Amid growing ecological threats to wildlife, organizations are increasingly exploring multimedia solutions to spur action. One such strategy involves enabling audiences to embody threatened wildlife (animal embodiment) via augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR). Despite AR/VR’s capacity to visualize threats onto one’s virtual body, little is understood about how these platforms differ in their uses and effects. Thus, A field study was conducted at a music festival where attendees (N = 99) evaluated custom-designed AR and VR games enabling animal embodiment. Results showed clear modality preferences for the AR game, though both AR and VR elicited high levels of connection, or body transfer (BT), with the animal body. BT also predicted pro-environmental behavior intentions, though this effect was strongest for direct (donations, volunteering) rather than indirect actions (social media advocacy). Results yield insight into the requirements for BT with animal bodies and establish support for animal embodiment as a viable environmental communications strategy.
AloudatMAAltamimiAM (2020) Factors affecting the intention to use virtual reality in education. International Journal of Data and Network Science57(9): 2014–2022.
2.
AwEC-XTanGW-HOoiK-B, et al. (2024) Tap here to power up! mobile augmented reality for consumer empowerment. Internet Research34: 960–993.
3.
BailensonJNBlascovichJGuadagnoRE (2008) Self-representations in immersive virtual environments 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology38(11): 2673–2690.
4.
BaldwinMLammersJ (2016) Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(52): 14953–14957.
5.
BioccaFHarmsCBurgoonJK (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments12: 456–480.
6.
BrowningMHEMShipleyNMcAnirlinO, et al. (2020) An actual natural setting improves mood better than its virtual counterpart: a meta-analysis of experimental data. Frontiers in Psychology11: 2200.
7.
ChertoffDBSchatzSLMcDanielR, et al. (2008) Improving presence theory through experiential design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments17(4): 405–413.
8.
ClaytonSCzellarSNartova-BochaverS, et al. (2021) Cross-cultural validation of a revised environmental identity scale. Sustainability13(4): 2387.
9.
DohertyKLWeblerTN (2016) Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change6(9): 879–884.
10.
FoxJMcKnightJSunY, et al. (2020) Using a serious game to communicate risk and minimize psychological distance regarding environmental pollution. Telematics and Informatics46: 101320.
11.
GaffaryYLe GouisBMarchalM, et al. (2017) AR feels “softer” than VR: haptic perception of stiffness in augmented versus virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics23(11): 2372–2377.
12.
GonzalezAVandenboschLRousseauA (2023) A panel study of the relationships between social media interactions and adolescents’ pro-environmental cognitions and behaviors. Environment and Behavior55(6–7): 399–432.
GuimarãesMPradaRSantosPA, et al. (2020) The impact of virtual reality in the social presence of a virtual agent. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents, Scotland, 20–22 October, pp. 1–8. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
15.
HamannKRSReeseG (2020) My influence on the world (of others): goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy affect predict private, public, and activist pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues76(1): 35–53.
16.
HartmannTWirthWSchrammH, et al. (2016) The Spatial Presence Experience Scale (SPES). Journal of Media Psychology28(1): 1–15.
17.
HerreraFBailensonJWeiszE, et al. (2018) Building long-term empathy: a large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLoS ONE13(10): e0204494.
18.
HuangGRenY (2020) Linking technological functions of fitness mobile apps with continuance usage among Chinese users: moderating role of exercise self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior103: 151–160.
19.
JangJKoYShinWS, et al. (2021) Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: an examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access9: 6798–6809.
20.
JoeSKimJZemkeDMV (2022) Effects of social influence and perceived enjoyment on Kiosk acceptance: a moderating role of gender. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration23(2): 289–316.
21.
KalyanaramanSWojdynskiBW (2015) Affording control: how customization, interactivity, and navigability affect psychological responses to technology. In: Shyam SundarS (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, pp. 425–444.
22.
KariTKosaM (2023) Acceptance and use of virtual reality games: an extension of HMSAM. Virtual Reality27(3): 1585–1605.
23.
KimKSchubertRWelchG (2016) Exploring the impact of environmental effects on social presence with a virtual human. In: TraumDSwartoutWKhooshabehP, et al (eds) Intelligent Virtual Agents, IVA 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 10011. Cham: Springer, pp. 470–474.
24.
KoutromanosGMikropoulosTA (2021) Mobile augmented reality applications in teaching: a proposed technology acceptance model. In: 2021 7th international conference of the immersive learning research network (ILRN), Eureka, CA, 17 May–10 June, pp. 1–8. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
25.
LeleAShawN (2021) Augmented reality: does it encourage customer loyalty? In: NahFFHSiauK (eds) HCI in Business, Government and Organizations, HCII 2021, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 105–119.
26.
LiBJKyung KimH (2021) Experiencing organ failure in virtual reality: effects of self-versus other-embodied perspective taking on empathy and prosocial outcomes. New Media & Society23(8): 2144–2166.
27.
MackBNMartinTR (2024) Party rocking: exploring the relationship between music preference, partisanship, and political attitudes. Poetics102: 101861.
28.
