ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
Moral dilemmas in virtual reality: a narrative review of findings and methodological challenges.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Moral Decision-Making, Machiavellianism, and Social Cognition in Autism: An Exploratory Study.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Moral dilemmas have long been challenging to study, as different methods often produce results that are hard to compare depending on how questions are framed and responses elicited. Over the past two decades, however, Virtual Reality (VR) has revolutionized this field by the means of immersive and ecologically valid simulations that better reflect real-life scenarios. This literature review examines the use of VR technologies to investigate moral dilemmas, focusing on how immersive environments affect moral decision-making. By analyzing 29 empirical and theoretical studies, we explore how VR enhances ecological validity, bridges the gap between moral judgment and action, and allows researchers to simulate ethically challenging scenarios that would be impossible to recreate in real life. The review covers classic dilemmas-such as the trolley and footbridge problems-as well as applied contexts like driving scenarios, autonomous vehicle decision-making, and professional ethics training. Across these settings, VR studies consistently reveal a general trend toward utilitarian choices, modulated by contextual factors (e.g., age of victims, time pressure), individual differences, and emotional salience. Furthermore, the paper highlights VR's capacity to integrate multimodal data, such as physiological responses and eye-tracking, providing a richer picture of moral cognition. In a dedicated section, we review the main methodological arguments in favor of using VR, along with critiques concerning ecological validity, replicability, and ethical risks linked to virtually real experiences. We conclude by outlining recommendations for future research, emphasizing the importance of expanding VR applications, improving methodological standardization, and developing ethically responsible immersive paradigms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.