When I started on this assignment I was very hopeful of the prospect of VR being the "ultimate empathy machine". However, I have come to realize that although VR can create the illusion of being in someone else's body, you can never truly replicate what it is like to be someone else and it is misleading and unethical to say that you can.

I agree with Jon Rueda and Francisco Lara who in their 2020 paper suggest that instead of using the body transfer illusion, VR designers should look to design their spaces so that participants become "informed witnesses" instead of encouraging people to step inside someone else’s shoes. In this way participants generate sympathy, not empathy for the cause at hand.

The design of these VR spaces is important. Designers need to make sure that they do not inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes and reduce a whole group of people to a singular digital representation. In addition designers need to create spaces that encourages participants to take their time and fully explore the space. Lastly, pre and post facilitation is necessary as these experiences may be overwhelming or traumatic for individuals. A clear goal and call to action is needed so that participants are motivated to take action on the issue presented in the VR space.

On the flip side, I do believe that there is a lot of potential in using VR to be an "informed witness" in the world. VR immersion can give learners the opportunity to visit, engage, and observe what someone else's life is like. It broadens the learners perspective and gives them another way to view the world. Having multiple perspectives on a subject is an important part of learning and can help to scaffold and build knowledge. Instead of inducing feelings of empathy, I think a better use of this technology is practicing empathic skills like in the Guetterman (2019) study that had medical students practice empathic communication on virtual human patients.