improving relationships through virtual environments
Post on 25-May-2022
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Improving Relationships through Virtual Environments:
How Seeing the World through Victims’ Eyes may Prevent Bullying
Geoff Mariettai
Julianne Violaii
Nneka Ibekwei
Jessica Claremoni
Hunter Gehlbachi
March 9, 2015
Author Affiliations: i
Harvard Graduate School of Education
13 Appian Way
Cambridge, MA 02138
ii
University of Oxford
Linacre College
St Cross Road
Oxford, UK
OX1 3JA
Corresponding Author:
Geoff Marietta
2642 Harvard Yard Mail Center
Cambridge, MA 02138
geoff_marietta@mail.harvard.edu
617-777-3364
2
Abstract
Through virtual environments (VEs) students can experience the thoughts and feelings of
bullying victims and bystanders in safe, yet psychologically vivid ways. However, because of the
relative novelty of VEs, there is only an emerging understanding of how psychological levers
foster consequential learning experiences in VEs. In this article, we focus on social perspective
taking (SPT)—discerning the thoughts and feelings of others—and similarity as theoretically
promising levers for facilitating active, experiential learning about bullying. Our goal is to better
understand how VEs can facilitate these fundamental social processes to improve relationships in
schools. To investigate the promise of VEs to combat bullying, we designed SchoolLife—a web-
based 3D virtual school environment that allows students to experience the roles of a bullying
victim and bystander. In two experiments, we pilot tested whether experiencing these roles in
SchoolLife increased SPT and similarity. In Study 1 (N=146), we find that taking on the roles in
a virtual bullying scenario positively affects SPT and similarity. In Study 2 (N=122), we find
that these improvements extend throughout a negotiation about issues arising from bullying. Our
results show preliminary evidence that VEs could be used to address bullying, and that SPT and
similarity are two promising psychological levers through which to do so.
Keywords: interactive learning environments; simulations; virtual reality; teaching/learning
strategies
3
1. Introduction
3-D virtual learning environments have been used in a wide variety of contexts with
diverse student populations (Hew & Cheung, 2010; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011). Language
learning (Berns, Gonzalez-Pardo, & Camacho, 2013), teacher training (Quest2Teach, 2014),
astronomy (Barnett, et al., 2005), ecosystems science (Metcalf et al., 2011), math (Mpouta,
Paraskeva, & Retalis, 2007), writing (Patera, Draper, & Naef, 2008), and science, language arts,
and social studies (Barab, Gresalfi, & Arici, 2009) are just a few examples that illustrate the
breadth of subjects in which virtual environments have been used over the last decade. Virtual
environments (VEs) can enable learning that provides students with high degrees of autonomy
and presence, and opportunities for authentic engagement with content (Gamage, Tretiakov, &
Crump, 2011). Because of this versatility, VEs are well-aligned to serving the needs of students
with disabilities (Wallace et al., 2010). Indeed, VEs have been shown to be particularly effective
for teaching social skills. For example, VEs have been used with students who have Autism
Spectrum Disorder (Cheng, Chiang, Ye, Cheng, 2010; Chiang, Cheng & Ye, 2010; Lorenzo,
Pomares, Lledó, 2013; Parsons, Leonard, Mitchell, 2006). VEs enable students with Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to safely act out and practice social situations, building essential
communication skills such as recognizing emotional and mental states (Cheng, Moore, &
McGrath, 2003) and empathy (Cheng, Chiang, Ye, Cheng, 2010). This evidence suggests the
potential for applications of VEs to teach social skills to a wider audience.
With the growing recognition of the importance of social and emotional learning, VEs are
an intuitive, modern approach to improving school climate (Duncan, Miller, Jiang 2012; Falloon,
2010). One pressing social issue where VEs may be particularly effective is bullying. Bullying
is defined as an unwanted, aggressive, and repeated behavior between students that involves a
real or perceived power imbalance (Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder, 2012). Existing
solutions available to schools and communities to combat bullying are limited, resource-
intensive, and typically focus on increasing knowledge, rather than changing behavior
(Farrington & Ttfoi, 2010). Thus, despite the moral imperative and legal mandate to address
bullying, less than half of teachers say their schools explicitly teach students how to prevent or
respond to bullying behaviors (Bridgeland, Bruce, & Hariharan, 2013). If thoughtfully designed
and implemented, VEs could offer a cost-effective and rapidly-scalable approach to reducing
bullying in schools.
But, VEs alone will not help address bullying. The VE must incorporate well-crafted
psychological learning experiences most effective in enhancing social skills that prevent or
reduce bullying. Similarity and social perspective taking (SPT) are promising levers to promote
this kind of psychological experience. Taking on the role of someone involved in a bullying
situation enables active learning about the thoughts and feelings of others. This act of role-
taking may stimulate SPT and enhance observations of similarity, which are shown to increase
friendliness and trust, and reduce biases (Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996; Davis, 1996;
Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). These psychological constructs can be leveraged in VEs in more
powerful ways than is possible in the real world: VEs can allow students to experience the
thoughts and feelings of bullying victims and bystanders in safe, yet psychologically vivid ways
(Blascovich et al., 2002). Furthermore, surface level similarities between bullies and victims
can easily be added by changing dress or appearance.
4
The purpose of our study was to explore the potential of VEs to facilitate SPT and
similarity between students involved in a conflict around bullying. SPT is the process of
discerning another party’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations (Davis, 1996; Gehlbach,
Brinkworth, & Wang, 2012). Several studies indicate that SPT can be taught (Gehlbach, Young,
& Roan, 2012; Marangoni, Garcia, Ickes, & Teng, 1995) and that we can improve relationships
by getting a person to take the perspective of the other party (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).
There are two key elements of SPT—the ability to accurately assess the thoughts, feelings, and
motivations of others (SPT accuracy), as well as the motivation (SPT motivation) to engage in
this ability in the first place (Gehlbach, 2010). In this study, we focus on the SPT motivation
with the belief that students must first be motivated to take others’ perspectives before using
strategies to improve the accuracy of those efforts.
Similarity offers a second pathway to improve relationships between students.
Perceiving another individual as similar to oneself is a powerful predictor of liking (Montoya,
Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). Previous investigations show that people favor those who they see as
being similar, even if those similarities are trivial (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). If role-taking
VE exercises reveal similarities, then better interpersonal relationships should result. There are
two main categories of similarities that students could perceive—behavioral similarity and value
similarity (King, Marietta, & Gehlbach, 2014). By taking on someone else’s role, students may
conclude that their behaviors are similar to those of the target (perhaps because they now
appreciate the situation in a way that they had not previously), which, in turn, should increase
liking and strengthen relationships. In addition, role-taking in a VE might help reveal similarity
in values. By trying on a new set of beliefs, perceivers may discover similarities in the values
they would hold in the same circumstances. In other words, they may experience a change in
where they stand because they are now sitting in a new role.
In two experiments, we used a web-based VE, SchoolLife, to pilot test whether walking
in the virtual shoes of a bullying victim and bystander increases SPT and similarity. Our main
research questions were aligned with the overarching goal to better understand how to reduce
bullying and improve relationships in schools:
1) Does taking on the role of a bullying victim and bystander in a virtual environment
improve SPT and enhance similarity?
2) Do the positive effects of taking on victim and bystander roles endure when
participants then negotiate over a bullying conflict?
In the studies, participants in the treatment group took on the roles of both the bullying victim
and bystander in SchoolLife. Those in the control group only took on one role—either the victim
or the bystander. In Study 1, we found that taking on the roles of a victim and bystander in a
virtual bullying scenario positively affects SPT and similarity when compared to those who only
took on one role. In Study 2, found find that these improvements extend throughout a
negotiation over issues arising from bullying.
5
2. Methods
2.1 SchoolLife design
To investigate the promise of VEs to combat bullying in schools, we designed
SchoolLife—a web-based 3D virtual school environment that allowed students to experience the
roles of a bullying victim and bystander. The VE was developed using the game development
platform Unity and modeled after a typical high school in the United States. It featured hallways
with lockers (Fig. 1), classrooms (Fig. 2), a cafeteria, principal’s office, and bathrooms.
Fig. 1. Screenshot of SchoolLife hallways and lockers
Fig. 2. Screenshot of SchoolLife classroom
6
The characters, narrative, and game experience were developed in collaboration with
middle and high school students from local schools over the course of six months. The plot and
narrative design was led by a focus group of high school students. The group met five days a
week for six hours per day over the course of three weeks to come up with the characters,
tensions, and context. They produced a game-design document, which was then shared with
three classes of seventh graders and three classes of eighth graders. During 45-minute long
sessions, the middle school students provided feedback and suggestions on the game-design
document. Artists and engineers then used the game-design document to produce an alpha
version of SchoolLife. The alpha version was shared with the high school focus group for
additional feedback. This feedback process occurred several more times.
The end result was a first-person realistic VE school game where users take on the role of
John or Eliza, two high school students who are best friends and find themselves in a bullying
situation. John is the victim of bullying; he is bullied by Sarah, who verbally assaults him in the
hallway, insults him in a Twitter post, and tears down his artwork. Eliza is a silent bystander to
Sarah’s verbal assault on John and the online post. The situation is complicated by the fact that
Eliza plays on the same basketball team with Sarah, and considers Sarah a friend.
2.2 Learning the roles of John and Eliza
In the game-design process, we intentionally incorporated features of transformational
play—person with intentionality, content with legitimacy, and context with consequentiality—
into SchoolLife (Barab, Gresalfi, & Ingram-Goble, 2010). Specifically, players learn about their
roles as either John or Eliza by interacting with different non-player characters (NPCs) and
making choices about how to respond. For example, as John, players meet with three NPCs to
learn about their role as the bully victim: 1) Tim, a friend in drama club; 2) Tiffany, a friend in
math class (see Fig. 3); and 3) Lucy, a peer mediator. Each of these NPCs shares important
information about John’s perspective on four issues emerging from the bullying events. Users
experiencing the role of Eliza also meet with three NPCs: 1) Max, a friend in math class; 2)
Jennifer, a friend on the basketball team; and 3) Lucy, a peer mediator (see Fig. 4).
Users interact with the NPCs through dialogue and interactive tasks that treat them as the
actual bullying victim or bystander. All interactions took place from a first-person perspective
because that has been shown to facilitate learning in VEs (Lindgren, 2012), so players
experienced the virtual environment through the eyes of the victim or bystander. They are
addressed by the NPCs as the name of their character and must carry out tasks as if they were
taking on the perspective of their assigned role. For example, as the bullying victim, users meet
the NPC Tim who shares some information about the bullying. The friend tells the player:
“What happened in the hallway that day was lame too... when Sarah yelled at you and called you
that name in front of everyone.” To further help players adopt the victim’s point of view, the
friend shows a threatening Tweet from the bully and then asks “How does that make you feel?”
Players then have to respond in open-ended dialogue to the prompt by typing in a response to
Tim’s question. After players submit their response, Tim responds by saying, “I can see why
you are saying that.”
7
Fig. 3. Screenshot of Tiffany Character
Fig. 4. Screenshot of Mediator Character
2.3 Experimental design
In each study, we randomly assign participants to either treatment or control conditions.
Participants in the treatment condition toured SchoolLife in both roles, walking in the shoes of
both the victim (John) and bystander (Eliza). These participants first learned about their “true”
role, then experienced the other role by meeting the corresponding NPCs, before returning to
their original role. Participants in the control condition only took on one role in SchoolLife.
There were two main reasons we had the treatment participants walk in both roles. First,
experiencing two different perspectives of a bullying situation may enhance one’s motivation
8
and confidence in understanding the thoughts and beliefs of those involved. By taking on the
roles of both John and Eliza, treatment participants have a more comprehensive understanding of
the events of a situation. This may lead them to feel more confident in that they understand the
thoughts and feelings of others involved, which in turn could increase their SPT motivation. A
second potential consequence of walking around in others’ shoes is that players may see them as
having greater similarities. The role-taking process could reveal similarities between the
participant and John or Eliza.
There were two phases in our experiments using SchoolLife. In Phase I, participants
assumed the role of John or Eliza, and immersed themselves in these roles by meeting with the
different NPCs. At the end of Phase I, participants answered questions about their experience in
the virtual environment. The goal of the Phase I outcomes is to see immediate effects of the
manipulation.
Phase II involved a chat-based negotiation between participants about the bullying. After
completing Phase I, participants were matched with another participant in the opposing role, and
then negotiated four issues emerging from the bullying events using an embedded text-based
chat function. After the negotiation in Phase II, participants then answered a final set of
questions. The goal of Phase II is to assess whether the Phase I effects endured over the course
of working through a resolution to the bullying situation with another player.
In Study 1, we first checked to see if manipulating participants’ role-taking experience in
SchoolLife had any immediate effects on the outcomes. Participants in Study 1 only completed
Phase I of SchoolLife and did not complete the negotiation. In Study 2, we examined whether
the effects of Phase I sustained through a negotiation. Study 2 participants completed both Phase
I and Phase II of SchoolLife.
2.4 Study 1 Methods
2.4.1 Study 1 Participants
To investigate whether taking on both the roles of a victim and bystander in a VE had
immediate effects on participants’ SPT and similarity in a bullying scenario, we recruited a
group of middle school students (N=146) from two local schools. The final sample was 46%
male; 95% White; and 94% native English-speakers. There were 84 students in 7th
grade and 62
students in 8th
grade.
2.4.2 Study 1 Measures
Our main outcomes for Phase I of the study allowed participants to express how much
SPT effort they would put into learning about the other party’s priorities for resolving the
bullying situation (effort_own), and how much they believed the other party would put into
learning their goals (effort_other). We also assessed whether participants felt more or less
similarity to another student with whom they had conflict about bullying. Here, we measured
two forms of similarity—behavior (behavior) and values (values).
9
2.4.3 Study 1 Procedures
The study took place during a regularly scheduled class period during the school day.
Students accessed the SchoolLife online using Mozilla Firefox browser and PC laptops connected
to the wireless network. Students only completed Phase I and did not complete the Phase II
negotiation component of SchoolLife. Instead, participants concluded Phase I by answering
questions about their experience taking on the roles of John and/or Eliza.
2.5 Study 2 Methods
2.5.1 Study 2 Participants
Students in Study 1 were not able to complete Phase II (negotiation component of
SchoolLife) due to constraints in the school schedule. Since Study 1 was not able to inform us
whether effects of the manipulation would hold true during and after a live discussion, we
designed a second study that was free of the time constraints of a school schedule. For Study 2,
we solicited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk “marketplace for work”—a website
where people can either post tasks or work on “human intelligence tasks” (Buhrmester, Kwang,
& Gosling, 2011). We used MTurk to ensure participants could complete Phase II of SchoolLife,
so we could assess participants’ feelings before and after engaging in a discussion that involved a
bullying situation. Our MTurk sample (N=122) was 56% male; 78% White; 96% native English-
speakers. Mean age of the sample was 32 years old with 2.9 years of college education.
2.5.2 Study 2 Measures
For Phase II of the study, we asked participants how hard they tried to take the
perspective of the other person in the negotiation, how confident they felt in taking that
perspective, and the degree to which their values aligned in the negotiation with the other
participant. The main post-negotiation SPT outcomes were SPT_Effort, SPT_Confidence, and
SPT_Effort_Other (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, & Wang, 2012). We assessed how much effort
participants put into taking the perspective of others using a 6-item scale (α = .83). A typical item
was, “When talking to John, how hard did you try to understand what he was feeling?” In
addition, we assessed how much effort participants felt their negotiation partner was putting into
taking their perspective (6-items, α = .90). “When talking to you, how hard did John try to
understand what you were feeling?” is a representative item. Participants’ SPT confidence (6-
items, α = .90) was measured through items such as, “In general, how confident are you that you
understood what John was feeling?”
We also measured Values_Similarity, participants’ perceptions that they shared similar
values to their opponent, and their Behavioral_Similarity, perceptions that their opponent
engaged in the negotiation through similar actions and approaches to their own. Values-based
similarity was assessed through a 4-item scale (α = .92). “Overall, how similar to John's values
do you think your values are?” is an example item. Similarity in behaviors (4-items, α = .90)
included items such as, “How similar were the offers you made to the offers that John made?” In
addition to these main measures, we also assessed participants’ Negotiation_Relationship and
Cooperative_Motivation. All items are presented in the appendix.
10
2.5.3 Study 2 Procedures
After accepting the task, completing the online consent form, and being randomly
assigned to condition, all MTurk participants entered the virtual environment and were trained to
navigate the virtual world. Our rule for terminating data collection was to upload funds into
MTurk once with the goal of obtaining approximately 100 to 150 participants.
3. Results
3.1 Study 1
In Study 1, we tested whether taking on both roles—bullying victim and bystander—in
SchoolLife had immediate effects when compared to those who just took on one of the roles. In
terms of random assignment, between the treatment and control groups, we found no differences
in the proportion of males, whites, English speakers, or the mean ages and levels of education.
The descriptive statistics in Table 1 indicate the Pearson correlations of the main variables in the
study.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for main pre-negotiation Phase I variables
Variable Name mean sd Pearson Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6
1) SPT Effort 2.77 0.86 --
2) Perceived SPT
Effort of Other
2.20 0.94 .23** --
3) Similarity in
Values
2.21 0.96 .19* .27*** --
4) Similarity in
Behavior
2.07 1.08 .09 .40*** .34*** --
5) Perceived
Relationship
2.92 1.38 .07 .19* .25** .27** --
6) Perceived
Cooperative
Motivation
2.83 1.01 .22** .31*** .24** .37*** .26** --
Notes:
1) N = 146
2) All scales have possible ranges from 0-4
3) * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Our analysis is only preliminary and intended to assess how psychological principles,
such as SPT and similarity, can be incorporated into VEs to combat bullying in schools. Results
from Study 1 show that walking in both a victim and bystander’s shoes as compared to taking on
only one role did indeed enhance participants’ attitudes about handling a bullying situation with
11
another student. We tested our hypotheses using two-sample mean-comparison test in Stata with
the ttest command. Middle school students in the treatment group believed that another student
would put in more effort in taking their perspective (t(146) = -2.36, p = .02 , Cohen’s d = .41).
Treatment participants also felt that the student whom they disagreed with about the bullying
situation would have similar behavior and actions in resolving the conflict (t(146) = -2.06, p =
.04, Cohen’s d = .36). Results for participants’ own SPT effort (t(146) = -.17, p = .86 , Cohen’s
d = .03) and values similarity (t(146) = -.60, p = .55 , Cohen’s d = .11) did not reach significance.
