# Does Augmented Reality Affect Sociability, Entertainment, and Learning? A Field Experiment
## 3 Results
### Sociability and Social Behavior
In the follow-up interviews of AR users, some participants commented that AR could be suitable for social interaction among introverted people. However, they also reported conflict and disorientation in trying to pay attention to their surroundings and to other people while navigating the room and advancing in the quiz. Some reported not paying any attention to other people, and some perceived that other visitors were more of an annoyance because it was difficult to get close enough to the question spots and to move around the room, as presented in this comment: \"I feel like I don't necessarily pay attention to other people, that I could even walk over someone. I was in there at the phone, but still it felt as if I wasn't here in this space\" (Interviewee 11). One interviewee explicitly expressed not feeling sociable while participating in our experiment: \"I definitely didn't feel myself sociable. I would have \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sociability** & \(M\) & \(SD\) & \(n\) & **Rank Sum** & **1. AR App** & **2. Non-AR App** \\ \hline Sociability after-before & \(-0.32\) & 1.18 & 368 & & & \\
1. AR app & \(-0.32\) & 1.25 & 231 & 42,473.00 & & \\
2. Non-AR app & \(-0.52\) & 1.09 & 71 & 11,707.00 & 1.32 & \\
3. Pen and paper & \(-0.08\) & 0.95 & 66 & 13,716.00 & \(-1.62\) & \(-2.37\) * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p<0.05\). **\(p<0.01\). *** \(p<0.001\). Note. The dependent variable: Perceived Sociability (After—Before the Quiz).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Means (\(M\)), Standard Deviations (\(SD\)), Frequencies (\(n\)), Rank Sum, and [PERSON]’s Multiple Nonparametric Pairwise Post Hoc Test with Bonferroni Corrections for Differences in Dependent Variable of Sociability (\(N=372\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measure** & **All Participants** & **AR App** & **Non-AR App** & **Pen and Paper** \\ \hline Talked with other visitors & 357 (100\%) & 231 (100\%) & 71 (100\%) & 55 (100\%) \\ No & 201 (56.3\%) & 141 (61.0\%) & 34 (47.9\%) & 26 (47.3\%) \\ Yes & 156 (43.7\%) & 90 (39.0\%) & 37 (52.1\%) & 29 (52.7\%) \\ \hline Talked with unfamiliar visitors & 156 (100\%) & 90 (100\%) & 37 (100\%) & 29 (100\%) \\ No & 112 (71.8\%) & 73 (81.1\%) & 26 (70.3\%) & 13 (44.8\%) \\ Yes & 44 (28.2\%) & 17 (18.9\%) & 11 (29.7\%) & 16 (55.2\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cross Tabulation of Talking with Other Visitors by Experimental Groups (\(N=372\)). been more social without [the phone or app]\" (Interviewee 5). Another interviewee did not think this app increases talking to other people because it was more of an individual task: \"I feel that this app does not help interacting with others, at least not the one I used now. This was private activity\" (Interviewee 9). Interviewees who reported having found comments and who talked about being engaged with the game were excited about finding the comments and question marks. Some reported not quite catching the point of them, and other times, people discussed the user interface of comments and questions.