Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 79 references

Verisimilitude as Boon and Bane: How People Initiate Opportunistic Interactions at Professional Events in Social VR

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Professionals initiating unplanned chats in social VR pass through three successive steps—availability recognition, attention capture, and ice-breaking—and each step demands a higher degree of verisimilitude from non-verbal cues.

desk verdict A well-executed qualitative study of how professionals initiate conversations in social VR; the three-step framework is useful, but the 'progressively higher verisimilitude' claim is the one piece that outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22241 v2 pith:PD4Y42F4 submitted 2025-07-29 cs.HC

Victoria Chang , Caro Williams-Pierce , Huaishu Peng , Ge Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords socialVRopportunisticinteractionsprofessionaleventsnon-verbalcuesverisimilitudeavatar-mediatedcommunicationqualitativestudyCSCW
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how professionals manage the unplanned conversations that matter for networking when the event happens in virtual reality. It argues that initiating such an interaction is not a single act, as it is face-to-face, but three successive steps: recognizing that someone is available, capturing their attention, and breaking the ice. Each step requires a progressively higher degree of verisimilitude, defined as the user's perceived extent to which social VR preserves the real-world social meaning of non-verbal cues. The authors base this account on shadowing 16 experienced users across 23 professional VR events and interviewing them afterward. The claim matters because current platforms replace the social machinery behind cues such as gaze, proximity, and timing with technical substitutes that quietly change what those cues mean, and designers and hosts currently lack a systematic map of where the breakdowns occur.

What carries the argument

Verisimilitude is the paper's central lens: the extent to which a social VR environment preserves, in the user's perception, the real-world social meaning of a non-verbal cue. It is not objective fidelity but perceived meaning-preservation, so the same cue can carry different social weight for different users and platforms. The three-step model—availability recognition, attention capture, and ice-breaking—is the other load-bearing structure, and verisimilitude explains why progression is hard: each step relies on cues whose platform-level preconditions, such as user control of gaze, timing of gestures, multimodal sensing, and shared appearance, are progressively harder to preserve.

What would settle it

Compare two otherwise identical VR networking events, one where avatar gaze follows the user's real gaze and one where gaze is machine-generated; the model predicts that only the machine-gaze version produces systematic false 'she looked at me' approach attempts. A larger behavioral trace should also show failed initiations clustering at distinct stages rather than spreading evenly across all moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that people initiate opportunistic interactions in professional social VR through a three-step sequence: availability recognition, attention capture, and ice-breaking. At each step users lean on non-verbal cues—gaze and wandering for availability, claps, emojis, and proximity for attention, avatar appearance for ice-breaking—and judge whether those cues carry the same social meanings they would in physical settings. The platform's technical substitutions, such as emoji menus replacing facial expressions or system-controlled gaze replacing intentional gaze, disturb those meanings, and the disturbance is progressive: what is good enough to infer availability is not good enough to capture attention, and what suffices for attention is not enough to start a conversation. The paper concludes that verisimilitude is both a resource and a source of uncertainty, and that hosts, artificial status indicators, and embedded tutorials are the current and near-future workarounds.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis rests on the premise that participants' post-event recollections and the researcher's observations faithfully capture what actually drove their decisions, including private judgments about whether a cue's social meaning survived the move into VR.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three-step model is right, platform designers cannot treat starting a chat as a single feature; each step needs its own cue support and its own failure diagnostics.
  • Because participants increasingly confirmed availability through system indicators such as speech icons, the design of those indicators directly shapes who gets approached and when.
  • Hosts already carry much of the ice-breaking burden, so supporting hosts with real-time awareness of quiet clusters or likely conversation hotspots would shift part of the social load onto the system.
  • A unified cross-platform policy for how non-verbal cues behave, analogous to standardized emoji, would reduce the trial-and-error cost users pay when moving between platforms.
  • Situated tutorials embedded in live events, rather than standalone manuals, are a plausible path to building users' skill at estimating verisimilitude.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The progressive-verisimilitude claim yields a sharp untested prediction: interventions that raise the realism of one cue should help most at the step where that cue is the primary tool, and have diminishing returns at later steps.
  • Because the participants were US-based and drawn from art and design, technology, and education communities, the model may fit those professional norms better than others; in more relationally relaxed or culturally different professional settings, the step boundaries could blur.
  • Prior work on casual social VR shows users initiating encounters through deliberately playful and sometimes wild gestures, which suggests the escalating-verisimilitude pattern may be specific to professional contexts rather than a general property of social VR.
  • The hosts' success at ice-breaking through collective rituals, such as synchronized clapping and avatar cloning, hints that shared playful action may achieve the social outcome of verisimilitude without realism, a route the paper leaves under-explored.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative study of how people initiate opportunistic interactions at professional events in social VR. The authors shadowed 16 participants across 23 events on four platforms and conducted post-event interviews. From an inductive analysis, they propose that initiation comprises three successive steps—availability recognition, attention capture, and ice-breaking—and that each step requires a progressively higher degree of what they call verisimilitude, defined as the perceived preservation of real-world social meanings of non-verbal cues. They also describe strategies participants use at each step and propose design implications for platforms and hosts.

Significance. If the central model holds, the paper makes a valuable contribution by connecting theories of non-verbal communication to the understudied context of professional networking in social VR. Its strengths include rich empirical material, triangulation of observations with interviews, an auditing step in coding, and specific technical mechanisms (gaze rules, emoji lag, speech icons, handclapping paths) that ground the analysis. However, the load-bearing claim of a monotonic increase in verisimilitude across the three steps is not supported by the presented evidence, so the headline contribution needs revision before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5 and Figure 1] The claim that each step 'requires a progressively higher degree of verisimilitude' is not established by the data presented in Sections 4.1–4.3. The participant quotes describe difficulties within each step, but none of them compares the required fidelity of cues across steps, and Section 4.3.2 shows that ice-breaking succeeded through avatar customization and host-mediated warm-ups that do not depend on high-verisimilitude non-verbal cues. Because this monotonic ordering is the paper's central claim, it should either be supported with comparative evidence (e.g., explicit participant statements or cross-step observational comparisons) or softened to 'different kinds of verisimilitude challenges at each step.'
  2. [Section 3.4 and throughout] The paper never operationalizes 'degree of verisimilitude.' Verisimilitude is defined as the perceived preservation of real-world meanings, but no criterion is given for judging a higher versus lower degree, and the concept spans heterogeneous cue types (gaze, handclap, emoji, proximity, avatar appearance). Without such an analytic criterion, the monotonic-ordering claim is difficult to verify or falsify. The authors should specify how they compared verisimilitude across steps and cue types.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.3.1] The quotation introduced with 'As explained by P13 and several others' is attributed to P14 in the following line; the attribution and the introductory clause should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'one straightforward means, for example, to is to provide' contains a typo; it should read 'one straightforward means, for example, is to provide.'
  3. [Section 4.2.3] In the description of P6's 'give and take protocol,' the pronoun shifts from 'he' to 'she' within the same sentence; the referent should be corrected.
  4. [Section 2.3] The Gather.town study is cited as 'Sanchez et al.' in the text, but the reference list entry is 'Palos-Sanchez et al.'; the citation and reference list should be aligned.
  5. [Section 2.3] The text references 'IEEE VR 2021' but reference [2] is titled 'IEEEVR2020'; the year in the text should be checked against the cited source.
  6. [Table 1] The column headers in Table 1 appear garbled, with repeated entries such as 'Role Platform Role Platform'; the table formatting should be corrected.
  7. [Section 7] In the Limitations section, 'all participants in our study located in the United States' should be 'all participants in our study were located in the United States.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three-step model and verisimilitude construct are induced from the data, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an inductive qualitative model, not a derivation from equations or fitted parameters. Verisimilitude is explicitly defined from participants' retrospective reports after data collection ('which we refer to as verisimilitude'), and the three steps (availability recognition, attention capture, ice-breaking) are supported by independent observational and interview evidence such as gaze rules, speech icons, emoji lag, handclapping paths, and host warm-up activities. The 'progressively higher degree of verisimilitude' claim in Section 5 is an interpretive synthesis rather than a quantity fitted to the data; even if one judges it underdetermined by the quotes, underdetermination is a correctness concern, not circularity. The only self-citation that is actually used in the argument ([10]) appears in the ethics reflection as a pointer to a more comprehensive review and does not support any load-bearing step of the main claim. No claim reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the reliability of participants' self-reports and the researcher's interpretations. No formal mathematical or computational parameters are involved. The main invented concept is 'verisimilitude', which is an interpretive construct rather than an independently measureable entity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Participants' verbal self-reports accurately reflect their cognitive and social processes during the events.
    The study relies on post-event interviews as a primary source of evidence for participants' assessments of verisimilitude; Section 3.3 describes the interview protocol.
  • domain assumption The researcher's presence did not substantially alter participants' behavior at the observed events.
    The observation protocol required the researcher to maintain distance and avoid interaction, but this effect cannot be directly measured; acknowledged in Section 7 Limitations.
  • domain assumption The sample of 16 participants and 23 events reached theoretical saturation, meaning additional data would not change the core concepts.
    The authors state they stopped data collection once core variables reached saturation (Section 3), but saturation is an interpretive judgment.
invented entities (1)
  • Verisimilitude
    purpose: Conceptual construct describing the extent to which social VR preserves the real-world social meanings of non-verbal cues for a user.
    The concept is inductively derived from participants' accounts and used to organize findings; it has no independent measurement outside the paper, but it is defined relative to participant perceptions and grounded in specific examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Verisimilitude as Boon and Bane: How People Initiate Opportunistic Interactions at Professional Events in Social VR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PD4Y42F4

@misc{pith2026250722241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Verisimilitude as Boon and Bane: How People Initiate Opportunistic Interactions at Professional Events in Social VR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PD4Y42F4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22241}
}
read the original abstract

Opportunistic interactions-the unstructured exchanges that emerge as individuals become aware of each other's presence-are essential for relationship building and information sharing in everyday life. Yet, fostering effective opportunistic interactions has proven challenging, especially at professional events that have increasingly transitioned from in person to online formats. In the current paper, we offer an in-depth qualitative account of how people initiate opportunistic interactions in social VR. Our participants consisted of 16 individuals with ongoing experience attending VR-mediated events in their professional communities. We conducted extensive observations with each participant during one or more events they attended. We also interviewed them after every observed event, obtaining self-reflections on their attempts to navigate opportunistic interactions with others. Our analysis revealed that participants sought to understand the extent to which social VR preserved the real-world meanings of various nonverbal cues, which we refer to as verisimilitude. We detailed the unique connections between a person's perceived verisimilitude and their social behaviors at each of the three steps toward initiating opportunistic interactions: availability recognition, attention capture, and ice-breaking. Across these steps, the VR platform typically replaces complex social mechanisms with feasible technical ones in order to function, thereby altering the preconditions necessary for a nonverbal cue's social meanings to remain intact. We identified a rich set of strategies that participants developed to assess verisimilitude and act upon it, while also confirming a lack of systematic knowledge guiding their practices. Based on these findings, we provide actionable insights for social VR platform design that can best support the initiation of opportunistic interactions for professional purposes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In face-to-face interactions, multiple non-verbal cues can be used simultaneously for a brief duration to initiate engagement. In contrast, initiating similar opportunistic interactions in professional social VR generally involves three steps, each requiring a progressively higher level of verisimilitude. Here, we summarize the challenges at each step, including the causes of difficulty in achieving verisimilitude a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three possible ways to indicate a VR user’s availability or willingness to engage in conversation: a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hosts and non-human embodied agents can help facilitate opportunistic conversations. a) VR platforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Future VR platforms may consider embedding system tutorials directly within social events hosted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams and Joris Dormans

    Ernest W. Adams and Joris Dormans. 2012. Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design . New Riders Games, Berkeley, CA

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Sun Joo (Grace) Ahn, Laura Levy, Allison Eden, Andrea Stevenson Won, Blair MacIntyre, and Kyle Johnsen. 2021. IEEEVR2020: Exploring the First Steps Toward Standalone Virtual Conferences. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021). doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.648575

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    American Sociological Association. 1997. Code of Ethics. https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/savvy/images/ asa/docs/pdf/Ethics%20Code.pdf Accessed April 16, 2025

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Tom Rodden, and James Pycock. 2001. Collaborative Virtual Environments.Commun. ACM 44, 7 (2001), 79–85. doi:10.1145/379300.379322

    work page arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Bennett, Emily D

    Andrew A. Bennett, Emily D. Campion, Kathleen R. Keeler, and Sheila K. Keener. 2021. Videoconference Fatigue? Exploring Changes in Fatigue After Videoconference Meetings During COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology 106, 3 (2021), 330–344. doi:10.1037/apl0000906

    work page doi:10.1037/apl0000906 2021

  6. [6]

    Lindsay Blackwell, Nicole Ellison, Natasha Elliott-Deflo, and Raz Schwartz. 2019. Harassment in Social Virtual Reality: Challenges for Platform Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW, Article 186 (2019). doi:10.1145/3359202

    work page doi:10.1145/3359202 2019

  7. [7]

    Anna Bleakley, Daniel Rough, Justin Edwards, Philip Doyle, Odile Dumbleton, Leigh Clark, Sean Rintel, Vincent Wade, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2022. Bridging Social Distance During Social Distancing: Exploring Social Talk and Remote Collegiality in Video Conferencing. Human–Computer Interaction 37, 5 (February 2022), 404–432. doi:10.1080/07370024. 2021.1994859

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Burdea and Philippe Coiffet

    Grigore C. Burdea and Philippe Coiffet. 2024. Virtual Reality Technology (3 ed.). John Wiley & Sons / IEEE Press, Hoboken, NJ. doi:10.1002/9781119512608

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119512608 2024

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Victoria Chang, Ge Gao, and Huaishu Peng. 2024. Social VR for Professional Networking: A Spatial Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction . 1–10. doi:10.1145/3677386.3682094

    2024

  2. [10]

    Victoria Chang, Caro Williams-Pierce, Huaishu Peng, and Ge Gao. 2025. Ethical Considerations for Observational Research in Social VR. In Companion of the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW Companion ’25) (Bergen, Norway) (CSCW Companion ’25). Associ...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Tracey Cockerton, Ying Zhu, and Mandeep K. Dhami. 2024. On Conducting Ethically Sound Psychological Science in the Metaverse. American Psychologist 79, 1 (2024), 92–108. doi:10.1037/amp0001211

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Charles Conrad and Marshall Scott Poole. 1997. Introduction: Communication and the Disposable Worker. 581– 592 pages. doi:10.1177/0093650297024006001

    1997 doi

  5. [13]

    Hong, Aniket Kittur, and Norman Sadeh

    Justin Cranshaw, Eran Toch, Jason I. Hong, Aniket Kittur, and Norman Sadeh. 2010. Bridging the Gap Between Physical Location and Online Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’10). Association for Computing Mac...

    2010

  6. [14]

    Anderson, Claire O’Malley, Simon Garrod, Stephen R

    Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon, Anne H. Anderson, Claire O’Malley, Simon Garrod, Stephen R. H. Langton, and Vicki Bruce. 1997. Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Communication: A Comparison of Dialogue Structure and Task Performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 3, 2 (199...

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    Steve Duck (Ed.). 1993. Social Context and Relationships . Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA

    1993

  8. [16]

    Carmen Egido. 1988. Video Conferencing as a Technology to Support Group Work: A Review of Its Failures. In Pro- ceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’88) . Association for Computing Machinery, Portland, OR, USA, 13–24. doi:10.1145/62...

    1988

  9. [17]

    Bruce, Rich Gold, David Goldberg, Frank G

    Scott Elrod, Richard H. Bruce, Rich Gold, David Goldberg, Frank G. Halasz, William C. Janssen Jr., David D. Lee, Kim McCall, Elin Rønby Pedersen, Kenneth A. Pier, John C. Tang, and Brent B. Welch. 1992. Liveboard: A Large Interactive Display Supporting Group Meetings, Presenta...

    1992

  10. [18]

    Marta Fana, Santo Milasi, Joanna Napierała, Enrique Fernandez-Macías, and Ignacio González Vázquez. 2020. Telework, Work Organisation and Job Quality during the COVID-19 Crisis: A Qualitative Study . JRC Working Paper Series on Labour, Education and Technology, No. 2020/11. Jo...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Martha J. Fay. 2011. Informal Communication of Co-Workers: A Thematic Analysis of Messages. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 6, 3 (2011), 212–229. doi:10.1108/17465641111188394

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Fish, Robert E

    Robert S. Fish, Robert E. Kraut, and Barbara L. Chalfonte. 1990. The VideoWindow System in Informal Communication. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’90) . Association for Computing Machinery, 1–11. doi:10.1145/99332.99335 Proc. ...

    1990

  13. [21]

    Fish, Robert E

    Robert S. Fish, Robert E. Kraut, Robert W. Root, and Ronald E. Rice. 1992. Evaluating Video as a Technology for Informal Communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’92) . Association for Computing Machinery, Monterey, CA, ...

    1992

  14. [22]

    Guo Freeman and Dane Acena. 2021. Hugging from a Distance: Building Interpersonal Relationships in Social Virtual Reality. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences (IMX ’21) . Association for Computing Machinery, Virtual Event, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.114...

    2021

  15. [23]

    McNeese, and Kelsea Schulenberg

    Guo Freeman, Dane Acena, Nathan J. McNeese, and Kelsea Schulenberg. 2022. Working Together Apart through Embodiment: Engaging in Everyday Collaborative Activities in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction 6, GROUP, Article 17 (Jan. 2022), ...

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Guo Freeman and Divine Maloney. 2020. Body, Avatar, and Me: The Presentation and Perception of Self in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3, Article 239 (Dec. 2020), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3432938

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Gibbs, Constantin Arapis, and Christian J

    Simon J. Gibbs, Constantin Arapis, and Christian J. Breiteneder. 1999. TELEPORT –– Towards Immersive Copresence. Multimedia Systems 7, 3 (1999), 214–221. doi:10.1007/s005300050123

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    Barney G. Glaser. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory . Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA

    1978

  19. [27]

    Charles Goodwin. 1981. Conversational organization. Interaction between speakers and hearers (1981)

    1981

  20. [28]

    Grayson and Andrew F

    David M. Grayson and Andrew F. Monk. 2003. Are You Looking at Me? Eye Contact and Desktop Video Conferencing. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 10, 3 (Sept. 2003), 221–243. doi:10.1145/937549.937552

    2003

  21. [29]

    Santos, João Dias, Arnav Jhala, and Samuel Mascarenhas

    Manuel Guimarães, Rui Prada, Pedro A. Santos, João Dias, Arnav Jhala, and Samuel Mascarenhas. 2020. The Impact of Virtual Reality in the Social Presence of a Virtual Agent. In ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IV A ’20). Association for Computing Mach...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Janine Hacker, Jan Vom Brocke, Joshua Handali, Markus Otto, and Johannes Schneider. 2020. Virtually in this together– how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Information Systems 29, 5 (2020), 563–584. doi:...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Jörg Hauber, Holger Regenbrecht, Mark Billinghurst, and Andy Cockburn. 2006. Spatiality in Videoconferencing: Trade-offs between Efficiency and Social Presence. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’06) . Association f...

    2006

  24. [32]

    Janet Holmes and Meredith Marra. 2004. Relational Practice in the Workplace: Women’s Talk or Gendered Discourse? Language in Society 33, 3 (2004), 377–398. doi:10.1017/S0047404504043039

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    Macartan Humphreys. 2015. Reflections on the Ethics of Social Experimentation. Journal of Globalization and Development 6, 1 (2015), 87–112. doi:10.1515/jgd-2014-0016

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Jane Im, Sonali Tandon, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Taylor Denby, and Eric Gilbert. 2020. Synthesized Social Signals: Computationally-Derived Social Signals from Account Histories. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20) . Associat...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Isaacs and John C

    Ellen A. Isaacs and John C. Tang. 1994. What Video Can and Cannot Do for Collaboration: A Case Study. Multimedia Systems 2 (1994), 63–73. doi:10.1007/BF01274181

    1994 doi

  28. [37]

    Adam Kendon and Andrew Ferber. 1973. A Description of Some Human Greetings. In Comparative Ecology and Behaviour of Primates, R. P. Michael and J. H. Crook (Eds.). Academic Press, London

    1973

  29. [38]

    Kraut, Richard S

    Robert E. Kraut, Richard S. Fish, Robert W. Root, and Beverly L. Chalfonte. 1990. Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology. In Human Reactions to Technology: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, Sara Kiesler (Ed.). Vol. 145. Sage...

    1990

  30. [39]

    Jun Li. 2008. Ethical Challenges in Participant Observation: A Reflection on Ethnographic Fieldwork. The Qualitative Report 13, 1 (2008), 100–115. doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1608

    2008

  31. [41]

    Divine Maloney, Guo Freeman, and Andrew Robb. 2020. A Virtual Space for All: Exploring Children’s Experience in Social Virtual Reality. In CHI PLAY ’20: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Virtual Event, Canada). Association for Computing...

    2020

  32. [42]

    Divine Maloney, Guo Freeman, and Andrew Robb. 2021. Social Virtual Reality: Ethical Considerations and Future Directions for an Emerging Research Space. In IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VRW 2021) . IEEE, Virtual Event or location unspecified. doi:1...

    2021

  33. [43]

    Talking without a Voice

    Divine Maloney, Guo Freeman, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2020. " Talking without a Voice" Understanding Non-verbal Communication in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–25. doi:10.1145/3415246

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    Marco Marzano. 2021. Covert Research Ethics. In Ethical Issues in Covert, Security and Surveillance Research , Ron Iphofen and Dónal O’Mathúna (Eds.). Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, Vol. 8. Emerald Publishing Limited, 41–53. doi:10.1108/S2398-601820210000008005

    2021 doi

  35. [46]

    McCarthy, David W

    Joseph F. McCarthy, David W. McDonald, Suzanne Soroczak, David H. Nguyen, and Al M. Rashid. 2004. Augmenting the Social Space of an Academic Conference. InProceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’04). Association for Computing Machin...

    2004

  36. [47]

    Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, Anya Kolesnichenko, and Katherine Isbister. 2019. Shaping Pro-Social Interaction in VR: An Emerging Design Framework. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, Glasgow...

    2019

  37. [48]

    Be Social

    Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, Elena Márquez Segura, Nick Merrill, and Katherine Isbister. 2018. What’s It Mean to" Be Social" in VR? Mapping the Social VR Design Ecology. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM conference companion publication on designing interactive systems . 289–294. doi:1...

    2018

  38. [49]

    Catarina Moreira, Francisco P. M. Simões, Mark J. W. Lee, Ezequiel R. Zorzal, Robert W. Lindeman, João Madeiras Pereira, Kyle Johnsen, and Joaquim Jorge. 2023. Toward VR in VR: Assessing Engagement and Social Interaction in a Virtual Conference. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 1906–192...

    2023

  39. [50]

    Kristian Mortensen and Spencer Hazel. 2014. Moving into an Interaction: Social Practices for Initiating Encounters at a Help Desk. Journal of Pragmatics 62 (2014), 46–67. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.009

    2014 doi

  40. [51]

    Fares Moustafa and Anthony Steed. 2018. A Longitudinal Study of Small Group Interaction in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST ’18) . Association for Computing Machinery, Tokyo, Japan, 1–10. doi:10.1...

    2018

  41. [52]

    Miriam Mulders and Raphael Zender. 2021. An Academic Conference in Virtual Reality? – Evaluation of a SocialVR Conference. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN 2021) . Virtual, 1–6. doi:10.23919/ILRN52045.2021.9459319

    2021

  42. [53]

    Nguyen and John Canny

    David T. Nguyen and John Canny. 2009. More than Face-to-Face: Empathy Effects of Video Framing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, MA, USA, 423–432. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518770

    2009

  43. [54]

    Nguyen and John F

    David T. Nguyen and John F. Canny. 2007. Multiview: Improving Trust in Group Video Conferencing through Spatial Faithfulness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07) . Association for Computing Machinery, San Jose, California, US...

    2007

  44. [55]

    Cigliano, Edward J

    Samantha Oester, John A. Cigliano, Edward J. Hind-Ozan, and E. Christien Michael Parsons. 2017. Why Conferences Matter—An Illustration from the International Marine Conservation Congress. Frontiers in Marine Science 4 (2017). doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00257

    2017

  45. [56]

    Palos-Sanchez, Pedro Baena-Luna, and Daniel Silva-O’Connor

    Pedro R. Palos-Sanchez, Pedro Baena-Luna, and Daniel Silva-O’Connor. 2023. Exploring employees’ beliefs regarding the potential benefits of virtual worlds for group cohesion: Gather Town. Multimedia Tools and Applications 82, 16 (2023), 24943–24965. doi:10.1007/s11042-022-14308-7

    2023 doi

  46. [57]

    Soya Park, Jaeyoon Song, David R Karger, and Thomas W Malone. 2024. Who2chat: A Social Networking System for Academic Researchers in Virtual Social Hours Enabling Coordinating, Overcoming Barriers and Social Signaling. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CS...

    2024 doi

  47. [58]

    Pillet-Shore

    Danielle M. Pillet-Shore. 2012. Greeting: Displaying Stance Through Prosodic Recipient Design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45, 4 (2012), 375–398. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.724994

    2012

  48. [59]

    Pillet-Shore

    Danielle M. Pillet-Shore. 2018. How to Begin. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 3 (2018), 213–231. doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1485224

    2018

  49. [60]

    Nicole Podschuweit. 2021. How Ethical Challenges of Covert Observations Can Be Met in Practice. Research Ethics 17, 3 (2021), 309–327. doi:10.1177/17470161211008218

    2021 doi

  50. [61]

    Robert Power. 1989. Participant Observation and Its Place in the Study of Illicit Drug Abuse.British Journal of Addiction 84, 1 (1989), 43–52. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb00550.x

    1989

  51. [62]

    Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch, Matt Cutts, Adam Lake, Lev Stesin, and Henry Fuchs. 1998. The Office of the Future: A Unified Approach to Image-Based Modeling and Spatially Immersive Displays. In Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SI...

    1998

  52. [63]

    R. W. Root. 1988. Design of a Multi-Media Vehicle for Social Browsing. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’88) . 25–38. doi:10.1145/62266.62269

    1988

  53. [64]

    Cecchinato, Sandy J

    Anna Rudnicka, Dave Cook, Marta E. Cecchinato, Sandy J. J. Gould, Joseph W. Newbold, and Anna L. Cox. 2022. The End of the Active Work Break? Remote Work, Sedentariness and the Role of Technology in Creating Active Break-Taking Norms. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting o...

    2022

  54. [65]

    We Don’t Want a Bird Cage, We Want Guardrails

    Kelsea Schulenberg, Lingyuan Li, Caitlin Lancaster, Douglas Zytko, and Guo Freeman. 2023. “We Don’t Want a Bird Cage, We Want Guardrails”: Understanding & Designing for Preventing Interpersonal Harm in Social VR through the Lens of Consent. Proceedings of ACM on Human–Computer...

