Table 1.
Participant demographic characteristics by experimental condition in Study 1.
Fig 1.
Visual still screen captures illustrating key study tasks undertaken in the virtual environment. Images are presented in sequence from top left to bottom right.
Fig 2.
Female and male avatars.
Table 2.
Candidate choice by embodiment and participant gender in Study 1.
Fig 3.
Candidate ratings following online perspective taking.
Comparison of female (left) and male (right) participant ratings by embodiment for the virtual candidates as illustrated for a) competence; b) hireability; c) likeability; d) empathy; e) interpersonal closeness.
Table 3.
Summary of candidate ratings by experimental group in Study 1.
Table 4.
Mixed ANOVA models for candidate ratings following online perspective taking.
Table 5.
Multiple regression models for the female candidate.
Table 6.
Multiple regression models for the male candidate.
Table 7.
Participant demographic characteristics by experimental condition in Study 2.
Fig 4.
Virtual waiting room scene.
Table 8.
Candidate choice by embodiment and participant gender in Study 2.
Fig 5.
Candidate ratings following vr perspective taking.
Comparison of female (left) and male (right) participant ratings by embodiment for the virtual candidates as illustrated for a) competence; b) hireability; c) likeability; d) empathy; e) interpersonal closeness.
Table 9.
Summary of candidate ratings by experimental group in Study 2.
Table 10.
Mixed ANOVA models for candidate ratings following vr perspective taking.
Fig 6.
a) competence; b) hireability; c) likeability. Total effect is presented below the horizontal line, while the direct effect of X on Y is presented above.
Table 11.
Zero order correlations–female candidate.
Table 12.
Zero order correlations–male candidate.
Table 13.
Indirect effects of immersion on competence, hireability, and likeability.