Archives of Design Research

Copyright : This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted educational and non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

Social virtual reality (VR) has only recently captured the attention of such industries as entertainment, business, and education. The research on social VR can be traced back to work on collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) (Freeman & Maloney, 2021; Jonas et al., 2019). Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and VR technologies aided the development of CVEs, and both social VR and CVE studies facilitate social interactions as much as face-to-face contact (Benford et al., 2001). However, it may well be difficult to consider them synonyms because CVEs encompass a broader spectrum of virtual environments ranging from three-dimensional immersive environments to 2.5D, 2D, and text-based environments (Snowdon et al., 2001). Meanwhile, social VR is primarily focused on the immersive experience, generally provided by head-mounted displays (Baker et al., 2020; McVeigh-Schultz et al., 2019). This study defined social VR as an immersive three-dimensional space where people can meet, interact, and create together using immersive VR devices.

Despite the significant level of recent interest in social interactions in a virtual world, there has been little discussion about environmental design considerations in this domain. The social VR environment, a visually rendered three-dimensional virtual space, is an important factor in determining the social frame (McVeigh-Schultz et al., 2019) as it affects individual behaviour and the quality of experience (Burgoon et al., 2016). For example, architectural elements can facilitate or regulate social interactions by establishing a sense of place and inducing specific social behaviours in a given setting (Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016).

Additionally, virtual space has been generally implemented to resemble an actual physical environment, where users interact in a manner comparable to the real world through avatars. However, not all virtual worlds are direct imitations of the real world (Bowman & Hodges, 1999), and it is worthwhile to examine a virtual environment that does not reflect the real world. Thus, this study explores two possibilities for environment design in social VR: reality-based worlds where the definition of place is obvious and virtuality-based worlds where the definition of place is ambiguous. The aim of this study is to explore how each environment plays a role in social VR, especially in the early stages of social interaction by comparing nonverbal behaviours and users’ responses in the two different environments.

The collected data were analysed according to the environment and the kind of session (i.e. exploration and meeting). Figure 3 shows the results of comparing the behaviour categories observed by the environment and converted into percentages. In the virtuality-based environment, social behaviour was more prominent, and in the reality-based environment, individual behaviour was more prominent. Table 4 shows the mean values of each participant’s observed behaviour in seconds by code. The Mann-Whitney U test for comparing the groups indicate that the behaviour of handing something over or pointing to attract attention (S_Hap) and moving the body to explore space (In_Exp) was significantly higher in a virtuality-based environment (p<.05) as seen in Table 4.

Figure 3 Comparison of behaviour categories

Figure 4 presents the results of the comparison between the behaviour categories during the exploration sessions, and Figure 5 shows the same for the meeting sessions. During the exploration session, social behaviour was more prominent in the virtuality-based environment while individual behaviour was more prominent in the reality-based environment, as shown in Figure 4. During the meeting session, there was no significant difference in behaviour (See Figure 5).

Figure 4 Comparison of behaviour categories during exploration

Figure 5 Comparison of behaviour categories during meeting

According to the Mann-Whitney U test results in Table 5, during the exploration session, the behaviour of gazing at others (S_HeD) was significantly higher in the virtuality-based environment (p<.05), whereas the behaviour of manipulating an object (In_Obj) was significantly higher in the reality-based environment (p<.05). In the meeting session, the behaviour of handing over or pointing (S_HaP) was found to be significantly higher (p<.05) in the virtuality-based environment. Figure 6 shows which behaviour is more prevalent in a virtuality-based or reality-based environment. The difference is more distinct in the exploration session than in the meeting session.

Figure 6 Comparison of behaviour types

The qualitative data from the interviews was analysed based on the thematic analysis process presented by Braun and Clarke (2006), which is an inductive analysis approach (See Figure 7). A thematic map was generated using the initial codes as shown in Figure 8, and themes were finally presented, constituting the affective responses by different environment designs and environmental factors that can affect users’ behaviours. First, the virtuality-based space was mostly perceived as spacious and cold, while the reality-based space was mostly perceived as friendly and warm. Second, in the virtual environment, provided empty space was mostly considered to have positively influenced one’s motivation and also enabled users to focus on others easily rather than hindering their social interactions. Conversely, participants who experienced the reality-based environment mentioned the windows as having a positive influence on exploring the space, while in the case of the table, some explained it positively, but others said that it made them uncomfortable when interacting with others.

Figure 7 Applied process for thematic analysis

Figure 8 Thematic map for interview analysis

The study compared two social virtual spaces with different meanings and figured out the following findings. First, in the early stages of the social VR experience, behaviour can be different depending on the provided environment. It found that the behaviour of gazing at other participants (S_HeD) was significantly higher in the virtuality-based environment, and the behaviour of manipulating objects (In_Obj) was prominent in the reality-based space during the exploration session. However, the gap in behaviour decreased during the meeting session. As a result of the interviews, the virtuality-based environment was regarded as a space having a high level of freedom; on the other hand, the reality-based environment was regarded as a familiar space. The infinite possibility of a virtuality-based environment, not limited by social norms or rules, is considered to trigger relatively higher social behaviours (P12 ‘It felt like a different world from everyday life. I was able to focus more on conversing with virtual avatars because the area represented a virtual space rather than offices or meeting rooms’).

Second, a virtuality-based space can be considered another positive social space. As there is no need in the virtuality-based environment to represent any specific aspects of the real world, users can be free from potential social norms. Although it might be raised the issue of whether this setting is appropriate as a social space, the interviews showed that a virtuality-based space may have a positive effect on users' unconscious motivations (P5 ‘Because there was nothing in this space, I had the impression that I could do anything’). Additionally, the vacant space aided the other person’s attention (P10 ‘If something had been installed, it may have distracted me, and I would have spent some time observing them. However, because it was completely empty and there was nothing there, I was able to focus on those three people for five minutes, which was satisfactory’). This reflects a reason that the behaviour of paying attention to others (S_HeD) was higher in the virtuality-based space during the exploration session. However, at the same time, a few participants shared their experience of feeling awkward or embarrassed when faced with an empty space and were unsure of what to do (P17 ‘It was so awkward because there was nothing...’). This is related to a previous study which pointed out the importance of social catalysts in social VR (McVeigh-Schultz et al., 2019). Although the virtuality is not realised through the emptiness, an extreme virtuality-based setting may have no furniture or obstacles, and it was discovered that vacant space may encourage people to do something including social interactions. However, as participants mentioned the value of the virtuality-based environment contradictorily and also another aspect of virtuality-based environments might be suggested, more investigation is needed.

Third, in order for the objects provided in the reality-based space to accomplish their social functions, the object's purpose must be apparent. Otherwise, the object may become an obstacle. During the experiment, provided objects in a reality-based setting offered emotional stability for users (P28 ‘Because of the wood floors, it seemed familiar. It seemed like a typical office space’). However, it revealed that objects can also constrain one's activity unintentionally. For instance, a desk may help to assemble people, but also it may also drive users to the corner of a room. While some participants assessed the table as helpful (p36 ‘I felt encouraged to discuss something because of a desk.’), others said that the table hindered communication with others (P31 ‘There was a large desk in the room, and movement was constantly restricted. It was disturbing... the desk was too large.’). The unexpected discomfort was because of its ambiguous usage such as inappropriate size. Thus, if an object is designed with the expectation of successful social interactions, users should be able to recognise and accept why and how they use the object.

Finally, the study proposes further studies based on the findings and limitations of this study as follows. First, the study simply separated virtuality-based and reality-based spaces in the experiment. However, a follow-up study that classifies the environment design in more detail based on the environment design spectrum shown in Figure 1 is needed to explore other possibilities of environment design. For example, semi-featured elements such as furniture may be presented in a virtuality-based space, while a reality-based space might be empty in some cases. Second, studies that consider additional factors that can affect user experience are required. For instance, different types of object interaction or locomotion styles may expand one’s spatial experience. A user might evaluate a reality-based environment as a new space by providing unrealistic interaction types. However, there are very few studies on specific factors that influence the user experience of social VR, especially those related to environment design. Third, a team arrangement considering the difference in individual traits, experience level, or cultural characteristics might be considered. Even though the social-contextual meaning of the spatial environment can be common rather than personal (Benford et al., 2001; Gebhard et al., 2019; Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016), individual characteristics seem to affect how people evaluate an environment, which may also affect their overall experience in social VR.

The study defined the characteristics of virtuality-based and reality-based social VR environments in social VR and compared each setting. As a result of the behaviour observation and interviews in the social VR experiment conducted as a team, it found that a provided environment design may have an effect on future social interactions. Specifically, in the initial stage, active behaviour was higher in a virtuality-based environment, and individual behaviour interacting with an object was higher in a reality-based environment due to the affective responses according to the environment. Virtuality-based spaces indicate freedom to users, while reality-based spaces provide familiarity, and this contextual meaning in each environment can facilitate specific behaviours in a social VR platform.

This research contributes to exploring the possibilities and considerations of different social VR environment designs based on the perspectives of users. There are very few studies on the factors that influence the user experience of social VR so far, especially those related to environment design. This study lays the groundwork for examining the role of varied environment design in social VR. In addition, it is projected that additional aspects such as object interactions, locomotion types, and a variety of environment designs will be examined in further studies for more in-depth discussions regarding environment design in social VR.