The Biophilia Hypothesis
Direct interactions with nature, such as hiking and petting animals, are known to contribute towards conservation outcomes (Kleespies et al., 2020), an effect attributed at least in part to the Biophilia Hypothesis. Proposed by Wilson (1986), the Biophilia Hypothesis posits that humans exhibit an aesthetic and emotional affinity for nature and wildlife, a phenomenon exhibited even by young children (DeLoache et al., 2011). However, scholars contend that this innate appreciation of living processes (Biophilia) is actually learned and experiential in nature (Born et al., 2001). Put differently, Biophilia is a conceptual framework that explains the emotional and psychological implications of direct experiences with nature, namely how they can build a learned appreciation for biodiversity and encourage advocacy for its preservation (Simaika & Samways, 2010).
Despite the promise of direct wildlife encounters as a conduit to pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, several factors inhibit the feasibility of this approach. Human advancements (e.g., urbanization) have estranged people from nature and wildlife, a gap which has negatively impacted biodiversity conservation efforts (Miller, 2005). As Miller notes, society must restore “human connections with the natural world by affording the possibility of meaningful interaction with nature in close proximity to the places where people live and work” (p. 433). However, factors such as cost and accessibility ultimately prevent direct wildlife interactions from serving as a scalable conservation strategy. Moreover, while threatened species are the most sought after the general public at zoos (Carr, 2016), direct interactions with these animals are impractrical due to limited numbers, safety concerns, and cost. As such, environmental organizations rely on alternative experiences, such as the use of media, to connect audiences to the plight of wildlife.
Virtual Wildlife Interactions
Traditional media-based solutions, such as nature documentaries, are limited in their ability to promote pro-environmental attitudinal or behavior change (Dunn et al., 2020). This deficiency can be attributed in part to the technological limitations of traditional media platforms, namely their (in)ability to facilitate interactive exchanges between users and the content itself. As Wilson notes, the natural world is incredibly information-rich (Wilson, 1986) and replete with sensory cues. Cues are defined as any sensory information accessible within a particular environment (Xu & Liao, 2020), and the myriad of cues available during a wildlife encounter (e.g., mutual awareness) are absent when species are accessed through traditional media. Conversely, XR platforms, such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR), more easily enable interactive and engaging learning experiences with scientific (Markowitz et al., 2018) and conservation-related topics (Fauville et al., 2020). In essence, compared to traditional media, the unique affordances of XR platforms enable realistic two-way communication between users and (virtual) wildlife.
Specific to AR-based wildlife encounters, extant work has largely examined the impact of virtual animals in the context of exposure therapy (Botella et al., 2016; Kurscheidt et al., 2019; Wrzesien et al., 2015). The pro-environmental implications of AR-based wildlife encounters are vastly understudied, though extant literature suggests that such experiences should contribute to specific pro-environmental outcomes akin to those elicited after in vivo exposure (Kleespies et al., 2020). That is, much like direct experiences with wildlife cultivate connectedness with the species (Balmford et al., 2002), which is associated with pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions (Davis et al., 2009; Pimentel, 2021; Pimentel et al., 2018), so too may interactions with virtual wildlife. Indeed, the equivalence of AR-based interactions is believed to be rooted in the platform’s capacity for eliciting two orthogonal phenomena: presence and plausibility illusion (Psi). Both variables ultimately contribute towards realistic responses to virtual scenarios in VR (Steptoe et al., 2013) and AR (Eckhoff et al., 2020).
Spatial and Social Presence
Presence is considered a multidimensional construct comprised of two distinct categories: spatial presence and social presence (Heeter, 2003). Spatial presence is the subjective sense of being in a virtual environment (Steuer, 1992). Social presence is defined as a sense of “being with” other beings in a shared space (Oh et al., 2018). As most AR-based interactions embed virtual content into the user’s physical environment, there is a presumed baseline of spatial presence that renders its measurement redundant. However, for users interacting with virtual characters in AR, the sense of being mutually aware of the shared space is imperative. For example, previous work on AR-based interactions among people suggests that interactions are more engaging when interactants appear to share the same physical space (Toet et al., 2021). Broadly, social presence mediates user responses to virtual content (Miller & Bailenson, 2020), contributing to affective (Jin, 2011) and behavioral responses (Yoo & Drumwright, 2018). In the context of human-wildlife interactions, a greater sense of social presence with wildlife is thus presumed to contribute to key affective and behavioral responses towards the species.
Plausibility Illusion
Plausibility illusion (Psi) refers to the illusory sense that the virtual scenario being shown is actually occurring (Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005), which helps users respond to events as if they are real. Psi is determined by a myriad of factors, including the system’s capacity to present events directly tied to the user’s actions, and the overall credibility of the scenario. While both presence and Psi were originally created within the context of VR, both social presence (Yoon et al., 2019) and Psi (Eckhoff et al., 2020) measures are regularly adapted to AR-based scenarios. Specific to wildlife interactions in AR, high Psi would indicate the user knows that they are not actually engaging with a living being, but they still feel as though they are, which elicits responses akin to if they were actually engaging in the activity (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Responses to plausible interactions with wildlife in AR should thus elicit pro-environmental responses akin to when those interactions occur in real life (Kleespies et al., 2020).
Factors Shaping Social Presence and Psi
Developers keen on creating AR-based wildlife experiences must account for the myriad of factors that influence social presence and Psi, considering their influence over user responses to simulated content. Factors such as a virtual characters’ proximity (Pimentel et al., 2021), behavioral responsiveness (Järvelä et al., 2021), and appearance (Wang et al., 2019) all influence social presence. Additionally, the type of task (Dubosc et al., 2021) and the level of interactivity (Pimentel et al., 2021) (user control) afforded by the system can influence social presence and downstream responses to content. The character’s relationship to the environment, namely its spatial and behavioral coherence, serve as cues that are integral to social presence and Psi. As previously mentioned, cues are defined as any sensory information accessible within a communication environment (Xu & Liao, 2020), and XR platforms enable virtual wildlife to demonstrate dynamic cues that contribute to perceptual realism. For example, in AR, virtual content (e.g., animals, objects) can be naturally occluded by the physical environment, which in turn contributes to plausibility and social presence (Kim, Bruder, et al., 2017; Kim, Maloney, et al., 2017).
In sum, the collective affordances of XR enable mediated interactions with nature to elicit psychological and emotional effects akin to in vivo exposure. For example, research shows that biophilic interactions with physical (real-world) and virtual nature elicit similar physiological and psychological responses (Yin et al., 2019). Thus, the current investigation proposes that direct interactions with wildlife through AR can contribute to pro-environmental outcomes, and that such outcomes are contingent on the experience’s capacity to sustain a sense of social presence and PSi. In line with this view, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Interacting with virtual wildlife in AR will increase pro-environmental attitudes (INS and environmental concern).
H2: Social presence with virtual wildlife will significantly contribute to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions.
H3: Psi will significantly contribute to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions.
The current investigation sought to test these hypotheses by developing and distributing an AR-based wildlife encounter capable of contributing to pro-environmental outcomes. In the subsequent sections, the development of an AR-based penguin rehabilitation experience for Snapchat, titled “Penguin Rescue!”, is outlined. The global distribution of the simulation is then detailed, generating user insights into organic engagement with an AR conservation experience. Lastly, a follow-up online experiment highlights the impact of the experience on conservation outcomes.