Journalism Studies

ISSN: 1461-670X (Print) 1469-9699 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20

360° Video Journalism: Experimental Study on

the Effect of Immersion on News Experience and
Distant Suffering

Kristin Van Damme, Anissa All, Lieven De Marez & Sarah Van Leuven

To cite this article: Kristin Van Damme, Anissa All, Lieven De Marez & Sarah Van Leuven (2019)
360° Video Journalism: Experimental Study on the Effect of Immersion on News Experience and
Distant Suffering, Journalism Studies, 20:14, 2053-2076, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1561208

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1561208

Published online: 03 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1957

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 35 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjos20
JOURNALISM STUDIES
2019, VOL. 20, NO. 14, 2053–2076
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1561208

360° Video Journalism: Experimental Study on the Effect of

Immersion on News Experience and Distant Suffering
a b b a
Kristin Van Damme , Anissa All , Lieven De Marez and Sarah Van Leuven
a
Center for Journalism Studies and imec-mict-UGent, Department of Communication Sciences, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium; bimec-mict-UGent, Department of Communication Sciences, Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
News producers are increasingly experimenting with news in virtual 360° video; distant suffering;
reality and 360° video, which is often presented as the ultimate form immersive journalism; multi-
of immersive journalism as it provides viewers with a first-person method design; presence; VR
journalism
experience of a news event. Audiences are deemed to be more
involved with the presented story, raising assumptions that they
may be more engaged with the event and feel more empathic
towards the subject of the story, especially in the case of foreign
news, as distance is virtually narrowed. This experimental study (n
= 149) assesses whether 360° international disaster news leads to
a higher sense of presence, higher enjoyment, higher subjective
involvement towards the topic, and increased engagement with
distant suffering towards the victim. Using an existing news item
produced by the Belgian public broadcaster VRT on a Syrian oil
worker, a between-subject experimental study was undertaken,
comparing four 360° video conditions: single viewpoint, drag-and-
drop 360°, 360° with a cardboard VR device, and 360° with a
head-mounted VR device. A verbal, qualitative debrief allowed for
a better understanding of the results, which show that 360° video
journalism leads to a higher sense of presence and higher levels
of enjoyment. However, no effect on distant suffering or
subjective involvement is found.

‘Compare it with a picture of an amazing view: that photo never shows how you really felt.
Virtual reality does that: it allows you to take a person to that place’.
Jens Franssen (2016), war journalist

Introduction
This paper focuses on news consumption practices, which is a highly underexamined field
in journalism studies (Bird 2011). In the radically changing media landscape, where news
organisations are being confronted with new competitors and decreasing sales and read-
ership, attention for news audiences has increased among professionals as well as aca-
demics. More specifically, we focus on audiences’ responses to 360° video news, which
is generally presented as being the ultimate experience of immersive journalism, as it
allows audiences to virtually enter a news story with a virtual reality (VR) device. Since

CONTACT Kristin Van Damme kristin.vandamme@ugent.be

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2054 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

2015, news producers worldwide, such as The New York Times and The Guardian, have
attempted to seise the potential of 360° journalism to connect with old and new
audiences.
360° video journalism has resulted from technological advances (i.e. high quality omni-
directional video) and the never-ending search for new ways of (news) storytelling. Due to
immersive technologies generating a three-dimensional image that surrounds the user,
360° news viewers are virtually transported into the location of the news event through
a head-mounted display or VR device. More than ever, audiences can truly enter the
story, which allows them to see and hear the focal setting and even experience the
moods and feelings accompanying the news (Dominguez-Martin 2015). Consequently,
both the VR and journalism industries have high expectations for 360° video journalism
with regard to how it will impact on audiences’ news experiences (Shin and Biocca 2017).
The expectations related to 360° video journalism result from multiple assumptions
made by newsmakers, the VR industry, and scholars. First, as a result of immersive technol-
ogy, 360° video is assumed to impact on news audiences’ sense of presence, in that they
feel they are there in the news event. Sanchez-Vives and Slater (2004) describe presence as
“the phenomenon of acting and feeling that we are in the world created by computer dis-
plays”. Slater and Sanchez-Vives (2016) point out that this is the basic goal of 360° journal-
ism, i.e. rather than simply presenting what happened, to provide people with experiential,
non-analytic insights into events by giving them the illusion of being present in these
events. The authors argue that presence may lead to another understanding of events,
perhaps an understanding that cannot be sufficiently expressed verbally or even in
pictures.
Second, it is assumed that 360° video journalism will lead to a richer news experience
(Shin and Biocca 2017) as it allows users to be surrounded by images and, consequently,
has affordances that no other news format can offer. Enjoyment relates to the feeling of
pleasure or contentment experienced during a VE experience, and, as such, the assump-
tion is that 360° video journalism will lead to higher levels of enjoyment, an important
aspect of news consumption, given that enjoyable news has been found to be more valu-
able for audiences (Costera Meijer 2013).
Third, if audiences do indeed have a more intense, sensory news experience, 360° video
journalism may trigger higher levels of engagement with news topics, which, in turn, may
result in higher subjective involvement (Neys and Jansz 2010), encouraging audiences to
actually do something with regard to the topic, such as obtaining more information.
Moreover, as 360° video possesses the potential to create a stronger connection
between audiences and a distant other (i.e. the subject of the news event), higher
levels of immersion may result in increased engagement with distant suffering (Brautović,
John, and Potrebica 2017). Nash (2017) introduced the notion of an “immersive witness”,
which links the experience of VR with a moral attitude of responsibility for distant
others. In this sense, by offering an experience to the audience rather than just event
information, 360° video journalism often implicitly links audiences spatially and temporally
to distant suffering.
However, due to a lack of empirical studies, it remains unclear whether these assump-
tions are true: Do audiences have a larger sense of presence when watching news stories
in omnidirectional or 360° video? Do they experience higher levels of enjoyment and sub-
jective involvement when watching a 360° news story? Can 360° video journalism reduce
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2055

distance and create more empathy between the viewer and the suffering other in a news
story? This experimental study aims to fill the gap in the literature and test these assump-
tions in the context of international disaster news by using an existing news item –“Ryad’s
War Oil” – which focuses on a Syrian oil worker and was produced by the Belgian public
broadcaster VRT. To this end, the study combines a between-subject experimental design
with four conditions (i.e. single viewpoint video, drag-and-drop 360° video, 360° video with
cardboard VR, and 360° video via a head-mounted VR device) and qualitative insights
based on a verbal debriefing after participating in the experimental study. Before present-
ing the findings of the study, this article provides a literature review on 360° video journal-
ism and its relation to ideas of presence, news enjoyment, subjective involvement, and
engagement with distant suffering. We end with a discussion of the study’s implications
for journalism and journalism studies.

360° Video Journalism: A Richer News Experience

News makers have been experimenting with different forms of immersive storytelling
both in traditional and online media. This immersive storytelling is aimed at capturing
the audience with a news story and triggering an immersive response of the reader of
viewer, “a psychological state characterized by perceiving oneself to be enveloped by,
included in, and interacting with an environment that provides a continuous stream of
stimuli and experiences” (Witmer and Singer (1998). Within the field of journalism, this
immersive response thus refers to the degree to which a person becomes completely
involved in a news story. de la Peña et al. (2010, 291) are considered pioneers in studying
immersive journalism, which they define as “the production of news in a form in which
people can gain first-person experiences of the events or situation described in news stories”.
Since its introduction in 2010, the notion of immersive journalism has shifted from this
subjective to a technological approach. Initially, immersive journalism was defined as an
experience, referring to news stories that allow audiences to enter the news story and
feel present. de la Peña et al. (2010, 291) state that striving for this connection between
newsmakers and audiences via different kinds of immersion is not new, as it is the
long-considered ideal of “[w]ell-crafted journalism”. As such, journalists have always
attempted to present audiences with the most intimate sense of being part of the news
event, e.g. by making use of specific storytelling techniques to provide a “view from the
ground”. This experience may be triggered by various settings, often enabled by – yet
not limited to – technologies such as online multimedia content and VR headsets. As a
result, immersive journalism has shifted to journalistic virtual reality (e.g. Biocca and
Levy 1995; Kool 2016; Sirkkunen et al. 2016). Hardee (2016, 679) defines immersive journal-
ism as “a term used to describe an emerging form of news reporting that seeks to capitalize on
the technological enhancements of virtual environments and Virtual Reality (VR) displays”.
In this technological approach, immersive journalism refers system immersion (cf. Slater
1999), news content viewed by means of immersive technologies. It remains unclear,
however, what exactly is meant by immersive technologies: any 360° video, 360°
viewed with a VR headset, or computer-generated images (CGI). This ambiguity is referred
to as “The VR and 360 Video Complex” by Dolan and Parets (2016), who argue that 360°
video and VR are two distinct mediums: 360° video provides audiences with a contained
perspective to a location and its subjects, whereas VR enables the viewer to explore and/or
2056 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

manipulate a space. In other words, “it takes more than a 360 degree video to create a true
virtual reality experience” (Lutz 2016), as VR implies that a viewer can control the virtual
environment beyond direction.
To date, however, most journalistic initiatives are 360° videos rather than “fully immer-
sive VR” (Watson 2017). Moreover, this technological distinction of interactivity is unclear
for users and scholars alike as VR is perceived to refer to any content that can be
watched with a VR device, including 360° video. Consequently, Hardee (2016) argues
that we should transcend the debate that seeks to distinguish between 360° and virtual
reality and approach immersive journalism as a continuum from low to high based on
how well the narrative creates presence and handles narrative, time, space, and causality.
As such, immersive journalism includes 360° video (viewed on any device, including a
laptop and a smartphone) and virtual reality news (both 360° video and computer-gener-
ated images viewed with a headset). Hence, immersive journalism involves news stories
presented on various immersive technologies and, consequently, different levels of
immersion.
The assumption of these immersive technologies is that greater system immersion
results in higher levels of immersive response of the viewer. Biocca and Delaney (1995,
57) argue that the more a device captivates the senses and blocks out stimuli from the
physical world, the more it is considered immersive. System immersion refers to “the
extent to which the actual system delivers a surrounding environment, one which shuts out
sensations from the real world, which accommodates many sensory modalities, has rich rep-
resentational capability, and so on” (Slater 1999). Consequently, 360° video viewed on a
laptop is considered as being less immersive than 360° video watched with a VR device,
as, in the latter, all visual stimuli from the physical world are blocked out (i.e. the viewer
enters the video and is completely surrounded by the images). As a result of different
immersive quality levels (Cummings and Bailenson 2016), watching 360° video with a card-
board device is assumed to trigger less of an immersive response by the viewer than
watching 360° video via a head-mounted device; the latter has greater image quality
and is more comfortable since the viewer does not have to hold the VR device in his/
her hand.
For the sake of clarity, this article uses the term 360° video journalism to refer to news
items filmed with omnidirectional cameras and transformed into a 360° computer-gener-
ated environment where viewers can choose the viewpoint.

Presence: The Sense Of Being In The News Story

As mentioned in the introduction, the use of 360° video is expected to have a significant
impact on audiences’ news experiences. We will first discuss the most obvious exemplifi-
cation of this assumption, namely that the use of immersive technologies goes hand in
hand with a strong sense of presence or, in other words, allows news consumers to experi-
ence events as if they were there, in the presented news story (Decock et al. 2014).
Systematic research into the causes and effects of presence began in the early 1990s
and is currently picking up speed (Ijsselsteijn et al. 2000). As with most concepts, there
is a lack of consensus, and various definitions of presence have been introduced by
scholars from diverse backgrounds (see Lee 2004). Nonetheless, scholars agree that
presence can be defined as a state of consciousness, i.e. the (psychological) sense of
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2057

being in the virtual environment (Slater and Wilbur 1997), there are different types of pres-
ence (Lombard and Ditton 1997; Decock et al. 2014), and it should be seen as a construct
with various levels and dimensions (Biocca and Delaney 1995), such as spatial presence,
which is “the sense of physically being in another location, forgetting about the immersive
technology involved and accepting the virtual environment as a true environment” (Schubert,
Friedmann, and Regenbrecht 2001; Wirth et al. 2007; Decock et al. 2014, 451); social pres-
ence, which is “the feeling of being together (and communicating) with someone” (IJssel-
steijn et al. 2000); involvement, i.e. how the viewer’s attention is distributed among the
real and the virtual environment (Witmer and Singer 1998; Schubert, Friedmann, and
Regenbrecht 2001); and realness, which relates to the reality judgement of the virtual
environment (Schubert, Friedmann, and Regenbrecht 2001).
While sense of presence is a central but widely contested concept in virtual reality, tech-
nological immersion has been shown to increase sense of presence (Cummings and Bailen-
son 2016). To date, however, as McRoberts (2017) points out, relatively little consideration
has been given to how this applies to the emerging field of non-fiction content. The aca-
demic field of 360° video journalism is currently growing, but the majority of scholars
focus on news production challenges, such as storytelling or ethical concerns (Kool 2016;
Pérez-Seijo 2017). Looking at news audiences, few studies (e.g. Archer and Finger 2018)
have been carried out. As mentioned before, news audiences are deemed to be more
involved with the presented news story as a result of immersive technology and new
forms of 360° storytelling. By watching 360° video with a VR device, audiences can have
first-person experiences of the incidents or situations depicted in news reports and docu-
mentary films (Sirkkunen et al. 2016), which leads to the first hypothesis of this study:
H1: A higher level of system immersion in news leads to a higher sense of presence in international
disaster news.

Several authors connect this feeling of presence with three additional consequences of
immersive journalism, which are discussed in the following paragraphs.

VR and News Enjoyment

The reason why news organisations are experimenting with 360° video journalism is not
only because they want audiences to feel present in the news event, but also to
provide them with an enjoyable experience while presenting a news story. This strategy
needs to be situated in a highly competitive news environment, where many legacy
news providers are desperately looking for ways to better connect with fragmented audi-
ences. News organisations need to distinguish themselves by investing in valuable and
unique news content that cannot be found elsewhere on the web.
In addition, enjoyment can be an important determinant for convincing audiences to
consume news. New forms of digital storytelling, including 360° video journalism, offer
great potential in this regard. Uses and gratifications theory has identified enjoyment as
a primary reason for media use (Sherry 2004); however, most studies link enjoyment to
entertainment media (e.g. Vorderer, Klimmt, and Ritterfeld 2004; Tamborini et al. 2010).
Despite this, Costera Meijer (2013) states that enjoyment also plays an important role in
news consumption, as audiences consider news to be more valuable when they can
enjoy it. The level of immersion of 360° news is an affordance that no other news
2058 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

format can offer. As such, the assumption is made that immersive journalism will lead to
higher enjoyment.
H2: A higher level of system immersion in news leads to higher levels of enjoyment.

VR and Topic Engagement

Based on the media richness theory of Daft and Lengel (1986), Kool (2016) suggests that
increased topic engagement will result from 360° video journalism. This theory states that
the richer the media is in sensory detail, the greater the experience of presence will be, and
consequently also the feeling of engagement in the reality as sensory information sup-
plements the intake of the narrative. As such, as audiences are expected to have this
more intense, sensory news experience, 360° video journalism is expected to trigger
higher levels of engagement with the news topic. Such topic engagement may result in
higher subjective involvement (Neys and Jansz 2010), driving audiences to obtain more
information or talk with others about the topic.
H3a: A higher level of system immersion in news leads to higher subjective involvement with inter-
national disaster news.

Even more so, non-fiction VR is “trying to engage audiences with real-world stories,
where sense of presence is intended to offer audiences opportunities for empathic engage-
ment and social transformation” (McRoberts 2017, 1). As such, the hope is that virtual reality
can narrow the distance between audiences and news events. According to Chris Milk (as
quoted in Pérez-Seijo 2017), journalism tries to move people to an event that they are
unable to attend, whereas 360° video brings the audience much closer than has been pre-
viously possible. News sources hereby rely on the immersive and realistic nature of immer-
sive technologies to relate the distant reality of one individual to another (Kool 2016). As VR
devices transpose the viewer into the presented story, they are assumed to feel more
engaged or empathy (Brautović, John, and Potrebica 2017; Sánchez Laws 2017).
Consequently, as 360° video possesses the potential to create a stronger connection
between audiences and the distant other, higher levels of immersion could result in
increased engagement with distant suffering (Brautović, John, and Potrebica 2017; McRo-
berts 2017). 360° video allows viewers to feel increased levels of social presence with the
subject(s) of the news story. Nash (2017) has introduced the notion of the “immersive
witness”, which links the experience of 360° video with a moral attitude of responsibility
for distant others. She states that, by offering an experience to the audience rather than
just event information, 360° video journalism often implicitly links audiences spatially
and temporally to distant suffering.
H3b: A higher level of system immersion in news leads to increased engagement with distant
suffering.

Method
Design
A between-subjects experimental design with four conditions was conducted to test the
hypotheses described above. Participants in the control groups viewed the documentary
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2059

on a laptop by means of a single viewpoint video (condition 1). Participants in the exper-
imental conditions viewed the documentary in 360° video by means of various technol-
ogies: a drag-and-drop video on a laptop (condition 2), a cardboard device (condition
3), or a head-mounted display (condition 4).

Stimulus Material
We used an existing case study on a Syrian oil worker. The five-minute news item was
made in 2016 by war journalist Jens Franssen for the Flemish public service broadcaster
VRT NWS. The Dutch version of “Ryad’s War Oil”1 was presented to the participants. It
tells the story of Ryad (shown in Figure 1), a 22-year-old who fled from Aleppo to north-
eastern Syria during the civil war. He hated the war and had no choice but to distil gasoline
from raw oil, a perilous and dirty job.
Participants were randomly assigned to four conditions, all showing the same news
item, albeit in different levels of system immersion. The first condition presented the
YouTube video on a laptop screen, showing the 360° video from a fixed viewpoint (i.e.
(1) single viewpoint). The second condition allowed participants to rotate their viewpoints
in the YouTube video shown on a laptop screen (i.e. (2) drag-and-drop). The third condition
showed the news story in 360° video using a cardboard VR (i.e. (3) cardboard VR). The video
was offline available on a OnePlus X smartphone, played with the application Fulldive VR.
The fourth condition showed the offline available news item in 360° video on an Oculus
Rift (i.e. (4) head-mounted VR). Following the logic of Biocca and Delaney (1995) with
regard to blocking out stimuli from the physical world and immersive quality (Cummings
and Bailenson 2016), the three 360° video conditions increased in levels of system immer-
sion: (2) the lowest level of immersion to (4) the highest (see Figure 2). Condition 1 served
as a control group, as the viewer could not choose the viewpoint of the video.
All participants used headphones while watching the video, as the use of headphones
has been shown to impact on the sense of presence in VR (Tse et al. 2017).

Figure 1. Still from the 360° news item ‘Ryad’s War Oil’ by Jens Franssen (2016).
2060 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

Figure 2. The four conditions of 360° video, ranked by increasing level of immersion: (1) single view-
point on a laptop, (2) drag-and-drop on a laptop, (3) cardboard VR, and (4) head-mounted VR device.

Procedure
The experiments took place in a lab at our university. Participants were informed that the
research was a study on innovative news, which would last approximately half an hour.
They were briefed that it involved a questionnaire, watching a news story, and then con-
tinuing the questionnaire.
First, participants received questions on socio-demographics, level of news interest,
level of technology affinity, experience with VR devices, and viewpoints on differences
between societal groups. Next, participants were invited to watch the news story (see
Stimulus Material). During the interventions, participants were observed by a researcher,
and verbal reactions were noted. After this intervention, participants continued the ques-
tionnaire, assessing presence, immersive tendencies, enjoyment, subjective involvement,
and engagement with distant suffering. Finally, by means of a short debrief, participants
were asked to verbally reflect on their experiences.
A pilot with 19 participants had been conducted before the actual experiment. The aim
of the pilot was to pre-test items, carry out a manipulation check, and test the validity of all
measures. The pilot revealed no significant results, yet small to moderate effect sizes were
found, revealing possible significant effects for larger samples.

Participants
Data was collected from 153 participants during two consecutive weeks in November
2017. Participants were recruited in the public library for a study on innovative news
(360° video or VR was not mentioned to the participants, as this may have raised expec-
tations towards the experimental conditions with 360°video) via posters and personal
contact. Sixty-six participants registered for the study in advance, signing up via a link
printed on the posters. The others were recruited in the public library by personally
addressing visitors there. Data from four people was deleted, as the procedure was
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2061

interrupted by someone walking into the research lab while the participant was watching
the video. The mean age was 29.9, with a standard deviation of 13.6, ranging from 15 to 73
years old. 53% of the participants were female and 47% were male. Table 1 shows that the
randomisation was successful and provides more detail on the sample distribution and
sample characteristics.

Measures
Dependent Measures
All variables can be found in Appendix 1, which outlines the scales, subscales, and items, in
addition to reporting on the reliability of the scales.
Presence - To assess H1, the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) by Schubert, Fried-
mann, and Regenbrecht (2001) was used to measure the participants’ sense of presence.
As this scale was developed to measure the sense of presence in created virtual worlds
(often used for game studies), it was adapted for 360° video where ‘real-life’ journalistic
images were being shown. The IPQ consisted of 14 items rated on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), one general item (“I felt
present in the video”), and three subscales: Spatial presence (i.e. the sense of being there
in the presented environment), Involvement (i.e. attention to the real and the presented
environment), and Realness (i.e. reality judgment of the presented environment).
Enjoyment - To assess H2, the interest-enjoyment rating was used, a subcomponent of
the post-experimental intrinsic motivation inventory developed by Ryan (1982). The items
were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true).
Topic Engagement - Topic engagement was measured using two scales: subjective
involvement and distant suffering. To assess H3a, the subjective involvement scale was
used, which was developed by Neys and Jansz (2010) in the context of game studies

Table 1. Sample distribution and characteristics, showing successful randomisation.

Interact.
Video Video Cardboard Oculus Total
Characteristics (N = 37) (N = 39) (N = 36) (N = 37) (N = 149) Test Sig.
Gender Male 51.40% 51.30% 36.10% 48.60% 47.00% X²(3) = 2.32 0.51
Female 48.60% 48.70% 63.90% 51.40% 53.00%
Level of Secondary or lower 37.84% 38.50% 52.80% 37.80% 41.6% X²(9) = 9.30 0.35
education Bachelor 24.30% 33.30% 22.20% 16.20% 24.20%
Master 37.80% 28.20% 25.00% 45.90% 34.20%
Profession Student 43.20% 56.40% 55.60% 48.60% 51.00% X²(6) = 4.16 0.66
Working 48.60% 38.50% 30.60% 43.20% 40.30% (*)
Not working 8.10% 5.10% 13.90% 8.10% 8.70%
Age Mean 30.86 28.90 29.50 30.57 29.94 F = 0.17 0.92
SD 13.66 13.11 14.51 13.76 13.64
News interest Mean 7.19 7.00 7.47 7.41 7.26 F = 0.55 0.65
SD 1.56 2.01 1.87 1.64 1.77
Technology Mean 5.06 4.70 4.87 4.63 4.81 F = 1.07 0.36
affinity SD 1.15 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.14
Social Dom. Mean 2.73 2.42 2.54 2.78 2.62 F = 0.97 0.41
Orientation SD 0.83 0.88 1.32 1.12 1.05
Immersive Mean 4.84 4.94 4.71 4.54 4.76 F = 1.72 0.17
tendencies SD 0.85 0.79 0.85 0.74 0.81
Previous VR No 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.76 0.66 X²(3) = 2.97 0.40
experience Yes 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.34
(*) 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.14.
2062 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

and was adapted to match the journalism context. To enquire about possible behavioural
changes, the authors differentiated between individual and social facilitation. Individual
facilitation aims to assess the desire to obtain more information on the topic discussed
in the news story, whereas Social facilitation aims to assess the desire to interact with
others about the topic discussed in the news story. Originally, items were not rated on
a Likert scale, but we chose to follow the operationalisation of All (2016), who measured
subjective involvement on a five-point Likert scale.
To assess H3b, distant suffering was measured using a scale developed by Huibert and
Joye (forthcoming) based on studies using the case of famine in Africa. This scale included
25 items rated on a five-point Likert scale and consisted of eight subscales: Emotion (i.e.
being emotionally moved by the images), Identity (i.e. a sense of identifying with the
victim), Moral responsibility (i.e. a sense a moral responsibility to act), Connectedness (i.e.
the perception of being connected with the victim), Sense of agency (i.e. the opinion of
whether or not their help will have any effect), Sympathy (i.e. attempting to feel with
the victim’s suffering), Priority (i.e. prioritising events closer to home), and Empathy (actu-
ally empathising with the victim’s suffering). The topic of famine was adapted to the civil
war in Syria.

