# Does Augmented Reality Affect Sociability, Entertainment, and Learning? A Field Experiment
## 3 Results  
### Sociability and Social Behavior  
The results of the change in sociability before and after the quiz show that participants in all experimental groups felt, on average, less sociable after than before the quiz (\(M=-0.32\), \(SD=1.18\); see Table 2). Compared to AR users (\(M=-0.32\), \(SD=1.25\)), non-AR users felt even less sociable (\(M=-0.52\), \(SD=1.09\)), but the negative effect was smaller for pen-and-paper participants (\(M=-0.08\), \(SD=0.95\)). However, based on the Kruskal-Wallis rank test, the difference among the experimental groups was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measure** & \(n\) & **\%** & **M** & **SD** & **Range** &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(n\) of** \\ **Items** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha\) \\ \hline Experimental groups & 372 & & & & & & \\ Experimental group (augmented reality [AR] & 231 & 62.10 & & & & \\ & app participant) & 71 & 19.09 & & & & \\ Control group (pen and paper participant) & 70 & 18.82 & & & & & \\ \hline Sociability before the experiment & 370 & & 4.76 & 1.19 & 1-7 & 4 & 0.86 \\ Sociability after the experiment & 370 & & 4.44 & 1.30 & 1-7 & 4 & 0.90 \\ Sociability after-before & 368 & & \(-0.32\) & 1.18 & \(-6\)-3.25 & 8 & \\ \hline Talked with other visitors & 357 & & & & 0-1 & 1 & \\ No & 201 & 56.30 & & & & & \\ Yes & 156 & 43.70 & & & & & \\ \hline Talked with unfamiliar visitors & 156 & & & 0-1 & 1 & \\ No & 112 & 71.79 & & & & & \\ Yes & 44 & 28.21 & & & & & \\ \hline Left comments & 372 & & & 0-1 & 1 & \\ No & 346 & 93.01 & & & & & \\ Yes & 26 & 6.99 & & & & & \\ \hline Excitement during experiment & 208 & & 4.34 & 1.24 & 1-7 & 1 & \\ Nervousness during experiment & 188 & & 3.30 & 1.66 & 1-7 & 1 & \\ Tiredness after the exhibition & 371 & & 3.61 & 1.49 & 1-7 & 1 & \\ \hline App satisfaction & 302 & & 3.88 & 1.42 & 1-7 & 3 & 0.83 \\ Ehibition satisfaction & 371 & & 5.37 & 1.13 & 2-7 & 2 & 0.80 \\ \hline Quiz score (from those who finished) & 155 & & 10.54 & 2.67 & 3-16 & 1 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Summary of Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables (\(N=372\)): Frequency (\(n\)), Percent (\(\%\)), Mean (\(M\)), Standard Deviation (\(SD\)), Range, Number of Items in a Sum Variable, and Alpha (\(\alpha\)). not statistically significant (\(\chi^{2}\) [2, \(N=368\)] = 5.64, \(p=0.060\), with ties), except between the two control groups (\(\chi^{2}\) [1, \(N=137\)] = 5.99, \(p=0.014\), with ties). Table 3 shows the cross tabulation of talking with other visitors. We did not find statistically significant differences in talking to other visitors between the experimental groups, but the \(\chi^{2}\) test result suggests that AR app users were slightly less likely to talk with others than the two control groups put together (\(\chi^{2}\) [1] = 5.97, \(p=0.015\)). In addition, from those participants who talked with someone, pen-and-paper participants were more likely to engage in a discussion with someone who was unknown to them from before compared to AR app users (\(\chi^{2}\) [1] = 14.41, \(p<0.001\)) and, to some extent, to non-AR app users (\(\chi^{2}\) [1] = 4.35, \(p=0.037\)). Most participants did not leave any comments (see Appendix D). We provided pen-and-paper participants additional papers on a side desk next to the starting point for leaving comments, but they did not write anything down or reply to comments made by others. Non-AR app participants did not reply to any comments, and only four of them (4/71, 5.6%) left comments with the non-AR application. From the AR app participants, nearly every tenth left at least one comment (22/231, 9.5%) or reply (27/231, 11.7%), and every other AR participant read at least one comment (114/231, 49.4%). Within the limitations of missing information of read comments by pen-and-paper and non-AR participants, the results show that AR users left more comments and replied more to other visitors' comments than the control groups.