Physical Presence during Moral Action in Immersive Virtual Reality

Sylvia Terbeck, Jaysan Charlesford, Heather Clemans, Emily Pope, Aimee Lee, Joshua Turner, Michaela Gummerum and Bettina Bussmann
Additional contact information
Sylvia Terbeck: School of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Byron Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
Jaysan Charlesford: School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 4AG, UK
Heather Clemans: School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 4AG, UK
Emily Pope: School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 4AG, UK
Aimee Lee: School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 4AG, UK
Joshua Turner: School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 4AG, UK
Michaela Gummerum: Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Bettina Bussmann: Department of Philosophy, Salzburg University, Franziskanergasse 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 15, 1-9

Abstract: Research on morality has focused on differences in moral judgment and action. In this study, we investigated self-reported moral reasoning after a hypothetical moral dilemma was presented on paper, and moral reasoning after that very same dilemma was experienced in immersive virtual reality (IVR). We asked open-ended questions and used content analysis to determine moral reasoning in a sample of 107 participants. We found that participants referred significantly more often to abstract principles and consequences for themselves (i.e., it is against the law) after the paper-based moral dilemma compared to the IVR dilemma. In IVR participants significantly more often referred to the consequences for the people involved in the dilemma (i.e., not wanting to hurt that particular person). This supports the separate process theory, suggesting that decision and action might be different moral concepts with different foci regarding moral reasoning. Using simulated moral scenarios thus seems essential as it illustrates possible mechanisms of empathy and altruism being more relevant for moral actions especially given the physical presence of virtual humans in IVR.

Keywords: virtual reality; moral judgments; moral reasoning (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8039/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8039/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8039-:d:604268

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().