Control Measures
To ensure that the measured differences were the result of the different conditions and
not of pre-existing differences between participants, various control variables were
included: socio-demographical differences (i.e. age, gender, level of education, and
family situation), the level of interest in news (“In general, how interested are you in news
about … ?”, followed by eight news topics, such as politics, societal matters, sport, and life-
style news, in which participants could score from 0 (not interested at all) to 10 [very inter-
ested]), technological affinity (Edison and Geissler 2003), previous experience with VR, and
the level by which participants are easily immersed (Immersive Tendency Questionnaire;
Witmer and Singer 1998).
As the topic of the journalistic piece is on Syrian citizens trying to survive, we also con-
trolled for the participants’ viewpoints on differences between societal groups by using
the Social Dominance Orientation Scale in Pratto et al. (1994).

Data Analysis
Data was analysed using SPSS statistics software. First, in order to control for pre-existing
differences between the conditions, we conducted descriptive non-parametric analyses
(chi square) for socio-demographical differences (i.e. gender, level of education, and
family situation), VR experience, and whether or not participants had previously seen
this specific news item.
The next step was to test whether there were pre-existing differences between
groups with regard to the metrical control measures by conducting an analysis of var-
iance (ANOVA), including the level of interest in news, technological affinity, and the
Social Dominance Orientation Scale. ANOVA was also used to test our hypotheses
with a post-hoc Scheffé test. Before analyses of variance were conducted, we checked
whether the assumptions underlying analysis of variance (Kutner et al. 2005) were
met. We checked for equality of variance using Levene’s test and a scatterplot with
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2063

the predicted values and standardised residuals of the dependent variable. We checked
for normality, using the Kolmogrov-Smirnov test, by examining skewness, kurtosis, and a
Q-Q plot of standardised residuals of the dependent variable. Considering that we had a
small sample size, we chose a combination of different tests to check for assumptions, all
of which were met for our data. Effect size r was calculated to estimate the size of the
effects found.

Results
As shown in Table 1, no significant differences can be found between test conditions
regarding socio-demographics (i.e. gender, level of education, profession, and age),
level of news interest, level of technology affinity, previous experience with virtual
reality, immersive tendencies, and differences between societal groups (i.e. Social Domi-
nance Orientation), showing a successful randomisation.
Table 2 shows the observed means and differences between the various conditions.
Below the table, the results are explained. Appendix 1 provides a list of all measures
and reliability tests (Cronbach’s α), while Appendix 2 gives an overview of the post-hoc
tests using Scheffé multiple comparisons.

Presence (H1)
Igroup Presence Questionnaire – The ANOVA reveals a significant effect for presence (F =
10.87, p < .000), with a medium effect size (r = 0.43). Post-hoc tests (See Figure 3) show
that participants watching the video with a VR device have a significantly higher sense
of presence than the participants watching the video from a single viewpoint, both on
cardboard (p < 0.001) and head-mounted VR (p < 0.01). Looking at the subscales, two
out of three subscales (spatial presence and realness) and the general item score signifi-
cantly higher in the VR than in the laptop conditions. Contrarily, the level of involvement
shows no difference.
The first hypothesis can thus be confirmed: A higher level of system immersion leads to
a higher sense of presence in disaster news.
Debrief - The majority of the participants had never viewed a video in 360 before. As a
result, the participants’ first reaction was often technology related. Mostly, participants
were impressed with the VR images and started by looking around and exploring the
story setting. They stated they felt ‘surrounded’ by the presented world.
I had never done that before. It really is impressive. My granddaughter had talked about it:
“Granddad, you should try it”. Well, you really are surrounded. – Male, 68, Oculus

You are really there. At a certain point, he says “here, next to your feet” and then it really is next to
your feet. That is completely different compared to normal video. – Male, 55, Cardboard

Participants thus witnessed what Sanchez-Vives and Slater (2004) refer to as the pres-
ence paradox triggered by VR: viewers know, from a cognitive point of view, that there is
nothing there, but they respond as if there is something there.
One participant also provided an explanation as to why the involvement was not sig-
nificantly higher for the VR devices. She stated that her physical environment (i.e. the
research lab) did not match the virtual environment, as she was physically aware of not
2064 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

Table 2. Observed means and differences between the conditions.

Measures Video Interactive video Cardboard Oculus Total F Sig.
PRESENCE Mean 2.90 3.02 3.57 3.51 3.25 10.87 0.00
SD 0.58 0.66 0.60 0.64 0.68
General item Mean 3.27 3.38 4.08 3.95 3.66 6.01 0.00
SD 0.99 1.09 0.94 0.97 1.05
Spatial presence Mean 2.97 3.10 3.88 3.82 3.43 12.24 0.00
SD 0.82 0.95 0.81 0.70 0.91
Involvement Mean 2.89 3.16 3.42 3.25 3.18 1.84 0.14
SD 0.91 1.04 0.88 1.11 1.00
Realness Mean 2.77 2.72 3.17 3.24 2.97 5.57 0.00
SD 0.71 0.61 0.77 0.71 0.73
ENJOYMENT Mean 2.89 3.13 3.33 3.42 3.19 5.33 0.00
SD 0.51 0.62 0.66 0.69 0.65
SUBJECTIVE INVOLVEMENT Mean 2.64 2.61 2.85 2.92 2.75 1.50 0.22
SD 0.68 0.82 0.70 0.88 0.78
Individual facilitation Mean 2.36 2.27 2.43 2.45 2.38 0.52 0.67
SD 0.59 0.65 0.68 0.78 0.67
Social facilitation Mean 2.92 2.95 3.28 3.40 3.13 2.01 0.12
SD 0.89 1.13 0.88 1.16 1.04
DISTANT SUFFERING Mean 3.29 3.31 3.34 3.36 3.32 0.17 0.92
SD 0.41 0.43 0.54 0.44 0.45
Emotion Mean 3.84 3.72 3.58 3.49 3.66 1.02 0.39
SD 0.69 0.92 1.05 1.02 0.93
Identity Mean 3.16 3.13 2.78 3.22 3.07 1.12 0.34
SD 1.17 1.17 1.12 1.06 1.13
Moral responsibility Mean 3.35 3.28 3.28 3.16 3.27 0.24 0.87
SD 0.92 0.86 1.00 1.09 0.96
Connectedness Mean 2.70 2.88 2.88 2.92 2.84 0.69 0.56
SD 0.64 0.70 0.87 0.74 0.74
Sense of agency Mean 3.58 3.50 3.62 3.65 3.58 0.54 0.66
SD 0.47 0.64 0.61 0.54 0.57
Sympathy Mean 3.77 3.91 3.78 3.76 3.81 0.35 0.79
SD 0.68 0.72 0.93 0.74 0.76
Priority Mean 3.01 3.03 3.23 3.04 3.08 0.50 0.69
SD 0.75 1.02 0.82 0.91 0.88
Empathy Mean 3.93 3.71 3.76 4.01 3.85 0.94 0.42
SD 0.73 0.99 0.99 0.89 0.91

Figure 3. Error bar graph (95% confidence interval [CI]) of mean scores on the IPQ, showing a signifi-
cant effect between the conditions viewed on a laptop (1,2) and a VR device (3,4).
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2065

being in Syria, even though the images struck her as being real: “You really are there! If only
air and temperature would match … Insane and creepy indeed!” – (Female, 23, Oculus).
In contrast, none of the participants watching the video on a laptop mentioned feeling
present in the virtual world.

Interest (H2)
Interest-Enjoyment Rating – The ANOVA reveals a significant effect for enjoyment (F = 5.33,
p = .00), with a medium effect size (r = 0.31). As shown in Figure 4, post-hoc tests show that
360° video watched in VR is significantly more enjoyable than the single viewpoint video,
both on cardboard (p < 0.05) and head-mounted (p < 0.01) VR.
H2 can thus be confirmed: Higher levels of system immersion lead to higher levels of
enjoyment. However, the effect is moderate. Moreover, there is a weak positive correlation
between sense of presence and enjoyment (r = 0.35, p = 0.00), meaning that the more a par-
ticipant feels present in the virtual environment, the more he enjoys watching the video.
Debrief - In line with our expectations, the single viewpoint video was found to be the least
enjoyable. Due to the transformation of 360° video to 2D video, the stretched images are “just
weird” (Male, 43), particularly referring to one specific shot where the oil worker drives a motor
bike and the image is cut in half. However, two participants pointed out that the single view-
point also has advantages since you can see both the oil worker and what he is talking about.
The interactive drag-and-drop video was found to be very game-like. Whereas some par-
ticipants enjoyed browsing around the video, most participants labelled this as distracting.
Looking around in 3D is very distracting. Sometimes there is nothing to see, and then you have to
start seeking, clicking with that mouse. You also feel kind of obliged to do so. – Female, 33, Drag-
and-Drop

The technology itself may be the main reason why the drag-and-drop condition did not
score well: rather than supporting the story, the technology served as a distraction. As a

Figure 4. Error bar graph (95% CI) of mean scores on the Interest-Enjoyment rating, showing a signifi-
cant effect between video (1) and VR devices (3,4).
2066 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

result, participants did not see the added value, and some even gave up looking around
while listening to the voiceover.
The VR devices were significantly more enjoyable. Most participants did not have pre-
vious experience with VR and were surprised to be surrounded by the images. Watching
VR was clearly thought to be complex as they “never imagined VR would be so easy” (Male,
47, Cardboard).
Next to the technological appeal, the content of the piece also defined the level of
enjoyment. Multiple informants in the Oculus condition – and surprisingly none from
the cardboard condition – were bothered by the images, either the changing perspective
(e.g. “first, that man was tiny and in the next shot he is huge and all over you!” [Female, 28])
or the variation in framing (i.e. wide shots versus close-ups):
The close-ups feel strange. That man was standing so close to me that I wanted to step back. It felt
like he was invading my personal space. – Male, 32, Oculus

Topic Engagement (H3)

Subjective involvement (H3a) – The ANOVA reveals no significant effect for subjective invol-
vement, neither for the unified scale (F = 1.50, p = 0.22) nor for the two subscales individual
and social facilitation (see Figure 5).
H3a cannot be confirmed, as a higher level of system immersion does not lead to higher
subjective involvement with international disaster news. Participants do not feel a stronger
desire to obtain more information on the topic nor a greater urge to talk with others about
the topic. However, there is a very weak positive correlation between sense of presence and
subjective involvement (r = 0.28, p = 0.00), meaning that the more a participant feels
present in the story (whether virtual reality or not), the higher the subjective involvement.
Distant suffering (H3b) – The ANOVA reveals no significant effect (see Figure 6) for
distant suffering, neither on the unified scale (F = 0.17, p = 0.95) nor for any of the eight
subscales. Even the subscale empathy (F = 0.95, p = 0.42) does not show significant

Figure 5. Error bar graph (95% CI) of mean scores on subjective involvement, showing no significant
effect.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2067

Figure 6. Error bar graph (95% CI) of mean scores on distant suffering, showing no significant effect.

results, tempering expectations toward virtual reality as an “empathy-engendering

machine” (Kool 2016, 7).
H3b could thus not be confirmed: A higher level of system immersion does not lead to
more engagement with distant suffering. However, there is a weak positive correlation
between sense of presence and distant suffering (r = 0.35, p < 0.00), meaning that the
more a participant feels present in the virtual environment, the more he/she experiences
distant suffering.
Debrief – Emotion assesses the level of being emotionally moved by the images. Partici-
pants from all conditions claimed to be touched by the story; however, the qualitative
debrief provided nuance to this lack of difference. Whereas participants in the single-view-
point condition referred to the whole story as being “crazy and beautiful! Very moving”
(Female, 24), participants in the VR condition expressed being moved by specific
aspects of the scenery, such as the sound of fire or the deserted setting.
The sense of solitude is immense. You look around and there is … nothing. – Male, 35, Oculus

This could indicate that the emotions triggered by the 360° video may indeed differ but
could not be measured by the items.
The subscale connectedness, or the participants’ sense of being connected with the
victim, rated the lowest. A possible explanation for the lack of difference here is simply
that the victim and its story remains the same in all conditions. One female participant
explained that it was hard to connect with a male oil worker:
Maybe if it were a woman, I would have felt more involved? Even the oil … it is all so far away. I
did not feel connected. – Female, 33, Drag-and-Drop

Presence as Mediator?
As we found a very weak to weak correlation between presence and the other dependent
variables, we checked for indirect effects, where presence serves as a mediator for
2068 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

Figure 7. Model for the indirect effect of presence on enjoyment, subjective involvement, and distant
suffering.

enjoyment, subjective involvement, and distant suffering (see Figure 7). We used the
PROCESS macro v3 in SPSS written by Hayes (2018), testing Model 4 with multicategorical
X to estimate indirect effects.
Results of the regression analysis show multiple direct effects. First, the two VR con-
ditions predict a higher sense of presence when compared to the single viewpoint
video (Cardboard: r = 0.67, p < 0.00; Oculus r = 0.61, p < 0.00). Second, we found that the
head-mounted VR device predicts a higher level of enjoyment. Third, presence serves as
a predictor for all three dependent variables: enjoyment (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), subjective
involvement (r = 0.43, p < 0.00), and distant suffering (r = 0.27, p < 0.00). In other words,
audiences who feel more present in the news story – no matter the device they use to
watch it – are expected to also score higher on the other dependent variables.
Looking at the indirect effect of the level of immersion on the dependent variables, we
found that presence only serves as a mediator for the dependent variable Enjoyment. An
indirect effect is found for the cardboard (r = 0.44, p < 0.01) and head-mounted VR device
(r = 0.53, p < 0.00). This implies that viewers who watch the news item in VR and feel
present in the virtual environment will enjoy the news experience more than those who
watch it on a laptop.

Discussion and Conclusion

As argued in the introduction, 360° video journalism has produced high expectations,
based on the assumption that news in virtual reality results in a richer news experience.
This experimental study tested the effect of system immersion in international disaster
news on presence, enjoyment, subjective involvement, and distant suffering by using
the case study ‘Ryad’s War Oil’ in a between-subject experimental design with four con-
ditions (i.e. single viewpoint, drag-and-drop 360°, cardboard VR, and head-mounted VR),
combined with insights from a qualitative verbal debrief.
First, we found that a higher level of system immersion leads to and predicts a higher
sense of presence, i.e. the sense of being in the virtual environment (Slater and Wilbur
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2069

1997). Cummings and Bailenson’s (2016) finding that technological immersion has an
effect on presence can thus also be extended to (war) journalistic content. Participants
watching the video in VR (both cardboard and head-mounted) had a significantly
higher sense of presence than participants watching the video on a laptop. Slater and
Sanchez-Vives (2016) state that giving people the illusion of being present in news
events is the goal of immersive journalism, and our study shows that 360° video journalism
succeeds in this. Moreover, presence serves as a predictor for the other three dependent
variables (i.e. enjoyment, subjective involvement, and distant suffering) and mediates the
effect of immersion on enjoyment, as an indirect effect was found for the cardboard and
head-mounted VR device, a finding that is in line with other studies that link presence to
enjoyment (e.g. Rand et al. 2005; Sylaiou et al. 2010).
Second, we found that a higher level of system immersion increased the level of enjoy-
ment while watching the video. This effect was, however, moderate, which can be
explained both by the technology and news story. The single viewpoint video was less
enjoyable due to the stretched images, and the drag-and-drop feature of the interactive
video was found to be more distracting than supporting to the story. On the other
hand, even though watching the news piece in virtual reality was found to be very enjoy-
able and easier than expected, this enjoyment was also tempered, as multiple participants
in the Oculus condition were bothered by the images, either with regard to the changing
perspective (i.e. changing eye level) or variation in framing (i.e. wide shots versus close-
ups). We also have to note that participants addressed a dual relation in the questions
involving enjoyment: even though the technological experience could be labelled as
enjoyable, the content (i.e. the hard life of a Syrian oil worker) made it difficult to call
the video ‘enjoyable’. However, this counts for all conditions, so this does not impact on
the differences between the conditions.
Third, different levels of system immersion do not result in different audience intentions
to actually do something with the video experience, as no significant effect for subjective
involvement (Neys and Jansz 2010) was found. Participants did not feel a stronger desire to
obtain more information on the topic nor to talk with others about the war in Syria. In the
verbal debrief, none of the participants expressed an intention to do something with the
content they had just seen. This could indicate a low level of subjective involvement
towards the topic of the war in Syria in general, which may be explained by compassion
fatigue, i.e. the possible overexposure to human suffering and the subsequent diminishing
public concern (Tester 2001), as the war in Syria has been going on for years, and therefore
audiences are already familiar with the problem and the human suffering. Moreover, users
who did feel more subjectively involved have had the opportunity to engage with the
topic long before participating in the study. The study does, however, show us that the
technology itself will not impact on subjective involvement.
Fourth, there is no impact on engagement with distant suffering. In other words, virtual
reality cannot bridge the gap between the viewer and the distant suffering other in disaster
news. As such, this study shows that 360° video journalism does not lead to being emotion-
ally more moved by the images, an increased sense of identifying with the victim, a higher
moral responsibility to act, an increased perception of being connected with the victim, a
higher sense of agency, increased sympathy, a lower prioritisation of events closer to
home, or increased empathy towards the presented victim. This is especially interesting,
as multiple scholars have expressed expectations that VR will lower perceived distances
2070 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

(Kool 2016; Nash 2017) or increase levels of engagement or empathy (Brautović, John, and
Potrebica 2017; McRoberts 2017). Further, VR fails to trigger social presence (cf. IJsselsteijn
et al. 2000) or co-presence (cf. Biocca and Harms 2003) in disaster news.
However, some nuance needs to be understood concerning this last finding. First, the
sub-dimensions empathy, sympathy, and emotion scored high in all conditions, which
may indicate that the story did succeed in moving the participants, no matter what
device was used. Moreover, the qualitative debrief indicated that the triggered emotion
could differ, even if the scores on the items were not significantly different. Whereas par-
ticipants in the video conditions referred to the whole story, participants in a more immer-
sive condition expressed being moved by specific aspects of the scenery, such as the
sound of fire or the deserted setting. This could indicate that the emotions triggered by
the 360° video may indeed differ but could not be measured by the items. Second, the
lack of an effect for the other dimensions (i.e. moral responsibility, sense of agency, and
priority) could be explained by the implicit nature of the victim’s suffering. Whereas the
case of the original scale on distant suffering (Huiberts and Joye forthcoming) had an
explicit call to action (i.e. to donate in order to help the victims of famine in Africa), this
call to action was absent in the presented news story on Syria. Also, results could, for
example, be different for a news story closer to the audience or for a more timely news
event (such as breaking news or a sports match).
We began this article with a quote by Jens Franssen, the maker of ‘Ryad’s War Oil’, who
stated that virtual reality allows you to take a person to a distant place. Our study shows
exactly this: 360° video journalism allows its viewers to feel present in a different location.
Moreover, a news story in virtual reality is found to be more enjoyable. Most participants
had no previous experience with VR. Our findings are in line with the BBC’s audience
study on VR (2017): “We found our participants were equally enthralled and delighted. Their
initial – fairly low – expectations were far outstripped in terms of the quality of the experience
and the very nature of being immersed in virtual reality”. However, in the context of disaster
news, we found no evidence that this leads to higher audience engagement, as no effect on
subjective involvement or distant suffering was found. Consequently, we argue that news-
makers themselves should decide what their motivation is to create 360° news. If it results
from aspirations to raise more awareness or empathy towards a certain topic, they may end
up being disappointed. However, virtual reality does have affordances that no other news
format can offer, as there is a technological appeal inherent to such immersive devices. This
technological appeal is one of the aspects that Schrøder and Larsen (2010) take into account
when talking about news worthwhileness. This is an ‘equation’ (Schrøder 2015) of various
aspects of news put together by the audience to decide whether news is worthwhile in
their everyday life, including, for example, price, situational fit, and technological appeal.
As 360° video journalism has unique affordances in terms of technological appeal, it can
be seen as a valuable addition to the news spectrum.
Interestingly, we found no difference between the two VR conditions: the effect of
immersion of the cardboard and head-mounted VR devices was similar. This is an interest-
ing finding for makers of virtual reality stories, as cardboard devices are cheap (or even
distributed for free) and are considered to require less tech-savviness than head-
mounted devices such as Oculus or HTC Vive. This, therefore, may be exactly what news
organisations need to create a mass market for VR stories, thus generating a new
source of income for their pressured business models.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2071

Limitations and Further Research

Further research on 360° video journalism is required, as conclusions can only be made
based on this specific news case. As such, limitations of the news story itself also imply
limitations to our study. First, the control condition was a single viewpoint version of
the story. As the story was produced in 360° video, the images were not meant to be
shown on a flat screen, which resulted in stretched images. Remarkably though, multiple
informants found themselves getting used to these stretched images. Second, in contrast
to most 360° video productions, the images of the news story varied in shot types and per-
spectives. Some viewers pointed out that this change is perspective was confusing and
disturbing. Third, the news piece only lasted five minutes, which could be too short to
become truly engaged with the story or connect with the victim.
In the present study, we chose to focus on internal validity, providing exactly the same
content in every condition, so that we knew that differences in conditions were attributed
to the level of immersion and not to other confounding variables such as different char-
acters or environments. Consequently, the results of this study may not be replicated
when using other content. Hence, the replication of similar studies with different
content is required.
This study focused on 360° video journalism relating to disaster news. As mentioned in
the introduction, there are different formats and experiences available within virtual reality
journalism, which allow for more interactivity than 360 video. Other formats (such as 3D
simulation) or experiences (e.g. interacting with the characters) may produce different
results. In addition, 360° video journalism on other topics may also produce different
results. One can, for example, imagine that reporting on a soccer game from the point
of view of the football could indeed lead to higher levels of subjective involvement.
In the present study, most participants had no previous experience with virtual reality
devices, and even those who had used VR before were generally not used to the technol-
ogy. This could imply that participants were distracted by the novelty of the technology,
finding themselves exploring the technology rather than getting involved in the news
story. While we checked if there were differences between participants with regard to pre-
vious experience (there were not), it is still possible that all participants experienced some
kind of novelty effect.
In hindsight, we would also ask ourselves if other measurements could have been
more appropriate, especially given the fact that the interest-enjoyment rating was
found to be problematic. Participants stated that it felt strange saying they enjoyed
watching a news story on dramatic events. With regard to distant suffering, the subscale
agency may not have been particularly appropriate, as the news story did not include a
call to action.

Note
1. The news item ‘Ryad’s War Oil’ is available on YouTube in Dutch, English, or Arabic.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
2072 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

ORCID
Kristin Van Damme http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-6280
Anissa All http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9255-2827
Lieven De Marez http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7716-4079
Sarah Van Leuven http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1136-0274

References
All, Anissa. 2016. Digital Game-Based Learning Under the Microscope. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent
University. Faculty of Political and Social Sciences.
Archer, Dan, and Katharina Finger. 2018. “Walking in Another’s Virtual Shoes.” Columbia Journalism
Review. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/virtual-reality-news-empathy.php.
Biocca, Frank, and Ben Delaney. 1995. “Immersive Virtual Reality Technology.” Communication in the
Age of Virtual Reality 57–124.
Biocca, F., and C. Harms. 2003. Guide to the Networked Minds Social Presence Inventory. East Lansing:
Michigan State University.
Biocca, Frank, and Mark R. Levy. 1995. “Communication Applications of Virtual Reality.” In
Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality, edited by F. Biocca, and M. R. Levy, 128. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bird, S. Elizabeth. 2011. “Seeking the Audience for News.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences, edited
by Virginia Nightingale, 489–508. Hoboken, New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Brautović, Mato, Romana John, and Marko Potrebica. 2017. “Immersion of News.” International con-
ference on augmented reality, virtual reality and computer graphics. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/
978-3-319-60922-5_20.
Costera Meijer, Irene. 2013. “Valuable Journalism: A Search for Quality From the Vantage Point of the
User.” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 14 (6): 754–770. doi: 10.1177/1464884912455 899.
Cummings, James J., and Jeremy N. Bailenson. 2016. “How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of
the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence.” Media Psychology 19 (2): 272–309. doi: 10.
1080/15213269.2015.1015740.
Daft, Richard L., and Robert H. Lengel. 1986. “Organizational Information Requirements, Media
Richness and Structural Design.” Management Science 32 (5): 554–571.
de la Peña, Nonny, Peggy Weil, Joan Llobera, Elias Giannopoulos, Ausiàs Pomés, Bernhard Spanlang,
Doron Friedman, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, and Mel Slater. 2010. “Immersive Journalism: Immersive
Virtual Reality for the First-Person Experience of News.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 19 (4): 291–301. doi: 10.1162/PRES_a_00005.
Decock, Jan, Jan Van Looy, Lizzy Bleumers, and Philippe Bekaert. 2014. “The Pleasure of Being
(There?): an Explorative Study Into the Effects of Presence and Identification on the Enjoyment
of an Interactive Theatrical Performance Using Omnidirectional Video.” AI & Society 29 (4): 449–
459. doi: 10.1007/s00146-013-0487-6.
Dolan, Devon, and Michael Parets. 2016. “Redefining the Axiom of Story.” The Tech Crunch. http://
www.com583.com/files/Redefining%20The%20Axiom%20Of%20Story_%20The%20VR%20And%
20360%20Video%20Complex%20_%20TechCrunch.pdf.
Dominguez-Martin, Eva. 2015. “Immersive Journalism or How Virtual Reality and Video Games are
Influencing the Interface and the Interactivity of News Storytelling.” Profesional de la
Informacion 24 (4): 413–423.
Edison, Steve W., and Gary L. Geissler. 2003. “Measuring Attitudes Towards General Technology:
Antecedents, Hypotheses and Scale Development.” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and
Analysis for Marketing 12 (2): 137–156.
Hardee, Gary M. 2016. “Immersive Journalism in VR.” International conference on virtual, augmented
and mixed reality. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39907-2_65.
Hayes, Andrew F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2073

Huibert, Eline, and Stijn Joye. Forthcoming. “Who Cares for the Suffering Other?” International
Communication Gazette.
IJsselsteijn, W. A., Huib de Ridder, Jonathan Freeman, and S. E. Avons. 2000. “Presence: Concept,
Determinants, and Measurement.” In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V 3959: 520–529.
International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Kool, Hollis. 2016. “The Ethics of Immersive Journalism.” Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science,
Technology and Society 9 (3), doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1389286.
Kutner, Michael H., Christopher Nachtsheim, John Neter, and William Li. 2005. “Applied Linear
Statistical Models, 2005.” STAT 3104. 3: 3.
Lee, Kwan Min. 2004. “Presence, Explicated.” Communication Theory 14 (1): 27–50. doi: 10.1111/j.
1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x.
Lombard, Matthew, and Theresa Ditton. 1997. “At the Heart of It All.” Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 3 (2), doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.
Lutz, Justin. 2016. “360 Degree Video is Not Virtual Reality.” https://www.theprimacy.com /blog/360-
degree-video-is-not-virtual-reality/.
McRoberts, Jamie. 2017. “Are We There Yet?” Studies in Documentary Film 1–18. doi: 10.1080/
17503280. 2017.1344924.
Nash, Kate. 2017. “Virtual Reality Witness.” Studies in Documentary Film 1–13. doi: 10.1080/17503280.
2017. 1340796.
Neys, Joyce, and Jeroen Jansz. 2010. “Political Internet Games: Engaging an Audience.” European
Journal of Communication 25 (3): 227–241. doi: 10.1177/0267323110373456.
Pérez-Seijo, Sara. 2017. “Immersive Journalism.” Media and Metamedia Management, 113–119. Cham:
Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-46068-0_14.
Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. “Social Dominance
Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 67 (4): 741–763.
Rand, Debbie, Rachel Kizony, Uri Feintuch, Noomi Katz, Naomi Josman, Albert Rizzo, and Patrice
L. (Tamar) Weiss. 2005. “Comparison of Two VR Platforms for Rehabilitation: Video Capture
Versus HMD.” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 14 (2): 147–160. doi: 10.1162/
1054746053967012.
Ryan, Richard M. 1982. “Control and Information in the Intrapersonal Sphere: An Extension of
Cognitive Evaluation Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 (3): 450–461. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450.
Sánchez Laws, Ana Luisa. 2017. “Can Immersive Journalism Enhance Empathy?” Digital Journalism 1–
16. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1389286.
Sanchez-Vives, Maria V., and Mel Slater. 2004. “From Presence Towards Consciousness.” 8th Annual
conference for the scientific study of consciousness. doi: 10.1038/nrn1651.
Schrøder, Kim C. 2015. “News Media Old and New.” Journalism Studies 16 (1): 60–78. doi: 10.1080/
1461670X.2014.890332.
Schrøder, Kim C., and Bent Steeg Larsen. 2010. “The Shifting Cross-Media News Landscape.”
Journalism Studies 11 (4): 524–534. doi: 10.1080/14616701003638392.
Schubert, Thomas, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. “The Experience of Presence:
Factor Analytic Insights.” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 10 (3): 266–281. doi: 0.
1162/105474601300343603.
Sherry, John L. 2004. “Flow and Media Enjoyment.” Communication Theory 14 (4): 328–347. doi: 10.
1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00318.x.
Shin, Donghee, and Frank Biocca. 2017. “Exploring Immersive Experience in Journalism.” New Media
& Society (published online). doi: 10.1177/1461444817733133.
Sirkkunen, Esa, Heli Väätäjä, Turo Uskali, and Parisa Pour Rezaei. 2016. “Journalism in Virtual Reality.”
Proceedings of the 20th international academic mindtrek conference. ACM. doi: 10.1145/2994310.
2994353.
Slater, Mel. 1999. “Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence
Questionnaire.” Presence 8 (5): 560–565. doi:10.1162/105474699566477.
2074 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

Slater, Mel, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2016. “Enhancing our Lives with Immersive Virtual Reality.”
Frontiers in Robotics and AI 3: 1–47. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2016.00074.
Slater, Mel, and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE):
Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments.” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments 6 (6): 603–616. doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603.
Sylaiou, Stella, Katerina Mania, Athanasis Karoulis, and Martin White. 2010. “Exploring the
Relationship Between Presence and Enjoyment in a Virtual Museum.” International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 68 (5): 243–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.11.002.
Tamborini, Ron, Nicholas D. Bowman, Allison Eden, Matthew Grizzard, and Ashley Organ. 2010.
“Defining Media Enjoyment as the Satisfaction of Intrinsic Needs.” Journal of Communication 60
(4): 758–777. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x.
Tester, Keith. 2001. Compassion, Morality and the Media. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Tse, Audrey, Charlene Jennett, Joanne Moore, Zillah Watson, Jacob Rigby, and Anna L. Cox. 2017.
“Was I There?” Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in com-
puting systems, 2967–2974. ACM.
Vorderer, Peter, Christoph Klimmt, and Ute Ritterfeld. 2004. “Enjoyment: At the Heart of Media
Entertainment.” Communication Theory 14 (4): 388–408. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00321.x.
Watson, Zillah. 2017. “VR for News: The New Reality?” In Digital News Project 2017. https://
reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/VR%2520for%2520news%
2520-%2520the%2520new%2520reality.pdf.
Wirth, Werner, Tilo Hartmann, Saskia Böcking, Peter Vorderer, Christoph Klimmt, Holger Schramm,
Timo Saari, et al. 2007. “A Process Model of the Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences.”
Media Psychology 9 (3): 493–525. doi: 10.1080/15213260701283079.
Witmer, Bob G., and Michael J. Singer. 1998. “Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence
Questionnaire.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7 (3): 225–240. doi: 10.1162/
105474698565686.

APPENDICES
Appendix 1. List of measures and reliability tests (Cronbach’s α).
Scales Subscales Items
Presence Cronbach’s General item I felt present in the coverage.
α: 0.879 Spatial presence Somehow I felt that the presented world surrounded me.
Cronbach’s α: I felt like I was just perceiving pictures. (R)
0.878 I did not feel present in the presented space. (R)
I had a sense of acting in the presented space rather than operating
something from outside.
I felt present in the presented space.
Involvement How aware were you of the real world surrounding you while navigating
Cronbach’s α: the virtual world (i.e. sounds, room temperature, other people, etc.)?
0.813 I was not aware of my real, physical environment.
I still paid attention to the real, physical environment. (R)
I was completely captivated by the presented world.
Realness How real did the presented world seem to you?
Cronbach’s α: How much did your experience in the presented environment seem
0.654 consistent with your real, physical world experience?
How real did the presented world seem to you?
The presented world seemed more realistic than the real world.
Interest-enjoyment rating I enjoyed doing this activity very much.
Cronbach’s α: 0.750 This activity was fun to do.
I thought this was a boring activity. (R)
This activity did not hold my attention at all. (R)
I would describe this activity as very interesting.
I thought this activity was quite enjoyable.
While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.

(Continued )
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 2075

Appendix 1. Continued.
Scales Subscales Items
Subjective Individual After seeing the video, I felt the need to:
involvement facilitation Get more information about the issue that was dealt with in the video
Cronbach’s α: 0.855 Cronbach’s α: Get involved in an interest group or organisation that is concerned with the
0.679 issue that was dealt with in the video
Contact the journalist or maker of the video
Social facilitation Inform my friends about the video
Cronbach’s α: Stimulate my friends to watch the video too
0.879 Discuss the issue that was dealt with in the video with my friends
Distant suffering Moral I think I have a moral responsibility to act (either by donating/volunteering/
Cronbach’s α: 0.835 responsibility something else).
Emotion I am emotionally moved by these images.
Identity I have difficulty identifying with the victims shown on the video.
Connectedness How do you feel towards the victim socio-culturally?
Cronbach’s α: How do you feel toward the victim in Syria?
0.845 How do you feel towards the victim physically?
How do you feel towards the victim emotionally?
To what extend do you feel a socio-cultural connection with the victims? (R)
To what extend do you feel involved with the victim? (R)
To what extend do you feel an emotional connection with the victim? (R)
Agency Donating money is useless. (R)
Cronbach’s α: If a lot of people would donate to Consortium 12-12, it would definitely
0.732 help.
Help in any kind of way (donating, volunteering) is useless. (R)
I think my helping activities can make a positive difference for the victims.
Consortium 12–12 cannot be trusted. (R)
I think I can effectively help the victims (in any kind of way).
Sympathy After seeing these images, I think: “What would I think about it if I were in
Cronbach’s α: the same situation as the victim?”
0.748 After seeing these images, I think: “what would I think about it if it were to
happen right here?”
After seeing these images, I try to imagine the kind of suffering these
victims go through.
Priority Serious events closer to home (i.e. Belgium or Europe) affect me more than
Cronbach’s α: war in Syria. (R)
0.729 News about events close-by stay longer in my mind than news about
distant events. (R)
Events happening in far-away places (like Syria) are less important to me
than events happening close-by. (R)
Empathy I have difficulty imagining the severity of these events happening in Syria
Cronbach’s α: during the civil war because I have never experiences civil war myself. (R)
0.564 I have difficulty imagining the severity of these events happening in Syria
during the civil war because it is not likely that they will happen here in
Belgium. (R)

Appendix 2. Post-hoc results using Scheffé Multiple Comparisons.

(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Presence Single viewpoint Drag-and-drop −0.12 0.14 0.88
Cardboard VR −0.67* 0.15 0.00
Head-mounted VR −0.61* 0.14 0.00
Drag-and-drop Single viewpoint 0.12 0.14 0.88
Cardboard VR −0.55* 0.14 0.00
Head-mounted VR −0.49* 0.14 0.01
Cardboard VR Single viewpoint 0.67* 0.15 0.00
Drag-and-drop 0.55* 0.14 0.00
Head-mounted VR 0.06 0.15 0.98
Head-mounted VR Single viewpoint 0.61* 0.14 0.00
Drag-and-drop 0.49* 0.14 0.01
Cardboard VR −0.06 0.15 0.98
Enjoyment Single viewpoint Drag-and-drop −0.24 0.14 0.42

(Continued )
2076 K. VAN DAMME ET AL.

Appendix 2. Continued.
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Cardboard VR −0.44* 0.15 0.03
Head-mounted VR −0.53* 0.14 0.01
Drag-and-drop Single viewpoint 0.24 0.14 0.42
Cardboard VR −0.20 0.14 0.58
Head-mounted VR −0.29 0.14 0.25
Cardboard VR Single viewpoint 0.44* 0.15 0.03
Drag-and-drop 0.20 0.14 0.58
Head-mounted VR −0.09 0.15 0.94
Head-mounted VR Single viewpoint 0.53* 0.14 0.01
Drag-and-drop 0.29 0.14 0.25
Cardboard VR 0.09 0.15 0.94
Subjective involvement Single viewpoint Drag-and-drop 0.03 0.18 1.00
Cardboard VR −0.21 0.18 0.71
Head-mounted VR −0.28 0.18 0.48
Drag-and-drop Single viewpoint −0.03 0.18 1.00
Cardboard VR −0.24 0.18 0.61
Head-mounted VR −0.31 0.18 0.38
Cardboard VR Single viewpoint 0.21 0.18 0.71
Drag-and-drop 0.24 0.18 0.61
Head-mounted VR −0.07 0.18 0.98
Head-mounted VR Single viewpoint 0.28 0.18 0.48
Drag-and-drop 0.31 0.18 0.38
Cardboard VR 0.07 0.18 0.98
Distant suffering Single viewpoint Drag-and-drop −0.02 0.10 1.00
Cardboard VR −0.05 0.11 0.98
Head-mounted VR −0.07 0.11 0.93
Drag-and-drop Single viewpoint 0.02 0.10 1.00
Cardboard VR −0.02 0.11 1.00
Head-mounted VR −0.05 0.10 0.98
Cardboard VR Video 0.05 0.11 0.98
Drag-and-drop 0.02 0.11 1.00
Head-mounted VR −0.02 0.11 1.00
Head-mounted VR Single viewpoint 0.07 0.11 0.93
Drag-and-drop 0.05 0.10 0.98
Cardboard VR 0.02 0.11 1.00

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.