MartoAGonçalvesAMeloM, et al. (2023) ARAM: a technology acceptance model to ascertain the behavioural intention to use augmented reality. Journal of Imaging9(3): 73.
29.
MeierKJ (2019) Looking for meaning in all the wrong places: country music and the politics of identity. Social Science Quarterly100(1): 89–108.
30.
MeijersMHCTorfadóttirR “Heather”WonnebergerA, et al. (2023) Experiencing climate change virtually: the effects of virtual reality on climate change related cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Environmental Communication17: 581–601.
31.
MillerMRJunHHerreraF, et al. (2019) Social interaction in augmented reality. PLoS ONE14(5): e0216290.
32.
MoonY (1998) The effects of distance in local versus remote human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems–CHI ’98, Los Angeles, CA, 18–23 April, pp. 103–108. New York: ACM Press.
33.
MottelsonAHornbækK (2017) Virtual reality studies outside the laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, Gothenburg, 8–10 November, pp. 1–10. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
34.
NelsonKMAnggrainiESchlüterA (2020) Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising. PLoS ONE15(4): e0223631.
35.
NikolaouASchwabeABoomgaardenH (2022) Changing social attitudes with virtual reality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of the International Communication Association46(1): 30–61.
36.
NowakK (2001) Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation. In: Presence 2001 conference, Philadelphia, PA, 21–23 May.
37.
OhCSBailensonJNWelchGF (2018) A systematic review of social presence: definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI5: 114.
38.
OhSYShriramKLahaB, et al. (2016) Immersion at scale: researcher’s guide to ecologically valid mobile experiments. In: 2016 IEEE virtual reality (VR), Greenville, SC, 19–23 March, pp. 249–250. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
39.
Pérez-GálvezJCLopez-GuzmanTGomez-CaseroG, et al. (2017) Segmentation of the spectators attending a festival based on musical preferences. International Journal of Event and Festival Management8(3): 346–360.
40.
PimentelD (2022) Saving species in a snap: on the feasibility and efficacy of augmented reality-based wildlife interactions for conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation66: 126151.
41.
PimentelDKalyanaramanS (2022) The effects of embodying wildlife in virtual reality on conservation behaviors. Scientific Reports12: 6439.
42.
PimentelDKalyanaramanSLeeY-H, et al. (2021) Voices of the unsung: the role of social presence and interactivity in building empathy in 360 video. New Media & Society23(8): 2230–2254.
43.
PingJLiuYWengD (2019) Comparison in depth perception between virtual reality and augmented reality systems. In: 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 23–27 March, pp. 1124–1125. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
44.
RatcliffeJSoaveFBryan-KinnsN, et al. (2021) Extended reality (XR) remote research: a survey of drawbacks and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May, pp. 1–13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
45.
RetchlessDFishCThatcherJ (2022) Climate change communication beyond the digital divide: exploring cartography’s role and privilege in climate action. Journal of Environmental Media3(1): 101–123.
46.
SchubertTW (2009) A new conception of spatial presence: once again, with feeling. Communication Theory19(2): 161–187.
47.
SchultzPW (2002) Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. In: Psychology of sustainable development, pp. 61–78. Boston, MA: Springer.
48.
ShenSXuKSotiriadisM, et al. (2022) Exploring the factors influencing the adoption and usage of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality applications in tourism education within the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education30: 100373.
49.
ShermanAKRoweAJBirdS, et al. (2016) Motivational orientation explains the link between political ideology and proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology8(4): 239–249.
50.
ShevyM (2008) Music genre as cognitive schema: extramusical associations with country and hip-hop music. Psychology of Music36(4): 477–498.
51.
ŠkolaFLiarokapisF (2016) Examining the effect of body ownership in immersive virtual and augmented reality environments. The Visual Computer32(6–8): 761–770.
52.
SlaterM (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364(1535): 3549–3557.
53.
SlaterMSpanlangBSanchez-VivesMV, et al. (2010) First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLoS ONE5: e10564.
54.
SpangenbergerPGeigerSMFreytagS-C (2022) Becoming nature: effects of embodying a tree in immersive virtual reality on nature relatedness. Scientific Reports12(1): 1311.
WangXGohDH-L (2017) Video game acceptance: a meta-analysis of the extended technology acceptance model. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking20(11): 662–671.
57.
WilliamsonJRMcGillMOutramK (2019) PlaneVR. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 4–9 May, pp. 1–14. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
58.
WolfEDollingerNMalD, et al. (2020) Body weight perception of females using photorealistic avatars in virtual and augmented reality. In: 2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, 9–13 November, pp. 462–473. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
59.
WoodsATWhittakerLVerhulstI, et al. (2022) The impact of an audience on the appeal of virtual reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality2: 807910.
60.
WoolseyEWentzelA (2021) The Hydrous Presents: The Decade of Ocean Empathy. San Francisco, CA: The Hydrous.
61.
WuYFKimEY (2022) Users’ perceptions of technological features in augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) in fashion retailing: a qualitative content analysis. Mobile Information Systems2022: 1–13.
62.
YehS-CLiY-YZhouC, et al. (2018) Effects of virtual reality and augmented reality on induced anxiety. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering26(7): 1345–1352.
