User Experience in Virtual Self-Disclosure: Appraising Natural, Urban, and Artificial VR Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and appealing topic: how different VR environments shape user experience during emotionally meaningful self-disclosure. The study is clearly written and the experimental design is straightforward. The findings confirm a robust preference for nature-themed environments, which aligns with established literature and has practical implications for VR-supported counselling and conversational platforms.

Although the topic is engaging, several aspects of the manuscript would benefit from clarification or strengthening before publication. In particular, the abstract lacks methodological detail, the central hypothesis appears overly obvious in light of existing research, and some sections contain unnecessary or overly general content.

Major comments
1. Abstract lacks methodological specificity

The abstract remains overly generic. It does not communicate essential elements of the study’s design and procedure—for example: "that a within-subjects design was used", "that participants engaged in structured positive and negative self-disclosure tasks", "the number of environments and the types of experiential ratings", "the type of statistical analyses used".

Adding two or three precise methodological details would make the abstract far more informative and aligned with the standards expected by Applied Sciences.

2. The main hypothesis is stated in an obvious form

The manuscript hypothesises that nature-themed VR environments would be appraised more positively than non-nature environments. Given the extensive real-world and VR literature documenting the calming, restorative, and affect-regulating effects of natural (and especially blue-space) settings, this prediction is not particularly surprising.

The authors could strengthen this section by: explaining why this contrast still fills a gap specifically within VR self-disclosure research; clarifying the unique contribution (e.g., examining interpersonal disclosure rather than passive exposure).

Without this justification, the hypothesis reads as somewhat trivial.

3. Methodological clarity should be improved

A few methodological elements require more precision:

a) Depth of self-disclosure interaction
Participants provided only brief positive and negative descriptions. It would help to justify why such short interactions are sufficient to capture “emotionally meaningful” communication.

b) Interpersonal distance and avatar positioning
The study states that the experimenter maintained “equivalent interpersonal distance,” but no concrete values or distances are provided. Given the relevance of proxemics in social VR, this information is essential.

c) Measurement sensitivity
The experiential items use a 4-point scale. This low-resolution measurement may partially explain the limited differentiation in “focus” and “privacy.” The authors mention this in the Discussion, but expanding on it would strengthen the limitations section.

Minor comments
4. Introduction includes overly general background

Several parts of Section 1.1 read like a general review of green and blue space effects rather than a focused justification for the current study. Condensing this section and sharpening the theoretical rationale would improve clarity.

5. Abbreviations section is unnecessary

The manuscript includes only one abbreviation that actually needs no explanation (VR). The abbreviations section adds no scientific value and should be removed.

6. Figure 1 caption style

The caption currently begins with “these are…”. A more neutral and standard phrasing would be preferable:
“Four virtual environments used in the study: (a) seaside, (b) garden, (c) urban office, and (d) sci-fi.”

7. Discussion occasionally repeats results

The first part of the Discussion restates the key findings with minimal interpretation. The authors could deepen the discussion by concentrating more on implications for: VR therapy design, conversational agents, environmental tailoring for psychological comfort.

8. Additional limitations could be acknowledged

Two issues deserve brief mention: potential novelty effects of VR for some participants, absence of behavioural or physiological measures, which would triangulate the self-reports.

Conclusion

The manuscript investigates an appealing and relevant question with a well-organised experimental structure. However, revisions are needed to strengthen methodological transparency, refine the theoretical framing, and remove unnecessary elements. With moderate revision, the article has good potential for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well written, but a few sections contain redundancies, overly general statements, or minor stylistic issues that could be refined.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for their careful and constructive evaluation of the manuscript. The feedback was helpful in refining the clarity, methodological precision, and theoretical framing of the paper. In response, we have revised the abstract, expanded methodological details, streamlined background material, strengthened interpretive elements of the Discussion, and clarified several limitations. All changes have been incorporated into the manuscript as indicated below.

R1 Comment 1: Abstract lacks methodological specificity

The abstract remains overly generic. It does not communicate essential elements of the study’s design and procedure—for example: "that a within-subjects design was used", "that participants engaged in structured positive and negative self-disclosure tasks", "the number of environments and the types of experiential ratings", "the type of statistical analyses used".

Adding two or three precise methodological details would make the abstract far more informative and aligned with the standards expected by Applied Sciences.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The abstract has now been revised to include the key methodological elements requested. Specifically, we added: (1) explicit identification of the within-subjects design, (2) a description of the structured positive and negative self-disclosure tasks, (3) clarification that the study compared four immersive VR environments, and (4) reference to the repeated-measures analytical approach used.

These revisions provide a clearer and more informative summary of the study’s procedures and analyses. The revised abstract (page 1) now reads: “Virtual reality (VR) offers new opportunities for delivering psychologically meaningful conversations in digitally mediated settings. This study examined how environmental designs influence user experience during emotionally relevant self-disclosure. Fifty university students completed a within-subjects experiment in which they engaged in a structured positive and negative self-disclosure task across four immersive environments (seaside, garden, urban, sci-fi). After each interaction, participants rated six experiential dimensions relevant to therapeutic communication: comfort, calmness, aesthetic pleasure, focus, privacy, and perceived overall suitability for psychological therapy. Repeated-measures analyses showed that nature-themed environments were rated more positively than non-nature environments across all dimensions. Although the seaside and garden environments did not differ in overall composite ratings, the seaside setting was most frequently preferred for comfort, calmness, and aesthetic pleasure in participants’ final rankings. These findings demonstrate that virtual environment design meaningfully shapes users’ emotional and interpersonal experience in VR, highlighting the value of nature-based environments for VR counselling systems and digital mental-health applications.”

R1 Comment 2: The main hypothesis is stated in an obvious form

The manuscript hypothesises that nature-themed VR environments would be appraised more positively than non-nature environments. Given the extensive real-world and VR literature documenting the calming, restorative, and affect-regulating effects of natural (and especially blue-space) settings, this prediction is not particularly surprising.

The authors could strengthen this section by: explaining why this contrast still fills a gap specifically within VR self-disclosure research; clarifying the unique contribution (e.g., examining interpersonal disclosure rather than passive exposure).

Without this justification, the hypothesis reads as somewhat trivial.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We have strengthened the rationale by clarifying that, although natural environments often show affective benefits, these findings come almost entirely from passive exposure studies, not from live interpersonal self-disclosure, which involves different experiential demands. We also note that environmental preferences are not uniform across individuals, making it important to test how different VR settings vary in the support they provide for emotionally meaningful conversation. Text has been added to Section 1.3 to make this justification explicit.

See Section 1.3, p. 3-4., lines 123-148: “Although natural environments generally produce more positive affective responses, this does not guarantee uniform preference across users or across the specific demands of an emotionally meaningful interpersonal task. VR design increasingly requires understanding the full range of experiential preferences. Some individuals may prefer more conventional or structured settings (e.g., offices), while others may find highly artificial spaces less distracting or more private. Because self-disclosure involves comfort, privacy, attention regulation, and interpersonal ease, it is not self-evident that nature environments will be optimal for all users. Testing this contrast therefore provides both a theoretically grounded prediction and an opportunity to examine individual variability in environmental preferences for emotionally meaningful VR interaction, an issue that has not been addressed in prior work.”

R1 Comment 3:  Methodological clarity should be improved

A few methodological elements require more precision:

a)Depth of self-disclosure interaction
Participants provided only brief positive and negative descriptions. It would help to justify why such short interactions are sufficient to capture “emotionally meaningful” communication.

1. b) Interpersonal distance and avatar positioning
   The study states that the experimenter maintained “equivalent interpersonal distance,” but no concrete values or distances are provided. Given the relevance of proxemics in social VR, this information is essential.
2. c) Measurement sensitivity
   The experiential items use a 4-point scale. This low-resolution measurement may partially explain the limited differentiation in “focus” and “privacy.” The authors mention this in the Discussion, but expanding on it would strengthen the limitations section.

Response 3: Thank you for these helpful points. We have added the requested clarifications:

1. We now note that the brief, structured self-disclosure prompts are consistent with prior VR self-disclosure paradigms, which use short descriptions to ensure standardisation across conditions.

See Section 2.5, p. 5., lines 216-218: “This level of disclosure is consistent with prior VR self-disclosure research, which typically uses brief, structured personal descriptions to ensure standardization across participants and conditions [9-13].”

1. We have added the approximate interpersonal distance maintained between avatars (approximately 1.2 m) to clarify how positioning was standardised across environments.

See Section 2.5, p. 5., lines 205-207: “The interviewer’s avatar was positioned approximately 1.2 m from the participant, which falls within the range of interpersonal distances commonly used in VR research examining personal space and social interaction [46,47].”

1. We now acknowledge in the Limitations section that the 4-point scale may have reduced sensitivity for some experiential dimensions and outline this as an avenue for future work.

See Section 4.4., p. 10, lines 431-434: “Additionally, the use of a 4-point scale may have reduced measurement sensitivity for some experiential dimensions, especially focus and perceived privacy. This is noted as a limitation and should be explored with higher-resolution scales in future work.”

R1 Comment 4: Introduction includes overly general background

Several parts of Section 1.1 read like a general review of green and blue space effects rather than a focused justification for the current study. Condensing this section and sharpening the theoretical rationale would improve clarity.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We agree that clarity and focus are important in the introduction. At the same time, we feel it is necessary to provide sufficient background to situate the study within both the nature-based therapy literature and the emerging VR self-disclosure literature. To address your suggestion, we have tightened the wording throughout Section 1.1 and removed some redundancies to ensure the material reads more smoothly while retaining the essential theoretical context needed to frame the study. See Section 1.1., p. 2-3, lines 64-105.

R1 Comment 5: Abbreviations section is unnecessary

The manuscript includes only one abbreviation that actually needs no explanation (VR). The abbreviations section adds no scientific value and should be removed.

Response 5: Thank you for noting this. The abbreviations section has now been removed, as suggested.

R1 Comment 6: Figure 1 caption style

The caption currently begins with “these are…”. A more neutral and standard phrasing would be preferable:
“Four virtual environments used in the study: (a) seaside, (b) garden, (c) urban office, and (d) sci-fi.”

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The Figure 1 caption (page 5) has been revised to adopt a neutral and standard phrasing as suggested.

R1 Comment 7: Discussion occasionally repeats results

The first part of the Discussion restates the key findings with minimal interpretation. The authors could deepen the discussion by concentrating more on implications for: VR therapy design, conversational agents, environmental tailoring for psychological comfort.

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. We have strengthened the early part of the Discussion by adding a brief interpretive link to the implications of the findings, particularly in relation to VR therapy design, conversational agents, and environmental tailoring for psychological comfort. These additions help ensure that the discussion moves smoothly from the key findings into their broader relevance.

See section 4. Page 8, lines 334-335: “This highlights that VR environments actively shape the emotional and interpersonal dynamics of conversation, rather than serving as neutral backdrops.”

And, see section 4.1., Page 8, lines 340-342: “This demonstrates that environmental cues exert a measurable influence on the experiential qualities that matter for emotionally meaningful communication.”

R1Comment 8. Additional limitations could be acknowledged

Two issues deserve brief mention: potential novelty effects of VR for some participants, absence of behavioural or physiological measures, which would triangulate the self-reports.

Response 8: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a brief note acknowledging the possibility of novelty effects for participants with limited VR exposure. We have also clarified our existing limitation regarding the absence of behavioural and physiological measures, highlighting this as an opportunity for triangulation in future work.

See section 4.4., p. 10., lines 420 – 422: “Some participants may also have experienced novelty effects associated with using VR, which could have influenced their comfort or engagement during the interaction.”

