. Self-report data, and in particular the scores in Spatial Presence and Ecological Validity scales, suggest that experienced presence was higher during the virtual interview than in the real world simulation. This result supports a conception of presence as a social construction that is different from the one suggested by Lombard and Ditton. In this sense, „„Reality‟‟ is not out there in the world, somewhere „„outside‟‟ people‟s minds, escaping social negotiation and cultural mediation; reality is co-constructed in the relationship between actors and their environments through the mediation of the artifacts [50, 68, 69]. The same trend was found about anxiety state measured by self-report, and also in this case the perceived anxiety state was higher during the virtual interview than in the real world simulation. This result is strengthened by the fact that we controlled the interaction process between candidate and interviewer in both conditions: in fact, to reduce the effects of intervening variables, during the interview the interviewer was instructed to avoid giving verbal and facial feedback to the candidate‟s answer. The linear relationship existing between all presence factors, as measured by the self-report questionnaire, and anxiety state helps us also to understand the anxiety state level measured in virtual simulation. Indeed, a percent of the variation in anxiety explained by the presence variables seems to be present in VR, even if it is to be considered that the coefficients of determination (R square) are weak in most cases. This result doesn‟t occur in real simulation, where no linear 14

relationship exists between presence and anxiety. This result supports the idea that the experience of presence is influenced by the ability of meaning attribution to the experience, and in this case this is due to the fact that the virtual environment interview was designed as a professional setting thus enriched of social and cultural cues that people associated to the job interview context (as reported in the focus group). Contrary to what we expected, the Skin Conductance level significantly increased from baseline both in real and in virtual simulations, but we didn‟t find a significant difference between the two modalities. A possible explanation to take in consideration is that the level of activation is present in both simulations due to the stressful situation, but it should not be used as a proxy direct measure of subjective anxiety and subjective presence. In fact, several critical aspects should be considered as intervening factors, such as the affective state of participants, the environmental rumors, the artifacts detection, and others. We can state that this study can have several meaningful implications. On the one hand, the research helped us to understand the role of presence in mediated experiences. Presence is a multifaceted construct and we consider that it is related to personal expectations and meaning attribution. To answer the question title of the article: yes, I can feel more present in virtual simulation than in real simulation. This is possible thanks to the coherence between the features of the virtual environment and the expectations related to the interview experience. On the other hand, the results attest the potential value of virtual reality to carry out a job interview and this is important both for organizations and job applicants. In fact, VR can offer several advantages such as higher levels of standardization and structure and the level of “realism” that can be created in testing procedures. In particular, as showed by the results, the realism is also related to the possibility of customize the VR environment coherently with the participants goals and expectations.

5. Conclusion Data from this study suggest a vision of presence as a social construction, in which reality is coconstructed in relationship between actors and their environments through the mediation of physical and cultural artifacts. Future research should develop and test integrated programs aiming to combine both job interview simulations and job-interview anxiety training.

15

As far as the second aspect of these programs is concerned, help comes from studies that have already tested the efficacy of Virtual Reality in supporting stress management [70-72]. Specifically, the reduction of applicant anxiety may both increase the comfort level and the interview performances of job candidates and benefit organizations, as anxiety can reduce the predictive validity of the interview.

References [1] M. Lombard, T. Ditton, At the heart of it all: The concept of presence, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3 (1997). [2] T. Marsh, P. Wright, S. Smith, Evaluation for the design of experience in virtual environments: modeling breakdown of interaction and illusion, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4 (2001) 225-238. [3] W. Sadowski, K.M. Stanney, Measuring and managing presence in virtual environments. , in: K.M. Stanney (Ed.) Handbook of virtual environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2002. [4] D.W. Schloerb, A quantitative measure of telepresence, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4 (1995) 64-80. [5] T.B. Sheridan, Musing on telepresence and virtual presence, Presence, Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5 (1992) 241-246. [6] T.B. Sheridan, Further musings on the psychophysics of presence, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5 (1996) 241-246. [7] G. Riva, The psychology of ambient intelligence: Activity, situation and presence, in: G. Riva, F. Davide, F. Vatalaro, M. Alcaniz (Eds.) Ambient Intelligence: The evolution of technology, communication and cognition towards the futur of the human-compuer interaction, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 17ñ33. [8] A. Gorini, C.S. Capideville, G. De Leo, F. Mantovani, G. Riva, The role of immersion and narrative in mediated presence: the virtual hospital experience, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (2011) 99-105. [9] G. Riva, F. Mantovani, C.S. Capideville, A. Preziosa, F. Morganti, D. Villani, A. Gaggioli, C. Botella, M. Alcaniz, Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10 (2007) 45-56. [10] D. Villani, & Riva, G. , The role of interactive media features on the affective response: a virtual reality study., E-minds. International Journal on Human- Computer Interaction, 1 (2009) 3555. [11] G. Robillard, S. Bouchard, T. Fournier, P. Renaud, Anxiety and presence during VR immersion: a comparative study of the reactions of phobic and non-phobic participants in therapeutic virtual environments derived from computer games, Cyberpsychol Behav, 6 (2003) 467476. [12] M. Price, P. Anderson, The role of presence in virtual reality exposure therapy, J Anxiety Disord, 21 (2007) 742-751. [13] R. Banos, C. Botella, M. Alcaniz, V. Liano, B. Guerrero, B. Rey, Immersion and emotion: their impact on the sense of presence, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7 (2004) 734-741. [14] G. Riva, F. Mantovani, C.S. Capideville, A. Preziosa, F. Morganti, D. Villani, A. Gaggioli, C. Botella, M. Alca√±iz, Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence and emotions, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10 (2007) 45. [15] B.E. Insko, Measuring Presence: Subjective, Behavioral and Physiological Methods, in: G. Riva, F. Davide, W. IJsselsteijn (Eds.) Being there: Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments, IOS Press, Amsterdam: The Netherlands, 2003, pp. 110-118. 16

[16] J. Freeman, S. Avons, D.E. Pearson, W.A. IJsselsteijn, Effects of sensory information and prior experience on direct subjective ratings of presence, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 8 (1999) 1-13. [17] J. Waterworth, E.L. Waterworth, F. Mantovani, G. Riva, On feeling (the) present: An evolutionary account of the sense of presence in physical and electronically-mediated environments, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17 (2010) 167-188. [18] G. Riva, Is presence a technology issue? Some insights from cognitive sciences, Virtual Reality, 13 (2009) 59-69. [19] G. Riva, J.A. Waterworth, E.L. Waterworth, F. Mantovani, From intention to action: The role of presence, New Ideas in Psychology, 29 (2011) 24-37. [20] G. Mantovani, G. Riva, "Real" presence: How different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence, and virtual presence, Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments, 8 (1999) 538-548. [21] T. Macan, The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future research, Human Resource Management Review, 19 (2009) 203-218. [22] A.N.N. Ryan, L. McFarland, H. Baron, R. Page, An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice, Personnel Psychology, 52 (1999) 359392. [23] S.L. Wilk, P. Cappelli, Understanding the determinants of employer use of selection methods, Personnel Psychology, 56 (2003) 103-124. [24] F. Lievens, S. Highhouse, W. De Corte, The importance of traits and abilities in supervisors' hirability decisions as a function of method of assessment, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78 (2005) 453-470. [25] D.J. Topor, S.M. Colarelli, K. Han, Influences of traits and assessment methods on human resource practitioners' evaluations of job applicants, Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (2007) 361-376. [26] J.P. Hausknecht, D.V. Day, S.C. Thomas, Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta Analysis, Personnel Psychology, 57 (2004) 639-683. [27] F. Lievens, W. De Corte, K. Brysse, Applicant perceptions of selection procedures: The role of selection information, belief in tests, and comparative anxiety, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11 (2003) 67-77. [28] A.M. Saks, Multiple predictors and criteria of job search success, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (2006) 400-415. [29] R.A. Posthuma, F.P. Morgeson, M.A. Campion, Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time, Personnel Psychology, 55 (2002) 1-81. [30] J. McCarthy, R. Goffin, Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees and sweaty palms, Personnel Psychology, 57 (2004) 607-637. [31] R.G. Heimberg, K.E. Keller, T.A. Peca-Baker, Cognitive assessment of social-evaluative anxiety in the job interview: Job Interview Self-Statement Schedule, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33 (1986) 190-195. [32] J. Ayres, T. Keereetaweep, P.E. Chen, P.A. Edwards, Communication Apprehension and Employment Interviews, Communication Education, 47 (1998) 1-17. [33] D.B. Jones, J.W. Pinkney, An exploratory assessment of the sources of job-interview anxiety in college students, Journal of college student development, 30 (1989) 553-560. [34] A.P.A. APA, Standards for educational and psychological testing, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1985. [35] J. Ayres, S. Crosby, Two Studies Concerning the Predictive Validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension in Employment Interviews, Communication Research Reports, 12 (1995) 145-151.

