Tackling Climate Change (2/2): Using VR To Influence Behavior
What is Virtual Reality?
Researchers have long sought to incorporate the use of state-of-the-art technology as a vehicle to change behavior. While Virtual Reality (VR) has become increasingly talked about as of late (at time of writing, in 2017), the technology has actually been around for decades, with seminal constructs of VR having been around since the 1960s. Witmer and Singer (1998) describe immersive virtual environments (IVEs) “as those that perceptually surrounds an individual. In this sense, immersion in such an environment is characterized as a psychological state in which the individual perceives himself or herself to be enveloped by, included in, and interacting with an environment that provides a continuous stream of stimuli”.
Why VR Works
Arguably, the use of simulation as a means to influence behavior has been around for a long time. Social psychologists have been creating virtual (synthetic) environments or even immersive ones for decades using hard scenery, props, and real people. Milgram’s (1963) obedience environment, for example, is amongst the most well-known and publicized.
Today, however, we are able to generate immersive virtual environments with laboratory computer technology. Using standard smartphones plugged into VR headsets, we can create an almost infinite number of simulations, some of which would not be possible to recreate in any traditional laboratory setting.
VR works, then, by taking a modern approach to an old methodology, in which we can test a particular behavior through the manipulation of the environment.
References
Ahn, S.J. & Bailenson, J.N., 2011. SELF-ENDORSING VERSUS OTHER- ENDORSING IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS The Effect on Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention.
Bisin, A., & Hyndman, K. (2014). Present-bias, procrastination and deadlines in a field experiment (No. w19874). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Blascovich, J. et al., (2002). Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology. , 13(2), pp.103–124.
Cummings, J.J., Bailenson, J.N. & Fidler, M.J., How Immersive is Enough ?: A Foundation for a Meta-analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on Measured Presence.
Dolan, P. & Galizzi, M.M., (2015). Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, pp.1–16. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487014001068.
Ellis, (1991). Ellis _1991_Nature_and_origins_scan.pdf.
Ernmenta, I. & Nel, L.P.A., Climate Change (2014) Synthesis Report,
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351-401.
Joo, S. et al., 2014. Computers in Human Behavior Short- and long-term effects of embodied experiences in immersive virtual environments on environmental locus of control and behavior. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 39, pp.235–245. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.025.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Leiner, D.J. & Quiring, O., 2008. What Interactivity Means to the User Essential Insights into and a Scale for Perceived Interactivity. , 14, pp.127–155.
Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N.F., (2006). PUBLIC VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE : EUROPEAN AND USA PERSPECTIVES. , pp.73–95.
Quéré, C. Le et al., (2014). Global carbon budget 2013. , pp.235–263.
Ungar, S. (2007). Public scares: Changing the issue culture. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 82-89). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, B.E. et al., 2016. Environment : Concern about Climate Change : A Paler Shade of Green ? , pp.91–110.
Trope, Y. & Liberman, N., (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), pp.440–463. Available at: https://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0018963.
Witmer, B.G., Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments : A Presence. pp.225–240.
About the Author
Amit Dhir
Amit holds an MSc in Behavioural Science from the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is currently a researcher, where he helps brands to better understand their customers' behaviour. In addition to working with consumer brands, he is also interested in the application of behavioural science to tackle social, developmental and environmental challenges. He has a passion for understanding how emerging technologies such as virtual and augmented reality might one day help to tackle such problems.
About us
We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy
Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations
“
I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.
Heather McKee
BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST
GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT
OUR CLIENT SUCCESS
$0M
Annual Revenue Increase
By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue.
0%
Increase in Monthly Users
By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.
0%
Reduction In Design Time
By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75%.
0%
Reduction in Client Drop-Off
By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%
