The Golden Rule of ethics in its negative form states that you should not do to others what you would not want others to do to you, and in its positive form states that you should do to others as you would want them to do to you. The Golden Rule is an ethical principle, but in virtual reality (VR), it can also be thought of as a paradigm for the promotion of prosocial behavior. This is because in VR, you can directly experience harm that you inflicted or were complicit in inflicting from the embodied perspective of the victim. This use of what we refer to as the Golden Rule Embodiment Paradigm (GREP) relies on participants in VR having the illusion of body ownership over a virtual body. In this article, we introduce virtual embodiment and the consequent illusion of ownership over the virtual body, and describe how this phenomenon has been utilized to influence implicit attitudes. We then introduce the GREP and give examples of studies in which it enhanced helping behavior.
BanakouD.BeaccoA.NeyretS.Blasco-OliverM.SeinfeldS.SlaterM. (2020). Virtual body ownership and its consequences for implicit racial bias are dependent on social context. Royal Society Open Science, 7(12), Article 201848. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201848
2.
BanakouD.GrotenR.SlaterM. (2013). Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110(31), 12846–12851. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306779110
3.
BanakouD.HanumanthuP. D.SlaterM. (2016). Virtual embodiment of White people in a Black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00601
4.
BanakouD.KishoreS.SlaterM. (2018). Virtually being Einstein results in an improvement in cognitive task performance and a decrease in age bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00917
5.
BanakouD.SlaterM. (2014). Body ownership causes illusory self-attribution of speaking and influences subsequent real speaking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111(49), 17678–17683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414936111
6.
BedderR. L.BushD.BanakouD.PeckT.SlaterM.BurgessN. (2019). A mechanistic account of bodily resonance and implicit bias. Cognition, 184, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.11.010
7.
BevanC.GreenD. P.FarmerH.RoseM.CaterK.Stanton FraserD. S.BrownH. (2019). Behind the curtain of the “Ultimate Empathy Machine”: On the composition of virtual reality nonfiction experiences. In CHI 2019: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paper 506. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300736
8.
BlankeO.SlaterM.SerinoA. (2015). Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness. Neuron, 88(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029
9.
BlascovichJ.LoomisJ.BeallA. C.SwinthK. R.HoytC. L.BailensonJ. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychology Inquiry, 13(2), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_01
10.
BloomP. (2017). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Random House.
ChartrandT. L.BarghJ. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
GallagherS. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5
15.
Gonzalez-FrancoM.SlaterM.BirneyM. E.SwappD.HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D. (2018). Participant concerns for the learner in a Virtual Reality replication of the Milgram obedience study. PLOS ONE, 13(12), Article e0209704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209704
16.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
17.
GroomV.BailensonJ. N.NassC. (2009). The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments. Social Influence, 4(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802643750
KishoreS.SpanlangB.IruretagoyenaG.SzostakD.SlaterM. (2021). A virtual reality embodiment technique to enhance helping behavior of police toward a victim of police racial aggression. PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality, 28, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00339
20.
KrossE.AydukO. (2017). Self-distancing: Theory, research, and current directions. In OlsonJ. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 81–136). Elsevier.
21.
MaisterL.SebanzN.KnoblichG.TsakirisM. (2013). Experiencing ownership over a dark-skinned body reduces implicit racial bias. Cognition, 128(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.002
22.
MilgramS. (2009). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper Perennial Modern Thought. (Original work published 1974)
23.
MischkowskiD.KrossE.BushmanB. J. (2012). Flies on the wall are less aggressive: Self-distancing “in the heat of the moment” reduces aggressive thoughts, angry feelings and aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1187–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.012
24.
NakamuraL. (2020). Feeling good about feeling bad: Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412920906259
25.
NeyretS.NavarroX.BeaccoA.OlivaR.BourdinP.ValenzuelaJ.BarberiaI.SlaterM. (2020). An embodied perspective as a victim of sexual harassment in virtual reality reduces action conformity in a later Milgram Obedience scenario. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 6207. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62932-w
26.
PanX.HamiltonA. F. de C. (2018). Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12290
27.
PeckT. C.SeinfeldS.AgliotiS. M.SlaterM. (2013). Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 779–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.016
SlaterM. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
32.
SlaterM.Sanchez-VivesM. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, Article 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
33.
SlaterM.SpanlangB.Sanchez-VivesM. V.BlankeO. (2010). First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLOS ONE, 5(5), Article e10564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010564
34.
StaubE.VollhardtJ. (2008). Altruism born of suffering: The roots of caring and helping after victimization and other trauma. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014223
SutherlandI. E. (1965). The ultimate display. In KalenichW. A. (Ed.), Information processing 1965: Proceedings of IFIP Congress 65 (Vol. 2, pp. 506–508). Spartan Books.
37.
YeeN.BailensonJ. N.DucheneautN. (2009). The Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330254
