Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Jul 14;17(7):e0270748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270748

The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: A systematic review

Matilde Tassinari 1,*,#, Matthias Burkard Aulbach 1,2,#, Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti 1
Editor: Michelangelo Vianello3
PMCID: PMC9282653  PMID: 35834584

Abstract

This systematic review provides an up-to-date analysis of existing literature about Virtual Reality (VR) and prejudice. How has VR been used in studying intergroup attitudes, bias and prejudice, are VR interventions effective at reducing prejudice, and what methodological advantages and limitations does VR provide compared to traditional methods are the questions we aim to answer. The included studies had to use VR to create an interaction with one or more avatars belonging to an outgroup, and/or embodiment in an outgroup member; furthermore, they had to be quantitative and peer-reviewed. The review of the 64 included studies shows the potential of VR contact to improve intergroup relations. Nevertheless, the results suggest that under certain circumstances VR contact can increase prejudice as well. We discuss these results in relation to the intergroup perspective (i.e., minority or majority) and target minority groups used in the studies. An analysis of potential mediators and moderators is also carried out. We then identify and address the most pressing theoretical and methodological issues concerning VR as a method to reduce prejudice.

1. Theoretical background

Virtual reality (VR) has been used for a variety of purposes, from video games to army training [1] or medical education [2]. In the last decade, it has received increasing attention particularly in social psychology with a range of other applications (see [3] for a meta-analysis), such as prejudice reduction. The great advantage of VR over regular computer-based simulation is the high degree of immersion: it creates a strong illusion of being in the computer-generated world [4]. As VR technology puts participants into a virtual world that can be controlled by the researcher, it allows both further development of known research paradigms with highly standardised experimental conditions and the creation of entirely new paradigms that were not possible before. In this review, we systematically evaluate studies which have utilised VR to study and combat prejudice.

1.1 Prejudice, intergroup bias, and intergroup attitudes

Prejudice generally refers to “any attitude, emotion, or behaviour toward members of a group, which directly or indirectly implies some negativity or antipathy toward that group” [5]. Research in social psychology has studied prejudice within broader frameworks of intergroup bias. In this framework, prejudice is seen as having different manifestations varying from in-group preference (e.g., ascribing more positive characteristics and emotions to and favouring the ingroup) to out-group derogation (ascribing more negative characteristics, showing more negative or ambivalent emotions to, and discriminating against the outgroup), with both having negative consequences for the outgroup [e.g. 6,7]. Following this approach, we refer to intergroup bias as an overall discrepancy in favour of the ingroup over the outgroup, while discrimination refers to biased behavioral intentions and/or overtly performed behavior that upholds the outgroup’s disadvantaged position [e.g. 7].

Prejudice as an intergroup attitude refers, in turn, to evaluative tendencies that can also be studied via three interrelated components [e.g. 8]: a cognitive component (negative stereotyping and attributing negative characteristics to members of the outgroup), an emotional component (e.g., experiencing ambivalent, unpleasant or negative emotions towards outgroups), and a behavioral component (e.g., exhibiting negative behavioral intentions or behaviors such as social exclusion or discrimination against the outgroup).

Another critical distinction divides implicit from explicit intergroup attitudes. While the expression of the latter is normatively monitored, the former are more automatically activated and as such largely defy subjective control [9]–thus having the potential to predict and change behaviours more accurately than their explicit counterpart [see 10 for an overview]. Research on implicit social cognition (i.e. the cognitive processes taking place on the automatic route and involving social groups) has provided researchers with the Implicit Association Test (IAT) [11], which requires subjects to categorise as fast as possible a set of stimuli (e.g. words or faces) into one of two classes of attributes defining evaluations or stereotypes (e.g. good or bad, competent or incompetent). Faster responses indicate a stronger association of the sorted stimuli with the chosen evaluation. Despite severe criticism of the IAT and the concept of implicit attitudes on grounds of unclear validity and methodological problems (see e.g. reviews [1214]), the IAT and related measures remain popular in studying intergroup bias, especially in socially sensitive topics (see a review by [15]).

Recently, neuroimaging and psychophysiological techniques have also emerged as an alternative way to study intergroup bias by observing their neurological and physiological aetiology and counterparts (see a review by [16]).

1.2. Malleability of intergroup attitudes

Prejudice reduction interventions can be divided in several ways based on their theoretical and methodological approaches. Paluck and Green [17] divide social scientific and psychological interventions into those that attempt to influence intergroup cognitions, emotions and behaviours (e.g., social categorisation and identities, intergroup contact and emotions) and those that attempt to support positive intergroup relations via educative (knowledge, critical thinking) or normative influence upon individual emotions or thoughts.

The effectiveness of prejudice-reduction interventions seems to highly depend on the type of social stigmas, outcome measures and the target groups studied. To study the malleability of implicit racial bias, Lai et al. [18] studied a range of 17 different interventions in an experimental design. Their results showed that half (8/17) of the interventions were effective at reducing non-Blacks’ implicit preferences for Whites compared to Blacks. In terms of the mechanisms, the most efficient interventions used counter stereotypes and evaluative conditioning methods or provided cognitive and behavioural strategies to override biases, while those inducing perspective-taking (including imagined contact), egalitarian value orientation, or positive emotion turned out to be inefficient. In their study, no intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences, and there were no signs of the extended effect of intervention towards “uncontacted” outgroups. Moreover, the effects of the interventions working with implicit bias also appear to be very short-lived. Lai et al. [19] further examined the stability of the effect of nine interventions and found that although they all immediately reduced implicit preferences, none of them was effective after a delay of several hours to several days.

Beelmann and Heinemann [20] have, in turn, conducted a meta-analysis of 81 studies containing 122 intervention–control comparisons of structured programs to reduce explicit negative intergroup attitudes in children and adolescents via intergroup contact, information/knowledge acquisition, and promotion of individual social-cognitive competencies. Their results showed that interventions that were based on direct contact experiences and induced empathy and perspective taking showed the strongest effects. The effects also varied according to the program participant’s social status, the target out-group, and the outcome measure. Interventions were less effective with emotional and behavioural measures of prejudice than when attempting to change the cognitive components of prejudice; prejudice towards disabled and elderly people was more malleable than towards ethnic minority group members, and attitudes of majority group members towards ethnic minority group members were more prone to the effect of intervention than vice versa (see also [21]). Notably, the majority of studies assessed by Beelmann and Heinemann [20] examined only immediate effects on intergroup attitudes with a mean effect size of around d = 0.30. Only ten out of 81 studies evaluated long-term effects and showed stable positive effects or even stronger positive effects over time (e.g., [22]). In this systematic review, we focus on the malleability of explicit and implicit intergroup attitudes via intergroup contact in VR. The volume of intervention studies based on contact theory and the empirical support of the effectiveness of contact-based interventions in prejudice reduction have outlined the potential of this method for prejudice reduction in VR.

1.3 Attitude change and malleability via intergroup contact

According to Allport’s [23] contact hypothesis, positively engaging with outgroups is a fruitful way to improve intergroup relations. In this paradigm, intergroup contact has been originally defined as actual face-to-face interaction between members of clearly defined groups [24]. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated that intergroup attitudes can be changed and improved by creating positive contact between different groups (see meta-analyses by [3,24,25]). These attitude changes are mainly mediated by increased knowledge about the outgroup, reduced anxiety about intergroup contact, and increased empathy and perspective taking. Importantly, when Allport’s [23] conditions for positive intergroup contact (equal status between groups in the situation; common goals; cooperation between groups; support of authorities) are met, prejudice reduction is strongest [24]. On the contrary, interventions can also backfire and lead to increased intergroup conflict if optimal conditions are not met [26].

Moreover, as a considerable corpus of recent research [27] has demonstrated, the positive effect of contact on intergroup attitudes is not limited to direct interactions but also emerges with mediated, extended or indirect contact [24,28,29], including online contact in general [30] and e-contact in particular [31], as well as imagined contact [32].

However, the potential of VR contact to reduce prejudice has not been properly evaluated. Amichai-Hamburger and McKenna [33], as well as Dovidio et al. [27], have stressed that online contact, including VR, might be particularly well suited for creating optimal contact conditions, because it creates an anxiety-safe and controlled environment. According to the meta-analysis by Lemmer and Wagner [3], in which they compared the effects of different direct and indirect forms of contact and which included only eight comparisons with virtual contact, virtual contact intervention programs showed tentative weak evidence for their usefulness in prejudice reduction. However, the constant development of VR technologies and the accumulating amount of studies utilising VR in prejudice research also continue to improve our understanding of VR as a platform to study and improve intergroup relations, as well as pose demands to evaluate the progress. In addition, there might be several moderators and mediators of the effect of VR contact on intergroup attitudes specific for VR contact. Reaching a better understanding of the features of VR contact can thus help to make it an important avenue for prejudice reduction endeavours.

1.4 Virtual reality for prejudice reduction

As previous studies on intergroup contact in VR differ a lot in their approaches and technological solutions, it is important to clarify what we refer to by VR studies and VR intergroup contact. According to Burdea and Coiffet [34], virtual reality is an immersive technology allowing the user to interact in real time with a 3D computer-generated environment simulating reality. One of its defining features is immersion in the environment, which is defined as the sensation of being there [35]. In VR, immersion is allowed by fully experiencing the simulated world through the senses of sight and sound, while the surrounding environment is not visible to the user [36]. This is closely related to the concept of embodiment, which we define by having full control over a virtual avatar, with the avatar’s movements being coupled to the movements of one’s physical body. This creates the illusion of ownership of the virtual body or perceiving the virtual body representation to be one’s own body (see [37]). This sense of embodiment can cause the “Proteus effect”, namely a change in people’s behaviour and self-representation to match the identity of their virtual self [38,39]. Along with the high degree of immersion, the body ownership illusion allowed by embodiment makes VR users experience a stronger sense of spatial presence compared to the same environment in 2D [40].

How are VR’s features serving research on prejudice reduction? Firstly, VR is a unique platform that can be used by researchers both to create and to study intergroup contact, as it enables the experience of direct and indirect intergroup encounters from both majority and minority perspectives. Importantly, VR combines a strong sense of a real social encounter combined with a high degree of experimental control, allowing researchers to ensure optimal conditions of intergroup contact [23]. Specifically, a recent meta-analysis on computer-mediated contact interventions indicated that online contact is typically characterised by a more equal status between groups compared to real-life contact [30], a crucial condition for prejudice-reduction. Given that VR is, on the one hand, computer-mediated but, on the other hand, more realistic than other online encounters, it is important to acknowledge and determine whether VR contact functions the same way or even better than real-world interventions and if so whether the positive effects of VR contact transfer to real-world encounters.

Another aspect that makes VR useful for the study of intergroup processes is that it allows constructing intergroup contact as experienced from both the minority and majority group perspective. VR research achieves this by using embodiment in two ways: either to enable the subject to embody an avatar belonging to the ingroup (usually majority group, as minority respondents have barely been studied), or to embody them in an avatar belonging to the outgroup (most often a stigmatised minority group for the same reason). VR can thus take perspective-taking interventions one step further by allowing the embodiment of avatars representing outgroup members, coming closer to literally taking their perspective.

A widely used alternative to “true” VR is simulating a first-person experience from the point of view of either the ingroup (i.e., majority) or the outgroup (i.e., minority group), without employing an embodied avatar. This kind of virtual experience has a similarly high degree of immersion and realism, but reduced feelings of body ownership. While both perspectives can be used to simulate intergroup contact in VR, embodiment in a minority avatar can elicit attitude change even without any additional virtual intergroup contact, by allowing the participant to “put themselves in the shoes of an outgroup member”, to the extent it is possible to “live” the experience of an outgroup member.

However, given that empathy and perspective-taking have also been shown to have ironic effects in intergroup contexts leading to more helping behaviour and paternalistic attitudes on the expense of willingness to combat prejudice and inequality [41], the question remains, which form of VR contact—intergroup interaction or embodiment of an outgroup member—is more useful in prejudice reduction.

Finally, VR allows studying participants’ behaviour in situations, which, for ethical and/or practical reasons, could not be studied in real life settings, such as helping behaviour in emergency situations or intergroup contact with the most vulnerable or isolated populations. Given all of the above reasons for VR’s potential, it is thus important to evaluate whether VR is a powerful tool to combat group-specific biases.

2. Structure of the systematic review

As the number of studies capitalising on the potential of VR to improve intergroup attitudes increases, the need arises for an overview of research about prejudice and means to combat it in VR. In this systematic review, we draw an exhaustive analysis of existing research describing how virtual reality has been used up to date to study and shape intergroup attitudes through virtual intergroup contact.

Furthermore, we discuss the methodological advantages VR introduces compared to traditional methods and naturalistic interventions, and we seek to provide a critical analysis of the challenges and limitations faced by scholars studying intergroup relations in VR.

As already noted above, most research on prejudice and intergroup contact in general and in VR in particular has so far focused on the majority’s attitudes towards members of socially stigmatised groups such as ethnic minorities. In addition, attitudes based on age, disabilities and gender have been widely addressed. However, intergroup relations with different minority groups follow different dynamics as power relations in a society are hierarchically organised so that the prejudice towards some social groups is more normative than towards some others [42]. For example, a meta-analysis of 27 studies with 31 treatment arms by Paluck et al. [28] shows that contact-based interventions directed at ethnic or racial prejudice have generated substantially weaker effects than those targeted towards other social prejudices. For said reasons, in order to assess the potential of VR to reduce prejudice towards different stigmatised groups, we follow the classification of prejudiced or stigmatised groups adopted by Christofi and Michael-Grigoriou [43], which in turn is based on Goffman’s [44] categorization of stigma as an individual attribute that causes society to reject those who are affected by it. Thus, we classify studies included in this review based on the type of stigma by which the target outgroup is affected: overt or external deformations (i.e. physical or age-related stigma), deviations in personal traits (i.e. stigmatising behaviours, health status or disorders), and tribal stigmas (i.e. deriving from ethnic or socio-cultural background). Due to the intersectional nature of some stigmatising characteristics (e.g. gender) that lead them to fall into more than one category, we introduce intersectional stigma as a further stand-alone category.

This systematic review is structured as follows: we first describe the method used to review and include eligible studies; then we analyse the results based on the intergroup perspective adopted in the studies, and successively according to the target stigmatised group; we then proceed to review the mediators and moderators that have been investigated to understand the effect of VR contact on prejudice. Next, we provide an overview of the limitations and advantages of VR for prejudice reduction. We lastly discuss and summarise the findings and address future research.

Subsequently, we lay out the following research questions:

  • RQ1: How has VR been used to study prejudice towards stigmatised minority groups?

  • RQ2: How effective are VR interventions based on intergroup contact at reducing prejudice?

  • RQ3: Which features of VR, contextual, or individual factors mediate the effect of VR contact on prejudice? (mediators)

  • RQ4: Under which conditions does VR contact influence prejudice? (moderators)

  • RQ5: What methodological advantages and limitations characterise VR contact compared to traditional forms of intergroup contact?

3. Method

Before beginning our literature search, we pre-registered this review in the PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=222294). We report all deviations from the pre-registered plan in this review article.

3.1. Information sources and search strategy

Based on the field of interest (i.e., intergroup contact and prejudice in VR), we developed 16 search terms related to virtual reality and intergroup relations (the final search strategy can be found at https://mfr.de-1.osf.io/render?url=https://osf.io/rp3wg/?direct%26mode=render%26action=download%26mode=render) and used these to search published studies in three electronic databases (PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science). The search terms were the following: (Vr OR virtual reality OR immersive virtual environment OR simulation-based assessment OR virtual reality exposure therapy OR virtual OR augmented reality) AND (intergroup relations OR ingroup outgroup OR prejudice OR discriminat* OR bias OR stereotyp* OR stigma* OR intergroup attitude* OR outgroup attitude*).

Searches were limited to human samples and articles published in English, German, Finnish, or Italian. The original search was conducted in March 2021 and updated and expanded during the revision process in January 2022. Once duplicates were excluded, 15,504 citations remained for screening. After title and full-text screening, we searched the reference sections of all included articles for further eligible studies, and contacted all authors of included studies for further articles and unpublished data. The search resulted in 64 studies (51 published journal articles, 11 conference papers, and two dissertations), of which 4 were provided by authors. For more detailed information about the search and screening process, see the PRISMA flow diagram reported in Fig 1.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 1

3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

After initial search, we carefully investigated the methods used in each study using the following criteria. Included studies had to use immersive virtual reality (IVR; see e.g. [4]), that is participants had to wear a head-mounted display, be in a room that was “transformed” into a virtual environment with projectors, or use a device to induce augmented reality (we had not pre-registered augmented reality studies but decided to include them due to the high degree of similarity). We excluded qualitative studies and opinion pieces. Moreover, we did not include studies that presented the virtual content on a computer screen. In the virtual reality, participants had to either embody an avatar representing the outgroup or take the perspective of a social group they did not belong to, and/or get in contact with at least one member of an outgroup.

In case of intervention studies, control groups would either receive an intervention to reduce prejudice other than in virtual reality (e.g. real-life interaction, perspective taking exercise, using non-immersive technology), or they would embody or interact with virtual ingroup members (i.e. only intragroup, but no intergroup contact), or would not experience any kind of intergroup contact.

Studies had to report at least one measure of intergroup bias, such as different measures of implicit and explicit prejudice, stereotypes, physiological measures associated with prejudice, or behavioural measures such as physical proximity.

3.3. Data extraction

Two independent researchers (MT and MA) conducted all literature searches, screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Selection was such that after each step, any title or abstract that was deemed relevant by either researcher was included in the next step. Both authors then agreed on the final set of included articles. In case of disagreement (k = 8 articles), a third author (IJ-L) made the final decision. The final set of included articles constituted 64 studies reported in 62 independent articles.

Extracted data included publication year and language, study design (within or between participants), country of research site, sample characteristics (size, average age, gender composition, ethnicity), the VR medium and apparatus (VR headset, augmented reality, virtual world projected into a room), the group that was the prejudice target, how outgroups were represented (3D video, virtual agents, avatars, embodying an outgroup avatar), how the contact was designed, the intergroup bias measure, examined hypothesised mediators (such as empathy, gratitude, inclusion of other in the self) and moderators (such as socio-economic status). The extracted data can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. List of included studies.

Title Authors Year Country of data collection Total N Percent female Ethnic composition Sample age Type of design Control condition Prejudice target Kind of interaction Prejudice-related measures Examined mediators Examined moderators Main results
Contact in VR: Testing Avatar
Customisation and Common Ingroup Identity Cues on Outgroup Bias Reduction
Alvidrez, S. & Peña, J. 2020 USA 135 82.3 52.5% Asian; 20.6% Hispanic; 17% Caucasian; 9.9% other 20.47 (sd = 2.05) between avatar self-resembling vs not and common ingroup identity cues vs not Hispanics in the US avatar social distance scale engagement presence scale common ingroup identity (university) Having a self-resembling avatar resulted in decreased engagement presence and higher engagement presence was linked to larger social distance. Common ingroup identity cues had no effect on outcomes.
Verbal Mimicry Predicts Social Distance and Social Attraction to an Outgroup Member in Virtual Reality Alvidrez, S. & Peña, J. 2020 USA 54 87 54.1% Asian, 18.5% Hispanic, 18.5% Caucasian,9% other N/A (18–32) between avatar self-resembling vs not and common ingroup identity cues vs not Hispanics in the US avatar social distance scale verbal mimicry common ingroup identity (university) Neither avatar customization nor a common ingroup identity predicted verbal mimicry in VR interactions with a Hispanic outgroup member. Verbal mimicry predicted social attraction positively and social distance negatively.
Virtual body ownership and its consequences for implicit racial bias are dependent on social context Banakou, D., Beacco, A., Neyret, S., Blasco-Oliver, M., Seinfeld, S., & Slater, M. 2020 Spain 92 100 100% white 21.8 between-subjects Embodying a white virtual body black people embodiment black-white IAT; ’attitudes to Blacks’ questionnaire N/A positivity/negativity of interaction Negative experiences while embodying a Black avatar can lead to worse implicit attitudes towards Black people in White participants.
Virtual Embodiment of White People in a Black Virtual Body Leads to a Sustained Reduction in Their Implicit Racial Bias Banakou, D., Hanumanthu, P. D., & Slater, M. 2016 Spain 90 (in 2 studies) 100 100% white 21.9 between-subjects Embodying a white virtual body black people embodiment black-white IAT N/A number of exposures Practicing Tai Chi while embodying a Black avatar can reduce White participants’ implict bias against Black people.
Virtually Being Einstein Results in an Improvement in Cognitive Task Performance and a Decrease in Age Bias Banakou, D., Kishore, S., & Slater, M. 2018 Spain 30 0 N/A 22 between-subjects Embodying a young male adult body, i.e. similar to the subjects’ own bodies elderly people embodiment age IAT N/A N/A Participants who embodied an avatar that looked like older Einstein performed better on a cognitive task and showed reduced implicit bias against older people, compared to a control condition.
Racial bias and in-group bias in virtual reality courtrooms. Bielen, S., Marneffe, W., & Mocan, N. 2021 Belgium 275 N/A N/A N/A within white vs non-white defendants non-white Belgians 3D video convictions and sentence harshness in a trial Perception of terrorism being a very important problem N/A Conviction rates are higher for defendant minority member defendant than for white defendants in 3D video staged trials, regardless of the evaluator’s group membership. In terms of sentence harshness there is ingroup bias overall.
Presence, what is is good for? Exploring the benefits of virtual reality at evoking empathy towards the marginalized Boehm, N. 2020 USA 199 66 84% White N/A between VR vs desktop version vs mere perspective-taking vs imagination exercises drug users 3D video drug user stereotypes Empathy: Interpersonal Reactivity Index scale presence was positively related to empathy A VR perspective taking intervention led to stronger feelings of physical presence than a desktop version. Feelings of presence were correlated with empathy towards drug users but did not differ between conditions.
Reducing Outgroup Bias through Intergroup Contact with Non-Playable Video Game Characters in VR Breves, P. 2020 Germany 86 50 100% White 20.9 between-subjects Helping a Black NPC in a non-VR video game
OR
Helping a white confederate
black people virtual agent black-white IAT; explicit prejudice against Blacks (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) N/A N/A Helping a Black video game character reduced explicit but not implicit bias towards Black people and more so when the game was played in a VR compared to desktop version.
Perspective-Taking in Virtual Reality and Reduction of Biases against Minorities (Study 1) Chen, V., Chan, S. & Tan, Y. 2021 Singapore 71 46 100% Singaporean Chinese 24.28 (sd = 1.75) between/mixed comparison between affective and cognitive instructions Malay Singaporean embodiment feeling thermometers towards ingroup and outgroup self-other overlap; empathic feelings N/A Experiencing an ethnic discrimination scene from the outgroup perspective led to less ingroup bias by decreasing ingroup attitudes, independently from whether participants received a cognitive or affective perspective-taking instruction.
The Effect of VR Avatar Embodiment on Improving Attitudes and Closeness Toward Immigrants Chen, V., Ibasco, G., Leow, V., & Lew, J. 2021 Singapore 171 58.5 100% Singaporean Chinese 22.43 (sd = 2.07) between ingroup embodiment PRC Chinese in Singapore embodiment feeling thermometer towards target outgroup empathy; Self-Other overlap social identity orientation Experiencing ethnicity-based discrimination embodying an immigrant outgroup avatar improves attitudes and closeness towards that group.
A Virtual Reality Simulation of Drug Users’ Everyday Life: The Effect of Supported Sensorimotor Contingencies on Empathy Christofi, M., Michael-Grigoriou, D., & Kyrlitsias, C. 2020 Cyprus 40 52.5 N/A N/A between-subjects same content presented on a desktop computer Drug users embodiment Attitudes towards drug users Empathy; Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale Interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) Self-reported attitudes towards drug users improved after experiencing different situations from a drug user’s perspective, both in a VR and a desktop application.
VR Disability Simulation Reduces Implicit Bias Towards Persons With Disabilities Chowdhury, T., Ferdous, S., & Quarles, J. 2021 USA 71 39 N/A 20.3 (sd = 4.6) between 2X2 design (interface: wheelchair vs gamepad; immersion: VR vs desktop) People with disabilities embodiment IAT towards with people with disabilities N/A N/A Embodying a person in a wheelchair in VR with a wheelchair interface reduced implicit bias against people with disabilities more than a desktop version and a gamepad.
A Wheelchair Locomotion Interface in a VR Disability Simulation Reduces Implicit Bias Chowdhury, T. & Quarles, J. 2021 USA 40 35 N/A 23.6 (sd = 3.1) between no wheelchair interface People with disabilities embodiment IAT towards with people with disabilities N/A Narrator abled vs disabled Self-reported attitudes towards drug users improved after experiencing different situations from a drug user’s perspective, both in a VR and a desktop application.
Influence of weight etiology information and trainee characteristics on Physician-trainees’ clinical and interpersonal communication. Cohen, R. W., & Persky, S. 2019 USA 119 52 55.5% White, 23.5% Asian, 21% Black, 3.4% Hispanic 26.3 between-subjects Reading an article unrelated to weight People with obesity virtual agent use of stigmatizing language; responsiveness to patient information needs; communication length; lifestyle counseling; lifestyle assumptions N/A N/A Physician trainees were more likely to talk about weight with and provide lifestyle counselling to virtual patients with obesity when they had just read articles about behavioural or genetic influences on weight relative to a control condition. In the behavioural condition, they also used more stigmatizing language and made more assumptions about patients’ lifestyle.
Using virtual reality to induce gratitude through virtual social interaction Collange, J., & Guegan, J. 2020 France 80 61 N/A 21 between-subjects Interaction with an ingroup avatar black people (Study 1) avatar social support intentions gratitude; impression formation (warmth and competence) N/A Receiving help from a virtual outgroup avatar increased participants’ willingness to offer social support to benefactors and this effect was mediated by perceived warmth.
Prosocial Virtual Reality, Empathy, and EEG Measures: A Pilot Study Aimed at Monitoring Emotional Processes in Intergroup Helping Behaviors D’Errico, F., Leone, G., Schmid, M., & D’Anna, C. 2020 Italy 40 47.5 100% White 23.8 between-subjects Interaction with an ingroup member black people 3D video empathy EEG-measured calmness, engagement, alertness social appearance White participants showed stronger self-reported and neurophysiological stress reactions as well as empathy when interacting in a helping situation with a White person with beggars’ clothes or a Black person in business attire than in the other conditions.
Reducing the schizophrenia stigma: A new approach based on augmented reality. de C. Silva, R. D., Albuquerque, S. G. C., de V. Muniz, A., Reboucas Filho, P. P., Ribeiro, S., Pinheiro, P. R., & Albuquerque, V. H. C. 2017 Brazil N/A N/A N/A N/A no control group N/A schizophrenia patients augmented reality Questionnaire about stigma N/A N/A Medical students showed increased empathy, pity, fear, stigma, and willingness to help towards patients with schizophrenia after using an augmented reality tool to simulate schizophrenia symptoms.
Virtual prejudice Dotsch, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. 2008 Netherlands 33 63.6 100% white 21.4 within-subjects Interaction with an ingroup avatar Moroccans (in the Netherlands) virtual agent (but not explicitly stated; remains passive) single-target IAT with Moroccan names; explicit prejudice; distance from outgroup avatar skin conductance N/A Participants kept more distance from a virtual agent with Moroccan vs White features, which was predicted by implicit attitudes towards Moroccans. The effect was mediated by skin conductance levels.
The behavioral dynamics of shooter bias in virtual reality: The role of race, armed status, and distance on threat perception and shooting dynamics Eiler, B. A. 2017 USA 61 N/A N/A N/A within-subjects Interaction with an ingroup avatar Black people virtual agent (but not explicitly stated; remains passive) race-weapon IAT; shooter bias heart rate; perceived threat distance from outgroup member and armed status (gun, phone, no object) Black virtual agents were perceived as more threatening and shot at more often than White virtual agents in a shooter bias paradigm.
Virtual Virgins and Vamps: The Effects of Exposure to Female Characters’ Sexualized Appearance and Gaze in an Immersive Virtual Environment Fox, J. & Bailenson, J. 2009 USA 83 48 38.6% White; 24.1% Asian/Asian-American; 13.3% Black/African/African-American; 10.8% Latino/Latina/Hispanic; 13.3% multiracial 20.82 (sd = 3.17; range = 18–34) between N/A Women virtual agent Ambivalent Sexism Inventory N/A N/A Participants self-reported stronger sexism after perceiving stereotypical vs counter-stereotypical female virtual avatars.
The Effect of Embodying a Woman Scientist in Virtual Reality on Men’s Gender Biases Freedman, G., Green, M.C., Seidman, M., Flanagan, M. 2021 USA 96 0 .3% African American or Black, 1.0% Arab/Middle Eastern, 31.3% Asian, Asian American, or Asian Canadian, 3.1% Hispanic/Latino, 47.9% White, 7.3% Multiracial, 2.1% other 19.79 (sd = 1.63) between/mixed embodying a male virtual body women embodiment Gender-Science IAT; explicit attitudes towards women in STEM (perceptions of the climate for women in STEM, stereotype endorsement) N/A N/A Participants didn’t show any improvement in implicit or explicit bias when embodying a female scientist avatar, compared to male avatars performing the same tasks. Game enjoyment was also unvaried between condition. There was no interaction between condition and reveal (early vs. late avatar gender reveal) on the main outcomes. Exploratory analyses showed that participants felt more positive emotions after playing.
Psychological response to an emergency in virtual reality: Effects of victim ethnicity and emergency type on helping behavior and navigation Gamberini, L., Chittaro, L., Spagnolli, A., & Carlesso, C. 2015 Italy 96 50 100% White 24 between-subjects Interaction with an ingroup avatar Black people virtual agent helping behaviour in an emergency situation N/A N/A In a virtual helping situation, White participants were less likely to help Black than White virtual agents under time pressure, but no differences were found in dangerous situation (fire in a building).
Being the Victim of Intimate Partner Violence in Virtual Reality: First- Versus Third-Person Perspective Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Zapata, L. E., Iruretagoyena, G., Seinfeld, S., Perez-Mendez, L., Arroyo-Palacios, J., Borland, D., Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V 2020 Spain 32 0 N/A 32 between-subjects N/A women embodiment gender IAT N/A N/A Men who experienced a situation of intimate partner violence while embodied in a female avatar showed stronger physiological and behavioural reactions and reported stronger feelings of identification with the victim, and of taking the scene personally than a third-person perspective control group.
The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments Groom, V., Bailenson, J. N., & Nass, C. 2009 USA 98 60 45.1 White, 21 Asian, 15.6 Black, 6.9 Hispanic, 7.8 Other N/A between-subjects Perspective-taking exercise (imagining a day in the life of Black person) Black people embodiment black-white IAT; interpersonal distance; Racial Argument Scale; Modern Racism Scale N/A N/A Participants showed stronger implicit bias against Black people after embodying a Black compared to White avatar.
Virtual Humans and Persuasion: The Effects of Agency and Behavioral Realism Guadagno, R. E., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J. N., & McCall, C. 2007 USA 65 (study 1) + 174 (study 2) 45 (study 1); 51 (study 2) N/A N/A between-subjects Interaction with male virtual agents Women virtual agent susceptibility to persuasion; dimensions of person perception N/A N/A Participants changed their attitudes more towards a virtual agent’s attitude when the virtual agent of the same gender as the participant rather than with a virtual agent of the other gender.
Conceptual knowledge and sensitization on Asperger’s syndrome based on the constructivist approach through virtual reality Hadjipanayi, C., & Michael-Grigoriou, D. 2020 Cyprus 40 50 N/A N/A between-subjects Reading a text about Asperger’s syndrome People with Asperger’s syndrome embodiment empathy; sensitization towards Asperger’s syndrome N/A N/A Participants who used a VR-based simulation of Aspergers gained more knowledge about the syndrome than participants who read about Aspergers.
Virtual race transformation reverses racial ingroup bias Hasler, B. S., Spanlang, B., & Slater, M. 2016 Spain 32 within-subjects embodying an ingroup avatar Black people embodiment black-white IAT; liking of the other person; mimicry N/A N/A White participants mimicked virtual agents more if their virtual avatar was of the same skin colour as the virtual agent’s than if there was discordance in skin colour, regardless of participants’ implicit race bias.
Virtual Peacemakers: Mimicry Increases Empathy in Simulated Contact with Virtual Outgroup Members Hasler, B. S., Hirschberger, G., Shani-Sherman, T., & Friedman, D. A. 2014 Israel 57 100 100% White N/A mixed counter-mimicking an outgroup virtual agent Palestinians virtual agent empathy; sympathy; self-other overlap; interaction harmony; outgroup affect N/A N/A Conversing with a virtual agent representing a Palestinian led to increased empathy, sympathy, more felt closeness, and to perceptions of a more harmonious interaction when the virtual agent mimicked the participant compared to counter-mimicry.
Virtual Reality-based Conflict Resolution: The Impact of Immersive 360° Video on Hasler, B., Hasson, Y., Landau, D., Eyal, N. S., Giron, J., Levy, J., Halperin, E., & Friedman, D 2020 Israel 100 0 100% Jewish Israeli 25.4 between-subjects Watching a video on a desktop computer Palestinians 3D video moral justification of soldiers’ actions perspective-taking; empathic emotions; hostile emotions; skin conductance N/A Jewish-Israeli participants who watched a 360° video of a conflict scenario between Israeli soldiers and a Palestinian couple judged the soldiers’ actions to be less moral and less justified and reported more hostile emotions towards the soldiers relative to a group who watched the video in 2D. These effects were mediated by a higher sense of presence and engagement in the 360° video.
The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts (Study 1) Hasson, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., Landau, D., Hasler, B. S., Levy, J., Friedman, D., & Halperin, E. 2019 Israel 112 71 100% Jewish Israeli 24.3 between-subjects Taking the ingroup’s perspective in the 360° video Palestinians 3D video empathy; fear of the targets; positive appraisals; Attribution of future benign intentions; support for economic compensation N/A N/A Jewish-Israeli participants who watched a 360° video of a conflict scenario between Israeli soldiers and a Palestinian couple from the outgroup’s point of view perceived Palestinians more positively than those who watched the scene from the ingroup point of view.
The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts (Study 2) Hasson, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., Landau, D., Hasler, B. S., Levy, J., Friedman, D., & Halperin, E. 2019 Israel 100 (55 at follow-up 5 months later) 77 100% Jewish Israeli 23.9 between-subjects Taking the ingroup’s perspective in the 360° video Palestinians 3D video empathy; fear of the targets; dehumanization; perceived threat; shoot/no-shoot dilemmas N/A N/A Jewish-Israeli participants who watched a 360° video of a conflict scenario between Israeli soldiers and a Palestinian couple from the outgroup’s point of view perceived Palestinians more positively and judged a real-world ingroup transgression five months later more harshly than those who watched the scene from the ingroup point of view.
The effect of gender, religiosity and personality on the interpersonal distance preference: a virtual reality study Hatami, J., Sharifian, M., Noorollahi, Z., & Fathipour, A. 2020 Iran 46 71 100% Iranian 23.8 between-subjects N/A Gender 3D video preferred distance from the outgroup target member N/A N/A Viewing actors in a 360° video, religious Iranian participants preferred further distances between themselves and opposite gender actors compared to non-religious Iranian participants.
The Virtual Doppelganger—Effects of a Virtual Reality Simulator on Perceptions of Schizophrenia Kalyanaraman, S. S., Penn, D. L., Ivory, J. D., & Judge, A. 2010 USA 112 52 N/A 22.2 between-subjects empathy-inducing instructions without use of VR People with Schizophrenia augmented reality Empathic feelings for people suffering from schizophrenia; social distance scale; attitudes N/A N/A Participants who underwent an augmented reality simulation of schizophrenia with an instruction to empathize with schizophrenia patients showed increases in empathy with and more positive perceptions of people with schizophrenia. Using the augmented reality apparatus without empathy instructions resulted in a stronger desire to keep social distance from people with schizophrenia.
Processing Racial Stereotypes in Virtual Reality: An Exploratory Study Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Kim, G., Buntain, N., Hirshfield, L., Costa, M. R., & Chock, T. M. 2019 USA 13 47 53.8 White, 23.1 Hispanic, 23.1 Asian N/A Within-subjects racially charged scene vs holiday scene Black people 3D video Brain activation in mPFC, right lPFC, left lPFC N/A N/A Viewing a racially-charged animated scene in VR led to stronger activation in the right and left lateral prefrontal cortex than viewing a holiday scene, indicating stronger stereotype activation and suppression in the racially charged scene.
A Virtual Reality Embodiment Technique to Enhance Helping Behavior of Police Towards a Victim of Police Racial Aggression Kishore, S., Spanlang, B., Iruretagoyena, G., Halan, S., Szostak, D., Slater, M. 2021 USA 38 17 N/A N/A within racially charged scene vs holiday scene Black people 3D video behavioral data based on ratings of participant actions and words (helping behaviour towards the victim) N/A N/A After witnessing an abusive questioning of an African American suspect in VR, US police officers were embodied in two different conditions, witness or victim. 3–4 weeks later, they experienced another abusive episode towards an African American person in a cafe, while embodying a White police officer. Participants in the victim condition showed greater support for the victim in the cafe situation.
Testing an Immersive Virtual Environment for Decreasing Intergroup Anxiety among University Students: An Interpersonal Perspective Kuuluvainen, V., Virtanen, I., Rikkonen, L., Isotalus, P. 2021 Finland 50 78 98% Finnish; 2% Finnish-Russian 27.6 (sd = 7.84; range = 19–49) between observer condition (no embodiment) Middle-Eastern people embodiment Intergroup anxiety survey N/A N/A watching a 3D video of a Middle-Eastern man talking about his life and interacting with his family decreases intergroup anxiety in participants, but there is no difference compared to the control group, which was exposed to the same video in 2D.
No Country for Old Men? Reducing Ageism Bias Through Virtual Reality Embodiment La Rocca, S., Brighenti, A., Tosi, G., & Daini, R. 2019 Italy 24 50 N/A 23.7 Within-subjects watched 30 years old hand being tapped; anatomical vs non-anatomical arm position elderly people 3D video Fraboni Ageism Scale; Age IAT N/A N/A Young adults showed decreased implicit age bias after having embodied a virtually old body whose arm was touched in synchrony with their own physical arm.
How Does Embodying a Transgender Narrative Influence Social Bias? An Explorative Study in an Artistic Context Lesur, M. R., Lyn, S., & Lenggenhager, B. 2020 Switzerland 114 36 N/A 34.1 between-subjects VR experience without transgender narrative Transgender people 3D video attitudes towards transgender people; IAT (short version) N/A N/A Embodying a Transgender body in 360° video with or without synchronous tactile stimulation did not change implicit transgender bias.
Humans adjust virtual comfort-distance towards an artificial agent depending on their sexual orientation and implicit prejudice against gay men Lisi, M.P., Fusaro, M., Tieri, G., Aglioti, S.M. 2021 Italy 72 50 N/A N/A (18–35) no control no control gender virtual agent interpersonal distance, explicit sexual prejudice and IAT N/A sexual orientation, gender, Heterosexual Men chose a larger distance toward the male avatar compared to Non-Heterosexual Men; also, among women, the heterosexual participants chose a larger distance toward the female avatar compared to the non-heterosexual ones.
Investigating Implicit Gender Bias and Embodiment of White Males in Virtual Reality with Full Body Visuomotor Synchrony Lopez, S., Yang, Y., Beltran, K., Kim, S. J., Hernandez, J. C., Simran, C., Yang, B., & Yuksel, B. F. 2019 USA 24 0 100% White 29.8 mixed Embodiment in an ingroup avatar Women embodiment gender IAT N/A N/A Male participants who practiced Tai-Chi in a female virtual body showed increases in implicit gender bias while those doing the same exercise with a male virtual body did not show significant changes.
Mitigating Negative Effects of Immersive Virtual Avatars on Racial Bias Maloney, D. 2018 USA 26 0 100% White N/A mixed Embodiment in an ingroup avatar Black people embodiment IAT N/A N/A White participants who conducted a virtual shooter game showed stronger implicit race bias against Black people when being embodied in a Black relative to White avatar.
Who is Credible (and Where)? Using Virtual Reality to Examine Credibility and Bias of Perceived Race/Ethnicity in Urban/Suburban Environments Marino, M. I., Bilge, N., Gutsche, R. E., & Holt, L. 2020 USA 248 N/A 66% Hispanic, 15% White, 14% Black, 3% Asian, 2% Native American or other mixed Interaction with an ingroup avatar Hispanics in the US 3D video attitudes about the neighborhood; opinion of the information source (outgroup member); opinions
of those who disliked the information source (outgroup member); attribution of a crime to the target outgroup member
N/A N/A Participants visited the scene of a break-in in a 360° video, received a description of the robber from an actor, and then judged the source’s credibility. Ratings of the source were more negative when the source was supposedly from negatively evaluated neighbourhoods.
Proxemic behaviors as predictors of aggression towards Black (but not White) males in an immersive virtual environment McCall, C., Blascovich, J., Young, A., & Persky, S. 2009 USA 47 26 68% White, 17% Hispanic, 8.5% Asian, 2.1% multiracial, 4.2% no identification N/A between-subjects Interaction with an ingroup avatar Black people virtual agent distance kept from target; shooting game; feelings towards virtual agents N/A N/A Participants’ proxemic behaviours (interpersonal distance and head movements) towards virtual agents were predictive of later shooting behaviour against these agents only for Black but not for White agents.
Through Pink and Blue Glasses: Designing a Dispositional Empathy Game Using Gender Stereotypes and Virtual Reality Muller, D. A., Van Kessel, C. R., & Janssen, S. 2017 Netherlands 19 N/A N/A N/A between-subjects N/A Gender virtual agents empathy; willingness to act against sexism N/A N/A Experiencing a virtual simulation of sex-discrimination situations from the point of view of both men and women led participants to self-report more dispositional empathy and perspective-taking and willingness to act in future discrimination situations.
Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. (Study 1) Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. 2016 USA 148 64 43% White, 32% Asian, 11% Latino, 7% Black, 7% other 21) within-subjects Perspective taking exercise elderly people embodiment perceived threat; explicit ageism; self-other overlap; future communication intentions N/A N/A When confronted with intergenerational threat, young adult participants reported more self-other overlap with older adults after a perspective-taking exercise, especially when this was supported with the experience of embodying an avatar representing an older person.
Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. (Study 2) Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. 2016 USA 84 55 54% White, 12% Asian, 8% Latino, 13% Black, 13% Other N/A between-subjects Perspective taking exercise elderly people embodiment perceived threat; self-other overlap; future communication intentions; affect misattribution procedure; empathic listening task N/A N/A Being socially excluded by older adults in a ball toss game, young adult participants showed less self-other overlap and more implicit preference for young over older people and this could not be overcome by an empathy task nor by embodying an older adult’s virtual avatar.
Evidence of Racial Bias Using Immersive Virtual Reality: Analysis of Head and Hand Motions During Shooting Decisions Peck, T. C., Good, J. J., & Seitz, K. 2021 USA 99 56 80 White, 9 Asian, 8 Hispanic, 3 Black, 1 multi-racial 23.1 Within-subjects Interaction with ingroup avatars Black people virtual agent shooter bias (accuracy, latency, motion paths, bias scores) N/A Socioeconomic Status Performing a shooter task in immersive virtual reality, participants showed no racial or socioeconomic bias in terms of latency to shoot but head and hand motion analyses predicted participants’ implicit racial bias.
Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias Peck, T. C., Seinfeld, S., Aglioti, S. M., & Slater, M 2013 Spain 60 100 N/A N/A between-subjects embodying an ingroup or "alien-skinned" avatar OR seeing a non-embodied black-skinned virtual body Black people embodiment race IAT N/A N/A White participants who embodied a Black avatar reduced their implicit bias towards Black people more than participants embodying avatars with white or purple skin.
Virtual Reality and Political Outgroup Contact: Can Avatar Customization and Common Ingroup Identity Reduce Social Distance? Peña, J., Wolff, G., Wojcieszak, M. 2021 USA 149 100 38.2% Asian, 27.2% Latino, 29.9% Caucasian, 2.3% African American, 2.4% other 20.3 (sd = 2.04) between embodying an avatar that looked like someone else; priming common ingroup identity (based on gender) political outgroup virtual agent self-reported social distance female identity salience N/A A sample of liberal women were either embodied in an avatar they customized to resemble themselves or someone else, and had their female identity either primed or not. They all met in VR a virtual agent representing a conservative woman. While avatar customization had an influence on social distance towards the political opponent, common ingroup identity priming did not. Female identity salience was found not to mediate the latter relationship.
Medical student bias and care recommendations for an obese versus non-obese virtual patient Persky, S., & Eccleston, C. P. 2011 USA 76 57 59% White, 32% Asian, 14% Black, 3% Hispanic 26.2 between-subjects Interaction with ingroup avatar Obese people virtual agent negative stereotyping; belief about patients’ health; perceptions of patients’ adherence; perception of patients’ responsibility; visual contact; clinical recommendations N/A N/A Medical students interacting with an obese (vs non-obese) virtual patient displayed more stereotyping, perceived the patient’s health to be worse, attributed more responsibility, anticipated less patient adherence, and made less visual contact with the patient but did their clinical recommendations were unaffected by weight status.
An Investigation Into The Impact of Virtual Reality Character Presentation on Participants’ Depression Stigma Redmond, D., Hennessey, E., O’Connor, C., Balint, K., Parsons, T.D., Rooney, B. 2019 N/A 54 48 N/A 22.06 (sd = 5.61) between vignette not priming depression; virtual agent trying to make eye contact people with depression virtual agent personal stigma and perceived stigma towards depression N/A N/A Participants met a male virtual agent in a cafe after reading a vignette either representing depression or not, while the virtual agent was either seeking eye contact with the participant or avoiding it. Neither experimental condition affected participants’ level of stigma towards people with depression.
Cultivating Empathy Through Virtual Reality: Advancing Conversations About Racism, Inequity, and Climate in Medicine Roswell, R. O., Cogburn, C. D., Tocco, J., Martinez, J., Bangeranye, C., Bailenson, J. N., Wright, M., Mieres, J. H., & Smith, L. 2020 USA 76 N/A N/A N/A Within-subjects N/A Black people 3D video empathy; emotions regarding discrimination; experiences (qualitative data) N/A N/A Participants of professional development sessions for medical school and health system leaders, faculty, and staff experienced three racial discrimination scenarios from the perspective of a Black male. Afterwards they reported more empathy towards minorities and felt that the experience helped them understand the experiences of other people.
The impact of virtual reality on implicit racial bias and mock legal decisions Salmanowitz, N. 2018 USA 92 50 100% White 28 between-subjects experiencing the scenario without a virtual body Black people embodiment Race IAT; Explicit attitudes re: race and gender (SRS, MSS); decision in mock crime scenario; follow-up after 5 days: another mock crime scenario and questions re: severity, likelihood of reoffending, an severity of sentence N/A N/A After embodying a Black avatar, participants showed lower implicit racial bias and evaluated an ambiguous legal case more conservatively compared to participants who were immersed in a virtual world but did not embody an avatar.
The Effects of Embodiment in Virtual Reality on Implicit Gender Bias Schulze, S., Pence, T., Irvine, N., & Guinn, C. 2019 USA 16 31 93.8 White, 6.2 Black N/A between-subjects embodying a male avatar Women embodiment IAT "women and leadership" N/A N/A Male and female participants were embodied in male or female avatars in an environment associated with leadership. Across all conditions there was a trend towards increased implicit bias against women in leadership positions.
Shooter Bias in Virtual Reality: The Effect of Avatar Race and Socioeconomic Status on Shooting Decisions Seitz, K. R., Good, J. J., & Peck, T. C. 2020 USA 50 N/A N/A N/A between-subjects Interaction with ingroup members Black people virtual agent shooter bias N/A N/A Participants in an immersive virtual shooter bias paradigm made fewer errors in trials with Black compared to White targets and were faster to shoot at agents that represented low, compared to high, socio-economic status and this was most pronounced for Black agents.
"I’m a Computer Scientist!": Virtual Reality Experience Influences Stereotype Threat and STEM Motivation Among Undergraduate Women Starr, C. R., Anderson, B. R., & Green, K. A. 2019 USA 79 100 46% Asian, 32% Latina, 14% White, 4% multiethnic 20.3 within-subjects embodying a woman working in humanities Women embodiment Self-STEM IAT; Gender-STEM IAT; Stereotype threat; expectancy beliefs; value beliefs N/A N/A Female participants who embodied an avatar who had a successful career in science or technology showed (compared to a control condition that showed a career in humanities) higher course motivation, lower anticipated stereotype threat, stronger implicit associations between women and science/technology if they identified with the VR experience.
Can intergroup contact in virtual reality (Vr) reduce stigmatization against people with schizophrenia? Stelzmann, D., Toth, R., & Schieferdecker, D. 2021 Germany 114 58 N/A 24 (sd = 6.6) between watching the same video in 2D; other control condition (not specified) schizophrenia patients 3D video anxiety, social proximity, empathy, and benevolence N/A N/A Participants either watched a 3D or 2D video about a male schizophrenic patient describing life with schizophrenia, or were sorted in the control group. VR increased stigmatization of schizophrenic patients compared to the 2D condition, while it had no effects compared to the control condition.
Body swapping with a Black person boosts empathy: Using virtual reality to embody another Thériault, R., Olson, J.A., Krol, S.A., & Raz, A. 2021 Canada 90 71 71% female, 29% male; 87% students; 50% White, 26% Asian, 17% South-Asian, 7% other 22.2 (sd = 3.0) between mental perspective-taking exercise; no intergroup contact Black people embodiment explicit measures, IAT, and empathy N/A N/A Participants took the experiment with a Black person (confederate). Those in the experimental condition embodied said confederate’s virtual body and saw through their perspective, while in the mental perspective-taking condition they had to imagine a day in the life of the confederate. No intergroup contact took place in the control condition. While the use of VR incresed empathy compared to the control condition, there was no difference between the VR condition and the mental perspective-taking condition.
The design and evaluation of a body-sensing video game to foster empathy towards chronic pain patients Tong, X., Ulas, S., Jin, W., Gromala, D., & Shaw, C. 2017 Canada 15 27 N/A 24.8 Within-subjects N/A Chronic pain patients embodiment Pommier Compassion Scale; Willingness to Help Scale N/A N/A Participants showed stronger willingness to help with people living with chronic pain after embodying an avatar that simulated everyday situations from the point of view of people with chronic pain.
HIV-related stigma in social interactions: Approach and avoidance behaviour in a virtual environment Toppenberg, H. L., Bos, A. E. R., Ruiter, R. A. C., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Pryor, J. B. 2015 Netherlands 50 74 N/A 22.3 Within-subjects Interaction with an ingroup avatar HIV patients and homosexual men virtual agent Interpersonal distance; approach and walking away speed; time looking at virtual agent; homosexuality IAT; explicit attitudes towards homosexuals N/A N/A When interacting with virtual agents in a virtual hospital setting, participants kept a larger interpersonal distance and approached the agent faster when the agent was depicted to have HIV rather than cancer, especially when the agent was depicted as being homosexual. HIV patients were looked at more often and less looked away from than other patients. Effects were unrelated to implicit and explicit attitudes.
HIV status acknowledgment and stigma reduction in virtual reality: The moderating role of perceivers’ attitudes. Toppenberg, H. L., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Bos, A. E. R. 2019 Netherlands 58 52 N/A 22.7 within-subjects N/A HIV patients virtual agent HIV-IAT; explicit attitudes towards people with HIV N/A N/A In a virtual job interview situation, participants evaluated HIV-positive virtual job applicants as more competent if they acknowledged their disease status and if explicit attitudes towards people living with HIV were positive. Applications were evaluated more highly if they were not responsible for their infection.
The Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality in Reducing Public Stigma of Mental Illness in the University Population of Hong Kong: Randomized Controlled Trial Yuen, A. S. Y. & Mak, W. W. S. 2021 Hong Kong 206 55.3 N/A 21.76 (sd = 5.04, range: 18–64) between/mixed reading a written text from the perspective of a person with anxiety and depressive disorder; no intergroup contact condition people with anxiety and depressive disorders embodiment public stigma towards people with mental illness (self-report) sense of embodiment; story transportation N/A Embodying a person with anxiety and depressive disorders significantly reduced public stigma compared to the control condition, but not to the text condition. Both the embodied and text conditions have significant effects on public stigma over time (both at post-test and follow-up). Sense of embodiment and story transportation are sequential mediators of the effect of condition on public stigma.
Enfacing a female reduces the gender–science stereotype in males Zhang, X., Hommel, B., & Ma, K. 2021 China 97 100 N/A 21.49 (sd = 1.43, range: 19–25) between/mixed enfaced avatar with asynchronous movements Women in science embodiment Gender-Science IAT N/A N/A Participants enfaced in a female virtual avatar with synchronous movements showed decreased prejudice towards women in science after the experience compared to participants assigned to the control group (enfaced in female avatars with asynchronous movements).

We applied the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool [45] to assess risk of bias for all included studies. The risk of bias in each study was judged as high, low, or unclear, on each of the following domains: selection bias, performance bias (on experimenter and participant level), detection bias, attrition bias (on participant level as well as outcome level), and reporting bias. Both authors independently assessed the risk of bias on all studies and disagreements were solved through discussion between the coders. Appendix 1 provides an overview of the distribution of risks of bias (low, unclear, high) across studies.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive results: Studying prejudice in VR

We found altogether 64 eligible original studies. A list of the included studies can be found in Table 1. Of the 64 studies included in the review, 10 are observational, that is, their main aim is to assess intergroup attitudes in VR, with the remaining studies delivering interventions aimed at decreasing participants’ prejudice. All of the 10 observational designs fall into the majority perspective classification, and either focus on tribal stigma (7 studies) or intersectional stigma (3 studies). Only four of the included studies encompass longitudinal measures. The majority (k = 38) of included studies use a between-subjects design, 16 studies a within-subjects design, eight studies opt for a mixed within-between subjects designs, and finally two studies did not employ any control condition.

It is worth pointing out that 32 of the included studies, accounting for half of the total number, was published between 2020 and 2022, showing the growing interest and the rapid progress of research in the field. Of the remaining studies, 23 were published between 2015 and 2019, and 9 before 2014, the earliest publication being dated in 2007.

In terms of intergroup contact, in 28 of the included studies, participants are embodied in an avatar resembling an outgroup member, for example White participants being embodied in a Black avatar or male participants in a female avatar. 18 studies have participants interacting with a virtual agent, that is a virtual character steered by the computer, while only three studies use an avatar controlled by the experimenter. 13 studies present participants with 3D videos and in two studies, participants use augmented reality that enhances the perception of the real world with optical and auditory hallucinations as experienced by people living with schizophrenia.

The most commonly studied outcomes are explicit (k = 37) and implicit attitudes (k = 25) towards the target group with some form of the Implicit Association Test [11] being the most commonly used measure for the latter. Following the narrative of VR being an “empathy machine” [46,47], many studies include measures of empathy, sympathy, pity, self-other overlap, or willingness to help in the future (k = 19 studies using at least one such measure). Neurophysiological measures like heart rate, skin conductance, electroencephalography (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are applied much more rarely to examine physiological or neural activation patterns of prejudice during the experiments (k = 5). It is noteworthy that across studies, a wide range of different questionnaires, tasks, and measures is administered with seemingly no emerging standards in the field.

Lastly, 30 out of 64 studies control for the successfulness of the VR experience in terms of immersion, body ownership, or spatial presence, while the remaining ones failed to measure any related variable.

4.2. The effect of intergroup contact in VR on intergroup attitudes

The following paragraphs describe results from the included studies with a specific focus on the kind of contact experience created in VR, the kind of stigma that the outgroups represented, the outcome measures used to examine prejudice and intergroup bias, and the psychological mechanisms and moderating variables that have been studied. In our presentation of results, we place a special emphasis on key studies that we consider as positive examples in terms of rigorous methods and the results of which appear more trustworthy.

4.2.1. Types of contact

Two major forms of contact emerge from the analysed 64 studies: from the ingroup perspective, which is to say that participants belonging to a majority group interact in VR with avatars or virtual agents representing a stigmatised outgroup (k = 28); and from the outgroup perspective, meaning that the participant belonging to the majority group lives the virtual experience from a minority outgroup member’s perspective (k = 36). In both types of designs, the subject does not always steer a virtual body: in some cases (k = 13), participants experience contact from a non-embodied virtual perspective using 360° videos, like for example in studies by Hasson et al. [48] and Lesur et al. [49]. Given that experiencing contact from the outgroup perspective is unique to VR, embodiment is by far the preferred method in the designs from a minority perspective (aside from a few exceptions, e.g. [49]), while those using a majority perspective are more often relying on a disembodied point of view (e.g. [50,51]). For a more precise overview of the methods chosen by each study, see Table 1.

When it comes to studies aiming at assessing prejudice in VR, only 3 out of 16 exploit the point of view of a minority group member. All of them seem to suggest that embodying an outgroup (minority group) member leads to positive outcomes such as increased empathy [52,53] and less implicit [53,54] and explicit [53] prejudice. Of the remaining 13 using the majority group perspective, most show that real-world prejudice can also be demonstrated in VR. For example, a pioneering randomised controlled trial by Dotsch and Wigboldus [55] has used behavioural (the distance participants kept from avatars) and physiological (skin conductance responses) measures to show that participants exhibited higher prejudice towards Moroccan virtual agents rather than White ones.

In studies that adopt the majority perspective approach to prejudice (k = 28), both implicit and explicit measures of intergroup attitudes have been used providing somewhat inconsistent results. While some evidence [56,57] seems to suggest a decrease in prejudice towards minority outgroups following intergroup contact in VR, others [5860] fail to obtain any significant change.

The same controversy appears when looking at the intervention studies carried out from a majority perspective, which mostly show a solid persistence of prejudice towards stigmatised minorities [51,55,6169] Two recent studies [70,71] even report increased prejudice towards the contacted outgroup using explicit measures.

Among the intervention studies aiming at prejudice reduction through the majority perspective, two randomised controlled trials emerge [59,71]. While they both resort to explicit measures only, they have discording findings in that Kuuluvainen and colleagues [59] fail to find any improvement in intergroup anxiety after exposing White participants to virtual intergroup contact with a Middle Eastern man, compared to exposure to the same material in 2D. On the other hand, Peña et al. [71] have shown that participants who contacted a virtual outgroup member while embodying an avatar that resembled themselves, reported increased social distance towards the contacted political outgroup.

The results of the studies that adopt a minority perspective as a strategy to reduce prejudice (k = 36) are similarly mixed. For example, a randomised controlled trial exclusively targeting police officers [72] analysed participants’ behavioural responses after being embodied in a Black suspect that was abused by another police officer, and eventually found greater helping behaviour up to one month after the VR experience. Banakou et al. [73] also show that experiencing the world from the minority outgroup’s (i.e. Black people) perspective improves attitudes towards that group, and so do Peck et al. [74], Salmanowitz [75], Christofi et al. [76], Chen et al. [77,78], Chowdhury et al. [79], Tong et al. [53,80], and Zhang et al. [81]. However, other studies contest these findings by showing that intergroup contact experienced from the minority perspective does not necessarily have any effect on intergroup attitudes. Lastly, some scholars have found that impersonating an outgroup member may even worsen intergroup attitudes [8286].

While more investigation is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms leading to increased prejudice in VR following the embodiment in an outgroup member, there is initial evidence suggesting that experiencing unpleasant circumstances in the skin of an outgroup member may lead to worsened attitudes rather than improved perspective taking towards the stigmatised outgroup. In the reviewed set of studies this was the case when participants experienced the point of view of people affected by Asperger syndrome [83], experienced schizophrenia symptoms simulated by augmented reality [84], or when White participants were embodied in a Black avatar [82]. To further validate this hypothesis, Banakou et al. [82] suggest that when participants experience negative affect while embodying outgroup members, their implicit bias against that group increases. The negative affect condition in this methodologically sound study was implemented as virtual passers-by displaying negative facial expressions, staring right at the participant, and changing direction to avoid participants. Whereas Kishore et al. [72] reach opposite conclusions, it is worth pointing out that their trial had a significantly smaller sample size, which makes those findings less reliable. We will next examine potential target-specific effects of VR contact more thoroughly, and then move to mediators and moderators of the effect of VR contact on prejudice in section 4.2.4.

4.2.2 Types of stigma

Of the 64 articles found eligible for inclusion, 31 focus on tribal stigma, with most studies focusing on contact with avatars representing outgroups of African ethnic background. 13 studies deal with deviations in personal traits (e.g. schizophrenia, HIV, substance abuse), and 8 with stigma deriving from overt or external deformations. Of the latter, 4 target elderly people, 2 people with physical disabilities, and 2 individuals with obesity. Finally, among the 12 studies targeting intersectional types of stigma, one tackles prejudice towards transgender people, and the remaining ones towards women.

Different correlational designs exploring intergroup bias [55,61,87] confirm persisting bias against people with African background in VR, including studies that show persistence of the “shooter bias” (i.e. that participants tend to shoot more often and faster at Black rather than White targets in ambiguous shooting situations, [88]) in VR [62,66,68].

However, there is also evidence that both intergroup contact [56,72] and embodiment in an outgroup avatar [74,77,78] in VR can successfully be used to decrease racial bias. Furthermore, evidence by Hasler et al. [56] and Hasson et al. [48] suggests that the effect of VR contact is not specific for interracial attitudes, but can also improve in other, critical intergroup conflict situations: both studies showed that Jewish Israelis’ attitude towards Palestinians could be improved using VR. While participants in Hasler et al.’s [56] study achieved this through a discussion with an outgroup avatar, Hasson and colleagues [48] obtained positive results using 3D videos to present the outgroup’s perspective.

While positive VR interaction has shown its potential in reduction of racial prejudice, as already discussed above, there is some contrasting evidence of the effect of embodiment in a racial minority group member in VR on intergroup attitudes. Namely, there are results showing that embodying Black avatars can also lead to worsened implicit attitudes in White participants [89]. The previously mentioned study by Banakou et al. [82] shows that negative contact conditions when embodying a Black avatar and the associated affective reaction can be one explanatory factor for this effect. On the other hand, Kishore et al. [72] find that being embodied in a Black avatar targeted by discriminating behaviour leads to greater helping behaviour. Finally, two trials using either embodiment in an outgroup avatar [90] or 3D videos of an interaction with a Middle Eastern man [59], fail to find any improvement in intergroup attitudes compared to the control group.

When it comes to deviations in personal traits, Toppenberg et al. [51,69] show that implicit bias towards people living with HIV persists even in VR, and that evaluations were more positive when they perceived responsibility for the condition was low. While Tong et al. [53,80] take it a step further, proving that being embodied in chronic pain patients improve self-reported attitudes and willingness to help, contrasting evidence is brought by designs using augmented reality to simulate schizophrenia symptoms. Interestingly, while de Silva et al. [91] show increased empathy towards schizophrenic patients following an augmented reality experience, Kalyanaraman et al. [84] suggest that such embodied experience may lead to a desire for keeping a greater distance towards them. Stelzmann et al. [70] also find stronger stigmatisation of people with schizophrenia after facing an outgroup member in a 3D video. Hadjipanayi and Michel-Grigoriou [83] reach similar conclusions following embodiment in people with Asperger syndrome. Interestingly, Peña et al. [71] suggest that embodying an avatar that physically resembles the self leads to increased social distance towards a contacted political outgroup. Finally, Yuen et al. [92] fail to find any difference between VR embodiment in a subject with depressive symptoms compared to text-based perspective-taking.

As far as stigma due to overt or external deformations is concerned, Persky and Eccleston [67] show that obese virtual patients are object to prejudiced treatment when dealing with health professionals. Chowdhury et al. [79] find a decrease in prejudice towards wheelchair users following virtual embodiment. Moreover, a contrasting trend is shown by Banakou et al. [93], who have found embodiment in an elderly individual with high IQ improves implicit attitudes toward elderly people, and Oh et al. [94], whose subjects did not show any improvement in attitudes after being embodied in an elderly woman.

Lastly, designs dealing with intersectional stigma highlight the same pattern of mixed evidence when it comes to interventions. Indeed, while some fail to find any positive effect of intergroup VR contact [49] and embodiment in an outgroup member [95], others show improved attitudes can be a result of both methods [57,81]. On the other hand, two studies [85,86] suggest that embodying male individuals in female avatars may also lead to the deterioration of implicit attitudes, even when the performed task is not supposed to elicit any negative affect (i.e. a Tai-Chi class). Observational studies on intersectional stigma confirmed the endurance of gender-based bias [63,64], and bias based on sexual orientation [96].

The results above reinforce the hypothesis that factors such as the degree of immersion and the valence (positive or pleasant vs negative or unpleasant) of the embodied experience may play a primary role in the success or failure to reduce prejudice following embodiment in an outgroup member.

4.2.3. Outcome measure

Given the previously discussed and widely studied differences between explicit and implicit measures of prejudice, it is worth discussing the findings also on the basis of their outcome measures. We chose not to focus on results obtained through physiological and neurological measures, due to them being severely underrepresented in the included studies. Specifically, only 5 of the included studies include a neurophysiological measure of prejudice, as compared to 37 that assess explicit, and 25 implicit attitudes. Of those, 10 assess prejudice with both implicit and explicit measures.

Twelve out of 25 studies examining implicit intergroup attitudes represent intervention studies and rely on IAT to assess intergroup bias. Of those, Lopez et al. [85] and Schulze et al. [86] found that implicit attitudes further deteriorated after the intervention, while Banakou et al. [73,93], Peck et al. [74], Starr et al. [54], and Zhang et al. [81] highlight a clear improvement in implicit attitudes following exposure to VR contact. Notably, all intervention studies assessing implicit attitudes are based on embodiment of an outgroup member.

By contrast, sixteen studies enacting bias-reducing interventions exclusively used explicit measures. A considerable number of them found a decrease in prejudice following embodiment in an outgroup member [52,53,7678,80,92]. Two studies by Peña et al. [71] and Steltzmann et al. [70] conversely found increased levels of prejudice after engaging in virtual intergroup contact with an outgroup member, and Hadjipanayi and Michel-Grigoriou [83] and Kalyanaraman et al. [84] obtain similar results through embodiment of an outgroup member.

Lastly, sixteen intervention studies include both implicit and explicit measures of prejudice, of which nine focus on a majority perspective. Whereas three of them report a decrease in intergroup bias assessed through implicit measures after embodiment of an outgroup member, but no significant change in explicit ones [75,82,97], Breves [40] only found a decrease in prejudice through explicit measures, but no effect on implicit ones. Finally, Groom et al. [89] show that embodying an outgroup member in a work interview leads to worse implicit attitudes but has no effect on explicit ones. No intervention study taking into consideration both implicit and explicit measures of prejudice has found converging results, but as already pointed out earlier, these two types of measurements are often discordant, most likely due to social desirability effects (for an overview of the discussion about the discordance between implicit and explicit measures, see e.g., [13,98101]). In addition, most studies employing implicit measures used embodiment of an outgroup member as an intervention which might be more likely to change implicit rather than explicit attitudes. In summary, it seems like implicit measures unveil potential effects of VR-based interventions that might not appear in explicit measures of intergroup attitudes.

4.2.4. Mediators and moderators

It is widely established that intergroup contact reduces prejudice through both affective (i.e. empathy, intergroup anxiety) and cognitive mediators (i.e. perspective taking, increased familiarity, and knowledge; see [25] for a review). Fourteen studies encompass an analysis of potential mediating mechanisms explaining the effect of VR contact on prejudice. Among those, six are observational studies. Two of them suggest that physiological measures have great potential to elucidate mechanisms accounting for prejudice in VR. Specifically, [61] have found an association between EEG-measured alertness and attitudes, while Dotsch and Wigboldus [55] have observed that measures of skin conductance are correlated to implicit attitudes towards the target minority. On the other hand, regarding potential psychological mediators, Eiler [62] have found no mediation of perceived threat on prejudiced behaviour, nor Bielen et al. [87] of concern about terrorism when judging minority defendants in a court trial.

When it comes to prejudice-reducing interventions, evidence emerges that the positive effect of VR contact is due to emotional mediators, such as feeling more closeness to the prejudiced target [76] and perceiving them as warmer [58]. Empathy has also been found to be a mediator of VR contact when it comes to embodying an outgroup member [77]. Furthermore, Hasler et al. [102] interestingly show that feelings of presence in VR had a mediating effect on the negative affect toward the majority ingroup, when experiencing a conflict scenario from the outgroup’s (minority) perspective. Lastly, Peña et al. [71] showed that inducing identity salience does not mediate changes in prejudice.

Thirteen studies include moderation analyses. Among the ones delivering interventions, few studies investigated individual differences as moderating variables. Christofi et al. [76] have found that differences in trait empathy moderate the improvement of attitudes towards the outgroup, with individuals higher in empathy showing less bias after VR contact than those low in empathy. Additionally, two studies investigated social identification as a moderating variable on the effects of embodying an outgroup avatar. Chen et al. [77] show that participants generally placing greater importance on their various group memberships show stronger intervention effects, namely greater increase in self-other overlap with the embodied ethnic outgroup. Starr et al. [54] suggest that higher identifiers with the embodied avatar experience greater decrease in intergroup bias.

When it comes to moderators linked to specific features of the VR experience, Chowdhury et al. [79] interestingly found that a disabled narrator led to greater decrease in prejudice against disabled people, when embodying a wheelchair user. In addition, Banakou et al. [82] show that the valence of intergroup contact while embodying an outgroup member moderates the change in attitudes towards the embodied minority (with more positive contact resulting in a more positive change), while the number of exposures to the same kind of embodiment-based intervention does not [73]. Finally, Peña et al. [71] found that participants customising their own avatar to look like themselves eventually expressed desire for greater social distance from the contacted outgroup following the interaction.

The observational studies using the shooter bias paradigm revealed no effect of distance and armed status on difference of shooting behaviour towards majority or minority members [62], but a moderation effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on shooting accuracy [103], with subjects making fewer mistakes when facing high-SES targets.

4.3 Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias assessment (see Table 2 for the detailed risk of bias assessment and S1 Table in S1 Checklist for the overview) showed that a large proportion of studies did not report specifically how participants were assigned to conditions. Relatedly, it was also often unclear to what degree experimenters and participants were aware of which condition participants were assigned to, inducing risk for performance biases in both participants and experimenters.

Table 2. Risk of bias assessment for all studies following the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool (Higgins et al., 2019).

As detection bias is assessed for each outcome separately, we classified the different outcomes when more than one was reported in a study and rated the risk of bias for each class of outcomes (e.g. IAT; self-reports; physiological recordings) as low, unclear, or high.

Detection bias (rated for each outcome)
Title Authors Selection bias: random sequence generation Selection bias: allocation concealment Performance bias: experimenter Performance bias: participant rated outcome rating rated outcome rating rated outcome rating Attrition bias (participants) Attrition bias (outcome) Reporting bias
Contact in VR: Testing Avatar
Customisation and Common Ingroup Identity Cues on Outgroup Bias Reduction
Alvidrez, S. & Peña, J. unclear unclear high low self-report unclear -- -- -- -- unclear unclear low
Verbal Mimicry Predicts Social Distance and Social Attraction to an Outgroup Member in Virtual Reality Alvidrez, S. & Peña, J. unclear unclear high low self-report unclear verbal distance low -- -- unclear unclear low
Virtual body ownership and its consequences for implicit racial bias are dependent on social context Banakou, D., Beacco, A., Neyret, S., Blasco-Oliver, M., Seinfeld, S., & Slater, M. high unclear unclear unclear IAT low self-reported prejudice high -- -- unclear unclear low
Virtual Embodiment of White People in a Black Virtual Body Leads to a Sustained Reduction in Their Implicit Racial Bias Banakou, D., Hanumanthu, P. D., & Slater, M. unclear unclear unclear unclear IAT low self-reported prejudice high -- -- unclear unclear low
Virtually Being Einstein Results in an Improvement in Cognitive Task Performance and a Decrease in Age Bias Banakou, D., Kishore, S., & Slater, M. unclear unclear unclear unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- unclear unclear low
Racial bias and in-group bias in virtual reality courtrooms. Bielen, S., Marneffe, W., & Mocan, N. unclear unclear unclear unclear judgments unclear concern about terrorism unclear -- -- unclear unclear unclear
Presence, what is is good for? Exploring the benefits of virtual reality at evoking empathy towards the marginalized Boehm, N. unclear unclear high unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low unclear low
Reducing Outgroup Bias through Intergroup Contact with Non-Playable Video Game Characters in VR Breves, P. unclear low high low IAT low -- -- -- -- unclear unclear low
Perspective-Taking in Virtual Reality and Reduction of Biases against Minorities (Study 1) Chen, V., Chan, S. & Tan, Y. unclear unclear unclear unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- unclear unclear low
The Effect of VR Avatar Embodiment on Improving Attitudes and Closeness Toward Immigrants Chen, V., Ibasco, G., Leow, V., & Lew, J. unclear unclear unclear unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low unclear
A Virtual Reality Simulation of Drug Users’ Everyday Life: The Effect of Supported Sensorimotor Contingencies on Empathy Christofi, M., Michael-Grigoriou, D., & Kyrlitsias, C. unclear high high high self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
VR Disability Simulation Reduces Implicit Bias Towards Persons With Disabilities Chowdhury, T., Ferdous, S., & Quarles, J. unclear unclear high unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- low unclear unclear
A Wheelchair Locomotion Interface in a VR Disability Simulation Reduces Implicit Bias Chowdhury, T. & Quarles, J. unclear unclear high unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- low unclear unclear
Influence of weight etiology information and trainee characteristics on Physician-trainees’ clinical and interpersonal communication. Cohen, R. W., & Persky, S. unclear unclear unclear unclear communication outcomes low -- -- -- -- low low low
Using virtual reality to induce gratitude through virtual social interaction Collange, J., & Guegan, J. unclear high high low self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
Prosocial Virtual Reality, Empathy, and EEG Measures: A Pilot Study Aimed at Monitoring Emotional Processes in Intergroup Helping Behaviors D’Errico, F., Leone, G., Schmid, M., & D’Anna, C. unclear unclear unclear unclear EEG measures low -- -- -- -- low low low
Reducing the schizophrenia stigma: A new approach based on augmented reality. de C. Silva, R. D., Albuquerque, S. G. C., de V. Muniz, A., Reboucas Filho, P. P., Ribeiro, S., Pinheiro, P. R., & Albuquerque, V. H. C. high high N/A N/A self-reports high -- -- -- -- low low low
Virtual prejudice Dotsch, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. unclear low low unclear distance from avatar in VR low skin conductance low IAT low low low low
The behavioral dynamics of shooter bias in virtual reality: The role of race, armed status, and distance on threat perception and shooting dynamics Eiler, B. A. low low low unclear shooter bias low -- -- -- -- low low low
Virtual Virgins and Vamps: The Effects of Exposure to Female Characters’ Sexualized Appearance and Gaze in an Immersive Virtual Environment Fox, J. & Bailenson, J. unclear unclear unclear unclear self-report unclear -- -- -- -- low low unclear
The Effect of Embodying a Woman Scientist in Virtual Reality on Men’s Gender Biases Freedman, G., Green, M.C., Seidman, M., & Flanagan, M. low low unclear low explicit attitudes unclear IAT low -- -- low low low
Psychological response to an emergency in virtual reality: Effects of victim ethnicity and emergency type on helping behavior and navigation Gamberini, L., Chittaro, L., Spagnolli, A., & Carlesso, C. unclear unclear unclear unclear discrimination low -- -- -- -- low low low
Being the Victim of Intimate Partner Violence in Virtual Reality: First-Versus Third-Person Perspective Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Zapata, L. E., Iruretagoyena, G., Seinfeld, S., Perez-Mendez, L., Arroyo-Palacios, J., Borland, D., Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V unclear high high unclear physiological measures low IAT low -- -- low low low
The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments Groom, V., Bailenson, J. N., & Nass, C. unclear high high low IAT low Interpersonal distance low MRS and RAS unclear low low low
Virtual Humans and Persuasion: The Effects of Agency and Behavioral Realism Guadagno, R. E., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J. N., & McCall, C. unclear unclear unclear unclear agreement with agent’s argument unclear impression of virtual agent low -- -- low low low
Conceptual knowledge and sensitization on Asperger’s syndrome based on the constructivist approach through virtual reality Hadjipanayi, C., & Michael-Grigoriou, D. unclear high high unclear sensitization unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
Virtual race transformation reverses racial ingroup bias Hasler, B. S., Spanlang, B., & Slater, M. unclear unclear unclear unclear IAT low mimicry low low low low
Virtual Peacemakers: Mimicry Increases Empathy in Simulated Contact with Virtual Outgroup Members Hasler, B. S., Hirschberger, G., Shani-Sherman, T., & Friedman, D. A. unclear high high unclear empathy unclear self-other overlap unclear outgroup affect unclear high low low
Virtual Reality-based Conflict Resolution: The Impact of Immersive 360° Video on Hasler, B., Hasson, Y., Landau, D., Eyal, N. S., Giron, J., Levy, J., Halperin, E., & Friedman, D unclear unclear unclear unclear self-reports unclear physiological measurements low -- -- low low unclear
The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts (Study 1) Hasson, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., Landau, D., Hasler, B. S., Levy, J., Friedman, D., & Halperin, E. unclear unclear unclear unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts (Study 2) Hasson, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., Landau, D., Hasler, B. S., Levy, J., Friedman, D., & Halperin, E. unclear unclear unclear unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
The effect of gender, religiosity and personality on the interpersonal distance preference: a virtual reality study Hatami, J., Sharifian, M., Noorollahi, Z., & Fathipour, A. low low low unclear preferred distance unclear -- -- -- -- unclear low low
The Virtual Doppelganger Effects of a Virtual Reality Simulator on Perceptions of Schizophrenia Kalyanaraman, S. S., Penn, D. L., Ivory, J. D., & Judge, A. unclear high high unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
Processing Racial Stereotypes in Virtual Reality: An Exploratory Study Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Kim, G., Buntain, N., Hirshfield, L., Costa, M. R., & Chock, T. M. unclear high unclear unclear brain activation low -- -- -- -- low low low
A Virtual Reality Embodiment Technique to Enhance Helping Behavior of Police Towards a Victim of Police Racial Aggression Kishore, S., Spanlang, B., Iruretagoyena, G., Halan, S., Szostak, D., & Slater, M. low unclear low unclear helping behavior low -- -- -- -- low low low
Testing an Immersive Virtual Environment for Decreasing Intergroup Anxiety among University Students: An Interpersonal Perspective Kuuluvainen, V., Virtanen, I., Rikkonen, L., & Isotalus, P. low unclear high low intergroup anxiety high -- -- -- -- low low low
No Country for Old Men: Reducing Age Bias through Virtual Reality Embodiment La Rocca, S., Brighenti, A., Tosi, G., & Daini, R. unclear low low unclear IAT low Ageism Scale unclear -- -- low unclear low
How Does Embodying a Transgender Narrative Influence Social Bias? An Explorative Study in an Artistic Context Lesur, M. R., Lyn, S., & Lenggenhager, B. high high high low IAT low Explicit attitudes towards transgender unclear -- -- low low low
Humans adjust virtual comfort-distance towards an artificial agent depending on their sexual orientation and implicit prejudice against gay men Lisi, M.P., Fusaro, M., Tieri, G., & Aglioti, S.M. unclear unclear unclear high low low high low low low
Investigating Implicit Gender Bias and Embodiment of White Males in Virtual Reality with Full Body Visuomotor Synchrony Lopez, S., Yang, Y., Beltran, K., Kim, S. J., Hernandez, J. C., Simran, C., Yang, B., & Yuksel, B. F. unclear unclear unclear unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- low low low
Mitigating Negative Effects of Immersive Virtual Avatars on Racial Bias Maloney, D. unclear unclear unclear high IAT low -- -- -- -- high low high
Who is Credible (and Where)? Using Virtual Reality to Examine Credibility and Bias of Perceived Race/Ethnicity in Urban/Suburban Environments Marino, M. I., Bilge, N., Gutsche, R. E., & Holt, L. high high high unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
Proxemic behaviors as predictors of aggression towards Black (but not White) males in an immersive virtual environment McCall, C., Blascovich, J., Young, A., & Persky, S. unclear unclear unclear unclear proximity low shooting task data low feelings towards the agent high low low low
Through Pink and Blue Glasses: Designing a Dispositional Empathy Game Using Gender Stereotypes and Virtual Reality Muller, D. A., Van Kessel, C. R., & Janssen, S. high high unclear unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low unclear
Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. (Study 1) Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. unclear high high unclear self-reports unclear -- -- -- -- low low low
Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. (Study 2) Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. unclear high high unclear self-reports unclear affect misattribution procedure low Empathic Listening Task low high low low
Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias Peck, T. C., Good, J. J., & Seitz, K. unclear unclear unclear unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- low low low
Evidence of Racial Bias Using Immersive Virtual Reality: Analysis of Head and Hand Motions During Shooting Decisions Peck, T. C., Seinfeld, S., Aglioti, S. M., & Slater, M unclear low low low IAT low movement data etc low -- -- low unclear low
Virtual Reality and Political Outgroup Contact: Can Avatar Customization and Common Ingroup Identity Reduce Social Distance? Peña, J., Wolff, G., & Wojcieszak, M. low unclear high low social distance high -- -- -- -- low low unclear
Medical student bias and care recommendations for an obese versus non-obese virtual patient Persky, S., & Eccleston, C. P. unclear unclear unclear unclear self-reports unclear visual contact low -- -- low low low
An Investigation Into The Impact of Virtual Reality Character Presentation on Participants’ Depression Stigma Redmond, D., Hennessey, E., O’Connor, C., Balint, K., Parsons, T.D., & Rooney, B. unclear unclear unclear low low -- -- -- -- low low high
Cultivating Empathy Through Virtual Reality: Advancing Conversations About Racism, Inequity, and Climate in Medicine Roswell, R. O., Cogburn, C. D., Tocco, J., Martinez, J., Bangeranye, C., Bailenson, J. N., Wright, M., Mieres, J. H., & Smith, L. high high high high self-reports high -- -- -- -- high low low
The impact of virtual reality on implicit racial bias and mock legal decisions Salmanowitz, N. unclear unclear unclear low mock legal decision low IAT low explicit attitudes high low low low
The Effects of Embodiment in Virtual Reality on Implicit Gender Bias Schulze, S., Pence, T., Irvine, N., & Guinn, C. unclear unclear unclear unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- low low low
Shooter Bias in Virtual Reality: The Effect of Avatar Race and Socioeconomic Status on Shooting Decisions Seitz, K. R., Good, J. J., & Peck, T. C. unclear unclear low low shooter bias low -- -- -- -- low low high
"I’m a Computer Scientist!": Virtual Reality Experience Influences Stereotype Threat and STEM Motivation Among Undergraduate Women Starr, C. R., Anderson, B. R., & Green, K. A. unclear unclear unclear low IATs low self-reports unclear -- -- low low low
Can intergroup contact in virtual reality (Vr) reduce stigmatization against people with schizophrenia? Stelzmann, D., Toth, R., & Schieferdecker, D. low low high low all self reports high -- -- -- -- low low low
Body swapping with a Black person boosts empathy: Using virtual reality to embody another Thériault, R., Olson, J.A., Krol, S.A., & Raz, A. low high high unclear IAT low self reported racial bias high empathy unclear low low low
Designing a Virtual Reality Game for Promoting Empathy Toward Patients With Chronic Pain: Feasibility and Usability Study. Tong, X., Gromala, D., Kiaei Ziabari, S. P., & Shaw, C. D. high high high high all self-report high -- -- -- -- low low low
The design and evaluation of a body-sensing video game to foster empathy towards chronic pain patients Tong, X., Ulas, S., Jin, W., Gromala, D., & Shaw, C. high high high high all self-report high -- -- -- -- low low low
HIV-related stigma in social interactions: Approach and avoidance behaviour in a virtual environment Toppenberg, H. L., Bos, A. E. R., Ruiter, R. A. C., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Pryor, J. B. unclear unclear low high distance, speed, head orientation low IAT low explicit attitudes high low low low
HIV status acknowledgment and stigma reduction in virtual reality: The moderating role of perceivers’ attitudes. Toppenberg, H. L., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Bos, A. E. R. unclear unclear low high IAT low explicit attitudes high evaluation of job candidate unclear low low low
The Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality in Reducing Public Stigma of Mental Illness in the University Population of Hong Kong: Randomized Controlled Trial Yuen, A. S. Y. & Mak, W. W. S. low unclear high low Perception of public stigma low -- -- -- -- low low low
Enfacing a female reduces the gender–science stereotype in males Zhang, X., Hommel, B. &, Ma, K. low unclear unclear unclear IAT low -- -- -- -- low low low

Judging from the written reports, risk for performance bias in participants was deemed to be high or unclear in over 80% of studies. This was mostly because it was not clearly reported whether participants could have guessed the purpose of the study and/or which condition they were assigned to.

The overall low risk of reporting and attrition bias is worth positive mention: most studies reported null results for at least some of the assessed variables. However, without pre-registration, it is impossible to assess whether further variables were assessed but not reported.

5. Discussion

First and foremost, this systematic review shows that VR is not a social vacuum but a virtual environment enabling co-creation and modification of social reality. The review thus clearly indicates that features of prejudice in situated social environments persist also in VR, while also showing how VR is turning into a valuable resource for studying intergroup attitudes and their change through intergroup contact. The distinguishing features of immersiveness, body ownership and embodiment provide VR with a considerable potential for stimulating perspective taking, which has been shown to be an important mediator in prejudice reduction [25], and simulating highly realistic social environments.

5.1 Overview and future research directions

The existing literature has used either a majority perspective to intergroup contact (i.e. embodiment in an ingroup member), or minority perspective (i.e. embodiment in an outgroup member). The latter option fully exploits the distinguishing features of VR, as it allows a highly realistic experience from the perspective of a stigmatised minority member. Existing evidence is nevertheless contrasting: while studies employing the majority perspective have shown solid potential to decrease prejudice towards stigmatised minority groups, studies using the minority outgroup perspective show that embodying an outgroup member can either lead to reduction of or increase in prejudice. Studies using both explicit and implicit measures of intergroup attitudes seem to indicate that implicitly assessed biases are more likely to change from embodying an outgroup member. This might relate to the rather visceral experience of “being an outgroup member” which might serve to associate positive self-evaluation with that outgroup.

While there has been so far little attention to mediating and moderating mechanisms of prejudice reduction in VR, preliminary evidence [82,84,86] suggests that this could depend upon the affect elicited during the embodied experience, in line with earlier evidence that negative affect during intergroup encounters can increase implicit bias [104]. Living negative affect in the body of a minority member could indeed lead to withdrawal behaviour and worsened attitudes toward said minority, underlining the importance of understanding the affective determinants of intergroup attitudes. Nevertheless, the results obtained by Kishore et al. [72] seem to contrast said pathway, since embodying a Black avatar that experiences discriminatory behaviour by a White police officer was found to increase participants’ helping behaviour. Thus, one potential reason for this seemingly incompatible set of findings is the nature of the chosen outcome measures: while negative experiences associated with living a minority group perspective in VR might lead to defensive tendencies to distance oneself from the minority outgroup’s reality and thus negatively influence implicit outgroup evaluations, the VR experience might positively affect behaviour through other routes of processing than implicit associations, such as through moral evaluations activating various aspects of empathy. Intervention designers therefore face a dilemma: on the one hand, they want to give majority participants an experience that reflects that of a stigmatised minority member as accurately as possible to induce empathy and moral considerations about discrimination by providing an understanding of “what it is like to be that person”; on the other hand, if the experience elicits strong negative affect, this might lead to more negative attitudes (at least on an implicit level) which can lead to more discriminatory behavior in the future [105]. To what degree prolonged and/or repeated exposure to embodiment interventions could also lead to explicit attitude change remains an open question but could be hypothesised from theoretical models of attitude change [106]

The fact that an intervention works differently on explicit and implicit attitudes is not unique to VR interventions (e.g. [107,108] and relates to the general divergence of implicit and explicit attitudes and their relative contribution to behaviour, a much-debated issue in (social) psychology (see e.g. [13,98101]). It also underlines the importance of selecting outcome measures that align with specific research questions: if, for example, the main aim of an intervention is to combat discriminatory behavior, such behavior should also be the main outcome measure. However, few of the examined studies have included actual behavior as an outcome, again reflecting a larger issue in psychological science [109].