17

[36] M.J. Young, R.R. Behnke, Y.M. Mann, Anxiety patterns in employment interviews, Communication Reports, 17 (2004) 49-57. [37] M.G. Venardos, M.B. Harris, Job interview training with rehabilitation clients: A comparison of videotape and role-playing procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 58 (1973) 365-367. [38] M.T. Schultheis, J. Himelstein, A.A. Rizzo, Virtual reality and neuropsychology: Upgrading the current tools, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation, 17 (2002) 378-394. [39] G. Riva, Virtual reality in psychotherapy: review, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8 (2005) 220230; discussion 231-240. [40] A. Gorini, G. Riva, Virtual reality in anxiety disorders: the past and the future, Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 8 (2008) 215-233. [41] C. Botella, A. GarcÌa-Palacios, H. Villa, R.M. Banos, S. Quero, M. Alcaniz, G. Riva, Virtual reality exposure in the treatment of panic disorder and agoraphobia: A controlled study, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14 (2007) 164-175. [42] G. Riva, Using virtual immersion therapeutically., in: K. Antony, D. Merz Nagel, S. Goss (Eds.) Use of Technology in Mental Health. Applications, ethics and practice., C. C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, 2010, pp. 114-123. [43] M. Krijn, P.M.G. Emmelkamp, R.P. Olafsson, R. Biemond, Virtual reality exposure therapy of anxiety disorders: A review, Clinical Psychology Review, 24 (2004) 259-281. [44] C. Repetto, G. Riva, From virtual reality to interreality in the treatment of anxiety disorders, Neuropsychiatry, 1 (2011) 31-43. [45] P.L. Anderson, E. Zimand, L.F. Hodges, B.O. Rothbaum, Cognitive behavioral therapy for public speaking anxiety using virtual reality for exposure, Depression and anxiety, 22 (2005) 156158. [46] H.J. Jo, J.H. Ku, D.P. Jang, M.B. Shin, H.B. Ahn, J.M. Lee, B.H. Cho, S.I. Kim, The development of the virtual reality system for the treatment of the fears of public speaking, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 81 (2001) 209-211. [47] D.P. Pertaub, M. Slater, C. Barker, An experiment on fear of public speaking in virtual reality, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 81 (2001) 372-378. [48] M. Slater, D.P. Pertaub, C. Barker, D.M. Clark, An experimental study on fear of public speaking using a virtual environment, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9 (2006) 627-633. [49] F. Biocca, C. Harms, J.K. Burgoon, Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12 (2003) 456-480. [50] G. Mantovani, New communication environments: from everyday to virtual, Taylor & Francis, London, 1996. [51] G. Mantovani, G. Riva, "Real" presence: how different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence, and virtual presence, Presence, Teleoperators and Virtual environments, 8 (1999) 538-548. [52] R. Bakeman, Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs, Behavior Research Methods, Instrument and Computers, 37 (2005) 379-384. [53] P.E. Spector, Summated rating scale construction: An introduction, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks: CA, 1992. [54] C.D. Spielberger, R.L. Gorsuch, R.E. Lushene, State-trait anxiety inventory manual., CA: Consulting psychologists press, Palo Alto, CA, 1970. [55] N.V. Ramanaiah, M. Franzen, T. Schill, A psychometric study of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Journal of personality assessment, 47 (1983) 531-535. [56] C.D. Speilberger, P.R. Vagg, Psychometric properties of the STAI: a reply to Ramanaiah, Franzen, and Schill, Journal of personality assessment, 48 (1984) 95-97. [57] L. Pedrabissi, M. Santinello, Inventario per l'ansia di Stato e di Tratto: nuova versione italiana dello STAI Forma Y: Manuale, Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze, 1989.

18

[58] J. Lessiter, J. Freeman, E. Keogh, J. Davidoff, A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITCSense of Presence Inventory, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10 (2001) 282-297. [59] C. Conati, Probabilistic assessment of user's emotions in educational games, Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16 (2002) 555-575. [60] P.J. Lang, The emotion probe: studies of motivation and attention., American Psychologist, 50 (1995) 372-385. [61] V. Magagnini, M. Mauri, P. Cipresso, L. Mainardi, E.N. Brown, S. Cerutti, M. Villamira, R. Barbieri, Heart rate variability and respiratory sinus arrhythmia assessment of affective states by bivariate autoregressive spectral analysis, Computing in Cardiology, (2010) 145-148. [62] M. Mauri, V. Magagnin, P. Cipresso, L. Mainardi, E.N. Brown, S. Cerutti, M. Villamira, R. Barbieri, Psychophysiological signals associated with affective states, in: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE, IEEE, 2010, pp. 3563-3566. [63] A. Pecchinenda, The affective significance of skin conductance activity during a difficult problem-solving task, Cognition & Emotion, 10 (1996) 481-504. [64] M. Meehan, S. Razzaque, B. Insko, M. Whitton, F.P. Brooks, Review of Four Studies on the Use of Physiological Reaction as a Measure of Presence in Stressful Virtual Environments, Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback, 30 (2005) 239-258. [65] H.D. Critchley, Book Review: Electrodermal Responses: What Happens in the Brain, The Neuroscientist, 8 (2002) 132-142. [66] N. Underhill, Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral testing techniques, Cambridge University Press, 1987. [67] D. Villani, M. Lucchetta, A. Preziosa, G. Riva, The role of interactive media features on the affective response: a virtual reality study, International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 1 (2009) 35-55. [68] G. Riva, C. Galimberti, The psychology of cyberspace: A socio-cognitive framework to computer-mediated communication, New Ideas in Psychology, 15 (1997) 141-158. [69] G. Riva, G. Mantovani, The ergonomics of virtual reality: Human factors in developing clinical-oriented virtual environments, in: J.D. Westwood, H.M. Hoffman, R.A. Robb, D. Stredney (Eds.) Medicine meets virtual reality. , IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999, pp. 278-284. [70] D. Villani, F. Riva, G. Riva, New technologies for relaxation: The role of presence, International Journal of Stress Management., 14 (2007) 260-274. [71] D. Villani, A. Grassi, C. Cognetta, D. Toniolo, P. Cipresso, G. Riva, Self-help stress management training through mobile phones: An experience with oncology nurses., Psychological Services, (in press). [72] D. Villani, G. Riva, Does Interactive Media Enhance the Management of Stress? Suggestions from a Controlled Study, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (2012) 24-30.

19

Fig. 1 Virtual Reality Interview

Fig. 1 Virtual Reality Interview (Black and White version)

Fig. 2 Real life Interview

Fig. 2 Real life Interview (Black and White version)

Fig. 3 Graphical representation of linear regressions between STAI-S index and presence factors in real simulation

Fig. 4 Graphical representation of linear regressions between STAI-S index and presence factors in immersive VR

Table 1. Questions posed during both real and virtual job interviews First part of the interview: 1. Let’s start talking about you. What are your expectations and goals? What do you like doing? 2. Please tell me about the positions you have held, why are you interested in this position? 3. Why do you think that a graduated candidate like you could be suitable for this position? 4. Where do you see yourself in five years time? What are your expectations and goals? Second part of the interview: 5. Let’s talk about your personality. What are three adjectives that better describe you? 6. What type of leader are you? 7. Can you describe an experience you have had that would prepare you to exert your leadership skill on the workplace? 8. How do you feel about the possibility of being transferred?

Table 2. Coefficients of linear regression between STAI-S index and ITC-Sopi factors Table 1. Coefficients

VR

REAL

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Unstandardized Coefficients B

Std. Error

Standardized Coefficients Beta

t

Sig.

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Spacial Presence

-0.003

0.017

-0.039

-0.165

0.871

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Engagement

-0.023

0.013

-0.389

-1.790

0.090

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Ecological Validity

-0.010

0.021

-0.112

-0.478

0.638

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Negative Effects

0.019

0.008

0.507

2.497

0.022

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Spacial Presence

-0.041

0.010

-0.692

-4.068

0.001

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Engagement

-0.035

0.011

-0.615

-3.308

0.004

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Ecological Validity

-0.053

0.012

-0.725

-4.465

< 0.001

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Negative Effects

0.029

0.006

0.744

4.724

< 0.001

Table 3. Model Summary of linear regression between STAI-S index and ITC-Sopi factors Table 2. Model Summary

VR

REAL

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Spacial Presence

0.39

0.002

-0.054

0.686

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Engagement

0.40

0.151

0.104

0.526

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Ecological Validity

0.10

0.013

-0.042

0.870

STAI-ST-Post-Real

Negative Effects

0.50

0.257

0.216

0.317

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Spacial Presence

0.70

0.479

0.450

0.505

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Engagement

0.60

0.378

0.344

0.526

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Ecological Validity

0.70

0.525

0.499

0.593

STAI-ST-Post-VR

Negative Effects

0.70

0.554

0.529

0.304

-

Among several definitions of presence, we considered the sense of immersion in a sociocultural scenario.

-

We compared the effects of socio-cultural cues in an immersive virtual and a real world simulation.

-

The simulations were related to an anxiety-inducing setting: the job interview.

-

Presence and anxiety scores were higher in VR interview than in the real world simulation.

-

Presence is a result of a social construction of reality.