Ecological and ethical issues in virtual reality research: A call for increased scrutiny

References

• Ahn, S. J., Bostick, J., Ogle, E., Nowak, K., McGillicuddy, K., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 108, 441–485.
   Google Scholar
• Avenanti, A., Sirigu, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2010). Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology, 20(11), 1018–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, J., & Bailenson, J. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darley, J. M., & Batson, D. C. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 100–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Nucci, E. (2012). Self-sacrifice and the trolley problem. Philosophical Psychology, 26(5), 662–672.
   Google Scholar
• Earp, B., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 19, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, K. B., Howard, C., Howard, I. S., Gummerum, M., Ganis, G., Anderson, G., & Terbeck, S. (2016). Virtual morality: Transitioning from moral judgment to moral action? PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0164374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2002). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
   Google Scholar
• Gendler, T. S. (2007). Philosophical thought experiments, intuitions, and cognitive equilibrium. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31(1), 68–89.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, M. S., Wiegmann, A., Joshua, A., & Vong, G. (2012). Putting the trolley in order: Experimental philosophy and the loop case. Philosophical Psychology, 25(5), 661–671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lount, R. B., Jr. (2010). The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 420–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. [Bethesda, Md.]: The Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Mott, M. L., & Asher, B. (2012). Virtual morality: Emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional ‘trolley problem’. Emotion, 12(2), 364–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. D. (2015). Virtual reality for enhanced ecological validity and experimental control in the clinical, affective and social neurosciences. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastotter, B., Gleixner, S., Neuhauser, T., & Karl-Heinz, T. B. (2013). To push or not to push? Affective influences on moral judgment depend on decision frame. Cognition, 126(3), 373–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patil, I., Cogoni, C., Zangrando, N., Chittaro, L., & Silani, G. (2014). Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 94–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pertaub, D. P., Slater, M., & Barker, C. (2002). An Experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(1), 68–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Protection of human subjects, 45 CFR 46 §46.111. (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, E. (2017). Empathy and the limits of thought experiments. Metaphilosophy, 48(4), 504–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo, A., Difede, J., Rothbaum, B. O., Reger, G., Spitalnick, J., Cukor, J., & Mclay, R. (2010). Development and early evaluation of the Virtual Iraq/Afghanistan exposure therapy system for combat-related PTSD. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1208, 114–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 6, 332–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, D., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1, e39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sütfeld, L. R., Gast, R., König, P., & Pipa, G. (2017). Using virtual reality to assess ethical decisions in road traffic scenarios: Applicability of value-of-life-based models and influences of time pressure. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The virtual and augmented reality market will reach $162 billion by 2020. (2016, August 22). Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/virtual-and-augmented-reality-markets-will-reach-162-billion-by-2020-2016-8
   Google Scholar
• Won, A. S., Bailenson, J., Lee, J., & Lanier, J. (2015). Homuncular flexibility in virtual reality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(3), 241–259.
   Google Scholar
• Zimbardo, P. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are turned into predators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar