“Immersed in Empathy”
Angel Mai
University of California, San Diego
Introduction
Virtual Reality (VR) technology has long been hailed as our most promising vessel to worlds beyond reality. In the present day, we can see, explore, touch, and feel incredibly-rendered alternate universes, all within a head-mounted display (HMD). VR allows us to embody people we can’t be, travel to places we never could, and explore possibilities we wouldn’t dare in real life; it’s no mystery why simulated realities are often more appealing than that of the every day. However, as we’re increasingly escaping to fantasy computer-generated virtualities, there still exists the completely real reality, increasingly left behind by all save for those with no means of escape. In the present day, the planet is dying, but those with the power to do the most may never need to face reality within their lifetimes, while those without it may not have a lifetime to spend doing their most. We are one species that resides on different layers of reality; to survive our changing planet, we must first address the deficit of empathy needed to move forward together.
If the problem is that escapism distracts us from the tangible suffering occuring on our planet, then one solution is to harness our means of escapism as a vessel of empathy. The cyberspace is here; there’s no escaping where technology has brought us, but instead of running from it, we might instead embrace it as a powerful tool to achieve what was not possible before. VR has the power of literally placing the spectator into a new perspective; the question we must now ask is “Can a simulated experience effectively encourage empathy through immersion?” To answer this question, we propose to examine the efficacy of multiple methods of VR immersion on higher-education-centric focus groups. Although climate change apathy is an issue that universally affects all populations on the planet, communities in higher-education settings are generally made up of populations with more wide-reaching means of climate change activism such as access to academic authority, research opportunities, funding opportunities, and proximity to cultural, political, and corporate leaders. For this reason, we are focusing on the problem space of climate change apathy in higher-education populations.
Empathy is a complex mechanism of the human mind, and in the scope of this project, we can not account for every possible factor that contributes to one’s ability to share empathy. What this project seeks to accomplish is to define a relationship between empathy, apathy, and virtual immersion. Due to our expectation that empathy counteracts apathy and convincing immersion increases the likelihood of empathetic emotions, we believe that increasing virtual reality immersion in a climate disaster simulation will decrease environmental apathy in our focus group.
Significance
The value of the proposed project is in its relevance to current technologies as well as the sociopolitical landscape. Since the dawn of the information age, we have been seeing trends in the increasing prevalence of digital technology in our everyday lives, and most recently, attempts by large corporate powers to capitalize on this phenomena by transitioning the bulk of social interactions to virtual worlds. The circumstances brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have kickstarted a mass migration of workplace, educational, and social functions to a digital landscape; we are at a critical point in time where new avenues of interaction are emerging out of developments in VR technology, and corporate interests are dominating the field. The proposed project suggests that exploration of an alternative approach to VR environments as one that redirects focus towards greater social good, specifically in the sphere of climate reform. However, while social activism is a core intended result of the project, the primary impact will be in the sphere of cognitive science and interactive media technology.
We expect the findings from the proposed project to address questions related to cognitive embodiment, short-term empathy, and long-term empathy. Currently, usages of VR technology reside primarily in entertainment, occupational training, and therapeutic purposes. Drawing connections between VR scenarios and empathy elicitation can reveal usages in persuasive media. More so, we aim to define a link between immersive embodiment and emotional affect; if successful, the findings from our research may uncover fundamental methods of immersion attributed to more successful emotional messaging. Existing VR interfaces still struggle with providing a compelling sense of presence within a simulation; our proposed project seeks to determine new strategies of interactivity that may lift VR simulations to new heights.
Literature Review
Existing research in VR addresses multiple applications of HMDs for psychological ends as well as the technical means to do so, both of which are relevant to the proposed project. Historically, VR has been valued for its ability to simulate realistic interactions without introducing risk, a valuable tool for exploring specialized scenarios intended to produce a specific psychological effect. Glantz et. al explores the benefits of both physical and social simulations, which include the empowerment of users to act freely, re-contextualize traumatic experiences, and see from different perspectives (Glantz et. al 1996). Furthermore, Pritchard et. al conducted an extensive study into the body’s perception of multi-sensory cues during VR simulations, finding that the brain adapts to form, touch, and position cues to shift experiences of embodiment, presence, and agency, each of which has independent influences on self-representation while working together (Pritchard et. al 2016). This suggests that strategies of VR simulations are immersive enough to summon an experience close enough to reality to be mentally perceived as such; however, an avenue yet unexplored by such literature is the role of goal-driven motion to increase embodiment. The proposed project suggests that physical embodiment may be a key factor in empathy elicitation; our research plan aims to explore whether the inclusion of motion-based interaction can enhance the emotional effect of a VR simulation, provided that the motion makes sense in the context of the simulation. Prior research has found that, while both are effective, VR is not substantially more effective than a real life embodied experience at eliciting an empathetic response; however, prior research did not account for the inclusion of embodied motion within a VR experience, nor did it account for the ability of VR to simulate scenarios that can not practically be embodied in real life (Hargrove 2020). It is possible that physically-embodied VR is significantly more effective than both non-physically-embodied VR and physically-embodied reality; further studies into the role of embodied motion and emotional affect are needed to better understand the specific strengths of VR simulation in manipulating cognitive psychology.
In addition to embodied motion, we have also identified existing gaps in the persistence of long-term empathy resulting in behavioral shifts. Research done on VR as a mental health treatment by simulating natural disasters has found that VR is significantly effective in increasing the mental resiliency of participants in response to the stressors of natural disasters (Boydstun 2021). However, there is an observable difference between the mental processes involved in coping from stress as opposed to empathy-driven behavior. The Hargrove study, which used charity donations as a metric for cognitive empathy, concludes similarly, claiming that brief emotions of empathy resulting from an experience do not necessarily translate into actionable behavior (Hargrove 2020). The gap here is in how empathy-related responses might induce a long-term effect in the viewer. Studies into empathy-eliciting artworks have previously concluded that many encounters of modern artworks are too brief to develop a significant cognitive connection to the piece, therefore succeeding only in short-term emotional effect. In addition, the same study claimed to find no automatic connection between works eliciting embodied empathy and appreciation deeper than an esthetic level (Wilkinson 2021). The goals of the proposed project are to succeed in both short-term feelings of empathy derived from an immersive experience, as well as long-term empathetic behaviour derived from a semantic understanding of the driving message behind the piece. To bridge this gap, we will take into account not only the objective data collectable through quantifiable means, but also the subjective experience of the individual in an attempt to conclude whether it’s possible to encourage genuine empathetic reflection through a simulated experience.
Methodology
The proposed experiment will be composed of two treatment groups, each of which will be exposed to the same VR simulation. The setting of the simulation will take place in a 3D model of Qualcomm Institute’s Atkinson Hall, and will guide the viewer as they attempt to survive a flash flood. Both treatment groups will be provided with an Oculus Quest HMD for the duration of the experiment. Prior to the simulation, participants will be given backstory on the impact of climate change on extreme weather conditions, resulting in wildfire, droughts, heavy rainfall, and flash floods. Afterwards, they will be individually guided to complete a simulation. The first treatment group will be prompted to play through the simulation using only conventional Oculus Quest controllers to keep their heads above water. The second treatment group will be prompted to raise their heels from the ground and “tread water” with their arms. The goal of these treatment groups is to compare the effects of unembodieid versus embodied motion on empathy. The simulation is over when either a timer runs out or the participant tires and fails to remain afloat.
Directly after the simulation, an interview will be conducted with the participant. Researchers will ask the participant open-ended questions about their general thoughts on the experience as well as their current emotional state. We will explain that our project is intended to raise awareness on the consequences of unmitigated climate change, then ask about the participant’s prior knowledge, participation, and enthusiasm for environmental causes. Finally, participants will be asked to provide their email addresses for a follow-up questionnaire at a later date. At the same time, we will also offer to sign them up for an optional email newsletter on local environmental activism causes. The goal of this interview is to measure short-term empathy directly after experiencing the simulation. Our metric for a successful instance of short-term empathy will be holistically determined based on the answers given during the interview as well whether or not the participant chose to opt-in to the newsletter.
Two weeks after the simulation has taken place, participants will be contacted again via email with a digital questionnaire. This digital questionnaire will ask questions focused on participant’s retention of themes explored during the simulation, changes in interest in environmental activism, and personal attitude towards the future of the planet. Questions will primarily include scale-based ratings and short answers. At the end of the questionnaire, participants will be prompted to donate to an environmental charity. If a donation is given, they may electively disclose the amount in the questionnaire. The goal of this questionnaire is to measure long-term empathy. Like before, our metric for successful long-term empathy will be judged holistically based on answers to the questionnaire and the amount donated to charity.
After all questionnaires have been received, we will compare the data of the first treatment group, who used the conventional controllers, against the second treatment group, who used physical motion. We will determine differences in rates of success of both short-term empathy and long-term empathy in both treatment groups. From there, we will draw conclusions on the efficacy of embodied motion on eliciting empathetic responses.
Considerations for expansion if time and resources permit include additional treatment groups focused on immersive 360 audio, narrative context, and personal relationship to the setting of the simulation.
Anticipated Results
The design of our research methodology is based on three premises. The first is that we expect the presence of embodied motion to independently contribute to increased levels of immersion. Secondly, we expect increased immersion to be a causal factor for short-term empathy. Finally, we expect short-term empathy to be correlated to long-term empathy. Embodied motion will be measured by the usage of the physical goal-driven motion during simulation as well as the perceived efficacy of such motions in increasing immersion according to interview answers.
In the treatment group using motion controls, we expect to see higher rates of success in both short-term and long-term empathy. Success of short-term empathy will be judged holistically based on interview answers pertaining to personal interest in environmental activism as well as whether or not the participant chose to opt-in to an environmental interest newsletter. Success of long-term empathy will be judged holistically based on the result of the follow-up questionnaire as well as the amount donated to charity. As such, we anticipate that participants reporting higher success of immersion through embodied motion will be more likely to subscribe to the newsletter and donate to charity, thus demonstrating higher short-term and long-term empathy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the advent of increasingly-immersive VR technology brings with it the implication of a society that is growing weary of reality and desiring escape into alternate worlds. We maintain with great urgency that the solution to an intolerable reality is not to hole away in the metaverse and let the rest of the world fade to irrelevance; rather, we must address our problems head-on, together, and now, while the metaverse is still but a concept of the near distant future. It is at this very moment in time that we must critically examine humanity’s responsibility for the corporeal world we reside on, including the impact we’ve left on it. The threat of our warming planet is not one that can be addressed solely through technological means; it requires the willing cooperation of major powers around the world. While the common man may find their efforts futile when watching our world leaders drag their feet, it is through the unrelenting pressure of civilian populations that powerful people are swayed to make systemic change. Our proposed project does not aim to revolutionize the state of the world; rather, it is identifying an opportunity to utilize a new threshold of interactive technology for good. Rather than using VR solely to distract ourselves from the issues that plague the world, we might use its emphatic potential as a persuasive tool to center our attention on solving those very same issues.
The general problem we’ve decided to tackle is climate change apathy, which we define as the lack of motive in supporting action to slow or stall the negative environmental impacts of human activity on Earth. To better frame this into a tractable problem, we decided to first examine a myriad of potential causes for climate change apathy. These causes can be separated into four categories: Economic, Practical, Emotional, and Educational. The factors contributing to these causes are further-elaborated in the diagram below.
All of these factors exist together and influence each other in a complex system, meaning that addressing one cause will also affect others to varying degrees; the challenge is to identify the angle in which we may have the most impact. In the scope of this course, the main means with which we have to address these issues are virtual environments, and the primary populations we have access to are university students, staff members, and online audiences. Among our primary populations, all categories of causes for climate change apathy appear; however, most prominently visible are ideological and emotional causes. To further narrow down an area of focus, we considered the strength of virtual environments in its ability to immerse audiences in a simulated experience, therefore placing them within a position of heightened empathy from a new perspective. It follows that our means of problem-solving are most effective in addressing climate change apathy from an emotional angle. The scale of our problem is constrained by our maximum potential of outreach, which is hypothetically endless but likely limited to the communities most impacted by Qualcomm Institute activities, including visitors of Atkinson Hall, associates of Qualcomm Institute, and San Diego-area interest groups. It is also critical to consider that climate change itself is the product of largely-systemic issues, and that empathy alone is not an all-encompassing solution; rather, our team is focused expressly on utilizing empathy to address apathy towards climate-change, and, more specifically, on the apathy of our focus groups. After framing and sizing our problem to a reasonable tractability, we end up with the following problem statement:
Climate change impacts all populations around the globe, and drastic measures are needed now to ensure the future sustainability of human life on Earth. However, widespread environmental apathy is stalling efforts towards slowing climate change. Increased empathy, starting from the level of local San Diego communities, is necessary to stress the urgency of action and decrease apathy on an impactful scale.
In the context of our problem statement, the main question we must now ask ourselves is “How can current virtual environment technology induce an impactful level of empathy in audiences?”
Existing literature on mixed reality technology addresses multiple means of creating an immersive simulation, which is one method of shaping an empathetic perspective. However, gaps in existing research include how immersiveness may be consistently maintained throughout the duration of a simulated experience, and how immediate empathy can be translated into a motive for long-term action-making. To bridge these gaps, we will consider solutions that A) effectively simulate an experience that engages the viewer, and B) include a specific call to action. The goal of our solution is to introduce a lasting motive for caring about climate change, meaning that the solution needs an emotional impact and the emotional impact should stay with the audience even after the experience is over. Possible ways to achieve this include relating the reality of the simulated environment to real-life environments familiar to the viewer, or strategically appealing to the senses to simulate a convincing level of realism. Additionally, the viewer should be dissuaded from apathy, and feel motivated to take action they may not have before. This could mean simulating the consequences of apathy, or demonstrating the benefits of proactiveness. By studying the strengths of our resources and learning how to best harness them for empathy, we can begin filling the gaps that stand in our way. However, before proceeding to problem-solving, it is vital to address the existence and roles of biases.
