The research, conducted by Tal Samuel-Azran and colleagues at Ariel University and published in Computers in Human Behavior, brought together 120 Jewish Israeli and Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel—two groups with a long history of tension and largely separate daily lives—in a series of structured encounters inside the social VR platform Engage. Participants, recruited through targeted advertising and screened for prior VR experience, met in mixed groups of six across multiple sessions, completing collaborative tasks that required discussion, negotiation, and joint decision-making. The encounters were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a combination of quantitative coding and qualitative thematic analysis, allowing the researchers to track both broad patterns of interaction and the fine-grained texture of individual exchanges.

The central manipulation was deliberate and theoretically motivated. In one condition, participants appeared as photorealistic avatars whose visible ethnicity—Jewish or Arab—was apparent to everyone. In the other, they were represented by identical, featureless gray avatars, rendering ethnic identity invisible and leaving participants to infer—or guess at—one another’s backgrounds from voice, name, and conversational style alone. This design drew directly on intergroup contact theory, the influential framework developed by Gordon Allport and refined over decades, which holds that bringing divided groups together under the right conditions can reduce prejudice. But it also engaged a newer strand of theory: the idea, drawn from communication scholarship, that anonymity might strip away the social categories that trigger defensiveness and allow people to meet as individuals first.

What the researchers found complicates the intuitive appeal of that idea. Anonymity did not eliminate the salience of ethnicity; it redirected it. When avatars were identical, participants became acutely attentive to every other available cue—accents, names, phrasing, references to geography and community—and the process of assigning ethnic categories became a covert, sometimes anxious guessing game running beneath the surface of the conversation. In the photorealistic condition, by contrast, ethnicity was visible from the start, and participants could move through it rather than around it. The researchers observed that once identity was established openly, interactions could proceed to the substantive business of the encounter: the collaborative tasks, the exchange of perspectives, the negotiation of disagreement.

The qualitative material is particularly revealing. In anonymous sessions, participants repeatedly reported uncertainty about whom they were speaking with, and some described the experience as unsettling—a sense of conversing with people whose social position they could not place. Others noted that the identical avatars created an artificial sameness that felt at odds with the evident diversity of voices in the room. In the visible-identity condition, participants acknowledged initial wariness but described the encounters as more honest and, in several cases, more meaningful. One participant reflected that seeing the other side’s faces made the dialogue feel real in a way that abstract conversation could not. The researchers caution that these are selected illustrations rather than statistical claims, but they align with the quantitative finding that visible identity did not increase conflict and may have facilitated deeper engagement.

These results complicate a body of earlier research that had suggested anonymity might be a valuable tool for reducing intergroup anxiety. Some prior studies found that when group membership is hidden, people evaluate outgroup members more positively, apparently freed from the stereotypes that visible difference activates. The new findings suggest that this effect may be fragile and context-dependent. In a sustained, multi-session encounter involving real members of a divided society, hiding ethnicity did not make it disappear from the interaction; it made its detection a preoccupation. The social categories people carry into a virtual room, the study suggests, are not so easily suspended by removing visual markers of them.

The study also speaks to a growing practical question. As organizations, educators, and peace-building programs increasingly turn to VR as a medium for structured intergroup encounters—drawn by its capacity to simulate presence across distance and to standardize the encounter environment—the question of avatar design has become consequential. Should participants in a virtual dialogue between divided communities see one another as they are, or as abstract placeholders? The findings suggest that the second option, often assumed to be the safer and more neutral choice, carries its own risks: it can generate suspicion, sustain uncertainty, and shift attention from the content of dialogue to the puzzle of identity. Visible identity, by contrast, appears to allow the encounter to absorb difference rather than suppress it.

The researchers are careful about the boundaries of their claims. The study involved a specific pairing of groups, a specific platform, and a specific task structure; the dynamics of anonymity and visibility may differ in other contexts, particularly where group relations are less fraught or where encounters are shorter. The sample, while substantial for a study of this kind, was recruited through advertising and may not represent the full diversity of either community. And the analysis of qualitative material, however systematic, involves interpretive judgment. The authors frame their contribution as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive—a first systematic look at how avatar design interacts with group identity in real intergroup encounters, rather than a final verdict on it.

Even so, the implications reach beyond the Israeli-Palestinian context. The finding that anonymity redirects rather than removes social categorization speaks to any virtual environment where people from different backgrounds meet: international workplaces, online classrooms, multiplayer games, and the growing infrastructure of virtual collaboration. It suggests that the design question is not whether identity will be perceived, but how—openly, with the opportunity to acknowledge and move past it, or covertly, through inference and speculation. As virtual worlds become an increasingly ordinary venue for human contact, the study offers a reminder that the social architecture of those worlds is never neutral, and that the most humane design may not be the one that hides difference, but the one that makes room for it to be seen, named, and engaged.

Subject of Research: The effects of avatar anonymity and visible identity on intergroup contact between Jewish and Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel in social virtual reality

Article Title: Designing intergroup interaction in social virtual reality: avatar identity-cue visibility and environmental plausibility

Article References: Schwartz Miler, T., & Steinfeld, N. (2026). Designing intergroup interaction in social virtual reality: avatar identity-cue visibility and environmental plausibility. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 7, Article 1932977. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2026.1932977

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frvir.2026.1932977

Keywords: virtual reality, intergroup contact, avatar design, anonymity, prejudice reduction, social identity, Israeli-Palestinian relations, social VR, intergroup dialogue, communication technology, prejudice, virtual environments