Perspective-taking and meaning-making among public policy professionals experiencing an immersive poverty narrative

Perspective-taking and meaning-making among public policy professionals experiencing an immersive poverty narrative | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Perspective-taking and meaning-making among public policy professionals experiencing an immersive poverty narrative Stefan Gerard Bos, Lisa Brüggen, Minou van der Werf, Jonas Heller This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8167722/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Policymakers make consequential decisions about poverty interventions yet often attribute people’s financial hardship to individual failings rather than structural barriers, creating persistent empathy gaps. This qualitative field study examines how public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing an immersive poverty narrative. First, nine iterative participatory design activities with lived-experience experts, financial specialists, and citizen groups produced a virtual reality poverty-related simulation guiding users through impossible trade-offs, bureaucratic complexity, and immediate social consequences. Next, five focus groups with Dutch public policy professionals ( N = 47) were conducted, in which participants experienced the simulation before engaging in discussion, with follow-up surveys five weeks later ( n = 15). Thematic analysis revealed that experiencing constraints within the narrative enabled perspective transformation through two processes. An accumulation of pressures depleted the analytical processing capacity that professionals typically use to maintain interpretive distance from client experiences. When educated professionals could not navigate welfare forms despite their competence, explanations based on individual responsibility lost credibility and participants shifted to structural explanations through experiencing systemic barriers. Simultaneously, limited access to professional problem-solving tools exposed how expertise functions as an interpretive barrier to understanding client realities. These findings extend narrative transportation theory by demonstrating that emotional engagement alone proves insufficient for attribution change in expert populations having analytical frameworks that enable cognitive distancing. Additionally, the findings contribute to transformative learning theory by showing how the strategic limitation of individuals’ expertise makes their professional assumptions visible for critical examination. The initial participatory design process demonstrates how collaborative narrative construction addresses ethical concerns while maintaining psychological authenticity. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction " What? Why? I'll be the only one in class who isn’t going! Do you even know what that feels like? You can't do this to me! All my friends are going; I can’t be the only one left out! This is so unfair!" This is what your virtual daughter cries in the Virtual Reality (VR) simulation used in this research when you tell her she cannot join her classmates on the school trip to Rome. With only €360 left for the month, the €150 trip fee competes with an overdue €483 garage repair bill, another impossible choice in your family's financial struggle. This moment is an example of the decisions that some families face every day. However, poverty and its associated decisions remain largely invisible to professionals whose daily work directly impacts these populations, creating a persistent empathy gap between those designing poverty interventions and those they aim to serve (Haddad et al. 2022; Piff et al. 2020). This moment thereby captures a fundamental challenge in social policy: How can those who design and implement poverty interventions truly understand the experiential realities of financial hardship? As narratives can shape understanding of unfamiliar experiences, experiencing a scenario simulating poverty might help in overcoming this empathy gap. Research has demonstrated that stories reduce prejudice toward marginalized groups by transporting readers into characters' perspectives, creating emotional connections that bypass defensive reasoning (Green and Brock 2000; Kalla and Broockman 2023). VR technology offers embodied simulations of experiences through multisensory environments (Martingano et al. 2021). However, poverty's systemic complexity, including navigating welfare systems, social stigma, and healthcare barriers, limits most people's ability to accurately envision the daily realities of financial hardship (Mar and Oatley 2008; Segal 2007). When people lack this direct experience, encountering narratives risks activating emotional responses without generating essential understanding. Moreover, VR's immersive capabilities introduce ethical complications, as critics have argued that simulations provide users with false intimacy without genuine understanding (Nakamura 2020; Nash 2018). These concerns have led scholars to question whether VR empathy experiences can avoid ethical exploitation while maintaining psychological effectiveness (Raz 2022), particularly when representing experiences such as financial hardship. This study addresses these challenges by examining how public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing an immersive poverty narrative. We developed this this immersive narrative as a 20-minute VR simulation through nine iterative participatory design activities involving lived-experience experts, ethics specialists, and financial experts. Then a qualitative field study was conducted with 47 public policy professionals working in a municipal context, who experienced the designed 20-minute VR simulation of financial hardship, followed by facilitated focus group discussions and individual reflection questions. Our research question asks: How do public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing an immersive poverty narrative? Our findings reveal how experiencing systematic constraints within the VR simulation, including limited choices, scarce resources, and impossible trade-offs, enabled public policy professionals to shift from individual-responsibility to structural-critique frameworks for understanding poverty. Experiencing these constraints simultaneously exposed professional expertise as both a resource and a barrier to client understanding, making typically invisible assumptions available for examination. These contributions have implications for empathy intervention design, professional training methodology, and poverty policy implementation. The following sections review the literature on narrative transportation and VR ethics, detail our participatory design methodology, and present findings from our field research with municipal professionals experiencing the designed VR simulation. This research addresses two critical audiences. First, researchers studying narratives, empathy, and perspective-taking will find theoretical extensions with regard to expert populations, alongside empirical examinations of how participatory design processes can address ethical concerns in the use of immersive technologies. Second, practitioners developing professional training interventions require evidence-based approaches that overcome the limitations of traditional perspective-taking methods. Understanding how immersive narratives influence public policy professionals matters, because these professionals make consequential decisions about resource allocation, policy implementation, and case management that directly affect the wellbeing of vulnerable populations. Literature Review Narratives and Social Understanding Stories can be more than entertainment; they can construct our reality (Green and Appel 2024 ). Narratives serve as fundamental frameworks through which humans actively organize experience, creating stories that connect intentions, actions, and consequences to shape how we understand ourselves and others (Polkinghorne 1988 ; Turner and Bruner 1986 ). Narratives serve dual roles: They are cognitive frameworks individuals use to make sense of information, and they are cultural tools that communicate group values and foster social understanding (Bruner 1990 ). Because stories invite sense-making rather than argument, they can influence attitudes and behaviour through mechanisms different from analytic persuasion (Green and Brock 2000 ; Van Laer et al. 2014 ). This distinctive capacity makes narratives particularly effective for addressing social divides and cultivating empathy across group boundaries. However, not all social experiences are equally accessible by narrative empathy. For example, poverty represents a challenging context for fostering empathy and social understanding. Similar to other forms of disadvantage, poverty consistently triggers attribution biases where observers blame individual failings rather than structural factors, reinforcing stigma and reducing social support (Brady and Burton 2016 ; Piff et al. 2020 ). Class and income differences are also less visible in daily interaction, thereby limiting opportunities for meaningful cross-class contact that might disrupt stereotypes (Chetty et al. 2022 ; Stephens et al. 2012 ). Shame felt by those experiencing financial hardship exacerbates this by creating barriers to direct interaction (Moorhouse et al. 2023 ). These combined barriers create a persistent empathy gap that undermines public support for anti-poverty policies as well as the effectiveness of interventions designed by professionals whose own frameworks may reinforce rather than challenge attribution biases. Worldwide, 8.5% of the global population lived in extreme poverty in 2024, surviving on less than $ 2.15 (US dollar) per day (World Bank 2024 ). However, when using a poverty standard more appropriate for developed economies ( $ 6.85 per day), 44% of the world's population experiences poverty – revealing how widespread financial hardship extends far beyond extreme deprivation. Despite projected reductions, progress has stalled over the past five years. (World Bank 2024 ). In Europe specifically, 93.3 million people face poverty risk as of 2024, representing 21% of the EU population (Eurostat 2025). Such widespread yet hidden financial hardship makes it crucial that those designing interventions and policies genuinely understand poverty's realities, highlighting the need for approaches that enable professionals to develop authentic understanding of the realities that citizens experience Addressing inequalities like poverty, requires a comprehensive approach that tackles structural sources, and policies aimed at reducing inequality have been extensively reviewed in the literature. Research has showed that successful policy implementation depends heavily on the interactions between the policy designers and those they aim to help (Horodyska et al. 2015 ). Effective poverty interventions require policy instruments grounded in valid understanding of how financial hardship shapes behaviour and decision-making (Viennet and Pont 2017 ), For example, behavioural economics has demonstrated how financial hardship fundamentally alters cognitive bandwidth and decision-making processes (Mani et al. 2013 ), making it critical that policy designers understand existing pressures and priorities when designing and implementing interventions (Horodyska et al. 2015 ). However, professionals designing such policies may lack this understanding and may hold assumptions that do not align with lived realities, creating significant barriers to effective policy design and implementation. Empathy and perspective-taking Narratives can address these barriers, insofar as they can elicit empathy and perspective-taking. Empathy involves understanding and sharing others' emotional experiences while maintaining awareness that these emotions originate from another person (Cuff et al. 2016 ). Perspective-taking refers to the cognitive process of imagining another's thoughts and experiences (Batson et al. 1997 ). Narratives elicit these by transporting audiences into story worlds. This narrative transportation (Green and Brock 2000 ) is a distinctive state of focused attention, imagery, and affective engagement. When within story worlds, identification enables audiences to adopt a character’s perspective and vicariously feel their emotions (Cohen 2018 ). Thus, when readers become transported into stories featuring stigmatized characters, they simultaneously engage both processes: emotionally resonating with characters while cognitively interpreting their situations (Green and Appel 2024 ; Mar and Oatley 2008 ). Research has demonstrated that narrative-induced empathy effectively reduces prejudice and promotes prosocial behaviour toward stigmatized groups, with studies showing improved attitudes and increased helping behaviour following exposure to stories about marginalized individuals (Kalla and Broockman 2023 ; Kaufman and Libby 2012 ). This narrative empathy bypasses defensive responses that typically maintain social distance and prejudice. For example, reading a narrative from a member of a cultural outgroup has been shown to reduce prejudice against this group (Green and Appel 2024 ). However, narrative empathy faces significant limitations when addressing invisible stigmas such as financial hardship. Traditional perspective-taking relies on readers' ability to imagine unfamiliar experiences, but poverty's systemic complexity, including navigating welfare systems, unstable housing, and healthcare barriers, makes it difficult for people to accurately envision its daily realities (Green and Appel 2024 ). This suggests that for complex, systemically embedded experiences such as financial hardship, traditional narrative methods may be insufficient, pointing to the potential value of more immersive approaches. Virtual Reality as a Narrative Medium Rather than relying solely on readers' imaginative capacity, VR offers potential complementary approaches to traditional narrative methods. VR creates multisensory environments that may provide more direct access to unfamiliar experiences, such as financial stress (Slater and Sanchez-Vives 2016 ). Research on embodied cognition has suggested that physical experiences influence cognitive processing (Barsalou 2020). VR's capacity to simulate physical presence and enable bodily interaction may engage these embodied processes through cognitive absorption, deep immersion and focused attention that increases both cognitive and emotional engagement with VR content (Liao 2025 ). This cognitive engagement enhances both cognitive and emotional empathy, as users mentally invest in understanding the narrative content while experiencing affective involvement (Liao 2025 ). This suggests VR engages different empathic pathways than text-based narratives relying on imagination alone. Specifically, VR's capacity to simulate specific scenarios can address certain barriers to understanding financial hardship. Simulations can present decision points typically hidden from middle-class perspectives, such as choosing between necessities or experiencing declined payments, potentially making abstract constraints more tangible (Bailenson et al. 2025 ). When users must actively make these choices in an immersive simulation, the interactivity amplifies embodiment and personal engagement (Shin 2017 ), making the experience feel immediate and concrete. Additionally, VR environments offer researchers controlled access to experiences that would be impossible or unethical to create naturally, enabling systematic examination of how different narrative elements influence empathetic responding (Martingano et al. 2021 ). This precision can help identify which aspects of financial stress scenarios most effectively promote understanding across economic divides. Criticism and ethical concerns on regarding perspective perspective-taking in VR However, VR's immersive capabilities introduce ethical complications. “Experience life as...” interventions – where users temporarily inhabit another person's circumstances – have attracted significant criticism. Critics have argued that immersive simulations risk creating exploitative "identity tourism," where users gain false intimacy with others' suffering without genuine understanding of its complexity (Nakamura 2020 ). VR's capacity for embodied engagement may paradoxically create improper moral distance, where users become too emotionally proximate to make thoughtful judgments about structural solutions (Nash 2018 ). This sense of intimacy can foster misplaced confidence in users' understanding, leading them to believe they have gained comprehensive insight into complex social issues through brief immersive experiences. This illusion of understanding may reinforce existing biases by providing users with experiential “evidence” for their preconceptions Additionally, the desire to provide unfiltered access to others' experiences risks what Bollmer and Aldouby ( 2020 ) termed a "vampirical" relationship: consuming others' suffering for personal emotional gain rather than fostering authentic understanding. When simulations centre on a dramatic scene (e.g., homelessness) while omitting structural causes and longitudinal hardships (e.g. systemic exclusion), they risk decontextualization, and can end up evoking sympathy for a moment, rather than understanding of a life (Bloom 2017 ; Nash 2018 ). These concerns amplify the ethical responsibilities inherent in representing marginalized experiences, particularly when addressing the multifaceted realities of financial hardship, where the complexity of economic struggle extends far beyond isolated scenarios. Poverty involves chronic uncertainty, systemic oppression, and intergenerational effects that cannot be adequately conveyed through brief immersive experiences (Raz 2022 ). VR simulations that attempt to provide complete access to financial stress may inadvertently reduce complex socioeconomic realities to consumable emotional encounters, potentially reinforcing rather than challenging existing stereotypes about economic struggle. Participatory Design for Narrative Development One response to these concerns is the use of participatory design in the creation of VR simulations (Holohan et al. 2025 ). Participatory design seeks to avoid ethical pitfalls by embedding affected communities directly in the creation process. Rather than providing users with direct access to “becoming” another person, participatory approaches centre on lived-experience expertise to ensure that narratives reflect authentic voices, contexts, and constraints (Bertrand and Rodela 2018 ). As Raz ( 2022 ) argued, the goal of such interventions should not be to become the other, but to facilitate understanding while respecting irreducible differences. This collaborative approach ensures VR experiences emerge from co-creation, addressing concerns about 'identity tourism' through mutual knowledge production (Nakamura 2020 ). By engaging lived-experience experts, participatory methods prevent decontextualization and help ensure that complex realities, such as poverty, displacement, or illness, are represented with appropriate social, historical, and political context, thereby mitigating risks of both decontextualization (Sora-Domenjó 2022 ), and voyeurism (Nash 2018 ). Evidence from adjacent fields supports this approach. In healthcare, patient involvement in co-design has yielded more authentic, user-centred solutions (Benz et al. 2024 ), while participatory action research in education has successfully integrated community knowledge with technical expertise to address social challenges (Castro-Diaz et al. 2024 ). Importantly, involving marginalized communities early in the design process can identify and correct unintended stereotypes or backfire effects, which otherwise risk reinforcing bias (Rueda and Lara 2020 ). By embedding represented groups as co-creators, participatory design reframes VR-induced empathy from a consumable portrayal of suffering into a respectful collaboration that balances closeness and distance. This ensures that interventions cultivate authentic perspective-taking and prosocial understanding without reducing complex human experiences to entertainment. This literature review reveals a tension: VR offers powerful potential for professional perspective transformation, yet risks exploitation without careful ethical design. Additionally, while narratives can foster empathy, complex experiences such as poverty may elude the grasp of imagination-based perspective-taking when readers lack authentic reference points for these systemic realities. This study addresses both challenges by developing and testing an immersive poverty narrative through participatory design and then examining how such experiences shape professional understanding while maintaining ethical integrity. Participatory Design Methodology Participatory Design Overview The simulation was developed through stakeholder engagement guided by the Quadruple Helix framework (Carayannis and Campbell 2009 ), which structures collaboration across academia, government, industry, and civil society. This approach aimed to ensure authentic representation while addressing ethical concerns about simulating financial hardship experiences. Nine iterative activities were conducted, from November 2023 to April 2025 (for details see Fig. 1 , Table 1 ), with stakeholder feedback from each phase informing subsequent design decisions. All activities were conducted in the Netherlands, in both English and Dutch. Individuals with lived experience of poverty participated at multiple stages. Professional experience consultants (Phase 4) were individuals with lived experience who work as paid advisors; they returned for the cross-sector workshop (Phase 6). Two rounds of citizen advisory consultations (Phase 5) involved a separate group of individuals currently experiencing financial hardship. The cross-sector workshop (Phase 6) then brought together the experience consultants from Phase 4, financial experts from Phase 1, and a new group of citizen advisors. Feedback across all sessions was documented through audio recordings (where permitted), facilitator notes, and written feedback. Recurring themes were identified across stakeholder groups. *Insert Fig. * Quadruple helix stakeholder engagement in participatory VR design. Table 1 Detailed breakdown of nine participatory design process. Phase Participants Purpose Output 1. Co-creation Research team, financial experts ( n = 4) Frame key challenges and scenario ideas Narrative framework and scenario concepts 2. Developer collaboration Research team, game developers ( n = 2) Development of VR simulation Interactive VR environment with branching decisions 3. & 4. Ethics review I & II Ethics board ( n = 8, 6, respectively) Assess ethical risks and considerations Design modifications 5. Experience expert interviews Professional experts in experience ( n = 4) Contribute concrete actions and insights Final script, revised dialogue; authentic environmental details 6. & 7. Community advisory board I & II Independent citizen advisory board ( n = 8, 8, respectively) Advice on relevance and tone of scenario Tone adjustments; confirmed emotional resonance 8. Cross-sector scenario workshop Professional experience experts, financial experts, citizens ( n = 7) Validate and finalize narrative experience Validated decision pathways and depth of character 9. Public sector workshop Governmental staff, social services professionals ( n = 11) Disseminate and gather external reactions Policy relevance confirmation and dissemination contacts Collaborative Design Process and Outcomes The participatory sessions yielded rich and varied feedback on all aspects of the simulation. Three overarching themes emerged from these discussions that proved particularly influential in shaping the narrative approach. First, stakeholders emphasized balancing environmental authenticity with ethical representation. While the citizen advice group criticized initial home environments as unrealistically pristine, experience experts cautioned against stereotypical “messy poor” depictions. This led to subtle environmental cues (e.g., blankets on couches, children's toys) that communicated constraints without stigmatization. Second, participants stressed that emotional realism was as crucial as financial accuracy. Experience experts noted that “the first 4 years of living in poverty are seen as the most stressful, due to lifestyle adjustments,” informing the decision to portray recent rather than generational poverty. Their feedback to include “clear and stressful elements such as registered letters” resulted in tangible representations of bureaucratic pressure. Third, the design prioritized cognitive burden over mere financial scarcity. Experience experts emphasized that financial hardship creates overwhelming cognitive load where rational decision-making becomes impossible, leading to cascading, overlapping challenges rather than discrete problems. The process revealed several conflicts requiring careful navigation. For example, ethics experts worried that depicting the daughter as academically successful might reinforce “deserving poor” narratives, while lived-experience participants viewed this as authentic family characterization. Lived-experience perspectives were prioritized, reflecting our commitment to participatory design principles that place affected communities' voices at the centre. Final Narrative Design The resulting VR simulation, available in both Dutch and English, placed participants as parents in a household with €540 remaining for the last 2 weeks of the month, facing cascading pressures: car repairs (€483), rising energy costs, tax correspondence, a school trip request (€150), and unexpected debt (€12,000). Each decision triggered immediate family consequences while participants completed complex bureaucratic forms using replica documents. To facilitate identification with the virtual family, participants selected their partner's gender at the start. The simulation featured two partner avatars with identical dialogue and actions. Figure 2 shows representative screenshots from the simulation, including the home environment (a), decision-making interface (b), and emotional interactions with family members (c). The narrative structure was designed to maximize transportation and identification (Cohen 2001 ; Green and Brock 2000 ) through first-person perspective and detailed family characterization. Following Labov's (1972) narrative model, the simulation began with clear orientation before introducing escalating complications. The cascading interruptions (calls, letters, news) were informed by research on cognitive load (Sweller et al. 1990 ) and scarcity effects on decision-making (Mani et al. 2013 ), creating the overwhelming cognitive burden that stakeholders identified as central to poverty experience. The experience concluded without resolution as family stress escalates, applying peak-end rule findings (Kahneman et al. 1993 ) while reflecting stakeholder input about poverty's persistent, unrelenting nature. The 20-minute duration of the simulation prioritized experiential intensity over comprehensiveness. The simulation did not attempt to represent poverty's full complexity, chronic nature, or intergenerational effects. Instead, it focused on specific constraint mechanisms that professionals may not encounter in traditional training. * Insert Fig. 2 * Screenshots from the VR simulation. (a) Home environment. (b) Decision interface presenting choice options. (c) Emotional interaction with partner character. Field Study Methodology Following the participatory development of the VR simulation, we examined how public policy professionals working at a Dutch municipality experienced and interpreted this poverty narrative. A qualitative focus group approach was used to understand participants' experiences and views of a VR simulation showing what it is like to live in poverty in the Netherlands. This approach allowed for interactive discussion about the psychological, emotional, and storytelling aspects of the VR experience, as well as participants' opinions about using VR to gain insight into the lived experiences of the people they serve professionally. Sample and Procedure Participants were recruited from a local government in the Netherlands. A total of 47 professionals participated in five focus groups, with 8–10 participants per group. The sample consisted of 33 women (70.2%) and 14 men (29.8%). Participants had an average of 11.94 years (SD = 11.27) of professional experience in their field and 8.89 years (SD = 10.52) of employment within municipal government. Eighteen participants (38.3%) had completed university education, 24 (51.1%) had completed higher professional education (Dutch HBO), and 5 (10.6%) had completed intermediate vocational education (Dutch MBO). This sample provided perspectives from various levels of government service, from direct client-facing roles to policy development and executive leadership (see Table 2 ). Table 2 Participants’ professional roles in the municipality Professional roles Number of participants ( N = 47) Case managers (Social support, work & income, reintegration, refugee status holders, and debt counselling) 16 Policy and advice 13 Administrative leadership (Including mayor, city counsellors, and municipal secretary) 5 Management and control 4 Administration 4 Other (Enforcement, communications, and media) 5 Five focus groups were conducted at the municipality office over the course of one day in March 2025. Each session lasted approximately 75 minutes, which included the 20-minute VR experience. All focus group discussions were conducted in Dutch, the participants' native language. Sessions were facilitated by one of the researchers, supported by a research assistant who provided technical support with the VR equipment. Upon arrival, participants provided informed consent and received a brief orientation to the Meta Quest 3 VR headset, which used hand tracking for controller-free interaction. Researchers remained available throughout the 20-minute VR experience to assist with technical issues or discomfort. Participants were informed they could pause or stop the simulation at any time. Immediately after the simulation, participants completed critical incident technique (CIT) forms (Flanagan 1954 ), documenting their initial thoughts and emotions before group discussion began. This approach captured individual perspectives and addressed the tendency for certain ideas to be withheld in group settings (Liamputtong 2011 ). Focus group discussions centred on participants' emotional and psychological responses to the simulation, decision-making processes, narrative construction, and professional perspectives on the methodology. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. CIT forms were collected at the end of each session for analysis alongside focus group transcripts. Participants indicated their willingness for follow-up contact on demographic forms completed at the end of each session. Five weeks later, the 28 participants who consented to follow-up contact received an anonymous Qualtrics survey link via email with open-ended reflection questions about their VR experience. Of these 28 participants, 15 completed the follow-up survey (53.6% response rate). Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, responses could not be linked with individual focus group data but provided insight into longer-term reflections on the simulation experience. Data Analysis Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim in Dutch. All participant quotes presented in this article have been translated from Dutch to English by the research team, with attention to preserving semantic meaning, contextual nuance, and conversational tone. Key quotes were backchecked against original transcripts to ensure translation fidelity. Focus group transcripts and CIT forms were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework. Two researchers independently familiarized themselves with the data through repeated reading of all transcripts before generating initial codes by identifying key text segments. These preliminary codes were compared to develop a shared coding framework, which both researchers then independently applied to the entire dataset using Atlas.ti qualitative analysis software. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Codes were organized into potential themes, which were iteratively reviewed against coded extracts and the complete dataset to ensure internal coherence and accurate representation of participant experiences. Final themes were clearly defined and named, with representative extracts selected to illustrate each theme. Follow-up survey responses ( n = 15) were analysed independently using the same thematic analysis framework (Braun and Clarke 2006 ). Rather than applying predetermined codes from the focus group themes, this analysis allowed new themes to emerge from the data that captured participants' longer-term reflections. Results Focus Group Findings Thematic analysis revealed four main themes capturing how participants experienced, interpreted, and constructed meaning from the simulation, as well as evaluating its effectiveness as a methodological tool (Table 3 ). The detailed coding scheme, including theme and subtheme definitions, is provided in Supplementary Table S1 . Table 3 Thematic analysis of focus group discussion post-immersion. All participant quotes translated from Dutch to English. Content area Numbers of groups mentioning ( n = 5) Example Emotional and psychological responses Stress manifestation 5 “Yes, these aren't just financial worries but also concerns about your children and everything else. It’s like an oil spill.” (FG5 P4) Administrative anxiety and information avoidance 5 “Going through the information only made things more negative. It increased my insecurity and made me question my self-worth.” (FG3 P8) Empathetic responses to virtual family 5 "But then there's the call from school saying things aren't going well, and of course, that's because of the home situation. That was the most heartbreaking part, seeing how much the children are affected by it.” (FG3 P7) Partner perception 5 “My partner is no longer in the right mindset. Accepting defeat only adds more pressure and stress.” (FG1 P4) “I wanted to put my arm around my partner. I wanted to provide support.” (FG4 P1) Salient elements of financial decision-making Administrative system complexity 5 “Yeah, how complex have we made things in the Netherlands? None of us can really deal with this.” (FG5 P3) Child welfare prioritization 5 "For yourself, you can manage things. Put on a sweater or use a blanket. But for your children, it’s really complicated." (FG3 P2) Immediate versus long-term consequences 5 “My daughter wants to go to Rome, and I think, 'Yes, she should go.' When making that decision, I’m thinking 'I actually have no idea whether this is possible, but I want her to go. So, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it’.” (FG1 P1) Narrative construction and decision processes Observer-to-participant immersion transition 3 "I kept thinking, you know this isn't real. But toward the end that started to fade, and I felt completely immersed."(FG2 P3) Identity-protective narrative frameworks 5 “It affects you as a person: as a mother, as a partner, in every role you have when dealing with debt.” (FG1 P8) Support system importance 3 “This partner only gives me stress. I miss a bit of network here, this is worrisome.” (FG1 P6) Evolution from agency to systemic critique 4 “This gave a feeling of losing the overview, I felt powerless. The time of resources is over.” (FG4 P6) Professional perspectives on VR and its effectiveness Immersion versus traditional methods 5 “You hear it [information about poverty] often, and now I really had an active role in solving it.” (FG3 P7) Professional bias recognition 4 “We tend to think quickly about solutions, but that mindset has become our everyday reality.” ( FG3 P6) Applications for training 4 “This would be ideal for giving people an experience, even for training purposes. To get to experience what people actually go through.” (FG5 P2) Emotional and psychological responses The immersive poverty narrative triggered a cascade of embodied stress responses that disrupted professionals' typical analytical stance, forcing affective processing that preceded cognition and constrained cognitive capacity. Participants reported physiological stress markers that bypassed conscious control, including physiological changes: " I noticed at one point that I just stopped breathing " (FG1 P7) and strong emotional responses: " At the end I had goosebumps and tears in my eyes " (FG5 P6), indicating that the VR environment activated stress responses at an autonomic level. Financial stress cascaded across multiple life domains in a compounding pattern described as “Like an oil slick !” (FG5 P4). Another participant described it as “ Everything happens at the same time. You rapidly experience how issues emerge in all areas of life ” (FG5 P5). This simultaneous pressure created overwhelming powerlessness: " This is too much money, this is too overwhelming, you're losing this battle. There was no space to solve it " (FG1 P6). This stress cascade restricted access to the very cognitive resources typically required for administrative navigation. Participants explicitly identified anxiety as degrading executive function (" When you're very stressed, you can't think as clearly " [FG2 P2]), creating a vicious cycle where the administrative complexity that causes stress also requires cognitive capacity that stress depletes (" This made me realize how much costs there actually are and how intense it is. There is no moment where you can think " [FG5 P2]). The description of form-completion tasks as " Like needing a degree in mathematics just to navigate daily life” (FG2 P4) revealed how participants experienced bureaucratic tasks not as neutral information processing, but as cognitively demanding labour performed under pressure. This led to avoidance behaviour: refusing to open mail or answer phones: " Even when the telephone rang, I was contemplating whether I'd pick up or not " (FG5 P2). The behaviour that professionals might interpret as "non-compliance" was now recognized as a stress-induced cognitive protection mechanism. One participant's complete shutdown (" I shut down . I was broken; I had no energy or motivation to fix anything " [FG3 P1]) demonstrated information paralysis: When crucial data is unavailable, the resulting uncertainty compounds stress to the point of complete cognitive withdrawal. Despite being overwhelmed, participants displayed strong empathetic connections with the virtual family. Child-focused scenarios triggered this most powerfully, with participants prioritizing children's social inclusion regardless of financial consequence (" I would want my child to go with everyone else, to live a normal life " [FG5 P2]). This pattern exposed how poverty creates impossible moral binds: Parents must choose between financial stability and children's social belonging, with both choices having unique consequences. One participant articulated this bind: “ They were choices that are directly contrary to what you want for your children. The stress is most likely because I feel responsible but at the same time, I am neglecting my children ” (FG1 P5). An observed pattern showed that gender emerged as a variable in relational dynamics, with male participants expressing empathy and helplessness toward their simulated female partner, when failing to provide support (" I felt very much that I couldn't help her. I felt powerless " [FG3 P7]) while female participants more frequently described the partner's behaviour as a stressor itself (" His behaviour was very stressful. He didn’t understand anything and just came in with this big debt " [FG3 P8]). This asymmetry suggests that professionals' perspective-taking may be filtered through existing gender schemas about emotional labour and financial responsibility. Salient elements of financial decision-making The simulation showed that poverty limits effective decision-making, not only because resources are scarce, but also because systems are difficult to navigate and time pressures are intense. It revealed that professionals’ judgments about “poor financial choices” often overlook how decision-making itself is shaped under such constraints. Administrative complexity functioned as a gatekeeping mechanism that prevented resource access even when the individuals possessed formal qualifications. Participants' frustration that educated professionals struggled with bureaucratic requirements (" How can it be that our society is so complex that people with higher education can't solve this " [FG4 P6]) revealed a critical insight: The barrier was not individual capacity, but systemic design. As one participant noted: " The form was very unclear. Both [the partner and the form] make you feel powerless, there is no control " (FG5 P7). This reframing challenged deficit-based explanations that attributed difficulties navigating assistance programs to personal inadequacy. Instead, the complexity itself emerged as an obstacle. When professionals themselves could not successfully navigate these systems despite their educational advantages, it exposed how the architecture of social support creates its own exclusionary mechanisms. The simulation also revealed fundamental conflicts between emotional imperatives and financial rationality. Child welfare consistently overrode rational analysis, with participants funding the school trip despite severe budget constraints: " She has to join the Rome trip. Even at the expense of the car repair " (FG3 P6). Participants recognized the pressure this created: " I realized how much pressure the kids add as well. How much tension " (FG4 P3), yet articulated why this choice felt non-negotiable: " The school trip was the most important because I think that every parent would want their kids to live a normal life with everyone. I would not be rational here either" (FG1 P8). Another participant explicitly noticed this emotional conflict: " I feel conflicted. We cannot pay for this, but I want to give my daughter everything " (FG2 P1). This pattern demonstrates temporal dilemmas under scarcity: Decisions must be made with incomplete information about future consequences (" What does this decision mean for the upcoming 2 weeks? " [FG1 P3]), forcing prioritization of immediate, visible needs, particularly children's social inclusion, over abstract future financial stability. Participants recognized this as a non-rational, but emotionally necessary, choice: " When making that decision, I’m thinking 'I actually have no idea whether this is possible, but I want her to go. So, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it " (FG1 P1). The simulation revealed constrained rationality: When future conditions are highly uncertain under financial precarity, focusing on immediate needs can become an adaptive form of decision-making. Narrative construction and decision processes The simulation triggered a systematic transformation in how professionals constructed meaning from financial stress experiences. They shifted from narratives of individual agency to recognition of structural constraints, revealing how perspective-taking operates through narrative reframing rather than mere information acquisition. Participants actively constructed coherent stories to make sense of their experiences, with the most significant shift involving movement from external observation to immersive first-person positioning. This narrative repositioning enabled professionals to speak from within the experience rather than about it: " My partner gets angry at my child because we have more debt. It hurts being so powerless, watching my wife like this " (FG4 P6). The use of possessive pronouns – "my partner," "my child," "my wife" – signals full narrative inhabiting, demonstrating that the simulation successfully positioned participants within the experience. Within this immersive stance, participants constructed different narrative frameworks to justify their financial decisions. Some built protective parental narratives prioritizing child welfare (" That child will for sure go on the trip " [FG5 P5]), while others developed pragmatic survival stories emphasizing resourcefulness (" I rejected the car repair, as I saw there was a bicycle " [FG1 P4]). However, these initial narrative framings proved insufficient as the simulation continued. As barriers accumulated, these narratives shifted from stories of personal control to critiques of systemic failure. This transformation accelerated when participants recognized support-network inequalities: " I immediately thought, 'I will call my dad for this'... But if you do not have that, you’re in real trouble " (FG5 P9). The contrast between "I will call my dad" (habitual access to social capital) and "if you do not have that" (recognition of others' structural disadvantage) marks the moment when individual-responsibility explanations prove inadequate for explaining poverty. Participants also realized that even seeking help carried social costs (" Many people, out of shame or reluctance, don't want to ask for help " [FG3 P4]), adding psychological barriers to material ones. As the complexity exceeded their individual capacity to navigate it (" You can't see the forest for the trees, it is too complex " [FG5 P6]), initial stories of personal agency became narratively unsustainable. The simulation thus revealed how professionals revised their explanatory frameworks when lived experience contradicted individualistic narratives, a process central to developing structural rather than deficit-based understandings of poverty. Professional perspectives on VR and its effectiveness The VR simulation highlighted tensions between professional expertise and lived experience, showing how occupational training can create ways of interpreting situations that sometimes obscure, rather than clarify, clients’ realities. Professionals identified the simulation's immersive quality as creating a fundamentally different form of knowing than conventional professional training: " You become part of something... you get the feeling of being right in the middle of it " (FG3 P5). This distinction between experiential and intellectual engagement proved particularly significant for professionals who had encountered similar client stories through case files or interviews, but recognized that narrative immersion produced different understanding: " I realized how stress develops. The feeling of powerlessness from having no control over the situation " (FG4 P7). Multiple participants noted that brief immersive exposure created more profound impact than traditional methods: " I think this does more in 20 minutes than when you read a study or book " (FG1 P5), suggesting that conventional professional education may privilege information transmission over experiential understanding in ways that limit perspective-taking capacity. The simulation triggered recognition of professional bias, specifically how occupational training creates solution-focused interpretations that may misalign with client realities. Professionals identified their habitual problem-solving orientation: " We quickly think in solutions, but that mode is our daily reality. But that is of course my frame of reference " (FG3 P6). This awareness was heightened by the gap between their professional knowledge and simulation constraints: " I had all kinds of solutions in my head. I could get information here, use this fund, call that person, but I don't get those options " (FG3 P2). The frustration of possessing expertise but being unable to apply it exposed a critical insight: Professional knowledge assumes access, agency, and navigability that clients may not have, as one participant noted: " Is that our reality, or is it the reality of the clients? " (FG3 P6). This recognition fostered reflective awareness about the limitations of professional positioning. Professionals acknowledged how occupational distance had enabled them to underestimate constraint severity: " When you don't experience it yourself, you often take things lightly, thinking, 'Oh, just do this, do that.' But when you put yourself in their shoes, you see it's actually worse than you can imagine " (FG5 P1). This captures how professional distance can produce not just emotional detachment, but also cognitive minimization. The simulation collapsed this distance, showing that professional advice can presume access and capacity that clients lack. Sustained Reflections Persistent scene memorability Five weeks post-simulation, participants' memories clustered around specific moments of constraint (Table 4 ). The detailed coding scheme used, including theme and subtheme definitions, is provided in Supplementary Table S2. High-stakes family decisions remained particularly vivid, with participants recalling the school trip scenario in which they prioritized children's needs despite severe financial constraints. Administrative encounters similarly persisted in memory, with participants continuing to referrer to the difficulty of form completion and their own feelings of incompetence despite professional training when encountering bureaucratic requirements. Table 4 Thematic analysis of responses to 5-week delayed survey Content area Numbers of participants mentioning ( n = 15) Example Persistent scene memorability Memorable decision moments 11 “The choice whether your child could go along on the school trip. With that, I immediately thought then we'll live on bread and water for the coming week, but I want my child to have this. " (P5) Core emotional states 11 “Sitting at the kitchen table with my partner, talking about our worries, the panic, the school calling about our daughter, and feeling like there's no way out. " (P12) Systemic and bureaucratic barriers 5 " Also filling out the form which turned out to be quite difficult, which gave me a feeling of incompetence while as a professional I should certainly be able to do that. " (P8) Sustained changes in practice and personal awareness Heightened empathy and motivation 12 I've become more aware of how privileged I am but also recognize the insecurity that such a situation brings. My motivation has increased as a result.” (P11) Ongoing self-reflection 11 “I listen more, and I ask to get to know the story behind a question […] and by asking more, I acquired a good look on the situation, and I could report this back and resolve the conflict.” (P7) Increased systemic awareness 6 “I notice that I pay a lot of attention to similar experiences in my work and constantly wonder if we as a municipality can do better.” (P11) The escalating chaos of system failure also remained salient, as one participant described: "What stuck with me is that it doesn't even help anymore when you get money back from the tax authorities... because you're constantly swimming just to keep your head above water, you become paralyzed" (P14). The persistence of these moments suggests that they resonated because they challenged professionals' typical assumptions about client decision-making and system navigability. What professionals remembered was not the experience of poverty itself, but the specific mechanisms through which constraints operate: forcing impossible trade-offs, creating bureaucratic barriers, and producing conditions in which effort fails to generate progress. Selective retention of constraint mechanisms The simulation's lasting impact varied substantially across participants, revealing both individual transformation and institutional constraints on its application. Several participants reported sustained enhanced empathy and professional motivation: " I have more understanding and sometimes also compassion " (P2). However, others acknowledged challenges maintaining this orientation in demanding work environments: It is sometimes difficult to remain empathetic when people make a mess of things, and the problems quickly come back to me. I realize that I sometimes feel somewhat insensitive because in the busyness of work, we can't always pause (enough). (P8) This tension between transformed understanding and workplace demands points to friction between individual perspective shifts and the institutional contexts in which they must be operationalized. Some participants developed sustained critical awareness of professional frameworks, questioning whether " conversation leaders can step out of their framing and deal with these situations without prejudice " (P12), while others applied insights beyond professional contexts, in their personal relationships: "I try to prevent stress from building up by talking about it, for example with both my children " (P3). Participants with extensive prior experience working with financially vulnerable populations reported less dramatic changes but noted renewed awareness of stress intensity: “ I became aware again that life with too little financial resources is very intense and demands (too) much from someone” (P15), suggesting that even experienced professionals had adapted to or normalized client stress in ways that the simulation disrupted. This variability suggests that while the simulation shifted perspectives for most participants, sustaining those shifts in practice depended on professional context and prior experience. Discussion This study examined how public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing immersive poverty narrative delivered through VR. Through nine iterative participatory design activities involving individuals with lived experience of poverty, financial experts, and citizen advisory groups we addressed ethical concerns about representing marginalized experiences while maintaining psychological authenticity in the development of the VR simulation. The simulation generated empathetic engagement, with participants demonstrating emotional investment in the virtual family and perspective-taking from within the experience rather than as external observers. Participants' adoption of first-person perspective (referring to "my partner," "my child," and experiencing decisions as personal responsibilities) reflects the cognitive absorption that this VR simulation enabled, enhancing cognitive and emotional engagement (Liao 2025 ). Through this engagement, participants experienced constraints not as theoretical scenarios but as personally urgent dilemmas, that shaped professional understanding in two keyways. First, the accumulation of these constraints shifted professionals' explanatory frameworks from individual-responsibility to structural-critique attributions. This extends narrative transportation theory by identifying experienced constraints as a mechanism that appears effective for expert populations. Second, the constraint experienced by preventing access to participants’ professional problem-solving tools revealed the barriers faced by regular citizens – those without insider knowledge – barriers that professionals do not typically recognize. This extends transformative learning theory by demonstrating that constraint-based experiences may prove more pedagogically effective than providing information for expert populations. The following sections examine these mechanisms and their theoretical implications. Theoretical Contributions This study suggests a mechanism that may enable attribution transformation in expert populations: systematic constraints that deplete analytical processing capacity. This contributes to narrative transportation theory by demonstrating that constraints play a distinct role in professional perspective transformation. While emotional engagement with the virtual family was evident across participants, the shift in explanatory frameworks appeared to depend on depletion of the analytical capacity that professionals use to maintain interpretive distance, due to the experienced constraints. This addresses limitations in narrative empathy research, where imaginative perspective-taking often fails to generate accurate understanding of complex, hidden experiences such as financial hardship (Mar and Oatley 2008 ). Attribution research has demonstrated that explanatory frameworks for poverty resist change, with people maintaining individual-responsibility attributions even when presented with structural-attribution information (Brady and Burton 2016 ; Piff et al. 2020 ). Public policy professionals already possessed structural knowledge and expressed concern for citizens, yet research on poverty policy has found that in practice, professionals often continue framing poverty through individual-choice explanations despite structural awareness (Brady and Burton 2016 ; Piff et al. 2020 ). When accumulated pressures, financial trade-offs, bureaucratic complexity, and time pressure created cognitive load exceeding their working memory capacity, professionals could no longer call upon their analytical frameworks. Taking personal responsibility for impossible decisions within the simulation, they experienced systemic barriers directly rather than interpreting them abstractly, consistent with research showing that cognitive load impairs analytical processing (Mani et al. 2013 ; Wentzel et al. 2010 ). This experiential engagement, forced by constraints rather than chosen through imagination, enabled the shift from individual-responsibility to structural-critique attributions. This study's second contribution extends transformative learning theory. Preventing professionals from accessing their usual problem-solving tools revealed how occupational expertise can create interpretive distance from citizen realities. This insider knowledge, such as knowing which agencies to contact or which forms provide access, enables professionals to bypass barriers that citizens without this knowledge cannot overcome. Immersive narratives are already considered beneficial in facilitating learning (Bailenson et al. 2025 ) but may be most effective for professional development when they strategically limit rather than enhance users' capabilities, thereby forcing recognition of barriers that professionals' expertise typically helps them circumvent. This extends transformative learning theory by suggesting that for expert populations, constraints may prove more pedagogically effective than providing additional information. Transformative learning theory emphasizes that perspective transformation occurs when learners encounter new information that challenges existing frameworks (Mezirow 2018 ). This study demonstrates a paradox: For expert populations, adding information may be less effective than removing capacity. By preventing participants from accessing the knowledge, tools, and networks they would normally activate, the simulation created an essential disorienting experience where familiar professional frameworks suddenly proved inadequate (Mezirow 2018 ). This disorienting dilemma emerged not from encountering new information, but from the removal of familiar resources, a pedagogical approach unique to simulation environments that traditional training contexts cannot easily replicate. Professionals recognized that their habitual solution-oriented approach assumes access and agency that clients lack. Since narratives organize experience by connecting intentions, actions, and consequences (Bruner 1990 ; Polkinghorne 1988 ), preventing framework deployment disrupted professionals' automatic interpretive processes, making typically invisible assumptions available for critical reflection. Practical Implications This study's identification of constraint as a mechanism for perspective transformation has implications across three domains: providing a tested intervention for immediate use, informing professional training implementation, and guiding future intervention design. For practitioners seeking ready-to-implement interventions, the VR simulation developed through this research provides an evidence-based tool for professional training that addresses attribution biases and exposes professional blind spots in poverty work and could be implemented in training contexts. Its participatory design approach ensures ethical representation while maintaining psychological effectiveness, offering an approach for similar interventions across professional settings. For professional training programs, incorporating experiential constraints could prove more effective than expanding participants' knowledge base. The participatory-designed VR simulation described in this study offers one tested approach, removing professional resources to generate authentic constraint experiences for public policy professionals. Organizations could also develop role reversals where professionals navigate systems as clients would, or exercises requiring bureaucratic navigation without occupational advantages. However, constraint alone risks generating frustration without insight. Discussion and reflection following the experience are essential for converting disorienting experiences into perspective transformation (Mezirow 2018 ). These debriefs (Silberman 2007 ) are used across various training settings to help participants make sense of their impressions and learn from their experiences. Organizations should allocate substantial time for this debrief – this study used 55-minute discussions following the 20-minute experiences. For researchers designing attribution interventions, incorporating constraints proves essential for enabling perspective transformation in expert populations. However, constraints must authentically reflect barriers faced by represented populations rather than generic limitations. This authenticity requires collaboration with individuals who have experienced the barriers represented. Researchers should work with lived-experience experts through participatory design processes to identify which constraints enable understanding versus which sensationalize or stereotype. This collaborative approach ensures that constraints remain psychologically effective while avoiding exploitation of marginalized groups (Nakamura, 2020 ). For poverty interventions, constraints should reflect what poverty feels like: multiple urgent demands that make rational planning impossible, forms and systems that are confusing even for those with professional training, and urgent decisions that must be made without enough time to think them through. These authentic constraints depleted analytical capacity and prevented expertise activation, the two mechanisms enabling perspective transformation. Limitations and Directions for Future Research Three factors limit the interpretation of these findings. First, the participatory design process involved methodological constraints. Stakeholder recruitment relied on convenience and network sampling, which may have limited the diversity of the perspectives incorporated into the narrative design. Additionally, the analysis of stakeholder feedback documented themes systematically, but did not use formal qualitative coding frameworks. Future research should examine how different participatory design approaches, varying in stakeholder diversity, recruitment methods, and analytical rigor, could influence both the ethical quality and psychological effectiveness of immersive narrative interventions. Second, the sample consisted of public policy professionals who volunteered for a poverty empathy simulation, introducing self-selection bias. Individuals motivated to understand others' perspectives may experience stronger narrative transportation (Carpenter et al. 2018 ), potentially inflating the intervention's apparent effectiveness compared to mandatory training contexts. The sample was also demographically homogeneous (70% female, Dutch municipal workers), limiting generalizability across professional contexts and cultural settings. Replication studies with diverse professional populations such as medical professionals, judges, educators, or social workers, would test whether the constraint mechanism operates similarly across occupational frameworks or requires tailored approaches. Studies in mandatory training contexts would clarify whether effects persist when participation is required rather than voluntary. Additionally, the longitudinal follow-up involved only 15 participants and occurred just 5 weeks later. Studies with larger samples and longer timeframes (i.e. 6 months, 1 year) could examine whether perspective shifts persist, fade, or require reinforcement through repeated exposure or supportive workplace structures. Research could also identify which organizational conditions sustain changed understanding. For instance, do regular reflection sessions, peer discussion groups, or supervisory support enhance durability? Third, the study design lacked experimental controls. Without comparison conditions, attribution shifts cannot be ascribed to VR immersion, narrative constraints, facilitated discussion, or their combination. Future research should use controlled designs to determine which elements drive transformation. For example, comparing three conditions would answer specific questions about mechanism: Does a VR poverty simulation with constraints (full intervention) produce greater attribution shifts than a VR narrative alone (testing constraints' role), has and does this have stronger results than a written case study (testing immersion's value)? This design would determine whether constraint is essential or whether compelling narrative content drives change regardless of delivery method. Similarly, comparing debriefed versus non-debriefed conditions would test whether post-simulation reflection is necessary or whether experiencing constraints alone suffices. The absence of pre/post attribution measures in this study means that causal claims rest on retrospective self-reports. Future studies should measure attributions before and after the intervention to quantify change magnitude and individual variation. Additionally, further future research should incorporate behavioural outcome measures beyond self-reported attitudes, such as case-file decisions, resource allocation patterns, or communication with clients. Conclusion This study developed and tested a collaboratively designed VR poverty simulation, demonstrating that experiencing authentic constraints within immersive narratives shifts professional perspectives in ways that provision of information cannot. For professionals whose expertise may distance them from client realities, strategic limitation proves more transformative than knowledge expansion. The simulation served as both research finding and practical tool, with its participatory-design approach ensuring ethical integrity along with psychological effectiveness. Declarations Ethical approval This study was approved by the Ethical Review Committee Inner City faculties (ERCIC) at the host university, in the Netherlands (approval number: ERCIC_500_26_10_2023, approved 12 December 2023). This study is part of a larger research project examining immersive narratives for professional development. All research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, including the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The approval covered the conduct of focus group discussions following VR simulation experiences with municipal professionals, including audio recording of discussions (pending group consent), data anonymization procedures, and longitudinal follow-up surveys with consenting participants. Informed consent Written informed consent was obtained from all participants by the principal researcher and research assistant on March 25, 2024, prior to the commencement of focus group discussions. Consent forms were distributed in person and collected by the researchers, who were the only individuals involved in the consent process. The written consent form informed participants that: (1) participation involved experiencing a 20-minute VR simulation followed by facilitated focus group discussion; (2) audio recordings would be made during focus groups, pending group agreement; (3) the information obtained would be used for research purposes, including scientific publication; (4) participation was voluntary with the right to withdraw at any time without negative consequences; (5) all collected data would be treated confidentially, anonymized, and used only for scientific purposes; and (6) they could optionally consent to follow-up contact for a longitudinal survey five weeks later. Participants in the longitudinal follow-up (n=28 who consented to follow-up contact) received an email invitation five weeks after their initial participation, with informed consent obtained through their voluntary completion of the anonymous online survey. To protect participants' identities, all data were anonymized using a coding system (focus group participants: FG1 P1, FG1 P2, etc.; follow-up survey participants: P1, P2, etc.). No personal information or identifying details were disclosed in any publications or reports. Acknowledgements This research was financed by a subsidy of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and received funding from ClickNL [Project code: TKI2206-CI23038]. We thank professor [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] for instrumental support in securing this funding. We thank all lived-experience experts, budget coaches and community advisory board members who collaborated in designing the VR simulation, The Barn for developing the simulation, and all municipal professionals who participated in the focus groups. We are grateful to [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] for providing technical assistance. We also thank audiences at international and national conferences for their constructive feedback throughout the development of this research. Competing interests The author(s) declare no competing interests. Data availability The codebook and representative anonymized excerpts supporting this study's findings are available in the Supplementary Materials. Full transcripts are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to ethical approval and data-sharing agreement to protect participant confidentiality. Author contribution S.B. led the development of the VR simulation, including designing and conducting all participatory design activities, writing the narrative script, and coordinating closely with developers throughout the production process. M.W. contributed substantially to the participatory design activities. S.B. conducted the focus groups, analysed the data, and wrote the original manuscript. L.B., M.W., and J.H. jointly contributed to conceptualization and methodology, provided supervision throughout the project, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. L.B. and M.W. additionally secured funding and administered the project. References Bailenson JN, DeVeaux C, Han E et al (2025) Five canonical findings from 30 years of psychological experimentation in virtual reality. Nat Hum Behav 9(7): 1328–1338 Barsalou LW. Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. J Cogn. (2020) Sep 29;3(1):31 Batson CD, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E et al (1997) Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J Pers Soc Psychol 72(1): 105–118 Benz C, Scott-Jeffs W, McKercher K et al (2024) Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability. Res Involv Engagem 10(1): 47 Bertrand M, Rodela KC (2018) A framework for rethinking educational leadership in the margins: Implications for social justice leadership preparation. J Res Leadersh Educ 13(1): 10–37 Bloom P (2017) It’s ridiculous to use virtual reality to empathize with refugees. The Atlantic, 3 Bollmer G, Aldouby H (2020) From immersion to empathy. The legacy of Einfühlung in virtual reality and digital art. In Aldouy H (ed) Shifting interfaces. An anthology of presence, empathy and agency in 21st century media arts. Leuven University Press, Leuven. p. 17–30 Brady D, Burton LM (2016) The Oxford handbook of the social science of poverty. Oxford University Press, Oxford Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2): 77–101 Bruner J (1990) Culture and human development: A new look. Hum Dev 33(6): 344–355 Carayannis EG, Campbell DF (2009) 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3-4): 201–234 Carpenter JM, Green MC, Fitzgerald K (2018) Mind-reading motivation: Individual differences in desire to perspective-take influence narrative processing. Sci Study Lit 8(2): 211–238 Castro-Diaz L, Nwadiaru OV, Roque A et al (2024) Participatory research in energy justice: guiding principles and practice. Prog Energy 6(3): 033005 Chetty R, Jackson MO, Kuchler T et al (2022) Social capital I: Measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature 608(7921): 108–121 Cohen D (2001) Cultural variation: Considerations and implications. Psychol Bull 127(4): 451–471 Cohen J (2018) Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. In Wei R. (ed) Advances in foundational mass communication theories. Routledge, London. p 253–272 Cuff BM, Brown SJ, Taylor L et al (2016) Empathy: A review of the concept. Emot Rev 8(2): 144–153 Eurostat. Living conditions in Europe – poverty and social exclusion. Luxembourg: European Union; 2025 Apr [cited 2025 May 19]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51(4): 327–358 Green MC, Appel M (2024) Narrative transportation: How stories shape how we see ourselves and the world. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 70: 1–82 Green MC, Brock TC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(5): 701–721 Haddad CR, Nakić V, Bergek A et al (2022) Transformative innovation policy: A systematic review. Environ Innov Soc Transit 43: 14–40 Holohan C, Hogan M, Kelly D et al (2025) Ethical witnessing: Participatory virtual reality production and the experience of homelessness. Stud Doc Film 19(3): 213–232 Horodyska K, Luszczynska A, van den Berg M et al (2015) Good practice characteristics of diet and physical activity interventions and policies: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health 15(1): 19 Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA (1993) When more pain is preferred to less: adding a better end. Psychol Sci. 1993;4:401–5. Kalla J L, Broockman DE (2023) Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective‐getting. Am J Political Sci 67(1): 185–204 Kaufman GF, Libby, LK (2012) Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. J Pers Soc Psychol 103(1): 1–19 Labov W (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Liamputtong P (2011) Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks Liao C-H (2025) The role of virtual reality in enhancing behavioral empathy: exploring cognitive absorption, engagement, and emotional moderation using multivariate methods. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12(1):1–15. Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E et al (2013) Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341(6149): 976–980 Mar RA, Oatley K (2008) The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(3): 173–192 Martingano AJ, Hererra F, Konrath S (2021) Virtual reality improves emotional but not cognitive empathy: A meta-analysis. Technol Mind Behav: 2(1) Mezirow J (2018) Transformative learning theory. In Illeris K (ed) Contemporary theories of learning, 3rd edn. Routledge, London. p 114–128 Moorhouse M, Goode M, Cotte J et al (2023) Helping those that hide: Anticipated stigmatization drives concealment and a destructive cycle of debt. J Mark Res 60(6): 1135–1153 Nakamura L (2020) Feeling good about feeling bad: Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. J Vis Cult 19(1): 47–64 Nash K (2018) Virtual reality witness: Exploring the ethics of mediated presence. Stud Doc Film 12(2): 119–131 Piff PK, Wiwad D, Robinson AR et al (2020) Shifting attributions for poverty motivates opposition to inequality and enhances egalitarianism. Nat Hum Behav 4(5): 496–505. Polkinghorne D (1988) Narrative knowing and the human sciences. SUNY Press, Albany. Raz G (2022) Rage against the empathy machine revisited: The ethics of empathy-related affordances of virtual reality. Converg 28(5): 1457–1475 Rueda J, Lara F (2020) Virtual reality and empathy enhancement: Ethical aspects. Front Robot AI 7: 506984 Segal EA (2007) Social empathy: A tool to address the contradiction of working but still poor. Fam Soc 88(3): 333–337 Shin D-H (2017. The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telemat Inform 34(8): 1826–1836 Silberman ML (2007) The handbook of experiential learning. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken Slater M, Sanchez-Vives MV (2016) Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front Robot AI 3: 74. Sora-Domenjó C (2022) Disrupting the “empathy machine”: The power and perils of virtual reality in addressing social issues. Front Psychol 13: 814565 Stephens NM, Townsend SS, Markus HR et al (2012) A cultural mismatch: Independent cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions among first-generation college students. J Exper Soc Psychol 48(6): 1389–1393 Sweller J, Chandler P, Tierney P et al (1990) Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. J Exper Psychol: Gen 119(2): 176–192 Turner VW, Bruner EM (1986) The anthropology of experience. University of Illinois Press, Champaign. Van Laer T, De Ruyter K, Visconti LM et al (2014) The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers' narrative transportation. J Consum Res 40(5): 797–817 Viennet R, Pont B (2017) Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework. OECD Education Working Papers No. 162. OECD, Paris. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en Wentzel D, Tomczak T, Herrmann A (2010) The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychol Mark 27(5): 510–530 World Bank. Poverty, prosperity, and planet report (2024): pathways out of the polycrisis. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterials.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 25 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 02 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 31 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 29 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 22 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8167722","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":594575278,"identity":"48d94110-d73f-47f7-8eea-d9840f9a769f","order_by":0,"name":"Stefan Gerard Bos","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maastricht University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stefan","middleName":"Gerard","lastName":"Bos","suffix":""},{"id":594575279,"identity":"42a73e3d-04b1-4f51-9a98-9bfc1894efe8","order_by":1,"name":"Lisa Brüggen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maastricht University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Brüggen","suffix":""},{"id":594575280,"identity":"ab4464a3-2875-4a34-854b-2499c21f7e49","order_by":2,"name":"Minou van der Werf","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maastricht University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Minou","middleName":"van der","lastName":"Werf","suffix":""},{"id":594575281,"identity":"d02024fc-0103-41ca-b808-9dd3a6cd59b4","order_by":3,"name":"Jonas Heller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maastricht University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jonas","middleName":"","lastName":"Heller","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-20 20:38:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8167722/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8167722/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103566131,"identity":"03f737d0-0494-4532-bd44-abbda22e49c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-27 07:22:22","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":314830,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eQuadruple helix stakeholder engagement in participatory VR design.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.QuadrupleHelix.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8167722/v1/c8e7092bf74b0f61d920131c.jpg"},{"id":103566132,"identity":"b31f2065-9d41-49b3-a0a0-6efb70ca6df4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-27 07:22:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1857486,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScreenshots from the VR simulation. (a) Home environment. (b) Decision interface presenting choice options. (c) Emotional interaction with partner character.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2ABC.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8167722/v1/0979ff7004db9cd5c7179006.png"},{"id":104399052,"identity":"2d6e06ce-ac0b-4b69-888c-e2d7e6e6283d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:04:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4028886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8167722/v1/e24650aa-5a5e-4eed-a473-2578e7e731ff.pdf"},{"id":103566130,"identity":"0cd97757-bad5-413e-9aab-f43113c1ae62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-27 07:22:22","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":21901,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterials.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8167722/v1/b04399d365eec7587b40aff4.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perspective-taking and meaning-making among public policy professionals experiencing an immersive poverty narrative","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eWhat? Why? I\u0026apos;ll be the only one in class who isn\u0026rsquo;t going! Do you even know what that feels like? You can\u0026apos;t do this to me! All my friends are going; I can\u0026rsquo;t be the only one left out! This is so unfair!\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is what your virtual daughter cries in the Virtual Reality (VR) simulation used in this research when you tell her she cannot join her classmates on the school trip to Rome. With only \u0026euro;360 left for the month, the \u0026euro;150 trip fee competes with an overdue \u0026euro;483 garage repair bill, another impossible choice in your family\u0026apos;s financial struggle. This moment is an example of the decisions that some families face every day. However, poverty and its associated decisions remain largely invisible to professionals whose daily work directly impacts these populations, creating a persistent empathy gap between those designing poverty interventions and those they aim to serve (Haddad et al. 2022; Piff et al. 2020). This moment thereby captures a fundamental challenge in social policy: How can those who design and implement poverty interventions truly understand the experiential realities of financial hardship?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs narratives can shape understanding of unfamiliar experiences, experiencing a scenario simulating poverty might help in overcoming this empathy gap. Research has demonstrated that stories reduce prejudice toward marginalized groups by transporting readers into characters\u0026apos; perspectives, creating emotional connections that bypass defensive reasoning (Green and Brock 2000; Kalla and Broockman 2023). VR technology offers embodied simulations of experiences through multisensory environments (Martingano et al. 2021). However, poverty\u0026apos;s systemic complexity, including navigating welfare systems, social stigma, and healthcare barriers, limits most people\u0026apos;s ability to accurately envision the daily realities of financial hardship (Mar and Oatley 2008; Segal 2007). When people lack this direct experience, encountering narratives risks activating emotional responses without generating essential understanding. Moreover, VR\u0026apos;s immersive capabilities introduce ethical complications, as critics have argued that simulations provide users with false intimacy without genuine understanding (Nakamura 2020; Nash 2018). These concerns have led scholars to question whether VR empathy experiences can avoid ethical exploitation while maintaining psychological effectiveness (Raz 2022), particularly when representing experiences such as financial hardship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses these challenges by examining how public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing an immersive poverty narrative. We developed this this immersive narrative as a 20-minute VR simulation through nine iterative participatory design activities involving lived-experience experts, ethics specialists, and financial experts. Then a qualitative field study was conducted with 47 public policy professionals working in a municipal context, who experienced the designed 20-minute VR simulation of financial hardship, followed by facilitated focus group discussions and individual reflection questions. Our research question asks: How do public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing an immersive poverty narrative?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings reveal how experiencing systematic constraints within the VR simulation, including limited choices, scarce resources, and impossible trade-offs, enabled public policy professionals to shift from individual-responsibility to structural-critique frameworks for understanding poverty. Experiencing these constraints simultaneously exposed professional expertise as both a resource and a barrier to client understanding, making typically invisible assumptions available for examination. These contributions have implications for empathy intervention design, professional training methodology, and poverty policy implementation. The following sections review the literature on narrative transportation and VR ethics, detail our participatory design methodology, and present findings from our field research with municipal professionals experiencing the designed VR simulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research addresses two critical audiences. First, researchers studying narratives, empathy, and perspective-taking will find theoretical extensions with regard to expert populations, alongside empirical examinations of how participatory design processes can address ethical concerns in the use of immersive technologies. Second, practitioners developing professional training interventions require evidence-based approaches that overcome the limitations of traditional perspective-taking methods. Understanding how immersive narratives influence public policy professionals matters, because these professionals make consequential decisions about resource allocation, policy implementation, and case management that directly affect the wellbeing of vulnerable populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNarratives and Social Understanding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStories can be more than entertainment; they can construct our reality (Green and Appel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Narratives serve as fundamental frameworks through which humans actively organize experience, creating stories that connect intentions, actions, and consequences to shape how we understand ourselves and others (Polkinghorne \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Turner and Bruner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Narratives serve dual roles: They are cognitive frameworks individuals use to make sense of information, and they are cultural tools that communicate group values and foster social understanding (Bruner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Because stories invite sense-making rather than argument, they can influence attitudes and behaviour through mechanisms different from analytic persuasion (Green and Brock \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Van Laer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This distinctive capacity makes narratives particularly effective for addressing social divides and cultivating empathy across group boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, not all social experiences are equally accessible by narrative empathy. For example, poverty represents a challenging context for fostering empathy and social understanding. Similar to other forms of disadvantage, poverty consistently triggers attribution biases where observers blame individual failings rather than structural factors, reinforcing stigma and reducing social support (Brady and Burton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Piff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Class and income differences are also less visible in daily interaction, thereby limiting opportunities for meaningful cross-class contact that might disrupt stereotypes (Chetty et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Stephens et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Shame felt by those experiencing financial hardship exacerbates this by creating barriers to direct interaction (Moorhouse et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These combined barriers create a persistent empathy gap that undermines public support for anti-poverty policies as well as the effectiveness of interventions designed by professionals whose own frameworks may reinforce rather than challenge attribution biases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorldwide, 8.5% of the global population lived in extreme poverty in 2024, surviving on less than \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e2.15 (US dollar) per day (World Bank \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, when using a poverty standard more appropriate for developed economies (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e6.85 per day), 44% of the world's population experiences poverty \u0026ndash; revealing how widespread financial hardship extends far beyond extreme deprivation. Despite projected reductions, progress has stalled over the past five years. (World Bank \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In Europe specifically, 93.3\u0026nbsp;million people face poverty risk as of 2024, representing 21% of the EU population (Eurostat 2025). Such widespread yet hidden financial hardship makes it crucial that those designing interventions and policies genuinely understand poverty's realities, highlighting the need for approaches that enable professionals to develop authentic understanding of the realities that citizens experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing inequalities like poverty, requires a comprehensive approach that tackles structural sources, and policies aimed at reducing inequality have been extensively reviewed in the literature. Research has showed that successful policy implementation depends heavily on the interactions between the policy designers and those they aim to help (Horodyska et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Effective poverty interventions require policy instruments grounded in valid understanding of how financial hardship shapes behaviour and decision-making (Viennet and Pont \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), For example, behavioural economics has demonstrated how financial hardship fundamentally alters cognitive bandwidth and decision-making processes (Mani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), making it critical that policy designers understand existing pressures and priorities when designing and implementing interventions (Horodyska et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). However, professionals designing such policies may lack this understanding and may hold assumptions that do not align with lived realities, creating significant barriers to effective policy design and implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEmpathy and perspective-taking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNarratives can address these barriers, insofar as they can elicit empathy and perspective-taking. \u003cem\u003eEmpathy\u003c/em\u003e involves understanding and sharing others' emotional experiences while maintaining awareness that these emotions originate from another person (Cuff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003ePerspective-taking\u003c/em\u003e refers to the cognitive process of imagining another's thoughts and experiences (Batson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Narratives elicit these by transporting audiences into story worlds. This \u003cem\u003enarrative transportation\u003c/em\u003e (Green and Brock \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) is a distinctive state of focused attention, imagery, and affective engagement. When within story worlds, identification enables audiences to adopt a character\u0026rsquo;s perspective and vicariously feel their emotions (Cohen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, when readers become transported into stories featuring stigmatized characters, they simultaneously engage both processes: emotionally resonating with characters while cognitively interpreting their situations (Green and Appel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mar and Oatley \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has demonstrated that narrative-induced empathy effectively reduces prejudice and promotes prosocial behaviour toward stigmatized groups, with studies showing improved attitudes and increased helping behaviour following exposure to stories about marginalized individuals (Kalla and Broockman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kaufman and Libby \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This narrative empathy bypasses defensive responses that typically maintain social distance and prejudice. For example, reading a narrative from a member of a cultural outgroup has been shown to reduce prejudice against this group (Green and Appel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, narrative empathy faces significant limitations when addressing invisible stigmas such as financial hardship. Traditional perspective-taking relies on readers' ability to imagine unfamiliar experiences, but poverty's systemic complexity, including navigating welfare systems, unstable housing, and healthcare barriers, makes it difficult for people to accurately envision its daily realities (Green and Appel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that for complex, systemically embedded experiences such as financial hardship, traditional narrative methods may be insufficient, pointing to the potential value of more immersive approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eVirtual Reality as a Narrative Medium\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than relying solely on readers' imaginative capacity, VR offers potential complementary approaches to traditional narrative methods. VR creates multisensory environments that may provide more direct access to unfamiliar experiences, such as financial stress (Slater and Sanchez-Vives \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Research on embodied cognition has suggested that physical experiences influence cognitive processing (Barsalou 2020). VR's capacity to simulate physical presence and enable bodily interaction may engage these embodied processes through cognitive absorption, deep immersion and focused attention that increases both cognitive and emotional engagement with VR content (Liao \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This cognitive engagement enhances both cognitive and emotional empathy, as users mentally invest in understanding the narrative content while experiencing affective involvement (Liao \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests VR engages different empathic pathways than text-based narratives relying on imagination alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, VR's capacity to simulate specific scenarios can address certain barriers to understanding financial hardship. Simulations can present decision points typically hidden from middle-class perspectives, such as choosing between necessities or experiencing declined payments, potentially making abstract constraints more tangible (Bailenson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). When users must actively make these choices in an immersive simulation, the interactivity amplifies embodiment and personal engagement (Shin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), making the experience feel immediate and concrete. Additionally, VR environments offer researchers controlled access to experiences that would be impossible or unethical to create naturally, enabling systematic examination of how different narrative elements influence empathetic responding (Martingano et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This precision can help identify which aspects of financial stress scenarios most effectively promote understanding across economic divides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCriticism and ethical concerns on regarding perspective perspective-taking in VR\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, VR's immersive capabilities introduce ethical complications. \u0026ldquo;Experience life as...\u0026rdquo; interventions \u0026ndash; where users temporarily inhabit another person's circumstances \u0026ndash; have attracted significant criticism. Critics have argued that immersive simulations risk creating exploitative \"identity tourism,\" where users gain false intimacy with others' suffering without genuine understanding of its complexity (Nakamura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). VR's capacity for embodied engagement may paradoxically create improper moral distance, where users become too emotionally proximate to make thoughtful judgments about structural solutions (Nash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This sense of intimacy can foster misplaced confidence in users' understanding, leading them to believe they have gained comprehensive insight into complex social issues through brief immersive experiences. This illusion of understanding may reinforce existing biases by providing users with experiential \u0026ldquo;evidence\u0026rdquo; for their preconceptions Additionally, the desire to provide unfiltered access to others' experiences risks what Bollmer and Aldouby (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) termed a \"vampirical\" relationship: consuming others' suffering for personal emotional gain rather than fostering authentic understanding. When simulations centre on a dramatic scene (e.g., homelessness) while omitting structural causes and longitudinal hardships (e.g. systemic exclusion), they risk decontextualization, and can end up evoking sympathy for a moment, rather than understanding of a life (Bloom \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Nash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese concerns amplify the ethical responsibilities inherent in representing marginalized experiences, particularly when addressing the multifaceted realities of financial hardship, where the complexity of economic struggle extends far beyond isolated scenarios. Poverty involves chronic uncertainty, systemic oppression, and intergenerational effects that cannot be adequately conveyed through brief immersive experiences (Raz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). VR simulations that attempt to provide complete access to financial stress may inadvertently reduce complex socioeconomic realities to consumable emotional encounters, potentially reinforcing rather than challenging existing stereotypes about economic struggle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipatory Design for Narrative Development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne response to these concerns is the use of participatory design in the creation of VR simulations (Holohan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Participatory design seeks to avoid ethical pitfalls by embedding affected communities directly in the creation process. Rather than providing users with direct access to \u0026ldquo;becoming\u0026rdquo; another person, participatory approaches centre on lived-experience expertise to ensure that narratives reflect authentic voices, contexts, and constraints (Bertrand and Rodela \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As Raz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) argued, the goal of such interventions should not be to become the other, but to facilitate understanding while respecting irreducible differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis collaborative approach ensures VR experiences emerge from co-creation, addressing concerns about 'identity tourism' through mutual knowledge production (Nakamura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). By engaging lived-experience experts, participatory methods prevent decontextualization and help ensure that complex realities, such as poverty, displacement, or illness, are represented with appropriate social, historical, and political context, thereby mitigating risks of both decontextualization (Sora-Domenj\u0026oacute; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and voyeurism (Nash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence from adjacent fields supports this approach. In healthcare, patient involvement in co-design has yielded more authentic, user-centred solutions (Benz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), while participatory action research in education has successfully integrated community knowledge with technical expertise to address social challenges (Castro-Diaz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, involving marginalized communities early in the design process can identify and correct unintended stereotypes or backfire effects, which otherwise risk reinforcing bias (Rueda and Lara \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). By embedding represented groups as co-creators, participatory design reframes VR-induced empathy from a consumable portrayal of suffering into a respectful collaboration that balances closeness and distance. This ensures that interventions cultivate authentic perspective-taking and prosocial understanding without reducing complex human experiences to entertainment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis literature review reveals a tension: VR offers powerful potential for professional perspective transformation, yet risks exploitation without careful ethical design. Additionally, while narratives can foster empathy, complex experiences such as poverty may elude the grasp of imagination-based perspective-taking when readers lack authentic reference points for these systemic realities. This study addresses both challenges by developing and testing an immersive poverty narrative through participatory design and then examining how such experiences shape professional understanding while maintaining ethical integrity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Participatory Design Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipatory Design Overview\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation was developed through stakeholder engagement guided by the Quadruple Helix framework (Carayannis and Campbell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), which structures collaboration across academia, government, industry, and civil society. This approach aimed to ensure authentic representation while addressing ethical concerns about simulating financial hardship experiences. Nine iterative activities were conducted, from November 2023 to April 2025 (for details see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), with stakeholder feedback from each phase informing subsequent design decisions. All activities were conducted in the Netherlands, in both English and Dutch.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividuals with lived experience of poverty participated at multiple stages. Professional experience consultants (Phase 4) were individuals with lived experience who work as paid advisors; they returned for the cross-sector workshop (Phase 6). Two rounds of citizen advisory consultations (Phase 5) involved a separate group of individuals currently experiencing financial hardship. The cross-sector workshop (Phase 6) then brought together the experience consultants from Phase 4, financial experts from Phase 1, and a new group of citizen advisors. Feedback across all sessions was documented through audio recordings (where permitted), facilitator notes, and written feedback. Recurring themes were identified across stakeholder groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e*Insert Fig. *\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eQuadruple helix stakeholder engagement in participatory VR design.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetailed breakdown of nine participatory design process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurpose\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutput\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Co-creation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch team, financial experts (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrame key challenges and scenario ideas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNarrative framework and scenario concepts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Developer collaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch team, game developers (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment of VR simulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteractive VR environment with branching decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. \u0026amp; 4. Ethics review I \u0026amp; II\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthics board (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 6, respectively)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssess ethical risks and considerations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign modifications\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Experience expert interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional experts in experience (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContribute concrete actions and insights\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinal script, revised dialogue; authentic environmental details\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. \u0026amp; 7. Community advisory board I \u0026amp; II\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndependent citizen advisory board (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 8, respectively)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvice on relevance and tone of scenario\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTone adjustments; confirmed emotional resonance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Cross-sector scenario workshop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional experience experts, financial experts, citizens (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidate and finalize narrative experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidated decision pathways and depth of character\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. Public sector workshop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernmental staff, social services professionals (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisseminate and gather external reactions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy relevance confirmation and dissemination contacts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCollaborative Design Process and Outcomes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e The participatory sessions yielded rich and varied feedback on all aspects of the simulation. Three overarching themes emerged from these discussions that proved particularly influential in shaping the narrative approach. First, stakeholders emphasized balancing environmental authenticity with ethical representation. While the citizen advice group criticized initial home environments as unrealistically pristine, experience experts cautioned against stereotypical \u0026ldquo;messy poor\u0026rdquo; depictions. This led to subtle environmental cues (e.g., blankets on couches, children's toys) that communicated constraints without stigmatization. Second, participants stressed that emotional realism was as crucial as financial accuracy. Experience experts noted that \u0026ldquo;the first 4 years of living in poverty are seen as the most stressful, due to lifestyle adjustments,\u0026rdquo; informing the decision to portray recent rather than generational poverty. Their feedback to include \u0026ldquo;clear and stressful elements such as registered letters\u0026rdquo; resulted in tangible representations of bureaucratic pressure. Third, the design prioritized cognitive burden over mere financial scarcity. Experience experts emphasized that financial hardship creates overwhelming cognitive load where rational decision-making becomes impossible, leading to cascading, overlapping challenges rather than discrete problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe process revealed several conflicts requiring careful navigation. For example, ethics experts worried that depicting the daughter as academically successful might reinforce \u0026ldquo;deserving poor\u0026rdquo; narratives, while lived-experience participants viewed this as authentic family characterization. Lived-experience perspectives were prioritized, reflecting our commitment to participatory design principles that place affected communities' voices at the centre.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFinal Narrative Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe resulting VR simulation, available in both Dutch and English, placed participants as parents in a household with \u0026euro;540 remaining for the last 2 weeks of the month, facing cascading pressures: car repairs (\u0026euro;483), rising energy costs, tax correspondence, a school trip request (\u0026euro;150), and unexpected debt (\u0026euro;12,000). Each decision triggered immediate family consequences while participants completed complex bureaucratic forms using replica documents. To facilitate identification with the virtual family, participants selected their partner's gender at the start. The simulation featured two partner avatars with identical dialogue and actions. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows representative screenshots from the simulation, including the home environment (a), decision-making interface (b), and emotional interactions with family members (c).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe narrative structure was designed to maximize transportation and identification (Cohen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Green and Brock \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) through first-person perspective and detailed family characterization. Following Labov's (1972) narrative model, the simulation began with clear orientation before introducing escalating complications. The cascading interruptions (calls, letters, news) were informed by research on cognitive load (Sweller et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) and scarcity effects on decision-making (Mani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), creating the overwhelming cognitive burden that stakeholders identified as central to poverty experience. The experience concluded without resolution as family stress escalates, applying peak-end rule findings (Kahneman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) while reflecting stakeholder input about poverty's persistent, unrelenting nature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 20-minute duration of the simulation prioritized experiential intensity over comprehensiveness. The simulation did not attempt to represent poverty's full complexity, chronic nature, or intergenerational effects. Instead, it focused on specific constraint mechanisms that professionals may not encounter in traditional training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003cb\u003eInsert\u003c/b\u003e Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e*\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eScreenshots from the VR simulation. (a) Home environment. (b) Decision interface presenting choice options. (c) Emotional interaction with partner character.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eField Study Methodology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the participatory development of the VR simulation, we examined how public policy professionals working at a Dutch municipality experienced and interpreted this poverty narrative. A qualitative focus group approach was used to understand participants' experiences and views of a VR simulation showing what it is like to live in poverty in the Netherlands. This approach allowed for interactive discussion about the psychological, emotional, and storytelling aspects of the VR experience, as well as participants' opinions about using VR to gain insight into the lived experiences of the people they serve professionally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited from a local government in the Netherlands. A total of 47 professionals participated in five focus groups, with 8\u0026ndash;10 participants per group. The sample consisted of 33 women (70.2%) and 14 men (29.8%). Participants had an average of 11.94 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.27) of professional experience in their field and 8.89 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.52) of employment within municipal government. Eighteen participants (38.3%) had completed university education, 24 (51.1%) had completed higher professional education (Dutch HBO), and 5 (10.6%) had completed intermediate vocational education (Dutch MBO). This sample provided perspectives from various levels of government service, from direct client-facing roles to policy development and executive leadership (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; professional roles in the municipality\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional roles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;47)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCase managers\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Social support, work \u0026amp; income, reintegration, refugee status holders, and debt counselling)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePolicy and advice\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdministrative leadership\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Including mayor, city counsellors, and municipal secretary)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eManagement and control\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdministration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOther\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Enforcement, communications, and media)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive focus groups were conducted at the municipality office over the course of one day in March 2025. Each session lasted approximately 75 minutes, which included the 20-minute VR experience. All focus group discussions were conducted in Dutch, the participants' native language. Sessions were facilitated by one of the researchers, supported by a research assistant who provided technical support with the VR equipment. Upon arrival, participants provided informed consent and received a brief orientation to the Meta Quest 3 VR headset, which used hand tracking for controller-free interaction. Researchers remained available throughout the 20-minute VR experience to assist with technical issues or discomfort. Participants were informed they could pause or stop the simulation at any time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmediately after the simulation, participants completed critical incident technique (CIT) forms (Flanagan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e), documenting their initial thoughts and emotions before group discussion began. This approach captured individual perspectives and addressed the tendency for certain ideas to be withheld in group settings (Liamputtong \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Focus group discussions centred on participants' emotional and psychological responses to the simulation, decision-making processes, narrative construction, and professional perspectives on the methodology. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. CIT forms were collected at the end of each session for analysis alongside focus group transcripts. Participants indicated their willingness for follow-up contact on demographic forms completed at the end of each session. Five weeks later, the 28 participants who consented to follow-up contact received an anonymous Qualtrics survey link via email with open-ended reflection questions about their VR experience. Of these 28 participants, 15 completed the follow-up survey (53.6% response rate). Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, responses could not be linked with individual focus group data but provided insight into longer-term reflections on the simulation experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus group recordings were transcribed verbatim in Dutch. All participant quotes presented in this article have been translated from Dutch to English by the research team, with attention to preserving semantic meaning, contextual nuance, and conversational tone. Key quotes were backchecked against original transcripts to ensure translation fidelity. Focus group transcripts and CIT forms were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework. Two researchers independently familiarized themselves with the data through repeated reading of all transcripts before generating initial codes by identifying key text segments. These preliminary codes were compared to develop a shared coding framework, which both researchers then independently applied to the entire dataset using Atlas.ti qualitative analysis software. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Codes were organized into potential themes, which were iteratively reviewed against coded extracts and the complete dataset to ensure internal coherence and accurate representation of participant experiences. Final themes were clearly defined and named, with representative extracts selected to illustrate each theme.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollow-up survey responses (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15) were analysed independently using the same thematic analysis framework (Braun and Clarke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than applying predetermined codes from the focus group themes, this analysis allowed new themes to emerge from the data that captured participants' longer-term reflections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFocus Group Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic analysis revealed four main themes capturing how participants experienced, interpreted, and constructed meaning from the simulation, as well as evaluating its effectiveness as a methodological tool (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The detailed coding scheme, including theme and subtheme definitions, is provided in Supplementary Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThematic analysis of focus group discussion post-immersion. All participant quotes translated from Dutch to English.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent area\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumbers of groups mentioning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional and psychological responses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStress manifestation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Yes, these aren't just financial worries but also concerns about your children and everything else. It\u0026rsquo;s like an oil spill.\u0026rdquo; (FG5 P4)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative anxiety and information avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Going through the information only made things more negative. It increased my insecurity and made me question my self-worth.\u0026rdquo; (FG3 P8)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathetic responses to virtual family\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\"But then there's the call from school saying things aren't going well, and of course, that's because of the home situation. That was the most heartbreaking part, seeing how much the children are affected by it.\u0026rdquo; (FG3 P7)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartner perception\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;My partner is no longer in the right mindset. Accepting defeat only adds more pressure and stress.\u0026rdquo; (FG1 P4)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I wanted to put my arm around my partner. I wanted to provide support.\u0026rdquo; (FG4 P1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSalient elements of financial decision-making\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative system complexity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Yeah, how complex have we made things in the Netherlands? None of us can really deal with this.\u0026rdquo; (FG5 P3)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChild welfare prioritization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\"For yourself, you can manage things. Put on a sweater or use a blanket. But for your children, it\u0026rsquo;s really complicated.\" (FG3 P2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmediate versus long-term consequences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;My daughter wants to go to Rome, and I think, 'Yes, she should go.' When making that decision, I\u0026rsquo;m thinking 'I actually have no idea whether this is possible, but I want her to go. So, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo; (FG1 P1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNarrative construction and decision processes\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObserver-to-participant immersion transition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\"I kept thinking, you know this isn't real. But toward the end that started to fade, and I felt completely immersed.\"(FG2 P3)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentity-protective narrative frameworks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;It affects you as a person: as a mother, as a partner, in every role you have when dealing with debt.\u0026rdquo; (FG1 P8)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport system importance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;This partner only gives me stress. I miss a bit of network here, this is worrisome.\u0026rdquo; (FG1 P6)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvolution from agency to systemic critique\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;This gave a feeling of losing the overview, I felt powerless. The time of resources is over.\u0026rdquo; (FG4 P6)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional perspectives on VR and its effectiveness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmersion versus traditional methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;You hear it\u003c/em\u003e [information about poverty] \u003cem\u003eoften, and now I really had an active role in solving it.\u0026rdquo; (FG3 P7)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional bias recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We tend to think quickly about solutions, but that mindset has become our everyday reality.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eFG3 P6)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplications for training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;This would be ideal for giving people an experience, even for training purposes. To get to experience what people actually go through.\u0026rdquo; (FG5 P2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEmotional and psychological responses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe immersive poverty narrative triggered a cascade of embodied stress responses that disrupted professionals' typical analytical stance, forcing affective processing that preceded cognition and constrained cognitive capacity. Participants reported physiological stress markers that bypassed conscious control, including physiological changes: \"\u003cem\u003eI noticed at one point that I just stopped breathing\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG1 P7) and strong emotional responses: \" \u003cem\u003eAt the end I had goosebumps and tears in my eyes\u003c/em\u003e \" (FG5 P6), indicating that the VR environment activated stress responses at an autonomic level. Financial stress cascaded across multiple life domains in a compounding pattern described as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Like an oil slick\u003c/em\u003e!\u0026rdquo; (FG5 P4). Another participant described it as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEverything happens at the same time. You rapidly experience how issues emerge in all areas of life\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (FG5 P5). This simultaneous pressure created overwhelming powerlessness: \"\u003cem\u003eThis is too much money, this is too overwhelming, you're losing this battle. There was no space to solve it\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG1 P6).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis stress cascade restricted access to the very cognitive resources typically required for administrative navigation. Participants explicitly identified anxiety as degrading executive function (\"\u003cem\u003eWhen you're very stressed, you can't think as clearly\u003c/em\u003e \" [FG2 P2]), creating a vicious cycle where the administrative complexity that causes stress also requires cognitive capacity that stress depletes (\"\u003cem\u003eThis made me realize how much costs there actually are and how intense it is. There is no moment where you can think\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG5 P2]). The description of form-completion tasks as \"\u003cem\u003eLike needing a degree in mathematics just to navigate daily life\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (FG2 P4) revealed how participants experienced bureaucratic tasks not as neutral information processing, but as cognitively demanding labour performed under pressure. This led to avoidance behaviour: refusing to open mail or answer phones: \"\u003cem\u003eEven when the telephone rang, I was contemplating whether I'd pick up or not\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG5 P2). The behaviour that professionals might interpret as \"non-compliance\" was now recognized as a stress-induced cognitive protection mechanism. One participant's complete shutdown (\"\u003cem\u003eI shut down\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eI was broken; I had no energy or motivation to fix anything\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG3 P1]) demonstrated information paralysis: When crucial data is unavailable, the resulting uncertainty compounds stress to the point of complete cognitive withdrawal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite being overwhelmed, participants displayed strong empathetic connections with the virtual family. Child-focused scenarios triggered this most powerfully, with participants prioritizing children's social inclusion regardless of financial consequence (\"\u003cem\u003eI would want my child to go with everyone else, to live a normal life\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG5 P2]). This pattern exposed how poverty creates impossible moral binds: Parents must choose between financial stability and children's social belonging, with both choices having unique consequences. One participant articulated this bind: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThey were choices that are directly contrary to what you want for your children. The stress is most likely because I feel responsible but at the same time, I am neglecting my children\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (FG1 P5). An observed pattern showed that gender emerged as a variable in relational dynamics, with male participants expressing empathy and helplessness toward their simulated female partner, when failing to provide support (\"\u003cem\u003eI felt very much that I couldn't help her. I felt powerless\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG3 P7]) while female participants more frequently described the partner's behaviour as a stressor itself (\"\u003cem\u003eHis behaviour was very stressful. He didn\u0026rsquo;t understand anything and just came in with this big debt\u003c/em\u003e \" [FG3 P8]). This asymmetry suggests that professionals' perspective-taking may be filtered through existing gender schemas about emotional labour and financial responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSalient elements of financial decision-making\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation showed that poverty limits effective decision-making, not only because resources are scarce, but also because systems are difficult to navigate and time pressures are intense. It revealed that professionals\u0026rsquo; judgments about \u0026ldquo;poor financial choices\u0026rdquo; often overlook how decision-making itself is shaped under such constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative complexity functioned as a gatekeeping mechanism that prevented resource access even when the individuals possessed formal qualifications. Participants' frustration that educated professionals struggled with bureaucratic requirements (\"\u003cem\u003eHow can it be that our society is so complex that people with higher education can't solve this\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG4 P6]) revealed a critical insight: The barrier was not individual capacity, but systemic design. As one participant noted: \"\u003cem\u003eThe form was very unclear. Both\u003c/em\u003e [the partner and the form] \u003cem\u003emake you feel powerless, there is no control\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG5 P7). This reframing challenged deficit-based explanations that attributed difficulties navigating assistance programs to personal inadequacy. Instead, the complexity itself emerged as an obstacle. When professionals themselves could not successfully navigate these systems despite their educational advantages, it exposed how the architecture of social support creates its own exclusionary mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation also revealed fundamental conflicts between emotional imperatives and financial rationality. Child welfare consistently overrode rational analysis, with participants funding the school trip despite severe budget constraints: \"\u003cem\u003eShe has to join the Rome trip. Even at the expense of the car repair\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG3 P6). Participants recognized the pressure this created: \"\u003cem\u003eI realized how much pressure the kids add as well. How much tension\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG4 P3), yet articulated why this choice felt non-negotiable: \"\u003cem\u003eThe school trip was the most important because I think that every parent would want their kids to live a normal life with everyone. I would not be rational here either\"\u003c/em\u003e (FG1 P8). Another participant explicitly noticed this emotional conflict: \"\u003cem\u003eI feel conflicted. We cannot pay for this, but I want to give my daughter everything\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG2 P1). This pattern demonstrates temporal dilemmas under scarcity: Decisions must be made with incomplete information about future consequences (\"\u003cem\u003eWhat does this decision mean for the upcoming 2 weeks?\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG1 P3]), forcing prioritization of immediate, visible needs, particularly children's social inclusion, over abstract future financial stability. Participants recognized this as a non-rational, but emotionally necessary, choice: \"\u003cem\u003eWhen making that decision, I\u0026rsquo;m thinking 'I actually have no idea whether this is possible, but I want her to go. So, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG1 P1). The simulation revealed constrained rationality: When future conditions are highly uncertain under financial precarity, focusing on immediate needs can become an adaptive form of decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNarrative construction and decision processes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation triggered a systematic transformation in how professionals constructed meaning from financial stress experiences. They shifted from narratives of individual agency to recognition of structural constraints, revealing how perspective-taking operates through narrative reframing rather than mere information acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants actively constructed coherent stories to make sense of their experiences, with the most significant shift involving movement from external observation to immersive first-person positioning. This narrative repositioning enabled professionals to speak from within the experience rather than about it: \"\u003cem\u003eMy partner gets angry at my child because we have more debt. It hurts being so powerless, watching my wife like this\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG4 P6). The use of possessive pronouns \u0026ndash; \"my partner,\" \"my child,\" \"my wife\" \u0026ndash; signals full narrative inhabiting, demonstrating that the simulation successfully positioned participants within the experience. Within this immersive stance, participants constructed different narrative frameworks to justify their financial decisions. Some built protective parental narratives prioritizing child welfare (\"\u003cem\u003eThat child will for sure go on the trip\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG5 P5]), while others developed pragmatic survival stories emphasizing resourcefulness (\"\u003cem\u003eI rejected the car repair, as I saw there was a bicycle\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG1 P4]). However, these initial narrative framings proved insufficient as the simulation continued.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs barriers accumulated, these narratives shifted from stories of personal control to critiques of systemic failure. This transformation accelerated when participants recognized support-network inequalities: \"\u003cem\u003eI immediately thought, 'I will call my dad for this'... But if you do not have that, you\u0026rsquo;re in real trouble\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG5 P9). The contrast between \"I will call my dad\" (habitual access to social capital) and \"if you do not have that\" (recognition of others' structural disadvantage) marks the moment when individual-responsibility explanations prove inadequate for explaining poverty. Participants also realized that even seeking help carried social costs (\"\u003cem\u003eMany people, out of shame or reluctance, don't want to ask for help\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG3 P4]), adding psychological barriers to material ones. As the complexity exceeded their individual capacity to navigate it (\"\u003cem\u003eYou can't see the forest for the trees, it is too complex\u003c/em\u003e\" [FG5 P6]), initial stories of personal agency became narratively unsustainable. The simulation thus revealed how professionals revised their explanatory frameworks when lived experience contradicted individualistic narratives, a process central to developing structural rather than deficit-based understandings of poverty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProfessional perspectives on VR and its effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe VR simulation highlighted tensions between professional expertise and lived experience, showing how occupational training can create ways of interpreting situations that sometimes obscure, rather than clarify, clients\u0026rsquo; realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessionals identified the simulation's immersive quality as creating a fundamentally different form of knowing than conventional professional training: \"\u003cem\u003eYou become part of something... you get the feeling of being right in the middle of it\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG3 P5). This distinction between experiential and intellectual engagement proved particularly significant for professionals who had encountered similar client stories through case files or interviews, but recognized that narrative immersion produced different understanding: \"\u003cem\u003eI realized how stress develops. The feeling of powerlessness from having no control over the situation\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG4 P7). Multiple participants noted that brief immersive exposure created more profound impact than traditional methods: \"\u003cem\u003eI think this does more in 20 minutes than when you read a study or book\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG1 P5), suggesting that conventional professional education may privilege information transmission over experiential understanding in ways that limit perspective-taking capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation triggered recognition of professional bias, specifically how occupational training creates solution-focused interpretations that may misalign with client realities. Professionals identified their habitual problem-solving orientation: \"\u003cem\u003eWe quickly think in solutions, but that mode is our daily reality. But that is of course my frame of reference\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG3 P6). This awareness was heightened by the gap between their professional knowledge and simulation constraints: \"\u003cem\u003eI had all kinds of solutions in my head. I could get information here, use this fund, call that person, but I don't get those options\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG3 P2). The frustration of possessing expertise but being unable to apply it exposed a critical insight: Professional knowledge assumes access, agency, and navigability that clients may not have, as one participant noted: \"\u003cem\u003eIs that our reality, or is it the reality of the clients?\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG3 P6). This recognition fostered reflective awareness about the limitations of professional positioning. Professionals acknowledged how occupational distance had enabled them to underestimate constraint severity: \"\u003cem\u003eWhen you don't experience it yourself, you often take things lightly, thinking, 'Oh, just do this, do that.' But when you put yourself in their shoes, you see it's actually worse than you can imagine\u003c/em\u003e\" (FG5 P1). This captures how professional distance can produce not just emotional detachment, but also cognitive minimization. The simulation collapsed this distance, showing that professional advice can presume access and capacity that clients lack.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSustained Reflections\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePersistent scene memorability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive weeks post-simulation, participants' memories clustered around specific moments of constraint (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The detailed coding scheme used, including theme and subtheme definitions, is provided in Supplementary Table S2. High-stakes family decisions remained particularly vivid, with participants recalling the school trip scenario in which they prioritized children's needs despite severe financial constraints. Administrative encounters similarly persisted in memory, with participants continuing to referrer to the difficulty of form completion and their own feelings of incompetence despite professional training when encountering bureaucratic requirements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThematic analysis of responses to 5-week delayed survey\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent area\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumbers of participants mentioning (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePersistent scene memorability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMemorable decision moments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The choice whether your child could go along on the school trip. With that, I immediately thought then we'll live on bread and water for the coming week, but I want my child to have this.\u003c/em\u003e\" (P5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore emotional states\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sitting at the kitchen table with my partner, talking about our worries, the panic, the school calling about our daughter, and feeling like there's no way out.\u003c/em\u003e \" (P12)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystemic and bureaucratic barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"\u003cem\u003eAlso filling out the form which turned out to be quite difficult, which gave me a feeling of incompetence while as a professional I should certainly be able to do that.\u003c/em\u003e\" (P8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSustained changes in practice and personal awareness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeightened empathy and motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI've become more aware of how privileged I am but also recognize the insecurity that such a situation brings. My motivation has increased as a result.\u0026rdquo; (P11)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOngoing self-reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I listen more, and I ask to get to know the story behind a question [\u0026hellip;] and by asking more, I acquired a good look on the situation, and I could report this back and resolve the conflict.\u0026rdquo; (P7)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreased systemic awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I notice that I pay a lot of attention to similar experiences in my work and constantly wonder if we as a municipality can do better.\u0026rdquo; (P11)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe escalating chaos of system failure also remained salient, as one participant described: \u003cem\u003e\"What stuck with me is that it doesn't even help anymore when you get money back from the tax authorities... because you're constantly swimming just to keep your head above water, you become paralyzed\"\u003c/em\u003e (P14). The persistence of these moments suggests that they resonated because they challenged professionals' typical assumptions about client decision-making and system navigability. What professionals remembered was not the experience of poverty itself, but the specific mechanisms through which constraints operate: forcing impossible trade-offs, creating bureaucratic barriers, and producing conditions in which effort fails to generate progress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSelective retention of constraint mechanisms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation's lasting impact varied substantially across participants, revealing both individual transformation and institutional constraints on its application. Several participants reported sustained enhanced empathy and professional motivation: \"\u003cem\u003eI have more understanding and sometimes also compassion\u003c/em\u003e\" (P2). However, others acknowledged challenges maintaining this orientation in demanding work environments: \u003cem\u003eIt is sometimes difficult to remain empathetic when people make a mess of things, and the problems quickly come back to me. I realize that I sometimes feel somewhat insensitive because in the busyness of work, we can't always pause (enough).\u003c/em\u003e (P8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis tension between transformed understanding and workplace demands points to friction between individual perspective shifts and the institutional contexts in which they must be operationalized. Some participants developed sustained critical awareness of professional frameworks, questioning whether \"\u003cem\u003econversation leaders can step out of their framing and deal with these situations without prejudice\u003c/em\u003e\" (P12), while others applied insights beyond professional contexts, in their personal relationships: \u003cem\u003e\"I try to prevent stress from building up by talking about it, for example with both my children\u003c/em\u003e\" (P3). Participants with extensive prior experience working with financially vulnerable populations reported less dramatic changes but noted renewed awareness of stress intensity: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI became aware again that life with too little financial resources is very intense and demands (too) much from someone\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (P15), suggesting that even experienced professionals had adapted to or normalized client stress in ways that the simulation disrupted. This variability suggests that while the simulation shifted perspectives for most participants, sustaining those shifts in practice depended on professional context and prior experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing immersive poverty narrative delivered through VR. Through nine iterative participatory design activities involving individuals with lived experience of poverty, financial experts, and citizen advisory groups we addressed ethical concerns about representing marginalized experiences while maintaining psychological authenticity in the development of the VR simulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation generated empathetic engagement, with participants demonstrating emotional investment in the virtual family and perspective-taking from within the experience rather than as external observers. Participants' adoption of first-person perspective (referring to \"my partner,\" \"my child,\" and experiencing decisions as personal responsibilities) reflects the cognitive absorption that this VR simulation enabled, enhancing cognitive and emotional engagement (Liao \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Through this engagement, participants experienced constraints not as theoretical scenarios but as personally urgent dilemmas, that shaped professional understanding in two keyways. First, the accumulation of these constraints shifted professionals' explanatory frameworks from individual-responsibility to structural-critique attributions. This extends narrative transportation theory by identifying experienced constraints as a mechanism that appears effective for expert populations. Second, the constraint experienced by preventing access to participants\u0026rsquo; professional problem-solving tools revealed the barriers faced by regular citizens \u0026ndash; those without insider knowledge \u0026ndash; barriers that professionals do not typically recognize. This extends transformative learning theory by demonstrating that constraint-based experiences may prove more pedagogically effective than providing information for expert populations. The following sections examine these mechanisms and their theoretical implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study suggests a mechanism that may enable attribution transformation in expert populations: systematic constraints that deplete analytical processing capacity. This contributes to narrative transportation theory by demonstrating that constraints play a distinct role in professional perspective transformation. While emotional engagement with the virtual family was evident across participants, the shift in explanatory frameworks appeared to depend on depletion of the analytical capacity that professionals use to maintain interpretive distance, due to the experienced constraints. This addresses limitations in narrative empathy research, where imaginative perspective-taking often fails to generate accurate understanding of complex, hidden experiences such as financial hardship (Mar and Oatley \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttribution research has demonstrated that explanatory frameworks for poverty resist change, with people maintaining individual-responsibility attributions even when presented with structural-attribution information (Brady and Burton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Piff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Public policy professionals already possessed structural knowledge and expressed concern for citizens, yet research on poverty policy has found that in practice, professionals often continue framing poverty through individual-choice explanations despite structural awareness (Brady and Burton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Piff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). When accumulated pressures, financial trade-offs, bureaucratic complexity, and time pressure created cognitive load exceeding their working memory capacity, professionals could no longer call upon their analytical frameworks. Taking personal responsibility for impossible decisions within the simulation, they experienced systemic barriers directly rather than interpreting them abstractly, consistent with research showing that cognitive load impairs analytical processing (Mani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Wentzel et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This experiential engagement, forced by constraints rather than chosen through imagination, enabled the shift from individual-responsibility to structural-critique attributions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study's second contribution extends transformative learning theory. Preventing professionals from accessing their usual problem-solving tools revealed how occupational expertise can create interpretive distance from citizen realities. This insider knowledge, such as knowing which agencies to contact or which forms provide access, enables professionals to bypass barriers that citizens without this knowledge cannot overcome. Immersive narratives are already considered beneficial in facilitating learning (Bailenson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) but may be most effective for professional development when they strategically limit rather than enhance users' capabilities, thereby forcing recognition of barriers that professionals' expertise typically helps them circumvent. This extends transformative learning theory by suggesting that for expert populations, constraints may prove more pedagogically effective than providing additional information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransformative learning theory emphasizes that perspective transformation occurs when learners encounter new information that challenges existing frameworks (Mezirow \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This study demonstrates a paradox: For expert populations, adding information may be less effective than removing capacity. By preventing participants from accessing the knowledge, tools, and networks they would normally activate, the simulation created an essential disorienting experience where familiar professional frameworks suddenly proved inadequate (Mezirow \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This disorienting dilemma emerged not from encountering new information, but from the removal of familiar resources, a pedagogical approach unique to simulation environments that traditional training contexts cannot easily replicate. Professionals recognized that their habitual solution-oriented approach assumes access and agency that clients lack. Since narratives organize experience by connecting intentions, actions, and consequences (Bruner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Polkinghorne \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), preventing framework deployment disrupted professionals' automatic interpretive processes, making typically invisible assumptions available for critical reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study's identification of constraint as a mechanism for perspective transformation has implications across three domains: providing a tested intervention for immediate use, informing professional training implementation, and guiding future intervention design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor practitioners seeking ready-to-implement interventions, the VR simulation developed through this research provides an evidence-based tool for professional training that addresses attribution biases and exposes professional blind spots in poverty work and could be implemented in training contexts. Its participatory design approach ensures ethical representation while maintaining psychological effectiveness, offering an approach for similar interventions across professional settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor professional training programs, incorporating experiential constraints could prove more effective than expanding participants' knowledge base. The participatory-designed VR simulation described in this study offers one tested approach, removing professional resources to generate authentic constraint experiences for public policy professionals. Organizations could also develop role reversals where professionals navigate systems as clients would, or exercises requiring bureaucratic navigation without occupational advantages. However, constraint alone risks generating frustration without insight. Discussion and reflection following the experience are essential for converting disorienting experiences into perspective transformation (Mezirow \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These debriefs (Silberman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) are used across various training settings to help participants make sense of their impressions and learn from their experiences. Organizations should allocate substantial time for this debrief \u0026ndash; this study used 55-minute discussions following the 20-minute experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor researchers designing attribution interventions, incorporating constraints proves essential for enabling perspective transformation in expert populations. However, constraints must authentically reflect barriers faced by represented populations rather than generic limitations. This authenticity requires collaboration with individuals who have experienced the barriers represented. Researchers should work with lived-experience experts through participatory design processes to identify which constraints enable understanding versus which sensationalize or stereotype. This collaborative approach ensures that constraints remain psychologically effective while avoiding exploitation of marginalized groups (Nakamura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For poverty interventions, constraints should reflect what poverty feels like: multiple urgent demands that make rational planning impossible, forms and systems that are confusing even for those with professional training, and urgent decisions that must be made without enough time to think them through. These authentic constraints depleted analytical capacity and prevented expertise activation, the two mechanisms enabling perspective transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Directions for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree factors limit the interpretation of these findings. First, the participatory design process involved methodological constraints. Stakeholder recruitment relied on convenience and network sampling, which may have limited the diversity of the perspectives incorporated into the narrative design. Additionally, the analysis of stakeholder feedback documented themes systematically, but did not use formal qualitative coding frameworks. Future research should examine how different participatory design approaches, varying in stakeholder diversity, recruitment methods, and analytical rigor, could influence both the ethical quality and psychological effectiveness of immersive narrative interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the sample consisted of public policy professionals who volunteered for a poverty empathy simulation, introducing self-selection bias. Individuals motivated to understand others' perspectives may experience stronger narrative transportation (Carpenter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), potentially inflating the intervention's apparent effectiveness compared to mandatory training contexts. The sample was also demographically homogeneous (70% female, Dutch municipal workers), limiting generalizability across professional contexts and cultural settings. Replication studies with diverse professional populations such as medical professionals, judges, educators, or social workers, would test whether the constraint mechanism operates similarly across occupational frameworks or requires tailored approaches. Studies in mandatory training contexts would clarify whether effects persist when participation is required rather than voluntary. Additionally, the longitudinal follow-up involved only 15 participants and occurred just 5 weeks later. Studies with larger samples and longer timeframes (i.e. 6 months, 1 year) could examine whether perspective shifts persist, fade, or require reinforcement through repeated exposure or supportive workplace structures. Research could also identify which organizational conditions sustain changed understanding. For instance, do regular reflection sessions, peer discussion groups, or supervisory support enhance durability?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the study design lacked experimental controls. Without comparison conditions, attribution shifts cannot be ascribed to VR immersion, narrative constraints, facilitated discussion, or their combination. Future research should use controlled designs to determine which elements drive transformation. For example, comparing three conditions would answer specific questions about mechanism: Does a VR poverty simulation with constraints (full intervention) produce greater attribution shifts than a VR narrative alone (testing constraints' role), has and does this have stronger results than a written case study (testing immersion's value)? This design would determine whether constraint is essential or whether compelling narrative content drives change regardless of delivery method. Similarly, comparing debriefed versus non-debriefed conditions would test whether post-simulation reflection is necessary or whether experiencing constraints alone suffices. The absence of pre/post attribution measures in this study means that causal claims rest on retrospective self-reports. Future studies should measure attributions before and after the intervention to quantify change magnitude and individual variation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, further future research should incorporate behavioural outcome measures beyond self-reported attitudes, such as case-file decisions, resource allocation patterns, or communication with clients.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study developed and tested a collaboratively designed VR poverty simulation, demonstrating that experiencing authentic constraints within immersive narratives shifts professional perspectives in ways that provision of information cannot. For professionals whose expertise may distance them from client realities, strategic limitation proves more transformative than knowledge expansion. The simulation served as both research finding and practical tool, with its participatory-design approach ensuring ethical integrity along with psychological effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Ethical Review Committee Inner City faculties (ERCIC) at the host university, in the Netherlands (approval number: ERCIC_500_26_10_2023, approved 12 December 2023). This study is part of a larger research project examining immersive narratives for professional development. All research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, including the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The approval covered the conduct of focus group discussions following VR simulation experiences with municipal professionals, including audio recording of discussions (pending group consent), data anonymization procedures, and longitudinal follow-up surveys with consenting participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants by the principal researcher and research assistant on March 25, 2024, prior to the commencement of focus group discussions. Consent forms were distributed in person and collected by the researchers, who were the only individuals involved in the consent process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe written consent form informed participants that: (1) participation involved experiencing a 20-minute VR simulation followed by facilitated focus group discussion; (2) audio recordings would be made during focus groups, pending group agreement; (3) the information obtained would be used for research purposes, including scientific publication; (4) participation was voluntary with the right to withdraw at any time without negative consequences; (5) all collected data would be treated confidentially, anonymized, and used only for scientific purposes; and (6) they could optionally consent to follow-up contact for a longitudinal survey five weeks later.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants in the longitudinal follow-up (n=28 who consented to follow-up contact) received an email invitation five weeks after their initial participation, with informed consent obtained through their voluntary completion of the anonymous online survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo protect participants\u0026apos; identities, all data were anonymized using a coding system (focus group participants: FG1 P1, FG1 P2, etc.; follow-up survey participants: P1, P2, etc.). No personal information or identifying details were disclosed in any publications or reports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was financed by a subsidy of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and received funding from ClickNL [Project code: TKI2206-CI23038]. We thank professor [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] for instrumental support in securing this funding. We thank all lived-experience experts, budget coaches and community advisory board members who collaborated in designing the VR simulation, The Barn for developing the simulation, and all municipal professionals who participated in the focus groups. We are grateful to [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] for providing technical assistance. We also thank audiences at international and national conferences for their constructive feedback throughout the development of this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe codebook and representative anonymized excerpts supporting this study\u0026apos;s findings are available in the Supplementary Materials. Full transcripts are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to ethical approval and data-sharing agreement to protect participant confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS.B. led the development of the VR simulation, including designing and conducting all participatory design activities, writing the narrative script, and coordinating closely with developers throughout the production process. M.W. contributed substantially to the participatory design activities. S.B. conducted the focus groups, analysed the data, and wrote the original manuscript. L.B., M.W., and J.H. jointly contributed to conceptualization and methodology, provided supervision throughout the project, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. L.B. and M.W. additionally secured funding and administered the project.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBailenson JN, DeVeaux C, Han E et al (2025) Five canonical findings from 30 years of psychological experimentation in virtual reality. Nat Hum Behav 9(7): 1328\u0026ndash;1338 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarsalou LW. Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. J Cogn. (2020) Sep 29;3(1):31\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBatson CD, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E et al (1997) Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J Pers Soc Psychol 72(1): 105\u0026ndash;118 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenz C, Scott-Jeffs W, McKercher K et al (2024) Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability. Res Involv Engagem 10(1): 47 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBertrand M, Rodela KC (2018) A framework for rethinking educational leadership in the margins: Implications for social justice leadership preparation. J Res Leadersh Educ 13(1): 10\u0026ndash;37 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBloom P (2017) It\u0026rsquo;s ridiculous to use virtual reality to empathize with refugees. The Atlantic, 3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBollmer G, Aldouby H (2020) From immersion to empathy. The legacy of Einf\u0026uuml;hlung in virtual reality and digital art. In Aldouy H (ed) Shifting interfaces. An anthology of presence, empathy and agency in 21st century media arts. Leuven University Press, Leuven. p. 17\u0026ndash;30 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrady D, Burton LM (2016) The Oxford handbook of the social science of poverty. Oxford University Press, Oxford \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2): 77\u0026ndash;101 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruner J (1990) Culture and human development: A new look. Hum Dev 33(6): 344\u0026ndash;355 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarayannis EG, Campbell DF (2009) \u0026apos;Mode 3\u0026apos;and\u0026apos;Quadruple Helix\u0026apos;: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3-4): 201\u0026ndash;234 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarpenter JM, Green MC, Fitzgerald K (2018) Mind-reading motivation: Individual differences in desire to perspective-take influence narrative processing. Sci Study Lit 8(2): 211\u0026ndash;238 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastro-Diaz L, Nwadiaru OV, Roque A et al (2024) Participatory research in energy justice: guiding principles and practice. Prog Energy 6(3): 033005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChetty R, Jackson MO, Kuchler T et al (2022) Social capital I: Measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature 608(7921): 108\u0026ndash;121 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen D (2001) Cultural variation: Considerations and implications. Psychol Bull 127(4): 451\u0026ndash;471 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen J (2018) Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. In Wei R. (ed) Advances in foundational mass communication theories. Routledge, London. p 253\u0026ndash;272 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuff BM, Brown SJ, Taylor L et al (2016) Empathy: A review of the concept. Emot Rev 8(2): 144\u0026ndash;153 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEurostat. Living conditions in Europe \u0026ndash; poverty and social exclusion. Luxembourg: European Union; 2025 Apr [cited 2025 May 19]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51(4): 327\u0026ndash;358 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen MC, Appel M (2024) Narrative transportation: How stories shape how we see ourselves and the world. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 70: 1\u0026ndash;82 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen MC, Brock TC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(5): 701\u0026ndash;721 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaddad CR, Nakić V, Bergek A et al (2022) Transformative innovation policy: A systematic review. Environ Innov Soc Transit 43: 14\u0026ndash;40 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolohan C, Hogan M, Kelly D et al (2025) Ethical witnessing: Participatory virtual reality production and the experience of homelessness. Stud Doc Film 19(3): 213\u0026ndash;232 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHorodyska K, Luszczynska A, van den Berg M et al (2015) Good practice characteristics of diet and physical activity interventions and policies: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health 15(1): 19 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA (1993) When more pain is preferred to less: adding a better end. Psychol Sci. 1993;4:401\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalla J L, Broockman DE (2023) Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective‐getting. Am J Political Sci 67(1): 185\u0026ndash;204 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaufman GF, Libby, LK (2012) Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. J Pers Soc Psychol 103(1): 1\u0026ndash;19 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLabov W (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiamputtong P (2011) Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiao C-H (2025) The role of virtual reality in enhancing behavioral empathy: exploring cognitive absorption, engagement, and emotional moderation using multivariate methods. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12(1):1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E et al (2013) Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341(6149): 976\u0026ndash;980 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMar RA, Oatley K (2008) The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(3): 173\u0026ndash;192 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartingano AJ, Hererra F, Konrath S (2021) Virtual reality improves emotional but not cognitive empathy: A meta-analysis. Technol Mind Behav: 2(1)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMezirow J (2018) Transformative learning theory. In Illeris K (ed) Contemporary theories of learning, 3rd edn. Routledge, London. p 114\u0026ndash;128 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoorhouse M, Goode M, Cotte J et al (2023) Helping those that hide: Anticipated stigmatization drives concealment and a destructive cycle of debt. J Mark Res 60(6): 1135\u0026ndash;1153 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNakamura L (2020) Feeling good about feeling bad: Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. J Vis Cult 19(1): 47\u0026ndash;64 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNash K (2018) Virtual reality witness: Exploring the ethics of mediated presence. Stud Doc Film 12(2): 119\u0026ndash;131 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiff PK, Wiwad D, Robinson AR et al (2020) Shifting attributions for poverty motivates opposition to inequality and enhances egalitarianism. Nat Hum Behav 4(5): 496\u0026ndash;505. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePolkinghorne D (1988) Narrative knowing and the human sciences. SUNY Press, Albany. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaz G (2022) Rage against the empathy machine revisited: The ethics of empathy-related affordances of virtual reality. Converg 28(5): 1457\u0026ndash;1475 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRueda J, Lara F (2020) Virtual reality and empathy enhancement: Ethical aspects. Front Robot AI 7: 506984 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSegal EA (2007) Social empathy: A tool to address the contradiction of working but still poor. Fam Soc 88(3): 333\u0026ndash;337 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin D-H (2017. The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telemat Inform 34(8): 1826\u0026ndash;1836 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilberman ML (2007) The handbook of experiential learning. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Hoboken \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlater M, Sanchez-Vives MV (2016) Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front Robot AI 3: 74. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSora-Domenj\u0026oacute; C (2022) Disrupting the \u0026ldquo;empathy machine\u0026rdquo;: The power and perils of virtual reality in addressing social issues. Front Psychol 13: 814565 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStephens NM, Townsend SS, Markus HR et al (2012) A cultural mismatch: Independent cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions among first-generation college students. J Exper Soc Psychol 48(6): 1389\u0026ndash;1393 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSweller J, Chandler P, Tierney P et al (1990) Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. J Exper Psychol: Gen 119(2): 176\u0026ndash;192 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurner VW, Bruner EM (1986) The anthropology of experience. University of Illinois Press, Champaign. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Laer T, De Ruyter K, Visconti LM et al (2014) The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers\u0026apos; narrative transportation. J Consum Res 40(5): 797\u0026ndash;817 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eViennet R, Pont B (2017) Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework. OECD Education Working Papers No. 162. OECD, Paris. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWentzel D, Tomczak T, Herrmann A (2010) The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychol Mark 27(5): 510\u0026ndash;530\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Bank. Poverty, prosperity, and planet report (2024): pathways out of the polycrisis. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8167722/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8167722/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePolicymakers make consequential decisions about poverty interventions yet often attribute people’s financial hardship to individual failings rather than structural barriers, creating persistent empathy gaps. This qualitative field study examines how public policy professionals engage in perspective-taking and meaning-making when experiencing an immersive poverty narrative. First, nine iterative participatory design activities with lived-experience experts, financial specialists, and citizen groups produced a virtual reality poverty-related simulation guiding users through impossible trade-offs, bureaucratic complexity, and immediate social consequences. Next, five focus groups with Dutch public policy professionals (\u003cem\u003eN \u003c/em\u003e= 47) were conducted, in which participants experienced the simulation before engaging in discussion, with follow-up surveys five weeks later (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 15). Thematic analysis revealed that experiencing constraints within the narrative enabled perspective transformation through two processes. An accumulation of pressures depleted the analytical processing capacity that professionals typically use to maintain interpretive distance from client experiences. When educated professionals could not navigate welfare forms despite their competence, explanations based on individual responsibility lost credibility and participants shifted to structural explanations through experiencing systemic barriers. Simultaneously, limited access to professional problem-solving tools exposed how expertise functions as an interpretive barrier to understanding client realities. These findings extend narrative transportation theory by demonstrating that emotional engagement alone proves insufficient for attribution change in expert populations having analytical frameworks that enable cognitive distancing. Additionally, the findings contribute to transformative learning theory by showing how the strategic limitation of individuals’ expertise makes their professional assumptions visible for critical examination. The initial participatory design process demonstrates how collaborative narrative construction addresses ethical concerns while maintaining psychological authenticity.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perspective-taking and meaning-making among public policy professionals experiencing an immersive poverty narrative","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-27 07:22:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8167722/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-25T10:32:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-02T20:41:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-31T14:58:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-30T00:51:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"297634683964510041527401437136892481248","date":"2025-12-29T14:37:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"35309169809020098743243265223648930338","date":"2025-12-28T08:46:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"80669754925691625117167192784607997738","date":"2025-12-23T01:35:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-22T20:37:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-22T17:48:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-13T20:43:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-12-01T14:04:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a35c3f27-1423-490e-9723-73bdc85de987","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 27th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-13T13:39:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-27 07:22:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8167722","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8167722","identity":"rs-8167722","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}