Social interaction in augmented reality

Abstract

There have been decades of research on the usability and educational value of augmented reality. However, less is known about how augmented reality affects social interactions. The current paper presents three studies that test the social psychological effects of augmented reality. Study 1 examined participants’ task performance in the presence of embodied agents and replicated the typical pattern of social facilitation and inhibition. Participants performed a simple task better, but a hard task worse, in the presence of an agent compared to when participants complete the tasks alone. Study 2 examined nonverbal behavior. Participants met an agent sitting in one of two chairs and were asked to choose one of the chairs to sit on. Participants wearing the headset never sat directly on the agent when given the choice of two seats, and while approaching, most of the participants chose the rotation direction to avoid turning their heads away from the agent. A separate group of participants chose a seat after removing the augmented reality headset, and the majority still avoided the seat previously occupied by the agent. Study 3 examined the social costs of using an augmented reality headset with others who are not using a headset. Participants talked in dyads, and augmented reality users reported less social connection to their partner compared to those not using augmented reality. Overall, these studies provide evidence suggesting that task performance, nonverbal behavior, and social connectedness are significantly affected by the presence or absence of virtual content.

Effects of visual information presented by augmented reality on children’s behavior

“…There are several possible explanations for the inconsistencies between the results of Miller et al 14 and those from Experiment 2 in the present study. For instance, the difference in the length of the time period between observing the AR character and the selection of the walking behavior might have affected the results.…”

“…Thus, the qualitative differences (e.g., reality of the AR agent) among these studies may have affected the present results of the adult participants. Alternatively, apart from the reality of the AR agent, technical differences in the AR presentation (head-mounted display vs. tablet device) per se might have been related to the discrepancies between the previous studies 4,14 and the present results. It is likely that an avatar presented by a head-mounted device and one presented by a hand-held device have different effects on human behavior.…”

“…Because the use of head-mounted devices for VR/AR in young children is very controversial 15 , head-mounted devices were not used to present AR characters in the present study. It is plausible that the visual stimulus used by Miller et al 14 (and possibly Lee et al 4 ) provided a more real perception and/or feeling of the AR agent than the stimulus used in the present study. Thus, the qualitative differences (e.g., reality of the AR agent) among these studies may have affected the present results of the adult participants.…”

“…The AR agent used in Miller et al 14 and spoke to the participants whereas the AR agent in the present study was a human-like but relatively unrealistic cartoon character and did not say anything. Additionally, Miller et al 14 employed head-mounted equipment that provided an immersive visual experience to present the AR agent whereas the present study used a tablet device held in the hands of the participants to present the AR avatar (it should be noted that Lee et al 4 , who reported a significant effect of AR information on adults' behavior, also employed a head-mounted device and an avatar with a realistic appearance). Because the use of head-mounted devices for VR/AR in young children is very controversial 15 , head-mounted devices were not used to present AR characters in the present study.…”

“…For instance, the difference in the length of the time period between observing the AR character and the selection of the walking behavior might have affected the results. In Miller et al 14 , the participants were asked to choose a chair immediately after taking off the head-mounted display used to present the AR agent whereas the adult participants in the present study typically made their pathway selection and came across the barrier within a few tens of seconds to a minute after the end of the AR character presentation. The longer time period between the observation of the AR character and the choice of behavior in the present study may have weakened the response to the AR character in the adult participants.…”