Content uploaded by Pierre Gander
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pierre Gander on Oct 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Two Myths about Immersion
in New Storytelling Media
Pierre Gander
Lund University Cognitive Science
Contact address:
Astronomgatan 39, S-415 17 Göteborg, Sweden
E-mail: pierregander@hotmail.com
Abstract
This paper examines two widespread claims about immersion in new media
for storytelling (such as interactive multimedia, hypertext, and computer
games). Immersion here means to experience a story world while shutting
out the real world. The two claims are 1) that an audience's experience will
be more immersive the more sensory information the audience is exposed to
and 2) an audience who is able to intervene—be active, participatory—in a
medium will feel more immersed in the medium. I argue that these two
claims are unsupported both theoretically and empirically and therefore
should be considered myths. The origins of the myths are speculated to be a
combination of uncritical application of concepts from other fields and
general cultural values.
1. Introduction
In this paper, I will examine two myths about new media technology used for
storytelling. They both deal with the phenomenon of immersion. By immersion, I
mean to focus mentally on something other than the immediate surrounding real-
ity. As I am concerned with storytelling, immersion here means to be captured by
and experience a story and its world, shutting out the "real" world around you.
Immersion is generally considered as something positive by people working with
new media technology. The more immersive a media technology is, the better the
experience will be for an audience. With "new media" I mean new technologies
for storytelling such as interactive multimedia, hypertext, virtual reality (VR),
multi user dungeons (MUDs), and computer games.
The first myth I shall consider is the belief that an audience's experience will be
more immersive the more sensory information the audience is exposed to. An
example of this belief is that a story presented in stereographic, three-
2
dimensional video and three-dimensional audio produces a more immersive ex-
perience than that of a story presented only as printed text. The second myth is
the belief that an audience who is able to intervene—be active, participatory—in
a medium will feel more immersed in the medium. For example, actively choos-
ing the direction the story takes would lead to a more immersive experience
compared to passively watching a story. The first myth can be summarised as the
"more is better" myth. The second myth can be called the "participation is better"
myth.
I am using the term "myth" because I think that these two beliefs are widespread
but that there are no grounds for holding them as true. I will show that statements
about immersion are frequently made on loose grounds. They are often supported
by nothing more than mere speculation.
The structure of the argument in this paper is as follows:
(i) If a belief B is widespread and
(ii) there is no empirical or theoretical basis for B
(iii) then B is a myth
Below, I will show that (i) the two beliefs about immersion are widespread, and
that (ii) researchers provide neither empirical nor theoretical support for the be-
liefs. Therefore, the two beliefs can not be said to be true (or probably true) but
should be considered myths. So, myth here means not something that has been
proven false, but rather something that is considered true although there are no
reasons to believe in it.
The burden of proof is on the one who claims that a new feature increases im-
mersion. Evidence should be given that these new features actually increase im-
mersion. We surely cannot have the case where any new claim about immersion
is considered true until proven false. Why? Consider an analogy in a medical
context. If someone developed a new drug for headache and claimed that it was
better than the previous ones, we would insist that this someone provide evidence
that this actually is the case. We would be surprised if we instead were chal-
lenged to provide evidence that this new drug did not have a superior effect. The
burden of proof is on the one who makes the extraordinary claim.
The reason for criticising the myths is an attempt to provide a firmer theoretical
ground for the study of storytelling media. A theoretical ground is not to be con-
fused with a technological ground. There is already a heavy emphasis on imple-
mentation details in the discussion about storytelling media. What is lacking are
theoretical concepts and an empirical model of what is going on when a person is
experiencing a story using storytelling media. This paper attempts to be a step
towards such a model, focusing on the phenomenon of immersion when experi-
encing a story. This is important since, as will be discussed later, there are no
3
scientific models of storytelling immersion, so it is not certain what "immersion"
means in this context.
Should the myths be considered harmful? Definitely. Any claim without support
can mislead, confuse, and distract a more informed investigation of a phenome-
non. And since we do not know beforehand which claims are true, all we can do
is evaluate the claims in the light of the available evidence. This is what this pa-
per attempts to do.
A note on terminology is in order. I will use the term "audience" to denote any
user, viewer, listener, or reader of a medium.
2. What is immersion?
What is immersion? A look in the Oxford pocket dictionary reveals the definition
"mental absorption". In the context of storytelling, I understand immersion to be
the state of mind of an individual where he or she excludes the outside world and
is totally focused on experiencing another world. This state can be more or less
intense. For example, if you read a book that you find uninteresting you might
still hear the noise of outside traffic. But it is also possible that you become so
absorbed by a good book that you do not even notice that someone is talking to
you.
I will now compare this notion of immersion in a storytelling context to some
concepts that appear to be similar to it: telepresence, virtual reality immersion,
and flow. But as we will see, the phenomenon of immersion cannot be captured
by any of these.
2.1 Immersion and telepresence
Immersion has some similarities to the phenomenon of telepresence, as it is dis-
cussed within the areas of virtual reality research and computer-mediated work.
Telepresence means to be present somewhere without actually being there bod-
ily. An example of telepresence is a human operator who is remote-controlling a
robot on the bottom of the sea. The operator "sees" through the robot's cameras
and can affect the distant environment with the robot's tools. Immersion is similar
to what Draper, Kaber, and Usher (1998) calls "experiental telepresence" in their
survey of research on telepresence. However, immersion in the context of story-
telling is different from telepresence in several ways. First, it is hard to see a lo-
cal environment versus a distant environment which are fundamental concepts in
respect to telepresence (for instance, it is hard to see what would be information
from a distant environment when reading a book). Secondly, and most important,
there is no task with related performance in the context of storytelling
(telepresence is concerned with work-related contexts where task performance
can be measured). So, although telepresence might appear similar to immersion,
4
it lacks several characteristics of the latter. Telepresence is a concept applied in a
different domain.
A feature which immersion shares with telepresence is what Draper, Kaber, and
Usher (1998) named "the measurement problem". There are no good measures of
telepresence apart from questionnaires, which they largely consider undesirable.
The same is true of immersion. Measures of immersion or degree of immersion
in storytelling contexts have not been made, nor are there any measurements
available. We only know that both traditional media and new media can be im-
mersive. But we do not know whether one produces more immersion than the
other. We do not even know what it means to say so, since we lack a theoretical
explanation of immersion.
2.2 Immersion and virtual reality
Within the area of virtual reality (VR), "immersion" usually has a well-defined
meaning. A common definition is Steuer's (1992) which defines immersion in
terms of technological dimensions such as the number of sensory dimensions
simultaneously presented and the resolution of these channels. In addition, "in-
teractivity" also contributes to immersion. Interactivity in this context means that
the user can modify the form and content of the mediated environment in real
time. Thus, immersion in the VR sense is a technology-based characteristic.
Now, if one accepts this definition of immersion, then the beliefs "more is better"
and "participation is better" become trivially true. Since the definition contains
only technological elements, the only thing one has to do to obtain immersion
(according to this definition) is to ensure that these elements are present. But
what we are interested in in a storytelling context is the feeling of immersion,
defined as a mental state, not as a technological characteristic. The VR definition
of immersion says nothing about how these technological factors affect the feel-
ing of immersion. Immersion as a mental phenomenon cannot a priori be deter-
mined by technological factors. So, we cannot say, by referring to purely tech-
nological terms, such as pixel resolution of a display, what effect this will have
on the feeling of immersion. These are empirical questions.
2.3 Immersion and flow
When we do something we like and can exercise control over, such as when an
athlete does a perfect high jump or when an artist is painting, we can experience
a sense of flow. According to Csíkszentmihályi (1992), a flow experience has
eight characteristics:
1. It is a challenge that one is capable of handling
2. It requires concentration
3. It has clearly defined goals
4. It provides immediate feedback
5. It is an escape from everyday reality
6. It involves a feeling of control
5
7. The self tends to disappear
8. Time is experienced subjectively, going either faster or slower than real time
Is experiencing a story a flow experience? It depends on how broadly one wants
to interpret the eight conditions above. Some of the conditions are clearly met.
