skip to main content
research-article

Normative Tensions in Shared Augmented Reality

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Novel collaborative technologies afford new modes of behavior, which are often not regulated by established social norms. In particular, shared augmented reality (AR) - where multiple users can create, attach, and interact with the same virtual elements embedded into the physical environment - has the potential to interrupt current social norms of behavior. The objective of our study is to shed light on the ways in which shared AR challenges existing behavioral expectations. Using a simulated lab experimental design, we performed a study of users' interactions in a shared AR setting. Content analysis of participants' interviews reveals users' concerns over the preservation of their self- and social identity, as well as concerns related to personal space and the sense of psychological ownership over one's body and belongings. Our findings also point to the need for regulation of shared AR spaces and design of the technology's control mechanisms.

References

  1. David Ahlström, Khalad Hasan, and Pourang Irani. 2014. Are You Comfortable Doing That?: Acceptance Studies of Around-Device Gestures in and for Public Settings. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services - MobileHCI '14: 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Urs-Vito Albrecht, Kristian Folta-Schoofs, Marianne Behrends, and Ute von Jan. 2013. Effects of mobile augmented reality learning compared to textbook learning on medical students: randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of medical Internet research 15, 8: e182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Irwin Altman. 1977. Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific? Journal of Social Issues 33, 3: 66--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ronald T Azuma. 1997. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments 6, 4: 355--385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Henri Barki, Guy Paré, and Claude Sicotte. 2008. Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology. Journal of Information Technology 23, 4: 269--280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Russell Belk. 1988. Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 2: 139--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Russell W. Belk. 2013. Extended Self in a Digital World: Table 1. Journal of Consumer Research 40, 3: 477--500.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mark Billinghurst and Hirokazu Kato. 2002. Collaborative augmented reality. Communications of the ACM 45, 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Anne Bowser, Katie Shilton, Jenny Preece, and Elizabeth Warrick. 2017. Accounting for Privacy in Citizen Science. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing - CSCW '17: 2124--2136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2: 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Scott Brave, Clifford Nass, and Kevin Hutchinson. 2005. Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 62, 161--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Graham Brown, Craig Crossley, and Sandra L. Robinson. 2014. Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology 67, 2: 463--485.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Andreas Butz, Clifford Beshers, and Steven Feiner. 1998. Of Vampire mirrors and privacy lamps. Proceedings of the 11th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '98: 171--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Halton. 1981. The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of. Information Technolog MIS Quarterly 13, 3: 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14: 2377--2386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Helga Dittmar. 1992. The social psychology of material possessions. Harvester Wheatsheaf and St. Martin's Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicolas Ducheneaut, Robert J. Moore, and Eric Nickell. 2007. Virtual "third places": A case study of sociability in massively multiplayer games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nancy G Duncan. 1981. Home ownership and social theory. Housing and identity: Cross-cultural perspectives 98: 134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthew S. Eastin and Robert LaRose. 2006. Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Steven Feiner. 1994. Redefining the User Interface: Augmented Reality. ACM SIGGRAPH: 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jared Fong. 2015. New Citizenship for a Digital Age: 21 Century Digital Citizenship Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Erving Goffman. 1956. Embarrassment and Social Organization. American Journal of Sociology 62, 3: 264--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Erving Goffman. 2009. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Samuel D. Gosling, Peter J. Rentfrow, and William B. Swann. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37, 6: 504--528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Mark Graham, Matthew Zook, and Andrew Boulton. 2013. Augmented reality in urban places: contested content and the duplicity of code. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38, 3: 464--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Jens Grubert, Tobias Langlotz, Stefanie Zollmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2016. Towards Pervasive Augmented Reality: Context-Awareness in Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics PP, 99: 1--1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Anders Henrysson, Mark Billinghurst, and Mark Ollila. 2005. Face to Face Collaborative AR on Mobile Phones. ISMAR '05 Proceedings of the 4th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Anne Hewitt and Andrea Forte. 2006. Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at CSCW Banff Alberta 38: 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Wendy A. Kellogg and Thomas Erickson. 2002. Social Translucence, Collective Awareness, and the Emergence of Place. Proceedings of CSCW2002: 1--6. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.2271&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Young Ji Kim, David Engel, Anita Williams-Woolley, Jeffrey Yu-Ting Lin, Naomi McArthur, and Thomas W. Malone. 2017. What Makes a Strong Team? Using Collective Intelligence to Predict Team Performance in League of Legends. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing - CSCW '17, October: 2316--2329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Susan Schultz Kleine and Stacey Menzel Baker. 2004. An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review 2004, 01: 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Marion Koelle, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2017. Are you hiding it?: usage habits of lifelogging camera wearers. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Marion Koelle and Shaun Kane. 2018. (Un)Acceptable?!?! -- Re-thinking the Social Acceptability of Emerging Technologies. Chi 2018: 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Marion Koelle, Matthias Kranz, and M Andreas. 2015. Don ' t look at me that way?! -- Understanding User Attitudes Towards Data Glasses Usage. MobileHCI '15 Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services: 362--372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. D W F van Krevelen and Ronald Poelman. 2010. A Survey of Augmented Reality Technologies, Applications and Limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality 9, 2: 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Ryan Lawler. 2015. Get Ready For Even More Google Glasshole Sightings. Techcrunch.Com. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/28/glassholes/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiron Lebeck, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Franziska Roesner. 2016. How to Safely Augment Reality. Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications - HotMobile '16: 45--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Sangwon Lee and Richard J. Koubek. 2011. The Impact of Cognitive Style on User Preference Based on Usability and Aesthetics for Computer-Based Systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27, 11: 1083--1114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Younghwa Lee and Andrew N. K. Chen. 2011. Usability Design and Psychological Ownership of a Virtual World. Journal of Management Information Systems 28, 3: 269--308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Peter V. Marsden and Karen E. Campbell. 1984. Measuring Tie Strength. Social Forces 63, 2: 482--501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Roger C. Mayer and Mark B. Gavin. 2005. Trust in Management and Performance: Who Minds the Shop while the Emplyees Watch the Boss? The Academy of Management Journal 48, 5: 874--888.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Ross McKerlich, Cindy Ives, and Rory McGreal. 2013. Measuring use and creation of open educational resources in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14, 4: 90--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Joshua Mcveigh-schultz. 2018. What ' s It Mean to - Be Social " in VR: Mapping the Social VR Design Ecology. 289--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash. L. Rev. 1: 101--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Pippa Norris. 2001. Digital Divide. In Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. William Odom, John Zimmerman, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2011. Teenagers and T heir Virtual Possessions?: Design Opportunities and Issues. 1491--1500. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Thomas Olsson. 2012. User expectations and experiences of mobile augmented reality services. Retrieved from http://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/handle/123456789/21226Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas Olsson, Else Lagerstam, Tuula Kärkkäinen, and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2013. Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: A user study in the context of shopping centres. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17, 2: 287--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Thomas Olsson and Markus Salo. 2012. Narratives of satisfying and unsatisfying experiences of current mobile augmented reality applications. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12, June: 2779. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Janne Paavilainen, Hannu Korhonen, Kati Alha, Jaakko Stenros, Elina Koskinen, and Frans Mayra. 2017. The Pokémon GO Experience: A Location-Based Augmented Reality Mobile Game Goes Mainstream. Proceedings of the 35th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '17, Figure 1: In press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Jon L. Pierce, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks. 2001. Toward a Theory of Pschological Ownership in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 26, 2: 298--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Jon L. Pierce, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks. 2003. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology 7.1, 84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Thammathip Piumsomboon, Adrian Clark, Mark Billinghurst, and Andy Canterbury. 2013. User-Defined Gestures for Augmented Reality. Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT: 282--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Douglas J. Porteous. 1976. Home: The territorial core. Geographical Review: 383--390.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Jun Rekimoto. 1996. Transvision: A hand-held augmented reality system for collaborative design. Proc. Virtual Systems and Multimedia, December: 85--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Marsha L. Richins. 1994. Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 3: 504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Julie Rico and Stephen Brewster. 2009. Gestures all around us: user differences in social acceptability perceptions of gesture based interfaces. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI '09: 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Julie Rico and Stephen Brewster. 2010. Usable gestures for mobile interfaces: evaluating social acceptability. 887--896. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Peter Riedl, Rene Mayrhofer, Andreas Möller, Matthias Kranz, Florian Lettner, Clemens Holzmann, and Marion Koelle. 2015. Only play in your comfort zone: interaction methods for improving security awareness on mobile devices. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 19, 5--6: 941--954.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Andrew L. Rossow. 2016. Gotta Catch a Lawsuit: A legal insight into the intellectual, civil, and criminal battlefield Pokemon Go has downloaded onto smartphones and properties around the world. J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 16: i.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Floyd W. Rudmin and John W. Berry. 1987. Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record 37, 257--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Stacey D. Scott, Sheelagh M.T. Carpendale, and Kori M. Inkpen. 2004. Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '04, 294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Robert Seddon. 2017. Why augmented reality is triggering cultural conflict and religious controversy. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/why-augmented-reality-is-triggering-cultural-conflict-and-religious-controversy-77976Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Rong An Shang, Yu Chen Chen, and Sheng Chieh Huang. 2012. A private versus a public space: Anonymity and buying decorative symbolic goods for avatars in a virtual world. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 6: 2227--2235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Gregory P. Stone. 1990. Appearance and the self: A slightly revised version. Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Shyam Shyam Sundar. 2008. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. 73--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Maaret Posti, Olli Koskenranta, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2014. Investigating the balance between virtuality and reality in mobile mixed reality UI design. Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Fun, Fast, Foundational - NordiCHI '14: 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Melanie Wallendorf and Eric J. Arnould. 1988. "My Favorite Things": A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 4: 531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Mark Warschauer. 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Brian D. Wassom. 2014. Augmented Reality Law, Privacy, and Ethics: Law, Society, and Emerging AR Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Andrew J. Weigert. 1983. Identity: Its Emergence within Sociological Psychology. Symbolic Interaction 6, 2: 183--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Laurie M. Wilcox, Robert S. Allison, Samuel Elfassy, and Cynthia Grelik. 2006. Personal space in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 3, 4: 412--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Julie R. Williamson, Stephen A. Brewster, and Rama Vennelakanti. 2013. Mo!Games: Evaluating Mobile Gestures in the Wild. Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International conference on multimodal interaction - ICMI '13: 173--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Julie R. Williamson, Andrew Crossan, and Stephen Brewster. 2011. Multimodal Mobile Interactions?: Usability Studies in Real World Settings. Interactions: 361--368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Jessica Wolfendale. 2007. My avatar, my self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology 9, 2: 111--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Nick Yee, Jeremy N. Bailenson, Mark Urbanek, Francis Chang, and Dan Merget. 2007. The Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10, 1: 115--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Feng Zhou, Henry Been Lirn Dun, and Mark Billinghurst. 2008. Trends in augmented reality tracking, interaction and display: A review of ten years of ISMAR. Proceedings - 7th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality 2008, ISMAR 2008: 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Normative Tensions in Shared Augmented Reality

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
        Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
        November 2018
        4104 pages
        EISSN:2573-0142
        DOI:10.1145/3290265
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 November 2018
        Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader