Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40404915›Full record

ReviewNature human behaviour2025

Five canonical findings from 30 years of psychological experimentation in virtual reality.

Jeremy N Bailenson, Cyan DeVeaux, Eugy Han, David M Markowitz, Monique Santoso, Portia Wang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jeremy N BailensonDepartment of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Bailenson@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2813-3297
Cyan DeVeauxDepartment of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Eugy HanDepartment of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
David M MarkowitzDepartment of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Monique SantosoDepartment of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Portia WangDepartment of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging medium used in work, play and learning. We review experimental research in VR spanning three decades of scholarship. Instead of exhaustively representing the landscape, our unique contribution is providing in-depth reviews of canonical psychological findings balanced across various domains within psychology. We focus on five findings: the benefit of being there depends on the activity; self-avatars influence behaviour; procedural training works better than abstract learning; body tracking makes VR unique; and people underestimate distance in VR. These findings are particularly useful to social scientists who are new to VR as a medium, or those who have studied VR but have focused on specific psychological subfields (for example, social, cognitive or perceptual psychology). We discuss the relevance for researchers and media consumers and suggest future areas for human behaviour research.

Indexed as

Behavioral ResearchVirtual RealityHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID40404915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.