The application of different virtual reality interventions has been recently gaining interest from researchers and practitioners. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, higher education institutions increased the use of these technologies to help create much value for educators and students. The relationship between individual experience and engagement in avatar-mediated environments has garnered empirical support, but still little is known about the mediating mechanisms underlying this relation. This study investigated the mediating role of interpersonal attraction (e.g., social, physical, and task attraction) in the link between individual experience and engagement in an avatar-mediated learning environment. A total of 112 participants (21–23 years; 73 male and 39 female) participated in online peer learning sessions in Second Life. After controlling for demographic covariates, the results showed that (1) individual experience was positively associated with students’ engagement; (2) social, physical, and task attraction was found to positively mediate the link between experience and engagement. The outcomes from this study provide valuable implications for promoting online learners’ engagement in avatar-mediated environments.
AlalwanN.ChengL.Al-SamarraieH.YousefR.AlzahraniA. I.SarsamS. M. (2020). Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: A developing country perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66, 100876.
2.
AllcoatD.HatchardT.AzmatF.StansfieldK.WatsonD.von MühlenenA. (2021). Education in the digital age: Learning experience in virtual and mixed realities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 795–816.
3.
AllenJ. G. (1973). Implications of research in self-disclosure for group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 23(3), 306-321.
4.
AlvidrezS.PeñaJ. (2020, December). Verbal mimicry predicts social distance and social attraction to an outgroup member in virtual reality. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and virtual reality (AIVR) (pp. 68–73). IEEE.
5.
AntheunisM. L.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 831–836.
6.
ApostolellisP.BowmanD. A.ChmielM. (2018). Supporting social engagement for young audiences with serious games and virtual environments in museums. In Museum experience design (pp. 19–43). Springer.
7.
AristeidouM.ScanlonE.SharplesM. (2017). Design processes of a citizen inquiry community. In HerodotouC.SharplesM.ScanlonE. (Eds.), Citizen inquiry: Synthesising science and inquiry learning (pp. 210–229). Routledge.
8.
BaileyJ. O.BailensonJ. N.CasasantoD. (2016). When does virtual embodiment change our minds?Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 25(3), 222–233.
9.
BodzinA.JuniorR. A.HammondT.AnastasioD. (2021). Investigating engagement and flow with a placed-based immersive virtual reality game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 347–360.
10.
BonkC. J.DennenV. P. (2005). Massive multiplayer online gaming: A research framework for military training and education. Advanced Distributed Learning Technical Report 2005–1.
11.
BrethertonI. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759.
12.
CeliktutanO.GunesH. (2015). Automatic prediction of impressions in time and across varying context: Personality, attractiveness and likeability. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 8(1), 29–42.
13.
ChesneyT.ChuahS.-H.HoffmannR.HuiW.LarnerJ. (2016). How user personality and social value orientation influence avatar-mediated friendship. Information Technology & People, 29(4), 688–716.
14.
ChojeckiP.LamarreJ.BuckM.St-SauveurI.EldaoudN.PurdenM. (2010). Perceptions of a peer learning approach to pediatric clinical education. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1), 1–31.
15.
ChristopoulosA.ConradM.ShuklaM. (2016). How do students ‘Really’Interact with virtual worlds? In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU (pp. 43–54). Science and Technology Publications.
16.
ClintonB. D.KohlmeyerJ. M.III. (2005). The effects of group quizzes on performance and motivation to learn: Two experiments in cooperative learning. Journal of Accounting Education, 23(2), 96–116.
17.
ConcannonB. J.EsmailS.Roduta RobertsM. (2019, August). Head-mounted display virtual reality in post-secondary education and skill training. In Frontiers in education (p. 80). Frontiers.
18.
CoulsonM.BarnettJ.FergusonC. J.GouldR. L. (2012). Real feelings for virtual people: emotional attachments and interpersonal attraction in video games. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(3), 176–189.
19.
DePapeA.-M.BarnesM.PetryschukJ. (2019). Students’ experiences in higher education with virtual and augmented reality: A qualitative systematic review. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 3(3), 53–67.
20.
DiekelmannN.MendiasE. P. (2005). Being a supportive presence in online courses: Attending to students’ online presence with each other. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(9), 393–395.
21.
DoiC. (2016). Applying the flipped classroom methodology in a first-year undergraduate music research methods course. Music Reference Services Quarterly, 19(2), 114–135.
22.
FachrunnisaO.AdhiatmaA.SudartiK. (2021, July). The role of collective engagement to strengthen organizational identity. In Conference on Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems (pp. 13–22). Springer.
23.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
24.
ForsströmP. (2019). An analysis of online attraction and user experience on an e-commerce website. Arcada University of Applied Sciences.
25.
GentileC.SpillerN.NociG. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. European Management Journal, 25(5), 395–410.
26.
GreenfeldA.LugmayrA.LamontW. (2018, December). Comparative reality: Measuring user experience and emotion in immersive virtual environments. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) (pp. 204–209). IEEE.
27.
GuS.GaoM.YanY.WangF.TangY.-Y.HuangJ. H. (2018). The neural mechanism underlying cognitive and emotional processes in creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (1924).
28.
HarterS. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In Handbook of self and identity (pp. 610–642). The Guilford Press.
29.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
30.
HayesA. F.MontoyaA. K..RockwoodN. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81.
31.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
32.
HerreraF.OhS. Y.BailensonJ. N. (2020). Effect of behavioral realism on social interactions inside collaborative virtual environments. PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality, 27(2), 163–182.
33.
HerringtonJ.OliverR.ReevesT. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 53–74.
34.
HongJ.-Y.LeeW.-N. (2005). Consumer complaint behavior in the online environment. In Web systems design and online consumer behavior (pp. 90–106). IGI Global.
35.
HuangC.-Y.KaoY.-S. (2015). UTAUT2 based predictions of factors influencing the technology acceptance of phablets by DNP. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 603747.
36.
IfenthalerD.GibsonD. C.ZhengL. (2018, July). The dynamics of learning engagement in challenge-based online learning. In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 178–182). IEEE.
37.
JacksonS. A.EklundR.LeathermanG. (Ed.) (2004). The flow scales manual. Publishers Graphics.
38.
JangS. (2010). From Vesalius to virtual reality: How embodied cognition facilitates the visualization of anatomy. Columbia University.
39.
JuvonenJ.WeinerB. (1993). An attributional analysis of students’ interactions: The social consequences of perceived responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 5(4), 325–345.
40.
KoukopoulosZ.KoukopoulosD. (2018, October). Usage scenarios and evaluation of augmented reality and social services for libraries. In Euro-Mediterranean Conference (pp. 134–141). Springer.
41.
KruzicC. O.KruzicD.HerreraF.BailensonJ. (2020). Facial expressions contribute more than body movements to conversational outcomes in avatar-mediated virtual environments. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–23.
42.
KuJ.LeeH.KimJ.-J.KimI. Y.KimS. I. (2012). Brain mechanism involved in the real motion interaction with a virtual avatar. Biomedical Engineering Letters, 2(3), 164–172.
43.
KurtzF. B. (2019). Investigating the effects of adult Insecure attachment on interpersonal attraction. Seattle Pacific University.
44.
LewisT.O’DOWDR. (2016). Introduction to online intercultural exchange and this volume. In Online intercultural exchange (pp. 17–34). Routledge.
45.
LiP.LegaultJ.KlippelA.ZhaoJ. (2020). Virtual reality for student learning: Understanding individual differences. Human Behaviour and Brain, 1(1), 28–36.
46.
LinC. C. (2020, December). A PLS-SEM approach to technology-enhanced EFL writing. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 542–547). IEEE.
47.
LittleR. J.RubinD. B. (2019). Statistical analysis with missing data (Vol. 793). John Wiley & Sons.
48.
LoS.-k. (2008). The impact of online game character’s outward attractiveness and social status on interpersonal attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1947–1958.
49.
MalloyT. E. (2018). Interpersonal attraction in dyads and groups: effects of the hearts of the beholder and the beheld. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 285–302.
50.
McCroskeyJ. C.McCainT. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Western Speech Communication Association Convention.
51.
McCroskeyL. L.McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 1–31.
52.
MessingerP. R.GeX.SmirnovK.StrouliaE.LyonsK. (2019). Reflections of the extended self: Visual self-representation in avatar-mediated environments. Journal of Business Research, 100, 531–546.
53.
MoffattK.ShimN.BirnholtzJ.BaeckerR. M. (2016). Testing the usability, usefulness, and user experience of tabletalk poker, a social game for seniors. In Games User Research: A Case Study Approach (pp. 241–270). CRC Press.
54.
PanaderoE.Alonso TapiaJ. (2014). How do students self-regulate?: Review of Zimmerman“ s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales De Psicologia, 30(2), 450–462.
55.
ParsonsD.MacCallumK. (2020, October). Comparing the attitudes of in-service teachers to the learning potential of low-cost mobile augmented and virtual reality tools. In World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 33–40). Retrieved October 25, 2021 fromhttps://www.learntechlib.org/p/218885/.
56.
PazosP.CimaM. F.KiddJ. J.RinglebS. I. (2020). Enhancing teamwork skills through an engineering service-learning collaboration. 2020 ASEE virtual annual conference content access. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10189268
57.
PierceM. B.YoungP. A.DohertyS. M. (2017, September). Engagement and competence in VR and non-VR environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 61, pp. 2082–2085). Sage CA, SAGE Publications.
58.
PradeepK. L. (2016). A study on enhancing virtual reality visualization with hologram technology and bio-signal interactive architectures. Nagaoka University of Technology.
59.
RobitailleN.JacksonP. L.HébertL. J.MercierC.BouyerL. J.FecteauS.McFadyenB. J. (2017). A Virtual reality avatar interaction (VRai) platform to assess residual executive dysfunction in active military personnel with previous mild traumatic brain injury: Proof of concept. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(7), 758–764.
60.
Sáez-LópezJ. M.Cózar-GutiérrezR.González-CaleroJ. A.Gómez CarrascoC. J. (2020). Augmented reality in higher education: An evaluation program in initial teacher training. Education Sciences, 10(2), 26.
61.
SchoebD.SchwarzJ.HeinS.SchlagerD.PohlmannP. F.FrankenschmidtA.MiernikA. (2020). Mixed reality for teaching catheter placement to medical students: A randomized single-blinded, prospective trial. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1–8.
62.
ShadievR.WangX.HuangY. M. (2020). Promoting intercultural competence in a learning activity supported by virtual reality technology. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 157–174.
63.
ShapiroL. (2019). Embodied cognition. Routledge.
64.
ShebaneT.DehinboJ. (2020). Developing and exploring the use of virtual reality learning system to teach mathematics toward minimizing failure rate. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 39(2), 125–147.
65.
SinghG.MantriA.SharmaO.DuttaR.KaurR. (2019). Evaluating the impact of the augmented reality learning environment on electronics laboratory skills of engineering students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(6), 1361–1375.
66.
SomrakA.PogačnikM.GunaJ. (2021). Suitability and comparison of questionnaires assessing virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects and user experience in virtual environments. Sensors, 21(4), 1185.
67.
SongH.ChenF.PengQ.ZhangJ.GuP. (2018). Improvement of user experience using virtual reality in open-architecture product design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 232(13), 2264–2275.
68.
TangY.-M.AuK. M.LauH. C.HoG. T.WuC.-H. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of learning design with mixed reality (MR) in higher education. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 797–807.
69.
TeoT.LeeG. A.BillinghurstM.AdcockM. (2019, November). Investigating the use of different visual cues to improve social presence within a 360 mixed reality remote collaboration. In The 17th International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry (pp. 1–9).
70.
TokutakeH.YorkJ.ShibataK.NakayamaH. (2021). Evaluation of a VR language learning system: Effect of interactivity on learner oral task performance. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 30(2), 183–203.
71.
TolmanR. (2016). Do birds of a feather play sports together? Moderators of the similarity-attraction relationship in the context of sports and physical activities. University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
72.
WangH.-Y.SunJ. C.-Y. (2021). Real-time virtual reality co-creation: Collective intelligence and consciousness for student engagement and focused attention within online communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1–14.
73.
WezelF. C.RuefM. (2020). Learning against the wind: Diversity and performance on the ships of the Dutch east India company. Strategy Science, 5(4), 330–347.
74.
WheatC. A.SunY.WedgworthJ. C.HocuttM. M. (2018). Active university teaching and engaged student learning: a mixed methods approach. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(4), 28–50.
75.
WirthM.GradlS.ProsingerG.KlugeF.RothD.EskofierB. M. (2021, March).The impact of avatar appearance, perspective and context on gait variability and user experience in virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 326–335). IEEE.
76.
XiangL.ZhengX.HuX. (2014). What drives social commerce: the role of parasocial interaction. In PACIS (p. 86).
77.
YehyaF. M. (2020). Promoting Technology-Implementation learning paradigm for online learning in secondary Education. Global Journal of Information Technology: Emerging Technologies, 10(1), 12–21.
78.
ZhengX.MenJ.XiangL.YangF. (2020). Role of technology attraction and parasocial interaction in social shopping websites. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102043.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
