Skip to main content
Log in

The need for a socio-cultural perspective in the implementation of virtual environments

  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For many researchers, virtual reality (VR) is first of all a technology. This vision is also well reflected in the growing research work concerned with virtual environments: most of it has been addressed primarily the development of new rendering technologies rather than the highly interactive and dynamic nature of user-system interaction that VR supports. However, this focus on technology is disappointing for developers and researchers. To overcome this limitation, this paper describes VR as an advanced communication tool: a communication interface in single-user VR, and a communication medium in the case of multi-user VR. This leads us to propose acultural concept of presence as a social construction. Lying at the base of this view are two elements that guarantee an elevated sense of presence: acultural framework and the possibility ofnegotiation, both of actions and of their meaning. Within this view, experiencing presence and telepresence does not depend so much on the faithfulness of the reproduction of ‘physical’ aspects of ‘external reality’ as on the capacity of simulation to produce a context in which social actors may communicate and cooperate. The consequences of this approach for the design and the development of VR systems are presented.

The first author is responsible for the preparation of Section 3. The second author prepared Section 2. Introduction and Conclusions were prepared by both authors. Moreover, to both authors must be attributed the definition of contents and the final structure of the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heim M. Virtual realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  2. Riva G. From technology to communication: psychosocial issues in developing virtual environments. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 1999; 10: 87–97

    Google Scholar 

  3. Steuer JS. Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 1992; 42: 73–93

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bricken W. Virtual reality: directions of growth. (HITL Technical Report R-90-1). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kay A. Computer software. Scientific American 1984; 251: 52–59

    Google Scholar 

  6. Riva G. Virtual reality as a communication tool: a sociocognitive analysis. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1999; 8: 460–466

    Google Scholar 

  7. Riva G, Galimberti C. Computer-mediated communication: identity and social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs 1998; 124: 434–464

    Google Scholar 

  8. Biocca F. Communication within virtual reality: creating a space for research. Journal of Communication 1992; 42: 5–22

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sheridan TB. Telerobotics. Automatica 1989; 25: 487–507

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sheridan TB. Musing on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1992; 1: 120–125

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sheridan TB. Further musing on the psychophysics of presence. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1996; 5: 241–246

    Google Scholar 

  12. Slater M. 1999. “Real People Meeting Virtually Real People — A Review of some experiments in shared Virtual Environments”. BT Technology Journal, 17(1): 120–127

    Google Scholar 

  13. Slater M. Measuring presence: a response to the Witmer and Singer Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1999; 8: 560–565

    Google Scholar 

  14. Slater M, Wilbur S. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1997; 6: 603–616

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mantovani G, Riva G. ‘Real’ presence: how different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence, and virtual presence. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1999; 8: 538–548

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hoffman HG, Hollander A, Schroder K, Rousseau S, Furness III T. Physically touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences. Virtual Reality 1998; 3: 226–234

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sastry L, Boyd DRS. Virtual environments for engineering applications. Virtual Reality 1998; 3: 235–244

    Google Scholar 

  18. Flach JM, Holden JG. The reality of experience. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1998; 7: 90–95

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zahoric P, Jenison RL. Presence as being-in-the-world. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1998; 7: 78–89

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stone AR. The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mantovani G. New communication environments: from everyday to virtual. London: Taylor & Francis, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  22. Biocca F, Delaney, B. Immersive virtual reality technology. In: Biocca F, Levy MR. (Eds) Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995; 57–124

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bardini T. Bridging the gulfs: from hypertext to cyberspace. Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication [On-line] 1997; 3: available on http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/bardini.html

  24. Laurel B. Interface agents: metaphors with character. In Laurel B. (Ed.). The art of human computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990; 355–365

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laurel B. Computers as theater. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  26. Riva G, Mantovani G. The ergonomics of virtual reality: human factors in developing clinical-oriented virtual environments. In Westwood JD, Hoffman HH, Robb RA, Stredney D. (Eds). Medicine meets virtual reality. The convergence of physical & informational technologies: options for a new era in healthcare. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1999; 278–284

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lombard M, Ditton T. At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication [On-line] 1997; 3: available at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html

  28. Towell J, Towell E. Presence in text-based networked virtual environments. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1997; 6: 590–595

    Google Scholar 

  29. Smets GJF, Stappers PJ, Overbeeke KJ, van der Mast C. Designing in virtual reality: perception — action coupling and affordances. In Carr K, England R. (Eds). Simulated and virtual realities. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994; 189–208

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ellis N. Presence of mind: a reaction to Thomas Sheridan's ‘Further musings on the psychophysics of presence’. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1996; 5: 247–259

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pausch R, Snoody J, Taylor R, Watson S. Haseltine E. Disney's Alladin: first steps toward storytelling in virtual reality. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics, New York, 1996

  32. Draper JV, Kaber DB, Usher JM. Speculations on the value of telepresence. CyberPsychology & Behavior 1999; 2: 349–362

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ellis SR. Nature and origins of virtual environments: a bibliographical essay. Computing Systems in Engineering 1991; 2: 321–347

    Google Scholar 

  34. Biocca F, Levy MR. Virtual reality as a communication system. In: Biocca F, Levy MR. (Eds). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995; 15–31

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schroeder R. Possible worlds: the social dynamic of virtual reality technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  36. Palmer MT. Interpersonal communication and virtual reality: mediating interpersonal relationships. In: Biocca F, Levy MR. (Eds). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995; 277–299

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rodden T, Mariani J, Blair G. Supporting cooperative applications. International Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1992; 1: 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  38. Churchill EF, Snowdon D. Collaborative virtual environments: an introductory review of issues and systems. Virtual Reality 1998; 3: 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mantovani G. Social context in HCI: a new framework for mental models, cooperation and communication. Cognitive Science 1996; 20: 237–296

    Google Scholar 

  40. Oravec JA. Virtual individuals, virtual groups: human dimension of groupware and computer networking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  41. Heeter C. Aspects of presence in telerelating. CyberPsychology & Behavior 1999; 2: 325–335

    Google Scholar 

  42. Coate J. Innkeeping in cyberspace. Proceedings of Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing. Palo Alto, CA: Computer Professional for Social Responsibility, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cutler RH. Distributed presence and community in Cyberspace. Interpersonal Computer and Technology 1995; 3: 12–32

    Google Scholar 

  44. Riva G, Galimberti C. The psychology of cyberspace: a socio-cognitive framework to computer mediated communication. New Ideas in Psychology 1997; 15: 141–158

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Riva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Riva, G., Mantovani, G. The need for a socio-cultural perspective in the implementation of virtual environments. Virtual Reality 5, 32–38 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01418974

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01418974

Keywords

Navigation