Social Influence on Evacuation Behavior in Real and Virtual Environments
Social Influence on Evacuation Behavior in Real and Virtual Environments
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/frobt.2016.00043
复制
发表时间：
2016-07-25
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Warren, William H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kinateder, Max;Warren, William H.
虚拟现实（VR）是一种很有前途的工具，研究疏散行为，因为它允许实验控制，安全模拟，否则危险的情况。然而，验证研究比较疏散行为在真实的和虚拟环境中仍然是稀缺的。我们比较了在匹配的物理和虚拟环境中响应火灾警报的疏散决定。150名参与者在三种条件之一的一次试验中进行了单独测试。在控制条件下，火灾警报响起，而参与者执行一个虚假的感知匹配任务。在被动旁观者条件下，参与者与一个忽视火警的同伙一起执行任务。在主动旁观者条件下，当火警响起时，同伙离开了房间。每种情况下，一半的参与者在真实的实验室中经历了这个场景，另一半则在一个匹配的虚拟环境中与一个虚拟旁观者一起经历，并在头戴式显示器中呈现。与对照组相比，主动旁观者组更可能撤离，而被动旁观者组不太可能撤离。在真实的和虚拟环境中都观察到这种社会影响模式，尽管对虚拟警报的整体响应降低;旁观者的积极影响相当，而VR中的负面影响较弱。我们没有发现可靠的性别影响的参与者或旁观者。这些研究结果将社会影响扩展到疏散决定，揭示了积极的社会影响以及以前的消极社会影响。研究结果支持VR作为研究紧急情况下疏散行为的研究工具的生态有效性，但需要注意的是，VR中的效应量可能较小。
Virtual reality (VR) is a promising tool to study evacuation behavior as it allows experimentally controlled, safe simulation of otherwise dangerous situations. However, validation studies comparing evacuation behavior in real and virtual environments are still scarce. We compare the decision to evacuate in response to a fire alarm in matched physical and virtual environments. One hundred fifty participants were tested individually in a one-trial experiment in one of three conditions. In the Control condition, the fire alarm sounded while the participant performed a bogus perceptual matching task. In the Passive bystander condition, the participant performed the task together with a confederate who ignored the fire alarm. In the Active bystander condition, the confederate left the room when the fire alarm went off. Half of the participants in each condition experienced the scenario in the real laboratory and the other half in a matched virtual environment with a virtual bystander, presented in a head-mounted display. The active bystander group was more likely to evacuate and the passive bystander group less likely to evacuate than the control group. This pattern of social influence was observed in both the real and virtual environments, although the overall response to the virtual alarm was reduced; positive influence of bystanders was comparable, whereas negative influence was weaker in VR. We found no reliable gender effects for the participant or the bystander. These findings extend the social influence to the decision to evacuate, revealing a positive as well as the previous negative social influence. The results support the ecological validity of VR as a research tool to study evacuation behavior in emergency situations, with the caveat that effect sizes may be smaller in VR.