Fear of negative evaluation was assessed with an adapted version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE; Watson and Friend 1969 (link)) constructed for the present study. In particular, FNE items were selected by CDL, JS, AW each time a state formulation was possible and transformed into state statements related to actors’ negative evaluations (e.g., “I am afraid that people will find fault with me” was transformed in “I was afraid that people find something wrong with me”). The state version of the FNE (S-FNE) consists of 14 items rated as 1 = “true” or 0 = “false”. Scores range from 0 to 14 with higher scores indicating higher levels of state social anxiety. The internal consistency of the S-FNE in this sample is acceptable (McDonald’s omega: 0.70).
Paranoid thoughts were assessed using the French translation (Della Libera et al. 2021 (link)) of the State Social Paranoia Scale (SSPS; Freeman et al. 2007 (link)). The SSPS consists of 20 items, with 10 items assessing negative interpretations about actors’ intentions interpreted as paranoid thoughts (e.g., “Someone was hostile towards me”) and 10 other items describing positive or neutral interpretations about actors’ intentions (e.g., “Someone was friendly towards me”; “Everyone was neutral towards me”). Participants rated the extent to which they agree with the sentence on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = “do not agree” to 5 = “totally agree”. Higher scores on the 10 paranoia items indicate higher levels of paranoid ideation.
Negative automatic thoughts were assessed with an adapted version of the French version of the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ; Lebreuilly and Alsaleh 2019 (link)). The ATQ is traditionally used to assess negative and positive cognitions in the past week. For the present study, the items were adapted to assess their thoughts during the 360IV. In particular, participants were asked to indicate whether the 18 thoughts had crossed their mind during the immersion using a “true” or false” scale (e.g., “I’m so disappointed in myself”). The positive automatic thinking (ATQP) score is equal to the sum of the first 10 items and the negative automatic thinking (ATQN) score is equal to the sum of the last 8 items. In that the ATQN score is considered to be a measure of depressive thoughts (Harrington and Blankenship 2002 (link)), only this measure was taken into account in the present study. The internal consistency of the ATQP and ATQN in this sample is good (McDonald’s omega: 0.80 and 0.82, respectively).
Alcohol and nicotine cravings were each assessed before and after the immersion with four visual analog scales (VAS; Kreusch et al. 2017 (link)) from 0 to 100. VAS before immersion evaluated (1) the expectancy of positive reinforcements (i.e., “Having a drink/smoking a cigarette would make things just perfect”), (2) the strength of craving (i.e., “How strong is your craving to drink alcohol/to smoke”), (3) the intent to consume (i.e., “If I could drink alcohol now/smoke now, I would have a drink/have a smoke”), and (4) the lack of control (i.e., “It would be hard to turn down a drink/a cigarette right now”). The VAS after the immersion was the same as before the immersion except that it was adapted in order to emphasize the degree of craving felt during the virtual immersion (e.g., “During the immersion, drinking a glass of alcohol/smoking a cigarette would have made things just perfect”). For both alcohol and nicotine craving, two craving scores were calculated by averaging the four pre-immersion or the four post-immersion VAS.
Paranoid thoughts were assessed using the French translation (Della Libera et al. 2021 (link)) of the State Social Paranoia Scale (SSPS; Freeman et al. 2007 (link)). The SSPS consists of 20 items, with 10 items assessing negative interpretations about actors’ intentions interpreted as paranoid thoughts (e.g., “Someone was hostile towards me”) and 10 other items describing positive or neutral interpretations about actors’ intentions (e.g., “Someone was friendly towards me”; “Everyone was neutral towards me”). Participants rated the extent to which they agree with the sentence on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = “do not agree” to 5 = “totally agree”. Higher scores on the 10 paranoia items indicate higher levels of paranoid ideation.
Negative automatic thoughts were assessed with an adapted version of the French version of the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ; Lebreuilly and Alsaleh 2019 (link)). The ATQ is traditionally used to assess negative and positive cognitions in the past week. For the present study, the items were adapted to assess their thoughts during the 360IV. In particular, participants were asked to indicate whether the 18 thoughts had crossed their mind during the immersion using a “true” or false” scale (e.g., “I’m so disappointed in myself”). The positive automatic thinking (ATQP) score is equal to the sum of the first 10 items and the negative automatic thinking (ATQN) score is equal to the sum of the last 8 items. In that the ATQN score is considered to be a measure of depressive thoughts (Harrington and Blankenship 2002 (link)), only this measure was taken into account in the present study. The internal consistency of the ATQP and ATQN in this sample is good (McDonald’s omega: 0.80 and 0.82, respectively).
Alcohol and nicotine cravings were each assessed before and after the immersion with four visual analog scales (VAS; Kreusch et al. 2017 (link)) from 0 to 100. VAS before immersion evaluated (1) the expectancy of positive reinforcements (i.e., “Having a drink/smoking a cigarette would make things just perfect”), (2) the strength of craving (i.e., “How strong is your craving to drink alcohol/to smoke”), (3) the intent to consume (i.e., “If I could drink alcohol now/smoke now, I would have a drink/have a smoke”), and (4) the lack of control (i.e., “It would be hard to turn down a drink/a cigarette right now”). The VAS after the immersion was the same as before the immersion except that it was adapted in order to emphasize the degree of craving felt during the virtual immersion (e.g., “During the immersion, drinking a glass of alcohol/smoking a cigarette would have made things just perfect”). For both alcohol and nicotine craving, two craving scores were calculated by averaging the four pre-immersion or the four post-immersion VAS.
