FREEMAN ET AL (2003)- EVALUATION

Question 1

Can you name 2 strengths of Freeman et al’s (2003) study?

Answer 1

1. Reliable (setting/standarisation)
2. Validity and control groups.

Question 2

Can you name 2 weaknesses of Freeman et al’s (2003) study?

Answer 2

1. Low generalisbility
2. Ecological validity

Question 3

One weakness of the study was its generalisbility. Why?

Answer 3

• Point= Limited sample size.
• Evidence= 24 ppts/ all student/administrative staff from UCL (similar/location/demographics/eurocentric)
• Effect= Limited applicability to real-world experiences persecutory ideation.

Question 4

One major weakness of the sudy was its limited ecological validity. Why?

Answer 4

• Point= VR simulated enviroments are artifical and will NOT capture the complexity of real-life interactions. Ppts may behave different in the real world.
• Evidence= Virtual enviroment was a simulated library scene with 5 avatars showing ambigious behaviours.
• Effect= Does NOT fully capture the way paranoid ideation manifests in real-world.

Question 5

One strength of Freeman et al (2003) was that the study was highly reliable/ replicable. Why?

Answer 5

• Point= Multiple reliable measures taken.
• Evidence= VR facilitates greater control over any confounding variables. Standarised measures= all exposed for 5 mins. Same libary scene and 5 avatars.
• Effect= Minimises variability in responses, and external influences.

Question 6

One major strength of the study it maintained high (construct) validity. Why?

Answer 6

• Point= Good construct validity
• Evidence= Used well-established and validated tools (PS, BSI, SSAQ,VR).
• Effect= ensures the study captures relevant psychological constucts (paranoia, PI, state anxiety). Use of VR- allows researchers to examine how paranoia manifests in controlled social contexts.