Safety vs. Social Image: Co-Designing Protection Mechanisms Against Ableist Harassment with People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality

Daniel Killough; Kexin Zhang; Xinran Adeline Li; Yaxing Yao; Yuhang Zhao

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Safety vs. Social Image: Co-Designing Protection Mechanisms Against Ableist Harassment with People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For disabled people in social VR, protection tools are judged by the social image they project, not just the safety they provide.

desk verdict A well-conducted co-design study with a genuinely new finding about social image, but the proximity claim is weakened by a color confound the authors acknowledge yet do not resolve. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13532 v1 pith:6SBF7MSC submitted 2026-08-13 cs.HC

Kexin Zhang , Daniel Killough , Xinran Adeline Li , Yaxing Yao , Yuhang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HC

keywords co-designpeoplewithdisabilitiessocialvirtualrealityharassmentableismproxemicsprotectionmechanismsself-presentation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a co-design study with 11 people with disabilities (PWD) who use social virtual reality (VR), asking what protection mechanisms they want against ableist harassment. The central finding is that protection mechanisms are not neutral safety utilities: they are social gestures through which PWD manage how others see them. Participants read the distance of an approaching avatar as a signal of whether harassment is targeted, intentional, and severe, and they chose mechanisms partly to preserve a desired social image, sometimes prioritizing that image over their own safety. The paper argues that effective protection design must therefore be proximity-aware and image-aware, protecting PWD without forcing disability disclosure or confrontation.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is Hall's Proxemics Theory, which divides interpersonal space into Intimate, Personal, Social, and Public distance zones. The study visualizes these as four colour-coded rings around the participant's avatar in a custom virtual cafe built for the study, then stages three harassment scenarios (verbal, physical, environmental) at each distance and presents four protection probes: Inform, Educate, Consent, and Defense. This setup lets the researchers map how harassment perception and protection preferences shift with proximity, and how each mechanism's visibility changes the social cost of using it.

What would settle it

Observe behaviour in a live social VR community: if users who asked for subtle, image-preserving mechanisms instead activate conspicuous blocking and reporting when harassment actually occurs, the tradeoff claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that in social VR, disability-targeted harassment is interpreted through a spatial-social lens, and protection mechanisms function as a medium of self-presentation. As a harasser's avatar moves from public to intimate distance, PWD read proximity as progressively disclosing the target, the ableist intent, and the urgency of response; the Personal Distance acts as a 'bottom line' where harassment becomes intolerable. Beyond proximity, PWD weigh behavioural effort and bystander reactions to judge severity. When choosing protections, PWD balance two competing values: personal safety and the social image they project, at times explicitly downplaying harassment or preferring subtle, system-level interventions to avoid looking oversensitive, vulnerable, or preachy.

Load-bearing premise

Participants' reactions to scripted harassment in a researcher-built VR scene with colour-coded proxemic rings stand in for how they would perceive and respond to real harassment in live social VR.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Proximity-based protection design: future safety systems should trigger graded responses that match distance, from ambient norm-setting at Public distance to automatic blocking and muting at Personal and Intimate distances.
Intent-aware, not just action-triggered, moderation: participants want systems that aggregate behavioral signals (repeated gestures, historical safety record) to tell hostile intent from accident or in-community joking.
Social-cost offloading: protection should be framed as system-level action rather than user-initiated confrontation, so the burden of intervention falls on the platform, not the PWD.
Discreet and privacy-preserving interventions: mechanisms should avoid visual clutter, use non-alarming colors, and handle conflicts in private bubbles that do not expose the PWD to an audience.
Normalizing disability representation: platforms could populate spaces with NPCs carrying disability signifiers to make disability presence routine and reduce the 'troll' misreading of disability-representing avatars.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the safety-image tradeoff likely generalizes to other stigmatized groups in embodied social spaces; the same co-design method could test whether women, queer users, or racialized users trade safety for social image when choosing moderation tools.
Beyond the paper: the finding that environmental harassment is rated safer partly because it is harder to recognize suggests a detection gap: future systems could flag memetic disability avatars even when the target user has not yet perceived the mockery.
Beyond the paper: if the colour-coded zones primed danger, then the study's quantitative proximity gradient may overstate how much distance alone drives perceived threat; a replication with neutral spatial markers would isolate the effect, and the paper's own limitation section invites this.
Beyond the paper: the preference for system-level, depersonalized interventions opens a concrete design target, a 'safety credit' or reputation signal, but such aggregation risks new surveillance and bias against neurodivergent or otherwise atypical users, a tension the participants did not fully resolve.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Good paper with one real flaw. The novel, valuable contribution is the empirical finding that PWD treat protection mechanisms as a form of self-presentation and often prioritize social image over safety. That theme is well supported by participant quotes and holds together. The paper also does solid qualitative work: clear protocol, two coders with Kappa 0.83, peer debriefing, full appendix, and an ethics section that shows care. The four design probes are sensible and the co-design method fits the research question.

The soft spot is the proximity claim. The virtual environment always rendered the four zones with a green-to-red gradient, mapping intimate distance to red and public to green. That means hue and distance are perfectly correlated, and the significant safety-rating differences and the 'personal distance is the bottom line' theme could be partly driven by color semantics. The authors acknowledge this in Section 5.4 but ran no counterbalancing or neutral visualization. The qualitative quotes about embodied discomfort from closeness suggest the effect is not purely an artifact, but the quantitative result is definitely weakened, and the paper's contribution of 'proximity as a rich socio-spatial signal' is not as firmly established as the conclusion implies. This is fixable in a revision: rerun with neutral rings or a reversed gradient, or temper the proximity claims.

Minor: the abstract says 'Defense' while the body says 'Defense Mechanism' — trivial. The sample is small and English-speaking, but the authors are explicit about that limitation.

Verdict: worth engaging with. The social-image tradeoff finding is new to the accessibility and social VR literature and should see the light. A serious referee should ask for the proximity claims to be reined in or the confound addressed, but this is not a desk reject. I would accept with revisions.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a co-design study with 11 people with disabilities (PWD) in social VR. The authors built a virtual cafe environment with four color-coded proxemic rings (Intimate, Personal, Social, Public), presented three scripted harassment scenarios (verbal, physical, environmental), and probed four protection mechanisms (Inform, Educate, Consent, Defense). They collected safety ratings at each distance and qualitative interviews, analyzing the data with ART ANOVA and thematic analysis. The paper claims that proximity operates as a rich socio-spatial signal through which PWD assess the target, intent, and severity of ableist harassment; that PWD hold divergent values (optimistic resilience vs. risk-averse caution); and that protection mechanisms function as a medium of self-presentation, creating a persistent tradeoff between safety and social image. Design recommendations follow: proximity-aware, intent-aware, context-aware, and pro-social mechanisms.

Significance. If the proximity findings are valid, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it is the first co-design study of PWD's protection needs in social VR, extends Hall's proxemics framework to hostile interaction, and offers concrete, actionable design recommendations. Methodological strengths include genuine co-design with PWD, dual coding with a reported Cohen's Kappa of 0.83, peer debriefing, a full study protocol in the appendix, and careful ethical safeguards. The self-presentation tradeoff finding is novel, richly supported by participant quotes, and largely independent of the proximity manipulation. However, the proximity-specific contribution is weakened by a confound between physical distance and the color-coded visualization, which I detail below.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.2.1, 4.1.1, 5.4] The independent variable 'proximity' is confounded with the color-coded visualization. The four rings were always shown as Intimate=red, Personal=orange, Social=yellow, Public=green. The significant main effect of Proximity on perceived safety (F3,110 = 25.6, p < .001) and the qualitative theme 'Personal Distance as the Bottom Line' could therefore reflect red-danger/green-safe semantics rather than physical distance. Although Section 5.4 acknowledges this possibility, no counterbalancing, neutral visualization, or control condition was run, so the alternative explanation remains live. Because the paper's theoretical contribution ('proximity as a rich socio-spatial signal') and the Section 5.1 design recommendations hinge on this result, the claim as stated is not yet established. The authors should either provide additional evidence (e.g., re-coding interviews for explicit references to color vs. distance, or analyzing whether the pattern holds when participants describe the spatial layout), or substantially temper the proximity claims and reframe the findings as about the interpreted proxemic visualization rather than physical distance.
[Sec. 4.1.1 and 5.4] The quantitative analysis is based on only 11 participants, with 12 ratings per participant (3 harassment types x 4 distances). The ART ANOVA is appropriate, but the post-hoc pattern--significant differences only between the intimate zone and other zones, plus public-vs-personal--is exactly what a red-to-green color priming effect would predict. Since Section 5.4 acknowledges the limitation but does not quantify or control it, the statistical claim in Section 4.1.1 should be presented as exploratory and explicitly hedged. The qualitative findings are more robust because participants articulated spatial reasoning in their own words, but even those interpretations occurred in the presence of the color-coded rings.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract calls the fourth probe 'Combat' while the full text consistently uses 'Defense Mechanism.' Please reconcile the terminology.
[Sec. 4.2] In the P3 quote, 'blocked or or expelled' contains a duplicated 'or.' Please correct the transcription.
[Sec. 5.4] The phrase 'we realize that our sample' could be more precise in English; consider 'we recognize that our sample' to match standard scholarly phrasing.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads 'they shared their experiences after each scenario'; it should be 'participants shared' for grammatical consistency with the rest of the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the claims are empirical inferences from participant data, with an acknowledged color-priming confound that is a validity limitation rather than a derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims, including proximity as a socio-spatial signal and protection mechanisms as a medium of self-presentation, are empirical findings from a co-design study with 11 PWD. Safety ratings were elicited across four proxemic distances and three harassment types, and the qualitative themes were derived from interview transcripts via thematic analysis with independent coding. No equation, fitted parameter, or predicted quantity is shown to reduce to the study inputs; participants could and did diverge from the framing (e.g., normalizing harassment, reading bystander reactions, preferring different mechanisms). The authors' prior diary studies [77, 78] are cited as motivation and as sources for harassment examples, not as proof of this paper's conclusions, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The color-coded proxemic rings described in Section 3.2.1 (red=Intimate, green=Public) do create a potential confound for the proximity-safety effect, and the paper itself acknowledges this in Section 5.4. However, a confound is a validity threat, not circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent to the input by construction, and the self-presentation tradeoff theme does not depend on the color manipulation. No enumerated circularity pattern is exhibited with the required quote-and-reduction evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The central claims rely on domain assumptions about proxemic transfer to VR, the validity of self-report in simulated scenarios, and the sufficiency of a small qualitative sample.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Hall's proxemic zones (intimate, personal, social, public) apply to avatar-mediated interaction in social VR and structure how users interpret proximity.
Invoked in Section 3.2.1 where the virtual environment is divided into four distance layers based on Hall's proxemics; the findings then show proximity shaped perception.
domain assumption Self-reported safety ratings and preferences given in response to scripted, fictional scenarios in a researcher-built VR environment validly reflect real-world perceptions and preferences in social VR.
The entire study procedure in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 relies on this; acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.4.
domain assumption Thematic analysis of 11 interviews can support the paper's general design claims about PWD's values.
Qualitative methodology in Section 3.4; the small, self-selected, English-speaking sample may not represent all PWD.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safety vs. Social Image: Co-Designing Protection Mechanisms Against Ableist Harassment with People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SBF7MSC

@misc{pith2026260813532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safety vs. Social Image: Co-Designing Protection Mechanisms Against Ableist Harassment with People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SBF7MSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13532}
}

read the original abstract

People with disabilities (PWD) increasingly use avatars to express disability identities in social virtual reality (VR), but greater visibility also invites targeted harassment. Existing safety features are often insufficient, overlooking PWD's experiences and needs. To address this gap, we co-designed protection mechanisms with 11 PWD to reveal their values and needs. Our research employed a social lens to interpret harassment behaviors and protection mechanisms. Inspired by Hall's Proxemics Theory that interpersonal distances indicate social intent and boundaries, we divided social VR spaces into four proxemic zones (Intimate, Personal, Social, and Public) and used them to structure our protection mechanism co-design. We also provided different protection mechanism probes (Inform, Educate, Consent, and Combat) to elicit participant preferences. Our study highlighted the role of social proximity in shaping PWD's harassment perception and protection preferences and revealing PWD's unique social values and needs (e.g., managing harassment with optimism and resilience, prioritizing social image over safety). We proposed design recommendations for protection mechanisms that protect PWD while maintaining their desired social images.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13532 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Four Design Probes: (A) Inform Mechanism; (B) Educate Mechanism; (C) Consent Mechanism in general user’s view; (D) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of Study Procedure. We first conducted initial interview with participants to collect their background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[1]

SB Abhinaya, Aafaq Sabir, and Anupam Das. 2024. Enabling Developers, Protect- ing Users: Investigating Harassment and Safety in{VR}. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). 6561–6578

work page 2024
[2]

Katrin Angerbauer, Phoenix Van Wagoner, Tim Halach, Jonas Vogelsang, Natalie Hube, Andria Smith, Ksenia Keplinger, and Michael Sedlmair. 2024. Is it Part of Me? Exploring Experiences of Inclusive Avatar Use For Visible and Invisible Disabilities in Social VR. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–15

work page 2024
[3]

Anti-Defamation League. 2025. Online Hate & Harassment Safety Guide. https: //www.adl.org/online-hate-and-harassment-safety-guide. Accessed: 2025-09-08

work page 2025
[4]

Jeremy N Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C Beall, and Jack M Loomis. 2003. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments.Personality and social psychology bulletin29, 7 (2003), 819–833

work page 2003
[5]

Colin Barnes. 1992. Disabling imagery and the media.An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations of Disabled People. The First in a Series of Reports. Halifax28 (1992)

work page 1992
[6]

Lindsay Blackwell, Nicole Ellison, Natasha Elliott-Deflo, and Raz Schwartz. 2019. Harassment in social virtual reality: Challenges for platform governance.Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–25

work page 2019
[7]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

2006
[8]

Qijia Chen, Qunfang Wu, and Giulio Jacucci. 2025. Democratic Moderation: Exploring the Use and Perception of Votekicking in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 493, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.114...

arXiv 2025

Show all 80 references

[9]

2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

Jacob Cohen. 2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge

2013
[10]

Corrigan and Amy C

Patrick W. Corrigan and Amy C. Watson. 2002. The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice9, 1 (2002), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.9.1.35

2002 doi
[11]

Creswell and Dana L

John W. Creswell and Dana L. Miller. 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.Theory Into Practice39, 3 (2000), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip3903_2

2000
[12]

Czopp, Margo J

Alexander M. Czopp, Margo J. Monteith, and Aimee Y. Mark. 2006. Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation.Journal of Co-designing Protection Mechanisms with PWD in Social VR ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Personal...

2006
[13]

Samantha G Daley and Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann. 2018. Stigma conscious- ness among adolescents with learning disabilities: Considering individual experi- ences of being stereotyped.Learning Disability Quarterly41, 4 (2018), 200–212

2018
[14]

Invisible Other

A. S. de Rosa and T. Mannarini. 2021. COVID-19 as an “Invisible Other” and Socio-Spatial Distancing within a One-Metre Individual Bubble.Urban Design International26, 4 (2021), 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-021-00151-z

2021 doi
[15]

Marla E Eisenberg, Amy L Gower, Barbara J McMorris, and Michaela M Bucchi- aneri. 2015. Vulnerable bullies: Perpetration of peer harassment among youths across sexual orientation, weight, and disability status.American journal of public health105, 9 (2015), 1784–1791

2015
[16]

Eric Emerson, Nicola Fortune, Gwynnyth Llewellyn, and Roger Stancliffe. 2021. Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross-sectional study.Disability and health journal14, 1 (2021), 100965

2021
[17]

Cristina Fiani, Robin Bretin, Shaun Alexander Macdonald, Mohamed Khamis, and Mark Mcgill. 2024. “Pikachu would electrocute people who are misbehaving’: Expert, Guardian and Child Perspectives on Automated Embodied Moderators for Safeguarding Children in Social Virtual Reality....

2024
[18]

Cristina Fiani, Robin Bretin, Mark Mcgill, and Mohamed Khamis. 2023. Big Buddy: Exploring Child Reactions and Parental Perceptions towards a Simulated Embodied Moderating System for Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Co...

2023
[19]

Comforting and Small Like a House Cat, Big and Intimidating Like a Bodyguard

Guo Freeman, Kelsea Schulenberg, Lingyuan Li, Ruchi Panchanadikar, and Nathan McNeese. 2025. “Comforting and Small Like a House Cat, Big and Intimidating Like a Bodyguard”: How Women Perceive and Envision AI Com- panions as a New Harassment Mitigation Approach in Social Virtua...

2025
[20]

Guo Freeman, Samaneh Zamanifard, Divine Maloney, and Dane Acena. 2022. Disturbing the peace: Experiencing and mitigating emerging harassment in social virtual reality.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–30

2022
[21]

Guo Freeman, Samaneh Zamanifard, Divine Maloney, and Alexandra Adkins
[22]

1963.Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity

Erving Goffman. 1963.Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall

1963
[23]

Janice Grau, Jeffrey Fagan, and Sandra Wexler. 1985. Restraining Orders for Battered Women: Issues of Access and Efficacy. InCriminal Justice Politics and Women: The Aftermath of Legally Mandated Change, Claudine SchWeber and Clarice Feinman (Eds.). Haworth Press, New York, NY...

1985
[24]

Gray, Marcus Carter, and Ben Egliston

Joanne E. Gray, Marcus Carter, and Ben Egliston. 2024.Content Harms in Social VR: Abuse, Misinformation, Platform Cultures and Moderation. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61831-4_2

2024 doi
[25]

Saul Greenberg, Nicolai Marquardt, Till Ballendat, Rob Diaz-Marino, and Miaosen Wang. 2011. Proxemic Interactions: The New Ubicomp?interactions18, 1 (Jan. 2011), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1897239.1897250

2011
[26]

I Try to Represent Myself as I Am

Ria J. Gualano, Lucy Jiang, Kexin Zhang, Tanisha Shende, Andrea Stevenson Won, and Shiri Azenkot. 2024. “I Try to Represent Myself as I Am”: Self-Presentation Preferences of People with Invisible Disabilities through Embodied Social VR Avatars. InProceedings of the 26th Intern...

2024
[27]

Edward T. Hall. 1966.The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York

1966
[28]

Sarah A Hall. 2009. The social inclusion of people with disabilities: a qualitative meta-analysis.Journal of ethnographic & qualitative research3, 3 (2009)

2009
[29]

Vulnera- ble, Victimized, and Objectified

Sharon Heung, Lucy Jiang, Shiri Azenkot, and Aditya Vashistha. 2024. “Vulnera- ble, Victimized, and Objectified”: Understanding Ableist Hate and Harassment Experienced by Disabled Content Creators on Social Media. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

2024
[30]

Ignorance is not Bliss

Sharon Heung, Lucy Jiang, Shiri Azenkot, and Aditya Vashistha. 2025. “Ignorance is not Bliss”: Designing Personalized Moderation to Address Ableist Hate on Social Media. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for C...

2025
[32]

Jonathan Howard, Zoe Fisher, Andrew H Kemp, Stephen Lindsay, Lorna H Tasker, and Jeremy J Tree. 2022. Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review.Disability and rehabilitation: Assistive technology17, 4 ...

2022
[33]

Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI c...

2003
[34]

Tiger F Ji, Brianna Cochran, and Yuhang Zhao. 2022. Vrbubble: Enhancing peripheral awareness of avatars for people with visual impairments in social virtual reality. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–17

2022
[35]

Gloria Joachim and Sonia Acorn. 2000. Uncertainty and the stigma of chronic illness.Journal of Advanced Nursing32, 3 (2000), 609–616

2000
[36]

Sara Kiesler, Robert Kraut, Paul Resnick, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Regulating behavior in online communities.Building successful online communities: Evidence- based social design1 (2012), 4–2

2012
[37]

Lazerson

R. Lazerson. 2022.A Secure and Equitable Metaverse: Designing Effective Com- munity Guidelines for Social VR. Technical Report. Centre for Long-Term Cyber- security, UC Berkeley. https://cltc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ Secure_Equitable_Metaverse.pdf Tech Report

2022
[38]

Junhee Lee, Minseok Kim, Hwanjo Heo, and Jinwoo Kim. 2026. HarassGuard: Detecting Harassment Behaviors in Social Virtual Reality with Vision-Language Models.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2026). Special Issue on IEEE VR 2026; arXiv:2604.00592

2026
[39]

Zhehui Liao, Hanwen Zhao, Ayush Kulkarni, Shaan Singh Chattrath, and Amy X. Zhang. 2025. Building Proactive and Instant-Reactive Safety Designs to Address Harassment in Social Virtual Reality.arXiv(2025). arXiv:2504.05781 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05781 37 pages, 11 figures

2025 arXiv
[40]

Susan Lingsom. 2008. Invisible Impairments: Dilemmas of Concealment and Disclosure.Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research10, 1 (2008), 2–16. https: //doi.org/10.1080/15017410701391567

2008 doi
[41]

2019.Spikes — and other ways disabled people combat unwanted touching

Harry Low. 2019.Spikes — and other ways disabled people combat unwanted touching. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-49584591 BBC Ouch

2019
[42]

Kelly Mack, Rai Ching Ling Hsu, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Brian A Smith, and Fannie Liu. 2023. Towards inclusive avatars: Disability representation in avatar platforms. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

2023
[43]

They only care to show us the wheelchair

Kelly Avery Mack, Rida Qadri, Remi Denton, Shaun K Kane, and Cynthia L Ben- nett. 2024. “They only care to show us the wheelchair”: disability representation in text-to-image AI models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–23

2024
[44]

Talking without a voice

Divine Maloney, Guo Freeman, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2020. " Talking without a voice" understanding non-verbal communication in social virtual reality.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–25

2020
[45]

Manno, Rachel Glade, Lynn C

Cherie M. Manno, Rachel Glade, Lynn C. Koch, Laura S. Simon, Phillip D. Rumrill, and Christopher C. Rosen. 2024. Disability disclosure as an impression manage- ment technique used in the workplace: A grounded theory investigation.Work 78, 2 (2024), 219–233. https://doi.org/10....

2024 doi
[46]

Meta. 2022. Introducing a Personal Boundary for Horizon Worlds and Venues. https://www.meta.com/blog/introducing-a-personal-boundary-for- horizon-worlds-and-venues/. Meta Blog; accessed 2025-08-12

2022
[47]

Miron, K

M. Miron, K. Goulet, L. P. Auger, et al . 2023. Online Dating for People with Disabilities: A Scoping Review.Sexuality and Disability41 (2023), 31–61. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11195-022-09771-x

2023 doi
[48]

I don’t want to hide behind an avatar

Margaret E Morris, Daniela K Rosner, Paula S Nurius, and Hadar M Dolev. 2023. “I don’t want to hide behind an avatar”: Self-representation in social VR among women in midlife. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM designing interactive systems conference. 537–546

2023
[49]

Fares Moustafa and Anthony Steed. 2018. A longitudinal study of small group interaction in social virtual reality. InProceedings of the 24th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. 1–10

2018
[50]

Michelle R Nario-Redmond, Angela A Kemerling, and Arielle Silverman. 2019. Hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent ableism: Contemporary manifestations.Jour- nal of Social Issues75, 3 (2019), 726–756

2019
[51]

Nario-Redmond, Jeffrey G

Michelle R. Nario-Redmond, Jeffrey G. Noel, and Emily Fern. 2013. Redefining disability, re-imagining the self: Disability identification predicts self-esteem and strategic responses to stigma.Self and Identity12, 5 (2013), 468–488. https: //doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.68111...

2013
[52]

Ravi Teja Potla and Ravi Teja Potla. 2025. Ai-powered threat detection in online communities: A multi-modal deep learning approach.Journal of Computer and Communications13, 2 (2025), 155–171

2025
[53]

2007.Aesthetic nervousness: Disability and the crisis of representation

Ato Quayson. 2007.Aesthetic nervousness: Disability and the crisis of representation. Columbia University Press

2007
[54]

Rec Room. n.d.. Code of Conduct. https://recroom.com/code-of-conduct. Ac- cessed September 11, 2025

2025
[55]

Nazanin Sabri, Bella Chen, Annabelle Teoh, Steven P Dow, Kristen Vaccaro, and Mai Elsherief. 2023. Challenges of moderating social virtual reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

2023
[56]

Katrina Y Sanders. 2006. Overprotection and lowered expectations of persons with disabilities: The unforeseen consequences.Work27, 2 (2006), 181–188

2006
[57]

Shruti Sannon, Jordyn Young, Erica Shusas, and Andrea Forte. 2023. Disability Activism on Social Media: Sociotechnical Challenges in the Pursuit of Visibility. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing M...

2023
[58]

Joseph S Schafer, Kate Starbird, and Daniela K Rosner. 2023. Participatory Design and Power in Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Hate Research. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1724–1739

2023
[59]

Creepy Towards My Avatar Body, Creepy Towards My Body

Kelsea Schulenberg, Guo Freeman, Lingyuan Li, and Catherine Barwulor. 2023. "Creepy Towards My Avatar Body, Creepy Towards My Body": How Women Experience and Manage Harassment Risks in Social Virtual Reality.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2, Article 236 (Oct. 2023), 29...

2023 doi
[60]

Kelsea Schulenberg, Lingyuan Li, Guo Freeman, Samaneh Zamanifard, and Nathan J. McNeese. 2023. Towards Leveraging AI-based Moderation to Ad- dress Emergent Harassment in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamb...

2023
[61]

We Don’t Want a Bird Cage, We Want Guardrails

Kelsea Schulenberg, Lingyuan Li, Caitlin Lancaster, Douglas Zytko, and Guo Free- man. 2023. " We Don’t Want a Bird Cage, We Want Guardrails": Understanding & Designing for Preventing Interpersonal Harm in Social VR through the Lens of Consent.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Co...

2023
[62]

Tom Shakespeare. 1999. Joking a part.Body & Society5, 4 (1999), 47–52

1999
[63]

Vivek Sharma. 2022. Introducing a Personal Boundary for Horizon Worlds and Venues.Meta Newsroom(4 February 2022). https://about.fb.com/news/2022/02/ personal-boundary-horizon/

2022
[64]

Stetten, Kelsea LeBeau, Maria A

Nichole E. Stetten, Kelsea LeBeau, Maria A. Aguirre, Alexis B. Vogt, Jazmine R. Quintana, Alexis R. Jennings, and Mark Hart. 2019. Analyzing the Communica- tion Interchange of Individuals With Disabilities Utilizing Facebook, Discussion Forums, and Chat Rooms: Qualitative Cont...

2019 doi
[65]

Gareth Terry, Nikki Hayfield, Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, et al. 2017. The- matic analysis.The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology2, 17-37 (2017), 25

2017
[66]

Hannah Tough, Johannes Siegrist, and Christine Fekete. 2017. Social relationships, mental health and wellbeing in physical disability: a systematic review.BMC public health17, 1 (2017), 414

2017
[67]

VRChat Inc. 2024. Community Guidelines. https://hello.vrchat.com/community- guidelines. Last updated August 12, 2024. Accessed September 11, 2025

2024
[68]

VRChat Inc. 2025. VRChat Safety and Trust System. https://docs.vrchat.com/ docs/vrchat-safety-and-trust-system. Accessed: 2025-09-12

2025
[69]

Katie Wang, Arielle Silverman, Jason D Gwinn, and John F Dovidio. 2015. Inde- pendent or ungrateful? Consequences of confronting patronizing help for people with disabilities.Group Processes & Intergroup Relations18, 4 (2015), 489–503

2015
[70]

Na Wang, Jin Zhou, Jie Li, Bo Han, Fei Li, and Songqing Chen. 2024. HardenVR: Harassment Detection in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2024 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (IEEE VR). IEEE. https: //doi.org/10.1109/VR58804.2024.00033

2024
[71]

Maheshya Weerasinghe, Shaun Macdonald, Cristina Fiani, Joseph O’Hagan, Math- ieu Chollet, Mark McGill, and Mohamed Khamis. 2025. Beyond mute and block: adoption and effectiveness of safety tools in social VR, from ubiquitous ha- rassment to social sculpting.IEEE Transactions o...

2025
[72]

Julie Williamson, Jie Li, Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy, David A Shamma, and Pablo Cesar. 2021. Proxemics and social interactions in an instrumented virtual reality workshop. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

2021
[73]

Jacob O Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J Higgins. 2011. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 143–146

2011
[74]

Yiwen Xu, Qinyang Hou, Hongyu Wan, and Mirjana Prpa. 2024. Safe guard: an llm-agent for real-time voice-based hate speech detection in social virtual reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15623(2024)

2024 arXiv
[75]

Stella Young. 2014. I’m not your inspiration, thank you very much.TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. https://www. ted. com/talks/stella_young_i_m_not_your_inspi ration_thank_you_very_much(2014)

2014
[76]

The togetherness that we crave

Samaneh Zamanifard and Guo Freeman. 2019. " The togetherness that we crave" experiencing social VR in long distance relationships. InCompanion Publica- tion of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 438–442

2019
[77]

It’s Just Part of Me:

Kexin Zhang, Elmira Deldari, Zhicong Lu, Yaxing Yao, and Yuhang Zhao. 2022. “It’s Just Part of Me:” Understanding Avatar Diversity and Self-presentation of People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on C...

2022
[78]

Kexin Zhang, Elmira Deldari, Yaxing Yao, and Yuhang Zhao. 2023. A Diary Study in Social Virtual Reality: Impact of Avatars with Disability Signifiers on the Social Experiences of People with Disabilities. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Comp...

2023
[79]

Spencer, Edward Glenn Scott, Abijith Manikandan, Andric Li, Ang Li, Yaxing Yao, and Yuhang Zhao

Kexin Zhang, Jr. Spencer, Edward Glenn Scott, Abijith Manikandan, Andric Li, Ang Li, Yaxing Yao, and Yuhang Zhao. 2025. Inclusive Avatar Guidelines for People with Disabilities: Supporting Disability Representation in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Confe...

2025
[80]

My avatar uses a walking cane to represent I am a person with mobility disabilities in real life

Qingxiao Zheng, Shengyang Xu, Lingqing Wang, Yiliu Tang, Rohan C Salvi, Guo Freeman, and Yun Huang. 2023. Understanding safety risks and safety design in social VR environments.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–37. Co-designing Protection ...

2023
[2020]

InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

My body, my avatar: How people perceive their avatars in social virtual reality. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

SB Abhinaya, Aafaq Sabir, and Anupam Das. 2024. Enabling Developers, Protect- ing Users: Investigating Harassment and Safety in{VR}. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). 6561–6578

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Katrin Angerbauer, Phoenix Van Wagoner, Tim Halach, Jonas Vogelsang, Natalie Hube, Andria Smith, Ksenia Keplinger, and Michael Sedlmair. 2024. Is it Part of Me? Exploring Experiences of Inclusive Avatar Use For Visible and Invisible Disabilities in Social VR. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–15

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Anti-Defamation League. 2025. Online Hate & Harassment Safety Guide. https: //www.adl.org/online-hate-and-harassment-safety-guide. Accessed: 2025-09-08

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Jeremy N Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C Beall, and Jack M Loomis. 2003. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments.Personality and social psychology bulletin29, 7 (2003), 819–833

work page 2003

[5] [5]

Colin Barnes. 1992. Disabling imagery and the media.An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations of Disabled People. The First in a Series of Reports. Halifax28 (1992)

work page 1992

[6] [6]

Lindsay Blackwell, Nicole Ellison, Natasha Elliott-Deflo, and Raz Schwartz. 2019. Harassment in social virtual reality: Challenges for platform governance.Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–25

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

2006

[8] [8]

Qijia Chen, Qunfang Wu, and Giulio Jacucci. 2025. Democratic Moderation: Exploring the Use and Perception of Votekicking in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 493, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.114...

arXiv 2025