    2023 doi

  55. [66]

    Sears, Haiyan Zhang, Willi H

    Greg J. Sears, Haiyan Zhang, Willi H. Wiesner, Rick D. Hackett, and Yufei Yuan. 2013. A Comparative Assessment of Videoconference and Face-to-Face Employment Interviews. Management Decision 51, 8 (2013), 1733–1752. doi:10.1108/ MD-09-2012-0642

    2013

  56. [67]

    Jaeyoon Song, Christoph Riedl, and Thomas W. Malone. 2021. Online Mingling: Supporting Ad Hoc, Private Conversa- tions at Virtual Conferences. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–10. ...

    2021

  57. [68]

    Paul Spicker. 2011. Ethical Covert Research. Sociology 45, 1 (2011), 118–133. doi:10.1177/0038038510387195

    2011 doi

  58. [69]

    Misha Sra, Aske Mottelson, and Pattie Maes. 2018. Your Place and Mine: Designing a Shared VR Experience for Remotely Located Users. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’18) . Association for Computing Machinery, 85–97. doi:10.1145/3196709.3196788

    2018

  59. [70]

    Tang, Ellen A

    John C. Tang, Ellen A. Isaacs, and Monica Rua. 1994. Supporting Distributed Groups with a Montage of Lightweight Interactions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’94) . Association for Computing Machinery, 23–34. doi:10.1145/192844.192861

    1994

  60. [71]

    Tang and Monica Rua

    John C. Tang and Monica Rua. 1994. Montage: Providing Teleproximity for Distributed Groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’94) . Association for Computing Machinery, 37–43. doi:10.1145/191666.191688

    1994

  61. [72]

    McDonald

    Loren Terveen and David W. McDonald. 2005. Social Matching: A Framework and Research Agenda.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, 3 (2005), 401–434. doi:10.1145/1096737.1096740

    2005

  62. [73]

    Roel Vertegaal. 1999. The GAZE Groupware System: Mediating Joint Attention in Multiparty Communication and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99) . Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/302979.303065

    1999

  63. [74]

    Annika Waern. 2016. The Ethics of Unaware Participation in Public Interventions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16) . Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/ 2858036.2858188

    2016

  64. [75]

    Hongyu Wan, Jinda Zhang, Abdulaziz Arif Suria, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, Yvonne Coady, and Mirjana Prpa. 2024. Building LLM-based AI Agents in Social Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7. doi:10.1145/3613905.3651026

    2024

  65. [76]

    Matthew M. White. 2014. Learn to Play: Designing Tutorials for Video Games . CRC Press. doi:10.1201/b17044

    2014 doi

  66. [77]

    Steve Whittaker, David Frohlich, and Owen Daly-Jones. 1994. Informal Workplace Communication: What Is It Like and How Might We Support It?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, MA,...

    1994

  67. [78]

    Williamson and Daniel Sundén

    Julie R. Williamson and Daniel Sundén. 2016. Deep Cover HCI: The Ethics of Covert Research. Interactions 23, 3 (2016), 45–49. doi:10.1145/2897941

    2016 doi

  68. [79]

    The Togetherness that We Crave

    Samaneh Zamanifard and Guo Freeman. 2019. " The Togetherness that We Crave" Experiencing Social VR in Long Distance Relationships. In Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 438–442. doi:10.1145/3311957.3359453

    2019

  69. [80]

    Yu Zhang, Yi Wen, Siying Hu, and Zhicong Lu. 2025. SpeechCap: Leveraging Playful Impact Captions to Facilitate Interpersonal Communication in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 9, CSCW2 (November 2025). doi:10.1145/3757427

    2025 doi

  70. [81]

    Dejin Zhao and Mary Beth Rosson. 2009. How and Why People Twitter: The Role that Micro-Blogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, Sanibel I...

    2009

  71. [82]

    Yu Zheng, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2010. GeoLife: A Collaborative Social Networking Service among User, Location and Trajectory. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 33, 2 (2010), 32–39. Received October 2024; revised April 2025; accepted August 2025 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interac...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.