First-Person Perspective Induces Stronger Feelings of Awe and Presence Compared to Third-Person Perspective in Virtual Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Awe is a complex emotion described as a perception of vastness and a need for accommodation to integrate new, overwhelming experiences. Virtual Reality (VR) has recently gained attention as a convenient means to facilitate experiences of awe. In VR, a first-person perspective might increase awe due to its immersive nature, while a third-person perspective might enhance the perception of vastness. However, the impact of VR perspectives on experiencing awe has not been thoroughly examined. We created two types of VR scenes: one with elements designed to induce high awe, such as a snowy mountain, and a low awe scene without such elements. We compared first-person and third-person perspectives in each scene. Forty-two participants explored the VR scenes, with their physiological responses captured by electrocardiogram (ECG) and face tracking (FT). Subsequently, participants self-reported their experience of awe (AWE-S) and presence (IPQ) within VR. The results revealed that the first-person perspective induced stronger feelings of awe and presence than the third-person perspective. The findings of this study provide useful guidelines for designing VR content that enhances emotional experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".