improving relationships through virtual environments

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

[email protected]

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


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


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


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


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



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



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?



When talking to the John, how hard did you try to

understand what he was feeling?



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?


hard/Extremely hard

When talking to you, how hard did John try to

understand what you were feeling?


hard/Extremely hard

Overall, how much effort did John put into

figuring out what you were thinking during the

negotiation?



effort

How much effort did John put into learning what

your goals were?



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?



In general, how confident are you that you

understood what John was feeling?



How confident were you that you could

understand what John was thinking during

the negotiation?



How confident were you that you could

figure out why the ranger behaved as s/he

did?



How confident are you that you accurately

guessed what John was thinking?



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?



In trying to reach an agreement, how similar were the

efforts that you and the John put forth?



How similar were the strategies that you and the John

used?



Values-based Similarity Response anchors

Overall, how similar to the John's values do you think

your values are?



In the negotiation how similar were your goals to the

John's goals?



How similar is your point of view to the John's point of

view?



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














Demographic data collected: Gender, race, primary language spoken at home, age, and education level.

improving relationships through virtual environments

Documents