Deceived by Immersion: A Systematic Analysis of Deceptive Design in Extended Reality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The well-established deceptive design literature has focused on conventional user interfaces. With the rise of extended reality (XR), understanding deceptive design’s unique manifestations in this immersive domain is crucial. However, existing research lacks a full, cross-disciplinary analysis that analyzes how XR technologies enable new forms of deceptive design. Our study reviews the literature on deceptive design in XR environments. We use thematic synthesis to identify key themes. We found that XR’s immersive capabilities and extensive data collection enable subtle and powerful manipulation strategies. We identified eight themes outlining these strategies and discussed existing countermeasures. Our findings show the unique risks of deceptive design in XR, highlighting implications for researchers, designers, and policymakers. We propose future research directions that explore unintentional deceptive design, data-driven manipulation solutions, user education, and the link between ethical design and policy regulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it