Journal of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 1352-7266 (Print) 1466-4445 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Using virtual reality to promote the university

brand: When do telepresence and system
immersion matter?

Jie(Doreen) Shen, Yanyun(Mia) Wang, Chen(Crystal) Chen, Michelle R. Nelson

& Mike Z. Yao

To cite this article: Jie(Doreen) Shen, Yanyun(Mia) Wang, Chen(Crystal) Chen, Michelle R.
Nelson & Mike Z. Yao (2020) Using virtual reality to promote the university brand: When do
telepresence and system immersion matter?, Journal of Marketing Communications, 26:4,
362-393, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2019.1671480

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2019.1671480

View supplementary material Published online: 09 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1168

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmc20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
2020, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 362–393
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2019.1671480

Using virtual reality to promote the university brand: When

do telepresence and system immersion matter?
Jie(Doreen) Shena, Yanyun(Mia) Wangb, Chen(Crystal) Chenb, Michelle R. Nelsonb
and Mike Z. Yaob
a
Marketing Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA; bInstitute of
Communications Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

While virtual reality (VR) has been shown to increase a sense of Received 15 March 2019
being there (i.e., telepresence) and enhance audience perceptions Accepted 12 September 2019
of the content, few studies have examined the impact of the vary- KEYWORDS
ing degrees of ‘system immersion’ on persuasion outcomes under Virtual reality; telepresence;
different VR viewing conditions. To fill this gap, our research inves- system immersion; 360-
tigates consumer perceptions of a branded VR experience of a degree video; university
university campus tour under different viewing conditions across branding
two studies. In Study 1, we interviewed 17 participants who experi-
enced the VR tour on Oculus Rift CV1. Emerging themes from the
data revealed a sense of telepresence, enjoyment, and appreciation
for going places not available to participants in real life. Study 2
employed an experimental design where participants viewed the
same content using one of the three VR devices that varied in
system immersion (smartphone, Google Cardboard, Oculus Rift
DK2). Telepresence and its impact on recall and persuasion were
measured. Results show that all three viewing conditions had equal
capacity to create a sense of telepresence. Perceived telepresence
negatively impacted recall of targeted locations in the virtual tour,
whereas telepresence positively correlated with intentions to
recommend the campus to others.

Virtual reality (VR) is becoming a powerful tool for creating immersive brand experiences.
Google is experimenting with VR in online advertising for mobile phones (Vanian 2017),
Adobe is developing VR advertising to be used in a theatre setting (Roettgers 2017), and
Hyundai has used VR in their Super Bowl advertisement so U.S. military troops could
‘virtually’ watch the game with their families (Rooney 2017). As one of the first brands to
use VR, Marriott created a ‘teleporter’ with sensory elements via an Oculus Rift device in
which people could experience being transported to hotel rooms in different destinations
all over the world (Martindale 2015).
The advent and development of VR technologies is greatly influencing how brands
communicate with consumers. Seventy-five percent of the world’s most valuable brands
(e.g., Apple, Microsoft, Google, Coca-Cola) have created VR projects to engage consumers
(Korolov 2015). Brand managers are recommending using virtual experiences to create an

CONTACT Jie(Doreen) Shen jieshen3@illinois.edu Marketing Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 363

emotional connection with consumers that is immersive and compelling (Swant 2016). It
is estimated that almost 43 million people will actively use VR at least once a month,
according to an eMarketer report (Petrock 2019).
VR offers content creators the ability to present a deeply immersive media experience
for the audience (i.e., ‘transport people to a place, immerse them in a world, and compel
them to explore’; Luber 2016) through a sense of telepresence (i.e., ‘being there’ in a
remote or a virtual environment through a communication medium; Kim and Biocca 1997;
Kim and Ko 2019; Suh and Lee 2005). In this way, VR technology can greatly change how
audiences experience brand content. VR also offers a variety of promising applications for
experiential products such as virtual tours (e.g., Spielmann and Mantonakis 2018). The
research in VR and branding and marketing communication has been rapidly expanding
in recent years due to the advancement in VR technology and the increasing technology
penetration rate among consumers. Several researchers suggest a new agenda, theore-
tical framework and future directions in VR research (e.g., Barnes 2016; Flavián, Ibáñez-
Sánchez, and Orús 2018; Rosedale 2017; Muzellec, Lynn, and Lambkin 2012).
One type of experiential product that may benefit from VR content is the university
brand. Campus tours are often used to attract students and parents. Promoting university
brands to recruit the best students is becoming more important with attention paid to
effective targeting, media, and marketing communication efforts (Goodrich, Swani, and
Munch 2018). At the same time, prospective students are using social media such as
YouTube to find out what the university really looks like (Nguyen 2019). A virtual reality
‘campus tour’ may show students what a place is like before they arrive on campus – they
may experience a sense of telepresence or ‘being there’ from the comfort of their own
devices. Such a virtual experience may be particularly beneficial to students who may not
be able to afford travel to campuses (Mann 2019). As a result, some universities have
begun offering branded VR campus tours (e.g., Appalachian State University; Hollender
2018; University of North Carolina; Mann 2019). Yet, the efficacy of these tours or value of
VR for this type of brand experience has not been tested. Therefore, we focus our study of
VR content on the university brand in the form of a virtual ‘campus tour’ where users can
engage and experience campus buildings in VR.
Some research has suggested that viewing a 360-degree video on a desktop/laptop
can enhance the viewer experience and result in more favorable attitudes for the brand
featured in the video (e.g., Feng, Xie, and Lou 2019; Spielmann and Mantonakis 2018). Yet,
the ways in which audiences may engage in VR content are likely to vary across viewing
device with approximately half of VR viewers consuming the content with a headset and
half without a headset (Petrock 2019). Different devices vary in system immersion (Van
Damme et al. 2019). Devices fall into a continuum of immersion where mobile phones,
cardboard devices, and head-mounted devices vary from less to more immersive
(Cummings and Bailenson 2016; Van Damme et al. 2019). Marketers investing in VR-
based brand content should carefully consider which device their audience will use to
access the content and discern how the device may alter the viewing experience. It is also
theoretically important to understand how the varying degrees of system-enabled
immersion may affect telepresence or other outcome variables.
Further, while telepresence has been shown to be directly or indirectly related to
persuasion (Nelson, Yaros, and Keum 2006; Keng and Lin 2006; Kim and Biocca 1997;
Kim and Ko 2019; Mollen and Wilson 2010), past studies have found inconsistent effects of
364 J. SHEN ET AL.

telepresence on memory (e.g., Besharat et al. 2013; Bailey et al. 2012; Nelson, Yaros, and
Keum 2006). Therefore, we first assess the propensity for a 360-degree VR campus tour to
elicit feelings of telepresence in an exploratory qualitative study. In a follow-up experi-
ment, we gauge audience members’ telepresence across devices that vary in system
immersion. We then assess how telepresence relates to memory of brand content in the
virtual tour and to the likelihood of recommending the campus.

Literature review
Virtual reality and telepresence
In thinking about virtual reality (VR), the most common association tends to be technol-
ogy-related: goggles, computers, and motion-sensing gloves (Greenbaum 1992). As
pointed out by Steuer (1992), early definitions of VR tended to focus on this technological
aspect. For example, ‘Virtual Reality is electronic simulations of environments experienced
via head-mounted eye goggles and wired clothing enabling the end user to interact in
realistic three-dimensional situations’ (Coates 1992). It is the technology that offers the
ability to present a deeply immersive media experience for audiences; VR technology,
according to Steve LaValle (a former principal scientist at Oculus Rift VR), aims to stimulate
the human senses to trick our bodies into accepting another version of reality (LaValle
2016). This idea brings the human sensory and perceptual experience into the concep-
tualization of VR. In this way, VR presents a mediated experience where the audience is
engaging and perceiving, s/he is ‘surrounded by a three-dimensional computer-gener-
ated representation, and is able to move around in the virtual world and see it from
different angles, to reach into it, grab it, and reshape it’ (Rheingold 1991). Fundamentally,
the human experience and the perception of this other version of reality start to be
incorporated into the definition of VR. For example, virtual reality is defined as ‘a real or
simulated environment in which the perceiver experiences telepresence’ (Steuer 1992, 76)
in communication literature. Therefore, telepresence is a key concept for understanding
virtual reality experience (Kim and Biocca 1997; Suh and Lee 2005).
Telepresence was first coined by Minsky (1980) when describing the phenomenon of
‘being there’ experienced by operators of teleoperation systems. At the time, he was
envisioning technology that would allow remote users to feel as though they were actually
‘there’. In that context, Minsky suggested, ‘The biggest challenge to developing telepre-
sence is achieving that sense of “being there.” Can telepresence be a substitute for the real
thing?’ Over the past 40 years, the technology has advanced, and the concepts of tele-
presence, presence, and virtual presence have been used interchangeably across academic
fields and have evolved into other distinct forms of presence (for a historical discussion, see
IJsselsteijn 2005; for more recent reviews see Hartmann et al. 2013; Shin 2013).
Although scholars often use the two terms similarly, telepresence and presence have
been differentiated by some scholars. Presence refers to the natural perception of an
environment (Steuer 1992) or the experience of being physically present in a simulated
environment (Sheridan 1992). More recent research also defines presence as a technology
user’s awareness of another person in a mediated environment (Shin 2013), whereas
telepresence emphasizes the notion of ‘mediated environment’ and refers to the feeling
of ‘being there’ in a mediated remote environment.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 365

In the communication field, the seminal definition of telepresence is ‘the extent to which
one feels present in the mediated environment, rather than in the immediate physical
environment’ (Steuer 1992, 6). It is noteworthy that this article by Steuer, which linked virtual
reality and dimensions of telepresence, has been cited more than 5,000 times, according to
Google Scholar (2019). Users who perceive a sense of telepresence are focused on the virtual
or mediated environment to the extent that their stimulus field is limited to just that
environment, while the physical environment is disregarded (Nah, Eschenbrenner, and
DeWester 2011). The basic premise of this construct is that humans can create a perceptual
illusion of being present and highly engaged in a mediated environment, while they are in
reality physically present in another place (Suh and Lee 2005).
More recently, subtypes and categories of telepresence/presence have emerged,
which offer more refined ways of defining the concept (Hartmann et al. 2013; Shin
2013). For instance, spatial presence and telepresence are often used interchangeably
in the literature since they share similar conceptualization, which is a subjective experi-
ence or a state of consciousness when perceivers feel bodily or physically situated in a
mediated environment (IJsselsteijn et al. 2000; Feng, Xie, and Lou 2019; Hartmann,
Klimmt, and Vorderer 2010; Hartmann et al. 2013). Social presence is another distinct
type of presence (Shin 2013; Ogara, Koh, and Prybutok 2014) that is important to consider
in some virtual environments because the term highlights the user’s ‘sense of being
together’ with one or more other social beings, although the others are not physically
present (Bente, Rüggenberg, and Krämer 2005).
Telepresence is also defined as ‘a binary experience, during which perceived self-
location, and perceived action possibilities are connected a mediated spatial environ-
ment, and mental capacities are bound by the mediated environment instead of reality’
(Wirth et al. 2007, 497; Slater 2002). There are two dimensions sometimes addressed in the
telepresence construct: ‘departure,’ which refers to not being in the physical environment,
and ‘arrival,’ which refers to being present in the mediated environment (Kim and Biocca
1997). Several determinants of telepresence have been examined, such as the degree of
interactivity and vividness of the mediated spatial environment (Steuer 1992), and the
fidelity in relation to the equivalent real-world sensory modalities (Slater 2003). We
synthesize the aforementioned literature to formulate a definition of telepresence used
in our studies as follows: telepresence is defined as the psychological state of feeling
bodily or physically ‘being there’ in a technology-mediated remote environment when
the mental awareness is not bound by the physical environment or reality. Although a
more complete review of the concepts is beyond the scope of this article, a summary table
of recent definitions and measures of presence and telepresence in the marketing,
advertising, and communication literature is provided in Table 1.
The empirical findings related to telepresence are fairly cohesive in terms of its effects
on persuasion, but not in its effects on memory. Consistently, studies have found that
telepresence (in non-VR environments) can enhance users’ virtual experience in different
media contexts, and lead to positive persuasion outcomes in general (Suh and Lee 2005;
Suh and Chang 2006; Keng and Lin 2006; Wafa and Hashim 2016). Researchers have also
examined the reasons why telepresence might enhance persuasion, such as the enhance-
ment of enjoyment and increased perceived product knowledge (Yim, Cicchirillo, and
Drumwright 2012) or stronger connection between consumers and others in the virtual
environment (Klein 2003; Westerman, Spence, and Lin 2015).

Table 1. Definitions and measures of telepresence and presence in recent publications.
Study/Journal, Year
Feng, Xie, and Lou (Journal of Advertising,
2019)
Kim and Ko (Computers in Human
Behavior, 2019)
Algharabat et al. (Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 2018)
Cowan and Ketron (Journal of Business
Research, 2018)
Flavián, Ibáñez-Sánchez, and Orús (Journal of Presence (defined as the user’s sensation of being transported to a
Business Research, 2018)
Shin (Computers in Behavior Behavior, 2018) Presence
Term/Definition
Presence (Spatial Presence)
“Referred to as ‘telepresence’ or ‘virtual presence’ (Hendrix and
Barfield 1995), presence is a psychological state or subjective
sensation of ‘being there’ in a scene depicted by a medium (Lessiter
et al. 2001)”
Telepresence (virtual presence) (“refer to sport media consumers’
mediated perceptions of a distant environment”)
Telepresence (“the perception by non-profit organizations’ Facebook 4 items (Coyle and Thorson 2001; Klein 2003; Steuer 1992; Hopkins,
fans that they have been, psychologically, transported in the world
created by the non-profit Facebook page”)
Telepresence (“the rewarding sense of being present in an
environment that appears natural”)
distinct environment outside the real human body (Biocca 1997). It
is regarded as a psychological stage (not related to a specific
technology) and the medium is simply the way to arrive at that
stage. Continuum “being here” to “being elsewhere”.
(“the concept of presence refers to the extent to which two people
interacting via a technological medium feel as if they are together”
(Nicovich, Boller, and Cornwell 2005)
366
Measure
3 items (Grigorovici and Constantin 2004; Lessiter et al. 2001; Lombard
and Snyder-Duch 2001)
I had a sense of being in the scenes displayed
J. SHEN ET AL.
I felt I was visiting the places in the displayed environment
I felt that the characters and/or objects could almost touch me
3 items (Kim and Biocca 1997; Novak and Hoffman 2000): I forgot
about my physical location
I felt I was in the arena
I felt my mind was inside the arena
Raymond, and Mitra 2016): (1) While I was browsing the social
media page of [Brand X], I felt I was in the world by [Brand X], (2)
While I was browsing the social media page of [Brand X], my mind
was in this room, not
in the world created by [Brand X], (3) While I was browsing the
social media page of [Brand X], my body was in this room, but
my mind was in the world created by [Brand X], (4) When I left the
social media page of [Brand X], I felt like I came back to the “real
world”
after a journey.
Conceptual article
Conceptual article
Items from the engagement subscale from Shin (2013)
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Study/Journal, Year
Spielmann and Mantonakis (Journal of
Business Research, 2018)
Lim and Ayyagari (Computers in Human
Behavior, 2018)
Kim, Ahn, Kwon, and Reid (Journal of
Business Research, 2017)
Pelet, Ettis, and Cowart (Information &
Management, 2017)
Term/Definition Measure
Telepresence (“defined as experiencing an artificial or distant setting 7 Items adapted from Coyle and Thorson (2001)
as reality even though one is not physically present in the setting”) - While looking at the content, I felt I was in (object) – While I was
Mollen and Wilson 2010 observing the content, my mind was in (the object), not in this
room – While I was looking at the content, my body was in this
room, but my mind was in (the object) – When the content related
to (the object) finished, I felt like I came back to the real world after
a journal – The content came to me and created a new world for
me, which left when the content was finished – While I was looking
at the content, I sometimes forgot I was in (geographical location of
consumer). – The world generated by the content about (the
object) seemed to me “somewhere I visited” rather than
“something I saw
Telepresence (“the perceived extent of direct product experience that Scale items for telepresence were drawn from Lim, Grover, and Purvis
is simulated through a medium”, Coyle and Thorson 2001) (2012): (1) Does the Website enable you to find information about
the product as if you are in a physical store? (2) Can you evaluate
the product on the website as you do in the physical store? (3) Does
the website depiction of the product make you feel like you are
looking at it in a physical store?
Presence (“perception of being there in a mediated environment”, Presence scale was adapted from Witmer and Singer (1998) and Wang
Witmer and Singer 1998; “a subjective feeling of being there”, and Calder (2009). Sample items: “I felt caught up in the content of
Biocca 1997) the ad”, “I experienced the ad as if it were real”, “The ad was so vivid
that it held my attention as a good movie or story does”.
Telepresence (“a perceptual illusion of non-mediation”, Steuer 1992, Telepresence was measured by a nine-item scale by Kim and Biocca
“a sense of ‘being there’ in the phenomenal environment created (1997) (e.g., “I forget my immediate environment when I use social
by a medium”, Heeter 1992) networking”).
JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
367
368 J. SHEN ET AL.

However, there has been less research on telepresence/presence in VR brand experi-

ences. Recently, Feng, Xie, and Lou (2019) found that 360-degree video advertisements did
not outperform standard 2D advertisements on measures of engagement or spatial pre-
sence when the level of narrative structure of the advertisement was low or high, but only
when the narrative was in the middle range. In the sports context, Kim and Ko (2019)
showed that spectating sports games via VR technology enhanced an immersive flow
experience to a greater extent than via a non-VR medium. Flow is an optimal state of
experience in which one is so completely absorbed and engaged in an activity that nothing
else seems to matter (Nah, Eschenbrenner, and DeWester 2011). This amplified flow experi-
ence in the sports context substantially enhanced user satisfaction (Kim and Ko 2019).
Finally, Algharabat et al. (2018) found that telepresence, social presence, and involvement
all positively impacted consumer brand engagement in the context of social media market-
ing. Most of the studies cited in the advertising and marketing literature have not assessed
consumer reactions to the VR content on high-ended immersive devices to gauge consumer
perceptions of the content or experience; therefore, we explore consumers’ perceptions of
VR in a branded experience through interviews in Study 1. We also examine why and how
telepresence emerges during a virtual reality experience and which factors can attenuate or
enhance experiencers’ perceptions of telepresence.

Study 1: method
Design and participants
Study 1 was designed to explore consumer perceptions of the VR campus tour and
measure their level of telepresence. Thus, a mixed-method approach was adopted:
participants went through a one-on-one, semi-structured interview where they were
asked general questions about VR, then watched the campus tour VR video using
Oculus Rift CV1 (consumer version 1), and then were asked about their perceptions of
the video. Finally, participants completed a brief survey. The flexibility of a semi-struc-
tured interview allowed each interviewee to discuss emerging ideas as the conversation
progressed. The primary advantage of one-on-one interviews is that they provide the
opportunity for researchers to explore in-depth topics in an environment that fosters
detailed and open communication (Boyce and Neale 2006).
Eighteen interviews were conducted in a VR lab on the campus of a Midwestern
university. One of the participants was excluded due to many missing responses in the
questionnaire; therefore, s/he was dropped from the study, which resulted in 17 com-
pleted interviews and surveys. Participants were recruited through a newsletter dissemi-
nated to all faculty, students, and staff. Participants varied in gender, occupation, and
experience with virtual reality. See Table 1 for participant profiles. A heterogeneous
sample was desired at this early stage of the research.

Procedure and stimulus

The study was approved by the research ethics board, and participants signed a consent
form prior to the interview. Each interview lasted approximately 25 min and was audio-
taped and transcribed verbatim for analysis. The beginning of the interview gauged the
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 369

interviewees’ personal knowledge and perceptions of immersive media technology,

including virtual reality. Then, they were shown an approximately eight-minute 360-
degree video ‘university experience’ on the Oculus Rift CV1 (see Appendix 2 for details
of the video).
After the VR experience, participants were asked to talk about their perceptions of the
experience and their thoughts on what kinds of products or brands might be suited to
using VR technology for branding. See Appendix 1 for the list of interview questions. After
the interview, participants completed scales related to constructs of interest and those
scales normally used to assess perceptions in VR experiences: (1) the Telepresence Scale
(Kim and Biocca 1997) with statements adjusted for VR such as, ‘During the VR experience,
the mediated world was more real or present for me compared to the “real world”’ and (2)
the Simulator Sickness Scale (Kennedy et al. 1993), which gauges participants’ level of
discomfort on several criteria such as blurred vision or nausea from ‘none’ to ‘severe’. It
typically has two components: nausea and oculomotor. Participants’ scores can be found
in Table 2. Participants received a $10 Amazon Gift Card for their participation. The
detailed coding process can be found in Appendix 3.

Findings
Escape reality via telepresence
About half of the participants had never experienced VR before, so this university
campus tour video provided a novel experience. This finding fits with the results of an
experimental study where 360-degree video advertisements were found to be more
novel than their standard video counterparts (Feng, Xie, and Lou 2019). Overall, all

Table 2. Study 1: participant profiles and their scores on telepresence and simulator sickness scales.
Participant Prior VR Sickness level Sickness level Telepresence
number Gender Occupation experience (Nausea) (Oculo) level
1 F Support technician Yes Nausea = 2, Oculo = 0 3.75
2 M Works at dining hall No Nausea = 0, Oculo = 0 2.75
3 F Program coordinator No Nausea = 1, Oculo = 1 3.63
4 M Student research Yes Nausea = 0, Oculo = 0 3.25
intern
5 M Former high school Yes Nausea = 0, Oculo = 1 3.38
teacher
6 F Advisor Yes Nausea = 0, Oculo = 1 3
7 F Media designer No Nausea = 3, Oculo = 2 2.63
8 F Administrative No Nausea = 2, Oculo = 2 3.5
professional
9 F Human resources No Nausea = 2, Oculo = 5 3.38
10 F Student Yes Nausea = 0, Oculo = 2 3.63
11 M Academic advisor No Nausea = 2, Oculo = 2 3.75
12 F Student Yes Nausea = 1, Oculo = 1 4
13 M Student Yes Nausea = 4, Oculo = 2 2.63
14 F Research technician No Nausea = 2, Oculo = 0 3.25
15 F Bioengineering Yes Nausea = 1, Oculo = 0 3.75
student
16 M Audio engineer No Nausea = 2, Oculo = 3 3.75
student
17 M Student Yes Nausea = 2, Oculo = 6 3.38
Sickness level was assessed on a scale from 0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe. Telepresence was gauged
according to responses to 8 statements on a 1 (disagree very strongly) to 5 (agree very strongly) scale.
370 J. SHEN ET AL.

participants generally enjoyed the VR experience even though they were familiar with
most of the content and scenes in the video. When asked about their VR use, the most
commonly mentioned motivation for using VR was to escape reality. For example,
participant 4 said, ‘Probably when I want to go somewhere else, then I will use this [VR
equipment].’ Meanwhile, participant 11 mentioned, ‘I think the current population
might spend a little more work to disassociate from the current space they are in.’
Sometimes, people seek media experiences to be ‘entertained’ and to ‘escape.’ The
immersive nature of telepresence in VR allows users to feel as though they have entered
into a mediated world and escaped from the physical world in a way that traditional
media cannot.
Telepresence was also assessed quantitatively as participants completed the eight-
item telepresence scale (Kim and Biocca 1997). Individuals indicated their agreement with
eight statements (α = .78) such as ‘During the VR experience, the mediated world was
more real or present for me compared to the “real world”’ on a one to five scale, with five
indicating they agreed very strongly and one signifying that they strongly disagreed. The
majority of participants felt a certain level of telepresence (above the scale mid-point) in
the media environment (M = 3.38, SD = 0.42). Only 3 out of 17 participants indicated a
telepresence score less than the midpoint.

Emerging themes from the virtual reality experience

The ultimate goal of an immersive media experience is for the consumer to feel like they
are actually present in the virtual world (telepresence). Several aspects of the VR experi-
ence – from content to device – could enhance or detract from those feelings of
telepresence. Through our in-depth interviews, two major findings emerged about creat-
ing this feeling of telepresence: desire to control surroundings, and the perceived con-
nection between the real and virtual worlds. We also report findings related to possible
negative effects of the VR technology (i.e., sickness).

User control
Participants made notes of the added control they felt in viewing different aspects of the
scene by moving their heads, but also a distinct lack of control by not being able to select
or skip a certain scene. Past studies found that giving users more active control of their
virtual experiences will enhance the interactivity of the experience and lead to higher
satisfaction (Faiola et al. 2013; Li, Daugherty, and Biocca 2002; Papagiannidis, See-To, and
Bourlakis 2014). After the participants tried the VR experience, many expressed their
satisfaction of having a certain level of control in the environment they had not experi-
enced before. For example, Participant 5 said the most compelling part of the experience
was ‘just the fact that you [felt] immersed in the environment and that you [had] the
ability to control what you [were] looking at – it [was] not controlled for you like in a
regular 2D video.’

Microcosm between real world and virtual world

As participants were asked to think about their previous experiences with VR and consider
the example provided during the interview, findings revealed an interplay between
perceptions of how the physical world and the virtual world are connected and
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 371

interacting. VR can create a unique microcosm for users, which allows them to explore a
virtual environment, and compare it with life in the real world. Interestingly, most
interviewees often tried to draw on previous references from real life to seek comfort
and familiarity in the virtual world. Therefore, the stage of microcosm serves as a transition
from the real world to the virtual world where users adjust their conceptions of self and
their places in the virtual world, perhaps similar to the ‘departure’ aspect of telepresence.
This observation corresponds to what Kim and Biocca (1997) proposed: users may be
maintaining two separate but interacting systems of thinking of both the physical world
and virtual world. They might feel a certain level of telepresence but are not completely
removed from the physical environment. During the interview, we found there was a
certain satisfaction felt when interviewees recognized places shown in the VR experience
that they had seen in the real world. For example, participant 15 stated, ‘It was fun seeing
all the places I’ve been before!’ Meanwhile, some felt they wanted to visit places shown in
the virtual world in the future. More important, several interviewees felt that a virtual
experience allowed them to see something or go to somewhere they could not go in the
real world. Participant 5 mentioned that, ‘If it’s something that is unsafe or it’s just not
possible in the [real] environment for whatever reason, like dinosaurs . . . now we can do
that with virtual reality’.

Feeling sick
Before conducting this study, we were wary of the possible risks we might encounter
when showing participants an actual VR experience (e.g., Nichols and Patel 2002). A few
participants also stated that they were worried about or had felt dizzy or sick from VR. For
example, participant 1 reported, ‘Well I know the [VR] video games are out now and I say
that’s pretty cool, almost scary, and a little nauseating.’ Participant 5 also mentioned, ‘I
practically get sick. And it was the mathematician that had an app inside of the Cave [A VR
experience] that was showing multidimensional space and . . . I was trying to follow it . . . ’
Participants were asked to complete the Simulator Sickness scale (Kennedy et al. 1993),
which is a commonly used measure for assessing negative effects in VR environments (e.
g., Lin et al. 2002), after they finished the VR experience. Participants indicated the degree
to which they experienced several symptoms after the VR experience such as ‘blurred
vision’ and ‘vertigo’ on a scale from none (0) to severe (3). Overall, seven participants
mentioned that they had difficulty focusing, which may have been due to the participant’s
perception or the resolution of the VR experience. A few participants also mentioned that
they felt slight ‘fullness of the head’, ‘dizziness with eyes closed’, and ‘stomach awareness’
during the interview. Nobody indicated ‘severe’ on any of the 16 items. ‘Moderate’
severity was indicated only for one subject for each of these items: ‘general discomfort,’
‘eye strain,’ and ‘blurred vision’. Nobody had ‘salivation increasing,’ or ‘burping’. Overall,
the scores appear to be low on the factors of nausea and oculo-motor symptoms.

Ramifications for marketing and communications

Virtual reality technology offers the opportunity to engage with consumers in a unique
way as the sales of virtual reality headsets have grown and content options have
expanded. While the example provided in this interview-based study demonstrated
one way to utilize virtual reality as an advertising opportunity, participants offered
ideas of the variety of ways that brands could engage with VR. Participant 2 suggested
372 J. SHEN ET AL.

that ‘a car company could take a tour of the facilities or a power tools company that
made chainsaws.’ Participant 1 stated that ‘tourism is the obvious one. But even then
you’ve got product placement kind of stuff, you’ve got all kinds of opportunities’. Other
than virtual tour and product placement, taking people on virtual test driving using VR
seems promising, as Participant 16 suggested that ‘you could be in the car, drive the
car’. Participants highlighted numerous areas of industry that could make use of virtual
reality technology, including medical treatment, tourism, education, journalism, and
marketing.

Discussion
This study was among the first to explore audience perceptions of VR before and after a
VR campus tour brand experience. We found that experience with VR was relatively low
among our mixed group of participants. After trying the experience, the participants
displayed few negative perceptions (e.g., not much sickness according to self-reports on
the simulator sickness scale) and a relatively mid-high level of positive results (e.g.,
telepresence). Participants liked the control afforded with the VR technology but desired
even greater control in choosing the scene or future direction. They wanted to escape
from reality via telepresence in a microcosm or virtual world. Participants also saw
promise of VR for several brand experiences from tourism to factory tours to test drives.
This research, although descriptive, adds to our knowledge of ways that audiences
perceive virtual reality and offers advertisers specific avenues for VR content creation.
For Study 1, we used Oculus Rift CV1 as the only VR device, which is believed to be able to
offer a relatively high level of system immersion at the time of the study, but there are
other types of VR device that are more accessible to consumers which vary in system
immersion level. Therefore, we focused on whether and how different levels of system
immersion might influence the perceived level of telepresence and persuasion effective-
ness in Study 2.

Study 2
In Study 1, all participants interacted with the VR campus tour using the Oculus Rift CV1,
the first-generation VR device targeted to general consumers manufactured by Oculus VR.
Most participants experienced heightened telepresence and expressed strong interest in
the branded content. Yet, the Oculus Rift, like other head-mounted VR devices, is bulky
and somewhat uncomfortable to wear; some experts have referred to this problem as one
of the ‘key historical drawbacks for the industry’ (Vanian 2017). In addition, high-end VR
equipment such as the Oculus Rift is too expensive for average consumers and mass
marketing, making affordability and accessibility additional obstacles to the wider appli-
cations of VR technology (Neiger 2016). In Study 2, we wanted to examine why and how
different VR devices might influence the perception of telepresence and persuasion
effectiveness of the same university brand promotional content using three devices:
Oculus Rift DK2 (Development Kit 2)1, Google Cardboard with an iPhone, and iPhone
only (Rupp et al. 2016). These devices vary in system immersion but can play the same
video content and navigate via head movement2, which is discussed next.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 373

Examining system immersion: the impact of devices on telepresence

Technology can enhance audience perception of the content or stories. VR technology
produces higher immersion and telepresence, which lead audience members to feel a
stronger sense of being in another location when watching content and utilizing services
(Kishore et al. 2016; Shin and Biocca 2018). In the VR context, immersion is defined as a
perception of being physically present in a non-physical world, which is enhanced by
images, sound, and other stimuli that provide an overall engrossing environment (Shin
2017). It is noteworthy that one can experience telepresence and immersion in both 2D (e.g.,
traditional television, interactive television, gaming) and 3D (e.g., 3D advertising, virtual
reality) media environments. In fact, telepresence and immersion can be experienced in
almost all types of media, in varying degrees (Reeves and Nass 1996). Due to the difference
in contexts, the definitions of telepresence and immersion also vary. For instance, Kim and
Biocca (1997) define telepresence in a television context as a ‘feeling of being part of the
environment created by television and not being part of the physical environment surround-
ing the viewer and the television set’. More recent literature investigates the impact of
telepresence in the VR context. Their definition of telepresence is focused on the virtual
or mediated environment to the extent that their stimulus field is limited to just that
environment, while the physical environment is often completely disregarded (Nah,
Eschenbrenner, and DeWester 2011). The major difference lies in (1) how immersed parti-
cipants feel when they are in a remoted environment, and (2) how real the virtually remote
environment is; as well as (3) the perceived boundary and awareness of the physical
environment. A more traditional view of immersion (e.g., Slater 1999; Nicovich, Boller, and
Cornwell 2005; Bowman and McMahan 2007) tends to consider it as a technology-depen-
dent factor and represents an objective level of sensory fidelity that a VR system provides.
However, more recently, scholars suggest that the meaning of immersion depends on user
traits and context, and the function of immersion also strongly depends on users’ sense-
making and intention (Reinhard and Dervin 2012; Shin and Biocca 2018; Shin 2018).
As a whole, telepresence and immersion are conceptually similar but operationally
different. Telepresence can be viewed as a state of mind, whereas immersion is a
sensory experience in time (Shin 2019). To avoid any misconception or confusion, we
introduce a construct created by Slater (1999) called system immersion. System immer-
sion is defined as ‘the extent to which the actual system delivers a surrounding
environment, one which shuts out sensations from the real world, which accommo-
dates many sensory modalities, has rich representational capacity and so on’ (Slater
1999, 560). System immersion is basically the affordance of different VR devices. For
example, the CAVE automatic virtual environment is technology with high system
immersion. It provides a virtual room with projectors directed to six of the walls.
Users who experience VR in this space are physically in the virtual environment and
completely isolated from the physical world. The Oculus Rift DK2, on the other hand, is
a head-mounted display that blocks users’ eyes and ears. However, the user is still
standing in the physical world and can experience the smell and feel from the physical
world. Each device falls into a continuum of system immersion where mobile phones,
cardboard devices, and head-mounted devices vary from less to more immersive
(Cummings and Bailenson 2016; Van Damme et al. 2019).
374 J. SHEN ET AL.

According to Mujber and colleagues (2004), there are three categories of VR systems,
ranked by degrees of system immersion into the mediated world: non-immersive
(Desktop) systems, semi-immersive projection systems, and fully immersive systems.
Other scholars have also discussed how devices vary in the degree to which they can
‘captivate the senses’ and block out real-world stimuli (Biocca and Delaney 1995, 57).
System immersion stands for what the technology delivers from an objective point of
view (Slater 2003). Therefore, the more that a system delivers displays and tracking that
preserves fidelity in relation to their equivalent real-world sensory modalities, the more
‘immersive’ the system. System immersion has many components, including field of view
(FOV), field of regard (FOR), display size, display resolution, stereoscopy, head-based
rendering, realism of lighting, frame rate, and refresh rate (see more detailed information
in Bowman and McMahan 2007). In summary, though immersion depends on human
perceptions, system immersion is a construct that relies on the system capabilities and
can be objectively assessed.
In the current study, Oculus Rift DK2 was used as representative of a high system
immersion device, Google cardboard plus smartphone was used as a medium system
immersion device, and a smartphone that supports 360° video was used as a low system
immersion device3. Some of the previous literature suggests that when a device has high
system immersion, users are more likely to experience a high level of telepresence. For
instance, Dinh et al. (1999) conducted a study where participants were invited to explore
the virtual environment. In addition to visual and audio cues, the device also provided
sensory cues, so that participants could smell coffee when they see the coffee machine in
the virtual world. The study found that participants who had a high system immersion
device reported significantly higher telepresence.
In the context of a news story, Van Damme et al. (2019) showed that a higher level of
system immersion led to a higher level of presence (i.e., telepresence) when they com-
pared those who watched the content on a cardboard or head-mounted display versus a
laptop. However, the scholars did not find any differences between the effects of the
system immersion on the news experience between cardboard and head-mounted VR
devices. Papachristos, Vrellis, and Mikropoulos (2017) also examined the effect of system
immersion on levels of spatial presence and learning outcomes. Their comparison,
between an Oculus Rift and a low-cost smartphone VR headset, revealed no differences
in the variables studied (e.g., spatial presence, simulator sickness, learning outcome). They
contended that the mobile-based VR systems could provide an acceptable level of
immersive user experience and contribute to the pedagogical use of VR.
Highly immersive VR systems such as Oculus Rift may help users experience a high
degree of telepresence as we noted in Study 1, but the devices also demand technical
knowledge and financial commitment from the users (Parisi 2015). Economical mobile VR
solutions such as Google Cardboard can turn consumers’ existing smartphones into a
simple VR headset at a fraction of the price. This device represents a low-cost alternative
that provides a ‘first taste’ of VR for consumers. Google Cardboard differs from traditional
HMDs in design, construction materials, optics, and reliance on smartphones (Chessa et al.
2016), except that the cardboard approach to stereo rendering is similar to that of Oculus
Rift – it is a distorted, 90-degree horizontal field of view. The potential for smartphone VR
devices is tremendous due to the rapid increase in the number of smartphone users
globally (Amin et al. 2016). Major streaming video platforms such as YouTube are also
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 375

equipped with 360-degree video playing capacity where users can watch panorama
videos through their smartphone. Impressive as such cheaper alternatives may be, mobile
headsets such as Google Cardboard and 360-degree videos on smartphones cannot
capture the potential and new affordances of VR technologies. First, Google Cardboard
can cause discomfort as its rough edge pokes the user’s nose bridge (Perla and
Hebbalaguppe 2017), and it is not designed for long periods of use. Second, the viewing
experience offered by Cardboard is not fully immersive: much of the content available for
Cardboard is non-interactive 360-degree videos (Moynihan 2016).
In consideration of both merits and demerits of high-end and low-end VR devices, a
few studies have investigated the impact of different VR devices on various aspects of
consumers’ overall experience (Rupp et al. 2016; Van Damme et al. 2019). The overall
findings are that the more advanced the device was, the greater the feelings of immer-
siveness and telepresence there were. To sum up, the positive association between level of
system immersion and level of telepresence is corroborated in some past studies.
Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1: A higher level of system immersion will lead to a higher sense of telepresence in the
campus tour brand experience.

In other words, we expect that exposure to the campus VR experience through the
Oculus Rift will elicit a significantly higher level of perceived telepresence than in the
Google Cardboard condition or the smartphone condition.

The effects of system immersion and telepresence on recall

Research has shown that immersive and engaging content can help to facilitate recall of
the material (e.g., Kim and Biocca 1997). However, while there is some evidence support-
ing the view that an increased level of telepresence instigated through virtual environ-
ments can improve users’ focus of attention and the memory of target information
presented during the experience (e.g., Bailey et al. 2012: VR; Besharat et al. 2013: digital
game; Keng and Lin 2006: online advertising; Kim and Biocca 1997: TV), previous research
has also found negative effects of telepresence on brand recall, especially in digital game
environments (e.g., Grigorovici and Constantin 2004; Nelson, Yaros, and Keum 2006). In a
VR environment, Rupp et al. (2016) also found that greater reported feelings of telepre-
sence led to less information recalled. The negative relationship between telepresence
and memory might be explained by theories of cognitive load (Sweller 1988; Paas, Renkl,
and Sweller 2003; Feng and Xie 2019): the greater level of perceived immersion and
telepresence entails an intensive investment of cognitive capacity allocated to the main
task, which may leave a lower cognitive capacity for the consumer to remember other,
more peripheral information cues in the content. Nevertheless, previous research has also
demonstrated that the rich, interactive, and engaging presentation of persuasive informa-
tion can enhance brand memory when the brand information is considered to be focal in
the virtual content (Kim and Biocca 1997; Jiang and Benbasat 2007).
In summary, the literature is mixed with respect to the relationship between telepre-
sence and memory. Past studies seem to suggest that perceived telepresence has a
negative impact on the recall of peripheral elements but has a positive impact on the
376 J. SHEN ET AL.

recall of central elements in the same mediated experience. In the current study, we used
the same virtual campus tour as the university branding content and asked participants
through a free recall measure to list the names of the 10 locations (e.g., business building,
campus recreation, etc.) that appeared in the video. Since it was difficult to distinguish
whether the name of each location was a peripheral or central part of the content, we did
not hypothesize the direction of the effect. Without further studies investigating recall of
content across devices and with system immersion in mind, we pose a nondirectional
hypothesis (Creswell 2009) instead of a directional one. Thus, we predict that:

H2: System immersion (i.e., different VR devices) and levels of telepresence will impact
participants’ recall of information in the 360-degree virtual campus tour.

Effects of systematic immersion on persuasion via telepresence

Virtual reality and 360-degree videos offer media richness (i.e., high levels of quality and
volume of content in a mediated environment; Suh and Lee 2005) and interactivity (i.e.,
high level of user ability to manipulate the form and content of a mediated environment
in real time; Steuer 1992). Through these features, VR can generate compelling feelings of
telepresence as demonstrated in past research (Biocca 1997; Kim and Ko 2019) and in our
Study 1. Telepresence has been associated with positive feelings for the branded content
in a video game (e.g., Nelson, Yaros, and Keum 2006), more favorable attitudes toward the
advertising (Spielmann and Mantonakis 2018), increased positive thoughts about the
content (Cauberghe, Geuens, and De Pelsmacker 2011), and increased enjoyment in a
news story (Van Damme et al. 2019). In our study, we expect that a higher level of
telepresence experienced within the campus tour will also result in more favorable
persuasion outcomes:

H3: A higher level of perceived telepresence will be positively related to greater intentions
of recommending the target brand (university) to others.

Method
The study used a between subjects post-test only 1 (viewing a 360-degree video) by 3
(system immersion devices: iPhone 6, Google Cardboard + iPhone 6, Oculus Rift DK2)
experimental design to examine the impact of different VR devices on perceived tele-
presence and memory and persuasive effects (behavioral intentions) of viewing a promo-
tional 3-D video for a university campus.
Participants were randomly assigned to view the same promotional 360-degree col-
lege campus tour video used in Study 1 on one of the three devices (see Figure 1).
Participants in the smartphone-only condition watched the 360-degree video using an
iPhone 6 running iOS 10.1.1. Its dimensions were: 138.1 mm (height) × 67.7 mm (width) ×
6.9 mm (depth). Participants in the Google Cardboard + iPhone 6 condition used a
standard cardboard viewer v.1 paired with the same iPhone 6 in the smartphone-only
condition. Finally, participants in the Oculus Rift condition wore a DK2 headset. The DK2
provides a resolution of 960 × 1080 px per eye at a refresh rate of 75 Hz and a 100° field of
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 377

Figure 1. Study 2: three VR devices used in the experiment. Left: iPhone 6 plus; upper right: google
cardboard; lower right: oculus rift dk2.

view. The DK2 also uses low latency positional tracking to increase parity between
participant head movements and the display of the virtual reality.

Participants and procedure

Seventy-nine participants (63% female, age Mean = 25.22, SD = 8.21) were recruited
from an online weekly staff announcement in a large Midwestern U.S. university; 75% of
participants were students and 23% were faculty or staff in the university. They were
paid a $10 Amazon gift card for their participation. The stimulus used in the study was
the same eight-minute 360-degree virtual university campus tour as was used in Study
1. The study was approved by the university research ethics board. After signing the
content form, participants viewed the video after which they completed the survey. The
entire procedure lasted about 20 min. Participants first answered a free recall question
asking them to list the places in the tour, then they indicated their perception of
telepresence, behavioral intention to recommend the campus, and finally, questions
assessing familiarity of the campus locations and past experience using VR and demo-
graphic questions.
378 J. SHEN ET AL.

Dependent measures
Perceived telepresence (α = .84, M = 4.10, SD = .77) was measured by Kim and
Biocca (1997) as it was in Study 1. Persuasion variables included participants’
intentions of recommending the university to others, which were measured by a set
of items adapted from Chon (1991), Kim and Kerstetter (2016), and Spears and
Singh (2004). To measure behavioral intentions (α = .81), participants were asked to
indicate their agreement on four statements such as ‘I would recommend the
university to someone else’ on a one to seven scale (anchors = ‘strongly disagree’
and ‘strongly agree’).
To assess participants’ unaided recall of the target information, they were asked
to list as many places as they could remember from the virtual campus tour. For
each participant, we counted the number of places recalled to calculate the ‘recall’
score. Thus, the highest recall could be 10 and the lowest recall a 0. Overall, the
mean number of locations recalled was 7.8 (SD = 1.25). Since the familiarity with
the mediated environment may affect perceived telepresence and recall (Witmer
and Singer 1998), we also measured familiarity by asking participants to report
whether they have been to each of the locations in the VR experience (Freeman,
Lessiter, and IJsselsteijn 2001). For each participant, we counted the number of
places they have been to and this total became their ‘familiarity’ score. See Table 3
for descriptive statistics of average familiarity scores in each device condition. A
one-way ANOVA was conducted and showed that there was no significant differ-
ence in average familiarity across device conditions, F[2, 75] = .611, p = .545.
Demographic variables including age and gender were also measured. We also
asked whether the participants had experience with VR before with four levels of
usage (i.e., ‘No, this is the first time I have used a VR headset’; ‘Yes, I have used a VR
headset once before’; ‘Yes, I have used a VR headset for several times’; and ‘Yes, I
often use VR headsets’) to control for a possible novelty effect of the technology.
See Table 3 for descriptive statistics of past experience in VR usage in each device
condition and one-way ANOVA results of the pairwise comparisons. A one-way
ANOVA was conducted and showed that there was no significant difference in past
experience with VR across device conditions, F[2, 76] = 1.062, p = .351.

Table 3. Study 2: descriptive statistics of past experience of VR usage and familiarity with the campus
across and within device conditions.
Conditions
Measured Variables Overall Smartphone Google Cardboard Oculus Rift
Past Experience of VR usage (1) Never 24(30.4%) 7(25%) 8(32%) 9(34.6%)
(2) Once 32(40.5%) 10(35.7%) 13(52%) 9(34.6%)
(3) Several times 20(25.3%) 10(35.7%) 4(16%) 6(23.1%)
(4) Often 3(3.8%) 1(3.6%) 0(0%) 2(7.7%)
Familiarity with Campus 7.32(1.134) 7.39(1.45) 7.08(1.32) 7.48(1.26)
Parenthesis indicates either percentage or standard deviation.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 379

Results
Preliminary analyses
First, we tested the assumption of normality and found that the values of perceived tele-
presence were a little skewed, but overall were normally distributed (skewness = −.626;
Kurtosis = −.386). We also tested the assumption of homogeneity by running the Levene’s
Test. The result showed that the Levene’s Test was not significant (F[2,75] = 1.844, p = .165);
thus, the assumption of homogeneity was not violated. See Table 4 for descriptive statistics of
the main variables in each device condition.

Effect of system immersion on telepresence

We hypothesized that a higher level of system immersion would lead to a higher sense
of telepresence (H1). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of
system immersion on perceived telepresence. Essentially, we compared the level of
telepresence by device condition (mobile phone, Google Cardboard, Oculus Rift). The
result showed no significant difference in perceived telepresence across levels of
system immersion, F [2,76] = .321, p = .727. To control for a potential novelty or
familiarity effect, we then conducted two ANCOVAs to examine the main effect of
system immersion on telepresence after controlling for past VR experience and famil-
iarity with the campus separately. The results did not yield significant findings, either.
Thus, H1 was not supported.

Effects of telepresence on behavioral intentions

We hypothesized that a higher level of perceived telepresence would be positively
related to intentions of recommending the target brand (university) to others (H2). A
simple regression of behavioral intentions by perceived telepresence showed that
perceived telepresence was a significant and positive predictor of behavioral inten-
tions (R2 = .069, F [1,77] = 5.71, β = .263, MSE = .871, p = .019). H2 was supported.
Similarly, to control for a potential novelty effect and familiarity effect, we conducted
two multiple regression analyses by adding either past VR experience or familiarity
with the campus, respectively, to the aforementioned simple regression model. The
results showed that after adding past VR experience, perceived telepresence was still
a significant and positive predictor of behavioral intentions (β = .25, t= 2.24, p =
.028). The similar result was observed after adding familiarity with the campus:
perceived telepresence was a significant and positive predictor of behavioral inten-
tions (β = .27, t= 2.46, p = .016).

Table 4. Study 2: descriptive statistics of main variables across all conditions and in each condition.
Conditions
Measured Variables Overall Smartphone Google Cardboard Oculus Rift
Perceived Telepresence 4.10(0.77) 4.00(0.87) 4.13(0.77) 4.17(0.69)
Behavioral Intentions 6.02(0.96) 5.92(0.86) 6.17(0.90) 5.97(1.13)
Unaided Recall 7.80(1.25) 7.75(1.38) 7.88(1.01) 7.77(1.37)
Mean Scores. Parenthesis indicates standard deviation.
380 J. SHEN ET AL.

Effects of system immersion and telepresence on recall

In a research question, we asked how system immersion (i.e., different VR devices) and
levels of telepresence might impact the unaided recall of location information in the 360-
degree campus tour video (RQ1). First, we tested the effects of system immersion (VR
devices) on recall. The numbers of recalled locations were normally distributed according
to the histogram (Skewness = −.536; Kurtosis = .535). The result of the Levene’s Test was
not significant (F[2,75] = 2.969, p = .057). Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to
compare the effects of system immersion on unaided recall. The results showed no
significant difference in the number of recalled locations across levels of system immer-
sion (device), F [2,76] = .079, p = .924. Thus, irrespective of which device was used,
participants recalled the same amount of campus location information. The results do
not change after we conducted an ANCOVA of system immersion on recall, controlling for
past VR experience and familiarity with the campus.
Finally, to test the effects of telepresence on unaided recall, a simple linear regression
was conducted. The results showed that telepresence was a significant predictor of recall,
R2 = .05, F [1,77] = 4.058, SE = 1.514, β = −.224, p = .047. Therefore, telepresence was
negatively associated with recall.
To further investigate the relationship between telepresence and recall while ruling
out potential effects of other variables, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression
model. In the first block, we entered participants’ demographic variables, which included
age and gender, as well as past VR experience (dichotomous) and the level of familiarity
with the campus; in the second block; the dummy coded experimental conditions were
entered using the iPhone-only group as a reference (two dummy codes: Cardboard and
Oculus Rift); in the third block, the telepresence score was entered and the number of
places recalled was entered as the dependent variable (see Table 5). As can be seen,
adding telepresence resulted in a significant increase in R2 (ΔR2= .056, F [1,68] = 4.415, p =
.039). These analyses suggest that the level of telepresence had a significant but negative
effect on free recall (β = −.397, p = .039). Those who reported greater levels of telepre-
sence remembered fewer target locations during the free recall activity. The coefficients
of those variables entered in the first block were not significant.

Table 5. Study 2: summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting free recall.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Age 0.038 0.020 0.251 0.038 0.021 0.249 0.034 0.021 0.223
Gender 0.288 0.320 0.112 0.280 0.331 0.109 0.379 0.326 0.147
PastVRExperience 0.412 0.320 0.151 0.416 0.325 0.152 0.556 0.324 0.204
Familiarity_Campus −0.051 0.118 −0.055 −0.052 0.120 −0.056 −0.064 0.117 −0.069
Cardboard 0.063 0.358 0.024 0.107 0.350 0.040
Oculus Rift 0.070 0.354 0.026 0.131 0.346 0.049
Perceived Telepresence −0.397 0.189 −0.246*
R2 0.086 0.087 0.142
F for change in R2 1.668 0.024 4.415*
Female was coded as ‘1’ in Gender. Participants with past VR experience were coded as ‘1’ in Past VR Experience. iPhone
condition was dummy coded as ‘0’ in both Cardboard and Oculus conditions. All items were not centered. The results of
collinearity diagnostics showed the Tolerance of all variables were close to 1 and the VIF of all variables were smaller
than 2.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 381

Discussion
Study 2 was designed to assess whether the level of system immersion (by device
condition) influenced the way that participants experienced the same campus tour VR
content as shown in Study 1 according to levels of telepresence and to investigate
measures of brand content effectiveness according to recall of content and intentions
to recommend the campus.
The results of our experiment showed that all devices revealed an equal capacity to
create a sense of telepresence, which contradicts our predictions and some previous
findings in non-persuasion literature (Amin et al. 2016, 2017; Rupp et al. 2016). The
findings lend some credence to Van Damme et al. (2019) and Papachristos, Vrellis, and
Mikropoulos (2017) where they did not find any differences between the effects of system
immersion on news experience between cardboard and head-mounted VR devices, either.
Further, there were no significant differences in behavioral intentions of recommend-
ing the campus to others across device conditions, potentially due to a ceiling effect
(Heesacker, Petty, and Cacioppo 1983; Worchel, Andreoli, and Eason 1975). An examina-
tion of mean scores across conditions reveals generally high intentions to recommend the
campus. Moreover, the different devices did not directly impact unaided recall. In all, it
appears from this study that the system immersion did not directly impact any of the
major variables: telepresence, recall or intentions to recommend the brand. This finding
suggests that all devices were equally adept at engaging audiences in the VR content.
However, what is interesting is that the level of telepresence experienced did impact
persuasion outcomes. That is, our findings suggest that perceived telepresence impeded
the recall of location information in the virtual campus tour. This finding is congruent with
what have been found in Nelson, Yaros, and Keum (2006) and Rupp et al. (2016). The
psychological state of telepresence requires an intensive amount of cognitive resources,
which in turn, leaves less cognitive capacity for memorizing the brand-relevant informa-
tion when it is not central in viewers’ focus (Baddeley 2000; Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003).
In addition, increased telepresence was also positively related to the propensity to
recommend the campus to others.

Implications
Implications for theory building
Our research results provide several important implications for building a theoretical
framework of using virtual reality in promoting brands and enhancing consumers’ pro-
brand behavior. Study 1 adds to our knowledge of various aspects of consumers’
perceptions and expectations of virtual reality and extends our understanding of
telepresence in brand experience in addition to game playing (e.g., Nelson, Yaros,
and Keum 2006) and product displaying contexts (e.g., Li, Daugherty, and Biocca 2001),
such as its role in helping consumers to escape from reality, and the potential of
virtual tours as a persuasive online communication tool (Spielmann and Mantonakis
2018). Study 2 indicates the complexity in realization of telepresence: first, the
enhancement of system immersion and advancement of VR device do not necessarily
trigger a higher level of telepresence, which most previous literature in telepresence
382 J. SHEN ET AL.

might suggest (Amin et al. 2016, 2017; Rupp et al. 2016). This result might not be
surprising because past findings also suggest that more immersive interfaces do not
necessarily enhance the sense of engagement or satisfaction (e.g., Trentini 2015;
Hamari et al. 2016; Burns and Fairclough 2015) or higher behavioral intentions (e.g.,
Van Damme et al. 2019). In our study, viewing the same content (i.e., virtual campus
tour) using three devices with different levels of system immersion actually led to a
similar level of perceived telepresence. As Shin (2019) points out, ‘Users’ perceived
immersion may be different from technological immersion’ (p. 307). And telepresence,
as a double-edged sword, plays a key role in persuasion in the VR environment: it
leads to higher behavioral intentions of recommendation, but poorer performance in
recall. It is also important to note the distance between system immersion and
telepresence in their conceptualization: system immersion focus itself on the devices
that deliver VR content (Slater 1999; Van Damme et al. 2019), whereas telepresence is
the experience of having a sensation of being in a remote environment that emerges in
the human brain (Slater 2009).
Thus, there might be at least two crucial theoretical concerns that are missing in the
current research: first, users’ traits and their cognition, interaction, and subjective experi-
ence (Shin 2018; Shin and Biocca 2018). This notion is in line with a series of other authors
who also argue for the relevance of user factors in the formation of telepresence (e.g.,
Wirth et al. 2007; IJsselsteijn 2002). Second, the nature of VR content is of central
importance in the process as well. Most previous literature only focused on exploring
how system immersion (VR devices) creates a feeling of telepresence but overlooks the
impact of VR content quality. Our studies contribute to the understanding of when and
how system immersion or VR devices matter. Study 2 suggests that higher level of system
immersion alone does not necessarily lead to higher level of telepresence without
equipping with high-quality, immersive, and interactive VR content. The elevation of
system immersion would be largely mitigated by non-interactive VR content (e.g., 360-
degree video). For instance, Feng, Xie, and Lou (2019) found that 360-degree video
advertisements did not outperform 2D advertisements in terms of spatial presence. Our
research suggests that both device and content matter. Steuer (1992) stated that vivid-
ness and interactivity are two determinants of telepresence. The increase of vividness and
interactivity depends on both device and content. Future studies need to explore differ-
ent kinds of content (e.g., interactive vs. non-interactive) across different levels of system
immersion.

Implications for marketing practice

Two barriers exist for an expansion of efforts to use virtual reality in branding: (1)
affordability and mass dissemination of viewing devices (Parisi 2015; Amin et al. 2016);
and (2) availability of relevant content. Our results suggest that even a mobile phone or
mobile phone and simple cardboard device can instill a sense of telepresence (feeling of
being there) in consumers and can positively influence persuasion processes. While
previous research has shown that VR could generate compelling feelings of telepresence
(Biocca 1997; Nah, Eschenbrenner, and DeWester 2011), which have been associated with
more positive feelings for embedded brand content (e.g., Nelson, Yaros, and Keum 2006;
Algharabat et al. 2018), marketers should carefully consider the application of VR in
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 383

advertising before making budgetary and creative commitments. Our results suggest that
creating impressive and immersive content that evokes brand engagement is the top
priority for brands.
Our study used a virtual campus tour as a way to promote a university brand and
explored the effectiveness difference among devices. As more and more campuses are
creating virtual tours (Hollender 2018; Mann 2019), the content and device of virtual
reality must be strategically aligned in quality and the viewing context. As our focus has
remained in the domain of less interactive VR (e.g., 360-degree video application),
universities can consider using more interactive VR (e.g., game application with user
interface) if they have advanced VR devices that have high system immersion. The campus
tour can also include additional useful information and college life experience for pro-
spective students, such as allowing students to virtually meet advisors or practice with the
marching band (Mann 2019). Cowan and Ketron (2018) suggest that virtual reality can be
effective for enhancing consumer engagement depending on levels of product involve-
ment: when consumers have high involvement, marketers need to focus on balancing
product knowledge load and sensory information in order to maximize consumers’
imagination and co-creation, whereas when consumers have low involvement, marketers
can adopt less tangible strategies, which should lead to indirect attitude and intention
change through the process of interactivity.
The 360-video created for these studies required a multidisciplinary team to create
appropriate content. Therefore, marketers should consider what kinds of 360 video could
be appealing and effective enough for their brands to invest money on virtual reality. Our
study delivers an overall positive message that strongly experiential brands and industries
(e.g., university brands, travel agencies, hotel brands) might be a better fit with VR
technology due to its immersive and interactive nature. VR technology would be of
great help to attract consumers who would like to have either a substitute experience
or an enhanced experience. The results also send out an alert that even though tele-
presence was a positive predictor of intentions for participants to recommend the uni-
versity brand to others, it impeded unaided recall at the same time. VR allows consumers
to simulate a direct, first-person experience of products and places. Thus, it allows a
relatively risk-free way of ‘testing’ a car or campus before doing so in real life. The clear
advantage to VR video is allowing consumers to experience and interact with the brand in
ways that are positive, such as feelings of exploration or escape from reality, whereas the
potential disadvantage to VR video is that consumers might get too engaged with the
experience itself while neglecting brand information, which marketers should also take
into consideration.

Limitations and future research

Despite the interesting findings, there are some limitations in this study. First, the video
content featured a campus tour, which was the content of interest in our study. The
studies do not reflect a comprehensive result regarding people’s perceptions of all
branded content VR experiences. Additional content and brands should be selected
and tested, especially the opportunity to test interactive and non-interactive VR experi-
ences. Second, we did not measure interviewee’s age and demographics in Study 1, which
is a factor to be explored in future studies. Younger audiences are more native in these
384 J. SHEN ET AL.

spaces and will probably expect different types of VR experiences in marketing in the
future while older audiences might have difficulty adopting VR readily (Metafacts 2017).
Third, the terminology of ‘telepresence’ might elicit some ambiguity since researchers
have defined it differently across research contexts. A future research review that clearly
defines the constructs and reviews measures associated with telepresence, presence,
spatial presence (Hartmann et al. 2013), and social presence (Shin 2013) in the marketing
and communication field would be helpful as research in VR will undoubtedly expand.
Fourth, future researchers might recruit participants from more diverse groups, especially
those who are unfamiliar with the brand. Although scholars often use existing brands in
their studies as a way to enhance external validity (Till and Shimp 1998; Low and Lamb
2000), research has shown that brand familiarity can impact results (Machleit and Wilson
1988). Thus, future research should test recall and persuasion in VR with unfamiliar and
familiar brands. Some participants in the Google Cardboard and Oculus DK2 conditions
indicated in the questionnaire that this was their first-time trying VR devices. The novelty
of VR experiences may overwhelm participants at their first attempt and affect their
reported telepresence level and performance of recall or even enhance the persuasion
aspects. Besides comparing smartphone, Google Cardboard, and Oculus Rift, adding more
traditional device such as the personal computer to the comparison could potentially lead
to more comprehensive understanding of the impact of devices. Similarly, comparing the
360° virtual campus tour to the traditional video campus tour should also be investigated
in the future in order to understand the extra benefits provided by the VR technology.
Finally, although the devices used in these studies were considered to be fairly high-end
at the time of data collection, there has been further advancement of devices, including
portable headsets such as Oculus Go. Future research could continue an exploration of
how device, immersion, and persuasion interact.
Despite these limitations, we hope our study of telepresence and persuasion and recall
of VR content across device conditions offers value to marketing communications and
helps instigate further research. Future theoretical and empirical studies should focus on
exploring moderators of telepresence and other aspects of presence (e.g., social presence)
and studying the underlying information processing strategies under different VR condi-
tions. In practice, marketers should consider carefully what kinds of VR experience could
be appealing and effective for what type of branding strategies for what purpose before
blindly chasing after the newest technological trends.

Conclusion
The current paper investigated consumers’ perceptions of VR experience and technology
and the persuasive influences of VR branded content using different VR devices. In this
section, we will provide the major take-aways from the studies. Our research suggests that
the impact of VR on brand communication and the utility of VR as an effective medium for
marketing and communication are far from straightforward. Findings of Study 1 revealed
varying levels of ‘telepresence’ through open-ended responses in the interviews and on a
telepresence scale. The VR content provided during the interview demonstrated one way
to leverage VR technology (i.e., virtual campus tour). Participants also offered various
ideas for brands to engage with VR. If brands create VR content that enhances telepre-
sence and immersion, VR technology can be an avenue of engagement that offer benefits
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 385

other traditional media cannot provide. The results of Study 2 showed that telepresence
had a negative impact on memory such that a greater level of perceived telepresence
makes consumers remember less information of advertised content (i.e., the location
name). This is consistent with Nelson, Yaros, and Keum (2006) findings supported by
cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988; Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003). Individuals need to
invest an intensive amount of cognitive resource to experience telepresence, which
leaves little resource to remember peripheral information in the video. More importantly,
Study 2 also showed that VR devices in varying level of system immersion did not
influence how much telepresence users perceived. It confirms with previous findings
that telepresence has a positive effect on persuasion (e.g., Pelet, Ettis, and Cowart 2017;
Algharabat et al. 2018; Cowan and Ketron 2018) and suggests the importance of having
high-quality content paired with VR devices in high system immersion.

Notes
1. Compared to Samsung VR Gear or Oculus Go, Oculus DK2 is less developed and advanced.
During the period of data collection of Study 2 (2017 Spring and Summer), DK2 was the only
head-mounted VR device available in the lab. Researchers who are interested in extending
this study should consider more advanced and up-to-date VR headsets.
2. To better understand the effect of device difference, we decided to control for the VR content
(i.e., the same 360-degree video). Though a 360-degree video can be played on a computer
screen as well, the navigation style is quite different from a head-mounted VR device. The
former one is navigated by moving the mouse or touchpad, the latter one is navigated by
head movement. When using a smartphone to watch 360-degree video, users navigate using
their arms and body, users’ head also need to move accordingly. Thus, we believe that
compared to a computer, a smartphone imports fewer confounds (e.g., navigation style)
and is more ideal for examining the effect of device difference.
3. Watching 360° video on the mobile phone where users can interact with the content by
navigating through their movement and moving around is different from a regular 2D
experience where users watch traditional videos or three-dimensional product display.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jie(Doreen) Shen is a Ph.D. student and research assistant in the Marketing Department at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her primary research interest is the impacts of cultural
orientation and, emotion on consumers’ self-identity and subsequent consumption behavior.
jieshen3@illinois.edu
Yanyun(Mia) Wang is a Ph.D. student at the Institute of Communications Research. She holds a B.A.
in new media study from Communication University of China and a M.S. in Advertising from the
University of Illinois. Her research interests center on virtual consumer behavior and virtual human
interaction. In particular, she is interested in how virtual reality affects the way people process
information and how virtual experiences change people’s perceptions and behavior. Her recent
research focuses on the effectiveness of advertising placement in a VR game and the impact of VR as
a tool for cross-cultural communication.
386 J. SHEN ET AL.

Chen(Crystal) Chen is a Ph.D. student in the Institute of Communications Research at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focus lies in the intersection of communication
technology and media psychology. More specifically, she is interested in the impact of different
technology affordances on users’ memory and decision-making processes.
Michelle R. Nelson is a professor in the Advertising Department at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. She studies and teaches advertising and consumer research. She has published
more than 70 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. Nelson has a continued research interest
and fascination with new technology, branding, and media.
Mike Z. Yao is an associate professor in the Advertising Department at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on the social and psychological impacts of interactive
digital media. He conducts research and writes on a variety of topics such as online behavior, digital
literacy, and computer-mediated communication. His current interest is in how users perceive and
manage personal boundaries on social media. Specifically, he examines people’s attitudes, beliefs
and self-protective behaviors related to online privacy from a psychosocial perspective by consider-
ing the influence of cognitive appraisal, social norm, and individual differences.

References
Algharabat, R., N. P. Rana, Y. K. Dwivedi, A. A. Alalwan, and Z. Qasem. 2018. “The Effect of
Telepresence, Social Presence and Involvement on Consumer Brand Engagement: An Empirical
Study of Non-Profit Organizations.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (January): 139–
149. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.011.
Amin, A., D. Gromala, X. Tong, and C. Shaw. 2016. “Immersion in Cardboard VR Compared to a
Traditional Head-Mounted Display.” In Proceedings of the International Society for Presence
Research Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Amin, A., X. Tong, D. Gromala, and C. D. Shaw. 2017. “Cardboard Mobile Virtual Reality as an
Approach for Pain Distraction in Clinical Settings: Comparison, Exploration and Evaluation with
Oculus Rift.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the 2017 CHI Conference Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA.
Baddeley, A. 2000. “The Episodic Buffer: A New Component of Working Memory?” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 4 (11): 417–423. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2.
Bailey, J., J. N. Bailenson, A. S. Won, J. Flora, and K. Carrie Armel. 2012. “Presence and Memory:
Immersive Virtual Reality Effects on Cued Recall.” Paper presented at the International Society for
Presence Research Annual Conference, October, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Barnes, S. 2016. “Understanding Virtual Reality in Marketing: Nature, Implications and Potential.”
SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2909100.
Bente, G., S. Rüggenberg, and N. C. Krämer. 2005. “Virtual Encounters. Creating Social Presence in
Net-Based Collaborations.” In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Presence, edited by
M. Slater. London: University College.
Besharat, A., A. Kumar, J. R. Lax, and E. J. Rydzik. 2013. “Leveraging Virtual Attribute Experience in
Video Games to Improve Brand Recall and Learning.” Journal of Advertising 42 (2–3): 170–182.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.774593.
Biocca, F. 1997. “The Cyborg’s Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments.” Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (2): JCMC324. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x.
Biocca, F., and B. Delaney. 1995. “Immersive Virtual Reality Technology.” In Communication in the Age
of Virtual Reality, edited by Frank Biocca, Mark R. Levy, 57–124. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bowman, D. A., and R. P. McMahan. 2007. “Virtual Reality: How Much Immersion Is Enough?”
Computer 40 (7): 36–43. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.257.
Boyce, C., and P. Neale. 2006. “Conducting In-Depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and
Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input.” Path Finder International 13: 2–124.
http://www2.pathfinder.org/site/DocServer/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 387

Burns, C. G., and S. H. Fairclough. 2015. “Use of Auditory Event-Related Potentials to Measure
Immersion during a Computer Game.” International Journal of Human-computer Studies 73
(January): 107–114. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.002.
Cauberghe, V., M. Geuens, and P. De Pelsmacker. 2011. “Context Effects of TV Programme-Induced
Interactivity and Telepresence on Advertising Responses.” International Journal of Advertising 30
(4): 641–663. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-4-641-663.
Chessa, M., G. Maiello, A. Borsari, and P. J. Bex. 2016. “The Perceptual Quality of the Oculus Rift for
Immersive Virtual Reality.” Human–Computer Interaction 1–32. doi:10.1080/
07370024.2016.1243478.
Chon, K.-S. 1991. “Tourism Destination Image Modification Process.” Tourism Management 12 (1):
68–72. doi:10.1016/0261-5177(91)90030-W.
Coates, G. 1992. Program from Invisible Site – A Virtual Sho, a Multimedia Performance Work Presented
by George Coates. San Francisco: Performance Works.
Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss. 1990. “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative
Criteria.” Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF00988593.
Cowan, K., and S. Ketron. November 2018. “A Dual Model of Product Involvement for Effective Virtual
Reality: The Roles of Imagination, Co-Creation, Telepresence, and Interactivity.” Journal of Business
Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.063.
Coyle, J. R., and E. Thorson. 2001. “The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in
Web Marketing Sites.” Journal of Advertising 30 (3): 65–77. doi:10.1080/
00913367.2001.10673646.
Creswell, J. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-13604-000
Cummings, J. J., and J. 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.
Dinh, H. Q., N. Walker, L. F. Hodges, C. Song, and A. Kobayashi. 1999. “Evaluating the Importance of
Multi-Sensory Input on Memory and the Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments.” In
Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality (Cat. No. 99CB36316), 222–228. doi:10.1109/VR.1999.756955.
Faiola, A., C. Newlon, M. Pfaff, and O. Smyslova. 2013. “Correlating the Effects of Flow and
Telepresence in Virtual Worlds: Enhancing Our Understanding of User Behavior in Game- Based
Learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3): 1113–1121. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.003.
Feng, Y., and Q. Xie. 2019. “Ad Creativity via Augmented Reality Technology in Online Video Ads: The
Differential Role of Novelty, Message Usefulness, and Ad-Consumer Association.” Journal of
Promotion Management 1–27. doi:10.1080/10496491.2018.1536624.
Feng, Y., Q. Xie, and C. Lou. 2019. “The Key to 360-Degree Video Advertising: An Examination of the
Degree of Narrative Structure.” Journal of Advertising 48 (2): 137–152. doi:10.1080/
00913367.2019.1585305.
Flavián, C., S. Ibáñez-Sánchez, and C. Orús. November 2018. “The Impact of Virtual, Augmented and
Mixed Reality Technologies on the Customer Experience.” Journal of Business Research.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050.
Freeman, J., J. Lessiter, and W. A. IJsselsteijn. 2001. “An Introduction to Presence: A Sense of Being
There in A Mediated Environment.” The Psychologist 14: 190–194.
Goodrich, K., K. Swani, and J. Munch. 2018. “How to Connect with Your Best Student Prospects:
Saying the Right Things, to the Right Students, in the Right Media.” Journal of Marketing
Communications 1–20. doi:10.1080/13527266.2018.1514319.
Greenbaum, P. 1992. “The Lawnmower.” Film and Video 9 (3): 58–62.
Grigorovici, D. M., and C. D. Constantin. 2004. “Experiencing Interactive Advertising beyond Rich
Media: Impacts of Ad Type and Presence on Brand Effectiveness in 3D Gaming Immersive Virtual
Environments.” Journal of Interactive Advertising 5 (1): 22–36. doi:10.1080/
15252019.2004.10722091.
Hamari, J., D. J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, J. Asbell-Clarke, and T. Edwards. 2016. “Challenging
Games Help Students Learn: An Empirical Study on Engagement, Flow and Immersion in Game-
388 J. SHEN ET AL.

Based Learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 54 (January): 170–179. doi:10.1016/j.

chb.2015.07.045.
Hartmann, T., C. Klimmt, and P. Vorderer. 2010. “Telepresence and Media Entertainment.” In
Immersed in Media. Telepresence in Everyday Life, edited by C. Bracken and P. Skalski, 137–157.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hartmann, T., W. Wirth, P. Vorderer, C. Klimmt, H. Schramm, and B. Saskia. 2013. “Spatial Presence
Theory: State of the Art and Challenges Ahead.” In Immersed in Media, edited by M. Lombard, F.
Biocca, J. Freeman, W. IJsselsteijn, and R. J. Schaevitz, 115–135. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10190-37.
Heesacker, M., R. E. Petty, and J. T. Cacioppo. 1983. “Field Dependence and Attitude Change: Source
Credibility Can Alter Persuasion by Affecting Message-Relevant Thinking.” Journal of Personality
51 (4): 653–666. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.
Heeter, C. 1992. “Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence.” Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments 1 (2): 262–271. doi:10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262.
Hendrix, C., and W. Barfield. 1995. “Presence in Virtual Environments as a Function of Visual and
Auditory Cues.” In Proceedings Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium ’95, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA, 74–82.
Hollender, A. 2018. “How VR Is Changing College Tours.” VRScout. Accessed 4 December 2018.
https://vrscout.com/news/how-vr-is-changing-college-tours/
Hopkins, C. D., M. A. Raymond, and A. Mitra. August 2016. “Consumer Responses to Perceived
Telepresence in the Online Advertising Environment: The Moderating Role of Involvement:.”
Marketing Theory. doi:10.1177/1470593104044090.
IJsselsteijn, W. A. 2002. “Elements of a Multi-Level Theory of Presence: Phenomenology, Mental
Processing and Neural Correlates.” In Proceedings of PRESENCE 2002, 245–259. Porto, Portugal, 9–
11 October 2002. PRESENCE.
IJsselsteijn, W. A. 2005. “History of Telepresence.” In 3D Videocommunication : Algorithms, Concepts
and Real-Time Systems in Human Centred Communication, edited by O. Schreer, P. Kauff, and T.
Sikora, 7–21. New Jersey: Wiley. https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/history-of-telepresence
IJsselsteijn, W. A., H. de Ridder, J. Freeman, and S. E. Avons. 2000. “Presence: Concept, Determinants,
and Measurement.” Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V 3959: 520–529. International Society
for Optics and Photonics. doi:10.1117/12.387188.
Jiang, Z. (Jack), and I. Benbasat. 2007. “The Effects of Presentation Formats and Task Complexity on
Online Consumers’ Product Understanding.” MIS Quarterly 31 (3): 475–500. doi:10.2307/
25148804.
Keng, C.-J., and H.-Y. Lin. 2006. “Impact of Telepresence Levels on Internet Advertising Effects.”
CyberPsychology & Behavior 9 (1): 82–94. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.82.
Kennedy, R. S., N. E. Lane, K. S. Berbaum, and M. G. Lilienthal. 1993. “Simulator Sickness
Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness.” The International
Journal of Aviation Psychology 3 (3): 203–220. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3.
Kim, D., and Y. J. Ko. 2019. “The Impact of Virtual Reality (VR) Technology on Sport Spectators’ Flow
Experience and Satisfaction.” Computers in Human Behavior 93: 346–356. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2018.12.040.
Kim, J., and D. L. Kerstetter. 2016. “Multisensory Processing Impacts on Destination Image and
Willingness to Visit.” International Journal of Tourism Research 18 (1): 52–61. doi:10.1002/
jtr.2032.
Kim, J., S. J. (Grace) Ahn, E. S. Kwon, and L. N. Reid. 2017. “TV Advertising Engagement as a State of
Immersion and Presence.” Journal of Business Research 76 (July): 67–76. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2017.03.001.
Kim, T., and F. Biocca. 1997. “Telepresence via Television: Two Dimensions of Telepresence May Have
Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
3 (2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00073.x.
Kishore, S., X. Navarro, E. Dominguez, N. de la Pena, and M. Slater. May 2016. “Beaming into the
News: A System for and Case Study of Tele-Immersive Journalism.” IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications. doi:10.1109/MCG.2016.44.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 389

Klein, L. R. 2003. “Creating Virtual Product Experiences: The Role of Telepresence.” Journal of
Interactive Marketing 17 (1): 41–55. doi:10.1002/dir.10046.
Korolov, M. 2015. “75% of Top Brands Have VR Projects.” Accessed 17 September 2017. http://www.
hypergridbusiness.com/2015/10/75-of-top-brands-have-vr-projects/
LaValle, S. 2016. Virtual Reality. Cambridge University Press. http://vr.cs.uiuc.edu/
Lessiter, J., J. Freeman, E. Keogh, and J. Davidoff. 2001. “A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The
ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10 (3): 282–
297. doi:10.1162/105474601300343612.
Li, H., T. Daugherty, and F. Biocca. 2001. “Characteristics of Virtual Experience in Electronic
Commerce: A Protocol Analysis.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 15 (3): 13–30. doi:10.1002/
dir.1013.
Li, H., T. Daugherty, and F. Biocca. 2002. “Impact of 3-D Advertising on Product Knowledge, Brand
Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Presence.” Journal of Advertising 31 (3):
43–57. doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673675.
Lim, J., and R. Ayyagari. 2018. “Investigating the Determinants of Telepresence in the E-Commerce
Setting.” Computers in Human Behavior 85 (August): 360–371. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.024.
Lim, J., V. Grover, and R. L. Purvis. 2012. “The Consumer Choice of E-Channels as a Purchasing
Avenue: An Empirical Investigation of the Communicative Aspects of Information Quality.” IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 59 (3): 348–363. doi:10.1109/TEM.2011.2164802.
Lin, J., H. Jeng-Weei, B.-L. Duh, D. E. Parker, H. Abi-Rached, and T. A. Furness. 2002. “Effects of Field of
View on Presence, Enjoyment, Memory, and Simulator Sickness in a Virtual Environment.” In
Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2002, 164–171. doi:10.1109/VR.2002.996519.
Lombard, M., and J. Snyder-Duch. 2001. “Interactive Advertising and Presence.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 1 (2): 56–65. doi:10.1080/15252019.2001.10722051.
Low, G. S., and C. W. Lamb Jr. 2000. “The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand Associations.”
Journal of Product and Brand Management 9 (6): 350–368. doi:10.1108/10610420010356966.
Luber, A. 2016. “What Virtual Reality Will Mean for Advertising.” Accessed 18 March 2017. https://
www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/virtual-reality-advertising.html
Machleit, K. A., and R. D. Wilson. 1988. “Emotional Feelings and Attitude toward the Advertisement:
The Roles of Brand Familiarity and Repetition.” Journal of Advertising 17 (3): 27–35. doi:10.1080/
00913367.1988.10673121.
Mann, B. 2019. “Can Campus Tours in Virtual Reality Improve College Access? - EdSurge News.”
EdSurge. Accessed 1 April 2019. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-04-01-can-campus-tours-
in-virtual-reality-improve-college-access
Martindale, A. 2015. “The Brands Leading the Way with Oculus Rift Experiences.” Accessed 17
September 2017. http://www.simpleusability.com/beinspired/2015/01/brands-leading-with-ocu
lus-rift/
Metafacts. 2017. “Is There an Age Skew for Using VR Headsets?” Technologyuser. https://technolo
gyuser.com/2017/02/02/age-skew-vr-headsets-metafaqs/
Minsky, M. 1980. “Telepresence.” OMNI Magazine, June. https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
papers/Telepresence.html.
Mollen, A., and H. Wilson. 2010. “Engagement, Telepresence and Interactivity in Online Consumer
Experience: Reconciling Scholastic and Managerial Perspectives.” Journal of Business Research 63
(9–10): 919–925. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014.
Moynihan, T. 2016. “Everything You Need to Know before Buying a VR Headset.” Wired. Accessed 18
January. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/everything-need-know-buying-vr-headset/
Mujber, T. S., T. Szecsi, and M. S. Hashmi. 2004. “Virtual Reality Applications in Manufacturing Process
Simulation.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155: 1834–1838. doi:10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2004.04.401.
Muzellec, L., T. Lynn, and M. Lambkin. 2012. “Branding in Fictional and Virtual Environments:
Introducing a New Conceptual Domain and Research Agenda.” European Journal of Marketing
46 (6): 811–826. doi:10.1108/03090561211214618.
390 J. SHEN ET AL.

Nah, F. F., B. Eschenbrenner, and D. DeWester. 2011. “Enhancing Brand Equity through Flow and
Telepresence: A Comparison of 2D and 3D Virtual Worlds.” MIS Quarterly 35 (3): 731. doi:10.2307/
23042806.
Neiger, C. 2016. “Virtual Reality Is Too Expensive for Most People — But That’s about to Change.”
Accessed 23 January. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-virtual-reality-so-expensive-2016-9
Nelson, M. R., R. A. Yaros, and H. Keum. 2006. “Examining the Influence of Telepresence on Spectator
and Player Processing of Real and Fictitious Brands in A Computer Game.” Journal of Advertising
35 (4): 87–99. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367350406.
Nguyen, E. 2019. “In 2019, I Hope You’ll Stop Waiting For Your Life To Begin.” Accessed 24 January.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/ellen-nguyen/2018/12/in-2019-i-hope-youll-stop-waiting-for-your-
life-to-begin/
Nichols, S., and H. Patel. 2002. “Health and Safety Implications of Virtual Reality: A Review of
Empirical Evidence.” Applied Ergonomics, Fundamental Reviews in Applied Ergonomics 33 (3):
251–271. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00020-0.
Nicovich, S. G., G. W. Boller, and T. B. Cornwell. 2005. “Experienced Presence within Computer-
Mediated Communications: Initial Explorations on the Effects of Gender with respect to Empathy
and Immersion.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2005.tb00243.x.
Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, and Y.-F. Yung. 2000. “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online
Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach.” Marketing Science 19 (1): 22–42. doi:10.1287/
mksc.19.1.22.15184.
Ogara, S. O., C. E. Koh, and V. R. Prybutok. 2014. “Investigating Factors Affecting Social Presence and
User Satisfaction with Mobile Instant Messaging.” Computers in Human Behavior 36 (July): 453–
459. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.064.
Paas, F., A. Renkl, and J. Sweller. 2003. “Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent
Developments.” Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.
Papachristos, N., L. Vrellis, and T. Mikropoulos. 2017. “A Comparison between Oculus Rift and A Low-
Cost Smartphone VR Headset: Immersive User Experience and Learning.” In 2017 IEEE 17th
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). Timisoara, Romania.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8001837
Papagiannidis, S., E. See-To, and M. Bourlakis. 2014. “Virtual Test-Driving: The Impact Of Simulated
Products On Purchase Intention.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (5): 877–887.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.02.010.
Parisi, T. 2015. Learning Virtual Reality: Developing Immersive Experiences and Applications for
Desktop, Web, and Mobile. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Pelet, J.-É., S. Ettis, and K. Cowart. 2017. “Optimal Experience of Flow Enhanced by Telepresence:
Evidence from Social Media Use.” Information & Management 54 (1): 115–128. doi:10.1016/j.
im.2016.05.001.
Perla, R., and R. Hebbalaguppe. 2017. “Google Cardboard Dates Augmented Reality: Issues,
Challenges and Future Opportunities.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:1706.03851.
Petrock, V. 2019, “Virtual and Augmented Reality Users 2019.” eMarketer, March 27. Accessed May 22
2019. https://www.emarketer.com/content/virtual-and-augmented-reality-users-2019
Reeves, B., and C. Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New
Media Like Real People and Places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhard, C. D., and B. Dervin. 2012. “Comparing Situated Sense-Making Processes in Virtual Worlds:
Application of Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology to Media Reception Situations.” Convergence
18 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1177/1354856511419914.
Rheingold, H. 1991. Virtual Reality: Exploring the Brave New Technologies. New York City, NY: Simon &
Schuster Adult Publishing Group.
Roettgers, J. 2017. “Adobe Is Developing Advertising Solutions for Virtual Reality.” Accessed 24
January. http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/adobe-vr-video-advertising-1201996008/
Rooney, J. 2017. “In This Year’s Super Bowl of Technology, Intel Led the Way with A Sky Full of
Drones.” Accessed 5 January 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferrooney/2017/02/06/in-
this-years-super-bowl-of-technology-intel-led-the-way-with-a-sky-full-of-drones/#101f655768eb
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 391

Rosedale, P. 2017. “Virtual Reality: The Next Disruptor: A New Kind of Worldwide Communication.”
IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 6 (1): 48–50. doi:10.1109/MCE.2016.2614416.
Rupp, M. A., J. Kozachuk, J. R. Michaelis, K. L. Odette, J. A. Smither, and D. S. McConnell. 2016. “The
Effects of Immersiveness and Future VR Expectations on Subjective-Experiences during an
Educational 360° Video.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting 60 (1): 2108–2112. doi:10.1177/1541931213601477.
Sheridan, T. B. 1992. “Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence.” Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments 1 (1): 120–126. doi:10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.120.
Shin, D. December 2017. “How Does Immersion Work in Augmented Reality Games? A User-Centric
View of Immersion and Engagement.” Information, Communication & Society. 1–18. doi:10.1080/
1369118X.2017.1411519.
Shin, D. 2018. “Empathy and Embodied Experience in Virtual Environment: To What Extent Can
Virtual Reality Stimulate Empathy and Embodied Experience?” Computers in Human Behavior 78
(January): 64–73. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012.
Shin, D. 2019. “How Do Users Experience the Interaction with an Immersive Screen?” Computers in
Human Behavior 98 (September): 302–310. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.010.
Shin, D., and F. Biocca. 2018. “Exploring Immersive Experience in Journalism.” New Media & Society
20 (8): 2800–2823. doi:10.1177/1461444817733133.
Shin, D. 2013. “Defining Sociability and Social Presence in Social TV.” Computers in Human Behavior
29 (3): 939–947. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.006.
Slater, M. 1999. “Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence
Questionnaire.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8 (5): 560–565. doi:10.1162/
105474699566477.
Slater, M. 2002. “Presence and the Sixth Sense.” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 11 (4):
435–439. doi:10.1162/105474602760204327.
Slater, M. 2003. “A Note on Presence Terminology.” Accessed 2003 January. www.presence-connect.
com
Slater, M. 2009. “Place Illusion and Plausibility Can Lead to Realistic Behavior in Immersive Virtual
Environments.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1535):
3549–3557. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0138.
Spears, N., and S. N. Singh. 2004. “Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions.”
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26 (2): 53–66. doi:10.1080/
10641734.2004.10505164.
Spielmann, N., and A. Mantonakis. 2018. “In Virtuo: How User-Driven Interactivity in Virtual Tours
Leads to Attitude Change.” Journal of Business Research 88 (July): 255–264. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.03.037.
Steuer, J. 1992. “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.” Journal of
Communication 42 (4): 73–93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x.
Suh, K.-S., and S. Chang. 2006. “User Interfaces and Consumer Perceptions of Online Stores: The Role
of Telepresence.” Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2): 99–113. doi:10.1080/
01449290500330398.
Suh, K.-S., and Y. E. Lee. 2005. “The Effects of Virtual Reality on Consumer Learning: An Empirical
Investigation.” MIS Quarterly 29 (4): 673–697. doi:10.2307/25148705.
Swant, M. 2016. “Will Virtual Reality Experiences for Brands Rival Super Bowl Ads?” Accessed 24
January. http://www.adweek.com/digital/will-virtual-reality-experiences-brands-rival-super-
bowl-ads-174105/
Sweller, J. 1988. “Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science 12
(2): 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
Till, B. D., and T. A. Shimp. 1998. “Endorsers in Advertising: The Case of Negative Information.”
Journal of Advertising 27 (1): 67–82. doi:10.1080/00913367.1998.10673543.
Trentini, B. September 2015. “Immersion as an Embodied Cognition Shift: Aesthetic Experience and
Spatial Situated Cognition.” Cognitive Processing 16 (Suppl 1): 413–416. doi:10.1007/s10339-015-
0684-y.
392 J. SHEN ET AL.

Van Damme, K., A. All, L. De Marez, and S. Van Leuven. 2019. “360° Video Journalism: Experimental
Study on the Effect of Immersion on News Experience and Distant Suffering.” Journalism Studies
1–24. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2018.1561208.
Vanian, J. 2017. “Google Is Experimenting with Virtual Reality Advertising.” Accessed 24 January.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/28/google-virtual-reality-advertising/
Wafa, S. N., and E. Hashim. 2016. “Adoption of Mobile Augmented Reality Advertisements by Brands in
Malaysia.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 219: 762–768. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32270-4_29.
Wang, J., and B. Calder. 2009. “Media Engagement and Advertising: Transportation, Matching,
Transference and Intrusion.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 (3): 546–555. doi:10.1016/j.
jcps.2009.05.005.
Westerman, D., P. R. Spence, and X. Lin. 2015. “Telepresence and Exemplification in Health Messages:
The Relationships among Spatial and Social Presence and Exemplars and Exemplification Effects.”
Communication Reports 28 (2): 92–102. doi:10.1080/08934215.2014.971838.
Wirth, W., T. Böcking, V. Karnowski, and T. Von Pape. 2007. “Heuristic and Systematic Use of Search
Engines.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (3): 778–800. doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2007.00350.x.
Witmer, B. G., and M. J. Singer. 1998. “Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence
Questionnaire.” Presence 7 (3): 225–240. doi:10.1162/105474698565686.
Worchel, S., V. Andreoli, and J. Eason. 1975. “Is the Medium the Message? A Study of the Effects of
Media, Communicator, and Message Characteristics on Attitude Change.” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 5 (2): 157–172. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb01305.x.
Yim, M. Y.-C., V. J. Cicchirillo, and M. E. Drumwright. 2012. “The Impact of Stereoscopic Three-
Dimensional (3-D) Advertising: The Role of Presence in Enhancing Advertising Effectiveness.”
Journal of Advertising 41 (2): 113–128. doi:10.2307/41739776.

Appendices

Study 1: Appendix 1. The list of interview questions

(1) What do you think when you hear the words ‘Augmented Reality’?
(2) What do you think when you hear the words ‘Virtual Reality’?
(3) What do you think about using AR or VR for brands?
(4) What are your expectations of a VR experience about the university?
(5) What did you think of this experience?
(6) What was the most compelling part?
(7) How did the experience match your expectations or not?
(8) If you were a potential student of this university, how might this experience shape your
perceptions of the university?
(9) How did the experience map onto your experience here?
(10) This was a beta version, what feedback1 and suggestions do you have to improve the
experience?
(11) How would you explain VR now to someone who has not experienced VR?
(12) To what extent do you think you would engage in VR in the future?
(13) What kinds of products or brands do you think may be suited to using this type of technology
for advertising?
(14) To what extent would you be willing to pay for technology to use VR?
(15) Do you have any advice you might give to companies who are considering using VR in their
brand communications?
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 393

Study 1: Appendix 2. Creation and content of 360-degree video stimulus.

The video stimulus was created by a multidisciplinary team of computer science and
advertising university students assisted by the university public affairs office. The video
material was a branded campus tour experience for the university, intended for use in
recruiting students and faculty to the institution. The video was played on a workstation
with an attached Oculus Rift headset. During the viewing session, participants took a virtual
university campus tour and were instructed to move their heads and bodies around to
experience multiple viewpoints. The experience included locations of typical interest on a
campus tour (e.g., classrooms, libraries) and locations with normally restricted access (e.g.,
the football field, the stage of the performing arts center). As the scene progressed, the
narrator used visual cues to provide auditory information.

Study 1: Appendix 3. Coding process.

The 17 interviews were transcribed and systematically coded to identify emerging themes and
insights. Following the guidelines provided by Corbin and Strauss (1990), the transcripts first went
through an open-coding process, during which five trained coders independently assigned either
conceptual or descriptive labels (i.e., codes) to the texts. Next, in the axial coding stage, the coders
compared the codes across transcripts to look for patterns and categorized the codes into emerging
themes (Corbin and Strauss 1990). Finally, in the selective coding stage, coders had numerous
discussions and agreed on the major themes and proposed the possible relationships between
themes (Corbin and Strauss 1990). Coding was both inductive and deductive with the concept of
telepresence in mind.

Reference: Corbin, Juliet M. and Anselm Strauss (1990), ‘Grounded theory research: Procedures,
canons, and evaluative criteria,’ Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1), 3–21.