Comparing a Simple, At-Home Self-Counselling Virtual Reality Experience, To a Full-Scale Virtual Reality Setup
Authors
Mouritzen, Jeppe Nygaard ; Jægerlund, Martin Fritzbøger
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2025
Pages
55
Abstract
Formålet med dette projekt var at sammenligne en forenklet udgave af Slater m.fl.s virtuelle rådgivningsprototype med deres oprindelige løsning. I dialog med Østre Gasværk, en psykiatrisk institution i Danmark, oplevede forskerne interesse for ideen. Prototypen er en virtuel virkeligheds (VR) selvrådgivningsapp, hvor brugeren taler med sig selv. Tilgangen trækker på “Salomons paradoks”, som peger på, at mennesker ofte er bedre til at give råd om andres problemer end deres egne. Prototypen blev afprøvet på Aalborg Universitet København med 11 deltagere. Det lave deltagerantal og stramme tidsrammer betyder, at der ikke kan drages endelige konklusioner, og testforløbet levede ikke helt op til forskernes ønskede standard. Alligevel peger resultaterne på, at løsningen har potentiale til at give lignende effekter som i Slater m.fl.s studie. Flere deltagere ville gøre det lettere at sammenligne med studier med større deltagergrundlag. Konklusionen er, at projektet rummer lovende perspektiver, men kræver mere omfattende afprøvning—herunder test med personer, der har en psykiatrisk diagnose—for at forstå deres respons på et sådant værktøj.
This project aimed to compare a simplified version of Slater et al.’s virtual counseling prototype with their original. After meeting with Østre Gasværk, a psychiatric institution in Denmark, the researchers noted interest in the idea. The prototype is a virtual reality (VR) self-counseling app in which users speak with themselves. The approach draws on “Solomon’s Paradox,” the idea that people are often better at advising on others’ problems than their own. The prototype was tested at Aalborg University Copenhagen with 11 participants. Due to the small sample and tight time constraints, no firm conclusions can be drawn, and the testing did not fully meet the researchers’ desired standards. Even so, the results suggest the solution could produce effects similar to those reported by Slater et al. A larger participant group would enable stronger comparisons with studies that have broader samples. In conclusion, the project shows promising potential but needs more extensive testing—including with people who have a clinical diagnosis—to understand how such a tool is received.
[This summary has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Documents