Being There, Being Someone Else: Leisure and Identity in the Age of Virtual Reality

  • Jonathan Harth
Chapter
Part of the Leisure Studies in a Global Era book series (LSGE)

Abstract

In the year of 2016, three major companies have presented their first generation of virtual reality (VR) devices (namely Oculus Rift, HTC Vive and PlayStation VR). It is highly anticipated that the social impact of these multibillion dollar investments in leisure technology could be enormous. The main principle of virtual reality devices is the production of a sensation of presence in the virtual world. This is achieved by sophisticated tracking systems and an almost borderless display. As a result the presented images will be held for real. But the point is that the ‘realities’ of VR may differ from common reality. And it is exactly this experience which allows certain new perspectives on the world and the individual in the world. If we literally have seen the world through the eyes of someone else, or if we have experienced some critical situations which normally would have been impossible, it becomes clear why our perspective on ourselves, the world and others may change. This chapter explores the presentation of the status quo of the technical standards of VR and its upcoming possibilities and use cases.

Keywords

Virtual reality Digital cultures Augmented reality Gaming Leisure 

References

  1. Angerer, M.-L. (1999). Neue Technologien / Neue Grenzerfahrungen: Cyberbodies. In M. Faßler (Ed.), Alle möglichen Welten. Virtuelle Realität—Wahrnehmung—Ethik der Kommunikation (pp. 163–182). München: Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Banakou, D., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2013). Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Child Body Causes Overestimation of Object Sizes and Implicit Attitude Changes. PNAS, 110(31), 12846–12851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baudrillard, J. (2008) [1981]. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Biocca, F. (1997). The Cyborg’s Dilemma. Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x.
  7. Biocca, F., & Levy, M. (1995). Virtual Reality as a Communication System. In F. Biocca & M. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality (pp. 15–32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-Body Illusions and Minimal Phenomenal Selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber Hands ‘Feel’ Touch That Eyes See. Nature, 391, 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdin, P., Barberia, I., Oliva, R., & Slater, M. (2017). A Virtual Out-of-Body Experience Reduces Fear of Death. PLoS One, 12(1), e0169343.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briscoe, R. (2014). Spatial Content and Motoric Significance. Avant, 5(2), 199–218.  https://doi.org/10.12849/50202014.0109.009.Google Scholar
  12. Caillois, R. (2001). Man, Play and Games. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cummings, J., & Bailenson, J. (2016). How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272-309.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740.
  14. Ehrsson, H. H. (2007). The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences. Science, 317, 1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esposito, E. (2011). Die Realität des Virtuellen. In S. Knaller & H. Müller (Eds.), Realitätskonzepte in der Moderne. Beiträge zu Literatur, Kunst, Philosophie und Wissenschaft (pp. 265–283). München: Fink.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the Self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fuchs, P. (2012). Die Form des Körpers. In M. Schroer (Ed.), Soziologie des Körpers (pp. 48–72). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, T. (2014). The Virtual Other. Empathy in the Age of Virtuality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(5–6), 152–173.Google Scholar
  19. Gehlen, A. (1988). Man. His Nature and Place in the World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Günther, G. (1979). Life as Poly-Contexturality. In G. Günther (Ed.), Beiträge zur Grundlegung einer operationsfähigen Dialektik (Vol. 2, pp. 283–307). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (2000). A Cyborg Manifesto. Science, Technology and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In D. Bell & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), The Cybercultures Reader (pp. 291–324). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence. Presence Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  24. Hobson, J. S. P., & Williams, P. (1997). Virtual Reality: The Future of Leisure and Tourism? World Leisure & Recreation, 39(3), 34–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10261133.1997.9674077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes, O. W. (1861). Sun-Painting and Sun-Sculpture; with a Stereoscopic Trip Across the Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly, 8(45), 13–29.Google Scholar
  26. Huizinga, J. (1980). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 21–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, K. M. (2004a). Why Presence Occurs: Evolutionary Psychology, Media Equation, and Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 494–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, K. M. (2004b). Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O. (2007). Video Ergo Sum. Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness. Science, 24(317), 1096–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence. Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication, 3(2).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.
  33. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Luhmann, N. (2002). Die Religion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  35. Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. (2016). Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific Practice and the Consumers of VR-Technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3(3).  https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00003.
  36. Macleod, D., & Yoder, D. (2005). Issues in Recreation and Leisure: Ethical Decision Making. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  37. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005). Phenomenology of Perception. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Nagy, P., & Koles, B. (2014). The Digital Transformation of Human Identity: Towards a Conceptual Model of Virtual Identity in Virtual Worlds. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(3), 276–292.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856514531532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peck, T., Seinfeld, S., Aglioti, S., & Slater, M. (2013). Putting Yourself in the Skin of a Black Avatar Reduces Implicit Racial Bias. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 779–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petkova, V., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). If I Were You: Perceptual Illusion of Body Swapping. PLoS One, 3(12), e3832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silk, M., Millington, B., Rich, E., & Bush, A. (2016). (Re-)thinking Digital Leisure. Leisure Studies, 35(6), 712–723.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2016.1240223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slater, M., Perez-Marcos, D., Ehrsson, H. H., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2009). Inducing Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Body. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 3(2), 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spencer Brown, G. (1969). Laws of Form. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  45. Spracklen, K. (2009). The Meaning and Purpose of Leisure. Habermas and Leisure at the End of Modernity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spracklen, K. (2011). Constructing Leisure: Historical and Philosophical Debates. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spracklen, K. (2015). Digital Leisure, the Internet and Popular Culture. Communities and Identities in a Digital Age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steed, A., Pan, Y., Zisch, F., & Steptoe, W. (2016). The Impact of a Self-Avatar on Cognitive Load in Immersive Virtual Reality. IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), 67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2016.7504689.
  49. Stein, J. (2015). The Surprising Joy of Virtual Reality. And Why It’s About to Change the World. TIME, 186(6), 32–41.Google Scholar
  50. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sutherland, I. E. (1965). The Ultimate Display. Proceedings of IFIP Congress, 506–508.Google Scholar
  52. Turkle, S. (2005). The Second Self. Computers and the Human Spirit. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Saari, T., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Gouveia, F., Biocca, F., Sacau, A., Jäncke, L., Baumgartner, T., & Jäncke, P. (2007). A Process Model of the Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Žižek, S. (1995). On Virtual Sex and Related Matters. Welcome to the Wired World: ars electronica 95. http://90.146.8.18/en/archives/festival_archive/festival_catalogs/festival_artikel.asp. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Harth
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität Witten/HerdeckeWittenGermany

Personalised recommendations