The stigmatized targets in the included studies represented a wide variety of minority groups, such as ethnic minorities, gender and sexual minorities, obese people, neurological patients, elderly people, drug users, and more. Similarly to the previously discussed perspective, the results lead to infer that regardless of the target group, using VR to embody an outgroup member can both improve intergroup attitudes and deteriorate them. The latter effect also seems to be more prevalent in research designs using embodiment in an outgroup member. The fact that VR experiences sometimes lead to more negative attitudes towards outgroups poses a significant challenge for this research field, given that interventions should always follow a “first, do no harm” principle. Identifying specific factors that contribute to deterioration of outgroup attitudes must therefore be a major focus of future research. This is also relevant from an applied perspective: designers of VR games, for example, should be aware which game features might contribute to an increase in intergroup biases.

Those studies that explicitly examined moderating variables point to the importance of two participant-level factors that should be considered in a study design: on the one hand, participants differ on traits that make them more or less susceptible to effects of any prejudice-reduction intervention, such as empathy [76] or the importance they generally place on group memberships [78]. On the other hand, participants’ involvement in and identification with the VR experience can contribute to more desirable effects [54]. These two factors might well be interconnected and these complexities should be considered in intervention designs. Relatedly, some emerging evidence suggests that the immersiveness of the experience may influence the effectiveness of interventions to reduce intergroup bias from the perspective of a stigmatised ethnic minority [102]. Taken together, at least part of the effect of immersiveness might thus be due to participants being better able to identify and get involved with the VR experience. In addition, the full experience of body ownership and identification with the embodied avatar seem to be critical, though understudied, moderators of the effect of VR contact on prejudice.

Despite the urge of gathering more insight on mechanisms specific to VR that could explain findings (e.g. immersion, body ownership, etc.), it is undeniable that this emerging method has great potential to study and reduce prejudice. Nevertheless, the evidence collected up to date calls for further investigating the role of affect in influencing changes in attitudes when embodying an outgroup member. Indeed, while empathy and perspective-taking have established roles as emotional and cognitive mediators in prejudice reduction, there are also other affective and identity-related factors that have been seen to have a powerful influence on the contact effects on intergroup attitudes such as intergroup anxiety, threats, morality, contact motivation and others (e.g. [25]) and that need to be included also into VR contact paradigms.

5.2 Methodological issues and advantages

Considering the novelty of VR as a method to investigate and act on prejudice, there is still great heterogeneity and discordance on the best practices to adopt. First and foremost, the majority of the included studies (n = 34) have not controlled for the successfulness of the VR experience in terms of immersion, body ownership, or spatial presence. Given the centrality of such mechanisms in ensuring the illusion of being there [35] and perception of the virtual body as the subject’s own [37], the absence of such experimental checks is a considerable limitation.

The variability of methods and lack of clarity in the operationalization of embodiment is also an emerging issue, as a significant number of studies do not provide the participants with a virtual body, but limit the VR experience to a “first person point of view”, regardless of the degree of interactivity allowed in the design. Whereas this is usually the case with studies using 360° videos, it sometimes occurs in fully computer-designed environments as well (e.g. [81,96]). Given that not owning an avatar undermines feelings of body ownership by definition, it is a particularly important issue, especially in case of interventions based on embodying an outgroup member.

Rather strikingly, just one of the included studies [90] used technology to create VR-mediated contact between avatars steered by real members of different groups. Instead, the studies reviewed here have largely focused on interactions with computer-controlled virtual agents or avatars controlled by an experimenter. VR would seem like an ideal extension of computer-mediated or e-contact [31] that would not be limited to e.g. text-based contact but would be much closer to actual, real-world contact between majority and minority group members. It is well possible that intergroup contact in VR equalises status between groups, as seems to be the case in computer-mediated contact [30]. Few studies, however, have measured or even taken into consideration Allport’s positive contact conditions [23], namely equal status, shared goals, intergroup cooperation, and support by institutions or authorities. Without said conditions, interventions aimed at reducing prejudice through positive intergroup contact in VR would fail at eventually enabling positive contact, diminishing the potential to obtain positive contact effects or even laying the foundations for negative contact effects to occur. Future studies should therefore explore VR’s potential to create optimal conditions for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice [24].

Moreover, as previously observed by [43], there is a general underuse of physiological and neurological measures on the one hand, and behavioural measures on the other hand, in favour of self-reported ones. To provide a more robust test of their interventions and to overcome limitations related to social desirability of explicit measures of prejudice, many studies have indeed complemented explicit measures with the measures of implicit attitudes such as the IAT, which we discussed in the section above.

As a final remark, the amount of detail reported is generally insufficient when it comes to experimental procedures, such that it was hardly possible to evaluate the degree of bias (see Appendix 1). Further, pre-registration was rare, making an assessment of possible outcome omissions impossible. On a positive note, recent studies tended to employ more sophisticated methods than earlier examples, indicating that the field is moving from initial proof-of-concept and pilot studies to more rigorous, systematic evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing prejudice.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist

(DOC)

S1 Appendix

(TIF)

S2 Appendix

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

All authors of this manuscript are funded by Academy of Finland (Suomen Akatemian, www.aka.fi) grant number: 332311 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Open access funded by Helsinki University Library.

References

  • 1.Girardi R, de Oliveira JC. Virtual Reality in Army Artillery Observer Training. 2019 21st Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality (SVR). 2019. pp. 25–33. doi: 10.1109/SVR.2019.00021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Izard SG, Méndez JAJ. Virtual reality medical training system. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. Salamanca Spain: ACM; 2016. pp. 479–485. doi: 10/ghms49 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lemmer G, Wagner U. Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2015;45: 152–168. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2079 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Slater M. Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. Br J Psychol. 2018;109: 431–433. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brown R. Prejudice: Its social psychology. John Wiley & Sons; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brewer MB. The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? J Soc Issues. 1999;55: 429–444. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H, others. Intergroup bias. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53: 575–604. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP. The handbook of attitudes. Psychology Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes. Psychol Rev. 1995;102: 4–27. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kurdi B, Seitchik AE, Axt JR, Carroll TJ, Karapetyan A, Kaushik N, et al. Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. Am Psychol. 2019;74: 569. doi: 10.1037/amp0000364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Greenwald AG, Mcghee DE, Schwartz JLK. Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test. 1998. pp. 1464–1480. Report No.: 6. Available: http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Senior/BLINKreplication/IAT.pdf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Corneille O, Hütter M. Implicit? What Do You Mean? A Comprehensive Review of the Delusive Implicitness Construct in Attitude Research. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2020; 1088868320911325. doi: 10.1177/1088868320911325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schimmack U. The Implicit Association Test: A Method in Search of a Construct. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019; 1745691619863798. doi: 10.1177/1745691619863798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fiedler K, Messner C, Bluemke M. Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2006;17: 74–147. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97: 17–41. doi: 10.1037/a0015575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Saarinen A, Jääskeläinen IP, Harjunen V, Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Ravaja N. Neural basis of in-group bias and prejudices: A systematic meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;131: 1214–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.10.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Paluck EL, Green DP. Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60: 339–367. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lai CK, Marini M, Lehr SA, Cerruti C, Shin J-EL, Joy-Gaba JA, et al. Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143: 1765–1785. doi: 10.1037/a0036260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lai CK, Skinner AL, Cooley E, Murrar S, Brauer M, Devos T, et al. Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016;145: 1001–1016. doi: 10.1037/xge0000179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Beelmann A, Heinemann KS. Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2014;35: 10–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ülger Z, Dette-Hagenmeyer DE, Reichle B, Gaertner SL. Improving outgroup attitudes in schools: A meta-analytic review. J Sch Psychol. 2018;67: 88–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Beelmann A, Saur M, Ziegler P, Diener K, Noack P. The PARTS-project: The evaluation of a multimodal intervention program to prevent prejudice and promote intergroup relations in elementary school children. 18th annual meeting of the society on prevention research. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Allport GW, Clark K, Pettigrew T. The nature of prejudice. 1954. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90: 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2008;38: 922–934. 10.1002/ejsp.504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Paolini S, Harwood J, Rubin M. Negative Intergroup Contact Makes Group Memberships Salient: Explaining Why Intergroup Conflict Endures. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010;36: 1723–1738. doi: 10.1177/0146167210388667 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dovidio JF, Love A, Schellhaas FMH, Hewstone M. Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2017;20: 606–620. doi: 10.1177/1368430217712052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Paluck EL, Green SA, Green DP. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behav Public Policy. 2019;3: 129–158. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.25 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhou S, Page-Gould E, Aron A, Moyer A, Hewstone M. The Extended Contact Hypothesis: A Meta-Analysis on 20 Years of Research. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2019;23: 132–160. doi: 10.1177/1088868318762647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Imperato C, Schneider BH, Caricati L, Amichai-Hamburger Y, Mancini T. Allport meets internet: A meta-analytical investigation of online intergroup contact and prejudice reduction. Int J Intercult Relat. 2021;81: 131–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.White FA, Harvey LJ, Abu-Rayya HM. Improving Intergroup Relations in the Internet Age: A Critical Review. Rev Gen Psychol. 2015;19: 129–139. doi: 10/gg99m9 [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Miles E, Crisp RJ. A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2014;17: 3–26. doi: 10.1177/1368430213510573 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Amichai-Hamburger Y, McKenna KY. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2006;11: 825–843. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Burdea GC, Coiffet P. Virtual reality technology. John Wiley & Sons; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sherman WR, Craig AB. Understanding virtual reality. San Franc CA: Morgan Kauffman. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bekele MK, Pierdicca R, Frontoni E, Malinverni ES, Gain J. A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage. J Comput Cult Herit JOCCH. 2018;11: 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kilteni K, Groten R, Slater M. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2012;21: 373–387. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yee N. The proteus effect: Modification of social behaviors via transformations of digital self-representation. Diss Abstr Int Sect Humanit Soc Sci. 2007;68: 2229. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yee N, Bailenson JN. The Difference Between Being and Seeing: The Relative Contribution of Self-Perception and Priming to Behavioral Changes via Digital Self-Representation. Media Psychology. 2009. pp. 195–209. Pii 911441665 doi: 10.1080/15213260902849943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Breves P. Reducing Outgroup Bias through Intergroup Contact with Non-Playable Video Game Characters in VR. PRESENCE Virtual Augment Real. 2020;27: 257–273. doi: 10.1162/pres_a_00330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nadler A. Intergroup helping relations. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016;11: 64–68. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Crandall CS, Eshleman A, O’Brien L. Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82: 359–378. doi: 10/bs9cw6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Christofi M, Michael-Grigoriou D. Virtual reality for inducing empathy and reducing prejudice towards stigmatized groups: A survey. 2017 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM). Dublin: IEEE; 2017. pp. 1–8. doi: 10/ghbttj [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Goffman E. Embarrassment and social organization. 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Milk C. “How Virtual Reality can Create the Ultimate Empathy Machine. TED; 2015. Available: https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_empathy_machine. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Barbot B, Kaufman JC. What makes immersive virtual reality the ultimate empathy machine? Discerning the underlying mechanisms of change. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;111: 106431. doi: 10/ghmt65 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hasson Y, Schori-Eyal N, Landau D, Hasler BS, Levy J, Friedman D, et al. The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts. Triberti S, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0222342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lesur MR, Lyn S, Lenggenhager B. How Does Embodying a Transgender Narrative Influence Social Bias? An Explorative Study in an Artistic Context. Front Psychol. 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Persky S, Eccleston CP. Impact of genetic causal information on medical students’ clinical encounters with an obese virtual patient: Health promotion and social stigma. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41: 363–372. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9242-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Toppenberg HL, Bos AER, Ruiter RAC, Wigboldus DHJ, Pryor JB. HIV-related stigma in social interactions: Approach and avoidance behaviour in a virtual environment. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2015;45: 169–179. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2082 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Roswell RO, Cogburn CD, Tocco J, Martinez J, Bangeranye C, Bailenson JN, et al. Cultivating Empathy through Virtual Reality: Advancing Conversations about Racism, Inequity, and Climate in Medicine. Acad Med. 2020; 1882–1886. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Tong X, Gromala D, Ziabari SPK, Shaw CD. Designing a Virtual Reality Game for Promoting Empathy Toward Patients With Chronic Pain: Feasibility and Usability Study. JMIR SERIOUS GAMES. 2020;8: 155–168. doi: 10.2196/17354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Starr CR, Anderson BR, Green KA. “I’m a computer scientist!”: Virtual reality experience influences stereotype threat and STEM motivation among undergraduate women. J Sci Educ Technol. 2019;28: 493–507. doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09781-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dotsch R, Wigboldus DHJ. Virtual prejudice. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44: 1194–1198. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hasler BS, Hirschberger G, Shani-Sherman T, Friedman DA. Virtual Peacemakers: Mimicry Increases Empathy in Simulated Contact with Virtual Outgroup Members. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2014;17: 766–771. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Muller DA, Van Kessel CR, Janssen S. Through Pink and Blue glasses: Designing a dispositional empathy game using gender stereotypes and Virtual Reality. 2017. pp. 599–605. doi: 10.1145/3130859.3130862 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Collange J, Guegan J. Using virtual reality to induce gratitude through virtual social interaction. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;113. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106473 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kuuluvainen V, Virtanen I, Rikkonen L, Isotalus P. Testing an immersive virtual environment for decreasing intergroup anxiety among university students: An interpersonal perspective. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Redmond D, Hennessey E, O’connor C, Bálint K, Parsons TD, Rooney B. An investigation into the impact of virtual reality character presentation on participants’ depression stigma. Annu Rev CYBERTHERAPY ℡EMEDICINE 2020. 2019; 195. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.D’Errico F, Leone G, Schmid M, D’Anna C. Prosocial Virtual Reality, Empathy, and EEG Measures: A Pilot Study Aimed at Monitoring Emotional Processes in Intergroup Helping Behaviors. Appl Sci-BASEL. 2020;10. doi: 10.3390/app10041196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Eiler B. The behavioral dynamics of shooter bias in virtual reality: The role of race, armed status, and distance on threat perception and shooting dynamics. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Guadagno RE, Blascovich J, Bailenson JN, McCall C. Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychol. 2007;10: 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hatami J, Sharifian M, Noorollahi Z, Fathipour A. The effect of gender, religiosity and personality on the interpersonal distance preference: a virtual reality study. Commun Res Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2020.1806811 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Marino MI, Bilge N, Gutsche RE, Holt L. Who is credible (and where)? Using virtual reality to examine credibility and bias of perceived race/ethnicity in urban/suburban environments. Howard J Commun. 2020; No-Specified. doi: 10.1080/10646175.2020.1714514 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.McCall C, Blascovich J, Young A, Persky S. Proxemic behaviors as predictors of aggression towards Black (but not White) males in an immersive virtual environment. Soc Influ. 2009;4: 138–154. doi: 10.1080/15534510802517418 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Persky S, Eccleston CP. Medical student bias and care recommendations for an obese versus non-obese virtual patient. Int J Obes. 2011;35: 728–735. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2010.173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Seitz KR, Good JJ, Peck TC. Shooter Bias in Virtual Reality: The Effect of Avatar Race and Socioeconomic Status on Shooting Decisions. 2020 IEEE CONFERENCE ON VIRTUAL REALITY AND 3D USER INTERFACES WORKSHOPS (VRW 2020). IEEE; IEEE Comp Soc; 2020. pp. 607–608. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Toppenberg HL, Ruiter RAC, Bos AER. HIV status acknowledgment and stigma reduction in virtual reality: The moderating role of perceivers’ attitudes. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2019;49: 203–212. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12574 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Stelzmann D, Toth R, Schieferdecker D. Can Intergroup Contact in Virtual Reality (VR) Reduce Stigmatization Against People with Schizophrenia? J Clin Med. 2021;10: 2961. doi: 10.3390/jcm10132961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Peña J, Wolff G, Wojcieszak M. Virtual Reality and Political Outgroup Contact: Can Avatar Customization and Common Ingroup Identity Reduce Social Distance? Soc Media Soc. 2021;7: 2056305121993765. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kishore S, Spanlang B, Iruretagoyena G, Szostak D, Slater M. A Virtual Reality Embodiment Technique to Enhance Helping Behavior of Police Towards a Victim of Police Racial Aggression. PRESENCE Virtual Augment Real. 2021; 1–51. doi: 10/gmgfnm [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Banakou D, Hanumanthu PD, Slater M. Virtual embodiment of white people in a Black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Peck TC, Seinfeld S, Aglioti SM, Slater M. Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias. Conscious Cogn Int J. 2013;22: 779–787. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Salmanowitz N. The impact of virtual reality on implicit racial bias and mock legal decisions. J Law Biosci. 2018;5: 174–203. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsy005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Christofi M, Michael-Grigoriou D, Kyrlitsias C. A Virtual Reality Simulation of Drug Users’ Everyday Life: The Effect of Supported Sensorimotor Contingencies on Empathy. Front Psychol. 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Chen VHH, Chan SHM, Tan YC. Perspective-Taking in Virtual Reality and reduction of biases against minorities. Multimodal Technol Interact. 2021;5: 42. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Chen VHH, Ibasco GC, Leow VJX, Lew JYY. The Effect of VR Avatar Embodiment on Improving Attitudes and Closeness Toward Immigrants. Front Psychol. 2021; 4722. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.705574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Chowdhury TI, Quarles J. A Wheelchair Locomotion Interface in a VR Disability Simulation Reduces Implicit Bias. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Tong X, Ulas S, Jin W, Gromala D, Shaw C. The design and evaluation of a body-sensing video game to foster empathy towards chronic pain patients. 2017. pp. 244–250. doi: 10.1145/3154862.3154869 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Zhang X, Hommel B, Ma K. Enfacing a female reduces the gender–science stereotype in males. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021;83: 1729–1736. doi: 10.3758/s13414-021-02241-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Banakou D, Beacco A, Neyret S, Blasco-Oliver M, Seinfeld S, Slater M. Virtual body ownership and its consequences for implicit racial bias are dependent on social context. R Soc Open Sci. 2020. p. 201848. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Hadjipanayi C, Michael-Grigoriou D. Conceptual knowledge and sensitization on Asperger’s syndrome based on the constructivist approach through virtual reality. HELIYON. 2020;6. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Kalyanaraman SS, Penn DL, Ivory JD, Judge A. The virtual doppelganger: effects of a virtual reality simulator on perceptions of schizophrenia. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2010. pp. 437–43. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181e07d66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Lopez S, Yang Y, Beltran K, Kim SJ, Hernandez JC, Simran C, et al. Investigating Implicit Gender Bias and Embodiment of White Males in Virtual Reality with Full Body Visuomotor Synchrony. CHI 2019: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 CHI CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS. Assoc Comp Machinery; ACM SIGCHI; 2019. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300787 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Schulze S, Pence T, Irvine N, Guinn C. The Effects of Embodiment in Virtual Reality on Implicit Gender Bias. In: Chen JYC and Fragomeni G, editor. VIRTUAL, AUGMENTED AND MIXED REALITY: MULTIMODAL INTERACTION, PT I. 2019. pp. 361–374. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-21607-8_28 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Bielen S, Marneffe W, Mocan N. Racial Bias and In-Group Bias in Virtual Reality Courtrooms. J Law Econ. 2021;64: 269–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Correll J, Park B, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B. The police officer’s dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83: 1314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Groom V, Bailenson JN, Nass C. The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments. Soc Influ. 2009;4: 231–248. doi: 10.1080/15534510802643750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Thériault R, Olson JA, Krol SA, Raz A. Body swapping with a Black person boosts empathy: Using virtual reality to embody another. Q J Exp Psychol. 2021;74: 2057–2074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.de C. Silva RD, Albuquerque SGC, Muniz A de V., Reboucas Filho PP, Ribeiro S, Pinheiro PR, et al. Reducing the schizophrenia stigma: A new approach based on augmented reality. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2017;2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Yuen AS, Mak WW. The effects of immersive virtual reality in reducing public stigma of mental illness in the university population of Hong Kong: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23: e23683. doi: 10.2196/23683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Banakou D, Kishore S, Slater M. Virtually being Einstein results in an improvement in cognitive task performance and a decrease in age bias. Front Psychol. 2018;9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Oh SY, Bailenson J, Weisz E, Zaki J. Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;60: 398–410. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Freedman G, Green MC, Seidman M, Flanagan M. The Effect of Embodying a Woman Scientist in Virtual Reality on Men’s Gender Biases. Technol Mind Behav. 2021;2. doi: 10.1037/tmb0000046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Lisi MP, Fusaro M, Tieri G, Aglioti SM. Humans adjust virtual comfort-distance towards an artificial agent depending on their sexual orientation and implicit prejudice against gay men. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;125: 106948. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.La Rocca S, Giorgia T, Andrea B, Roberta D. No Country for Old Men? Reducing Ageism Bias Through Virtual Reality Embodiment. PERCEPTION. 2019;48: 165. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Cunningham WA, Johnson MK, Raye CL, Gatenby JC, Gore JC, Banaji MR. Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychol Sci. 2004;15: 806–813. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00760.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Bar-Anan Y, Vianello M. A multi-method multi-trait test of the dual-attitude perspective. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018;147: 1264. doi: 10.1037/xge0000383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Greenwald AG, Nosek BA. Attitudinal dissociation: What does it mean? Attitudes. Psychology Press; 2008. pp. 85–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Hansen JJ, Devos T, Lindner NM, Ranganath KA, et al. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2007;18: 36–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Hasler B, Hasson Y, Landau D, Eyal NS, Giron J, Levy J, et al. Virtual Reality-based Conflict Resolution: The Impact of Immersive 360° Video on Changing View Points and Moral Judgment in the Context of Violent Intergroup Conflict. PsyArXiv; 2020. Nov. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/m6tuc [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Peck TC, Good JJ, Seitz K. Evidence of racial bias using immersive virtual reality: Analysis of head and hand motions during shooting decisions. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2021;27: 2502–2512. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3067767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Dasgupta N, DeSteno D, Williams LA, Hunsinger M. Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice. Emotion. 2009;9: 585–591. doi: 10.1037/a0015961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Greenwald AG, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;108: 553–561. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Gawronski B, Bodenhausen GV. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol Bull. 2006;132: 692–731. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Dasgupta N, Greenwald AG. On the Malleability of Automatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice With Images of Admired and Disliked Individuals. 2001.: 15. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Rydell RJ, McConnell AR, Strain LM, Claypool HM, Hugenberg K. Implicit and explicit attitudes respond differently to increasing amounts of counterattitudinal information. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2007;37: 867–878. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Funder DC. Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2: 396–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michelangelo Vianello

5 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-31505The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tassinari,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michelangelo Vianello, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE.

I have now received two independent reviews who are quite consistent regarding what should be fixed before publishing the manuscript. The two reviews are clear, and I agree with all comments and suggestions. I do think that you can effectively and thoroughly address all issues in a revision, so I invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript. Please include both a clean version of the revised manuscript and a track changes version during the next submission. Also include a cover letter. If you wish to write a rebuttal for some of the reviewers’ suggestions rather than revising the manuscript, please add them in the cover letter.

After reading the reviews and the manuscript, I would like to focus the authors on three important issues that needs improvement.

Research Question.

R1 highlighted that the first part of the manuscript should be integrated with a summary of the social cognition literature on the malleability of attitudes and stereotypes. The authors will realize that doing this will also help contextualizing the role of emotion valence in the moderation of the direction of change after contact. Also, adding a good background will help identifying important questions in the literature that this systematic review might help to answer. Indeed, I would like to specifically focus the authors on this point: rather than answering a generic like “Is VR effective in changing implicit and explicit attitudes and stereotypes?”, more specific and more useful questions could be answered with this review. For instance: Under which conditions virtual contact leads to changes in implicit and explicit attitudes and stereotypes? Is the effect of real vs virtual contact the same? Do automatic attitude, prejudice or stereotype change less than their explicit counterparts? Answering specific, narrow and theoretically important questions like these is the final goal of a systematic review.

All relevant studies located?

Both I and R1 have been very surprised that the query used to locate articles did not include the word “attitude”. I think this should be fixed because neglecting all studies that investigated the effect of virtual contact on attitude rather than prejudice introduces a strong bias.

Quality of research systematically appraised.

R2 suggested that readers may not find what they look for. The core components of a systematic review as opposed to a classic -although thorough- narrative review may not be present in the current version of the manuscript. Narrative reviews are less useful for guiding policy or decision making. The style in which the results are summarized is indeed quite similar to that of narrative reviews, in which an expert opinion is discussed in terms of the existing literature. A systematic review should not only unbiasedly synthesize all studies on a specific research topic, but also critically evaluate them, and weight their informational value accordingly. For instance, the research question that leads this project is about effectiveness (does the intergroup contact created in VR reduce prejudice toward stigmatized groups?). As any other systematic review on effectiveness, randomized controlled trial are the golden rule. Other study designs should have less weight while summarizing the results. The categorization of studies according to their methodological soundness and related informational value should be crystal clear. For instance, the presence of random subject assignment, control groups, and other critical design issues such as type of contact (positive vs negative) or type of outcome (e.g., affective, cognitive, or behavioral components of attitudes) should be included in Table 1 and -above all- used by the authors to determine informational value of the studies while synthesizing the results. Hopefully, this may lead to a less ambiguous scenario than the current one in which basically every set of studies that lead to the same conclusion is contrasted with other studies that lead to different conclusions.

Minor

Plos One does not copyedit the manuscript before publication, so I do suggest getting the article revised by a native speaker. There are some typos that should be fixed (e.g. “methodical” in the abstract; “too” p. 16; “16” p. 17).

Yours sincerely,

Michelangelo Vianello

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title: The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review

The present review illustrates VR studies published to date on social attitudes and stereotyping with the goal of highlighting the contributions that VR techniques can offer in this field as well as the limitations of the current work.

The goal of this review is very interesting and timely since the use of VR techniques is rapidly growing in social psychology research. The VR techniques indeed represent a promising (but still under-investigated instrument) in social research concerning intergroup dynamics.

However, I have some reservations about the organization, rationale, and theoretical background of this review that prevent me from supporting its publication in the present form (see my comments/suggestions to authors).

Introduction:

Authors do not provide a background of the topic. This review is on social attitudes and stereotypes, and their malleability. I'm actually quite surprised to see that the reference list includes only a few studies from a Social Psychology or Social Cognition journal, despite the fact that this field has been studying the topic for several decades. I'm not trying to be a gatekeeper here as I recognize that many fields beyond Social Psychology/Cognition are interested in this topic. But you can't simply ignore 30+ years of scholarship. What do we know about social attitudes and stereotyping? How can we assess them? How do they operate? How can they be changed?

Similarly, I suggest introducing and describing some key concepts and terms that are essential to understand the topic (e.g., social groups, attitude, stereotype, intergroup relations, group membership, in-group and out-group members). As regards the terms included in the present version of the manuscript, I have some reservations about the use of the term “prejudice”. The term “prejudice” typically refers to negative evaluations that may be preconceived and consciously experienced. The studies reported in this review included beliefs (stereotypes) and evaluations with some degree of favor or disfavor (attitudes) about social groups assessed by using different paradigms (e.g., explicit and implicit measures). I would suggest the authors to substitute the term “prejudice” with the terms attitudes and stereotypes.

In addition, I suggest the authors to better highlight the motivation for using VR in this field. Over the past decades, several studies have attempted to develop interventions (e.g., see Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001; Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009; Legault, Gutsell, & Inzlicht, 2011; Mann & Kawakami, 2012; Lai et al. 2014, 2016) or used specific techniques (e.g., Marini et al. 2018) to produce changes in attitudes and stereotypes. How VR can help us to understand social interactions? Surely there is a valid motivation for doing this, right? What important gap in the social attitudes and stereotypes literature does this project fill? By providing the relevant literature on this topic, you might specify this gap to the readers in order to understand the potential and (maybe) unique contribution that VR can provide.

Results:

Authors illustrate the contribution of VR by considering the type of contact, stigma, presence of mediators, and moderators in the different studies. I think that authors should also create a section in which they compare the results found using implicit and explicit measures of attitudes/stereotypes or other instruments to assess relevant psychological constructs (e.g., empathy) in social relationships. It is important for the readers to be able here to identify the results obtained using different outcome measures. At the moment, these results are not clearly presented in the manuscript.

Conclusion and Discussion:

Please clarify also the effects of VR based on the outcome measures used in the study. What are the conclusions about implicit measures? What are the conclusions about explicit measures? What about the other paradigms used in these studies?

Minor points:

- Page numbers are missing.

- Please provide a description of the experimental paradigms mentioned in the text (e.g., shooting paradigm, Implicit Association Test).

- Please provide also in the main manuscript the main terms of research used in this review. I think that would have been appropriate include in your search also the term “attitude” and the most used instruments in this field (e.g., Implicit Association Test).

- Page 19 (?): Please consider some additional studies about the relation between implicit-explicit measures (e.g., Nosek and Smyth, 2007; Nosek et al., 2007; Greenwald and Nosek, 2008; Cunningham et al. 2004)

- Page 21(?): “Nevertheless, some contrasting evidence shows that embodying black avatars can

also lead to worsened implicit attitudes, depending on the social context in which the experience takes place (Banakou et al., 2020)”

Can you clarify this claim in the text? Which social contexts were examined in this study? Which social context worsened implicit attitudes?

Reviewer #2: Let me begin by saying that I learned something from reading this manuscript and I don’t have a lot to criticize. My summary is simple (though I’ll elaborate): I’m not certain that this is an area of investigation that is ready yet for a meta-analysis. In brief, the manuscript reads more like a very thorough Introduction than a meta-analysis. Often times, small groupings of results are pitted against one another such as in the following section (p. 19): “Similar encouraging results have been found when measuring explicit attitudes, as shown by Christofi et al. (2020) and Tong et al. (2020, 2017). However, other studies contest these findings by showing that intergroup contact experienced from the minority perspective doesn’t necessarily have any effect on intergroup attitudes (see Hasler et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2016; Starr et al., 2019).” This, to me, reads like an Introduction wherein the author(s) would include their preferred interpretation as well as a “but see” section of the citation. That said, Section 4.3 (Methodological issue and advantages) begins to outline what remains to be done. In so doing, this manuscript could serve well as a summary of the state of the field as well as an initial attempt at setting up the next couple of years of research. The quibble that the outline may be premature by those couple of years is obviously based on a somewhat arbitrary decision (i.e., exactly how many studies are needed before we are ready for a meta-analysis?). In the end, I found this manuscript more useful in terms of how it highlights what hasn’t been done. That is, of course, somewhat atypical for, as the title implies, a “systematic review”. As a reader, I might feel as though I had not gotten what I came for. I wonder if a change in title might be in order. Something like “a systematic review of the early research returns and an outline for the near future”. Something that both conveys that 1) there is not a lot of research completed yet (and so the conclusions will be relatively few and tenuous) and 2) the reader will get an organized view of what needs to happen next. To that end, I think the authors could spend a bit of time focusing current section 4.3 toward future directions and adding a bit more about what is needed. In that way, in my opinion, this would become something that anyone interested in entering into this subarea should read.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 14;17(7):e0270748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270748.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Feb 2022

EDITOR COMMENTS

Dear Dr Vianello,

We are submitting the revised version of our previously submitted manuscript “The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review”, manuscript-ID: PONE-D-21-31505. We would like to thank both reviewers and yourself for the valuable comments on the earlier version of the manuscript and we revised the text accordingly.

Specifically, the text now gives a more thorough theoretical introduction into attitudes, prejudice, and their change as traditionally studied in social psychological research and in VR settings in particular. Relatedly, we have updated and expanded our search with the terms “outgroup attitude” and “intergroup attitude” to ensure retrieving all relevant literature.

Further, the results and discussion section now follow a more systematic approach by better acknowledging the quality of the discussed research: it provides an overview of the whole field while putting a particular emphasis on the most reliable and best executed studies. Accordingly, we place stronger emphasis on what we consider to be key articles in the field, which also helps to see consensus and possible contradictions in research and thus provide clearer answers to more specific questions.

Please find our responses to the reviewers’ specific comments in the attached “response to reviewers” file.

We hope that you consider these revisions as positive and the revised manuscript eligible for publication in PLOS ONE.

---------------------------------------------------

Response to reviewer comments

Reviewer #1: Title: The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review

The present review illustrates VR studies published to date on social attitudes and stereotyping with the goal of highlighting the contributions that VR techniques can offer in this field as well as the limitations of the current work.

The goal of this review is very interesting and timely since the use of VR techniques is rapidly growing in social psychology research. The VR techniques indeed represent a promising (but still under-investigated instrument) in social research concerning intergroup dynamics.

However, I have some reservations about the organization, rationale, and theoretical background of this review that prevent me from supporting its publication in the present form (see my comments/suggestions to authors).

Introduction:

Authors do not provide a background of the topic. This review is on social attitudes and stereotypes, and their malleability. I'm actually quite surprised to see that the reference list includes only a few studies from a Social Psychology or Social Cognition journal, despite the fact that this field has been studying the topic for several decades. I'm not trying to be a gatekeeper here as I recognize that many fields beyond Social Psychology/Cognition are interested in this topic. But you can't simply ignore 30+ years of scholarship. What do we know about social attitudes and stereotyping? How can we assess them? How do they operate? How can they be changed?

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the overlook of the theoretical and methodological advances in a study on intergroup attitudes and prejudice in social psychology, which compromised the development of a solid foundational background of this study. However, as being social psychologists ourselves, we indeed agree that this is critical not only in terms of presenting the point of departure for the readership but also for the success of the review to describe and critically evaluate the research on intergroup contact and attitudes in VR. We have now provided a better theoretical overview of the concepts studied with more references to social psychological literature on the topic.

Similarly, I suggest introducing and describing some key concepts and terms that are essential to understand the topic (e.g., social groups, attitude, stereotype, intergroup relations, group membership, in-group and out-group members). As regards the terms included in the present version of the manuscript, I have some reservations about the use of the term “prejudice”. The term “prejudice” typically refers to negative evaluations that may be preconceived and consciously experienced. The studies reported in this review included beliefs (stereotypes) and evaluations with some degree of favor or disfavor (attitudes) about social groups assessed by using different paradigms (e.g., explicit and implicit measures). I would suggest the authors to substitute the term “prejudice” with the terms attitudes and stereotypes.

Again, we agree that some key concepts were not introduced sufficiently and have now elaborated on this. We also agree that the need for more specificity particularly relates to the concept of prejudice in relation to other concepts such as intergroup/outgroup (implicit/explicit) attitudes, ingroup/intergroup bias and intergroup/group stereotypes and emotions. Though often being studied and operationalised interchangeably, these concepts nevertheless refer to different components and forms of prejudice and they have been studied with different measures, which on their own part, also sets the limits for studying and postulating prejudice, as noted by the reviewer in the case of IAT measures used to study implicit bias. In the revised version of the manuscript, we not only put efforts in explaining the differences between the concepts and measures but also pay closer attention to the used concepts and measures in evaluating the results of the reviewed studies.

In addition, I suggest the authors to better highlight the motivation for using VR in this field. Over the past decades, several studies have attempted to develop interventions (e.g., see Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001; Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009; Legault, Gutsell, & Inzlicht, 2011; Mann & Kawakami, 2012; Lai et al. 2014, 2016) or used specific techniques (e.g., Marini et al. 2018) to produce changes in attitudes and stereotypes. How VR can help us to understand social interactions? Surely there is a valid motivation for doing this, right? What important gap in the social attitudes and stereotypes literature does this project fill? By providing the relevant literature on this topic, you might specify this gap to the readers in order to understand the potential and (maybe) unique contribution that VR can provide.

We agree with the reviewer’s comment that the motivation to use VR in the field of intergroup processes is not self-evident despite the rapid development of VR technologies and the increase in intervention studies using this environment. We now have added sections to the introduction that make clear why VR has been seen as well-suited for this field of research and how it relates to and expands other lines of prejudice research.

Results:

Authors illustrate the contribution of VR by considering the type of contact, stigma, presence of mediators, and moderators in the different studies. I think that authors should also create a section in which they compare the results found using implicit and explicit measures of attitudes/stereotypes or other instruments to assess relevant psychological constructs (e.g., empathy) in social relationships. It is important for the readers to be able here to identify the results obtained using different outcome measures. At the moment, these results are not clearly presented in the manuscript.

Upon revising our manuscript, following the recommendation of Reviewer 2, we have now shifted the focus of the results section to what we consider key high quality studies in this field and report their results in more detail (as opposed to other studies that suffer from serious methodological problems). This includes an enhanced focus on effects on different kinds of outcomes, as proposed by the reviewer.

Conclusion and Discussion:

Please clarify also the effects of VR based on the outcome measures used in the study. What are the conclusions about implicit measures? What are the conclusions about explicit measures? What about the other paradigms used in these studies?

The discussion section now provides more clarification on the different studied outcomes, also distinguishing the effects on implicit from those on explicit measures, and again, with a special focus on key studies in the field.

Minor points:

- Page numbers are missing.

Page numbers have been added to the manuscript.

- Please provide a description of the experimental paradigms mentioned in the text (e.g., shooting paradigm, Implicit Association Test).

In the original version of the manuscript, we described the IAT in paragraph 4.1. In the revised version, we have now introduced the IAT in the theoretical background section, and provide a short description of the shooter bias in result section 4.2.2.

- Please provide also in the main manuscript the main terms of research used in this review. I think that would have been appropriate include in your search also the term “attitude” and the most used instruments in this field (e.g., Implicit Association Test).

The text now includes a footnote with the search terms. We agree that the term “attitude” is important. However, including the term “attitude” would have led to an insurmountable amount of search results unrelated to the field of intergroup relations. We therefore expanded our search with the terms “outgroup attitude” and “intergroup attitude”. This brought 19 new studies in our review.

- Page 19 (?): Please consider some additional studies about the relation between implicit-explicit measures (e.g., Nosek and Smyth, 2007; Nosek et al., 2007; Greenwald and Nosek, 2008; Cunningham et al. 2004)

Obviously, the relation between implicit and explicit measures is a very debated issue, and we do agree that a more in-depth discussion of the differences between the implicit measures based on association strengths and explicit measures reflecting normative evaluative processing is in place in order to better understand the potentially different effects of VR contact in different studies and the potential on VR in studying and shaping implicit and explicit attitudes. We thank for the suggested references as they provide important arguments to this discussion (see paragraphs 1.1, 4.2.1, and 5.1).

- Page 21(?): “Nevertheless, some contrasting evidence shows that embodying black avatars can

also lead to worsened implicit attitudes, depending on the social context in which the experience takes place (Banakou et al., 2020)”

Can you clarify this claim in the text? Which social contexts were examined in this study? Which social context worsened implicit attitudes?

This study is now discussed in more detail in paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, as we regard it to be one of the key studies in this field.

-------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWER #2:

Let me begin by saying that I learned something from reading this manuscript and I don’t have a lot to criticize. My summary is simple (though I’ll elaborate): I’m not certain that this is an area of investigation that is ready yet for a meta-analysis. In brief, the manuscript reads more like a very thorough Introduction than a meta-analysis. Often times, small groupings of results are pitted against one another such as in the following section (p. 19): “Similar encouraging results have been found when measuring explicit attitudes, as shown by Christofi et al. (2020) and Tong et al. (2020, 2017). However, other studies contest these findings by showing that intergroup contact experienced from the minority perspective doesn’t necessarily have any effect on intergroup attitudes (see Hasler et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2016; Starr et al., 2019).” This, to me, reads like an Introduction wherein the author(s) would include their preferred interpretation as well as a “but see” section of the citation. That said, Section 4.3 (Methodological issue and advantages) begins to outline what remains to be done. In so doing, this manuscript could serve well as a summary of the state of the field as well as an initial attempt at setting up the next couple of years of research. The quibble that the outline may be premature by those couple of years is obviously based on a somewhat arbitrary decision (i.e., exactly how many studies are needed before we are ready for a meta-analysis?). In the end, I found this manuscript more useful in terms of how it highlights what hasn’t been done. That is, of course, somewhat atypical for, as the title implies, a “systematic review”. As a reader, I might feel as though I had not gotten what I came for. I wonder if a change in title might be in order. Something like “a systematic review of the early research returns and an outline for the near future”. Something that both conveys that 1) there is not a lot of research completed yet (and so the conclusions will be relatively few and tenuous) and 2) the reader will get an organized view of what needs to happen next. To that end, I think the authors could spend a bit of time focusing current section 4.3 toward future directions and adding a bit more about what is needed. In that way, in my opinion, this would become something that anyone interested in entering into this subarea should read.

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript and would first like to clarify that this article does not attempt to provide a meta-analysis in the sense of statistically weighing the evidence - we agree that research in this field is too under-developed and unsystematic for this to be done in a meaningful way. Instead, we aimed at providing a systematic review of the research on VR contact and intergroup attitudes conducted so far in order to describe the different lines of research, the designs and measures used, and the effects obtained. We also agree that the way we described our results in the original version of the manuscript was somewhat dissatisfying as they did not draw a clear picture on whether VR interventions are effective or not. We agree with the reviewer that this was due to the equal weight given to the reviewed studies neglecting the clear differences in their quality. In our revision, we now attempt to alleviate this by giving more emphasis to studies that we consider to be of high methodological quality. This way, we, to some degree, avoid the ambiguity created by seemingly assigning equal weight to methodologically heterogeneous studies and manage to come to somewhat clearer conclusions.

The reviewer writes that “this manuscript could serve well as a summary of the state of the field as well as an initial attempt at setting up the next couple of years of research” - this is exactly what we are trying to do and we hope that our revisions lay this out more clearly.

Finally, what is clear is that the field of research undergoes very rapid development, which is evident in the revised manuscript. Namely, the update of the search conducted for the original version of the manuscript has brought 19 new studies in our review published after our initial submission in 2021. The increased data-base also allowed us to draw better overview of and conclusions from the results obtained in the field.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michelangelo Vianello

8 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-31505R1The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tassinari,

I have received two reviews of your revised manuscript that are quite contrasting. Reviewer 2 is satisfied by your revisions and suggests publication. Reviewer 1 agrees that your revisions improved the manuscript but believes that they are not sufficient to support publication and suggests rejection.

I realize that a lot of work has gone into this manuscript during the review process. Hence, I offer you the chance of providing a second revision. I carefully read the revised manuscript, and I think that suggestions made by reviewer 1 were quite easy to address. You did not write a rebuttal to R1 suggestions made in the previous round of revisions. Instead, you explicitly agreed with them. So I guess that they are not included in the revisions due to a misunderstanding.

To clarify: R1 and/or I suggested to:

  1. Add one or two paragraphs summarizing the 30+ years of research in social psychology on the malleability of attitudes and stereotypes. The summary should not be exhaustive. Yet, it should give readers a view of the great amount of research that has been conducted, framing intergroup contact into a larger set of interventions that have been extensively studied. Intergroup contact is should be presented as one of these interventions, not even the most effective (Lai et al. 2014; Lai et al. 2016).

  2. Disaggregate both the literature review in (see previous point) and your results by outcome measure: implicit and explicit attitudes were shown to be differently malleable. Also discuss later in the manuscript the implicit/explicit distinction as a moderator.

Minor

  1. Some typos still need to be fixed (e.g. “methodical” in the abstract). This issue was found in the previous version as well.

  2. p. 5: it may be that the reader would understand that neuroimaging is subtly proposed as a more reliable substitute of indirect measures. This approach is even more evident in the discussion (p. 32). I do think that this should be avoided because most if not all experts in the field would not agree with that. These measures avoid self-reports, but this is probably everything they have in common. Also, there is no evidence at all that one is more reliable than the other. There is a famous paper by Bennett et al. (2009) in which the authors observed cerebral activity in a dead salmon…   

  3. fix the citation for the IAT.

  4. I typically refrain from this kind of suggestions, but I do think that omitting Bar-Anan & Vianello (2018) when citing Schimmack (2019) and the debate on the distinction between implicit and explicit constructs would seriously misrepresent the available empirical evidence on this topic.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michelangelo Vianello, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think the present version of the manuscript has improved compared to the previous one. However, I still have some concerns that prevent me from supporting its publication. Unfortunately, the authors did not fully address some crucial points raised in my previous review.

Here are some examples.

I suggested the authors to provide a background of the topic that can summarize what we know about the malleability of attitudes and stereotypes. This piece of information is still lacking in the text. In the revised manuscript, the authors only describe in more detail one kind of intervention developed to change social attitudes and stereotypes (i.e., intergroup contact). Again, you cannot ignore 30+ years of scholarship on this topic. Over the past decades, several studies have developed interventions to change attitudes and stereotypes (e.g., see Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001; Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009; Legault, Gutsell, & Inzlicht, 2011; Mann & Kawakami, 2012; Lai et al. 2014, 2016; Marini et al. 2018). One or two paragraphs on this topic are necessary for the readers to understand what we know in this field and how VR may be useful. By reading the introduction of this manuscript, it seems social psychologists used only interventions based on intergroup contact to modulate social attitudes and stereotypes. I know that intergroup contact was the most used intervention in the VR studies, but this does not imply that this intervention is the only one that can be implemented using VR or the only one that deserves to be described. On this latter point, please also consider some recent studies on implicit bias showing that intergroup contact and perspective-taking interventions are not the most effective interventions to modulate social attitudes and stereotypes (see, for example, Lai et al. 2014; Lai et al. 2016).

The readers deserve to know that, over the years, many experimental interventions have been developed in this research field. The background provided by the authors is too limited.

In addition, a crucial aspect that was not addressed is the effectiveness of VR on implicit and explicit measures. What do we know about that? Is VR more effective on the implicit or explicit bias? Are the results of the reviewed studies unclear on this topic? This issue is something that the authors need to raise in their review, considering that attitudes and stereotypes assessed by implicit measures have shown to predict behavior more accurately than explicit measures in some specific domains. This aspect is relevant because the final goal of reducing attitudes and stereotypes is to reduce their effect on behavior.

Again, I still have some concerns about using the term “prejudice” in this manuscript as it includes studies in which they used implicit measures as the IAT. I believe this term is not appropriate given the long debate in the literature about what implicit measures assess.

Finally, please report the correct references when you cite an instrument. The appropriate citation for the IAT is not Greenwald & Banaji (1995) but Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998).

Reviewer #2: I read the revised manuscript with interest and pleasure. I feel as though the review process made this paper quite a bit stronger. Particularly as a result of the authors’ openness to doing a lot of additional work in response to reviewer requests. And, as the authors note in their response to the reviews, the current version is also strengthened by the number of additional papers that could now be included – the number of which serves to indicate how important the topic is. This is a paper that I will send to my students as a way to understand the state of a topic. That’s a rather self-centered compliment, but it’s the best way I know to indicate a paper’s potential utility.

I note that it will be worthwhile to do one more very slow read through for typos and things related to some annoying idiosyncrasies of the English language, particularly related to verb tenses and singular vs. plural formations.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 14;17(7):e0270748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270748.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 May 2022

Response to reviewer comments

Reviewer #1: Title: The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review

I think the present version of the manuscript has improved compared to the previous one. However, I still have some concerns that prevent me from supporting its publication. Unfortunately, the authors did not fully address some crucial points raised in my previous review.

We are sorry to read that reviewer 1 did not find the previous version of the manuscript as satisfying, but it is good to know that they appreciated the volume and direction of changes made. In the current revision, we did our best to respond and correct every remaining detail of their critical comments, which, in our view, again clearly improved the potential contribution of the study.

Here are some examples.

I suggested the authors to provide a background of the topic that can summarize what we know about the malleability of attitudes and stereotypes. This piece of information is still lacking in the text. In the revised manuscript, the authors only describe in more detail one kind of intervention developed to change social attitudes and stereotypes (i.e., intergroup contact). Again, you cannot ignore 30+ years of scholarship on this topic. Over the past decades, several studies have developed interventions to change attitudes and stereotypes (e.g., see Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001; Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009; Legault, Gutsell, & Inzlicht, 2011; Mann & Kawakami, 2012; Lai et al. 2014, 2016; Marini et al. 2018). One or two paragraphs on this topic are necessary for the readers to understand what we know in this field and how VR may be useful. By reading the introduction of this manuscript, it seems social psychologists used only interventions based on intergroup contact to modulate social attitudes and stereotypes. I know that intergroup contact was the most used intervention in the VR studies, but this does not imply that this intervention is the only one that can be implemented using VR or the only one that deserves to be described. On this latter point, please also consider some recent studies on implicit bias showing that intergroup contact and perspective-taking interventions are not the most effective interventions to modulate social attitudes and stereotypes (see, for example, Lai et al. 2014; Lai et al. 2016).

The readers deserve to know that, over the years, many experimental interventions have been developed in this research field. The background provided by the authors is too limited.

RE: We thank the reviewer for spelling out this comment and fully agree that there was space and function for the suggested addition. In light of the reviewer’s comment, we added three paragraphs on the malleability of intergroup attitudes to provide an accurate overview about the development of intervention research in the area (see section 1.2. Malleability of intergroup attitudes). To be able to cover the volume of intervention research, we decided to focus on meta-analytic studies. Thus, in the first paragraph, we describe Paluck and Green’s (2009) classification of social scientific and psychological interventions designed to influence intergroup bias. In paragraphs 2 and 3, we discuss the malleability of implicit racial prejudice based on the results of the meta-analyses of Lai et al. (2014, 2016), followed by the results of Beelmann and Heinemann’s (2014) meta analysis of different structured programs to reduce explicit prejudice and negative intergroup attitudes. Only then do we move on to discussing the interventions based on contact theory.

In addition, a crucial aspect that was not addressed is the effectiveness of VR on implicit and explicit measures. What do we know about that? Is VR more effective on the implicit or explicit bias? Are the results of the reviewed studies unclear on this topic? This issue is something that the authors need to raise in their review, considering that attitudes and stereotypes assessed by implicit measures have shown to predict behavior more accurately than explicit measures in some specific domains. This aspect is relevant because the final goal of reducing attitudes and stereotypes is to reduce their effect on behavior.

RE:Upon revising our manuscript, we have now added a paragraph in the “Results” section to outline differences in findings regarding the effect of VR contact on intergroup bias assessed using implicit and explicit measures. Based on our analysis, we now conclude that although results are somewhat inconsistent for both measures and depend on the type of intergroup contact studied (majority vs minority perspective), “It seems like implicit measures unveil potential effects of VR-based interventions that might not appear in explicit measures of intergroup attitudes” (p. 27). By making this conclusion, we agree with the reviewer that this is an important conclusion to be made which does not only highlight the potential of VR contact to improve (implicit) attitudes but also outlines its potential to change intergroup behaviors. Furthermore, we have expanded those findings further in the discussion.

Again, I still have some concerns about using the term “prejudice” in this manuscript as it includes studies in which they used implicit measures as the IAT. I believe this term is not appropriate given the long debate in the literature about what implicit measures assess.

RE:We understand this concern. We have taken care of this point by describing the way the concepts of prejudice, intergroup attitudes and intergroup bias are separate but interrelated and how they have been used in different literatures to pinpoint the specific nature of the phenomena studied. We also carefully went through the text and checked that we refer to prejudice only when we talk about the general area of prejudice reduction intervention research. In contrast, we replaced “prejudice” with “intergroup bias” each time we discuss implicit measures. We hope that this way we can do both: speak to the readership about the importance of prejudice reduction and to acknowledge different theoretical and methodological approaches to study intergroup phenomena.

Finally, please report the correct references when you cite an instrument. The appropriate citation for the IAT is not Greenwald & Banaji (1995) but Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998).

RE:We corrected this unintended error in referencing. 

Reviewer #2: Title: The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review

I read the revised manuscript with interest and pleasure. I feel as though the review process made this paper quite a bit stronger. Particularly as a result of the authors’ openness to doing a lot of additional work in response to reviewer requests. And, as the authors note in their response to the reviews, the current version is also strengthened by the number of additional papers that could now be included – the number of which serves to indicate how important the topic is. This is a paper that I will send to my students as a way to understand the state of a topic. That’s a rather self-centered compliment, but it’s the best way I know to indicate a paper’s potential utility.

I note that it will be worthwhile to do one more very slow read through for typos and things related to some annoying idiosyncrasies of the English language, particularly related to verb tenses and singular vs. plural formations.

RE:We are pleased to read that reviewer #2 considers our work ready for publication, and we wish to thank for the good words on the meaningfulness of the manuscript. We have now proofread the manuscript to check for typos and enhance linguistic consistency. We hope that this and the additional revisions have further strengthened the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Michelangelo Vianello

17 Jun 2022

The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review

PONE-D-21-31505R2

Dear Dr. Tassinari,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michelangelo Vianello, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Michelangelo Vianello

22 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-31505R2

The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: a systematic review

Dear Dr. Tassinari:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michelangelo Vianello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist

    (DOC)

    S1 Appendix

    (TIF)

    S2 Appendix

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES