pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09198 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: no theorem link

Rushed by Discomfort, Trapped by Immersion: Users' Experiences and Responses to Privacy Deceptive Design in Commercial VR Applications

Hilda Hadan, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, Lennart E. Nacke, Michaela Valiquette

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords virtual realityprivacydeceptive designergonomic susceptibilityuser experienceimmersiondata disclosureVR applications
0
0 comments X

The pith

VR deceptive designs exploit bodily discomfort and the desire for immersion to encourage acceptance of invasive data practices.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper surveys 481 users about their encounters with privacy deceptive patterns in eight commercial VR scenarios. It establishes that VR can amplify manipulation by combining cognitive shortcuts with physical strain, a dynamic the authors name Ergonomic Susceptibility. Sensory immersion makes users more willing to share data when the request is framed as preserving the experience. Participants often spotted the tactics yet still complied, partly because prior non-VR use had already produced privacy resignation. The work argues that effective privacy protections in VR must therefore address the medium's multimodal and ergonomic traits rather than treating it like conventional screens.

Core claim

We surveyed 481 users and identified that VR deceptive design exploits both cognitive vulnerabilities and bodily strain, a phenomenon we define as Ergonomic Susceptibility, and that VR's sensory-rich experiences can make users more likely to accept invasive data disclosure framed as immersion-preserving. Users recognized manipulation but their prior non-VR exposure can foster privacy resignation. Our study shows ergonomics is a critical factor in future privacy-preserving VR design.

What carries the argument

Ergonomic Susceptibility: the mechanism by which deceptive design in VR combines cognitive vulnerabilities with bodily strain to increase acceptance of invasive data disclosure presented as necessary for comfort or immersion.

If this is right

  • Privacy management tools in VR must incorporate ergonomic factors to remain effective against manipulation.
  • Regulations for VR platforms need to address the medium's immersive and physical properties rather than importing 2D rules unchanged.
  • Designers should create onboarding flows that decouple data consent from immediate comfort or immersion goals.
  • User education programs alone are unlikely to suffice because resignation from prior platform exposure persists in VR.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The bodily dimension of VR may make deceptive patterns more potent than equivalent tactics on flat screens.
  • Scenario-based surveys could understate or overstate effects; direct observation inside shipping VR apps would provide a stronger test.
  • Future interfaces might separate comfort-restoring actions from data-sharing decisions to reduce the leverage of discomfort.

Load-bearing premise

Participants' self-reported experiences with the eight constructed VR scenarios accurately capture real-world responses to actual commercial deceptive designs without significant recall or social-desirability bias.

What would settle it

A controlled study inside live commercial VR applications that finds no measurable increase in acceptance of invasive data requests when users feel physical discomfort or strong immersion pressure compared with neutral conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09198 by Hilda Hadan, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, Lennart E. Nacke, Michaela Valiquette.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: S=Scenario. Participants’ (𝑁 = 481) responses regarding: Left: (conditional question) perceived privacy impacts of their selected responses to the presented mechanism in each VR scenario, drawing on prior experiences with the application (1-not at all to 5-significantly); and Right: perceived benefit of each design mechanism for themselves (user ␣), the VR application’s developer and publisher (Dev & Pub ␣… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An example screenshot of the video clip. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example UI elements we used to support participants’ understanding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Commercial Virtual Reality (VR) transforms people's virtual experiences but introduces deceptive design opportunities that threaten user privacy. Although privacy deceptive patterns on 2D platforms are well-documented, their impacts in VR remain understudied. We surveyed 481 users' experiences and responses to privacy deceptive patterns across eight commercial VR scenarios. We found that VR deceptive design can exploit both cognitive vulnerabilities and bodily strain, a phenomenon we define as Ergonomic Susceptibility, and that VR's sensory-rich experiences can make users more likely to accept invasive data disclosure framed as immersion-preserving. Users recognized manipulation but their prior non-VR exposure can foster privacy resignation. Our study shows ergonomics is a critical factor in future privacy-preserving VR design, and urges VR researchers, designers, and policymakers to develop ethical design and privacy management solutions that account for VR's unique multimodal, immersive, and ergonomic properties, building immersive experiences that respect user privacy and mitigate manipulative data practices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a survey of 481 users on their experiences with privacy deceptive design patterns across eight constructed commercial VR scenarios. It introduces the construct of Ergonomic Susceptibility to describe how VR deceptive designs exploit both cognitive vulnerabilities and bodily strain, and claims that VR's immersive sensory properties increase users' willingness to accept invasive data disclosures when framed as preserving immersion. The study also reports that users recognize manipulation but prior non-VR privacy exposure can lead to resignation, and concludes by urging ergonomic-aware privacy design in VR.

Significance. If the empirical mapping from constructed scenarios to real commercial VR holds, the work would usefully extend 2D privacy-deception research into the multimodal, embodied VR setting and supply a new lens (ergonomics plus immersion) for design guidelines and policy. The sample scale is reasonable for an exploratory HCI study and the call for ergonomics-aware privacy solutions is timely given growing VR adoption.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and Methods: no information is supplied on sampling method, scenario construction process, statistical controls, or inter-rater reliability for any qualitative coding. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim (Ergonomic Susceptibility as a distinct VR phenomenon) rests entirely on the self-reported responses to the eight scenarios.
  2. Abstract and Methods: the eight scenarios are described as 'commercial VR scenarios' yet no validation against actual deployed commercial applications is reported. Without such grounding, the generalization that VR deceptive design exploits bodily strain and increases acceptance of invasive disclosure cannot be confidently extended beyond the hypothetical stimuli.
  3. Results/Discussion: the study relies exclusively on self-reported experiences and intentions; no behavioral measures (e.g., actual disclosure clicks, time spent, or physiological indicators of strain) are collected to corroborate the claims about acceptance of invasive data framed as immersion-preserving.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the methods whether the eight scenarios were derived from a systematic review of commercial VR apps or were researcher-constructed exemplars, and provide the exact wording or screenshots used.
  2. Add a limitations subsection that explicitly discusses social-desirability and hypothetical bias risks for privacy-related self-reports.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, outlining specific revisions to improve methodological transparency, scenario grounding, and discussion of limitations while preserving the exploratory nature of the survey-based study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Methods: no information is supplied on sampling method, scenario construction process, statistical controls, or inter-rater reliability for any qualitative coding. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim (Ergonomic Susceptibility as a distinct VR phenomenon) rests entirely on the self-reported responses to the eight scenarios.

    Authors: We agree that the submitted version omitted key methodological details. In the revision, we will expand the Methods section to fully describe the sampling approach (recruitment via online platforms, screening criteria, and sample demographics), the scenario construction process (iterative development drawing from documented 2D deceptive patterns and VR-specific ergonomic factors identified in prior literature), statistical controls employed (e.g., covariates for VR experience and demographics in regression models), and the qualitative analysis procedure including inter-rater reliability statistics for any coded responses. These additions will directly support evaluation of the Ergonomic Susceptibility construct. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract and Methods: the eight scenarios are described as 'commercial VR scenarios' yet no validation against actual deployed commercial applications is reported. Without such grounding, the generalization that VR deceptive design exploits bodily strain and increases acceptance of invasive disclosure cannot be confidently extended beyond the hypothetical stimuli.

    Authors: The scenarios were designed to instantiate privacy deceptive patterns observed in commercial VR, informed by existing studies and public documentation of VR apps. We acknowledge the absence of explicit validation mapping. In revision, we will insert a dedicated subsection detailing the derivation of each scenario from real-world commercial examples (with citations to specific apps and patterns), revise abstract and discussion language to emphasize that findings pertain to these representative stimuli, and add a limitations paragraph on generalizability with suggestions for future direct app audits. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Results/Discussion: the study relies exclusively on self-reported experiences and intentions; no behavioral measures (e.g., actual disclosure clicks, time spent, or physiological indicators of strain) are collected to corroborate the claims about acceptance of invasive data framed as immersion-preserving.

    Authors: Self-report is the appropriate method for an exploratory survey focused on users' perceived experiences, recognition of manipulation, and reported intentions. We agree behavioral or physiological corroboration would strengthen causal claims. In the revision, we will add an expanded Limitations section explicitly discussing the constraints of self-reported data (including potential recall bias), tempering language around acceptance of disclosures, and proposing future work using in-VR behavioral logging or strain sensors. The core findings on Ergonomic Susceptibility and resignation remain positioned as perceptual insights from the survey. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical survey study

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative empirical survey reporting 481 users' self-reported experiences and responses to eight constructed VR privacy deceptive design scenarios. It introduces the term 'Ergonomic Susceptibility' to label the observed pattern that VR deceptive design can exploit both cognitive vulnerabilities and bodily strain, with an additional observation that sensory-rich immersion increases acceptance of invasive disclosure. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, model-based predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The definition is a post-hoc descriptive label applied to survey findings rather than a self-referential reduction of the result to its inputs by construction, and the study remains self-contained against external benchmarks as a direct report of participant responses.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard survey assumptions rather than new mathematical constructs; the main addition is the post-hoc definition of Ergonomic Susceptibility from observed patterns.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-reported experiences in constructed VR scenarios reliably reflect responses to real commercial deceptive designs
    Survey methodology depends on this premise for external validity.
invented entities (1)
  • Ergonomic Susceptibility no independent evidence
    purpose: To label the combined effect of bodily strain and cognitive vulnerabilities that increases acceptance of privacy-invasive requests in VR
    Newly coined term derived from survey findings; no independent falsifiable test is described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1260 out tokens · 39835 ms · 2026-05-12T03:32:48.030351+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Melvin Abraham, Pejman Saeghe, Mark Mcgill, and Mohamed Khamis. 2022. Implications of XR on Privacy, Security and Behaviour: Insights from Experts. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference(Aarhus, Denmark)(NordiCHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3546155.3546691

    work page doi:10.1145/3546155.3546691 2022

  2. [2]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Idris Adjerid, Rebecca Balebako, Laura Brandimarte, Lor- rie Faith Cranor, Saranga Komanduri, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Norman Sadeh, Florian Schaub, Manya Sleeper, Yang Wang, and Shomir Wilson. 2017. Nudges for Privacy and Security: Understanding and Assisting Users’ Choices Online. ACM Comput. Surv.50, 3, Article 44 (Aug. 2017), 41 pages...

    work page doi:10.1145/3054926 2017

  3. [3]

    Redmiles

    Devon Adams, Alseny Bah, Catherine Barwulor, Nureli Musabay, Kadeem Pitkin, and Elissa M. Redmiles. 2018. Ethics Emerging: The Story of Privacy and Security Perceptions in Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the Fourteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security(Baltimore, MD, USA)(SOUPS ’18). USENIX Association, USA, 443–458

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Idris Adjerid, Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein

    work page

  5. [5]

    In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security(Newcastle, United Kingdom)(SOUPS ’13)

    Sleights of privacy: framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security(Newcastle, United Kingdom)(SOUPS ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/2501604.2501613

    work page doi:10.1145/2501604.2501613

  6. [6]

    Dorothée Bentz, Nan Wang, Merle K Ibach, Nathalie S Schicktanz, Anja Zimmer, Andreas Papassotiropoulos, and Dominique JF de Quervain. 2021. Effectiveness of a stand-alone, smartphone-based virtual reality exposure app to reduce fear of heights in real-life: a randomized trial.NPJ digital medicine4, 1 (2021), 16

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    2010.Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames

    Ian Bogost. 2010.Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Kerstin Bongard-Blanchy, Arianna Rossi, Salvador Rivas, Sophie Doublet, Vin- cent Koenig, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2021. ”I am Definitely Manipulated, Even When I am Aware of it. It’s Ridiculous!” - Dark Patterns from the End-User Perspective. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Con- ference(Virtual Event, USA)(DIS ’21). Association f...

    work page doi:10.1145/3461778.3462086 2021

  9. [9]

    Elise Bonnail, Wen-Jie Tseng, Mark Mcgill, Eric Lecolinet, Samuel Huron, and Jan Gugenheimer. 2023. Memory Manipulations in Extended Reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 875, 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580988

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580988 2023

  10. [10]

    Ida Borberg, Rene Hougaard, Willard Rafnsson, and Oksana Kulyk. 2022. So I sold my soul”: Effects of dark patterns in cookie notices on end-user behavior and perceptions. InUsable Security and Privacy (USEC) Symposium, Vol. 2022. The Internet Society, San Diego, CA, USA, 1–11

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Christoph Bösch, Benjamin Erb, Frank Kargl, Henning Kopp, and Stefan Pfatthe- icher. 2016. Tales from the Dark Side: Privacy Dark Strategies and Privacy Dark Patterns.Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol.2016, 4 (2016), 237–254

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    2023.Deceptive patterns – exposing the tricks that tech companies use to control you

    Harry Brignull. 2023.Deceptive patterns – exposing the tricks that tech companies use to control you. Testimonium Ltd, UK

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Lauren Buck and Rachel McDonnell. 2022. Security and Privacy in the Metaverse: The Threat of the Digital Human. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Novel Challenges of Safety, Security andPrivacy in Extended Reality. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Chan, Howard Leung, Jeff K.T

    Jacky C.P. Chan, Howard Leung, Jeff K.T. Tang, and Taku Komura. 2011. A Virtual Reality Dance Training System Using Motion Capture Technology.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies4, 2 (2011), 187–195. doi:10.1109/TLT.2010. 27

    work page doi:10.1109/tlt.2010 2011

  15. [15]

    Eunhee Chang, Hyun Taek Kim, and Byounghyun Yoo. 2020. Virtual reality sickness: a review of causes and measurements.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction36, 17 (2020), 1658–1682

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Shi-Yi Chen, Zhe Feng, and Xiaolian Yi. 2017. A general introduction to adjust- ment for multiple comparisons.Journal of thoracic disease9, 6 (2017), 1725

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Chivukula and C

    S.S. Chivukula and C. Gray. 2025.Universal Methods of Ethical Design: 100 Ways to Become More Ethically A ware, Responsible, and Active in Your Design Work. Rockport Publishers, Beverly, MA. https://books.google.ca/books?id= HwsSEQAAQBAJ

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Pivonka, and Jingning Chen

    Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Colin Gray, Ziqing Li, Anne C. Pivonka, and Jingning Chen. 2024. Surveying a Landscape of Ethics-Focused Design Methods.ACM J. Responsib. Comput.1, 3, Article 22 (Sept. 2024), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3678988

    work page doi:10.1145/3678988 2024

  19. [19]

    Rune Haubo B Christensen. 2019. A Tutorial on fitting Cumulative Link Mixed Models with clmm2 from the ordinal Package.Tutorial for the R Package ordinal 1 (2019), 10 pages

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    2021.Thematic analysis: a practical guide

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2021.Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE Publications Ltd, California, United States

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Linda Di Geronimo, Larissa Braz, Enrico Fregnan, Fabio Palomba, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2020. UI Dark Patterns and Where to Find Them: A Study on Mobile Applications and User Perception. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. d...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831 2020

  22. [22]

    Tamara Dinev and Paul Hart. 2006. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions.Information systems research17, 1 (2006), 61–80

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Ben Egliston and Marcus Carter. 2023. Examining visions of surveillance in Oculus’ data and privacy policies, 2014–2020.Media International Australia188, 1 (2023), 52–66. doi:10.1177/1329878X211041670

    work page doi:10.1177/1329878x211041670 2023

  24. [24]

    Stephen R Ellis. 1995. Nature and origins of virtual environments: a bibliograph- ical essay. InReadings in Human–Computer Interaction. Elsevier, New York, USA, 913–932

    work page 1995

  25. [25]

    European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2022. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:32022R2065. Last accessed...

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner, and Albert-Georg Lang. 2009. Statis- tical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.Behavior research methods41, 4 (2009), 1149–1160

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Yuanyuan Feng, Yaxing Yao, and Norman Sadeh. 2021. A Design Space for Privacy Choices: Towards Meaningful Privacy Control in the Internet of Things. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 64, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445148

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445148 2021

  28. [28]

    Janet Finch. 1987. The vignette technique in survey research.Sociology21, 1 (1987), 105–114

    work page 1987

  29. [29]

    Julian Frommel, Cody Phillips, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2021. Gathering Self- Report Data in Games Through NPC Dialogues: Effects on Data Quality, Data Quantity, Player Experience, and Information Intimacy. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445411 2021

  30. [30]

    Vaibhav Garg and Jean Camp. 2012. End User Perception of Online Risk under Uncertainty. In2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Maui, Hawaii, 3278–3287. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.245

    work page doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.245 2012

  31. [31]

    PAJ Graßl, HK Schraffenberger, FJ Zuiderveen Borgesius, and MA Buijzen. 2021. Dark and bright patterns in cookie consent requests.Journal of Digital Social Research3, 1 (2021), 1–38

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Gray, Jingle Chen, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, and Liyang Qu

    Colin M. Gray, Jingle Chen, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, and Liyang Qu. 2021. End User Accounts of Dark Patterns as Felt Manipulation.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 372 (Oct. 2021), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3479516

    work page doi:10.1145/3479516 2021

  33. [33]

    Colin M Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L Toombs

    work page

  34. [34]

    InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    The dark (patterns) side of UX design. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, USA, 1–14

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Iliad Flow

    Colin M. Gray, Thomas Mildner, and Ritika Gairola. 2025. Getting Trapped in Amazon’s "Iliad Flow": A Foundation for the Temporal Analysis of Dark Patterns. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 225, 10 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713828

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713828 2025

  36. [36]

    Gray, Ike Obi, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Thomas V Carlock, Matthew S Will, Anne C Pivonka, Janna Johns, Brookley Rigsbee, Ambika R Menon, and Aayushi Bharadwaj

    Colin M. Gray, Ike Obi, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Thomas V Carlock, Matthew S Will, Anne C Pivonka, Janna Johns, Brookley Rigsbee, Ambika R Menon, and Aayushi Bharadwaj. 2024. Building an Ethics-Focused Action Plan: Roles, Process Moves, and Trajectories. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642302 2024

  37. [37]

    Gray, Cristiana Santos, Nataliia Bielova, Michael Toth, and Damian Clifford

    Colin M. Gray, Cristiana Santos, Nataliia Bielova, Michael Toth, and Damian Clifford. 2021. Dark Patterns and the Legal Requirements of Consent Banners: An Interaction Criticism Perspective. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Arti...

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Gray, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, Nataliia Bielova, and Thomas Mildner

    Colin M. Gray, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, Nataliia Bielova, and Thomas Mildner

    work page

  39. [39]

    InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24)

    An Ontology of Dark Patterns Knowledge: Foundations, Definitions, and a Pathway for Shared Knowledge-Building. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 289, 22 pages. doi:10. User Experiences and Responses to VR Privacy Deceptive D...

    work page arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Saul Greenberg, Sebastian Boring, Jo Vermeulen, and Jakub Dostal. 2014. Dark Patterns in Proxemic Interactions: A Critical Perspective. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada) (DIS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 523–532. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598541

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510.2598541 2014

  41. [41]

    Johanna Gunawan, Amogh Pradeep, David Choffnes, Woodrow Hartzog, and Christo Wilson. 2021. A Comparative Study of Dark Patterns Across Web and Mobile Modalities.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 377 (oct 2021), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3479521

    work page doi:10.1145/3479521 2021

  42. [42]

    Johanna Gunawan, Cristiana Santos, and Irene Kamara. 2022. Redress for Dark Patterns Privacy Harms? A Case Study on Consent Interactions. InProceed- ings of the 2022 Symposium on Computer Science and Law(Washington DC, USA)(CSLA W ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 181–194. doi:10.1145/3511265.3550448

    work page doi:10.1145/3511265.3550448 2022

  43. [43]

    Hana Habib and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2022. Evaluating the Usability of Privacy Choice Mechanisms. InEighteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2022). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 273–289. https://www.usenix. org/conference/soups2022/presentation/habib

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Okay, whatever

    Hana Habib, Megan Li, Ellie Young, and Lorrie Cranor. 2022. “Okay, whatever”: An Evaluation of Cookie Consent Interfaces. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 621, 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501985

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501985 2022

  45. [45]

    It’s a scavenger hunt

    Hana Habib, Sarah Pearman, Jiamin Wang, Yixin Zou, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Norman Sadeh, and Florian Schaub. 2020. "It’s a scavenger hunt": Usability of Websites’ Opt-Out and Data Deletion Choices. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machine...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376511 2020

  46. [46]

    Hana Habib, Yixin Zou, Aditi Jannu, Neha Sridhar, Chelse Swoopes, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Norman Sadeh, and Florian Schaub. 2019. An Empirical Analysis of Data Deletion and Opt-Out Choices on 150 Websites. InFifteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2019). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 387–406. https://www.usenix.o...

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Hilda Hadan, Lydia Choong, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2024. Deceived by Immersion: A Systematic Analysis of Deceptive Design in Extended Reality.ACM Comput. Surv.56, 10, Article 250 (May 2024), 25 pages. doi:10. 1145/3659945

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Hilda Hadan, Sabrina Alicia Sgandurra, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2024. From Motivating to Manipulative: The Use of Deceptive Design in a Game’s Free-to-Play Transition.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CHI PLAY, Article 309 (Oct. 2024), 31 pages. doi:10.1145/3677074

    work page doi:10.1145/3677074 2024

  49. [49]

    Hilda Hadan, Michaela Valiquette, Lennart Nacke, and Leah Zhang-Kennedy

    work page

  50. [50]

    ACM Hum.-Comput

    Immersive Invaders: Privacy Threats from Deceptive Design in Virtual Reality Games and Applications.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 7, Article CSCW431 (Nov. 2025), 54 pages. doi:10.1145/3757612

    work page doi:10.1145/3757612 2025

  51. [51]

    Wang, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Joseph Tu, Leah Zhang- Kennedy, and Lennart E

    Hilda Hadan, Derrick M. Wang, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Joseph Tu, Leah Zhang- Kennedy, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2024. The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers’ Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in ResearchWriting.Comput- ers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans0, 0 (2024), 1–33. doi:10.1016/j.chbah. 2024.100095

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chbah 2024

  52. [52]

    Wang, Lennart E

    Hilda Hadan, Derrick M. Wang, Lennart E. Nacke, and Leah Zhang-Kennedy

    work page

  53. [53]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24)

    Privacy in Immersive Extended Reality: Exploring User Perceptions, Concerns, and Coping Strategies. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 784, 24 pages. doi:10. 1145/3613904.3642104

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Hilda Hadan, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2024. Computer- based Deceptive Game Design in Commercial Virtual Reality Games: A Prelimi- nary Investigation. InCompanion Proceedings of the 2024 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play(Tampere, Finland)(CHI PLAY Compan- ion ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3665463.3678820 2024

  55. [55]

    David Harborth and Sebastian Pape. 2021. Investigating privacy concerns related to mobile augmented reality apps–A vignette based online experiment. Computers in Human Behavior122 (2021), 106833

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Scott Hayden. 2020. Mother Meets Recreation of Her Deceased Child in VR. https: //www.roadtovr.com/mother-meets-recreation-of-deceased-child-in-vr/. Last accessed on Aug 4, 2025

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Teresa Hirzle, Maurice Cordts, Enrico Rukzio, Jan Gugenheimer, and Andreas Bulling. 2021. A Critical Assessment of the Use of SSQ as a Measure of Gen- eral Discomfort in VR Head-Mounted Displays. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445361 2021

  58. [58]

    Teresa Hirzle, Fabian Fischbach, Julian Karlbauer, Pascal Jansen, Jan Gugen- heimer, Enrico Rukzio, and Andreas Bulling. 2022. Understanding, Addressing, and Analysing Digital Eye Strain in Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.29, 4, Article 33 (March 2022), 80 pages. doi:10.1145/3492802

    work page doi:10.1145/3492802 2022

  59. [59]

    Julien Huart, Christophe Kolski, and Mouldi Sagar. 2004. Evaluation of multi- media applications using inspection methods: the Cognitive Walkthrough case. Interacting with computers16, 2 (2004), 183–215

    work page 2004

  60. [60]

    Carlos Jensen and Colin Potts. 2004. Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vienna, Austria)(CHI ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 471–478. doi:10.1145/985692.985752

    work page doi:10.1145/985692.985752 2004

  61. [61]

    Joseph B Kadane and Nicole A Lazar. 2004. Methods and criteria for model selection.Journal of the American statistical Association99, 465 (2004), 279–290

    work page 2004

  62. [62]

    Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2012. The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Envi- ronments21, 4 (11 2012), 373–387. arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/pvar/article- pdf/21/4/373/1625283/pres_a_00124.pdf doi:10.1162/PRES_a_00124

    work page doi:10.1162/pres_a_00124 2012

  63. [63]

    John King, Dan Fitton, and Brendan Cassidy. 2023. Investigating players’ percep- tions of deceptive design practices within a 3D gameplay context.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CHI PLAY (2023), 876–892

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Create a Fear of Missing Out

    Veronika Krauß, Mark McGill, Thomas Kosch, Yolanda Maira Thiel, Dominik Schön, and Jan Gugenheimer. 2025. "Create a Fear of Missing Out" - ChatGPT Implements Unsolicited Deceptive Designs in Generated Websites Without Warning. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713083 2025

  65. [65]

    Veronika Krauß, Pejman Saeghe, Alexander Boden, Mohamed Khamis, Mark McGill, Jan Gugenheimer, and Michael Nebeling. 2024. What Makes XR Dark? Examining Emerging Dark Patterns in Augmented and Virtual Reality through Expert Co-Design.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.31, 3, Article 32 (Aug. 2024), 39 pages. doi:10.1145/3660340

    work page doi:10.1145/3660340 2024

  66. [66]

    Yuan Li. 2012. Theories in online information privacy research: A critical review and an integrated framework.Decision support systems54, 1 (2012), 471–481

    work page 2012

  67. [67]

    Thomas Linden, Rishabh Khandelwal, Hamza Harkous, and Kassem Fawaz

    work page

  68. [68]

    doi:10.2478/popets-2020-0004

    The Privacy Policy Landscape After the GDPR.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2020, 1 (2020), 47–64. doi:10.2478/popets-2020-0004

    work page doi:10.2478/popets-2020-0004 2020

  69. [69]

    Lee, Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, and Don Samitha Elvitigala

    Siyi Liu, Barrett Ens, Nathan Arthur Semertzidis, Gun A. Lee, Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, and Don Samitha Elvitigala. 2025. Flytrap Hand: Towards Understand- ing Dark Patterns of Physical Augmentation via Electrical Muscle Stimulation. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’25). Associatio...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3721344 2025

  70. [70]

    Shiguang Liu and Dinesh Manocha. 2020. Sound synthesis, propagation, and rendering: a survey.Synthesis Lectures on Visual Computing: Computer Graphics, Animation, Computational Photography and Imaging2020, 1 (2020), 27 pages

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    Jamie Luguri and Lior Jacob Strahilevitz. 2021. Shining a light on dark patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis13, 1 (2021), 43–109

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Bhoot, Mayuri A

    Aditi M. Bhoot, Mayuri A. Shinde, and Wricha P. Mishra. 2021. Towards the Identification of Dark Patterns: An Analysis Based on End-User Reactions. InProceedings of the 11th Indian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Online, India)(IndiaHCI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 24–33. doi:10.1145/3429290.3429293

    work page doi:10.1145/3429290.3429293 2021

  73. [73]

    Dominique Machuletz and Rainer Böhme. 2019. Multiple purposes, multiple problems: A user study of consent dialogs after GDPR.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2020, 2 (2019), 481–498

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Lara Maister, Mel Slater, Maria V Sanchez-Vives, and Manos Tsakiris. 2015. Changing bodies changes minds: owning another body affects social cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences19, 1 (2015), 6–12

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    Malhotra, Sung S

    Naresh K. Malhotra, Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model.Information Systems Research15, 4 (2004), 336–355. http://www.jstor. org/stable/23015787

    work page arXiv 2004

  76. [76]

    Divine Maloney, Samaneh Zamanifard, and Guo Freeman. 2020. Anonymity vs. Familiarity: Self-Disclosure and Privacy in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology(Virtual Event, Canada)(VRST ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 25, 9 pages. doi:10.1145/3385956.3418967

    work page doi:10.1145/3385956.3418967 2020

  77. [77]

    Steve Mann, Phillip V Do, Tom Furness, Yu Yuan, Jay Iorio, and Zixin Wang. 2023. Fundamentals of all the realities: Virtual, augmented, mediated, multimediated, and beyond. InSpringer Handbook of Augmented Reality. Springer, London, 3–34

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Steve Mann, Tom Furness, Yu Yuan, Jay Iorio, and Zixin Wang. 2018. All Reality: Virtual, Augmented, Mixed (X), Mediated (X, Y), and Multimediated Reality. CoRRabs/1804.08386 (2018), 1-14 pages. arXiv:1804.08386 http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1804.08386

    work page arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Arunesh Mathur, Gunes Acar, Michael J Friedman, Eli Lucherini, Jonathan Mayer, Marshini Chetty, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Dark patterns at scale: DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Hadan et al. Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–32

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Abraham Mhaidli, Selin Erin Fidan, and Florian Schaub. 2025. Intriguing, Concerning, and Questioning the Impact on Immersion: An Exploration of VR Users’ Advertising Experiences and Attitudes. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1233, 19...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713095 2025

Showing first 80 references.