Randomized trial examines nature-based backgrounds' impact on fatigue and anxiety in videoconferencing, suggesting environmental cues improve comfort.
Videoconferencing is increasingly embedded in professional and educational settings, raising concerns about psychological strain, including videoconference fatigue. Virtual backgrounds are widely used, yet their psychological effects remain underexplored. This study examined whether a nature-based virtual background can reduce key videoconferencing stressors compared with an urban-based background. Seventy-two participants, organised into 36 dyads, completed a standardised videoconferencing task under one of two virtual background conditions (nature-based vs. urban-based). Each dyad was randomly assigned to one condition, with both members sharing the same background type. Participants reported mirror anxiety, hyper-gaze, and videoconference fatigue upon completion of the task. To account for the nesting of participants within dyads, condition effects and all focal regression paths were estimated using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for dyads, and a parallel mediation model, with cluster bootstrap resampling by dyad, was employed to examine whether mirror anxiety and hyper-gaze accounted for the relationship between background condition and videoconference fatigue. Compared with the urban-based background condition, the nature-based background condition was associated with significantly lower mirror anxiety, hyper-gaze, and videoconference fatigue. Mediation analyses indicated that the indirect effect through hyper-gaze was in the expected direction but did not reach statistical significance, and mirror anxiety did not function as a statistically significant mediator. Simulated nature-based virtual backgrounds may offer a simple design intervention to alleviate psychological strain during videoconferencing. These findings suggest that subtle environmental cues in digital communication interfaces can promote more comfortable and sustainable mediated interactions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: