↓ Skip to main content

The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
Title
The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9979-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

James S. Spiegel

Abstract

This article explores four major areas of moral concern regarding virtual reality (VR) technologies. First, VR poses potential mental health risks, including Depersonalization/Derealization Disorder. Second, VR technology raises serious concerns related to personal neglect of users' own actual bodies and real physical environments. Third, VR technologies may be used to record personal data which could be deployed in ways that threaten personal privacy and present a danger related to manipulation of users' beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. Finally, there are other moral and social risks associated with the way VR blurs the distinction between the real and illusory. These concerns regarding VR naturally raise questions about public policy. The article makes several recommendations for legal regulations of VR that together address each of the above concerns. It is argued that these regulations would not seriously threaten personal liberty but rather would protect and enhance the autonomy of VR consumers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 238 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Researcher 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 84 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 22 9%
Psychology 18 8%
Social Sciences 17 7%
Engineering 13 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 5%
Other 60 25%
Unknown 97 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,006,577
of 24,074,720 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#58
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,489
of 322,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,074,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.