ArticleScientific reports2024
Revisiting the Heider and Simmel experiment for social meaning attribution in virtual reality.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioural repertoires in moving crowds: an observational approach.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- A Virtual Reality Cognitive Stimulation Program as an Effective Tool Against Residual/Prodromal Depressive Symptoms in Bipolar Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their seminal experiment in 1944, Heider and Simmel revealed that humans have a pronounced tendency to impose narrative meaning even in the presence of simple animations of geometric shapes. Despite the shapes having no discernible features or emotions, participants attributed strong social context, meaningful interactions, and even emotions to them. This experiment, run on traditional 2D displays has since had a significant impact on fields ranging from psychology to narrative storytelling. Virtual Reality (VR), on the other hand, offers a significantly new viewing paradigm, a fundamentally different type of experience with the potential to enhance presence, engagement and immersion. In this work, we explore and analyze to what extent the findings of the original experiment by Heider and Simmel carry over into a VR setting. We replicate such experiment in both traditional 2D displays and with a head mounted display (HMD) in VR, and use both subjective (questionnaire-based) and objective (eye-tracking) metrics to record the observers' visual behavior. We perform a thorough analysis of this data, and propose novel metrics for assessing the observers' visual behavior. Our questionnaire-based results suggest that participants who viewed the animation through a VR headset developed stronger emotional connections with the geometric shapes than those who viewed it on a traditional 2D screen. Additionally, the analysis of our eye-tracking data indicates that participants who watched the animation in VR exhibited fewer shifts in gaze, suggesting greater engagement with the action. However, we did not find evidence of differences in how subjects perceived the roles of the shapes, with both groups interpreting the animation's plot at the same level of accuracy. Our findings may have important implications for future psychological research using VR, especially regarding our understanding of social cognition and emotions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.