Content uploaded by Mila Bujić
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mila Bujić on Jul 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Immersive journalism: Extant corpus and future agenda
Mila Bujić1[0000-0002-4171-4806] and Juho Hamari1[0000-0002-6573-588X]
1 Gamification Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences,
Tampere University, 33700 Tampere, Finland
mila.bujic@tuni.fi
juho.hamari@tuni.fi
Abstract. The goal of journalism is to disseminate information to people as ac-
curately and holistically as possible. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the recent ad-
vances in multisensory and multimodal technologies have spawned a new re-
search area of immersive journalism (IJ). It is believed that the more holistic and
engrossing media experiences afforded by virtual, augmented, and mixed reality
technologies can lead to more comprehensive information internalization, both
cognitively and emotionally. The literature has increasingly started to propagate
since approximately 2016 onward. Therefore, while the domain is still only in its
inception phase, and while the related technologies continue to develop, it is al-
ready mature enough to both look backwards to what has already been done and
forwards to delineate future research agenda. In this review, we investigate what
has been investigated in the extant corpus, including: methods and data, technol-
ogies and types of content in experiment settings, and dimensions related to the
resulting experiences.
Keywords: virtual reality, mixed reality, 360 video, journalism, perspective
taking, literature review
1 Introduction
Immersive journalism (IJ) is becoming increasingly available and popular, primarily
due to The Guardian and the New York Times (NYT) and their 360-degree video sec-
tions. Additionally, NYT had sent out over a million of Google’s Cardboard VR gog-
gles in 2016, introducing their readers to the medium. However, the idea of merging
new technologies and journalism was introduced already in 2010 [A5] with the aim of
creating engaging experiences through placing the user in another’s shoes and bridging
the gap between you and them or there. Originally, it was envisioned as an immersive
virtual reality experience, including embodiment, interactivity, and freedom of move-
ment, which would help represent others’ experience and emphasize promoting empa-
thy and affective understanding [A5, A21]. This trend can also be seen simply as an
extension of previous use of new technologies, with the same purpose of enhancing
user engagements through the development of newsgames [1, 2], and the overall drive
of gamification [5].
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
136
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Closely connected to this idea of engagement is the notion of collapse of compassion
[8] which describes the global phenomenon where the distant suffering of many is not
experienced deeply, nor even objectively understood, in terms of its collective individ-
ual effects. Instead, news pieces dealing with these topics are often taken as merely
information, with possibly some experienced uneasiness. Although there is a psycho-
logical defensive reason for this as no one can carry all the burden of the world, it also
hinders compassion and action for the betterment of humanity. Immersive journalism
emerged as an attempt to use new technologies such as virtual reality to bridge this gap.
Virtual reality (VR) is sometimes referred to as an “empathy machine“, particularly in
popular discourse [9], presenting a technology that might be able to enhance human
connection by allowing an individual to cross space or even time and walk in another’s
shoes [6, A8, A17]. Similarly, Carne y Arena by Alejandro Iñárritu is a unique dramatic
experience of which a large portion is in VR and has won a special Oscar in 2017,
indicating that there is both recognition and faith in the development of similar projects.
It places the user as an immigrant at the U.S.-Mexico border with all the hardships that
surround similar feats, diminishing the distance between the user and the immigrant
through intuition [7]. However, as producing fully immersive pieces is still resource-
heavy, the majority of IJ available to the general public is in the form of 360-degree
videos that are viewable on-screen (2D surface) or in mobile VR which provides further
technological immersiveness [A7].
Despite interest and eagerness in the potential of VR, IJ became visible as an interest
of academics only from the year 2016 onward, after both an increase in the production
of 360-videos and NYT’s initiative which helped popularize VR and the content. Fur-
ther development and better affordability and accessibility of both the technology and
content is heightening interest in related themes, both in public and academia. The do-
main seems to still be only in its inception considering its breadth and the different
possible types of content (360-video, interactive, digital reproduction, filmed, etc.) and
technologies (screen size, mobile VR, immersive (embodied) VR with all its varia-
tions).
Thus, this review aims at providing an overview of the field, to identify pitfalls and
gaps, as well as delineate possible future research avenues. It presents several key
points in the literature: methods and data, technologies and types of content in experi-
ment settings, and studied outcomes.
2 Method
This study relies on Webster and Watson’s [10] process for systematic literature re-
views. It supposes a reproducible research consisting of a rigorously defined search,
transparent inclusion criteria of the retrieved papers, and a pre-defined concept matrix
for analyzing the selected body of literature.
The search for literature was conducted during April 2019 in Scopus, one of the
largest databases of peer-reviewed publications. Exploratory searches by the authors
had been conducted two years prior with the aim of getting acquainted with the field
and terminology. This prior knowledge was used in constructing the search string,
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
137
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
which was composed out of two sections: one describing journalism, and the other de-
scribing immersive. Both sections were built using multiple related terms and employ-
ing wild cards for a comprehensive search where appropriate. Thus, the following
search string was construed:
(journalis* OR news) AND (VR OR "virtual reality" OR HMD OR immers* OR em-
bod* OR 360)
A total of 796 results were retrieved, including conference papers, journal articles,
and book chapters. The first round of reviews included scanning the retrieved abstracts
of the final results, leaving 41 results. Publications were discarded due to referring to
virtual reality in the wider sense as digital environments, not being related to news or
journalism, or for only mentioning the field in passing. Although immersive news
could, additionally, entail augmented reality (AR) applications, and the search string
supported that premise, no such applications were found during the search.
Four full papers out of the 41 that were chosen for full analysis could not be accessed,
leaving 37 full manuscripts. During this stage, 13 additional publications were dis-
carded for the same exclusion criteria listed above, leaving 24 publications deemed
suitable for inclusion in this review. Finally, backward and forward reference searches
were conducted revealing 3 new manuscripts. The analysis of the final 27 results was
performed using a concept matrix pre-determined by the authors.
3 Results
The analysis was conducted using an adapted concept matrix [10] and all the results are
presented by these investigated aspects of the literature. All of the papers that were
analyzed in their entirety (N = 27) were individually coded according to the following
pre-defined bases for the matrix:
1. Publication type and year
2. Terminology used
3. Type of study and methods
4. Presented comparisons between media technologies or types of content, and
5. Studied outcomes
Whilst the categories of some of these points for investigation (1 and 3) were pre-
dictable (e.g. whether a study is empirical or non-empirical), others (2, 4, and 5) were
further defined during the analysis itself. For example, all of the outcome variables that
were found in the reviewed body of literature were recorded under Studied outcomes as
they appeared in the papers. Using this method, not solely particular pre-defined out-
comes were reviewed, but rather all that were studied in this domain and were docu-
mented in the retrieved literature.
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
138
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
3.1 Emergence of a field
Before year 2017 the only published articles are from De la Peña and colleagues [A5]
which introduced immersive journalism in 2010 and a lone conference paper from 2016
(A20) which drafted the future possibilities of journalism in VR. More prolific aca-
demic study of the field started only in 2017 (n = 12) and the number of publications is
on a significant rise. During the first quarter of year 2019 only (n = 13), the number of
peer-reviewed studies had already reached the total number of those from 2018 (n =
13).
3.2 Terminology
Table 1. Terminology found in the literature.
Term
Studies
360-degree (video) journalism
A1, A12, A25
360-video news
A3
360-degree VR
A27
VR news
A3, A11, A13
VR journalism
A8, A13, A25
Immersive news
A23
Immersive journalism
A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10,
A11, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18,
A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25,
A26
In most cases, the authors used the term immersive journalism for 360-degree videos
on screen or in mobile VR, and for immersive virtual reality applications. However,
there are inconsistencies with the terminology which might stem from and contribute
to the high granularity of the field with articles scattered in a variety of venues. There-
fore, familiarity with the used terminology should ease the cohesion of the research and
with time consolidation of the currently vague terminology. Table 1 documents the
terms found in the literature. It is worth noting that, while those containing 360 in their
name are limited to the 360-degree videos, it is not always clear what is considered
under immersive journalism, immersive news, and VR news and VR journalism. These
can, but do not necessarily, denote both immersive and mobile VR content.
Furthermore, 360-video news has only been used in conjunction with immersive news
(A3), and immersive news only in conjuction with immersive journalism (A23). Several
other studies have used different terms together with no particular pattern (A8, A11,
A13, and A25).
3.3 Types of studies and methods
All of the manuscripts were classified either as empirical (n = 17) or non-empirical (n
= 10), and according to the methods used. In the further sections of this review, only
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
139
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
the results of the empirical studies are examined and presented. These are further noted
as quantitative (n = 8), qualitative (n = 6), or mixed methods (n = 3) studies.
Table 2. Types of studies and methods.
Methods
Empirical
Quantitative/(mixed)
Inference
A9, A11, A19, A21, A23,
(A24), (A25), A27
Descriptive
A3, (A12), A14, A21
Qualitative
A1, A4, A6, A10, A22, A26
Mixed
A12, A24, A25
Non-empirical
A2, A5, A7, A8, A13, A15,
A16, A17, A18, A20
The majority of the quantiative studies analyzed the data using statistical inference
(i.e. hypothesis testing), and only 3 (A3, A13, and A15) presented it using solely
descriptives such as mean values. Almost all of the measurements were collected via
psychometric tests. Interestingly, one study analyzed users’ behavior using objective,
publicly available data from the streaming platform YouTube (A27).
Qualitative studies mainly investigated the content (A4, A10, A22, and A26), or
conducted interviews or focus groups with users (A6, and A10) or practicioners (A1).
3.4 Comparisons
Table 3. Treatment comparisons
Treatments
VR,
no body
360,
mobile
VR
360,
Card-
board VR
360,
screen
2D,
screen
VR embodied
A21, A23
A19
360, cardboard VR
A25
A25
A11, A25
360, screen
A24, A25
2D, mobile VR
A9
2D, screen
A25
A25
Article
A24
A24
No treatment
A11
A11
Table 3 presents identified comparisons implemented in study designs. The majority of
the labels consists of two parts, one denoting the type of content and the other referring
to the type of technology or other affordance of the application. When it comes to the
content, there are: VR – digital 3D virtual environments for immersive VR; 360 –360-
degree videos; 2D – 2D video or fixed perspective 360-degree video; and article – writ-
ten news article. The second half of the labels is as follows: embodied – user is pre-
sented as inhabiting a body in the content; no body – user is not presented in the content;
mobile VR – different VR head-mounted displays that provide stereoscopic view using
a mobile phone; cardboard VR – the simplest VR device similar to the mobile VR but
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
140
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
in lower quality and needs to be held to the head; screen – a common label for 2D
screens, regardless of the size and technological specifications.
Empirical studies often employed comparison of the effects of different media and/or
media technologies. The most represented comparisons employ 360-degree videos in
mobile VR on one side, and a variety of treatments on the other. The least studied in
comparable settings are immersive VR (A19, A21, and A23), as imagined immersive
journalism, and written articles (A24), as a more traditional form of journalism.
3.5 Studied outcomes
Table 4. Studied outcomes.
Category
Measure(s)
Studies
Affect
Empathy
A19, A24
Personal involvement
A25
Distant suffering
A25
Enjoyment
A9, A25
Cognition and
attitudes
Attitudes on the topic
A6
Memory
A9, A12, A24
Attention-allocation
A24
Narrative understanding
A9
Perceived credibility
A9, A11, A24
Expectations and experience
A19
Intention to share
A24
Engrossment
Flow
A3
Cognitive absorption
A3
(Tele)Presence
A3, A9, A11, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25
Immersion
A19
Body ownership
A21, A23
Agency
A21, A23
Engagement
A21
Behavior
Viewing behavior
A12
Follow-up
A21, A23
Online reviewing and commenting
A27
Production and journalistic norms
A1, A4, A10, A12, A14,
A26
For better readability of the output, the studied outcomes are loosely divided into five
categories – affect, cognition and attitudes, engrossment, behavior, and production and
journalistic norms. There were coined by the authors and do not represent concrete
analytical value. On the other hand, categories in the Measure(s) column were taken
directly from the investigated literature and represent their measured outcomes.
Unsurprisingly, users’ engrossment is studied the most, with (tele)presence as the most
studied outcome, However, it is highly granulated across different media and media
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
141
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
technologies, as can be seen from Section 3.4. Only one study employed a measure of
attitudes towards the topic of the content (A6), and two tracked whether users showed
interest beyond the experiment and have followed up to learn more (A21 and A23).
Finally, the category of production and journalistic norms entails studies on, for exam-
ple, use of annotations (A14) or subtitles (A12).
4 Discussion
This review is the first attempt to summarize empirical research on the topic of immer-
sive journalism, which is gaining increasing interest in academia. The field is multidis-
ciplinary and highly topical, and studies are greatly dispersed and disconnected, as can
be seen throughout this study, starting with the inconsistent terminology. it is hoped
that this review will serve as a step toward consolidating the field by representing the
state of the art and identifying gaps and points for further research.
However, it should only be taken as a stepping stone toward a more nuanced one.
Considering the speed at which the field is expanding, it is necessary that it is updated
and expanded when possible so as to provide more solid grounds for examining the
effects of immersive journalism.
4.1 Identified gaps and future directions
Already from this short review there are several issues and gaps identified in the liter-
ature. Some are minor but expected as they mostly stem from the field being novel and
multidisciplinary; others pertain to methodological drawbacks and overlooked central
concerns in immersive journalism.
1. Authors rarely define the variety of terms used, making it difficult to denote what
immersive journalism is and what it is not. Some more clearly denote it as embodied
immersive VR experiences (A5, A21, A23), but it would seem that the majority re-
fers to 360-videos commonly available to the general public. A more transparent
approach while at the same time contextualizing the research in the wider field could
aid in structuring it at this crucial time of growth.
2. Even though not limited to this field [4], quantitative data and results are not always
well and clearly presented, succumbing to various misconceptions when drawing
conclusions. It is of particular relevance here, because of the breadth of the technol-
ogies as well as content, to diligently lay out both descriptive and inferred results.
This practice would allow for meta-analyses that would additionally enable review-
ers to gather higher level implications from the studies.
3. Similarly, as seen from Table 3, there are rarely multiple studies employing same
pairs of treatments, as out of sixteen comparisons only three pairs are to an extent
comparable. Instead, it would be beneficial if treatments are replicated, while for
example using different type or topic of the stimuli. Such a practice is incremental,
but necessary for strengthening the findings.
4. Furthermore, as the VR technology is becoming more available and fully immersive
experiences gaining more popularity, it is imperative that these are investigated in a
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
142
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
timely manner beside the 360-videos. On the other hand, a comparison of immersive
and traditional, written news pieces has only been found in one example (A24), re-
vealing a dearth of knowledge in how they compare to each other.
5. Only a handful of the reviewed studies investigated palpable outcomes of these im-
mersive experiences. This is particularly unexpected in the light of immersive jour-
nalism’s aspirations to engage and induce empathy, as well as the popularization and
recognition of similar content in the artistic domain through Carne y Arena [7]. The
attitudinal and behavoural effects are vastly hypothesized but rarely investigated.
Considering that empathy is a highly problematic concept [3], it might be more ben-
eficial to examine measurable outcomes such as attitudinal changes (A6) and fol-
lowing-up (see A21 and A23). Notable by their absence are longitudinal and behav-
ioral studies showing whether these possible preliminary outcomes can truly affect
an individual and the society [9].
6. Finally, the most crucial and largest gap in the reviewed empirical literature on im-
mersive journalism is the lack of scrutiny of users’ media literacy - in particular
when it comes to critical evaluations of the consumed content. Although it can be
argued that there are benefits to the emphasized individuality and the subjective ex-
perience of immersive journalism [7, 8, 9], there should also be a counterbalance
ensuring that the public is at the same time informed and vigilant. Future empirical
studies should weigh these two aspects – subjectivity and objectivity – in order to
obtain a more comprehensive account of the effects and ethics of immersive jour-
nalism.
4.2 Limitations of the review
As with any review, there are certain drawbacks to this one that ought to be noted. With
a wide field such as immersive journalism there is no way of making certain that all
published studies are taken into account despite the best efforts in constructing the
search string. However, it is meant as a broad overview of the state of the field and its
findings rather than aiming at one particular aspect in detail. Moreover, due to the
length constraints, it was mainly focused on empirical research while leaving concep-
tual and theoretical discussions in the background. Finally, even though the number of
publications included in this review is not negligible, there are not enough comparable
studies that would enable a deeper discussion of the results and whether or not immer-
sive journalism truly is more effective in engaging users and bringing about positive
change.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by Business Finland (5479/31/2017).
References
1. Bogost, I.: Persuasive games. MIT Press (2007).
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
143
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2. Bogost, I., Ferrari, S., Schweizer, B.: Newsgames. Journalism at play. MIT Press (2010).
3. Cuff, B.M., Brown, S.J., Taylor, L., Howat, D.J..: Empathy: a review of the concept. Emo-
tion Review 8(2), 144-53 (2016).
4. Greenland, S., Senn, S.J., Rothman, K.J., Carlin, J.B., Poole, C., Goodman, S.N., Altman,
D.G.: Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpreta-
tions. European journal of epidemiology 31(4), 337-350 (2016).
5. Hamari, J.: Gamification. In Ritzer, G., Rojek, C. (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Sociology. New York John Wiley & Sons (2019).
6. Oh, S.Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., Zaki, J.: Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and
the reduction of ageism under threat. Computers in Human Behavior 60, 398–410 (2016).
7. Raessens, J.: Virtually Present, Physically Invisible: Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Mixed Reality
Installation Carne y Arena. Television & New Media 20(6), 634-648 (2019).
8. Slovic, P.: If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. In Emotions
and risky technologies, pp. 37-59. Springer, Dordrecht (2010).
9. TED. How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine.
https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_em-
pathy_machine, last accessed 2/11/2019.
10. Webster, J. and Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a litera-
ture review. MIS quarterly, pp. xiii-xxiii (2002).
Reviewed publications
A1. Aitamurto, T.: Normative paradoxes in 360° journalism: Contested accuracy and objec-
tivity. New Media & Society 21(1), 3–19 (2018).
A2. Baía Reis, A., Coelho, A. F. V. C.: Virtual Reality and Journalism. Digital Journalism
6(8), 1090–1100 (2018).
A3. Brautović, M., John, R., Potrebica, M.: Immersiveness of News: How Croatian Students
Experienced 360-Video News. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2017, pp. 263–269.
Springer International Publishing (2017).
A4. Chen, T.Y., Liu, H.C., Hsu, C.Y.: Film language analysis in society news-A case study of
The New York Times. In Pacific Neighborhood Consortium Annual Conference and Joint
Meetings (PNC) 2017. IEEE (2017).
A5. De la Peña, N., Weil, P., Llobera, J., Spanlang, B., Friedman, D., Sanchez-Vives, M. V.,
Slater, M.: Immersive Journalism: Immersive Virtual Reality for the First-Person Experi-
ence of News. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 19(4), 291–301 (2010).
A6. Delmazo, C.: The Use of 360-Degree Video to Provide an Alternative Media Approach to
Paralympic Sports. In Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Infor-
matics and Telecommunications Engineering, pp. 200–205. Springer International Pub-
lishing (2019).
A7. Hardee, G. M., McMahan, R. P.: FIJI: A Framework for the Immersion-Journalism Inter-
section. Frontiers in ICT 4 (2017).
A8. Hassan, R.: Digitality, Virtual Reality and The “Empathy Machine”. Digital Journalism
1–18 (2019).
A9. Hendriks Vettehen, P., Wiltink, D., Huiskamp, M., Schaap, G., Ketelaar, P.: Taking the
full view: How viewers respond to 360-degree video news. Computers in Human Behav-
ior 91, 24–32 (2019).
A10. Jones, S.: Disrupting the narrative: immersive journalism in virtual reality. Journal of Me-
dia Practice 18(2–3), 171–185 (2017).
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
144
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
A11. Kang, S., O’Brien, E., Villarreal, A., Lee, W., Mahood, C.: Immersive Journalism and
Telepresence. Digital Journalism 7(2), 294–313 (2018).
A12. Li, K., Yang, D., Ji, S., Liu, L.: The Impacts of Subtitles on 360-Degree Video Journal-
ism Watching. In International Joint Conference on Information, Media and Engineering
(ICIME) 2018. IEEE (2018).
A13. Mabrook, R., Singer, J. B.: Virtual Reality, 360° Video, and Journalism Studies: Concep-
tual Approaches to Immersive Technologies. Journalism Studies 1–17 (2019).
A14. Meira, J., Marques, J., Jacob, J., Nobrega, R., Rodrigues, R., Coelho, A., de Sousa, A. A.:
Video annotation for immersive journalism using masking techniques. In 23rd Portuguese
Meeting on Computer Graphics and Interaction (EPCGI). IEEE (2016).
A15. Pérez Seijo, S.: Immersive Journalism: From Audience to First-Person Experience of
News. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 113–119. Springer Inter-
national Publishing (2016).
A16. Pérez-Seijo, S., López-García, X.: Five Ethical Challenges of Immersive Journalism: A
Proposal of Good Practices’ Indicators. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Compu-
ting, pp. 954–964. Springer International Publishing (2019).
A17. Sánchez Laws, A. L.: Can Immersive Journalism Enhance Empathy?. Digital Journalism
1-16 (2017).
A18. Sánchez Laws, A. L., Utne, T.: Ethics Guidelines for Immersive Journalism. Frontiers in
Robotics and AI 6, 28 (2019).
A19. Shin, D., Biocca, F.: Exploring immersive experience in journalism. New Media & Soci-
ety 20(8), 2800–2823 (2017).
A20. Sirkkunen, E., Väätäjä, H., Uskali, T., Rezaei, P. P.: Journalism in virtual reality. In Pro-
ceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference on - AcademicMind-
trek ’16. ACM Press (2016).
A21. Slater, M., Navarro, X., Valenzuela, J., Oliva, R., Beacco, A., Thorn, J., Watson, Z.: Vir-
tually Being Lenin Enhances Presence and Engagement in a Scene From the Russian
Revolution. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 91 (2018).
A22. Soler-Adillon, J., Sora, C.: Immersive Journalism and Virtual Reality. In Interaction in
Digital News Media, pp. 55–83. Springer International Publishing (2018).
A23. Steed, A., Pan, Y., Watson, Z., Slater, M.: “We Wait”—The Impact of Character Respon-
siveness and Self Embodiment on Presence and Interest in an Immersive News Experi-
ence. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 112 (2018).
A24. Sundar, S. S., Kang, J., Oprean, D.: Being There in the Midst of the Story: How Immer-
sive Journalism Affects Our Perceptions and Cognitions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking 20(11), 672–682 (2017).
A25. Van Damme, K., All, A., De Marez, L., Van Leuven, S.: 360° Video Journalism: Experi-
mental Study on the Effect of Immersion on News Experience and Distant Suffering.
Journalism Studies 1–24 (2019).
A26. Vázquez-Herrero, J., & López-García, X.: Immersive Journalism Through Mobile De-
vices: How Virtual Reality Apps Are Changing News Consumption. In Advances in In-
telligent Systems and Computing, pp. 3–12. Springer International Publishing (2017).
A27. Wang, G., Gu, W., Suh, A.: The Effects of 360-Degree VR Videos on Audience Engage-
ment: Evidence from the New York Times. In HCI in Business, Government, and Organi-
zations, pp. 217–235. Springer International Publishing (2018).
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online)
145
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
