GuestXR USE CASE

Virtual Reality aiding in conflict resolution

Overview

This use case explores the potential of VR environments to aid in conflict resolution by facilitating shifts from competitive to cooperative orientations  for a final conflict mediation.

It is grounded in social psychology approaches, specifically focusing on intergroup processes and perspective-taking to reduce social tensions. In this virtual setting, participants from opposing viewpoints interact within the same space, aimed at building mutual understanding and fostering trust.

Methodology and social psychology background

Social categorization, where individuals view others as part of “ingroup” or “outgroup,” often forms the root of intergroup conflict. This categorization reinforces an “us versus them” mindset, sustaining tensions and creating barriers to conflict resolution.

By using VR, this use case aims to counteract these dynamics by facilitating intergroup contact and allowing participants to “take on” the perspective of the other side—core strategies in conflict resolution research.

USE CASE DEVELOPMENT

Perspective changing through body swapping

In the first iteration, the use case focuses on climate change. Participants representing two differing perspectives on reducing air travel – as a measure to mitigate climate change – engage in a virtual setting. Each participant is positioned with a poster behind them that represents their stance on flight reduction.

The participants switch sides and viewpoints at set intervals; in one condition, participants simply shift positions, while in another, they experience body swapping with their counterpart. This body-swapping approach is intended to encourage a deeper sense of perspective-taking by creating an embodied experience of the opposing view.

FINAL RESULTS & OUTLOOK

Use case results

Rather than immediately reducing disagreement, our findings suggest that embodied role-reversal through VR body-swapping can initially intensify cognitive and emotional discomfort.

Participants who swapped bodies with their opponent during a climate-change debate consistently expressed lower positive sentiment than those who remained in their own bodies. This effect did not reflect disengagement or reduced presence: participants still reported high levels of realism, comfort, and conversational flow, but instead pointed to a more demanding form of engagement.

The results suggest that VR-based perspective-taking does not operate as an instant empathy tool, highlighting the complexity of applying immersive technologies to social conflicts. 

Qualitative analysis of participants’ reflections suggests that this reduction in sentiment is better understood as “productive discomfort” rather than failure. Many participants described the body-swap as strange, confusing, or unsettling, particularly when the assigned position conflicted with their personal beliefs.
 
This discomfort aligns with theories of cognitive dissonance, where tension arises when embodied experience contradicts existing self-concepts or moral commitments. Importantly, participants who reported more playful or entertaining experiences tended to show higher sentiment scores, suggesting that immediate positivity may actually indicate more superficial engagement, while discomfort may signal deeper cognitive processing.
 
Future work will need to examine how repeated exposure, structured follow-up, or facilitation over longer timescales shapes whether this initial discomfort transforms into more stable shifts in reasoning or interaction dynamics.