Comfort Distance for Online and In‐Person Interactions: A Virtual Reality Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research has shown that people have a preferred distance during their in‐person interactions. However, it is less clear what the appropriate distance is for online interactions. The present study aimed to extend previous research by exploring whether comfort distance is different between dyadic interactions when taking place in a virtual online context compared with a virtual in‐person context. The study involved 44 undergraduate students who participated in a virtual reality (VR) experiment, consisting of two conditions (an online and an in‐person dyadic interaction). The participants were asked to adjust the distance between themselves and a virtual confederate displayed on a television screen (virtual online condition) and a virtual confederate displayed in‐person (virtual in‐person condition). The results showed that individuals select a larger distance from avatars for online interactions than for in‐person interactions, prefer more distance between themselves and the screen than the distance between avatars and the screen, and opt for greater distance from male than from female confederates. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics of online social interactions and highlight the importance of context and perspective when studying proxemics.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it