ANSIBLE: A Virtual World Ecosystem for Improving Psycho-Social Well-being

  • Tammy Ott
  • Peggy WuEmail author
  • Jacki Morie
  • Peter Wall
  • Jack Ladwig
  • Eric Chance
  • Kip Haynes
  • Bryan Bell
  • Christopher Miller
  • Kim Binsted
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9740)


We describe preliminary results of ANSIBLE – A Network of Social Interactions for Bilateral Life Enhancement. ANSIBLE leverages virtual worlds to deliver evidence based wellness promoting strategies and virtual agents as tools to facilitate asynchronous human-human communication in order to counteract behavioral health challenges associated with prolonged isolation and deep space exploration. ANSIBLE was deployed in August 2015 in a 12 month study with six crew members in an isolation simulated Mars habitat facility. In this paper, we compare the data for the first five months of this mission to a previous control mission for which ANSIBLE was not used. We found initial support for ANSIBLE to increase perceptions of closeness and satisfaction with friend and family relationships (but not other crew members) during prolonged isolation as well as a trend in stress reduction and increased feelings of ANSIBLE usability over time.


Virtual worlds Virtual agents Psychological support Communications Psychological health 



The above work was sponsored by NASA’s Human Research Program under contract #NNX14CJ06C. We would like to thank NASA personnel Lauren Leventon, Laura Bollweg, Jason Schneiderman, Diana Arias, Brandon Vessey, Al Holland, and Ron Moomaw for their oversight and direction. We would also like to thank the HI-SEAS crew members and their family and friends for their support.


  1. 1.
    Brewer, M.B.: Taking the social origins of human nature seriously: toward a more imperialist social psychology. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 107–113 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    House, J.S., Landis, K.R., Umberson, D.: Social relationships and health. Science 241(4865), 540–545 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Otto, C.: South Pole Station: an analogue for human performance during long-duration missions to isolated and confined environments: neurobiology, neurochemistry, and neurostructural changes in humans during prolonged isolation and confinement (White Paper). NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX: NASA JSC Behavioral Health and Performance Human Research Program and Space Medicine Division (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hawkley, L.C., Cacioppo, J.T.: Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med. 40(2), 218–227 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Hawkley, L.C.: Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13(10), 447–454 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castronova, E., Wagner, G.G.: Virtual life satisfaction. Int. Rev. Soc. Sci. 64(3), 313–328 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gentile, D.A., Anderson, C.A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., et al.: The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: international evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 752–763 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenberg, R., Baughman, S., Bailenson, J.N.: Virtual superheroes: using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE 8(1), e55003 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., Brauer, M.: Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion 10, 796–802 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gillath, O., McCall, C.A., Shaver, P., Blascovich, J.: Reactions to a needy virtual person: using an immersive virtual environment to measure prosocial tendencies. Media Psychol. 11, 259–282 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu, P., Morie, J.F., Chance, E., Haynes, K., Hamell, J., Wall, P., Ladwig, J., Ott, T.: Maintaining psycho-social health on the way to mars and back. In: Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC), 8–10 April, Laval, France (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Patrick, W.: Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. WW Norton & Company, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawkley, L.C., Hughes, M.E., Waite, L.J., Masi, C.M., Thisted, R.A., Cacioppo, J.T.: From social structural factors to perceptions of relationship quality and loneliness: the Chicago health, aging, and social relations study. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 63(6), S375–S384 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palinkas, L.A., Johnson, J.C., Boster, J.S.: Social support and depressed mood in isolated and confined environments. Acta Astronaut. 54(9), 639–647 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uleman, J.S., Rhee, E., Bardoliwalla, N., Semin, G., Toyama, M.: The relational self: closeness to ingroups depends on who they are, culture, and the type of closeness. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 3(1), 1–17 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bachman, K.R.O.B., Otto, C., Leveton, L.: Countermeasures to Mitigate the Negative Impact of Sensory Deprivation and Social Isolation in Long-Duration Space Flight. NASA/TM-2012-217365 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levenstein, S., Prantera, C., Varvo, V., Scribano, M.L., Berto, E., Luzi, C., Andreoli, A.: Development of the Perceived Stress Questionnaire: a new tool for psychosomatic research. J. Psychosom. Res. 37(1), 19–32 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kizony, R., Katz, N., Rand, D., Weiss, P.L.T.: Short Feedback Questionnaire (SFQ) to enhance client-centered participation in virtual environments. Cyberpsychology Behav. 9(6), 687–688 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kizony, R., Raz, L., Katz, N., Weingarden, H., Weiss, P.L.T.: Video-capture virtual reality system for patients with paraplegic spinal cord injury. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 42(5), 595–608 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tammy Ott
    • 1
  • Peggy Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jacki Morie
    • 2
  • Peter Wall
    • 1
  • Jack Ladwig
    • 1
  • Eric Chance
    • 2
  • Kip Haynes
    • 2
  • Bryan Bell
    • 1
  • Christopher Miller
    • 1
  • Kim Binsted
    • 3
  1. 1.SIFT, LLCMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.All These Worlds, LLCLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Univerisity of HawaiiHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations