A recent study has highlighted virtual reality (VR) as a promising tool for addressing prejudice, demonstrating that virtual intergroup contact could potentially improve attitudes not just towards the primary group involved but also extend benefits to other unrelated groups. This phenomenon, known as the secondary transfer effect (STE), has been observed in physical contact settings and is now being tested in VR environments for the first time. The findings were published in the Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology.
The study, led by Matilde Tassinari, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from the University of Helsinki, explored how VR influenced the attitudes of participants from two groups in Finland and Italy. They engaged with avatars of different ethnic backgrounds in both cooperative and competitive scenarios. “This study is driven by a need to understand whether virtual reality can influence attitudes towards groups beyond those we directly interact with – a concept called the secondary transfer effect,” explained Tassinari. She elaborated that VR’s immersive nature could “convey the intensity and emotional depth of real-life interactions while offering a safe and controlled space,” making it a valuable tool for exploring prejudice reduction.
Participants in the Finnish cohort took part in cooperative VR activities with an African avatar. The findings revealed an increase in positive attitudes towards other outgroups, such as Muslims, people with intellectual disabilities, and East Asians, following these interactions. According to Tassinari, the study “showed that positive VR-based interactions could be uniquely effective in promoting positive attitude shifts across various social groups.” This suggests that VR-based interactions could facilitate broader attitude changes, potentially offering a scalable solution for prejudice reduction.
The Italian participants, however, engaged in both cooperative and competitive VR activities. Unlike the Finnish cohort, they showed only limited positive shifts in attitudes, particularly when exposed to competitive interactions. The researchers noted that competitive VR scenarios, like virtual sports, might reinforce unfavorable stereotypes, which could limit VR’s efficacy as a tool for promoting inclusivity. Tassinari clarified this, noting that “negative interactions did not worsen attitudes,” but that “positive VR contact might be uniquely effective at fostering positive attitude shifts.”
Another significant insight was that while VR did impact explicit, conscious attitudes, it didn’t appear to shift implicit biases, indicating VR’s particular strength in influencing overt, self-reported prejudices. “VR had an effect on explicit, conscious attitudes but not on more subtle, implicit biases,” Tassinari said. This finding underscores the need for further exploration of VR’s potential for influencing conscious awareness of prejudice.
The study’s results suggest that the STE in VR environments may rely heavily on the nature of the interaction, with positive outcomes more likely to arise from cooperative settings. In contrast, competitive scenarios may hinder the generalisation of positive attitudes across groups. While the initial findings are promising, Tassinari emphasised the need for ongoing research: “Future studies should focus on refining VR interventions to ensure lasting positive impact, assessing whether these effects persist over time and across different social groups.”
These findings mark a critical advancement in the field of social psychology by introducing VR as a potential medium for achieving the STE—a mechanism traditionally studied in real-life interactions. The scalability and accessibility of VR could make it a unique tool for bridging social divides, though further refinement of VR methodologies could strengthen its application in real-world settings.