3.2 Study 2
In Study 2, we examined whether the outcomes imbued while taking on victim and
bystander roles in a SchoolLife extended through a discussion over a bullying conflict. Our goal
of the analysis was to answer the research question: Do the positive effects of taking on victim
and bystander roles endure when participants then negotiate over a bullying conflict? To do so,
participants in Study 2 completed Phase I and Phase II of SchoolLife. After completing Phase I
of SchoolLife, the treatment group believed that they ((t(122) = -2.34, p = .02, Cohen’s d = .43)
and the other person ((t(122) = -3.39, p = .001, Cohen’s d = .62) would put in more perspective
taking effort when resolving a situation that involved bullying (see Table 2 for descriptive
statistics of pre-negotiation measures). Treatment participants also reported that the other person
would have similar behavior and actions in resolving the conflict (t(122) = -2.04, p = .66,
Cohen’s d = .26). Prior to the Phase II discussion, there were no differences in the predicted
relationship (t(122) = -0.44, p = .66, Cohen’s d = .08) or cooperative motivation (t(122) = 0.09, p
= .93, Cohen’s d = .01) between treatment and control. These results replicated some of those
found in Study 1. The immediate effects of taking on both roles in SchoolLife demonstrate an
increase in perceived SPT effort and behavioral similarity.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for main pre-negotiation variables
Variable Name mean sd Pearson Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6
1) SPT Effort 2.94 0.80 --
2) Perceived SPT
Effort of Other
2.42 0.92 .58*** --
3) Similarity in
Values
2.46 0.95 .34*** .58*** --
4) Similarity in
Behavior
2.59 0.85 .37*** .50*** .52*** --
5) Perceived
Relationship
3.70 1.40 .11 .28** .36*** .42*** --
6) Perceived
Cooperative
Motivation
3.01 0.88 .43*** .24** .25** .36*** .18 --
Notes: 1) N = 122
2) All scales have possible ranges from 0-4
3) * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
12
We found the predicted positive outcomes after Phase I carried through the Phase II
negotiation activity (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics). We tested our hypotheses using
multi-level modeling in Stata with the xtmixed command, analyzing the negotiation outcomes at
the dyadic level. Participants in the treatment group said they were more confident taking the
perspective of their negotiation partner (= 0.33, SE = 0.17, p = 0.049, Cohen’s d = .38) and
felt that their negotiation partner put in more effort taking their perspective (= 0.44, SE = 0.16,
p = 0.007, Cohen’s d = .45). Finally, MTurk treatment participants said they had more similar
values with the other person (= 0.40, SE = 0.17, p = 0.022, Cohen’s d = .43) (See Figure 5).
Table 3
Descriptive statistics for main post-negotiation variables
Variable Name mean sd Pearson Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6
1) SPT Effort 2.58 0.79 --
2) Perceived SPT Effort of
Other
2.35 0.92 .71*** --
3) Similarity in Behavior 2.82 0.93 .37*** .57*** --
4) Similarity in Values 2.85 0.93 .47*** .69*** .81*** --
5) Perceived Relationship 3.15 0.84 .43*** .61*** .81*** .77*** --
6) Perceived Cooperative
Motivation
3.20 0.66 .45*** .54*** .57*** .69*** .66*** --
Notes:
1) N = 122
2) All scales have possible ranges from 0-4
3) * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Fig. 5 Means of Study 2 on the main post-negotiation variables with 95% confidence intervals
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
SPT Confidence SPT Effort Other Similar Values
Mean
Control Treatment
13
4. Discussion
The purpose of our study was to explore the potential of VEs to improve SPT skills and
perceptions of similarity, and to determine if such an improvement would extend to a discussion
about bullying. We designed SchoolLife to test whether taking on the roles of a bullying victim
and bystander enhanced SPT and similarity—two fundamental social processes shown to impact
the outcomes of interpersonal relationships. Our experiments demonstrated that playing
SchoolLife as both the victim and bystander improved participants’ perceptions of another
student while engaging in a discussion about a bullying situation. After walking in the shoes of
both the bullying victim and bystander, participants believed their discussion partner would put
in more effort trying to understand their perspective. Treatment participants also indicated that
they and their partners would behave in similar ways in trying to resolve a conflict about
bullying. Results from Study 2 showed that the benefits of taking on both roles carried through a
chat-based discussion about four issues emerging from a series of bullying events. Participants
who played both John and Eliza in SchoolLife said they felt more confident taking the opposing
player’s perspective during the discussion about bullying. They also reported having greater
similarity in values with the other player and feeling that their partner put in more SPT effort.
These results suggest that SPT and similarity are two promising psychological levers that,
when incorporated into the learning experiences of VEs, can potentially enhance relationships
between students. By taking on two different roles in a VE and learning about a bullying
situation, participants indicated that they were more confident in taking the perspective of others.
They also believed their negotiation partner was more like themselves. The simple act of taking
on two different roles in a VE seemingly enhanced the social processes fundamental to forming
positive and sustained relationships.
One goal in conducting this research was to understand how VEs could be used to
address bullying in schools. One in three students is a bullying victim every school year, leading
to physical and emotional harm and decreased academic achievement (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008).
Furthermore, the destructive effects of bullying extend into adulthood (Copeland, Wolke,
Angold, & Costello, 2013). Given the results of this research and that VEs have been used
effectively for diverse student learners, there appears to be support for wider applications of VEs
to teach social and emotional skills. VEs enable students to become embodied in characters that
are very different from themselves. In this way, students can experience the thoughts and
feelings of peers with disabilities, different racial and ethnic backgrounds, or dissimilar body
types. VEs also offer advantages to some of the existing approaches used to teach empathy, such
as role plays and videos found in the popular pro-social curriculum programs Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program, Aggressors Victims and Bystanders, and Peace Builders. For example, VEs
allow individuals to engage in heightened role-taking experiences that could not be replicated
through one’s imagination (Ahn, Le, & Bailenson, 2013). Teachers also tend to have positive
perceptions of VEs, even those teachers who do not have any experience using VEs in their
classrooms (Gamage, Tretiakov, & Crump, 2011). In addition, teachers’ views of the learning
affordances of VEs also align with applications in bullying and social and emotional learning.
Educators recognize that VEs could be used to explore different social roles and issues of racism,
sexism, and prejudice (Gamage, Tretiakov, & Crump, 2011).
14
There are important limitations to our research on SchoolLife. A critical, unanswered
question is whether the positive benefits of playing SchoolLife transfer to the real world. We
intentionally designed SchoolLife to be as lifelike as possible, and worked together with students
to ensure that the narrative, characters, and issues were authentic and relevant across a wide
range of students (male, female, Asian, black, Hispanic, white, etc.) and settings (e.g. urban,
suburban, middle school, high school etc.). During our studies, we also observed that students
were actively engaged in playing SchoolLife and took the activity seriously. Students told us that
they found the graphics visually appealing and game mechanics intuitive. That said, we do not
know if their experiences in SchoolLife had any impact beyond what we measured. From a
dosage perspective, we doubt engaging in SchoolLife once for 55 minutes would have a lasting
effect on student behavior. Another open question is whether our results transfer to diverse
student populations, especially the positive outcomes we found with MTurk participants in the
Phase II discussion component of the research. Clearly, future research must address how and if
VEs could be used to combat bullying and improve school climate.
5. Conclusion
Our experiments explore the applicability of VEs in teaching social and emotional skills,
particularly in the area of bullying. In two studies, we found that when an individual takes on the
roles of a victim and bystander in a virtual bullying scenario, this act positively affects SPT and
perceptions of similarity, and that these improvements extend throughout a discussion about
bullying. Future studies might examine VEs where students take on character roles with different
races or ethnicities than their own. Another potential application could be to have students
experience the role of their teachers or vice versa. Our preliminary findings, based on empirical
research using experimental design, provide a solid foundation for additional research on the
potential for VEs to be used to teach social and emotional skills.
15
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation—Grant
#1456093. The conclusions reached are those of the investigators and do not necessarily
represent the perspectives of the funder.
16
References
Ahn, S. J., Le, A. M. T., & Bailenson, J. (2013). The effect of embodied experiences on self-
other merging, attitude, and helping behavior. Media Psychology, 16(1), 7-38. doi:
10.1080/15213269.2012.755877
Banks, M.E., Gover, M.S., Kendall, E., Marshall, C.A. (2009). Disabilities: Insights from Across
Fields and Around the World. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
Berns, A., Gonzalez-Pardo, A., & Camacho, D. (2013). Game-like language learning in 3-D
virtual environments. Computers and Education, 60, 210-220.
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Arici, A. (2009). Transformational play: Why educators should
care about games. Educational Leadership,67 (1), 76–80.
Barab, S.A., Gresalfi, M. & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to
position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525-536.
Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Keating, T., Barab, S. A., & Hay, E. K. (2005). Using virtual
reality computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 333–356.
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels
versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7),
751-758.
Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002).
Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social
psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 103-124. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1302_01
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher
survey on how social emotional learning can empower children and transform
schools. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980
Cheng, Y., Chiang, H. C., Ye, J., & Cheng, L. H. (2010). Enhancing empathy instruction using a
collaborative virtual learning environment for children with autistic spectrum conditions.
Computer and Education, 55(4), 1449–1458.
Cheng, T. & Ye, J. (2010). Exploring the social competence of students with autism spectrum
conditions in a collaborative virtual learning environment – The pilot study. Computers
and Education, 54, 1068-1077.
Cheng, Y., Moore, D., & McGrath, P. (2003). “Avatars and autism.” In Durham international
research conference on autism (pp. 1–9). University of Durham.
Copeland W.E., Wolke D., Angold A., & Costello, E.J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of
bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70
(4), 419-426.
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder: Westview Press.
Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the
cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 70(4), 713-726.
17
Duncan, I., Miller, A., & Jiang, S. (2012). A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education.
British Journal Of Educational Technology, 43(6), 949-964. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2011.01263.x
Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying prevention: A research dialogue with Dorothy Espelage.
Prevention Researcher, 19(3), 17–19.
Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: what do they have to
offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 1, 108–122.
Farrington, D.P., & Ttfoi, M.M. (2010). School –based programs to reduce bullying and
victimization. Document 229377. Produced for the U.S. Department of Justice,
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229377.pdf.
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype
expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(4), 708-724. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708
Gamage, V., Tretiakov, A., & Crump, B. (2011). Teacher perceptions of learning affordances of
multi-user virtual environments. Computers and Education, 57, 2406-2413.
Gehlbach, H. (2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psychology.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 349-362.
Gehlbach, H., Young, L. V., & Roan, L. (2012). Teaching social perspective taking: How
educators might learn from the Army. Educational Psychology, 32(3), 295-309.
Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Wang, M.-T. (2012). The social perspective taking process:
What motivates individuals to take another’s perspective? Teachers College Record,
114(1), 197-225.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds
in K-12 and higher education settings: a review of the research. British Journal of
Educational technology, 41(1).
King, A., Marietta, G.E. & Gehlbach, H. (2014). The role of role-taking: Social perspective
taking and interpersonal relationships in virtual simulations. In D. Zandivliet, P.D. Brok,
T. Mainhard, & J.V. Tartwijk (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education: From
theory to practice (pp. 95-110). Boston: Sense Publishers.
Lindgren, R. (2012). Generating a learning stance through perspective-taking in a virtual
environment. Computers in Human Behavior. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.021
Lorenzo, G., Pomares, J., & Lledó, A. (2013). Inclusion of immersive virtual learning
environments and visual control systems to support the learning of students with
Asperger syndrome. Computers & Education, 62, 88-101.
Marangoni, C., Garcia, S., Ickes, W., & Teng, G. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically
relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 854-869.
Mikropoulos, T.A. & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of
empirical research. Computers and Education, 56, 769-780.
Metcalf, S.J., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler M.S., Grotzer, T.A. & Dede, C. J. (2011). Ecosystem
science learning via multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Gaming
and Computer-Mediated Simulations. 3(1)86-90.
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for
attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922. doi: 10.1177/0265407508096700
Mpouta, H., Paraskeva, F., & Retalis, S. (2007). An online 3d virtual learning environment for
teaching children mathematics. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Innovations in E-learning,
18
instruction technology, assessment, and engineering education (pp. 123–126). New
York: Springer.
Parsons, S., Leonard, A. & Mitchell, P. (2006). Virtual environments for social skills training:
comments from two adolescents with autistic spectrum disorder. Computers &
Education, 47, 186-206.
Patera, M., Draper, S., & Naef, M. (2008). Exploring magic cottage: a virtual reality
environment for stimulating children’s imaginative writing. Interactive Learning
Environments,16(3), 245–263.
Quest2Teach. (2014). About Us. Retrieved from http://quest2teach.strikingly.com/#about.
Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety:
2011 (NCES 2012-002/NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Perspective taking combats the
denial of intergroup discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.011
Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D. D., Schwartz, K., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011).
Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When
putting oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 771-790. doi: 10.1037/a0023801
Ttofi, M.M. & Farrington, D.P. (2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the
importance of Defiance Theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders, 3,
289-312.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies
tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of
longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 63–73.
Wallace, S., Parsons, S., Westbury, A., White, K., White, K., & Bailey, A. (2010). Sense of
presence and atypical social judgments in immersive virtual environments: response of
adolescents with autistic spectrum disorder. Autism: International Journal of Research
and Practice, 14(3), 199–213.
19
Appendix
Pre-negotiation Main measures:
Questions Response anchors
How positive or negative do you expect your
relationship with John will be during the
discussion?
Somewhat negative/Slightly negative/Neither negative
nor positive//Slightly positive/Somewhat positive/Very
positive
How fairly do you think John will treat you?
How much effort do you plan to put into
learning what John's goals are?
How friendly do you think John will be
towards you?
How much effort do you think John will put
into learning what your goals are?
How motivated are you to compromise with
John?
In trying to reach an agreement, how similar
will the efforts be that you and John put forth?
Overall, how similar to John's values do you
think your values are?
Not at all fairly/Slightly fairly/Somewhat fairly/Quite
fairly/Extremely fairly
Almost no effort/A small amount of effort/Some
effort/Quite a bit of effort/A tremendous amount of
effort
Not at all friendly/Slightly friendly/Somewhat
friendly/Quite friendly/Extremely friendly
Almost no effort/A small amount of effort/Some
effort/Quite a bit of effort/A tremendous amount of
effort
Not at all motivated /Slightly motivated /Somewhat
motivated/Quite motivated/Extremely motivated
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
Post-negotiation Main measures:
Negotiation Relationship Response anchors
How much did you trust the John? Not at all/Slightly/Somewhat/Quite a bit/A tremendous
amount
How friendly was the John toward you? Not at all friendly/Slightly friendly/Somewhat
friendly/Quite friendly/Extremely friendly
How respectful was the John towards you? Not at all respectful/Slightly respectful/Somewhat
respectful/Quite respectful/Extremely respectful
How fairly did the John treat you? Not at all fairly/Slightly fairly/Somewhat fairly/Quite
fairly/Extremely fairly
How caring was the John towards you? Not at all caring/Slightly caring/Somewhat caring/Quite
caring/Extremely caring
How well did you get along with the John's
personality?
Not at all/Slightly/Somewhat/Quite a bit/A tremendous
amount
20
SPT Effort Response anchors
Overall, how much effort did you put into figuring
out what the John was thinking during the
negotiation?
Almost no effort/A small amount of
effort/Some effort/Quite a bit of effort/A
tremendous amount of effort
How hard did you try to understand the John's
priorities during the negotiation?
Not hard at all/Slightly hard/Somewhat
hard/Quite hard/Extremely hard
When the John had different ideas than you, how
hard did you try to understand the reasons why?
Not hard at all/Slightly hard/Somewhat
hard/Quite hard/Extremely hard
When talking to the John, how hard did you try to
understand what he was feeling?
Not hard at all/Slightly hard/Somewhat
hard/Quite hard/Extremely hard
How motivated were you to figure out the John's
point of view at the beginning of the negotiation?
Not at all motivated /Slightly motivated
/Somewhat motivated/Quite
motivated/Extremely motivated
How much effort did you put into learning what
the John's goals were?
Almost no effort/A small amount of
effort/Some effort/Quite a bit of effort/A
tremendous amount of effort
SPT Effort Other Response anchors
How hard did John try to understand your
priorities during the negotiation?
Not hard at all/Slightly hard/Somewhat hard/Quite
hard/Extremely hard
How motivated was John to figure out your point
of view at the beginning of the negotiation?
Not at all motivated/Slightly motivated/Moderately
motivated/Quite motivated/Extremely motivated
When you had different ideas from John, how
hard did John try to understand the reasons why?
Not hard at all/Slightly hard/Somewhat hard/Quite
hard/Extremely hard
When talking to you, how hard did John try to
understand what you were feeling?
Not hard at all/Slightly hard/Somewhat hard/Quite
hard/Extremely hard
Overall, how much effort did John put into
figuring out what you were thinking during the
negotiation?
Almost no effort/A small amount of effort/Some
effort/Quite a bit of effort/A tremendous amount of
effort
How much effort did John put into learning what
your goals were?
Almost no effort/A small amount of effort/Some
effort/Quite a bit of effort/A tremendous amount of
effort
21
SPT Confidence Response anchors
While you were negotiating, how
confident were you that you figured out
what John's goals were?
Not at all confident/Slightly confident/Moderately
confident/Quite confident/Extremely confident
When talking to the John, how confident
were you that you could understand his/her
point of view?
Not at all confident/Slightly confident/Moderately
confident/Quite confident/Extremely confident
In general, how confident are you that you
understood what John was feeling?
Not at all confident/Slightly confident/Moderately
confident/Quite confident/Extremely confident
How confident were you that you could
understand what John was thinking during
the negotiation?
Not at all confident/Slightly confident/Moderately
confident/Quite confident/Extremely confident
How confident were you that you could
figure out why the ranger behaved as s/he
did?
Not at all confident/Slightly confident/Moderately
confident/Quite confident/Extremely confident
How confident are you that you accurately
guessed what John was thinking?
Not at all confident/Slightly confident/Moderately
confident/Quite confident/Extremely confident
Behavioral Similarity Response anchors
During the negotiation, how closely did the John's
behavior match your behavior?
Not at all /A little bit /Somewhat /Quite a
bit/Very much
How similar were the offers you made to the offers that
that John made?
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
In trying to reach an agreement, how similar were the
efforts that you and the John put forth?
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
How similar were the strategies that you and the John
used?
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
Values-based Similarity Response anchors
Overall, how similar to the John's values do you think
your values are?
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
In the negotiation how similar were your goals to the
John's goals?
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
How similar is your point of view to the John's point of
view?
Not at all similar /Slightly similar/Somewhat
similar/Quite similar/Extremely similar
How easy is it for you to think of things that you and
John have in common?
Not at all easy /Slightly easy/Somewhat
easy/Quite easy/Extremely easy
22
Cooperative Motivation Response anchors
In the negotiation, how motivated were you to reach an
agreement that made everyone happy?
While you were negotiating, how motivated were you to
cooperate with John?
How motivated were you to help get the best outcome
for both you and John?
How motivated were you to make sure that both of you
got some of what you wanted?
During the negotiation, how motivated were you to help
John get the best outcome?
How motivated were you to compromise with John?
Not at all motivated/Slightly
motivated/Moderately motivated/Quite
motivated/Extremely motivated
Not at all motivated/Slightly
motivated/Moderately motivated/Quite
motivated/Extremely motivated
Not at all motivated/Slightly
motivated/Moderately motivated/Quite
motivated/Extremely motivated
Not at all motivated/Slightly
motivated/Moderately motivated/Quite
motivated/Extremely motivated
Not at all motivated/Slightly
motivated/Moderately motivated/Quite
motivated/Extremely motivated
Demographic data collected: Gender, race, primary language spoken at home, age, and education level.
top related