Experiencing a story requires concentration (condition 2), it is an escape from
everyday reality (condition 5), the self tends to disappear (condition 7), and time
is experienced subjectively (condition 8). But is it really a challenge that requires
special skill (condition 1)? In one sense, all activities require skills, as, for in-
stance, distinguishing a chair from a table. But this is not the kind of skill in-
volved in a flow experience. Reading a story does require special skills and is not
mastered until years of practice. But what about listening to a story? Under-
standing a story appears to require skills mostly at an unconscious level. Even if
these skills are learned, they are not learned consciously. Does experiencing a
story have a clearly defined goal (condition 3), provide feedback (condition 4),
and involve a feeling of control (condition 6)? I think none of these conditions
are satisfied when it comes to stories. This is because experiencing a story is not
a task at which one can consciously train and improve one's performance, as in
golf or chess. Experiencing a story is not a challenge that requires special skills
that one can improve in order to achieve control1. It is surely a rewarding experi-
ence but it is not a flow experience.
2.4 What is immersion, then?
In conclusion, the concepts of telepresence, technologically defined immersion,
and flow can not explain the phenomenon of immersion when experiencing a
story. These concepts apply do different domains and cannot be transferred to a
storytelling domain without modification.
A tentative characterisation of immersion in a story context would include the
following elements:
• Attention is directed at the storytelling source (text, voice, images, etc.) (This
creates the flow conditions 5, 7, and 8 above as side effects)
• Mental construction of a story world, a plot (temporal and causal connections
between events) and possibly other story elements, such as genre
• An emotional state, as a response to elements in the story
A possible way to measure immersion would be to measure people's ability to
detect vague stimuli while experiencing a story. One could put people in various
immersive situations and measure how faint a stimulus (visual or auditory) they
react to. But without a better theoretical explanation of story immersion, such
1 It is possible however to turn reading into such a challenge. Some postmodern literary works challenge
the reader's traditional understanding of, e.g., temporality and causality. This can force the reader to make
conscious efforts in order to make sense of the story. Also, detective stories may invite the reader to guess
who the murderer is. These elements of conscious reasoning may be present when experiencing some
stories, but they are not central to the story experience, as the majority of stories show.
6
tests will only be preliminary. In the meantime, we have to rely on an intuitive
understanding of the concept. This should be sufficient for the point of this paper,
which is to examine the validity of two claims about immersion.
3. What the myths claim about immersion
I will now clarify what the myths "more is better" and "participation is better" are
claiming about storytelling immersion. In what follows I will sketch the image I
will later attack.
In the myths, immersion is considered a quantitative concept. Why? If the myths
say that participation (or using more sense modalities) increases immersion gen-
erally, it must be possible to state that one storytelling situation is generally less
immersive than another. Further, using the words "increases" and "more" de-
mands a quantitative dimension in which to compare degrees of immersion. So it
follows that, according to the myths, immersion can be quantified and is of the
same kind in different storytelling media so that it can be compared across them.
Table 1 is a simplified comparison of various media for storytelling and the im-
mersion they produce according to the myths "more is better" and "participation
is better". A storytelling medium can be considered a way of communicating a
story using the senses. Further, a storytelling medium can be classified as partici-
patory when the audience changes the story as it progresses.
Sense modality
Storytelling media Visual
iconic Visual
symbolic Auditory Participatory Degree of immersion ac-
cording to myth (numerical
score in parentheses)
Written text:
e.g. a novel No Yes No No Low (1)
Oral storytelling:
e.g. a bedtime story No No 3-D No Medium (2)
Text adventure game:
e.g. Deadline No Yes No Yes Medium (2)
Film:
e.g. Casablanca 2-D Yes 2-D No Medium (3)
Play:
e.g. Hamlet 3-D No 3-D No Medium (4)
IMAX Theater film 3-D Yes 3-D No High (5)
Multimedia, VR:
e.g. Myst 3-D Yes 3-D Yes High (6)
(Score is calculated according to the following rules: "No" = 0 points, "Yes/2-D" = 1 point, "3-D" = 2 points)
Table 1. Examples of storytelling media. Shown are which sense modalities
the media utilise, whether they are participatory or not, and what degree of
immersion they should produce according to the myths "more is better" and
"participation is better".
7
Some of the most common storytelling media is included in Table 1. Oral story-
telling is exemplified with a parent telling a bedtime story to a child. An example
of a story in written text is a novel such as War and Peace by Tolstoy. A play is a
story performed on a stage in front of an audience, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet.
A film, such as Casablanca, is an audio-visual projection on a flat screen. An
IMAX film extends traditional film with three-dimensional video and audio (see
Murray, 1997). A text adventure game is a computerised version of a role playing
game where a user reads and inputs text on a computer. An example of this is
Infocom's Deadline (see Aarseth, 1997 and Murray, 1997). A multimedia or VR
story is capable of three-dimensional projected video and audio (see Laurel, 1993
and Murray, 1997). The example, Myst, does not utilise real 3-D video or 3-D
audio, but includes other elements of this type of media. The criteria for selection
of these examples are not so important here. As long as some of the most com-
mon storytelling media are included, both old and new, the point can be made.
The examples in the table use either the visual or auditory sense modalities or
both (it would be possible to include other modalities, such as touch, but for sim-
plicity, these limitations have been made). The visual modality has been divided
into visual iconic and visual symbolic. Visual iconic means that the visual stimuli
contain non-arbitrary elements, such as gesture or images of objects (elements
that are "natural" to human communication). Visual symbolic means that the vis-
ual stimuli contain conventional, arbitrary symbols, such as letters making up a
text. The iconic part of the visual modality is divided into "No" meaning that no
iconic visuals occur, "2-D" meaning that the medium uses a flat surface, and "3-
D" meaning that the medium uses stereoscopic viewing. The auditory modality is
categorised into "No", meaning no sound at all, "2-D" meaning a monophonic or
stereophonic reproduction, and "3-D" meaning a presentation that captures the
three-dimensional arrangement of sound sources in the medium.
According to the myths, media that use more sense modalities and participation
should be more immersive. We can reflect this by giving each medium in Table 1
a score according to the number of modalities it uses and if the medium is par-
ticipatory or not. A medium should get more points the more sense modalities it
uses, and a higher score if it is participatory rather than non-participatory. A
"No" in the table is given 0 points, "Yes" or "2-D" is given 1 point, while 2
points are given for "3-D" (these scores are somewhat arbitrary). If we now cal-
culate the total score for each medium, we will get its degree of immersion ac-
cording to the myths (shown in the rightmost column in Table 1). Note that this
is not a measure of immersion, only a scale that makes it possible to present the
media in an ordered list roughly according to the myths' claims.
Now, this analysis captures some of the details of what the two myths claim.
IMAX Theater film and Multimedia/VR stories generate the highest degree of
immersion while written text generates the lowest degree of immersion. The
other media types fall in between these two.
8
A few things are worth noticing about Table 1. It can be seen that written text as
a storytelling medium utilises the fewest number of sense modalities and is not
participatory. With written text, the stimuli contain as few "natural" elements as
possible. All that are available to tell the story are purely conventional symbols.
There are no images, gestures, or speech. If written text is highly immersive, then
it is so without the use of multiple sense modalities and without the use of par-
ticipation.
We will now in turn look at the two myths in more detail.
4. First myth: More sensory information, more immersion
4.1 The myth
There is a widespread belief that the more sensory information you provide an
audience with, the richer a storytelling experience the audience will have. It
could be more information in one sensory modality (e.g., vision, and hearing) or
the use of more sensory modalities at once. More is better. It is easy to slip into
this thinking which appears common sense. The myth can be exemplified with
the following statements:
• "Still images are better than text"
• "Video is better than still images"
• "Sound is better than no sound"
• "Three dimensions are better than two dimensions" (for both audio and video)
• "The larger the screen, the better"
Now, let us turn to how the myth has shown itself in the research literature.
4.2 The myth in the literature
Janet Murray, a well-known scholar studying narrative in new media technology,
discusses in her book Hamlet on the Holodeck - The Future of Narrative in Cy-
berspace the question of whether more sensory information leads to more im-
mersion. She arrives at conflicting conclusions regarding whether more informa-
tion means more immersion. Generally, however, I conclude that the book ex-
presses the "more is better" myth.
She appears to subscribe to a belief that "more is better", especially when she
marvels on the technologically advanced Sony IMAX Theater:
"the BIGGEST movie screen on earth." How big is it? . . . The 3-D screen is eight
stories high and 100 feet wide, the size of seven elephants; the special film is ten
times the size of 35mm film, is stored in a canister that is 7.5 feet in diameter, and
runs in a projector that weighs 500 pounds and uses 18,000 watts of electricity. . . .
The size of the film means an increase in information, offering a richer and there-
9
fore more persuasive visual illusion. It is not merely a larger image but a more pre-
sent reality. (Murray, 1997, pp. 44-45, capitalisation Murray's).
She says, however, nothing about what the size of the screen adds to the story.
What about the millions of people in the audiences that have watched plays or
read books throughout history and missed such a wonderful, and supposedly nec-
essary, technological experience? Perhaps the human race's experience of narra-
tive in the past has been marginal and horribly dull? Or it might just be that per-
haps such technological feats as the IMAX Theater is not really vital for an im-
mersive story experience? What makes Murray adhere to a myth is that she does
not provide any grounds for her conclusions, but merely states them as estab-
lished truths.
Designers of VR technology also tend to have a technology-oriented view of
what creates the feeling of immersion. Here is an example quote taken from the
web page of Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics, Department for Visu-
alization & Virtual Reality ("presence" can be understood as "immersion" in this
context):
One part of the VR Technology Lab is covered by a CAVE, one of the most excit-
ing VR output devices available today. Consisting of 5 stereo projection screens (3
walls, floor and ceiling with a dimension of 2.4 m by 2.4 m each), a CAVE extends
the definition of immersion of traditional VR output devices by the sensation of
"presence".
(From the web page http://www.igd.fhg.de/www/igd-a4/news/cave_ws1.html)
The technological details are impressive, but what is their relation to the feeling
of immersion?
Returning to Murray, she has the same view when discussing immersion as an
essential property of new storytelling media. She describes it as "the sensation of
being surrounded by a completely other reality . . . that takes over all of our at-
tention, our whole perceptual apparatus." (Murray, 1997, p. 98). Thus, Murray
attaches importance to being able to experience the fictional world using as many
senses as possible. But she does not say how or why this should be so.
Also, when discussing the historical timeline of computer adventure games,
Murray expresses the belief that "Images are better than text". She says that when
going from text-based interfaces to graphics-based ones, the interfaces have
"progressed" (Murray, 1997, p. 190). Apparently, she views the latter more posi-
tive than the former.
Then, surprisingly, she makes a statement about computer text adventure games
that appears contradictory to the rest of her book. When discussing text adventure
games (such as Infocom's Planetfall), Murray notes that multisensory interaction
is not apparently necessary to obtain a successful experience in an interactive
narrative, as the successes of these narratives show. "It demonstrates that the po-
tential for compelling stories does not depend on high-tech animation and expen-
10
sively produced video footage but on the shaping of such dramatic moments"
(Murray, 1997, p. 53). This fact casts doubt on the myth that "more is better".
Computer text adventure games were very popular, a commercial success, and
are still created and surrounded by a faithful crowd of fans on the Internet. These
games produce nothing but text but still manage to immerse audiences in re-
warding experiences. This suggests that immersion might depend on factors other
than the amount of sensory stimuli presented.
The myth can also be found in the writings of Brenda Laurel. In her book Com-
puters as Theatre she emphasises the importance of multiple sensory modalities:
Tight linkage between visual, kinesthetic, and auditory modalities is the key to the
sense of immersion that is created by many computer games, simulations, and
virtual-reality systems. (Laurel, 1993, p. 161)
Thus, she suggests that presentation of stimuli in multiple sensory modalities is
central to the feeling of immersion. Why, for instance, the visual modality is not
enough she does not say, nor does she provide any empirical evidence for her
statement.
4.3 Other arguments in support of the myth
I will now consider other arguments, beside those found in the literature, in de-
fence of the myth. Perhaps the myth is reasonable after all?
It is possible to argue for the belief that "more is better" in the following way (I
do not know if anyone does, but it would be a reasonable argument all the same):
Because the everyday world of humans has both three-dimensional video and
audio this would be the most "natural" and "real". And since it is the most "natu-
ral" and "real", it would be the most immersive because real life is immersive.
Even if this argument appears convincing, it is easy to find counter examples.
Consider books. Books contain nothing more than printed words which are actu-
ally something very unnatural and conventionalised. Despite this, books have
during history managed to, and still do, immerse millions of readers in rewarding
experiences. Another counter example is oral storytelling. By just using sound, it
is easily possible to capture audiences in a state of high immersion. It is a mys-
tery, then, why people have not abandoned books long ago if they provide such
poor and dull presentation of sensory data. Perhaps story immersion does not
depend on superficial features of presentation, but on something other beyond
this. The "as real as possible" hypothesis is suspect because a story is not like real
life. So, in trying to approximate real life, we are not approximating a real story
situation. A prototypical story situation would be listening to a story in words
only, rather that having the story happen in front of you in real life.
4.4 Why the myth?
Where has this myth come from and why has it spread? I will provide some an-
swers here, but I want to point out that they are only speculations (and possibly
myths themselves). I do not want to be accused of the same crime that I am op-
11
posing. These speculations are only included here in order to suggest a few pos-
sible explanations for why the myth is widespread.
Part of the answer to why the belief of "more is better" exists might be that it has
migrated from the field of VR research into research of technology for storytel-
ling. The trouble is that this migration has taken place unnoticed. Researchers of
storytelling have uncritically imported terms from VR research without carefully
inspecting them first. As was discussed above, the term "immersion" is often
used in a technological sense in research on VR. The problem is that VR immer-
sion is not about storytelling immersion, but a technical term referring to, for in-
stance, information bandwidth. This view of immersion cannot be brought into
the context of storytelling, where immersion refers to a mental phenomenon. This
becomes clear when considering traditional media for storytelling, such as books
or speech, where immersion occurs with a very small bandwidth (if that concept
can even be applied here). However, one should note that even in the fields of
VR and teleoperator research, there is not a consensus whether the optimal de-
sign solution is a true-to-life sensory information exposure (Draper, Kaber, &
Usher, 1998).
There might also be a more culturally oriented answer to why the myth is wide-
spread. To me this appears to be an American or Western cultural phenomenon,
that "bigger is better". In a consumer culture "new" means "more", which in turn
means "better". My suspicion is that especially certain groups of people feel im-
mersive with new technology. These groups are technologically interested per-
sons, and persons who have a positive attitude towards new technology in gen-
eral—for instance, developers of new technology. Perhaps the only immersive
power of new, shiny technology is that which it exercises over its amazed wor-
shippers. Until empirical studies are conducted, this is at least a possibility.
5. Second myth: More participation, more immersion
5.1 The myth
The second widespread belief about immersion concerns participation. It is the
myth that if the audience is given the possibility to participate in a story, they
will experience greater immersion than if they are not allowed to do so.
What is meant by "participation"? There are several kinds of participation. One
example is that the audience is able to change the outcome of the story. Another
example is that the audience can change the point of view—from what perspec-
tive the story is told. Let us just say that the myth states that the more possibili-
ties for participation, the more immersive the experience.
A common term used in this context is "interactivity". There are "interactive
computing", "interactive stories", and even "interactive games". It is a problem-
atic term since it appears to mean nothing when it stands on its own. For in-
12
stance, it would be difficult to understand what is meant by the statement: "All
our company's products are interactive." The term should be used as an adjective
together with something that one wants to describe as "interactive", for instance,
"interactive story". Unfortunately, its meaning is usually unclear anyway. In the
following, I will try to clarify it in each context it is used.
Let us see how the "participation is better" myth surfaces in the research litera-
ture.
5.2 The myth in the literature
While discussing the future of narrative media, Peter Gärdenfors states that: "A
computer representation of a story and the user's possibility to interact with what
is happening offers a much stronger feeling of presence in the story than has been
possible in earlier narrative media" (Gärdenfors, 1998, my translation). This is a
clear statement about immersion, but is it true? No basis is given for the state-
ment; it rests purely on intuition. One could just as easily imagine things to be
the other way around. The possibility to interact might disturb the feeling of
presence. Not having to participate might lead to a strong feeling of presence,
such as when we are captured by a good novel.
Murray has the underlying belief that the power of immersion has not been util-
ised to its full potential during human history. She states that "The age-old desire
to live out a fantasy aroused by a fictional world has been intensified by a par-
ticipatory, immersive medium that promises to satisfy it more completely than
has ever before been possible" (Murray, 1997, p. 98). With this statement,
Murray expresses an optimistic view of the future, but she does not give any sup-
port to the fact that participation actually does create a more immersive experi-
ence.
The role of participation is stated clearly by Marie-Laure Ryan, one of the lead-
ing figures in narrative and new media. She states that "[t]he more interactive a
virtual world, the more immersive the experience" (Ryan, 1994, paragraph 37).
No evidence is presented in support of this. On the relation between immersion
and interactivity, Ryan believes that they do not counteract each other: "There is
nothing intrinsically incompatible between immersion and interactivity" (Ryan,
1994, paragraph 37). This is of course a logical possibility. But for something to
be probable, one has to give it more support than just showing that it is logically
possible. It is still as likely that interactivity is unrelated to or even hinders im-
mersion when it comes to a real storytelling situation. Ryan provides something
that looks like an argument. She supports her statements that interactivity leads to
immersion with a parallel to real life: "[I]n real life also, the greater our freedom
to act, the deeper our bond to the environment" (Ryan, 1994, paragraph 37). But
no support for this statement is offered, it is just stated. The statement does not
appeal to scientific evidence but to our informal experience. Does this parallel
even hold? Consider people with disabilities who can only move very limited
parts of their bodies, perhaps only their fingers or their eyes. Do these people
13
have a more superficial bond to the environment than non-disabled people do? I
think not. In what other real life situations is the freedom to act limited? As it is
hard to imagine any, it becomes difficult to determine the resulting "depth" of the
bond (in Ryan's words). The argument appears uncompelling even when it comes
to arguing that a greater freedom to act leads to a deeper bond to the environ-
ment, and it is even less applicable to freedom to act in a story.
5.3 Other arguments in support of the myth
What other arguments are there in favour of the myth? One intuitive belief is that
the feedback loop that interactivity introduces must somehow increase immer-
sion. The objections to this are at least three. First, it is not at all clear why a
feedback loop should increase immersion while experiencing a story, even if it
does so in real life tasks. Second, even if a plausible description is given of how
such a feedback loop might increase immersion, empirical evidence is still
needed to make the point. No such evidence exists. Third, for every such exam-
ple it is also possible to find a non-participatory example that is just as (if not
more) immersive. For instance, a participatory computer adventure game that
uses only text is immersive, but so is a non-participatory (traditional) novel.
The only published empirical data concerning interactivity and immersion that I
know of suggest the opposite state of affairs. Lydia Plowman has made extensive
studies of actual use of interactive narrative multimedia in real classroom set-
tings. The results obtained in her studies show that interactivity interrupts the
narrative flow in educational multimedia programs (Plowman, 1998).
5.4 Why the myth?
I will now speculate on where this myth has come from and why it has spread.
This myth is particularly strong among people working with new media technol-
ogy, probably because this area has as its core the computer, which has a great
potential for "interactivity" (that is, you put something into the computer and it
gives a response). Culturally, the computer is a symbol of progress. Since prog-
ress is something desirable, the act of computerising is associated with making
things better. Nowadays, everything should be "interactive" (there is even the
neoplasm "interactive games").
The myth has also fed from VR and teleoperator research, but even there it is
questionable if interactivity enhances the sense of presence. Draper, Kaber, and
Usher (1998) refer to a study by Taylor and Rushton where no relationship be-
tween the degree interactivity and sense of presence was found.
6. Conclusions
The claims about immersion discussed in this paper were that
14
• more sensory information, and
• more participation
creates more immersive, and therefore better, experiences for the storytelling
audience.
6.1 Claims are myths
The writings of some prominent researchers in the area of storytelling and new
media were examined. Although these claims are widespread throughout the re-
search literature, not a single piece of convincing evidence was found to support
them. The statements and beliefs expressed were all seen to be without empirical
support. The few arguments offered were shown not to hold. The survey has been
selective, but it nonetheless shows that there are widespread myths about immer-
sion in new media for storytelling.
The proponents of the myths provide neither a mechanism that explains why
immersion should increase nor empirical evidence for increased immersion. For
this reason, I consider the case for the myths to be weak. I encourage more re-
search in the area. It could very well be the case that when a model of immersion
is tested, the claims of the myths turn out to be true. Regardless, there is still at
this time no evidence in favour of the myths.
6.2 Origin of myths
I suggest that one source of the myths are when concepts from one domain are
incorrectly applied to another domain. A medium that is defined as "immersive"
only by virtue of its technological features does not guarantee that it will produce
an immersive storytelling experience.
Another source of these myths might be cultural. The design of new technology
is a process associated with hopes and dreams. It is a technology-driven world
where "new" is equal to "better". A new computer is better than any old one.
Higher resolution, more colours, and faster refresh rates rule the game. Certainly
higher fidelity graphics and sound and increased interactivity must be better,
even for storytelling media? Well, we do not know.
6.3 The value of new media
The conclusion suggested by the present discussion is that neither old media nor
new media are superior to the other—in terms of immersion—but rather that they
are different. When discussing traditional media, it would be strange to generally
conclude that, for instance, cinema is superior to books. Along the same line of
reasoning, one could say that interactive and technologically complex media are
different sorts of beasts from traditional media. But there are no grounds for
saying that one is better—more immersive—than the other.
However, one should note that the present paper does not argue against the posi-
tion that new media for storytelling are better than old media. New storytelling
15
media might be better than old storytelling media for a number of reasons. New
media might be more flexible, cheaper, and be better at raising the public's inter-
est. But the conclusion here is that there are no grounds for arguing that new me-
dia are better because they create a greater sense of immersion.
6.4 So what?
What are the consequences if the myths are false? Does it matter?
There is a risk that designers of new media for storytelling focus on the wrong
things. There is an over-emphasising on developing ever more advanced technol-
ogy to solve the problem of how to create immersive experiences. The answer
might be simpler and lie elsewhere.
Both researchers and developers should benefit from moving the focus from ever
more advanced technology. Whether you are a designer with dreams of creating
that perfectly immersive, rewarding experience or a scientist studying what peo-
ple do when using new media, you do not want to base your work on myths. In-
stead, we should find out what really is behind interesting, rewarding, immersive
experiences.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research.
I wish to thank Leonard Ngaosuvan, Mathias Haage, David de Léon, Agneta
Gulz, and Peter Gärdenfors for comments on drafts of this paper.
References
Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1992). Flow. (Göran Grip, Trans.). Stockholm: Natur och
Kultur.
Draper, J. V., Kaber, D. B., & Usher, J. M. (1998). Telepresence. Human Fac-
tors, 40(3), 354-375.
Gärdenfors, P. (1998). Envar sin egen cyberbard, Human IT, 2.
Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyber-
space. New York: The Free Press.
Plowman, L. (1998). Getting side-tracked: Cognitive overload, narrative, and
interactive learning environments. To appear in Virtual Learning Environ-
16
ments and the Role of the Teacher, Proceedings of UNESCO/Open Univer-
sity International Colloquium, Milton Keynes, UK, April 1997.
Ryan, M.-L. (1994). Immersion vs. interactivity: Virtual reality and literary the-
ory. Postmodern culture, 5(1).
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence.
Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93.