Potential biases that may arise in our solution-finding process is our belief in the urgency of addressing climate change disasters and the emotional strength of virtual environment technology. To mitigate these biases, we plan to critically examine the perspective of our prospective audiences and strive to understand the emotional barriers in caring about climate change, including feelings of futility, fatigue, and purposelessness, as well as the weaknesses of existing technology, including dissociation and disembodiment. To maintain a wholesome understanding of the problem and minimize the influence of personal biases, we will objectively review all available information from multiple angles, ensuring a variety of perspective and balance between fact and emotion.
Multiple constraints arise when we examine the feasibility of using emotional affect to reduce apathy. Noticeably, there is the technological constraint that our computer-generated graphics are unlikely to approach realism, therefore acting as an obstacle to immersivity. This can be made up for with the strengthening of the other sources of sensory stimulation, such as auditory and proprioceptive cues. There is also the constraint of presentation; whether we choose virtual reality, physical space, or 2d environments to host the experience, we will be limited by the capabilities of the platform. For example, virtual reality is limited by access to headsets, while physical galleries are limited by proximity and access to the hosted space. To address this, we must play to the strengths of the platform we use, or consider incorporating mixed realities into the experience. Most importantly, there is the psychological constraint of delivering a message of urgency while still retaining the possibility of hope for the future. Emotional causes of climate change apathy range from the perception of helplessness to a fundamental indifference for the future. Our message will not be able to appeal to everyone; what we can do is find a way to maximize outreach. This means making the work accessible and comprehensible to our intended audience. Ideally, the mode of presentation should be engaging, and the subject matter entertaining. Although the subject matter of climate change is certainly a serious and dour one, in order to psychologically encapture our audiences, we must find an engaging way of communicating our message; otherwise, the message is unlikely to reach anyone at all. More constraints are expected to rise as we develop our solution, but these are the primary ones we’ll be considering as we brainstorm.
Observing attitudes towards climate change is like sitting in a plane headed straight for the ground. Most everybody knows we have limited time left, but interpretations on what to do with it varies. An understandable majority have no idea how to stop it and would rather spend their limited time in relative happiness by not thinking about the end. A concerning number of passengers have the impression that the plane will bounce when it hits the ground, and though it may be quite uncomfortable for a few moments, it will surely pass and then they’ll be back on their way. A brave few will try to pilot the plane to safety, but argue the entire time about which way to go. One of them will suggest we simply fly off into space. Some passengers pray to a higher power. Some miss the point and claim the plane was too crowded, anyways. Some insist the plane isn’t flying at all. To get the plane back on track, we need enough people to work together and come up with a plan, but the problem is that the vast majority of the plane is completely disorganized, quite annoyed with each other, and focused on the wrong issues; resorting to apathy is a considerably sensible reaction. There’s too much going wrong here to address all at once; however, if we find a way to catch everyone’s attention, make them realize that despite our differences we’re all riding the same plane, we might still make it together.
Two heuristics we used to think creatively were perspective-flipping and reversing assumptions. Firstly, in order to see from the perspective of someone who is unconcerned about the environment, we considered the challenges that might bar someone from caring. This ranged from the prevalence of more immediate concerns in one’s daily life, to the sense of inevitability of climate disasters, to the overwhelming weight of even considering the implications of the future. Climate change apathy does not necessarily come from a place of malevolence; oftentimes, it is the product of a sociocultural environment that makes it very difficult to find meaning in one’s individual actions. In order to spread empathy, we must first have empathy for those we are trying to persuade; for this reason, we must approach our solution with equal parts understanding and urgency. Secondly, we attempted to challenge a number of initial assumptions we might have made about the kind of message that is impactful as well as the type of people we are targeting. One assumption I made was that simulating the most extreme consequences of climate change was the best way to convey urgency. However, upon further discussion, I realized that fear is not always the most powerful motivator. A leading cause of climate change apathy is the sense of helplessness in the face of the future; no amount of fear-mongering will scare into action those who believe the fight is already lost. A different approach, such as demonstrating the future we might still have if we take action now, might be considered to better reach such audiences. Another assumption I made was that increased immersivity would necessarily equal increased empathy. The problem with this assumption is that no amount of immersivity can change that a simulation of reality remains just that: a simulation. We are used to all the tricks of photorealistic CGI, ray-tracing, surround sound, and 3D glasses; to many of us, the novelty of increasingly convincing special effects is growing old; perhaps, it even comes across as disingenuous. As we work on finding a solution, we must not center our attention only on the technical side of perfecting a simulation, but also consider the human before the screen. Questions we might ask ourselves are “What kinds of experiences can speak to the heart?” and “Can genuine empathy be formulated?”
In conclusion, our problem is climate change apathy. Our problem is caused by a number of complex factors on a global scale, but we are focusing on emotional factors on a local scale. After much analysis, our solution is to utilize virtual environments to encourage empathy for our fellow human beings and motivate each other to work together towards solving the complex issue of our impending climate disaster.