Conflict Resiliency in VR

Social-reparative (or restorative justice) processes are largely missing and not taught in Virtual Reality (VR) social platforms (see below for the few resources I could find where this is beginning). Recognizing and addressing micro-conflicts when they occur is a vital ingredient in order to grow healthy and diverse-inclusive VR social environments that not only provide entertainment and reprieve from the high stress lives we are all living, but can also serve as a transformational educational experience for life-skills and knowledge (e.g., STEAM).
Allowing that cancel culture is the status quo in social VR apps, we begin to see how this short-term avoidance focus blocks learning and creative development for all of us. 

---

Consequences to cancel culture framework include increasingly debase and non-diverse environments that use targeting and power-wielding behavior which maintains a pecking order and produces sporadic and instinctual gang-like or mob-mentality encounters with unprepared users. This default environment grows and maintains a chaotic sense of group and individual identity (i.e., belonging means safety, individuality and independent thought means assault).

At the single-user level, this can look like the following social habits or norms developing in individuals who often can easily identify a difference and amplification of how they treat people online versus in person: 
 

• Trolling/Bullying - Intimidating, loud, and invasive body language that creates a power above position by the instigator
• Ghosting - not participating in rituals of goodbye when leaving relationships and moments
• Flooding - Invading a stranger avatar and body space with inappropriate and provacative gestures
• Bigotry & Prejudice behavior - Using harmful language, jokes, and visual imagery to elicit emotionally negative reactive responses from the target

At the group-user level, as in the groups who form common and shared identity, cancel culture creates a survivalist need to maintain connection at the expense of new users who might want to join the group experience or activity. At best, new users are ignored and reflect on a feeling of being left out of a “click” of people. At worst they become targeted by the group for some type of behavior (often unknowingly violating an implicit social norm) that no single group member might have chosen to value or led the group in developing.

Real life social graces and customs are inevitably lost that can build and sustain a user’s ability to interactive dependably within their environment. Chaos becomes the only dependable function of social platforms and hedonism and sadistic behaviors (e.g., trolling) become increasingly common.

Task-based interaction is one of our first socially connective templates in finding a way to belong together. For example, developmentally we first learn around the age of 2 years old to parallel-play together where we want to be near each another, but not engage in direct interaction. Around 3 years old we learn the benefits of social exchange and the delight that can come in interactive play with a companion. Finally, around 4-5 years old we learn collaborative play processes where we start to build group vision and behaviors that have both higher consequence and reward in how I interact and maintain social order.

Similar to these developmental stages, reconciling harmful behavior should allow a user to grow awareness on how their behavior may have offended and go through steps of transforming their reaction into a socially bridging habit. 

Steps of reconciliation include (for offender): 

1. Acknowledging the mistake, 
2. Demonstrating contrition (emotions reflecting empathy) 
3. Offering insight on how the error happened (without attachment to how the receiver of the apology hears it and with sensitivity to stopping this insight awareness sharing if the receiver is overwhelmed)
4. Opening/inviting response on how the mistake was experienced (i.e., harm done) and reflecting this back 
5. Proposal to prevent mistake from happening again (staying with offender changing their actions), 
6. Repair for harm already done (& demonstration of new behavior)

Steps (for the offended):

1. Take a break and take scope of harm done, and what the pattern is
2. Identify the boundaries that you didn’t set that allowed this to occur as far as it did. (We can always set better and clearer expectations of ourselves and each other).
3. Assertively demonstrate that you experienced harm and what you need differently
4. Hold boundaries and seek repair for your wounds elsewhere in a way

Steps for the village/platform/group who allowed offense to occur: 

1. Invest time attention and money in understanding your privilege and the importance of releasing it to those who are under-served and oppressed. 
2. Provide witness and support (without fixing) when invited to participate in these reconciliation processes. 
3. Go through the above steps for the offended and offender recognizing that by being a part of the harmful container you have become both roles at the same time.

​
At the heart of all of this is a missing sense of purpose and "path" in real life and in VR. Humans are social creatures who need to grow and find validation in their growth through the reflection of their community. How do you reconcile conflict in VR? Take a survey here to share your stories! 

Other resources: 

• Restorative Justice in VR podcast
• Relational Presence in VR