Advertisement

Moral Conflicts in VR: Addressing Grade Disputes with a Virtual Trainer

  • Jan KolkmeierEmail author
  • Minha Lee
  • Dirk Heylen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)

Abstract

A Virtual Trainer (VT) for moral expertise development can potentially contribute to organizational and personal moral well-being. In a pilot study a prototype of the VT confronted university employees with a complaint from an anonymous student on unfair grading: a plausible scenario. Addressing criticisms from students may be a stressful situation for many teaching professionals. For successful training, adapting the agent’s strategy based on the performance of the user is crucial. To this end, we further recorded a multimodal dataset of the interactions between the participants and the VT for future analysis. Participants saw the value in a VT that lets them practice such encounters. What is more, many participants felt truly taken aback when our VT announced that a student was unhappy with them. We further describe a first look at the multimodal dataset.

Keywords

VR Skill training Moral expertise Moral conflict Gaze Multimodal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Carless, D.: Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education 31(2), 219–233 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., Ahrenberg, L.: Wizard of Oz studies—Why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems 6(4), 258–266 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dane, E., Sonenshein, S.: On the role of experience in ethical decision making at work: An ethical expertise perspective. Organizational Psychology Review 5(1), 74–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeTienne, K.B., Agle, B.R., Phillips, J.C., Ingerson, M.C.C.: The impact of moral stress compared to other stressors on employee fatigue, job satisfaction, and turnover: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 110(3), 377–391 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gebhard, P., Baur, T., Damian, I., Mehlmann, G., Wagner, J., André, E.: Exploring interaction strategies for virtual characters to induce stress in simulated job interviews. In: Proc. of the 2014 Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Int. Found. for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 661–668 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolkmeier, J., Vroon, J., Heylen, D.: Interacting with virtual agents in shared space: single and joint effects of gaze and proxemics. In: Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (eds.) IVA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10011, pp. 1–14. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monin, B.B., Pizarro, D.A., Beer, J.S.: Deciding versus reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate. Review of General Psychology 11(2), 99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roosevelt, M.: Student expectations seen as causing grade disputes. The New York Times, December 13, 2009Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sinnott-Armstrong, W.: Moral dilemmas. Wiley Online Library (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waters, J.A., Bird, F.: The moral dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics 6(1), 15–22 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Human Technology InteractionThe Technical University of EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations