10.5 Ethical considerations in VR/AR research and development

Virtual and augmented reality technologies offer incredible potential, but they also raise complex ethical concerns. From privacy and psychological impacts to accessibility and content moderation, VR/AR developers face numerous challenges in creating responsible, inclusive experiences.

Ethical frameworks like utilitarianism and virtue ethics can guide decision-making, while governance efforts span industry self-regulation to government oversight. Ultimately, proactive consideration of ethics throughout the innovation process is key to realizing VR/AR's benefits while mitigating risks.

Ethical frameworks for VR/AR

• Ethical frameworks provide structured approaches for evaluating the moral implications and social impacts of VR/AR technologies
• Applying established ethical theories to VR/AR helps identify potential benefits, risks, rights, and responsibilities for developers and users
• Frameworks offer guidance for navigating complex ethical dilemmas and value trade-offs that arise with immersive and persuasive VR/AR experiences

Utilitarianism in VR/AR

Top images from around the web for Utilitarianism in VR/AR

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Utilitarianism in VR/AR

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Focuses on maximizing overall happiness, well-being, and benefits for the greatest number of people affected by a VR/AR application
• Weighs potential positive outcomes (education, skills training, social connection) against risks of harm (addiction, manipulation, privacy violations)
• Challenges include defining and measuring utility, comparing different types of VR/AR impacts, and avoiding sacrificing individual welfare for aggregate gains

Deontology and VR/AR

• Emphasizes adhering to moral duties, rules, and obligations regardless of outcomes, such as respecting user autonomy, honesty, and fairness
• Prioritizes protecting individual rights over collective welfare and rejects exploiting or deceiving users even for beneficial aims
• Raises questions about the fundamental rights of users (privacy, bodily and psychological integrity) and corresponding responsibilities of VR/AR creators

Virtue ethics for VR/AR

• Evaluates the moral character traits and motivations of VR/AR innovators and how technologies cultivate or undermine human virtues
• Considers whether VR/AR applications encourage ethical behavior (compassion, generosity) or vices (greed, violence, deception)
• Highlights the importance of designers' moral integrity and conscience in the face of economic incentives or competitive pressures that could compromise ethics

Privacy concerns with VR/AR

• VR/AR systems can capture, generate, and analyze vast amounts of highly personal and sensitive data about users' bodies, behaviors, and minds
• Immersive sensors and analytics enable unprecedented tracking, profiling, and influencing of users across both virtual and physical contexts
• Privacy risks include data breaches, surveillance, manipulation, discrimination, and erosion of anonymity and control over personal information

Data collection in VR/AR

• VR/AR devices gather rich streams of biometric (eye tracking, facial expressions), behavioral (gestures, interactions), and contextual (location, social connections) data
• Sensor fusion techniques can combine multiple data sources to make invasive inferences about users' emotions, intentions, and intimate personal characteristics
• Ongoing challenges include providing transparency about data practices, minimizing data collection, and securely handling personal information

User tracking and monitoring

• VR/AR technologies allow continuous, granular monitoring of user actions, attention, and responses within immersive experiences and real-world environments
• Eye tracking, gaze analysis, and emotion detection enable deep insights into users' interests, preferences, and decision-making processes
• Pervasive tracking raises concerns about surveillance, profiling, behavior modification, and chilling effects on creative expression and social interaction

Protecting user privacy

• Privacy safeguards for VR/AR need to address data governance (collection, sharing, retention), user control (consent, access, deletion), and security (encryption, anonymization)
• Privacy-by-design principles promote data minimization, decentralized architectures, and user-centric data management practices
• Emerging privacy-enhancing technologies relevant to VR/AR include differential privacy, federated learning, and blockchain-based data trusts and intermediaries

Psychological impacts of VR/AR

• VR/AR experiences can have profound effects on users' perceptions, emotions, beliefs, and behaviors by simulating highly convincing and intense multisensory stimuli
• Immersive technologies create new risks of mental manipulation, behavioral addiction, social isolation, and desensitization to violence or anti-social conduct
• Long-term psychological ramifications of VR/AR are still poorly understood, requiring ongoing research and monitoring to assess cognitive, affective, and behavioral impacts

Emotional manipulation risks

• VR/AR enables deeply engaging, emotionally compelling experiences that can alter users' feelings and attitudes without their awareness or control
• Empathy-arousing VR/AR simulations can cultivate false memories and trick brains into forming intimate connections with virtual characters or avatars
• Malicious actors could exploit immersive emotional triggers for deceptive advertising, political propaganda, radicalization, or psychological torture

Addiction and overuse

• Highly immersive, stimulating, and gamified VR/AR applications have the potential to be addictive, encourage compulsive use, and lead to psychological dependence
• Excessive VR/AR usage could interfere with real-world responsibilities, relationships, and mental health, particularly for vulnerable youth
• Developers may be incentivized to maximize engagement at the expense of user well-being, requiring ethical constraints and safety guidelines

Effects on social interaction

• VR/AR could replace in-person communication with virtual interactions, leading to diminished social skills, isolation, and deterioration of real-world relationships
• Immersive social environments may expose users to novel forms of harassment, abuse, peer pressure, and anti-social behavior
• Extensive use of VR/AR avatars and filters could undermine authentic self-representation, exacerbate biases, and breed mistrust in communication

Physical health considerations

• VR/AR hardware and software interfaces can cause immediate discomfort and injury as well as yet unknown cumulative ergonomic and neurological health impacts
• Physical risks span from temporary symptoms (eye strain, headaches) to chronic conditions (neck strain, obesity) to traumatic accidents (falls, collisions)
• Mitigating strategies include hardware design improvements, software safety features (warnings, time limits), and medical research on long-term effects

VR sickness and discomfort

• Sensory conflicts between visual motion cues in VR/AR displays and physical head/body movements can induce disorientation, nausea, and imbalance
• Vergence-accommodation mismatch between virtual depth and focal distance contributes to visual discomfort, fatigue, and difficulty focusing
• Individual susceptibility to VR sickness varies widely and may limit adoption and usage of immersive technologies for significant portions of the population

Repetitive strain injuries

• Frequent, prolonged use of VR/AR input devices (controllers, gestures) can strain muscles and joints in the hands, arms, shoulders and neck
• Physically active VR/AR applications may cause overexertion, exhaustion, and musculoskeletal stress and pain, especially with improper form or overuse
• Ergonomic design of VR/AR systems requires balancing comfortable, natural interactions with exertion limits and recovery, plus user training on healthy practices

Long-term health unknowns

• Cumulative impacts of regular, extensive VR/AR use on visual, neurological, and metabolic health are still unknown and may take years to manifest
• Children's health may be especially vulnerable to adverse effects of VR/AR on developing eyes and brains, meriting extra precautions
• Post-market health monitoring, longitudinal studies, and industry/academic/government cooperation are crucial to proactively identifying and addressing chronic VR/AR health risks

Accessibility and inclusivity

• VR/AR technologies raise new barriers for equal access and inclusion of diverse user populations across physical, cognitive, and social dimensions
• Inclusive design of VR/AR must accommodate a wide range of perceptual, motor, and linguistic abilities and address disparities in digital literacy and economic means
• Proactive integration of accessibility and inclusivity throughout VR/AR development and deployment is an ethical imperative to prevent widening digital divides

Designing for diverse users

• VR/AR hardware, software, and content must be adaptable and customizable to fit diverse ergonomic needs, abilities, and preferences
• Inclusive design considerations span visual (color vision deficiency), auditory (caption, signing), mobility (seated play, one-handed use), and cognitive (memory, information processing) accommodations
• Cultural inclusivity requires offering VR/AR interfaces and experiences in multiple languages and reflecting diversity in avatars, characters, and narratives

Socioeconomic barriers to VR/AR

• High costs of VR/AR devices and bandwidth requirements risk making immersive technologies accessible only to affluent, digitally connected populations
• Public and non-profit VR/AR access through schools, libraries, and community centers is critical to ensure VR/AR literacy and participation across socioeconomic strata
• Affordable, smartphone-based VR/AR approaches can extend access but may offer inferior quality, exacerbating digital divides

Accessibility features and tools

• Accessibility must be built into VR/AR platforms and tools, including alternative input modalities (speech, eye tracking), output customization (text enlargement, audio description), and difficulty settings
• Open accessibility standards, cross-platform compatibility, and third-party assistive plugins can expand options for adapting VR/AR to individual needs
• Accessibility efforts should engage diverse users throughout design processes and provide channels for reporting and resolving accessibility barriers

Content moderation challenges

• VR/AR platforms must establish and enforce standards for acceptable content and behavior while respecting creative freedom and diversity of expression
• Immersive, user-generated VR/AR content is difficult to monitor at scale and poses novel forms of potential harms, from violent/hateful speech to disturbing simulations
• Inconsistent moderation across VR/AR services could allow bad actors to exploit more permissive platforms and create virtual safe havens for toxic content and conduct

Defining acceptable VR/AR content

• Content policies for VR/AR must define clear boundaries for permissible vs. restricted content that are appropriate to specific user contexts (age, application purpose)
• Classifying objectionable VR/AR content involves nuanced distinctions in realism, intensity, and interactivity of experiences depicting violence, hate, obscenity, or illegal acts
• Crafting culturally sensitive and internationally compatible content standards requires multi-stakeholder input and flexibility for local adaptations

Enforcing content guidelines

• Proactive content moderation in VR/AR requires automated analysis of 3D assets, scenes, and interactions in addition to text, images, and audio
• Immersive content complicates human moderation due to technological barriers (specialized VR/AR setups) and psychological toll of prolonged exposure to disturbing realistic experiences
• Limited transparency and accountability of VR/AR content moderation decisions, often made by private actors, risks silencing legitimate speech and concentrating power over public discourse

Balancing free speech vs harm

• Moderating VR/AR content requires weighing tradeoffs between free speech rights and preventing individual/social harms, which manifest differently in immersive experiences
• Embodied, interactive nature of VR/AR may justify more stringent restrictions on some forms of speech (threats, harassment) whose impacts are amplified by realism and presence
• Navigating speech boundaries in VR/AR requires confronting fundamental questions about how rights and responsibilities should translate in novel experiential media

Informed consent practices

• VR/AR experiences can subject users to intense, surprising stimuli with uncertain short and long-term consequences, necessitating robust informed consent protocols
• Obtaining meaningful consent for VR/AR is challenged by lack of user familiarity with immersive risks, persuasive effects of virtual embodiment, and data privacy complexities
• Effective VR/AR consent practices must be tailored to user characteristics (age, VR/AR experience), provide timely disclosures and choices, and balance detail with comprehension

Disclosing VR/AR risks

• Informed consent for VR/AR should communicate potential physical (discomfort, injury), psychological (distress, manipulation), and privacy (data gathering, sharing) risks
• Risk disclosures must be specific to the content and features of a VR/AR experience, not just generic warnings, and highlight any lasting effects beyond the immediate interaction
• Layered disclosure formats (short overviews with links to detailed explanations) can help make VR/AR risk information more digestible and accessible

Obtaining meaningful consent

• VR/AR consent interfaces should appear natively in immersive environments and allow users to make granular choices about participation, data collection, and experience options
• Affirmative, opt-in consent for sensitive VR/AR experiences should be required, rather than defaulting to assumed consent with opt-outs
• Mechanisms to withdraw or modify consent during a VR/AR experience are important to empower users to adjust boundaries based on real-time comfort levels

Protecting vulnerable populations

• Minors, elderly, and physically/mentally impaired individuals may be especially vulnerable to VR/AR risks and require additional consent safeguards
• Adapting VR/AR consent processes for child users involves age-appropriate information, parental consent, and limits on data practices and content exposure
• VR/AR applications targeted at medical patients, students, employees, or public audiences should adhere to domain-specific consent and human subjects research guidelines

Responsible innovation principles

• Proactive ethical deliberation and value-sensitive design throughout VR/AR development lifecycles is critical to surfacing and mitigating downstream negative impacts
• Responsible VR/AR innovation involves broadening participation in design decisions, monitoring for unintended consequences, and flexibly updating approaches as contexts evolve
• Adopting ethically-aligned design frameworks (IEEE, OECD) and conducting regular ethical reviews and risk/benefit assessments can enhance responsible VR/AR innovation

Anticipating unintended consequences

• Developers should strive to anticipate and preemptively address potential misuses and negative externalities of their VR/AR technologies, not just intended use cases
• Unintended harms may arise from technological limitations (tracking inaccuracies), malicious actors (hackers, harassers), or social/contextual factors beyond designers' control
• Scenario planning, threat modeling, and frequent re-assessment of evolving risks throughout VR/AR development and deployment can surface ethical blind spots

Stakeholder engagement and input

• Responsible VR/AR innovation requires actively seeking and incorporating perspectives of diverse stakeholders potentially impacted by immersive technologies
• Participatory design methods bring users, community members, policymakers, and ethical experts into VR/AR design processes to better align innovations with societal values
• Stakeholder engagement should continue beyond initial design through forums for ongoing user feedback, external audits/assessments, and whistleblowing channels

Iterative ethical assessment

• Ethical evaluation of VR/AR technologies should not be a one-time checkpoint but rather a continuous, iterative process throughout product lifecycles
• Staging periodic ethical reviews at each phase (conception, prototyping, testing, release, updates) enables identifying and resolving emerging ethical risks
• Metrics and KPIs for assessing VR/AR ethical alignment should balance quantitative (value-sensitive requirements tests) and qualitative (user interviews) inputs

Governance and regulation

• Overseeing responsible development of VR/AR requires multi-layered governance spanning industry self-regulation, government policy, and international coordination
• Regulatory challenges include keeping pace with rapid VR/AR technological change, consistency across jurisdictions, and enforcing controls on decentralized creation and use
• Effective VR/AR governance requires striking balances between promoting innovation vs. safety and corporate vs. government vs. individual responsibilities

Industry self-regulation efforts

• VR/AR industry consortia and trade groups are developing self-regulatory initiatives around shared ethical principles, best practices, and content rating systems
• Individual VR/AR companies institute their own internal ethical review boards, developer guidelines, and content moderation processes to address responsibility gaps
• Limitations of self-regulation include misaligned incentives, lack of transparency/accountability, and inconsistency that allows bad actors to exploit weak links

Government oversight and laws

• Governments are exploring legal and regulatory frameworks to oversee VR/AR development, from extending existing laws (privacy, copyright) to creating new VR/AR-specific rules
• Oversight mechanisms range from mandatory human rights impact assessments for VR/AR companies to regulatory sandboxes for controlled live-testing of new immersive products/features
• Challenges include avoiding patchworks of conflicting laws across states/countries, preserving speech rights and creativity, and adapting rules to evolving technologies

International cooperation and standards

• Transnational governance institutions (UN, OECD, IEEE) are developing international ethical standards and principles for responsible stewardship of VR/AR technologies
• Harmonizing VR/AR standards and regulations across countries is important for supporting global innovation while providing consistent user protections worldwide
• Multi-stakeholder initiatives bringing together governments, industry, academia, and civil society can help forge international consensus and coordinate enforcement efforts