And, see section 4.4., p. 10., lines 428 – 429: “Future work incorporating such measures would provide clearer triangulation of the effects observed.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The sample (N=50) aligns with prior studies; however, the mean age of 30 (SD=12) for undergraduates appears anomalous—this may indicate a typo or the inclusion of non-traditional students. It is imperative to report demographics fully, including ethnicity and familiarity with virtual reality (VR), to assess potential biases, as the generalizability of findings to diverse or clinical populations is limited without this information. A brief table on demographics would help.
2. While the discussion effectively ties the findings to existing theoretical frameworks, it lacks physiological validation, such as heart rate variability (HRV) as a measure of calmness, which raises concerns that self-reports may inflate the observed effects. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the findings are generalizable to scenarios involving avatar-free or multi-user therapy, or if they are limited solely to dyadic lab tasks.
3. The self-disclosure paradigm is well-justified for studying emotionally meaningful communication. However, the observed preference for VR appears higher than in some prior studies (e.g., Rogers et al., cited in the manuscript). This discrepancy raises the question of whether participants' prior exposure to or familiarity with VR may have influenced their appraisals. Future studies should measure and control for prior VR experience to clarify this relationship and better isolate the effect of the environment itself.
4. The within-subjects design effectively facilitates comparative analysis; however, the power analysis conducted, which assumes a medium effect size (d=0.50), may not accurately reflect the actual effect size of ηp²=0.53. It is recommended to report post-hoc power analysis and to include a flowchart outlining the session flow from preparation to VR entry, disclosure, and rating, which would help clarify procedural explanations.
5. The interactions in the study were characterized as 'brief and highly structured.' While this approach is essential for maintaining control, it may not fully encapsulate the dynamics of a real, extended therapeutic conversation, where environmental factors can evolve or diminish over time. It is important for the discussion to explicitly frame this study as a foundational, laboratory-based investigation. Furthermore, it should acknowledge that the next critical step is to explore these environmental effects within longer, less structured, and genuine clinical interactions.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for their thoughtful review and constructive feedback. Several comments helped clarify aspects of the methodology, limitations, and scope of the study, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We detail the edits in our responses below.

R2 Comment 1: The sample (N=50) aligns with prior studies; however, the mean age of 30 (SD=12) for undergraduates appears anomalous—this may indicate a typo or the inclusion of non-traditional students. It is imperative to report demographics fully, including ethnicity and familiarity with virtual reality (VR), to assess potential biases, as the generalizability of findings to diverse or clinical populations is limited without this information. A brief table on demographics would help.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. The reported mean age (M = 30, SD = 12; range 18–64) is correct and reflects the composition of the psychology participant pool at the university, which includes both school-leaver and a substantial proportion of mature-age students. We have now clarified this in the manuscript and have added the age range to improve demographic transparency. Ethnicity and prior VR familiarity were not assessed in this study, and we now acknowledge this as a limitation.

See revised section 2.2., p. 4., lines 176 – 178: “Fifty undergraduate psychology students participated for course credit (31 female, 19 male; M age = 30, SD age = 12, age range = 18 - 64). The age distribution reflects the composition of the psychology participant pol at the university, which includes both school-leavers and a substantial proportion of mature-age students.”

Also see revised section 4.4., p. 10, lines 429 – 431. “Ethnicity and prior familiarity with VR were not assessed, which limits the ability to examine potential demographic or experience-based moderators of these effects.”

R2 Comment 2: While the discussion effectively ties the findings to existing theoretical frameworks, it lacks physiological validation, such as heart rate variability (HRV) as a measure of calmness, which raises concerns that self-reports may inflate the observed effects. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the findings are generalizable to scenarios involving avatar-free or multi-user therapy, or if they are limited solely to dyadic lab tasks.

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that physiological validation would strengthen the interpretation of the calmness effects, and we have now added a statement to the Limitations noting the absence of physiological indices such as heart rate variability (HRV). We have also clarified that the current findings derive from a dyadic VR interaction and may not generalise directly to avatar-free, multi-user, or group-based VR therapeutic settings.

See revised section 4.4., p. 10., lines 422 – 424: “In addition, the findings may not generalise directly to avatar-free settings, group-based VR therapy, or multi-user clinical applications, which likely involve different interpersonal dynamics.”

Also see revised section 4.4., p. X, lines 427 – 428. “The absence of physiological indices such as heart rate variability (HRV) also limits the ability to validate the self-reported calmness effects physiologically.”

R2 Comment 3: The self-disclosure paradigm is well-justified for studying emotionally meaningful communication. However, the observed preference for VR appears higher than in some prior studies (e.g., Rogers et al., cited in the manuscript). This discrepancy raises the question of whether participants' prior exposure to or familiarity with VR may have influenced their appraisals. Future studies should measure and control for prior VR experience to clarify this relationship and better isolate the effect of the environment itself.

Response 3: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the preferences assessed in the present study. Unlike Rogers et al., which compared VR to alternative communication modalities (e.g., video chat and text chat), the current study examined preferences only among four different VR environments. Participants were not asked to report a general preference for VR itself. Because the constructs differ, the stronger experiential appraisals observed here are not directly comparable to cross-modality preference rates reported in prior work.

We agree, however, that prior familiarity with VR may influence how users appraise specific VR environments. This is noted as a limitation in the manuscript now in response to your Comment 1.

R2 Comment 4: The within-subjects design effectively facilitates comparative analysis; however, the power analysis conducted, which assumes a medium effect size (d=0.50), may not accurately reflect the actual effect size of ηp²=0.53. It is recommended to report post-hoc power analysis and to include a flowchart outlining the session flow from preparation to VR entry, disclosure, and rating, which would help clarify procedural explanations.

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. The a priori power analysis (based on a medium effect size) was used to determine the required sample size before data collection, and the large observed effect (ηp² = .53) indicates that the study had more than adequate sensitivity to detect the effects of interest. As post-hoc power analyses based on observed effects are generally not informative beyond the effect size itself, we have not added a post-hoc power calculation.

To improve procedural clarity, we have added a concise, step-by-step summary of the session flow to the Procedure section, outlining the sequence from consent through VR entry, disclosure, experiential ratings, and debriefing.

See revised Procedure section 2.6., p. 6., lines 261-267: “Each session followed the same sequence: (1) information and consent, (2) generation of eight negative and eight positive personal experiences, (3) entry into the first VR environment and completion of the initial self-disclosure task (one negative and one positive disclosure) followed by immediate experiential ratings, (4) repetition of this disclosure–rating sequence for the remaining three VR environments, (5) completion of the end-of-session survey, and (6) debriefing. The order of the four VR environments was randomised across participants.”

R2 Comment 5: The interactions in the study were characterized as 'brief and highly structured.' While this approach is essential for maintaining control, it may not fully encapsulate the dynamics of a real, extended therapeutic conversation, where environmental factors can evolve or diminish over time. It is important for the discussion to explicitly frame this study as a foundational, laboratory-based investigation. Furthermore, it should acknowledge that the next critical step is to explore these environmental effects within longer, less structured, and genuine clinical interactions.

Response 5: Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the brief and highly structured nature of the interactions limits the extent to which the findings can be generalised to extended therapeutic conversations. We have now added explicit wording in the Limitations and Future Research sections to frame the present work as a foundational, laboratory-based investigation and to note that an important next step is to test these environmental effects in longer, less structured, and clinically authentic therapeutic interactions.

See revised section, 4.4. p. X., lines 414-416: “As such, the present study should be viewed as a foundational, laboratory-based investigation designed to isolate the influence of environmental cues under controlled conditions.”

And also see revised section 4.4., p X., lines 437-439: “A critical next step will be to examine whether these effects hold in longer, less structured, and more clinically authentic therapeutic interactions.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript addresses my earlier comments in a thorough and convincing way. The abstract is now methodologically specific, the description of the VR self-disclosure paradigm and interpersonal distance is clearer, and the Discussion better highlights the implications for VR therapy, conversational agents, and environmental tailoring for psychological comfort. Limitations and future research directions are now more explicitly articulated.

Only minor issues remain. A careful language and copy-editing pass is still needed to remove residual typographical errors, spacing problems, and small inconsistencies (for example, ensuring internal consistency in the number of positive and negative experiences described in the Procedure section; that's why for Quality of presentation I chose Average note). Once these minor issues are resolved, the paper will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

Thank you for the helpful final comments. We have completed a careful language and copy-editing pass across the entire manuscript. The following minor issues have now been resolved.

1. Consistency in number of self-disclosure experiences

• Corrected an inconsistency in the Procedure section to ensure uniform reporting of four positive and four negative experiences throughout. *Thank you so much for catching this!

2. Typographical and grammatical corrections

• Fixed minor typographical errors (e.g., “participant pol” → “participant pool”).
• Corrected small grammatical issues (e.g., missing commas, capitalization, article use).
• Standardized punctuation and spacing, including removal of double spaces.

3. Terminology and label consistency

• Harmonized naming and capitalization of the four VR environments across text and figures.
• Ensured consistent phrasing for experiential dimensions (e.g., "pleasantness“ instead of "aesthetic pleasure”).

4. Formatting clean-up

• Corrected spacing around paragraphs