Please note – This lesson is best viewed in desktop mode – click the three dots on your browser and tick ‘desktop mode’ if viewing on a small screen device

AO1 (Description)

Background	– VR used to study reactions in controlled environments. – Avatars can trigger anxiety; can they trigger paranoia? – Aim to understand factors behind persecutory ideation.
Aims	– To investigate if non-clinical people have persecutory thoughts about VR characters. – To investigate if anxiety/interpersonal sensitivity predicts these thoughts
Methodology	– Pilot study, experiment. – VR library setting with 5 neutral avatars. – Questionnaires (for correlation): BSI, Paranoia Scale, VR-Paranoia, State Anxiety, Presence
Participants	– 24 non-clinical adults (students/staff). – 12 male, 12 female. – Recruited from University College London.
Procedure	– Trained on VR equipment. – Entered neutral VR library for 5 mins. – Half completed questionnaires before & after; half only after. – All answered VR-Paranoia questionnaire after exposure to VR. – Semi-structured interview after.
Results	– Some had persecutory thoughts despite neutral avatars. – VR-Persecution linked to interpersonal sensitivity and anxiety. – No increase in anxiety after VR. – Positive views more common than negative.
Conclusion	– VR can trigger persecutory thoughts in neutral settings. – Interpersonal sensitivity is a key predictor. – VR useful for studying delusions; could be used in therapy.

AO3 (Evaluation)

Individual and Situational Explanations	Point: Strength is it uses an interactionist explanation. Evidence: People with high interpersonal sensitivity (individual) had more paranoid thoughts in the neutral VR library (situation). Explanation: Shows paranoia isn’t just from the situation or the person alone, but both. Link: Increases validity as it reflects real-world complexity. Counterpoint: However, it didn’t strongly manipulate the situation to test its power.
Idiographic vs. Nomothetic	Point: Weakness is it’s mostly nomothetic. Evidence: Used questionnaires (BSI) to find general patterns in the group of 24. Explanation: Focused on general laws e.g., interpresonalsensitivity leads to paranoia, over unique experiences. Link: May lower validity of data for each person. Counterpoint: However, the interview comments added some idiographic detail.
Generalisability from Findings	Point: Weakness is limited generalisability. Evidence: Sample was only from a university (students/staff). Explanation: Not representative of the general public in age or education. Link: Low population validity. Counterpoint: However, the sample was suitable for this first-time pilot study.

search terms – 9990 psychology, 9990 a levels psychology, clinical psychology, cie psychology, as and a levels , schizophrenia, key study, freeman et al., icd-11 criteria of schizophrenia, ao1, ao3, evaluation, strengths and weaknesses, issues and debates, essays, 10-markers, 6-markers, revision, past paper solutions, 9990 2024-26 new syllabus