IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p8039-d604268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical Presence during Moral Action in Immersive Virtual Reality

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvia Terbeck & Jaysan Charlesford & Heather Clemans & Emily Pope & Aimee Lee & Joshua Turner & Michaela Gummerum & Bettina Bussmann, 2021. "Physical Presence during Moral Action in Immersive Virtual Reality," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-9, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8039-:d:604268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8039/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8039/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gold, Natalie & Pulford, Briony D. & Colman, Andrew M., 2015. "Do as I Say, Don’t Do as I Do: Differences in moral judgments do not translate into differences in decisions in real-life trolley problems," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 50-61.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Barbosa & William Jiménez-Leal, 2017. "It’s not right but it’s permitted: Wording effects in moral judgement," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 308-313, May.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:308-313 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2016. "Antisocial Attitudes, Gender and Moral Judgments: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 1630, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    4. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2016. "Moral Judgments, Gender, and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," Working Papers halshs-01382464, HAL.
    5. Mata, André & Vaz, André & Mendonça, Bernardo, 2022. "Deliberate ignorance in moral dilemmas: Protecting judgment from conflicting information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Natalie Gold & Andrew M. Colman & Briony D. Pulford, 2014. "Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 65-76, January.
    7. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2018. "Moral judgments, gender, and antisocial preferences: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 389-406, October.
    8. Nana Adrian & Ann-Kathrin Crede & Jonas Gehrlein, 2019. "Market Interaction and the Focus on Consequences in Moral Decision Making," Diskussionsschriften dp1905, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:65-76 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8039-:d:604268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.