Investigating Cognitive and Persuasive Effects of 360-degree Virtual Reality Community
News Narratives on Memory Performance, Presence, Perception of Credibility, and
Attitude Change
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
D. Aaron Atkins
May 2020
© 2020 D. Aaron Atkins. All Rights Reserved. This dissertation titled
Investigating Cognitive and Persuasive Effects of 360-degree Virtual Reality Community
News Narratives on Memory Performance, Presence, Perception of Credibility, and
Attitude Change
by
D. AARON ATKINS
has been approved for
the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism
and the Scripps College of Communication by
Jatin Srivastava
Associate Professor of Journalism
Scott Titsworth
Dean, Scripps College of Communication
ii Abstract
ATKINS, D. AARON, Ph.D., May 2020, Mass Communication
Investigating Cognitive and Persuasive Effects of 360-degree Virtual Reality Community
News Narratives on Memory Performance, Presence, Perception of Credibility, and
Attitude Change
Director of Dissertation: Jatin Srivastava
360-degree video and virtual reality news content is becoming more and more mainstream, yet research into its effects thus far have been limited, with early research focusing its attention on presence and empathy. This research expands our understanding of how 360VR news content affects cognition. Two experiments placing the user into a community-oriented news experience test memory performance, attention allocation, activation of spatial presence mechanisms, and the effects of sense of community on those mechanisms. Further, this study explores the persuasive power of politically- charged community news stories by incorporating attitude change measures. Findings of the first experiment indicate the presence of a visual focal point attracts attention to the story to the detriment of attention to the environment. Findings in the second experiment indicate both attitude change and attitude polarization occurred post-treatment. Sense of community was found to be a significant predictor of memory performance, activation of spatial presence, and others. According to the LC4MP, SOC is a motivating factor, and an increase in SOC may lead to greater memory performance, higher levels of perception of credibility, and an increase in the effectiveness of persuasive messages in moderates.
Findings will inform both future research and professional practice.
iii Dedication
To Rachel, Animal, and Ringo.
iv Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge coffee. Again. And Dr. Jatin Srivastava, for his insight, support, ability to jump-start creativity and critical analysis, and for his profound knowledge of international street food; Dr. Hans Meyer for his insight into 360VR and community journalism; Dr. Kim Rios for her methodological expertise and helping me look at my data from different perspectives; and for Eric Williams and his thought experiments that helped me consider several production and application-based factors that influenced this study. Lastly, I also want to acknowledge everyone who contributed and helped me produce content, wrangle participants, run them through my lab experiments, and kept me (mostly) sane throughout this experience. You know who you are, and you are appreciated.
v Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ...... iii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgments...... v List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures ...... ix Chapter 1: Virtual Reality and News ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Defining 360VR ...... 11 VR and 360VR – What’s the Difference? ...... 13 Chapter 3: The Presence or Absence of an On-screen Reporter ...... 18 Experiment 1 - Immersion, Presence, and Perception of Journalist Credibility ...... 18 Limited Capacity Model, Message Processing, and Memory Performance ...... 20 Immersion and Presence ...... 23 Sense of Community...... 26 The Perception of Journalist Credibility ...... 28 Chapter 4: Experiment 1 – Execution, Analysis, Results ...... 31 Experiment 1 – Procedure...... 31 Experiment 1 – Stimulus...... 33 Experiment 1 - Analysis ...... 36 Controls ...... 36 Scale variables ...... 37 Memory performance...... 37 Findings and Results ...... 39 Gender, Political Ideology, Familiarity Controls ...... 45 Chapter 5: Experiment 1 – Discussion...... 48 Memory Performance ...... 50 Spatial Presence ...... 55 Journalist Credibility ...... 56 Sense of Community ...... 57 Anecdotal Evidence ...... 59 vi Experiment 1 - Conclusion ...... 62 Chapter 6: Experiment 2 ...... 64 The Effect of Message Type on Memory, Attitude, and Counterargument ...... 64 Political Ideology, Media, and Counterargument ...... 65 Chapter 7: Experiment 2 - Execution, Analysis, Results ...... 70 Experiment 2 - Procedure ...... 72 Experiment 2 - Stimulus ...... 74 Experiment 2 - Analysis...... 78 Controls ...... 78 Scale variables ...... 79 Memory performance...... 79 Counterargument and attitude change ...... 81 Findings and Results ...... 82 Post Hoc Tests...... 94 Chapter 8: Experiment 2 - Discussion ...... 97 Political Messages, Participant Ideology, and Memory Performance ...... 103 Attitude Change ...... 105 Spatial Presence and Journalist Credibility ...... 109 Sense of Community ...... 111 Counterargument...... 111 Anecdotal Evidence ...... 112 Experiment 2 - Conclusion ...... 115 Chapter 9: General Discussion...... 117 Chapter 10: Limitations ...... 125 Chapter 11: Conclusion...... 129 References ...... 130 Appendix A: Experiment 1 Script ...... 157 Appendix B: Experiment 2 Script ...... 160 Appendix C: Tables ...... 164 Appendix D: Figures ...... 168 Appendix E: Experiment 1 Questionnaire ...... 173 Appendix F: Experiment 2 Questionnaire ...... 186 Appendix G: Consent Forms ...... 203 vii List of Tables Page
Table 1 Scale Variable Reliability Measures ...... 37 Table 2 Memory Performance Scale...... 38 Table 3 Results of t-tests for SOC, Spatial Presence, Journalist Cred, Mem Perf...... 41 Table 4 Regression Analysis: Spatial Presence Predicting Journalist Credibility ...... 44 Table 5 Results of t-tests for Gender on SOC, Spat Pres, Jour Cred, Mem Perf...... 46 Table 6 Crosstab Between Self-reported Ideology and Political Ideology Scale ...... 72 Table 7 Experiment 2 Memory Performance Scale ...... 80 Table 8 Independent Samples t-test between Condition and Memory Performance ...... 86 Table 9 Independent Samples t-test between Political Ideology and Memory Perf ...... 87 Table 10 2-way ANOVA - Descriptives ...... 91
viii List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Reporter condition...... 33 Figure 2. The equivalent of Figure 1 without the presence of a reporter ...... 34 Figure 3. City Council meeting in both conditions ...... 35 Figure 4. Police vehicle in both conditions ...... 35 Figure 5. Normality ...... 40 Figure 6. Opening Graffiti Wall shot with reporter ...... 75 Figure 7.Closing shot against a different section of the Wall ...... 75 Figure 8.The reporter in front of a community landmark ...... 76 Figure 9. A supporter of the aggressor group in each condition ...... 77 Figure 10. Comparison of Means – Memory Performance...... 85 Figure 11. Attitude Change...... 92
ix Chapter 1: Virtual Reality and News
Introduction
The development and exploration of immersive, 360-degree virtual reality video
(360VR) and its potential as a viable medium for nonfiction narrative storytelling, education and training, and for news content and information dissemination, has been the subject of both speculation and exploration over the last five years, from both industry players and scholarly researchers (Atkins, McLean & Canter, 2017; Dyer, Swartzlander,
& Gugliucci, 2018; Sundar, Kang & Oprean, 2017; AP.org, 2016; nytimes.com, 2016;
Washington Post, n.d.; CNN.com, n.d.; PBS.org, n.d.; USAToday, n.d.; Terdiman, 2015;
BBC News, n.d; Wingfield & Goel, 2014; Zantal-Wiener, 2018). Immersive 360VR using a head-mounted display (HMD) carries the capacity to place an audience into a news event, fully engaging aural and visual senses and allowing freedom of movement to naturalistically change perspective and attention allocation by turning the head or body
(de la Pena et al, 2010; Sundar, Kang, & Oprean, 2017). Much has been written in both popular and academic press about 360VR and immersive technologies as they apply to journalism – the ability to bring an audience into a news event, connect it with the event and the people involved, and elicit emotional affect, specifically empathy, on a level print, broadcast, and digital multimedia content do not (Atkins, McLean & Canter, 2017;
De la Pena et al, 2010; Dyer, Swartzlander, & Gugliucci, 2018; Sundar, Kang & Oprean,
2017) . However, despite the claims that 360VR and its hyperrealistic, immersive video experiences carry the potential to elicit these and other responses, scholarly and
1 experimental research examining and confirming the effects of the medium on its audience is in limited supply.
Journalists across the world are beginning to shoot news stories – primarily short featurettes – in 360VR, and major news organizations are integrating 360VR videos into their online and mobile platforms (AP.org, 2016; nytimes.com, 2016; Washington Post, n.d.; CNN.com, n.d.; PBS.org, n.d.; USAToday, n.d.; Terdiman, 2015; BBC News, n.d.).
The development and refinement of inexpensive and consumer-friendly 360VR cameras such as the Yi 360 and Insta360 One X and self-contained, head-mounted viewing devices such as the Oculus Go and Samsung GearVR, Playstation VR and Google
Cardboard have helped advance the use of the technology beyond first-adopters and increase the demand for entertainment as well as nonfiction and news content. Although still considered a niche medium, these and other advancements such as an integration of
360VR-capable processing and editing features into existing industry-standard video editing software such as Adobe Premiere (Adobe.com, n.d.), have prompted some to make the argument that it is entering mainstream consciousness from both production and content consumption perspectives (Wingfield & Goel, 2014; Zantal-Wiener, 2018). A new storytelling grammar is being developed by 360VR filmmakers, journalists, researchers, and even a few adventurous hobbyists, as content creators struggle with narrative structure, camera positioning, shot length, audio capture, editing and post- production, and attention direction (Watson, 2016, Nov. 11). What is clear from both technological and content creation perspectives is that 360VR is not just a repackaging of television and film shooting techniques – in fact, much of what applies to traditional film
2 and video in terms of storytelling, production, and editing, is detrimental. As an example, the use of quick cuts during the editing process in order to present an audience with the illusion of a fast-paced story or action sequence may work well on TV or in the cinema, but in a head-mounted display where the user must physically orient themselves, acclimate to each cut, and cognitively map each scene at a change, quick cuts are problematic. Further, shots, cuts, and edits which serve to show a film audience a subject or scene from multiple perspectives or vantage points in order to give the illusion of depth or highlight parts of a scenescape that cannot be shown from a single direction are not useful in 360VR, as the user is able to see all of these elements in a single shot – and only from a single vantage point – if they so choose.
As content producers work toward building this new storytelling grammar, it becomes important to test/examine and investigate the effects the medium itself, as well as its content, has on its audience. Of particular interest beyond the development of the technology and its content is the development of an understanding of how its use affects its audience, especially when the goal of a content creator is to inform an audience about their world as is the purpose of journalism and news production. While the possibility of application of 360VR in myriad contexts such as education, medical and psychological treatment, public relations campaigns, and training simulations all warrant exploration, the scope of this dissertation is focused on its use in journalism and news.
Nonfiction, journalistic content produced in such a rich, immersive format, which is designed to put its audience into a news story so that they experience it instead of
3 simply viewing it, raises questions about how its users process content during an experience and retain information after its conclusion.
Concepts such as immersion and spatial presence – concepts that will be explicated during the literature review – have been shown to affect how people respond to media and influence factors such as audience engagement, cognitive resource allocation and memory retention, affective response, and attitude change. Each of these factors also influence how a user perceives and responds to a 360VR news experience.
This study will add to that body of research and advance our understanding of virtual reality news.
From a media literacy perspective, research has also strongly demonstrated that the more a person understands how a medium operates, how content may influence users, self-efficacy and awareness of the potential effects it may have on its users, the less susceptible that person may be to its influence (Atkins, McLean & Canter, 2017; Atkins
& Srivastava, 2018; Bandura, 2001; Dyer, Swartzlander, & Gugliucci, 2018; Jin, 2011;
Shafer, Carbonara & Korpi, 2018; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998; Sundar, Kang & Oprean,
2017; Wermeskerken, Ravensbergen, & Gog, 2017).
The primary purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of how 360VR experiences affect a user. . A secondary purpose, as the best uses and techniques for creating content for this medium are still developing, is to potentially inform content creators how a user interacts with a news experience, thus informing industry regarding production techniques to best direct an audience’s attention to help engagement and facilitate memory performance.
4 One of the unique elements of a 360VR news story from a user perspective is that it requires its audience to take an active role in the experience, meaning a user does not stare at a preselected frame or perspective on a flat screen as they would when watching television news or an online video news story on a computer, tablet, or smartphone.
Instead, the user is free to survey the environment presented to them as they see fit by actively making decisions to move or remain stationary, to stare straight ahead or turn, to pay attention to a single focal point or explore. This raises a number of questions about how a person uses the technology. For example, what information is the audience taking in?
In news, it is important, if not vital, to relay specific facts about a news event. One of the tools journalists use when producing video news stories is selective visual framing, or in/out of focus points – this allows the journalist to draw attention to a specific object or point of interest central to the narrative of the story. In 360-degree video, the journalist cannot use selective framing or focus in that manner – the medium is not built to accommodate it at this point in its development. Although 360VR content can be edited and cinematic effects added for entertainment purposes, journalism ethics, norms, and practices do not allow that kind of post-production manipulation. Next, what do users walk away remembering from an experience? Journalists using 360VR to tell news stories are relinquishing control over where to point the camera, where to visually frame or focus an object in a story. Further, the cognitive resources necessary to process such a news story may prevent a user from encoding, storing, or retrieving a key detail about a story. Does the information-rich and immersive nature of 360VR technology, combined
5 with activated cognitive spatial presence mechanisms, reduce a person’s capacity for counterargument? If so, does the reduced capacity affect attitude change toward an attitude object in a news story? Does whether a person is familiar with the physical environment or community depicted in a 360VR news story affect how a person processes information?
Each of these questions is worth exploring in-depth as the medium gains prominence and is adopted beyond its niche audience. Even if 360VR does not reach the predicted widespread public adoption as a mode for disseminating news and information- based content, research may be applied to its use as an entertainment device, remote education tool, training simulator, or even real-time person-to-person communication and interaction. Regardless of the direction of news content producers’ attitudes toward
360VR and news audience consumption habits regarding the technology, an understanding of its effects in the news contexts presented in this study may be applicable in other contexts, arguing for its relevance beyond the journalism niche.
When immersive virtual reality journalism experienced via head-mounted display first debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in 2012 with Nonny de la Pena’s computer- animated Hunger in Los Angeles, a virtual reality news experience she called “immersive journalism”, (Docubase MIT, n.d.), film critics, journalists, and researchers hailed it in popular press as an empathy machine (Bishop, 2013, June 14; MultipleJournalism, 2012).
De la Pena’s project combined audio recordings from an incident in a line at a Los
Angeles food bank where a man went into diabetic shock while waiting on a sidewalk in a long line for a meal. She used 3D modeling to recreate the experience to match the
6 audio, describing it as “a story about people who are hungry, who I felt were invisible,
[making] them visible in a way that was so compelling that people would really get what the fuck was going on out there.” (Docubase MIT, n.d.). Three years later, VR production company Specular Theory debuted Perspective Ch. 1: The Party, a fictional VR narrative created by Morris May and Rose Troche, that, unlike Pena’s project, used 360-degree video instead of computer animation (ST Originals, n.d.). The film, two separate five- minute segments about a sexual assault at a college party, show the same story from a man’s perspective and from a woman’s perspective. The user watched one, then the other. As with de la Pena’s project, film critics, journalists, and researchers hailed the experience with the 360VR technology in popular press as an empathy machine with the unique capacity for immersing its audience and increasing affective emotional and empathic reactions toward the people and situations depicted (Vary & Arthur, 2015, Jan.
22; Bishop & Newton, 2015, Jan. 30). It is not surprising, then, that some of the first experimental studies examining the effects of 360VR tested empathic response, using as experimental stimuli 360VR documentary experiences shot in a Calais, France refugee camp (Atkins, McLean & Canter, 2017), or following refugee children in Ukraine, South
Sudan, and Lebanon (Sundar, Kang, & Oprean, 2017).
Previous studies have tested a limited number of effects, including empathic response, various overlapping iterations of presence, immersion, and credibility (Atkins et al, 2016; Christofi & Michael-Grigoriou, 2017; Dyer, Swartzlander, Gugliucci, 2018;
Herrera et al, 2018; Jones & Dawkins, 2018; Loon et al, 2018; Nascivera et al, 2018;
Sundar et al, 2017), presence, and attitudes toward charitable giving, mental health
7 stigma and disaster communication (Kandaurova & Lee, 2018; Formosa, Morrison &
Hill, 2018; Fraustino, Lee, Lee & Ahn, 2018), but exclusively used as their stimuli preexisting experiences depicting locations, situations, and experiences the participant is unfamiliar with and has no direct, personal connection to. Further – and here’s the crux – scholarly research into 360-degree video effects has almost exclusively been conducted comparing it against text or standard 2D video as a control in order to make claims for significant differences. One of the issues I have with that comparison is that the media aren’t exactly comparable. While it is important in experimentation to establish a baseline, drawing a comparison and testing for statistically significant differences in immersion, presence, and empathic response between a visually and aurally rich, interactive, visual medium and, say, text or television, is highly likely and does not tell us much about the medium itself.
This raises a few more questions. The aforementioned previous research experiments used as its stimuli tragic stories in exotic locations the average user has never, and will never, personally experience. So, is 360VR a viable medium for more traditional, everyday types of news stories, ones that depict news events in familiar settings? And if so, what kinds of effects will HMD-based 360VR place-based narrative content have on its audience? The community element of a news story shot in a typical or familiar place - local news, being familiar with/connected/invested in the place depicted in a news event may influence the way it is perceived and processed by its audience.
Research into community news supports this and will be discussed in the lit review, which ties into the idea that an audience member connected to and not far removed from
8 the setting of the 360VR news experience will experience and respond differently than previous research into responses to stories far removed from their communities has demonstrated. Motivational factors such as sense of community, perceived relevance, and others play a role in how people process stimuli. To that effect, this study is being conducted within a community journalism context. Previous research into community journalism frequently uses sense of community as a measurable variable, and it has been shown to have an effect on how people respond to community news (Atkins, 2016;
Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard, Welbourne & Broughton, 2011; Carey & Meyer, 2016;
McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Sense of community may be an influencing factor or predictor variable, and will be measured as a present independent variable. Establishing and building trust with a news audience, building the perception of credibility is vital to a journalist. An audience that trusts a journalist may not know if that journalist is misleading them. Consider, for example, the case of Sinclair Broadcast Group and its
“must-runs”, which are scripted segments it requires its on-air reporters and anchors to read at all of its 193 stations in more than 100 markets around the United States, with titles such as “Terrorism Alerts”, required editorials from former Donald Trump political adviser Boris Epshteyn, and other pro-conservative content (Burke, 2018, March 31;
Domonoske, 2018, Apr. 2; Fortin & Bromwich, 2018, Apr. 2). One such must-run, which warned of a liberal threat to the country, was exposed by Deadspin video director
Timothy Burke who cut together the various scripted, word-for-word identical broadcasts from Sinclair stations so that they ran simultaneously in a single frame (Burke, 2018,
March 31). The segmented narrative was not questioned – its audience was unaware of
9 where the message came from, whether it was shared with other audiences, or that
Ephsteyn was behind it. The exposed broadcasts drew nationwide condemnation, with prominent journalists such as former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather criticizing them as an assault on democracy by disseminating Orwellian-like conservative propaganda to its local stations unbeknownst to its audience. (Smith, 2018, Apr. 4). The stations, which included local CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX affiliates, billed themselves as ideologically neutral local news outlets serving their communities with local content
(Domonoske, 2018, Apr. 2; Fortin & Bromwich, 2018, Apr. 20). With that example in mind, consider the possibility of a news outlet billing itself as an ideologically neutral, objective, and community-oriented, producing conservative or liberal-leaning local news content for an audience that may not be aware of its included bias. Its audience’s sense of community, a motivating factor when processing and evaluating community news, may lead that audience to be less inclined to critically examine the information they are presented with.
Now, consider the same content produced in 360VR – does sense of community as well as immersion, presence, and limited cognitive processing capacity influence the amount of information retained in memory, or influence or limit the ability to counterargue against that information, if one would ordinarily choose to do so? This study will attempt to measure the inclusion of messages designed to trigger a perception of bias response in the form of message manipulation, as well as measure the effects of ideology on message perception in a 360VR news story to find out. Further, the presence of a reporter on screen vs. a reporter voicing a narration off-screen alter the way the
10 content is perceived in terms of attention allocation, memory retention, and perception of credibility, all elements present in the aforementioned examples and regularly featured in community news stories across the world. As such, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the emerging body of research investigating the effects of HMD-viewed
360-degree virtual reality news experiences on a news audience in a community news context. This study will center on local or community news content shot in the same geolocal environment in which the experimental population pools will be recruited from.
It will be shot in 360VR and viewed in a HMD, separating itself from much of the existing research which tests differences between 2D, text, and 360VR stories and almost exclusively examines various effects of 360VR news stimuli shot in distant, unfamiliar, and novel environments. In addition, it will contribute research into our understanding of persuasive messages in a virtual reality news context that may be more likely to change a person’s attitude toward an attitude object when high levels of immersion and spatial presence in an information-rich mediated news experience are present, potentially limiting the capacity of an audience member to process and counterargue against those messages.
This study contains two experiments that address these questions. The first is a two-condition experiment measuring memory performance in a 360VR community news experience across two conditions to determine whether the presence of an on-screen community reporter helps a user focus and allocate attention on the story to encode and recall information, and whether that user’s sense of community influences that process.
The second, whose stimulus was contingent on the outcome of the overall memory
11 performance results of the first experiment in terms of the presence or absence of a reporter, is a 2x2x3 factorial design experiment to test the effects of sense of community, content richness, immersion and spatial presence, and personal ideology on memory retention and counterargument, which may in turn affect persuasion and attitude change toward an attitude object. The following literature review will explore a brief history of virtual reality, the adoption and use of 360-degree video in journalism and news, key concepts and theoretical constructs integral to understanding 360VR, cognitive processing and memory, and persuasion and attitude change in context of mediated messages.
12 Chapter 2: Defining 360VR
Before diving too deep into the experiments themselves, it is necessary to understand the evolution of virtual reality and where it sits now, key differences between what’s commonly perceived as VR, which is traditionally gaming-based, and video-based
360VR, as well as key cognitive processes activated when immersed in a VR experience.
It is also necessary to understand the theoretical perspectives, and scrutinize previous research examining its effects on its audience. 360VR, in diffusion of innovations terms, is in its infancy. Its adoption by journalists is just as underdeveloped. As such, academic research into its effects are limited, with much being published in the past two years and primarily focusing on immersion, spatial presence, and emotional affect. However, I will draw from research examining other media as well, such as television, film, radio, interactive websites, and gaming, in order to help build a case for my research. It is important, after all, to understand what came before in order to make sense of what’s happening now.
VR and 360VR – What’s the Difference?
A lengthy and ongoing argument over what constitutes “virtual reality” has arisen since 360-degree video hit the mediascape. Industry leaders, researchers, and users had difficulty describing or defining the difference between 360-degree video in its three formats and CGI and gaming-based virtual reality. On the surface, VR is an artificial environment in which a person can act in some manner or other. But it is not that simple.
Below the breakwater, the delineations are complex. As the technology advances and
13 becomes more nuanced, it is important to understand some of the key differences between different types of VR.
Virtual reality has been defined as “a medium composed of interactive computer simulations that sense the participant’s position and actions, providing synthetic feedback to one or more senses, giving the feeling of being immersed or being present in the simulation” (Sherman & Craig, 2003). Based on this definition, which was published more than a decade before 360-degree video existed, 360VR is not a virtual reality. It does not rely on computer-simulated environments, is not interactive in terms of being able to use a controller and manipulate digital objects and does not provide synthetic feedback such as haptic response when interacting with those objects, although it does
“sense” the participant’s position and actions. In that, VR and 360VR share a familial relationship. Both provide synthetic feedback to one or more senses in terms of aural and visual response to motion. It also facilitates the participant’s feeling of being immersed or being present (two separate, often conflated concepts to be parsed out later).
Until around 2014, virtual reality was synonymous with video gaming and CGI real-world simulation – computer-animated environments, characters and objects that a user with a head-mounted display and handheld controllers is able to manipulate. Dyson defines “virtual” as a designation for the immaterial, the separation between traditional media and digital domains – a simulated space where people can exist and “where users can be” (Dyson, 2009, p. 1). She describes the simulated space in her book using adjectives such as transcendent, sublime, mystical, operating through immersion, using an apparent mythic and cosmic space where people, assisted by technology, can immerse
14 themselves, inhabit, and interact (Dyson, 2009). De la Pena describes it as a technology- assisted, virtually-rendered environment in which participants, aided by HMDs, are transported into the illusion of being present in that environment. She exerts they tend to respond realistically to events and situations depicted even though they know they are not real, evidenced by users physically reacting to the illusion (De la Pena et al, 2010).
Beyond its production and differences in graphical representation (CG animation or captured video), the term “interactivity” is what truly separates the two, at least at this point in their development. In CGI VR, the user is able to utilize a controller to move within the environment and is able to manipulate and interact with digitally rendered objects and characters, much like in a computer or console-based game. In 360VR, interactivity is sacrificed for realism – while a user may change perspective within an experience, may choose where to allocate attention, and where and how to explore the environment, the user is anchored to where the camera is placed and cannot move within the environment beyond that anchor. Further, although the user can move from scene to scene, from video to video using a controller, it cannot interact with or manipulate the objects or characters depicted. Although a 360VR user is active within the experience in that they are making engaged decisions and acting upon those decisions, such as deciding to explore (or not explore) the visual environment, focus on an object or person, pay attention and follow sound cues or ignore them, said user cannot interact with the environment itself.
It is worth noting that the rhetoric around VR and 360VR has evolved along with the tech. First, one played a VR game, or watched a 360VR video. Then one played IN a
15 VR game or was IN a 360VR video. Then one “was in” VR and watched a 360VR
“experience.” You’re not watching a pride of lions, you’re EXPERIENCING it. You’re not playing a VR video game you are IN a VR environment. As Dyson put it, “Three key rhetorical maneuvers accompany these constructions: first, the shift from ‘looking at’ to
‘being in’ that VR inaugurated; second, the conflation of ‘being-in’ a virtual environment with ‘being’ in general; and third, the equivalence between ‘digital’ and organic being and the reliance upon a technologically inspired form of evolution that has come to define posthumanism.” (2009, p. 2). It is no surprise, then, that early researchers focused their attention on emotional response.
360VR has been described as a “cultural tool for empathy” (Cowles, n.d.). As an example, director and VR innovator Nonny de la Pena, nicknamed “Godmother of
Virtual Reality” and whose work in immersive storytelling is heavily cited in both VR and 360VR literature, has been producing CGI simulations of real-world news events, such as the aforementioned story about the food line. Since, she has produced “Across the
Line”, a short 360VR experience that puts its audience in the shoes of an abortion clinic patient as she walks through a gauntlet of screaming protestors outside a Planned
Parenthood center (de la Pena, Lichtenstein, & Fitzsimmons, 2916). De la Pena has also created similar experiences in Syrian refugee camps, on the streets of Los Angeles as a homeless person, and has referred to 360VR as an “empathy machine” (Bradley, 2018,
Nov. 3), with the brief explanation that by putting people into places and situations they may have never experienced for themselves, they may better understand those who do experience them in the real world. Partially in response to these and other virtual
16 experiences designed to maximize emotional impact, which for many were their first brushes with the technology and its capabilities, much of the scholarly research has focused on the medium’s capacity to elicit an emotional response, although no longitudinal study has been conducted to measure whether any feelings toward an object or situation is merely a temporary reaction and not a more impactful, long-term effect.
While this study in itself is not a longitudinal study, it may serve as a jump-off point for future research.
17 Chapter 3: The Presence or Absence of an On-screen Reporter
Experiment 1 – Spatial Presence, Memory Performance, and Journalist Credibility
The independent variable in this experiment is the presence or absence of an on- screen reporter. The dependent variables are memory performance, spatial presence, and journalist credibility. Sense of community will be considered a present independent variable. Researchers need to look beyond reactional emotional affect and dive deeper, for example, to test cognition. Inherent to understanding how a user experiences 360VR is understanding attention allocation and memory – how are users deciding what to focus on when they are fully present in the mediated environment, and what pieces of information within that environment are encoded, stored, then recalled afterward. As the eye-tracking and heat-mapping equipment necessary to conduct a rigorous attention allocation and focus study are not available to me for this dissertation, I will focus my attention on memory performance.
Reviewing available scholarly literature, it does not appear a direct study on the presence of an on-screen reporter or narrative voiceover and whether one is more effective than the other in terms of attention allocation or memory performance has been conducted, although research into the assignment of anthropomorphic characteristics to media technology and content is plentiful (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Certainly, no such study has been conducted looking at 360VR. Reeves and Nass argue people’s responses to media are fundamentally social and naturally occurring, treating computers, televisions, mobile devices with politeness, assigning personality, affect, assigning social roles, and so on. Although this line of inquiry does not directly address the presence of a
18 reporter, it does suggest said presence may generate a social or natural response.
Regarding modality and drawing on the development of best practice via the New York
Times’ Daily 360 initiative, both reporter (ex: This Week in Hate: A Sikh Woman’s
Subway Ride, published March 24, 2017, The Fight for Fallujah, published Aug. 11,
2016) and voiceover (ex: Behind the Scenes at the Natural History Museum, published
Dec. 28, 2017, Coping with Alzheimer’s, Together and Apart, published Dec. 27, 2017) methods have been employed in its news stories. As a part of the initiative, in 2016 more than 200 journalists filmed 360-degree videos in 57 countries, published near the end of
2016 and into 2017 (Tileli, 2019, Jan. 16). Early on, the Times also employed embedded text in order to relay information to the user (ex: Sleeping on Denver’s Bitter Cold
Streets, published Jan. 9, 2017, and Rebuilding a Highway through a Denver Community, published Feb. 21, 2017), but that modality was abandoned after it became clear the text distracted users (ex: see Witness the Women’s March in Washington, published Jan 22,
2017) (Bajpai, 2018; Tileli, 2019) from exploring the 360VR environment and presumably pulled users out of their feelings of presence. When a journalist or interviewee was not present in the news story, voiceovers of both reporters and interview subjects were employed to narrate the news stories. Based on that and other examples of
360VR content produced by news organizations, this study will first test differences in attention allocation and memory retention between experiences with and without the presence of an on-screen reporter.
Reported events in mass media are distinguished from personally experienced, autobiographical events in a mediated reality by the presence of a mediated
19 communicator – in news, a reporter or narrator – to relay information and provide context for the event (Larsen & Plinkett, 1987). One could argue, however, that if provided the opportunity and time to explore a virtual environment on their own accord, they may remember the experience as personal rather than mediated whether or not they were actually physically present in the environment or situation depicted. In line with that notion, a news event does not have to be personally experienced for a person to obtain information about those events (Larsen & Plinkett, 1987). Research has explored memory and news from myriad perspectives, from positive and negative valence, political biases, sense of community, low- and high-level audio and visual stimuli, graphic sexual or violent content, and so on. Larsen and Plinkett (1987) explored memory and news – differences between remembering events that happened to a person vs. remembering events told by a reporter. Their findings showed that reported events take much longer time to retrieve than actually experienced events, suggesting reported events are forgotten at the same rate as experienced events. But memories are organized in such a way that reported events often have to be accessed indirectly through memories of associated personally experienced events.
Limited Capacity Model, Message Processing, and Memory Performance
The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing
(LC4MP) operates under the assumption that human brains have a limited amount of cognitive resource to allocate to any mediated message at any given time, and that humans when consuming media are actively engaged in processing information within media messages (Lang, 2000). The model explains information processing on the basis of
20 underlying cognitive mechanisms and is readily applied to mass communication and media messages (Lang 2000, 2006, 2009; Srivastava, 2010; Srivastava, Saks, Weed &
Atkins, 2018). 360VR is a rich medium, and its active audience participation requirement and immersive content using up significant cognitive resource. As such, LC4MP is an appropriate theoretical framework through which to examine attention allocation and memory performance.
At its most basic, LC4MP states people will undergo the cognitive process of encoding media messages, storing them, and retrieving/recalling them, under automatically or controlled and prompted conditions, such as being asked to think back and remember a specific event (Lang, 2000; Lang, Bradley, Park, Shin, & Chung, 2006).
It has been used to look at cognitive load and its effect on the reduction of mediated sexual violence (Read, Lynch, & Matthews, 2018), advertisement processing in first- person shooter games (Chung & Sparks, 2016), motivational relevance in the efficacy of cancer-related communication messages (Lang, 2006), arousal level and advertising recall (Kim & Kim, 2013), information density and message complexity (Gao & Lang,
2009), and processing information cues embedded in webpage content while multitasking
(Srivastava, 2010).
The model, according to Lang (2006), has five major assumptions about 1 – about the nature of cognition in that people have limited cognitive resources to expend on a given task; 2 – the nature of motivation in that people process mediated stimuli based on motivational relevance, either by approaching or avoiding them; 3 – the nature of media, in that media varies, engaging different sensory channels such as aural, visual, touch, in
21 different formats such as text, sound, still and moving pictures, animations, etc., each of which engage cognition in different ways; 4 – the nature of time, in that human behavior and cognition is a dynamic process that changes from moment to moment; and 5 – the nature of communication, in that human communication is an overtime interaction between the cognitive processing system and the mediated message content. Each of these influence memory encoding, storing, and retrieval (Lang, 2006). Communication, then, “is a continuous, interactive, dynamic, embodied process, all of which must be taken into account when designing effective messages about anything” (Lang, 2006, p.
559).
Increased cognitive load on a news audience has a negative effect on memory performance and cued recall (Schaap, Kleemans & Cauwenberge, 2018), particularly on factual information recall. High cognitive load, such as the load required to process a
360VR news experience, may lead to low levels of recall and comprehension
(Cauwenberge, Schaap, & Roy, 2014). News information can be affected by visual content. Further, research into television news suggests strong visual stimuli may inhibit memory encoding of simultaneous aural stimuli (Gunter, 1980). However, video content can help promote information recall (Wilson et al, 2010), and audio and visual news story elements interact with one another to aid memory encoding and recall (Kamhawi, 2003), and visually attention-grabbing news stimuli facilitates greater memory recall than audio or text-based stimuli (Gunter & Furnham, 1987). Finally, high-level visual perception cues, such as faces, have been shown to be effective in encouraging attention allocation, and central visual cues have been shown to discourage attention reallocation (Brasel &
22 Gips, 2017). It is reasonable, then, to argue the presence of a high-level visual perception cue such as the presence of an on-screen reporter will deter a 360VR participant from navigating away from the reporter, and carry the potential to aid memory retention.
Additionally, research has also demonstrated people engage in deeper cognitive information processing when presented with communicator cues, present in an on-screen reporter (Chaiken & Eagley,1983). 360VR content is not as fast-paced as television news, and the argument could be made that a comparison of the two media is not relevant.
Unlike television news, 360VR allows its users to exert control over the information they receive while in or committed to the experience, allowing them to digest it at a slower pace, which may aid memory encoding and recall (Gunter, 1987; Van Der Molen &
Klijn, 2003). Further, when the visual and aural elements of the story match and attention is paid to each, recall is higher (Van Der Molen & Klijn, 2003). Some of these findings are contradictory, and none of them have been conducted in the realm of VR or 360VR.
Thus, the following research question is posed: RQ1: What is the relationship between the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter and information processing and retrieval outcomes in a 360VR news story experience?
Immersion and Presence
When addressing virtual reality of any kind, the most common concepts applied in research or in content creation and professional practice are immersion and presence.
Immersion and presence, while separate concepts, work in concert across media platforms, including print (Green & Brock, 2000), radio (Rumsey, 2015), television
(Reeves, 1978), video games (Ivory, Fox, Waddell & Ivory, 2014; Ivory &
23 Kalyanaraman, 2007), virtual reality (De la Pena, 2010), 360VR (Atkins, McLean &
Canter, 2017), and, in some cases, well-constructed literature (Green & Brock, 2000), and mobile online environments (Horning, 2017). The two concepts are often conflated but are indeed separate. The simplest way to understand the differences is the following:
Immersion is technological, while spatial presence is experiential and cognitive (Kim,
Ahn, Kwon, & Reid, 2017). Immersion may lead to the activation of spatial presence mechanisms. Immersion does not rely on presence, but presence may rely on immersion.
Immersion is defined by Slater and Wilbur (1997) as the physical state of being enveloped by sensory information created by media and is defined by Murray (1997) as the experience of being completely surrounded by another reality. Immersion from a
360VR perspective ideally requires sensory and cognitive engagement in real time (Slater
& Wilbur, 1997; Slater, 2009; Hartmann et al, 2016). Slater and Sanchez-Vives (2016) specifically separates the two out as follows:
By an immersive VR system we mean one that delivers the ability to
perceive through natural sensorimotor contingencies. This is entirely
determined by the technology. Whether you can turn around 360 degrees,
all the while seeing a very low-latency continuous update of your visual
field in correspondence with your gaze direction, is completely a function
of the extent to which the system can do this. We can classify systems in
this way as being more or less immersive. We say that system A is more
immersive than system B if A can be used to simulate the perception
afforded by B but not vice versa. … Immersion describes the technical
24 capabilities of a system, it is the physics of the system. A subjective
correlate of immersion is presence. If a participant in a VR perceives by
using her body in a natural way, then the simplest inference for her brain’s
perceptual system to make is that what is being perceived is the
participant’s actual surroundings. This gives rise to the subjective illusion
that is referred to in the literature as presence – the illusion of “being
there” in the environment depicted by the VR displays – in spite of the fact
that you know for sure that you are not actually there (P. 5).
Other researchers extrapolate: Biocca (1997) defines presence as the subjective feeling of “being there.” Witmer and Singer (1998) defined it as the subjective experience of being in one place, even when physically located in a different place, a process that not only requires technological immersion but cognitive involvement. Presence is the psychological and behavioral response to an immersive environment. When presence is activated, a person will feel and behave within the virtual environment in a manner similar to the way the person would in real-world based cognate circumstances (Slater &
Wilbur, 1997; Slater, 2009; Hartmann et al, 2016). Spatial presence, described by Wirth et al (2007), engages a high amount of cognitive resource, including a cognitive mapping process that helps orient a person within a virtual environment. This cognitive mapping makes this a more precise concept when applied to VR. The activation of spatial presence frequently occurs in a 360VR experience (Sundar et al, 2017). It is also plausible, however, such an exploration deterrent in the form of an on-screen reporter may decrease the activation of spatial presence. Considering that, the following research question is
25 posed: RQ2: What is the relationship between the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter and spatial presence in a 360VR news story experience?
Sense of Community
Research has demonstrated a close relationship between memory recall and prior knowledge, even cursory knowledge, of a news event (Findahl & Hoijer, 1985). More easily recalled pieces of information, Findahl and Hoijer found, were pieces about where an event occurred – the place – and who was involved in it – the characters in the narrative. Information about causes and consequences was more difficult to recall
(Findahl & Hoijer, 1985). Motivational activation through message factors plays a key role in message salience (Srivastava, Saks, Weed & Atkins, 2018). Sense of community may influence the strength of message salience, in that the stronger a person feels tied to their community the more salient the message (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Atkins, 2016), and the more salient the message, the more likely a person is to be motivated to encode, store, and recall that message (Lang, 2000). In a community news context, in which an audience has prior knowledge of where a news event occurred and perhaps who was involved may, then, aid memory performance about the story. According to the limited capacity model, people have a limited amount of cognitive resource available to process message information. If a stimulus is rich in information and requires significant resource allocation to process, pieces of information will be overlooked, not encoded, stored, and cannot be retrieved. Motivation is a key factor – if a news story is perceived as relevant or salient to a user, that user will be more likely to allocate resource to processing that story, arguing for sense of community as a factor in the process. Further, longitudinal
26 data demonstrates location-based and place-familiar information content is perceived as more valuable and relevant or salient to people when they feel ties to the location or place
(Huhn et al, 2017). With that in mind, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: People who feel a stronger sense of community will have greater memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story experience shot in a familiar location.
Research into community journalism – local news with an immediate impact on a news audience’s proximal location – demonstrates when people have a strong sense of community they may be more likely to see a community-oriented news story as relevant or salient, and a reporter as credible (Atkins, 2016; Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard,
Welbourne & Broughton, 2011; Carey & Meyer, 2016; McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
McMillan and Chavis (1986), who developed the psychological sense of community as a psychological concept and developed it into a theory, define sense of community theory
(SOC) as a tool to measure both geographic and interest-based communities and their shared values, symbols both physical and verbal, and commonalities among members. A sense of community is an overarching value, or characterization of the relationship between a person and a social structure (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). SOC has four primary factors: membership, influence, needs fulfillment, and emotional connection
(McMillan & Chavis, 1986) and has been applied to community-oriented journalism in different contexts, including online and interactive journalism (Atkins, 2016; Blanchard,
2004; Blanchard, Welbourne & Broughton, 2011; Mersey, 2009; 2009a; 2010; Carey &
Meyer, 2016;). A well-crafted 360VR community news story carries the potential to activate each of these mechanisms. SOC itself is not an independent variable in this study
27 – it is not a part of the manipulation, nor is it a dependent variable – it resides within the individual. But when addressing or operating within a community news environment or conducting research in a local news context, SOC is at play and may present a potential confound if not addressed and controlled for. As the 360VR stimuli in this study will consist of a local, community-oriented news story, measuring SOC and testing its influence may help understand whether it plays a role in 360VR journalism as it does in other journalism contexts. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: People who feel a stronger sense of community will perceive a higher level of journalist credibility in a community-oriented 360VR news story experience shot in a familiar location.
The Perception of Journalist Credibility
Credibility is the currency of the journalism world. The perception of credibility – or lack thereof – has copious effects on how news is seen through the eyes of its audience. Credibility, or more precisely, the perceived credibility of a message or message sender which consists of judgments made by the message recipient about the believability of the message’s sender (Meyer, 1988; Baiocchi-Wagner & Behm-
Morawitz, 2010), is a complex construct with myriad variables ingrained in a message receiver (Baiocchi-Wagner & Behm-Morawitz, 2010; Meyer & Carey, 2015; Meyer,
Marchionni, & Thorson, 2010; O’Keefe, 2002; Plaisance, 2014; Tanta, Selmic, & Levak,
2017). Three of the general measures, however, are perceived believability of the message itself, its source (journalist or media organization) or the medium by which it is delivered by a receiver, such as a newspaper, website, mobile app, radio, television, podcast, or in this case a VR headset (Meyer, Marchionni & Thorson, 2010).
28 Psychologists and communication researchers have found message receivers, here audience members or news consumers, use a set of cognitive filters or heuristics when bombarded by media messages, largely shaped by personal experience, social and political values, and the desire to have our own beliefs validated (Plaisance, 2014). Each of these factors may have an effect on the perception of credibility of a message in a news story. People selectively attend to message factors, such as attractiveness of message sender, perceived eye contact, perception of a challenge to beliefs and opinions, and perceived relevance to the self (Plaisance, 2014). People also seek messages that reinforce their personal worldview, assessing dress and appearance, quotes, attitude, perceived bias, claims and evidence, in context of how much they reflect or reinforce values (Plaisance, 2014) and avoid, discount, or filter out dissonant or challenging messages (Festinger, 1957), all of which may affect a person’s judgment of message credibility. To tie this into journalism and this study, one of the variables that has been shown to affect credibility as well as information recall is the presence of an on-screen person such as an instructor or reporter (Wang & Antonenko, 2017). A reporter, professional in appearance and demeanor, making eye contact with a camera and giving the illusion of eye contact with the audience, objectively reporting a news story that does not directly address a social or political value that may activate a dissonant or cognitive filter response, may influence the perceived credibility of a news story. Wang and
Antonenko (2017) conducted an experiment testing visual attention and information recall and found the presence of an on-screen person relaying information attracted and held attention, which positively influenced perceived satisfaction. It may be argued, then,
29 that the presence of an on-screen reporter in a virtual reality news story will have a positive effect on the perception of journalist credibility in a 360VR news story.
With this in mind, the following hypothesis is presented: H3: Journalist credibility will be positively affected by the presence of an on-screen reporter in a 360VR news story experience when compared to the voiceover condition news story.
30 Chapter 4: Experiment 1 – Execution, Analysis, Results
Participants were recruited from both a general population of undergraduate and graduate students at Ohio University as well as from members of the general public in
Athens County, Ohio. Undergraduate students who were recruited from classes were offered a small amount of extra credit from their instructors in exchange for their participation. All other participants received no compensation for their time.
Data collection began May 1, 2019 and continued through June 11. There were 56 total participants in the experiment. Of the 56 participants, 66.1% identified as female
(n=37) and 33.9% identified as male (n=19). Participant ages ranged between 18 and 40, with the majority (78%, n=44) between the ages of 18 and 21. Regarding race, the majority, 78%, identified as White/Caucasian (n=44), followed by 10% Black/African
American (n=6), 7% (n=4) Asian, and 5% (n=3) Hispanic or Indian. Regarding profession or area of university study, the majority, 87%, indicated they had a communication-based background. Most were journalism (n=39), other communication
(n=10), and non-communication (n=7), indicating one of the following: engineering, business, interior design, music education, physics, pre-med, criminology. Regarding political ideology, 64% identified as liberal (n=36), 20% identified as conservative
(n=11), and 16% identified as moderate (n=9).
Experiment 1 – Procedure
Upon arrival at the lab, participants were instructed to leave their belongings on a table at the door. The door was then closed, ensuring the session would not be interrupted. Either the researcher or a trained lab assistant went over the consent form –
31 one for the students receiving extra credit for participation and one for everyone else, considered members of the general public. Upon obtaining consent, the researcher or assistant randomly assigned the participant to one of two experimental conditions by using an online random number generator engine. Participants whose randomly generated number fell between 1 and 50 were assigned to Condition 1 (n=28), and those whose number fell between 51 and 100 were assigned to Condition 2 (n=28). The researcher or assistant entered the number of the condition into the Qualtrics data collection device on a computer, then instructed the participant to sit at that computer. The participant was instructed to enter demographic information and answer a series of pretest questions – which included controls for 360 and 360VR experience, news production familiarity, as well as the Sense of Community scale – then to inform the researcher when they arrived at a Stop page. The researcher then moved the participant to a swivel chair in the center of the room, facing the left wall in order to ensure each participant began the experience in the same position. The researcher informed the participant they would now experience a local 360VR news story about an issue relevant to Athens residents, and that afterward they would be directed back to the computer and given a memory assessment. Next, the researcher pointed out the participant should feel free to explore the experience as they saw fit, noting they were on a swivel chair and could use the full 360 degrees if they so chose. The researcher then cued up the Oculus Go HMD with the video corresponding with the experimental condition, then placed the HMD on the participant’s head, instructing them to adjust it until it felt comfortable. To ensure the appropriate HMD was selected by the researcher, each was labeled by condition using a cut strip of green sticky
32 note and tape, placed in a position the participant could not see. After completing the news story, the researcher removed the HMD and immediately directed the participant back to the computer to take the memory assessment. Following the assessment, the participant completed scales used to measure journalist credibility and spatial presence.
Upon completion, the participant was debriefed by the researcher and informed the story, although based on real events, was fabricated for the purpose of the experiment. The participant was given an opportunity to ask any questions they had about the experiment and was instructed not to inform anyone about its specifics.
Experiment 1 – Stimulus
The two experiences were designed to be shot-for-shot identical, with the exception of the presence or absence of the reporter. See Figures 1-4.
Figure 1. Reporter condition. 33 Figure 2. The equivalent of Figure 1 without the presence of a reporter.
In the opening and closing shots where the reporter was outdoors in a public space, the shots were timed in such a manner as to limit the presence of uncontrollable features, such as pedestrians, cloud cover, sunlight penetration, vegetation growth, or vehicle traffic. While this did amount to subtle differences between stimuli, none of the memory performance questions were derived from these differences.
The visually oriented memory-related questions were created based on the identical, controlled visual shots, while the aurally oriented questions were not affected.
The reporter who appeared in the stimulus and provided the voiceover was an on camera- trained journalist, was female, had blond hair, and wore identical clothing and hairstyle in each shot. Her on-camera audio, which was captured live using a lavalier mic, was used
34 Figure 3. City council meeting in both conditions.
as the voiceover for the no-reporter condition to ensure they would be identical. See
Appendix A for the stimulus script.
Figure 4. A police vehicle in both conditions.
35 Experiment 1 – Analysis
Controls. To control for familiarity and experience with 360-degree video, 360- degree video and VR head-mounted displays, and news production, participants were asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all familiar) to 5 (extremely familiar) how familiar they were with 360-degree video in any format, 360-degree video in VR head-mounted displays, and familiarity with news production techniques.
Regarding familiarity with 360-degree video, 12% (n=7) indicated it was their first time;
87% (n=49) indicated some level of familiarity – 66% indicated they rarely view 360 videos, 17% (n=10) indicated they occasionally view 360 videos, and 3% (n=2) indicated they often view 360 videos. Regarding familiarity with VR head-mounted displays, 14%
(n=8) indicated it was their first time in an HMD; 78% (n=44) indicated they had used
HMDs previously but rarely, 5% (n=3) indicated they occasionally use HMDs, and 2%
(n=1) indicated they do so frequently. Regarding news production familiarity, 23%
(n=13) said they were not at all familiar with video news production techniques; 33.9%
(n=19) were slightly familiar; 25% (n=14) were moderately familiar; 14.2% (n=8) were very familiar; and 3.5% (n=2) were extremely familiar.
Scale variables. Sense of community was measured using the Brief Sense of
Community Scale (Peterson, Speer, & McMillan, 2008), which consisted of eight items on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicating the lowest, 4 a neutral, and 7 the highest – two each indicating levels of membership, influence, needs fulfillment, and emotional connection. Reliability was
36 determined using Cronbach’s Alpha (a=.887). Using the mean, the eight items were condensed into a single scale variable, SOC (M=4.77, SD=1.00). See Table 1.
Table 1 Scale variable reliability measures Scale Alpha Mean SD Spatial Presence .823 5.53 .883 Journalist Credibility .829 5.77 .741 Sense of Community .887 4.77 1.00
Spatial presence was measured using an 8-item, 7-point Likert-type scale
(Hartmann, 2016) with 1 indicating the lowest, 4 a neutral, and 7 the highest. Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s Alpha (a=.823). Using the mean, the eight items were condensed into a single scale variable, Spatial Presence (M=5.53, SD=.883). See Table 1.
Journalist credibility was measured using an 8-item, 7-point Likert-type scale
(Meyer, 1988) with 1 indicating the lowest, 4 a neutral, and 7 the highest. Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s Alpha (a=.829). Using the mean, the eight items were condensed into a single scale variable, Journalist Credibility (M=5.77, SD=.741). See
Table 1.
Memory performance. Memory performance was determined in a post-treatment assessment. Participants were asked five Aided Recall (multiple choice) questions. See
Table 2. The questions asked each participant 1: When did the Richland Avenue street crossing become a legal crosswalk?; 2: How many people were hit by cars around the crosswalk in the last year alone?; 3: What is the estimated cost of the project?; 4: What color were the walls in the City Council chamber?; and 5: What was written on the side
37 of the green bus that passed through the crosswalk?. Each correct response was coded 1, each incorrect response was coded 0. The responses were summed into a single scale,
Aided Recall (M=3.42, SD=1.14).
Table 2 Memory performance scale Measure Mean SD Aided recall* 3.42 1.14 Cued recall* 2.44 .95 Aural performance* 2.67 1.19 Visual performance* 3.19 1.03 Memory performance** 5.87 1.72 *Range 1-5; **Range 1-10
Participants were also asked five Cued Recall (open answer, responding with text) questions. After data collection, the text was reviewed and each correct response was coded 1, each incorrect response was coded 0. The five questions were given the aforementioned numeric values and were summed into a single scale, Cued Recall
(M=2.44, SD=.95). Regarding cued recall question 1, which asked the average number of people per hour who passed through the crosswalk on any given day, the correct answer was 3,000, coded as 1. All other answers were coded as 0. Regarding cued recall question
2, which asked which law enforcement agency a police vehicle which passed through the crosswalk belonged to, the correct answer was the sheriff’s department (or some variant, such as Sheriff Dept, or Athens Sheriff, or Sheriff), coded as 1. All other answers were coded as 0. Regarding cued recall question 3, the participant was asked to describe the hair color of the city councilwoman who spoke during the depicted public meeting. The correct answer, depending on the participant’s visual interpretation and spelling, was
38 grey/gray, white/silver, or some close variant (one answered white-ish), coded as 1. All other answers were coded as 0. Regarding cued recall question 4, which asked the number of months city officials studied the crosswalk before making their recommendation, the correct answer was 6, six, 6 months, or six months, coded as 1. All other answers were coded as 0. Regarding cued recall question 5, the participant was asked to recall which two colors the crosswalk was painted. It was determined after review one color was clearly white and the other was either perceived as yellow or green.
The correct answer, then, was either white and yellow, white and green, or some variant such as white and yellowish-green, coded as 1. All other answers were coded as 0. To further parse out memory performance, the five questions that required the participant to remember a visual element of the experience were summed into a single variable, Visual
Performance (M=3.19, SD=1.03). Likewise, the five questions that required the participant to remember a verbally-delivered, aurally received element of the experience were summed into a single variable, Aural Performance (M=2.67, SD=1.19). All 10
Aided Recall and Cued Recall questions were summed into a single scale, Memory
Performance (M=5.87, SD=1.72), which will serve as the primary memory-related variable for the analysis and determine whether an on-screen reporter will be present in the second experiment.
Findings and Results
RQ1: What is the relationship between the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter and information processing and retrieval outcomes in a 360VR news story experience?
39 To answer RQ1, first a chi-square test of goodness of fit was performed to assess whether the memory performance data followed a normal distribution curve and examined whether performance was equally distributed across conditions. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Normality
No significant difference between the distributions of the two groups was found.
푋2(2, N=56) = 7.16, p=.4, DF=7, and Levene’s test indicated equal variance (F=.119, p=.731). To measure mean differences between the two experimental conditions, an independent samples t-test was run using categorical variable Condition as the grouping variable and scale variable Memory Performance as the test variable. Findings indicate no significant difference in overall memory performance between the participants in the absence of a reporter condition (M=6.27. SD=1.76), and the on-screen reporter condition
(M=5.57, SD=1.66), t(54) = 1.32, p=.191. The mean difference is .607 with a standard
40 error of .458 at a 95% confidence interval. This indicates the presence or absence of a reporter in the 360VR news story did not play a significant role in the overall perception and memory performance of the participants in this study. See Table 3.
Table 3 Results of t-tests for SOC, Spatial Presence, Journalist Credibility, Memory Performance Outcome Group 9% CI No reporter Reporter Mean M SD n M SD n Difference t df SOC 4.63 1.05 28 4.95 .937 28 -.321 - 54 1.20 Spatial 5.73 .76 28 5.27 .937 28 .462 2.01 54 Presence* Journalist 5.91 .74 28 5.63 .942 28 .281 1.43 54 Credibility Memory 6.17 1.76 28 5.57 .724 28 .607 1.32 54 Performance *P<.05
Because no significant difference was found in overall memory performance, the
Memory Performance variable was broken down to assess how well participants performed in each condition regarding the visual and aural story elements. An independent samples t-test was run using categorical variable Condition as the grouping variable and memory scale variables Visual Performance and Aural Performance as the test variables. Findings indicate no significant difference in aural performance between participants in the absence of a reporter condition (M=2.67, SD=1.27), and the on-screen reporter condition (M=2.67, SD=1.12) t(54) = 0.00, p=1. However, findings do indicate a significant difference in visual performance between participants in the absence of a reporter condition (M=3.5, SD=.79) and the on-screen reporter condition (M=2.89,
41 SD=1.16), t(54) = 1.36, p=.027. This indicates the participants in the condition without the presence of an on-screen reporter paid more attention to the surrounding visual environment than the participants who saw the reporter and focused attention on her. A future study using the journalist as a guide could be explicitly manipulated to measure for visual elements unrelated to the news story while the journalist is present in order to further parse out this finding.
RQ2: What is the relationship between the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter and spatial presence in a 360VR news story experience?
To answer RQ2, which asked about the relationship between the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter and spatial presence, an independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the means between the two conditions, which showed differences between conditions in spatial presence. See Table 3. Condition 1 (M=5.73, SD=.76) had a higher spatial presence than condition 2 (M= 5.2, SD= .94), t(54) = 2.01, p=.049, indicating participants in the absence of a reporter condition felt more spatially present than the participants in the reporter condition. See Table 3. However, a Pearson correlation test determined no relationship between spatial presence and any element of memory performance (visual, aural, cued recall, aided recall), indicating that although the participants felt more present in the experience, that presence did not increase or decrease memory performance.
Further, a post-hoc bivariate Pearson correlation test between SOC scale and
Spatial Presence revealed a significant but weak positive relationship between Sense of
Community (M= 4.79, SD=1.00) and Spatial Presence (M=5.50, SD=.88), r(54)=.283,
42 p=.035. An independent samples t-test using Sense of Community as the grouping variable and 4 as the cut point found those who felt a higher sense of community (n=43,
M=5.63, SD=.732) also felt more present in the experience than those who felt a lower sense of community (n=13, M=5.09, SD=1.21), t(54) = 1.96, p=.05.
A post-hoc bivariate Pearson correlation test between Spatial Presence and
Journalist Credibility revealed a significant positive relationship between Spatial
Presence (M=5.50, SD=.883) and Journalist Credibility (M=5.77, SD=.741). r(54)=.422, p<.001. An independent samples t-test using Spatial Presence as the grouping variable was conducted to further explore the relationship. An examination of means showed only two participants indicated a spatial presence level 4 or lower, so a cut point of 5 was used. Results show participants who felt a spatial presence level of 5 or lower regardless of condition also rated the journalist lower in credibility (n=12, M=5.33, SD=.723) than those who felt a spatial presence of 6 or more (n=44, M=5.9, SD=.723), t(54) = 2.45, p=.017. After visually inspecting the histogram and scatterplot and determining no outliers are present, a linear regression with Spatial Presence as the predictor variable and
Journalist Credibility as the dependent variable was run. See Table 4. Results showed a significant regression (F(1,54) = 11.67, p<001) with an r2 of .162. Participants’ predicted perception of journalist credibility is equal to 3.83 + .354 spatial presence. The predictor explained 16% of the variance. Participants’ perception of journalist credibility increased
.354 for each single unit increase of Spatial Presence. A regression analysis by condition showed the findings significant in both the absence of reporter and on-screen reporter condition.
43
Table 4 Regression analysis: Spatial Presence predicting Journalist Credibility B SE B β t p Journalist Credibility 3.83 .577 6.63 .000 Spatial Presence .354 .104 .422 .341 .001 Note: r2 = .178
H1: People who feel a stronger sense of community will have greater memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story experience shot in a familiar location.
A bivariate Pearson correlation test between variables SOC and Memory
Performance revealed a significant but weak positive relationship between Sense of
Community (M= 4.79, SD=1.00) and Memory Performance, r(54)=.28, p=.037. This indicates an increase in Sense of Community slightly but positively correlated with an increase in Memory Performance. The hypothesis is supported. An independent samples t-test examining Memory Performance using SOC as the grouping variable with a cut point of 4 found a significant difference. Participants with a SOC of 4 or higher (n=43,
M=6.16, SD=1.57) had higher Memory Performance than those with a SOC of below 4
(n=13, M=4.92, SD 1.93), t(54) = 2.36, p=.02.
H2: People who feel a stronger sense of community will perceive a higher level of journalist credibility in a community-oriented 360VR news story experience shot in a familiar location.
A bivariate Pearson correlation test between variables SOC and Journalist
Credibility revealed Sense of Community (M=4.79, SD 1.0) did not have a significant relationship with Journalist Credibility (M=5.77, SD-.74), r(54)=.192, p=.19. Further, a 44 linear regression was run using SOC as the predictor and Journalist Credibility as the dependent variable. Findings indicate SOC is not a predictor of journalist credibility in this dataset, F(1, 54) = 2.064, p=.157. The hypothesis is not supported and no further tests were run.
H3: Journalist credibility will be positively affected by the presence of an on- screen reporter in a 360VR news story experience when compared to the voiceover condition news story.
A comparison of means using an independent-samples t-test between the absence of an on-screen reporter condition (n=28, M=5.91, SD=.74) and the presence of an on- screen reporter condition (n=28, M=5.63, SD=.72) on Journalist Credibility revealed no significant difference, t(54)=1.43, p=.158. The hypothesis is not supported and no further tests were run.
Gender, Political Ideology, Familiarity Controls
In order to further parse out the data, a series of post-hoc tests was run examining differences between the experience controls, demographic variables, and the dependent variables in this study.
A comparison of means determined no significant differences between men
(n=19) and women (n=37) regarding any of the measured variables Sense of Community,
Spatial Presence, Journalist Credibility, or Memory Performance. See Table 5.
45 Table 5 Results of t-tests for Gender on SOC, Spatial Presence, Journalist Credibility, Memory Performance Outcome Group 9% CI Males Females Mean M SD n M SD N Difference t df SOC 4.63 .978 19 4.87 1.01 37 -.247 -.874 54 Spatial 5.31 .975 19 5.60 .828 37 -.292 -1.17 54 Presence* Journalist 5.77 .765 19 5.78 .729 37 -.004 -0.19 54 Credibility Memory 5.47 2.03 19 6.08 1.53 37 -.607 .1.25 54 Performance *P<.05
Although not significant with a p value of .21, the largest mean difference between genders, -.607, occurred between men and women on memory performance – women slightly outperformed men. A Spearman’s rho correlation determined no relationship between nonparametric political ideology and memory performance
(p=.961). This was expected, as the stimulus was designed to be ideologically neutral.
However, it is interesting to note a Spearman’s rho correlation test determined that although not significant, a relationship between political ideology and journalist credibility came close but did not cross the threshold r(54)=-.233, p=.084. This may be the result of the sample population’s reported ideology being skewed to the left of the spectrum: 64% identified as liberal (n=36), 20% identified as conservative (n=11), and
16% identified as moderate (n=9), and may warrant further examination in future experiments.
A series of Pearson’s correlation tests determined no significant relationships between control variables 360-degree video familiarity, 360VR HMD familiarity, and
46 news production familiarity with any of the measured variables journalist credibility, spatial presence, sense of community, or memory performance, regardless of experimental condition.
47 Chapter 5: Experiment 1 - Discussion
The primary objective of this first experiment was to explore how people process
360VR news stories. I was interested in multiple processing outcomes and comparisons, specifically concerning attention allocation, perception, and, ultimately, memory performance. What information is the audience taking in when they view a community journalism experience in 360VR, and what do they walk away remembering from the experience? How are users deciding what to focus on when spatially present in the mediated environment, and what pieces of information are encoded, stored, and recalled afterward?
The first research question inquired about the relationship between the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter and information processing and retrieval outcomes in a 360VR news story experience. It was designed to investigate what people pay attention to, what they don’t, what they perceive and encode and retrieve afterward, and whether the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter aids or detracts from the process.
Statistically speaking, the RQ1 findings report no significant difference in overall memory performance between the participants in the absence of a reporter condition
(M=6.27. SD=1.76), and the on-screen reporter condition (M=5.57, SD=1.66), t(54) =
1.32, p=.191. This indicates that the presence or absence of a reporter in the 360VR news story did not play a statistically significant role in the overall perception and memory performance of the participants in this study. A post-hoc test, however, determined that participants without a reporter to focus on felt more free to allocate attention to the virtual environment. There was no significant difference in aural memory performance.
48 Beyond memory, this experiment set out to test the effects of the presence of an on-screen reporter or lack thereof on participants’ activated spatial presence mechanism as well as their perception of journalist credibility. Regarding spatial presence, participants who were not subjected to the reporter (M=5.73, SD=.76) indicated feeling more present in the virtual environment than those subjected to the reporter (M= 5.2,
SD= .94), t(54) = 2.01, p=.049, although higher levels of spatial presence did not result in better memory performance, perhaps due to a ceiling effect as spatial presence was high in both conditions. However, a Pearson correlation test determined no relationship between spatial presence and any element of memory performance (visual, aural, cued recall, aided recall), indicating that although the participants felt more present in the experience, that presence did not increase or decrease memory performance. Regarding credibility, there was no statistically significant difference between conditions and the perception of journalist credibility. This may have been the product of a ceiling effect, as both conditions reported high levels of journalist credibility.
Finally, this experiment tested the relationships between sense of community
(SOC) and each of the aforementioned variables, as it is important to understand how place-based storytelling in a community journalism context affects processing outcomes, particularly when the participants are already familiar with the place and the community in the real world. Participants with higher SOC (n=43, M=5.63, SD=.732) outpaced those with lower SOC regarding memory performance and felt a small but significant increase in spatial presence (n=13, M=5.09, SD=1.21), t(54) = 1.96, p=.05. However, SOC did not affect perceptions of journalist credibility. There were no statistically significant
49 differences regarding gender, political ideology, or among any of the familiarity with the technology controls among any of the measured variables Memory Performance, SOC,
Spatial Presence, or Journalist Credibility. The following sections evaluate the findings and their implications in the context of the theoretical premises discussed in the literature review section.
Memory Performance
As previously stated, the primary purpose of this experiment was to measure differences regarding the presence or absence of a reporter on memory performance in a
360VR news story. Statistically speaking, the RQ1 findings reported no significant difference between conditions regarding memory. The limited capacity model (LC4MP) operates under the assumption that humans have a limited amount of cognitive resources to allocate to any mediated message at any given time, and that humans when consuming media are actively engaged in processing information within mediated messages (Lang,
2000, 2006, 2009). 360VR is a rich medium that facilitates the activation of spatial presence mechanisms and requires its audience to actively choose where to assign attention and how to move within an experience, and the assumption is this process requires significant cognitive resource allocation. Participants in this study were informed of the memory test at the beginning of the experiment, then were subjected to one of two conditions in the 360VR community news experience. They were tasked immediately afterward with the test itself, which required them to think back and recall specific details about both the news story and the surrounding environment, in line with previous
LC4MP experiments (Lang, 2000; Lang, Bradley, Park, Shin, & Chung, 2006; Lang,
50 2009). Further, increased cognitive load on a news audience may have a negative effect on memory retention and recall (Schaap, Kleemans & Cauwenberge, 2018). The average participant regardless of condition scored right around 6 out of 10 correct answers. This tells us participants in both conditions did not perform particularly well when answering questions about the facts of the story and the elements of the environment, and cognitive load may have been a factor.
As there were no differences when the experimental controls for experience with the medium were factored in, the data show us the possibility exists that the richness of the medium and cognitive load required to process the stimuli may have affected perception and memory encoding and/or storage. It appears, then, cognitive load may have negatively affected levels of recall and comprehension (Cauwenberge, Schaap, &
Roy, 2014; Schaap, Kleemans & Cauwenberge, 2018). In sum: the presence or absence of an on-screen reporter did not significantly aid or detract from overall memory performance. In line with LC4MP, the resources required to simultaneously process both the aural and visual elements of the news story while immersed in an HMD, spatially present in the experience, with the ability to choose how and where to allocate attention and sending the signals required to force the body to respond with movement may have diminished participants’ perception and memory processing power. It is plausible, then, that the presence of the reporter added an additional element requiring cognitive processing power. This may, in turn, affect processing outcomes beyond the visual elements described above. It may affect counterargument as well – an effect I will explore in the second experiment in this study.
51 Wilson et al (2010) suggested that video content can help promote information recall. Conversely, Gunter (1980) suggested strong visual stimuli may inhibit memory encoding of simultaneous aural stimuli. While this finding does not support either Wilson et al or Gunter as there was no statistically significant difference between aural and visual performance within or between conditions, it may support Kamhawi’s (2003) suggestion that audio and visual news story elements interact with one another to aid memory encoding and recall.
The presence of the reporter added an additional processing variable for the participants in the on-screen reporter condition. Their attention was drawn to, and focused on, the reporter during of the experience. Wermeskerken, Ravensbergen, and van
Gog (2017) in an eye-tracking study examining attention allocation and the presence of an on-screen teacher in online instruction videos found the presence of a person attracts gaze attention, particularly when the person employs social cues such as making eye contact, gesturing, or manipulating objects. Actions the on-screen reporter took during the experience were eye contact with the 360 camera (thus the participant in the HMD who saw things from the camera’s perspective), gesturing, and moving from one point to another. It is interesting to consider research into eye movement, fixation, and cognitive factors when considering how participants engaged with the 360VR experience. The line of inquiry, beginning with Yarbus (1967) and advancing with the development and refinement of eye-tracking technology (Bahle, Mills & Dodd, 2017; Borji & Itti, 2012;
Henderson et al, 2013; Greene et al, 2012), is largely focused on interpreting eye gaze by identifying and classifying movement patterns associated with the performance of various
52 user tasks. One of the findings was that people tend to fixate on elements in a scene initially perceived to carry useful information, including depictions of other people, particularly faces and person-oriented movement (Borji & Itti, 2012; Cerf, Frady &
Koch, 2009; Yarbus, 1967). Capturing and holding attention, then, was likely to occur as a result of the on-screen reporter’s presence and movement. A number of things can be said about this. For example, how a reporter moves in a 2D news report may not be conducive to maximizing the potential for a reporter’s presence in the 360 environment.
The reporters themselves may need retraining specific to a 360-degree experience. In this experiment, the reporter was directed to use movement – to walk slowly in an equidistant arc around the camera when outdoors, and to walk slowly toward the camera in the City
Council hallway shot. However, a trained 360 reporter may choose to use the space in a different manner in order to highlight specific aspects of the environment in ways I did not direct my reporter to do. This is a limitation of the medium as it sits now. Future experimentation which precisely manipulates the facial expression, eye contact, body movement, and gestures of the reporter may yield compelling results. A future study which takes the findings of this experiment and applies it to cognition, gaze fixation and eye-tracking technology could also manipulate the environment to where a reporter physically orients a participant to a visual item in the experience in one condition and not in another, and precisely measures differences in conditions.
Brasel and Gips (2017) demonstrated high-level visual perception cues, such as faces, were effective in encouraging attention allocation to specific focal points, and such central visual cues discouraged attention reallocation. Further, Wang and Antonenko
53 (2017) found that in information-oriented video content, visual cues such as people attract considerable attention and positively affect satisfaction. The post-hoc results conducted examining differences between conditions in visual memory performance on its own suggest the presence of the reporter as a central focal point drove attention to that reporter and decreased attention, encoding, storage, and subsequent recall on the surrounding visual environment.
It appears, at least as far as visual attention allocation is concerned, the presence of the on-screen reporter deterred participants from navigating their gaze away from the reporter. If the purpose of the news story, then, is to showcase the visual environment, place, or scene, and not the story itself, the presence of an on-screen reporter may detract from that purpose. Conversely, if the purpose is to use the 360VR technology to simultaneously showcase the visual environment, place, or scene, while attempting to draw attention to specific focal points in the environment or verbally and kinesthetically emphasize specific points in a story, an on-screen reporter may strengthen it. Three elements of the latter, which was not measured in this study but may influence the outcome of the experience in a future study, is eye contact, facial expression, and body movement of the on-screen reporter. Anecdotally after the experiment concluded, a number of participants remarked that when the reporter physically moved in the stimulus, they were inclined to follow her movement. Additionally, many remarked about making eye contact with the reporter – some found it uncomfortable while others felt it helped them feel like they were more present, and more a part of the experience. I will discuss this point when detailing some of the anecdotal information participants provided
54 following the debrief. The anecdotal information is not a part of the experiment or the methodology, but as this study is a part of an early examination of an emerging medium, their informal comments are worth noting.
In sum, the memory-oriented findings indicate the presence or absence of a reporter did not play a significant role in the overall memory performance of the participants in this study. However, a post-hoc test determined participants who were not subject to the reporter performed better on the visually-oriented memory questions.
Again, this is not surprising, as without the reporter to focus upon the participants had to choose other elements of the news story to allocate attention. The participants subjected to the reporter may have been motivated to focus attention on the person instead of the surrounding environment.
Spatial Presence
Beyond memory, this experiment set out to test the effects of an on-screen reporter or lack thereof on spatial presence and journalist credibility. Regarding spatial presence, participants not subjected to the reporter (M=5.73, SD=.76) indicated feeling more present in the virtual environment than those subjected to the reporter (M= 5.2,
SD= .94), t(54) = 2.01, p=.049, although higher levels of spatial presence did not result in better memory performance. Spatial presence, or the psychological and behavioral response that sinks a person into an environment, even a virtual one, and allows the suspension of disbelief and acceptance of the world around them, uses a high amount of cognitive resource, including a cognitive mapping process that helps orientation
(Hartmann et al, 2016; Ivory, Fox, Waddell & Ivory, 2014; Slater & Wilbur, 1997; Slater,
55 2009; Wirth et al, 2007). Like previous research suggests (Brasel & Gips, 2017; Wang &
Antonenko, 2017; Wermeskerken, Ravensbergen, & van Gog, 2017), it is plausible that using the reporter as a central focal point may have attracted and held attention. That attraction may have served as a reminder that the experience was a news story, which may have prevented to a certain extent suspension of disbelief and decreased the activation of the spatial presence mechanism. It will be interesting, then, to measure differences between spatial presence and counterargument – if an on-screen reporter keeps an audience member’s brain conscious of the fact they are inside a news experience, they may be more likely to view the experience as informational and counterargument may occur at a higher level than if that person was fully present and accepting of the virtual environment. In LC4MP terms, the participant may be more motivated to allocate cognitive resources to counterargument if a reporter cue is present as a visual reminder that the purpose of the experience is to inform.
Journalist Credibility
The perception of credibility plays an integral part in journalism, especially community journalism. It was hypothesized in H3 that the presence of an on-screen reporter would positively affect the perception of journalist credibility in the 360VR news story. A comparison of means using an independent-samples t-test between the absence of an on-screen reporter condition (n=28, M=5.91, SD=.74) and the presence of an on- screen reporter condition (n=28, M=5.63, SD=.72) on journalist credibility revealed no significant difference, t(54)=1.43, p=.158. This may have been the product of a ceiling effect, as both conditions reported high levels of journalist credibility close to 6 on a scale
56 of 1 to 7. Further, research in community journalism has demonstrated that when people in a community feel a strong attachment to it, they may be more likely to see a community-oriented news story as salient and a reporter credible (Atkins, 2016;
Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard, Welbourne & Broughton, 2011; Carey & Meyer, 2016;
McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Thus, it was hypothesized in H2 that sense of community would positively affect journalist credibility. However, a bivariate Pearson correlation test revealed Sense of Community (M=4.79, SD 1.0) did not have a significant relationship with Journalist Credibility (M=5.77, SD-.74), r(54)=.192, p=.19. It appears, then, that the perception of journalist credibility the 360VR news story in this experiment did not fluctuate. This indicates either the participant population as a whole holds journalists as highly credible – which is entirely possible given that the majority indicated they had studied journalism or communication in some form – or the use of 360VR to tell a neutral, fact-based community-oriented news story lends itself to a high level of credibility. Another interesting aspect of these results is the story, although based on a real situation, the outcome of the story was fictional. The users perceived high levels of journalist credibility regardless of whether the news story was partially fabricated. This finding will be examined again in the second experiment in this study, the participants in which will be comprised of both students and members of the general public, who have likely not studied journalism or communication in some form.
Sense of Community
Finally, this experiment tested the relationships between sense of community
(SOC) and each of the aforementioned variables, as it is important to understand how
57 place-based storytelling in a community journalism context affects processing outcomes, particularly when the participants are already familiar with the place and the community in the real world. (Atkins, 2016; Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard, Welbourne & Broughton,
2011; Carey & Meyer, 2016; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Further, people with a strong sense of community may be more motivated to allocate resources to processing a news story they see as relevant (Lang, 2000; Srivastava, Saks, Weed, & Atkins, 2018). Finally, a close relationship exists between memory recall and prior knowledge, even cursory knowledge, certainly present in a 360VR news story shot and depicting a familiar setting
(Findahl & Hoijer, 1985). In support of H1, a bivariate Pearson correlation test revealed a significant but weak positive relationship between Sense of Community (M= 4.79,
SD=1.00) and Memory Performance, r(54)=.28, p=.037. Further, participants with higher
SOC (n=43, M=5.63, SD=.732) outpaced those with lower SOC regarding memory performance (n=13, M=4.92, SD 1.93), t(54) = 2.36, p=.02, and a small but significant increase in spatial presence over those with lower SOC (n=13, M=5.09, SD=1.21), t(54)
= 1.96, p=.05. This indicates that people who feel stronger ties to the community where the news story was shot were more motivated to store and more likely to recall both visual and aural information in the 360VR experience. Sense of community may influence the strength of message salience, in that the stronger a person feels tied to their community the more salient the message becomes (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, Atkins,
2016). In conjunction, motivational activation through message factors plays a key role in message salience (Srivastava, Saks, Weed & Atkins, 2018). This finding supports the interplay between LC4MP and SOC in that the community-oriented message factors in a
58 360VR local news story activate a person’s motivation to process information. This supports previous literature which states that in a community news context, familiarity, community ties, and prior knowledge of where an event occurred may aid memory retention.
Anecdotal Evidence
In addition to the measurements in the study and the above discussion points, I asked, when time permitted, several participants about their experience with the technology and the news story in conversation after the debrief and experimental conclusion. The conversations included a series of unstructured general questions in order to engage in an informal discussion to assess their overall experience and potentially identify factors unrelated to the measured variables that stood out to the participant.
While there were no official questions posed, I tended to ask questions such as how long the participant thought they were in the headset, what stood out to them most, what they tended to focus on during the experience (audio or visual), their propensity to explore the environment versus remaining static, whether they found the experience useful from a news perspective, and whether they, on their own, would ever seek out news and information presented in 360VR. The answers participants gave varied wildly overall; however a handful of patterns emerged. A number of participants in both conditions relayed they immensely enjoyed the freedom of movement and control over how and where they allocated attention within the experience. Further, the presence of natural ambient noise, such as the birds chirping, cars going by, the natural sounds of the environment, enhanced the feeling of being present in the experience for them. However,
59 some felt parts were disorienting, as each time the scene changed they had to allocate cognitive resource to orient themselves, map the environment, locate the primary focal point, and then pay attention to the details of the story.
One of the key anecdotal reports came from the participants in the on-screen reporter condition – the experience of a parasocial interaction, described in a recent study
(Shin, Song, Kim & Biocca, 2019) as a psychological engagement with a mediated person or performer, which may contribute to cognitive engagement, interpersonal needs satisfaction, and intent of supportive action toward the person depicted, all in line with social presence theory (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003; Short, Williams & Christie,
1976). The participants indicated a parasocial interaction between themselves and the reporter, describing feeling like the reporter, who was directed during filming to maintain eye contact with the camera, was speaking directly to them, walking toward, away, or around them, and nonverbally communicating directly to them. Although anecdotal, participants in the reporter condition mentioned feeling “awkward” or “uneasy” about making eye contact with the reporter during the experience, which may have played a confounding role in their feeling spatially present in the experience. A future study may explore whether this, in fact, played a role. Also of note was the idea of personal space within the parasocial interaction. One participant felt the journalist was at the perimeter of what they perceived as their personal space, which may have initiated a feeling of discomfort - a norm violation. However, it is interesting to note spatial presence and credibility shared a significant positive relationship in the experimental results presented here. Xu and Sundar (2016) found higher levels of interactivity in a mediated experience
60 enhance recall of that interactivity, but diminishes recall of non-interactive content in the same experience. While participants did not directly interact with the reporter, parasocial interaction paired with the choice to move or not move toward or away from the gaze of the reporter may have given the illusion of intimacy or interactivity, which may account for the diminished visual memory performance in the condition with the reporter. While this experiment was not designed to study parasocial interaction, an exploration in the future that builds on social presence theory and previous research examining digital technologies and parasocial interaction effects may be worth exploring (Biocca, Harms,
& Burgoon, 2003; Ferchaud, Grzeslo, Orme & LaGroue, 2018); Jin, 2011; Kim & Song,
2016; Schmidt, Bruder & Steinicke, 2019; Shafer, Carbonara & Korpi, 2018). A future study may measure whether making direct eye contact with a reporter in a 360VR news story constitutes a parasocial interaction, and whether that interaction has an effect on processing outcome and attitude.
Also of note, some described a diminished awareness of the perception of time while in the headset, thinking the story they were shown was much longer than its 3- minute runtime. Some participants colloquially referred to viewing the news story as experiential and individual. Each participant had a different experience. The decisions they made to move, to explore, to not move, to focus on the visual, the aural – each represents a choice the participant made based on motivation and cognition. In the on- screen reporter condition, some participants felt the reporter served as a useful guide to the story itself and appreciated the movement and gestures employed. Lastly, many reported appreciation for the visually stimulating shots that provided first-person
61 perspectives from places or angles the participant would otherwise never or would be unlikely to experience (the city council shot, the crosswalk during heavy traffic shot, etc.). Almost all said while they enjoyed the experience and found the technology and application for nonfiction news storytelling impressive if not fascinating, they thought the tech was a distraction from the story and may not choose to seek out news content delivered in 360VR format on their own. One participant, a Ph.D. student studying education technology, described the experience as visually and experientially compelling, but ultimately distracting from the story. The sense of place and connection to familiar places increased the sense of being present in the experience, but the person felt the cognitive loadout required to sustain information processing related to the story itself was severely diminished. For this participant, the strength of the visuals drew more attention, more motivation, thus more resources.
Experiment 1 – Conclusion
This experiment was designed to explore cognitive processing as it relates to attention allocation, perception, spatial presence, and memory performance, as well as evaluate its effects on the perception of journalist credibility in a community-oriented
360VR news story. It also set out to explore the impact, if any, on sense of community on each of the aforementioned variables. It found no difference in overall memory performance, which was the primary purpose of this exploration. However, it did find participants focused attention more on the reporter and less on the environment when the reporter was visually present in the experience. It found participants not guided by the reporter felt more spatially present in the environment itself, that the perception of
62 journalist credibility did not fluctuate between conditions, and that sense of community as a present covariate in a local news context did influence both spatial presence and memory performance, in that those with a higher SOC indicated feeling more present in the story and performed better on the memory assessment.
The findings in this experiment influenced the development of the second experiment in this study, which will again measure sense of community, spatial presence, journalist credibility, and memory performance, but will add persuasion and attitude change on the premise that the increase in cognitive load in a 360VR news story may influence attitude change and the capacity or motivation for counterargument.
63 Chapter 6: Experiment 2
The Effect of Message Type on Memory, Attitude, and Counterargument
The following literature, hypotheses, and research questions build on the literature and findings of the first experiment. Memory performance will be measured again, using the same method and for the same reasons, to present corroborating or supporting evidence for the initial findings. Spatial presence, sense of community, and journalist credibility will also be measured in the same fashion. Beyond examining message type, attitude change, and counterargument, the spatial presence, sense of community, and journalist credibility measures will serve as confirmatory measures to support or call into question the results of the findings of the same measures in the first experiment. With that in mind, the following confirmatory hypotheses are proposed: H1: People who feel a stronger sense of community will have greater memory performance in a community- oriented 360VR news story experience, and H2: People who feel a stronger sense of community will perceive a higher level of journalist credibility in a community-oriented
360VR news story experience.
As stated, the second experiment, building on the first, will take a more nuanced approach to understanding some of the effects of processing 360VR messages. It will further explore memory performance, spatial presence, and sense of community in order to confirm the findings of the first experiment. It will then add political ideology and explore persuasion by manipulating the information in the 360VR news story to either favor a conservative or liberal political perspective and assess whether previously held political attitudes change as a result of viewing the politically manipulated news story.
64 The independent variables in Experiment 2 are message type, which serves as the experimental condition (conservative group victim with liberal group aggressor, or liberal group victim with conservative group aggressor) and participant ideology (conservative, moderate, liberal). The dependent variables are memory performance, counterargument, and attitude change. Other factors to be measured are spatial presence, sense of community, and journalist credibility.
Political Ideology, Media, and Counterargument
“You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” – quote on media manipulation attributed to William Randolph Hearst, cable to artist Frederic Remington in Cuba,
January 1897
Persuasion, in a nutshell, is the scientific study of people’s attitudes toward specific attitude objects and the factors that influence or change them. The beginnings of communication research attributed immense power to media. Early researchers studied news media and wartime, nationalist propaganda, and assumed a passive and largely homogeneous audience which absorbed information into its collective bloodstream as if injected by a hypodermic needle (Lasswell, 1927). The earliest mass communication theory, dubbed either the “magic bullet” or “hypodermic needle”, argued media content creators transmitted one-way messages into the brains or veins of the hapless, media- illiterate public, directly and immediately influencing attitudes and behaviors. While this perspective has long since been debunked, the public does largely rely on media organizations to inform them about the important news of the day. This includes politically salient issues or events (Lippmann, 1926; McCombs & Shaw, 1972), which
65 brings up the question of whether and how strongly news media affect public attitudes toward news story subjects (Mastrorocco & Minale, 2018). Sundar (2017) found 360VR elicited empathic responses to story characters depicted in a documentary-style news narrative. Beyond emotional response toward story characters, political attitudes toward attitude objects may be influenced as well. Americans over the last 40 years have moved toward aligning their attitudes against a political ideology in addition to aligning attitudes toward supporting one (Abramowitz & Webster, 2018). Research into the effects of politically-charged media messages suggest that partisan framing of a news story influences its news audience’s attitudes toward the story and toward the attitude object in the story (Druckman & Parkin, 2005). While research exploring the persuasive effects of news and virtual reality may not exist to date, research exploring persuasive effects in video games and game-oriented VR has shown that both character and participant motion in video games and VR gaming experiences can make persuasive messages more effective (Patel et al, 2014). Message salience, perceived proximity to a news event, issue involvement, and attitudes toward an issue may also influence how a person processes a piece of information, which in turn may influence that person’s attitude toward the subject of that piece of information (Chia & Cenite, 2012). Thus, I pose the following research question: What is the relationship between political message-leaning and memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story?
People with political ideology preferences tend to prefer, and agree with, news stories that support their worldview or ideological preferences (Chung & Waheed, 2016;
Winter, Metzger & Flanagin, 2016), siding with attitude-consistent information, and
66 either engaging in mental gymnastics to explain away dissonant information (Festinger,
1957) or counterarguing against attitude-inconsistent information. Further, research has also demonstrated people have cognitive filters in place to guard against counterattitudinal messages, or messages that challenge beliefs, ideological orientation, or opinions (Plaisance, 2014). Memory performance and information retention may be affected when a 360VR news story challenges or runs counter to a belief. It is important to ask, then, RQ1a: What is the relationship between political ideology and memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story?
Finally, people with strong attitudes are susceptible to ignoring or tossing aside contrary information and focusing on information aligned with said attitude (Abril, 2018;
Lord, Ross & Lepper, 1979). However, people with moderate or neutral attitudes may be more inclined to accept information rather than reject it based on motivation (Franz &
Ridout, 2007). Counterattitudinal news programming is more likely to induce critical evaluation than proattitudinal programming, but the presence of choice blunts oppositional media hostility in television news (Arceneaux, Johnson & Murphy, 2012).
Conroy-Krutz and Moehler (2015) found evidence supporting the argument that counterattitudinal news reports affect news consumers’ attitudes, making the argument that exposure to cross-cutting news content may aid political attitude depolarization.
Spatial presence, described by Wirth et al (2007), engages a high amount of cognitive resource, including a cognitive mapping process that helps orient a person within a virtual environment. Further, the limited capacity model (Lang, 2004, 2006) posits that the more cognitive processing power needed to process stimuli, the less resources are available for
67 critical message evaluation and counterargument. The activation of spatial presence frequently occurs in a 360VR experience (Sundar et al, 2017) and may take up a significant amount of processing power. Conversely, may reduce the amount of processing power needed to process a 360VR news story as the need to process information about the real-world surroundings of a user is reduced when that user loses awareness of that world. One of the compelling questions that arises from this in the context of 360VR news stories, then, in particular news stories that depict already familiar places, is whether this activation helps or limits other cognitive processes. The inability to counterargue against a mediated news message may carry the potential to influence attitude change in a user if that user is not equipped to critically evaluate that message. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed, H3: People who feel stronger spatial presence will be less likely to counterargue against a persuasive message in a community-oriented 360VR news story. Counterargument will be measured with a post- stimulus sematic differential asking the participant about the likelihood of them signing a petition against the action depicted in the stimulus news story (Srivastava & Atkins,
2019). To further explore counterargument, the following research question is posed:
RQ3: What is the relationship between political ideology and counterargument?
Spatial presence is not a dependent variable in this experiment, but it is a factor at play in 360VR. As such, spatial presence will be measured and treated as a present independent variable in the analysis.
In order to measure attitude change, semantic differentials will be employed
(Clark, Wegener & Fabrigar, 2008). The valence of political attitudes will be measured in
68 a pre-test prior to being exposed to the politically-charged 360VR manipulation (Maio,
Bell & Esses, 1996), and five 7-point semantic differentials indicating the degree of agreement with the manipulation will be measured in a post-test.
Research into the effects of ideologically biased text- and video-based news stories has shown attitude change toward an attitude object is negligible when exposed to extreme and polarizing contrary news stimuli (Abril, 2018). Feldman (2011) demonstrated using an online survey experiment that message processing and attitude change tend to follow the direction of news content. Overtly partisan content intensifies previously held partisan attitudes but does little to persuade those holding neutral or opposing attitudes (Feldman, 2011, 2011a). Subtle contrary news stimuli, however, may be more likely to persuade. Thus, the following research question is posed: RQ2: What is the relationship between political message-leaning and attitude change in a community- oriented 360VR news story?
69 Chapter 7: Experiment 2 – Execution, Analysis, Results
Participants were recruited from both a general population of undergraduate and graduate students at Ohio University as well as from members of the general public in
Athens County, Ohio. Some undergraduate students who were recruited from classes were offered a small amount of extra credit from their instructors, at the discretion of the instructor, in exchange for their participation. Students whose instructors did not offer extra credit were considered members of the general public and signed the general public consent form. Members of the general public were recruited using word-of-mouth, snowball sampling, and point-of-contact volunteering at an experiment site, such as a media laboratory at the university, or a converted laboratory space at a public library. No monetary compensation was offered to either students or members of the general public.
Data collection began on June 13, 2019 and continued until August 1, 2019. There were a total 124 participants in this experiment. There were 64 participants in Condition
1, and 60 participants in Condition 2. 48% of participants identified as male (n=60), 50% identified as female (n=62), and 1% identified as other (n=2). Participants were 83%
White/Caucasian (n=104), 6.5% Black/African American (n=8), 6.5% Asian (n=8), 6.5% other (1 Turkish, 3 Latinx, 2 Middle Eastern, 2 declined to identify) (n=8), 1% American
Indian (n=1), and 1% Native Hawaiian (n=1). Participant age ranged from 18 to 78. 50 participants were between the ages of 18 and 24; 30 were aged 25-40; 30 were aged 41-
64; and 14 were aged 65-78. Regarding profession or area of university study, participants ran the gamut from undergraduate to graduate student, from bartenders to retirees, from unemployed to librarian, from a sheet metal fabricator to retired journalism
70 professor, from construction workers to a city councilman. There were very few overlaps in profession, an indication of the generalizability of the sample to the general public.
As it is important to this study to obtain an accurate measure of political ideology, two measurement techniques were used. The first was a self-report on a 7-point Likert scale asking participants how they identify their political ideology ranging from 1 = very conservative to 7 = very liberal (N=124, M=4.9, SD=1.5). Using this measure, .8% (n=1) identified as very conservative; 7.3% (n=9) identified as conservative; 10.5% (n=13) identified as slightly conservative; 21.8 (n=27) identified as moderate; 13.7% (n=17) identified as slightly liberal; 33.9% (n=42) identified as liberal; and 12.1% (n=15) identified as very liberal. Participants indicating conservative were numbered 1, moderate as 2, and liberal as 3. Although the sample skews toward liberal, it is representative of the makeup of the Athens general public.
The second political measure was designed to take a more nuanced measure than the one-item self-report, as an 8-item, 7-point Likert political ideology scale adopted from a validated ideology consistency scale (Pew Research Center, 2014) and presented in random order. It asked participants to indicate how much they agree or disagree with the following statements: 1) Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good; 2) The government should do more to help needy Americans; 3) The best way to ensure peace is through military strength; 4) Stricter environmental regulations are worth the cost; 5) Immigrants today are a financial burden on our country; 6) Big corporations make too much profit; 7) Government benefits don’t go far enough to help poor people have a decent life; and 8) We should be doing more to keep manufacturing
71 jobs from going overseas. Four statements comprise traditionally conservative political beliefs (α=.6), and four statements comprise traditionally liberal political beliefs (α=.7).
The conservative-oriented questions were reverse coded in order for lower numbers (1-3) to indicate the range of agreement with the conservative statements, matching these responses with the corresponding lower numbers indicating disagreement with the liberal statements. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha (α=.731). All eight measures were condensed into a single scale, Political Ideology (M=4.97, SD=.89).
Table 6 Crosstab between self-reported ideology and Political Ideology Scale Self-Reported Ideology 2-2.75 3-3.99 4 4.01- 4.8-6 6.01-7 4.75 Conservative 3 10 2 5 3 0
Moderate 1 3 0 14 9 0
Liberal 0 0 0 9 51 14
A crosstab test comparing self-reported ideology against the political ideology scale revealed that no self-identified liberals crossed the median into the conservative spectrum of the scale. See Table 6. However, four self-identified moderates landed on the conservative spectrum, and 23 moderates landed on the liberal spectrum. Interestingly, eight self-identified conservatives landed on the liberal spectrum.
Experiment 2 – Procedure
Data collection took place in five locations – a media lab in Schoonover Center,
Bob Wren Stadium on the Ohio University campus, and three locations in the Athens 72 County Public Library system, including the main Athens branch, The Plains branch, and
Albany branch. At each venue, data collection took place in an isolated and controlled environment. Upon arrival at each venue, either the researcher or trained research assistant went over the consent form with each participant – one for the students receiving extra credit for their participation and one for everyone else, considered members of the general public. Upon obtaining consent, the researcher or assistant randomly assigned the participant to one of two experimental conditions by using an online random number generator engine. Participants whose randomly generated number fell between 1 and 50 were assigned to Condition 1 (n=64) and those whose number fell between 51 and 100 were assigned to Condition 2 (n=60). The researcher or assistant entered the number of the condition into the Qualtrics data collection device on a computer, then instructed the participant to sit at that computer. The participant was instructed to enter demographic information and answer a series of pretest questions – which included controls for 360 and 360VR experience as well as political ideology, a political ideology scale, experience with news production techniques, and the Sense of
Community scale. As in the first experiment, participants were instructed to contact the researcher or assistant when they arrived at a Stop page. The researcher then moved the participant to a swivel chair in the center of the room, facing a wall in order to ensure each participant at each venue began the experience in the same position.
The researcher or assistant informed the participant they would now experience a local 360VR news story about an issue relevant to Athens residents, and that afterward they would be directed back to the computer and given a memory and attitude
73 assessment. The researcher or assistant then employed deception, informing the participant the news story was real and based on a controversial issue taking place in the community, and that the researchers were trying to gauge how people were responding to it before it was published in the VR format. Next, the researcher pointed out the participant should feel free to explore the experience as they see fit, noting they were on a swivel chair and could use the full 360 degrees if they so chose. The researcher then cued up the Oculus Go HMD with the video corresponding with the experimental condition, then placed the HMD on the participant’s head, instructing them to adjust it until it felt comfortable. To ensure the appropriate HMD was selected by the researcher, each was labeled by condition using a cut strip of green sticky note and tape, placed in a position the participant could not see. After completing the news story, the researcher removed the
HMD and immediately directed the participant back to the computer to take the post-test assessment. Upon completion, the participant was debriefed by the researcher and informed of the deception. The participant was told the story was entirely fabricated for the experiment, then was given an opportunity to ask any questions they had about the experiment and was instructed not to inform anyone about its specifics.
Experiment 2 – Stimulus
There were two stimulus experiences in this experiment, each designed to be shot- for-shot identical to the other, with the only differences coming in the form of the
74 scripted political manipulation to alter the roles of oppressed or aggressor between liberal and conservative. See figures 6-9 for images depicting the visuals.
Figure 6. Opening Graffiti Wall shot with reporter
Figure 7. Closing shot against a different section of the wall with a ladder in the background. 75 I fabricated a fictional news story about “the administration” and its decision to support a political group’s petition to remove the Richland Avenue wall, colloquially known as the Graffiti Wall, a longstanding cement canvas where community and campus groups regularly paint murals, plugs for community events, political and ideological messages and slogans, and art projects.
Figure 8. The reporter explaining the story's relevance to the community while standing at a community landmark.
Participants in Condition 1 saw a 3-minute news story about a conservative political group being oppressed by a liberal political group aggressor, who petitioned “the administration” to have the Graffiti Wall removed so conservatives couldn’t continue to paint conservative-oriented messages on it. Participants in Condition 2 saw a shot-for- shot identical 3-minute news story, with the roles reversed: the story was about a liberal political group being oppressed by a conservative political group aggressor, who
76 Figure 9. A supporter of the aggressor group in each condition. petitioned “the administration” to have the Graffiti Wall removed so liberals couldn’t continue to paint liberal-oriented messages on it. While each of the shots were staged with camera position and actors in identical positions delivering identical lines save for the manipulation, it is relevant to note the outdoor shots between conditions, despite being filmed minutes apart, contain differences in the number, locations, and actions of pedestrians and vehicles in the background. Each was edited to minimize the impact of the variation in uncontrolled background noise. None of the memory or perception assessments were affected by this variation. The visually oriented memory-related questions were created based on the identical, controlled visual shots, while the aurally oriented questions were based on the identical parts of the scripts to ensure equivalence across conditions. The reporter who appeared in both conditions was a trained theater actor who was directed to emulate a field reporter and speak directly into the camera
77 while moving in an arc to make use of the 360-degree field. The reporter was African
American, male, in his early 20s, and wore the same clothing and hairstyle in each shot.
See Appendix B for the stimulus scripts.
Experiment 2 – Analysis
Controls. To control for familiarity and experience with 360-degree video and
VR head-mounted displays as well as news production techniques, participants were asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all familiar) to 5 (extremely familiar) how familiar they were with 360-degree video in any format, 360-degree video in VR head-mounted displays, and familiarity with news production techniques.
Regarding the 360VR and news production controls, 38.7% (n=48) indicated participating in the experiment was the first time they had ever experienced 360 videos either on a computer screen, mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet, or a head- mounted display; 46% (n=57) indicated they had experienced 360 videos, but rarely; 12%
(n=15) indicated occasionally; 1.6% (n=2) indicated often; 1.6% (n=2) indicated frequently. Regarding HMD experience, 45% (n=56) indicated participating in the experiment was the first time they had ever used a head-mounted display; 48% (n=59) indicated they had used HMDs prior to participating in the experiment, but rarely; 5.6%
(n=7); and 1.4% (n=2) indicated they frequently use HMDs. Regarding news production familiarity, 51.6% (n=64) indicated they were not familiar at all; 24.2% (n=30) indicated they were slightly familiar; 11.3% (n=14) indicated they were moderately familiar; 8.1%
(n=10) indicated they were very familiar; and 4.8 (n=6) indicated they were extremely familiar.
78 Scale variables. Sense of community was measured using the Brief Sense of
Community Scale (Peterson, Speer, & McMillan, 2008), which consisted of eight items on a 7-point Likert-type scale presented in random order with 1 indicating the lowest, 4 a neutral, and 7 the highest – two each indicating levels of membership, influence, needs fulfillment, and emotional connection. Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s
Alpha (a=.89). Using the mean, the eight items were condensed into a single scale variable, SOC (M=5.09, SD=.986). See Table 7 for scale variable reliability measures.
Spatial presence was measured using a randomized 8-item, 7-point Likert-type scale (Hartmann, 2016) with 1 indicating the lowest, 4 a neutral, and 7 the highest.
Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s Alpha (a=.889). Using the mean, the eight items were condensed into a single scale variable, Spatial Presence (M=4.93, SD=1.24).
Journalist credibility was measured using a randomized 8-item, 7-point Likert- type scale (Meyer, 1988) with 1 indicating the lowest, 4 a neutral, and 7 the highest.
Reliability was determined using Chronbach’s Alpha (a=.887). Using the mean, the eight items were condensed into a single scale variable, Journalist Credibility (M=5.03,
SD=.978).
Memory performance. Memory performance was determined in a post-treatment assessment with both aided and cued recall questions. The questions were presented in random order, and each aided recall (multiple choice) answer set was presented in random order as well. See Table 7 for memory performance scale variable means.
79
Table 7 Ex 2: Memory Performance Scale
Scale Mean SD Aided Recall* 3.31 1.12 Cued Recall* 2.59 1.29 Aural Performance* 2.93 1.22 Visual Performance* 2.97 1.36 Memory Performance** 5.90 1.98 *Range 1-5; Range 1-10**
Participants were asked five randomized Aided Recall (multiple choice) questions. The questions asked each participant: 1) What will the Graffiti Wall be replaced with; 2) When will the Graffiti Wall be removed; 3) What does University Code
66a ban; 4) What color was the reporter’s shirt; and 5) What organization’s name was painted on the wall with the white background. Each correct response was coded 1, each incorrect response was coded 0. The responses were summed into a single scale, Aided
Recall (M=3.31, SD=1.12) Participants were also asked five randomized Cued Recall
(fill in the blank-style typed response). The first question asked: Once the wall is removed, what will be installed to prevent vandalism? The reporter stated that motion sensor security cameras would be installed. Variations of that answer, such as “camera”
“motion sensor” “motion camera” and “security cam” were accepted as correct and coded as 1; all other answers were coded 0. The second question asked: The reporter stated that many people see the administration's decision to remove the wall as "an act of
______." The correct response was the word “censorship”, which was coded as 1. All other responses were coded 0. The third question asked: What phrase is painted on the
80 black background on the wall? The correct answer was “We are Here”, coded as 1.
Variants such as “we are here/home” or “We are …” were interpreted as correct and also coded as 1. All other responses were coded as 0. The fourth question asked: What object was the reporter standing next to as he was concluding the story? The correct answer was a metal ladder. However, some participants answered with the object the reporter was standing in front of, which was a painted white wall, different from the black wall that appeared at the beginning of the experience. The researcher interpreted variants of “white wall” “white wall with ladder” and “different wall from before” as a correct answer to the question asked. Both “ladder” and “white wall” variants were coded 1; all other answers were coded 0. The fifth question asked the participant to: Describe the color of the male student's shirt. The correct answer was orange. Acceptable response variants included
“orange-ish” “reddish orange” “salmon-ish” “coral” or similar and were coded 1; all other responses were coded 0. The responses were summed into a single scale, Cued
Recall (M=2.59, SD=1.29). Both Cued Recall and Aided Recall were summed into a single scale ranging from 0 to 10, Memory Performance (M=5.90, SD=1.98).
Counterargument and attitude change. Attitude change was assessed using four semantic differential items (Arceneaux, Johnson & Murphy, 2012; Heise, 1970;
Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957) on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The semantic differential is a useful tool for assessing how participants process cognitive information, including counterargument against politically-charged news messages (Arceneaux et al,
2012). Further, bipolar adjective scales such as the differentials employed are an economical means for obtaining attitudinal reactions to stimuli (Heise, 1970). Therefore,
81 four semantic differential measurements were employed measuring attitudes toward the stimulus message. The first question asked: With regard to the administration's actions in the news story, I feel they are: responses ranged from extremely inappropriate to extremely appropriate; the second question asked: I feel like the decision to remove the
Graffiti Wall is: responses ranged from very unfair to very fair; the third question asked: I feel the administration's actions will have the following effect on the campus community: responses ranged from very negative effect to very positive effect; the fourth question asked: With regard to the administration's actions, I feel like my voice is represented.
Responses ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Reliability was tested using
Cronbach’s Alpha (a=.837). The four items were condensed into a single variable,
Attitude Change (M=2.87, SD=1.17). A fifth measure, not included in the scale, asked whether a participant would be willing to sign a petition against the actions the administration took in the stimulus in favor of the ideological group in the manipulation.
Counterargument was assessed by a post-stimulus question asking about the likelihood of the participant to sign a petition protesting the administration’s actions in support of the aggressor group (Srivastava & Atkins, 2019).
Findings and Results
To begin, analyses will be conducted on the hypotheses carried over from the previous experiment in order to confirm the previous findings.
Regarding H1, which posits people who feel a stronger sense of community will have greater memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story experience shot in a familiar location, a bivariate Pearson correlation test between
82 variables SOC (M=5.09, SD=.987) and Memory Performance (M=5.90, SD=1.98), r(124)
= .249, p=.005. This indicates an increase in SOC is positively correlated with an increase in Memory Performance. The hypothesis is supported and confirms the finding of the previous experiment. An independent samples t-test examining SOC and Memory
Performance using SOC as the grouping variable with a cut point of 4 found a significant difference. Participants with an SOC of below 4 (n=13, M=4.77, SD=2.35) had lower
Memory Performance than those with an SOC of 4 or greater (n=111, M=6.03,
SD=1.90), t(122) = 2.22, p=.029. In order to more clearly assess whether SOC played a factor due to the small number of participants with an SOC of below 4, an independent samples t-test examining SOC and Memory Performance using SOC as the grouping variable with a cut point of 5 found no significant difference. Participants with an SOC of below 5 (n=47, M=5.55, SD=2.40) had no difference in Memory Performance than those with an SOC of 5 or greater (n=77, M=6.12, SD=1.65), t(122) = 1.55, p=.125.
Regarding H2, which posits people who feel a stronger sense of community will perceive a higher level of journalist credibility in a community-oriented 360VR news story experience shot in a familiar location, a bivariate Pearson correlation test between variables SOC (M=5.09, SD=.987) and Journalist Credibility (M=5.04, SD=.978), r(124)
= .249, p=.005. However, an independent samples t-test examining SOC and Journalist
Credibility using SOC as the grouping variable with a cut point of 4 did not a significant difference. Participants with an SOC of below 4 (n=13, M=4.74, SD=.72) did not have a significant difference in perceived Journalist Credibility than those with an SOC of 4 or greater (n=111, M=5.07, SD=1.00), t(122) = 1.17, p=.246. Further, an independent
83 samples t-test examining SOC and Journalist Credibility using SOC as the grouping variable with a cut point of 5 still fell short. Participants with an SOC of below 5 (n=47,
M=4.84, SD=.90) had perceived the journalist as less credible than those with an SOC of
5 or greater (n=77, M=5.16, SD=1.01), t(122) = 1.81, p=.073. To further parse out the relationship a linear regression using SOC as the predictor variable and Journalist
Credibility as the dependent variable was run, and found SOC significantly predicted the perception of journalist credibility in the community-oriented 360VR news story, B =
.249, t(122) = 2.84, p=.005. Sense of community also explained a small but statistically significant proportion of variance in the perception of journalist credibility, r2 = .06, F(1,
122) = 8.064, p=.005. The hypothesis is supported, and contradicts the findings of the first experiment. This will be examined in the discussion.
The third hypothesis, H3, stated that people who feel stronger spatial presence will be less likely to counterargue against a persuasive message in a community-oriented
360VR news story. To test this hypothesis, a correlation was run between variable spatial presence and counterargument. No correlation was found, r(124) = .064, p=.479. A comparison of means confirmed (p=.76). The hypothesis is not supported.
The first research question, RQ1, asked about the relationship between political message-leaning and memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story.
In order to explore this relationship, a number of tests were run. To first explore the relationship, a scatterplot was created using nominal variable message condition on the x- axis and ratio variable Memory Performance on the y-axis. See Figure 10.
84 Figure 10. Comparison of means on memory performance.
A look at the scatterplot indicated the two conditions are highly similar regarding memory performance. From there, a crosstab using the eta measure of association was run. The eta measure ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating a high degree of association.
Findings indicate an eta association of .002, meaning little to no variance in memory performance can be explained by the political message-leaning of the condition in which participants were placed.
Further, a Pearson correlation was run to test for a relationship between nominal variable message condition (1=conservative with liberal aggressor, 2=liberal with conservative aggressor) as the independent variable and ratio variable Memory
Performance as the dependent variable.
Findings indicate no relationship, p=.986. To further parse this out, an independent samples t-test using the experimental condition as the grouping variable. 85 Findings confirm the Pearson correlation test, indicating no relationship between the conservative condition (n=64, M=5.91, SD=1.81) and the liberal condition (n=60,
M=5.90, SD=2.16), t(122)=0.17, p=.986. See Table 8.
Table 8 Independent samples t-test between condition and memory performance Condition n M SD Standard Error Conservative 64 5.91 1.81 .226 Liberal 60 5.90 2.16 .279 * p<.05 t(122)=0.17, p=.986
Breaking the Memory Performance variable down into its parts to test whether any aspect of the variable was affected by condition, a crosstab was run using condition as the independent variable and visual performance, aural performance, aided recall, and cued recall as dependent variables was run. The eta association between condition and each performance type was less than .01 in each case, indicating little to no association, confirming the overall memory performance finding. The answer to this question, then, is no – there is no statistically significant relationship between political message-leaning and memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story. To further examine this finding, I will explore RQ1a.
The second part of the first research question, RQ1a, asked about the relationship between political ideology and memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story. In order to explore this relationship, an independent samples t-test was conducted using the participants’ self-identified political ideology as the grouping variable and Memory Performance as the dependent variable.
86 Experimental condition was not a factor in the following tests. Findings indicate no differences between Conservative (n=23, M=5.82, SD=2.25) and Liberal (n=74,
M=6.07, SD=1.73) t(95)= -.541, p=.59. No differences were detected between the two groups and the other memory performance categories: aural t(95)= -.1.8, p=.07, visual t(95)= .811, p=.25, aided recall t(95)= -1.16, p=.25, cued recall t(95)= .193, p=.85. Tests were also conducted between Conservative and Moderate, and Moderate and Liberal. See
Table 9.
Table 9 RQ1a - Independent samples t-test between political ideology and memory Memory Visual Aural Aided recall Cued recall 0-10 scale Conservative M=5.83 M=3.17 M=2.65 M=3.17 M=2.65 (n=23) SD=2.25 SD=1.49 SD=1.11 SD=1.19 SD=1.34 Liberal M=6.07 M=2.92 M=3.15 M=3.47 M=2.59 (n=74 SD=1.74 SD=1.26 SD=1.17 SD=1.04 SD=1.23 Moderate M=5.52 M=2.93 M=2.59 M=3.00 M=2.51 (n=27) SD=2.36 SD=1.54 SD=1.37 SD=1.24 SD=1.45 *p<.05
No significant differences were found between Conservative and Moderate.
However, a statistically significant difference was found between Moderate and Liberal and memory performance variable aural recall. An independent samples t-test using
Moderate (n=27, M=2.59, SD=1.37) and Liberal (n=74, M=3.15, SD=1.17) as grouping variable and aural memory performance as dependent variable found a significant mean difference, t(99)=2.02, p<.05. The answer, then, to RQ1a, is mixed: there are no statistically significant differences between political ideology and overall memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news story. However, a statistically
87 significant difference was found between a specific element of memory performance, aural recall, and liberal and moderate participants. Self-identified liberals performed significantly better than moderates on aural recall, regardless of experimental condition.
The second research question, RQ2, asked about the relationship between political ideology and attitude change in a community-oriented 360VR news story. In order to parse out the sample, a number of tests were run. To begin, a crosstab using the eta statistic was run using the nominal message condition as the independent variable and the interval Attitude Change scale as the dependent variable, eta=.17 indicating a low degree of association. A comparison of means was conducted to test this finding in an independent samples t-test, using condition as the grouping variable and Attitude Change as the dependent variable. A significant difference was found between Condition 1
(conservative with liberal aggressor, n=64, M=3.06, SD=1.29) and Condition 2 (liberal with conservative aggressor, n=60, M=2.66, SD=.99), t(122)=1.91, p=.05. In this context, without measuring against pretest ideology, Attitude Change is, in fact, a measure of how much a participant agreed with the administration’s action to support the ideology group manipulated in each condition. This finding indicates participants in Condition 1, regardless of personal ideology, were more likely to agree with the administration’s action supporting the liberal aggressor group’s push to remove the Graffiti Wall than with the administration’s action supporting the conservative aggressor group’s push in
Condition 2. To look at the Attitude Change variable from a different angle, an independent samples t-test was conducted using self-reported ideology as the grouping variable and Attitude Change as the dependent variable, with participant condition not a
88 factor. No differences were found between conservative and liberal participants.
However, a significant difference was found between self-identified moderates (n=27,
M=3.38, SD=.98) and liberals (n=74, M=2.69, SD=1.17), t(99)=2.74, p=.007, and a nonsignificant difference (p=.09) was found between moderates and conservatives (n=23,
M=2.83, SD=1.25), t(48)=1.72, p=.09. In both cases, moderates were more likely to agree with the administration’s decision than either liberal or conservative participants, supporting or mirroring the direction of the manipulation regardless of condition. To further parse out this finding, an analysis of variance was conducted between Political
Ideology Scale and Attitude Change. The finding was not significant, p=.584, indicating the difference may lie in the message itself and not the ideology of the participant. Again, the Attitude Change variable in this context does not actually measure attitude change, it measures the degree to which participants agree with the administration’s decision. The higher the mean, the more the participant agreed with the administration’s decision.
To actually answer RQ2, the self-report Political Ideology variable was broken down in each condition: Condition 1 Conservative, Condition 1 Moderate, Condition 1
Liberal; Condition 2 Conservative, Condition 2 Moderate, and Condition 2 Liberal. The degree to which a participant agreed with the administration’s decision in each condition in contrast with their self-reported ideology is the measurement used here to indicate a change in attitude. For example, an attitude change in Condition 1, which featured a liberal group aggressor acting against a conservative group, a self-identified conservative participant agreeing with the administration’s decision to support the liberal group’s action against the conservative group after viewing the stimulus would indicate an
89 attitude change. In Condition 2, which featured a conservative group aggressor acting against a liberal group, an attitude change would occur when a self-identified liberal participant agreeing with the administration’s decision to support the conservative group’s action against the liberal group. Again, in this measurement, the higher the
Attitude Change mean, the more the participant agreed with the administration’s decision. In order to assess attitude change, a posttest semantic differential measuring the degree to which the participant agreed with the administration’s actions to support the aggressor group in the condition manipulation will be tested against pretested participant ideology. The higher the mean on the Attitude Change scale, the more the participant agreed with the administration’s actions. When the ideology measure, which was pretested for, is factored in, attitudes which run counter to the pretested ideology measure indicates an attitude change. For example, someone who is conservative in the liberal aggressor condition will likely disagree with the administration’s support for the liberals.
An opposite finding will indicate attitude change. Someone who is liberal in the liberal aggressor condition will likely agree with the administration’s support for the liberals. An opposite finding will indicate attitude change. Someone who is conservative in the conservative aggressor condition will likely agree with the administration’s support for conservatives. An opposite finding will indicate attitude change. Someone who is liberal in the conservative aggressor condition will likely disagree with the administration’s support for the conservatives. An opposite finding will indicate attitude change.
90 To answer this question, a 2x3 factorial design was employed – six combinations of variables measuring main effects and interaction effects. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted with two fixed factor independent variables, experimental condition and self-reported ideology, and Attitude Change as the dependent variable.
This test allows a comparison of mean differences between groups that have been split on the two independent variables to test if there is an interaction between them on the dependent variable. It is important to point out that divided into six variables, the power of the analysis decreases. See Table 10 for a breakdown of the descriptive results.
Table 10 2-way ANOVA descriptives Variable n M SD Condition 1 64 Liberal 34 3.12 1.35 Moderate 19 3.26 1.04 Conservative 11 2.45 1.41 Condition 2 60 Liberal 40 2.31 .82 Moderate 8 3.66 .81 Conservative 12 3.19 1.02
Results of the 2-way ANOVA found a statistically significant interaction effect between condition and ideology on attitude change, F(2, 118) = 5.841, p = .004. A simple main effect comparison showed a significant difference in attitude change means between ideology groups irrespective of condition (p=.02), confirming the results of the already- reported t-test above, with a significant difference between moderate and liberal groups and a difference approaching significance between moderates and conservatives. No
91 main effect was found between condition and attitude change (p=.68). A plot model to illustrate the interaction effect was constructed. See Figure 11.
Figure 11. Attitude change.
Looking at the plot model, conservatives in Condition 1 (conservative victim group with liberal aggressor group) (M=2.45) were less likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group. This finding is consistent with conservative participants siding with the conservative group, indicating attitude change did not occur. Liberals in Condition 1 (M=3.14) were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group. This finding is consistent with liberal participants siding with the liberal group, indicating attitude change did not occur.
92 Moderates in Condition 1 (M=3.26) were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group, indicating attitude change did occur (siding with administration and liberal group instead of with conservative group victim).
Conservatives in Condition 2 (liberal victim group with conservative aggressor group)
(M=3.67) were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the conservative group. Again, this finding is consistent with conservative participants siding with the conservative group, indicating attitude change did not occur. Liberals in
Condition 2 (M=2.31) were less likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the conservative group. This finding is consistent with liberal participants siding with the liberal group, indicating attitude change did not occur. Moderates in
Condition 2 (M=3.66) were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the conservative group, indicating attitude change did occur (siding with administration and conservative group instead of with liberal group victim).
In both conditions, then, findings indicate both conservative and liberal participant groups’ attitudes toward the stimulus in a posttest reflected their self- identified political ideologies. However, moderate participant groups’ attitudes toward the stimulus in a posttest in both conditions aligned with the administration’s support for the aggressor ideology group, indicating attitude change in favor of that group.
Irrespective of condition, attitude change for moderates is higher than attitude change for liberals, but moderate participants’ attitude patterns in both conditions mirrored the directionality of conservative participants’ attitudes. Moderates, then, were more likely to agree with the treatment, or change their attitudes toward the aggressor in the stimulus
93 than liberal groups, almost conservative groups (approaching significance but not quite there, could be a result of the number of participants in the group, p=.09). The answer to
RQ2, then, is complex: participants with conservative or liberal ideologies are more likely to keep attitudes consistent with those ideologies after being exposed to the stimuli, regardless of condition. Moderates, however, are more likely to change their attitudes in the direction of the aggressor group in the stimuli. Attitude change did occur, but only for moderates.
To answer RQ3, which asked about the relationship between political ideology and counterargument, a correlation was run between variables self-reported ideology and counterargument. No significant relationship was found, r(122) = .074, p=.416. To confirm, a correlation was run between variables political ideology scale and counterargument. No significant relationship was found, r(122) = .034, p=.711. In short, findings indicate participant political ideology had no effect on counterargument.
Post Hoc Tests
To further explore the dataset, a series of post hoc tests were conducted in order to explore relationships between variables that were not hypothesized or were not a part of a research question.
A correlation test between Spatial Presence and Journalist Credibility revealed a significant relationship, r(122) = .315, p<.001. A linear regression using Spatial Presence as the predictor and Journalist Credibility as the dependent variable found that a participant’s activated spatial presence process significantly predicted the perception of journalist credibility in the community-oriented 360VR news story, B = .315, t(122) =
94 11.08, p<.001. Spatial presence also explained a statistically significant proportion of variance in the perception of journalist credibility, r2 = .10, F(1, 122) = 11.08, p<.001.
A correlation test between Sense of Community and the Counterargument variable, which when not paired with the Condition variable indicates willingness to sign a petition to protest “the administration’s” action to remove the Graffiti Wall, revealed a significant relationship, r(122) = .199, p=.026. A linear regression using Sense of
Community as the predictor variable and Counterargument as the dependent variable found that a participant’s sense of community significantly predicted their willingness to sign the petition, B = .199, t(122) = 2.247, p=.026. Sense of community also explained a small but statistically significant proportion of the variance in the likelihood they would sign the petition, r2 = .04, F(1, 122) = 5.049, p = .026.
Regarding the familiarity controls, familiarity with 360 videos was significantly correlated with memory performance, r(122) = .197, p=.029. An independent samples t- test using familiarity with 360 videos as the grouping variable and memory performance as the dependent variable was run, grouping those who indicated they had never seen a
360 video prior to the experiment and those who indicated they rarely view 360 videos together (n=48, M=5.35, SD=2.08) and comparing them against those who indicated they occasionally, often, or frequently view 360 videos (n=76, M=6.25, SD= 1.84), t(122) =
2.50, p = .014. This indicates those who were more familiar with 360-degree videos performed better on the memory test.
A correlation between familiarity with VR HMDs and memory performance was not significant, r(122) = .168, p=.06. A correlation between familiarity with news
95 production techniques and memory performance also was not significant, r(122) = .174, p=.06.
Correlations were run examining Condition and Spatial Presence, Condition and
Sense of Community, Condition and Journalist Credibility, and Condition and
Counterargument, with no significant results.
Correlations were then run examining Gender and Spatial Presence, Gender and
Sense of Community, Gender and Journalist Credibility, Gender and Counterargument,
Gender and Memory Performance, and Gender and Attitude Change, with no statistically significant results.
96 Chapter 8: Experiment 2 – Discussion
The primary purpose of Experiment 2 was to explore the effects of a political ideology message factor manipulation on the memory performance, attitudes, and counterargument abilities of a general public participant pool. The secondary purpose was to offer evidence to support the findings regarding the hypotheses in Experiment 1. I was interested in multiple processing outcomes and comparisons, specifically concerning the effects of a person’s political ideology on memory performance, attitude, and counterargument. How does a person with a liberal worldview process and respond to a community journalism experience that depicts an action that supports a conservative worldview and detracts from their own? Conversely, how does a person with a conservative worldview process and respond to an experience that supports a liberal worldview and detracts from their own? Do belief and ideology-oriented cognitive filters affect memory performance? Does such an experience influence a person’s attitude by either reinforcing their beliefs or swaying them toward the other side? Does the activation of a spatial presence mechanism affect a person’s counterargument ability?
The first research question, which inquired about the relationship between political message-leaning and memory performance in a community-oriented 360VR news experience, was designed to test whether the ideology message factor played a role in what people remember coming out of a story. Statistically speaking, there was no relationship between the political message factor and memory performance between the conservative condition (n=64, M=5.91, SD=1.81) and the liberal condition (n=60,
97 M=5.90, SD=2.16), t(122)=0.17, p=.986. In fact, the means for both conditions were nearly identical.
The second part of the first research question explored participant ideology and memory performance, to test whether participants, regardless of condition, performed better, worse, or the same based on their ideological worldviews. This question followed previous literature but was implemented to test whether there were memory performance differences between groups in the dataset, which may affect the outcome of the subsequent research questions regarding attitude change and counterargument. Findings indicated no difference between Conservative (n=23, M=5.82, SD=2.25) and Liberal
(n=74, M=6.07, SD=1.73) participants, t(95)= -.541, p=.59. No significant differences were found between Conservative and Moderate (n=27, M=2.59, SD=1.37) participants, either. After breaking the memory performance variable down into its parts, specifically aural and visual recall performance, a statistically significant difference was found between Moderate and Liberal participants, t(99)=2.02, p<.05. So while there were no differences in overall memory performance, regardless of experimental condition, one difference was found between moderates and liberals in aural recall performance, which leads me to the next research question, where moderates play a key role.
The analysis for the second research question, which asked about the relationship between political message-leaning (condition) and attitude change, looked at the Attitude
Change variable in two ways: first without taking experimental condition (message- leaning) into consideration and just looking at ideology and attitude change, and then by separating participants by both participation and ideology. The purpose of testing both
98 ways was to look at overall agreement with the administration’s actions (the attitude indicator) first, then look at the direction of that change. So without taking condition into account, self-identified moderates (n=27, M=3.38, SD=.98) were statistically more likely to agree with the administration’s actions than liberals (n=74, M=2.69, SD=1.17), t(99)=2.74, p=.007, and a difference approaching but not quite breaching the significance threshold was found between moderates and conservatives (n=23, M=2.83, SD=1.25), t(48)=1.72, p=.09. In both cases, moderates were more likely to agree with the administration’s decision than either liberal or conservative participants. A simple main effect comparison in an ANOVA showed a significant difference in attitude change means between ideology groups irrespective of condition (p=.02). This finding sets the stage for the meat of the analysis, which found moderates as the ideological group whose attitudes were most swayed by the 360VR community news story in each condition.
The 2x3 factorial design was tested using a two-way ANOVA with condition and ideology as the dependent variables and attitude change as the dependent. Findings suggest statistically significant interaction effect between condition and ideology on attitude change, F(2, 118) = 5.841, p = .004. In both conditions, self-identified ideological partisans – whether conservative or liberal – sided with the groups they identified with. Conservatives in Condition 1 (M=2.45) (conservative victim group with liberal aggressor group) held their attitudes against the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group. Conservatives in Condition 2 (M=3.67) (liberal victim group with conservative aggressor group) held their attitudes in favor of the administration’s actions supporting their own group. Likewise, self-identified liberals in Condition 1
99 (M=3.14) held their attitudes in favor of the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group. Liberals in Condition 2 (M=2.31) held their attitudes against the administration’s actions supporting the conservative group. All four of these findings indicate the ideological manipulation reinforced participants’ previously held ideological beliefs and did not persuade them – they did not change their attitudes toward their beliefs as a result of the 360VR news story. Moderates, however, are where the attitude change findings get interesting.
Moderates in Condition 1 (M=3.26) were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group, indicating attitude change did occur in favor of the aggressor group. Likewise, moderates in Condition 2 (M=3.66) were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the conservative group, indicating attitude change did occur, also in favor of the aggressor group. So regardless of condition, moderates supported the administration’s actions of the aggressor group, and when condition was factored in statistically significant differences were found between moderates and the other two groups and attitude change, indicating moderates were more likely to agree with the treatment, or change their attitudes toward the aggressor in the stimulus than liberal or conservative groups.
Counterargument was tested in the third research question, but no significant differences were found between ideological groups, r(122) = .034, p=.711. In short, findings indicate participant political ideology had no effect on counterargument.
The third hypothesis stated people who feel stronger spatial presence would be less likely to counterargue against a persuasive message – this was not the case, as no
100 correlation was found, r(124) = .064, p=.479. This is interesting when considering the
LC4MP model and will be discussed below.
Finally, two confirmatory hypotheses were proposed that followed the hypotheses in the first experiment, testing the relationships between sense of community and spatial presence, journalist credibility, and memory performance. H1, which stated that people who feel a stronger sense of community will perform better on the memory test, was supported in the second experiment via Pearson correlation, r(124) = .249, p=.005, and independent samples t-test between those with an SOC measure of below 4 and those with a measure of 4 or greater, t(122) = 2.22, p=.029. Indeed, VR place-based storytelling in a community journalism context affects processing memory-oriented outcomes.
Participants with a higher sense of community (n=111, M=6.03, SD=1.90 outperformed those with a lower sense of community (n=13, M=4.77, SD=2.35). This finding confirms the first experiment. However, it is important to note the differences in the number of participants in each category. Alone, it may be called into question, but paired with the finding from the first experiment, its meaning is protracted.
H2, which stated that people who feel a stronger SOC will perceive the journalist as more credible, was not supported in the first experiment when a Pearson correlation was run, (54) = .192, p = .19. In the second experiment, SOC (M=5.09, SD=.987) and
Journalist Credibility (M=5.04, SD=.978), were correlated, r(124) = .249, p=.005, and a linear regression demonstrated that sense of community is a predictor of the perception of journalist credibility, F(1, 122) = 8.064, p=.005, indicating the stronger a person feels a sense of community the more likely they are to perceive a community journalist reporting
101 on a community-oriented 360VR news story in a head-mounted display as credible. This finding contradicts the finding of the first experiment and will be discussed below.
To further parse out the effects of an activated spatial presence mechanism, a post hoc linear regression using Spatial Presence as the predictor and Journalist Credibility as the dependent found that the more present a person felt in the news experience, the more credible they perceived the journalist, B = .315, t(122) = 11.08, p<.001, explaining a small but statistically significant variance in the perception of journalist credibility, r2 =
.10, F(1, 122) = 11.08, p<.001.
A final exploration of sense of community was conducted using the counterargument variable, which, when participants are not separated into condition and ideology variables, measures the likelihood of a person to sign a petition protesting “the administration’s” action to remove the Graffiti Wall. A linear regression found that sense of community predicted the likelihood of signing the petition, B = .199, t(122) = 2.247, p=.026. Sense of community also explained small but statistically significant variance in the likelihood they would sign the petition, r2 = .04, F(1, 122) = 5.049, p = .026.
Essentially, this finding indicates that people more concerned with their community were more likely to be angered by the removal of a longstanding community artifact, which makes sense.
Lastly, regarding the familiarity controls, people who more frequently viewed
360-degree videos (n=76, M=6.25, SD= 1.84) performed better on the memory test than those who had rarely or never seen one, t(122) = 2.50, p = .014. Familiarity with head- mounted displays or news production techniques, however, did not factor in to memory
102 performance. Post hoc tests found no statistically significant differences between gender, familiarity with news production, HMD familiarity, on any of the measured variables.
The following sections evaluate the findings and their implications in the light of the theoretical premises discussed in the literature review. Following the discussion, a general discussion on both studies will take place, followed by a conclusion and limitations.
Political Messages, Participant Ideology, and Memory Performance
The LC4MP assumes people have limited cognitive resources to expend on a given task, that people process media messages in accordance with motivation factors, that sensory-rich media such as 360VR engage cognition in different ways, that cognition changes from moment to moment, and that communication requires interaction between cognitive processing system and message content (Lang, 2000, 2006, 2009). Further, increased cognitive load, such as subjecting participants to a politically polarizing message in a 360VR experience, has been shown to have a negative effect on memory performance (Schaap, Kleemans & Cauwenberge, 2018), particularly on factual information recall. However, high level visual perception cues, such as from the faces of the on-screen journalist and interview subjects, have been shown to direct attention
(Brasel & Gips, 2017). Communicator cues in the forms of the on-screen presence of said journalists and interview subjects, have been shown to facilitate deeper information processing (Chaiken & Eagley, 1983), which may in turn facilitate memory encoding, storage, and retrieval of information. Building on the findings of the first experiment, this experiment tested whether the ideological leaning of the message itself had an effect on
103 participants’ memory performance in the 360VR news story. The first research question in this study was broken down into two parts – the first, RQ1, testing the effects of the political leaning of the message itself, and the second, RQ1a, testing the effects of participant ideology on memory performance. Regarding RQ1, both Pearson correlation and comparison of means via independent samples t-test found no relationship between political message-leaning and memory performance. In fact, the means for the memory assessment were near identical between message conditions – a mean difference of .01.
Previous literature on media messages and memory performance presented mixed findings when considering them in terms of VR and news. For instance, Schaap,
Kleemans, and Cauweberge (2018) found increased cognitive load has a negative effect on memory performance and recall, arguing in favor of sensory-rich stimuli found in the
360VR news story hampering memory. Conversely, Gunter and Furnham (1987) found strong visual news stimuli facilitate greater memory performance and recall, arguing in favor of the visual environment aiding memory. However, when factoring in the ideologies ingrained in the participants in this study as I did in RQ1a, still no differences were found between conservatives, moderates, and liberals in overall memory performance, but one statistically significant difference was found between moderates
(n=27, M=2.59, SD=1.37) and liberals (n=74, M=3.15, SD=1.17) specifically concerning aural recall (t(99)=2.02, p<.05). This could indicate the liberal participant group was more motivated to focus attention on the reporter’s verbally delivered message than the moderate group, a finding supported by the limited capacity model and its assertion that people attend to and process mediated messages dependent upon how relevant they
104 believe the message is to themselves. Lodge and Hamill (1986) found partisanship increased encoding and recall when exposed to political messages that are consistent with a person’s political beliefs, representative of a deep confirmation bias influence on the memory process. While not definitive, this finding suggests that motivational factors, such as perceived relevance or confirmation bias, were present when participants were processing the mediated messages in the stimulus, and that partisan ideology may have influenced the liberal participant group to allocate cognitive resource toward the verbally delivered message than the moderate group. A future study could further test this finding.
It is worth considering that the heightened attention and cognitive processing requirements of the 360VR experience, as noted by Sundar et al (2017), may have hampered memory storage and thus recall, an example of an exhaustion of the limited capacity function. This consideration requires further exploration, as Srivastava and
Atkins (2019) suggest in a comparison of memory performance in 2D, 3D mobile, and
360VR formats, that the head-mounted display and activation of spatial presence mechanism allows a user to fully immerse themselves in the news experience and lose awareness of the real world around them, which may actually decrease the cognitive resources needed to process a 360VR experience.
Attitude Change
The second research question, RQ2, gets into the meat of the second experiment, and arguably the most important research question in this dissertation. Walter Lippmann
(1922) argued mass media, by nature, increases the power, reach, and influence of propaganda and audience manipulation, particularly in a democratic political
105 environment in which extensive knowledge, information access, and specialized expertise are required to assess message quality. Further, he argued people in positions of power frequently cultivate messages designed to galvanize supporters and erode trust in competing messages. Harold Lasswell (1927), whose work on propaganda influenced the very definition of the word to include the deliberate expression of messages communicated specifically to manipulate or influence others to think or act a specific way through psychological manipulation (Ellul, 1965), argued that people in times of perceived personal or social crisis are more susceptible to media influence. Lippmann and Lasswell made those arguments nearly a century ago, coming off the heels of one world war and prior to another, when print media, radio broadcasts, and black-and-white films were the primary vehicles of news and information dissemination between those in power and the general publics they served. The two were concerned with message influence. Now, media is richer, more engaging, and requires more cognitive power to process.
With that in mind, I asked RQ2: What, exactly, is the relationship between a person’s preconceived notions about the world – specifically their political ideologies – on message processing and attitude change? While Lippmann and Lasswell were specifically concerned with the influence of overt propaganda and the effects of longitudinal propaganda campaigns, my study is specifically concerned with a more subtle political manipulation in a single snapshot. Essentially, I struck out to test whether politically-charged messages in a sensory-rich, community-oriented 360VR news experience carried the potential to influence a person’s attitude toward an attitude object
106 – to galvanize an audience in their beliefs or persuade them to agree with a political aggressor group’s actions.
A two-way analysis of variance separated participant ideology by condition, and measured Attitude Change as the dependent variable. A significant interaction effect was found between condition and ideology on attitude change, F(2, 118) = 5.841, p = .004.
Conservative participants in Condition 1 (conservative victim with liberal aggressor group) were less likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group. This indicates conservatives in this condition did not experience attitude change.
Likewise liberal participants in Condition 1 were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the liberal group, indicating they did not experience attitude change. In Condition 2, in which the political manipulation in the mediated message was reversed (liberal victim with conservative aggressor group), conservative participants were more likely to agree with the administration’s actions supporting the conservative group, and liberal participants were less likely to agree with the administration’s actions. In all four cases, this finding suggests the political manipulation reinforced already-held beliefs in my participants, consistent with previous research on confirmation polarization and political message effects (Chung & Waheed, 2016;
Druckman & Parkin, 2005; Feldman, 2011, 2011a; Plaisance, 2014; Westerwick, Johnson
& Knobloch-Westerwick, 2017).
Moderates in both conditions, however, aligned their attitudes after the manipulation with the aggressor. In Condition 1, moderates were more likely to side with the administration’s support of the liberal aggressor group. In Condition 2, moderates
107 were more likely to side with the administration’s support of the conservative aggressor group, indicating an attitude change did occur in both cases. In short, those who did not come into the news experience with an internalized partisan ideology influencing message processing and attitude outcome were more susceptible to the manipulation.
Taken as a whole, these findings indicate there is both attitude-reinforcing and attitude-changing power in 360VR news experiences. As this technology advances and becomes more widespread, and content creators deviate from entertainment and gaming, as journalists increase the number of stories they cover with this technology, and as other actors begin to utilize the medium to spread messages, more research on its influence is warranted. Beyond entertainment, beyond gaming, beyond training simulation, news and information has its place in the virtual world. For now, advertising – consumer products, political advertisements, propaganda pieces, etc. – are minimal. However, as its popularity increases invariably entities will seek to commercialize it, as they have in every other medium. Messages designed to persuade a person to purchase a product or service, or to endorse, vote for, or vote against, a political candidate or particular piece of legislation, will likely follow. Those messages, when disseminated in 360VR, may reinforce or polarize partisans, and may persuade moderates, to take a particular course of action or adopt a belief. Consider hyperpartisan political media organizations such as
Breitbart or Occupy Democrats publishing partisan content. Consider Nike publishing virtual experiential advertising content. Consider the implications of a global data-driven social media platform, such as Facebook, which owns VR company Oculus,
108 implementing personalized, targeted virtual reality products or political advertising messages.
It is of note that the political manipulation in the news story stimuli in this experiment was subtle and not overt. It was not designed to present an opinion or advocate for a particular ideological perspective, only present a mildly biased news report supporting either a liberal or conservative aggressor group. Future research into overt and longitudinal messages and message campaigns is needed to develop this finding and further explore its effects.
Spatial Presence and Journalist Credibility
Both media factors – content realism, production value, editing techniques, presence or absence of parasocial interaction, headset quality, audio quality and clarity, etc. – and user actions – engagement, suspension of disbelief, physical movement, etc. – affect the activation of the spatial presence mechanism (Wirth et al, 2007). Participants in this experiment indicated a high level of spatial presence (M=4.93, SD=1.24), which is consistent with previous literature (Bracken, 2005; Vettehen et al, 2019; Srivastava &
Atkins, 2019; Sundar et al, 2017). Participants in Condition 1 (n=64, M=5.06, SD=1.13) had a slightly higher mean (n=60, M=4.80, SD=1.34), but the difference was not significant. This finding again supports the premise that 360VR is a rich and interactive medium whose users are likely to experience a high degree of spatial presence. As in the first experiment, the reporter served as a central focal point to attract and hold attention, as previous research suggests (Brasel & Gips, 2017; Wang & Antonenko, 2017;
Wermeskerken, Ravensbergen, & van Gog, 2017). When spatial presence was regressed
109 on journalist credibility, I found that the more present the participant, the more they sank into the experience and lost track of the world around them, the more credible they perceived the journalist depicted in the story. For community journalists seeking to sustain or augment the perception of credibility from their audiences, a carefully crafted immersive news experience may help. For example, common questions that arise when considering credibility is what is not being told, when considering 2D video what is being left out of the shot, what or who else is in the environment, who else was present? The medium itself, in that selective framing cannot occur, may address some of these issues.
However, it is not a fix-all – when did the journalist turn on the camera? Turn it off? How was it edited? Do we trust the publishing organization? As we develop the storytelling grammar of the medium, it is important for the journalists who produce and publish this type of content to educate their audiences about the nature of the medium, the nature of journalistic storytelling, and its limitations.
Ironically, the users in this experiment, mirroring the findings of the first experiment, found high levels of perception of credibility across the board. The first experimental stimulus was based on an actual series of events but the outcome and several facts were fabricated. In the second experiment, the facts and narrative in the stimulus was entirely fabricated, the “journalist” was a theatrical actor, the “supporter” and “detractor” were also actors, yet the data show a ceiling effect in journalist credibility. This may speak to the power of the medium – it appears 360VR carries the capacity to elevate perception of credibility. This in turn may influence attitude change and persuasion – if a user perceives a message sender as credible they may be more likely
110 to believe the message. If that message is false and it is believed, it carries the potential to erode trust and credibility in the real world even if it bolsters it in the virtual.
Sense of Community
Building on journalist credibility, this experiment also found that when sense of community was regressed as a predictor onto journalist credibility, the stronger a person felt SOC the more likely they were to perceive the journalist in the stimulus as credible, regardless of experimental condition. As the stimuli were shot in the community in which the participants for the experiment were sampled, it stands to reason the stronger the tie to that community the more credible their perception of the journalist reporting a story on that community. SOC may influence the strength of message salience message
(McMillan & Chavis, 1986, Atkins, 2016), along with motivational activation through message factors (Srivastava, Saks, Weed & Atkins, 2018) and SOC itself. This finding reinforces the interplay between LC4MP and SOC and supports a similar finding in the first experiment.
Counterargument
I anticipated a compelling and positive finding regarding counterargument based on the LC4MP literature and literature on political messages, presence, and cognitive load. I hypothesized the more present a person was in the experience, the less likely they would counterargue against the message. That was not the case. No ideological group in any condition was more or less likely to counterargue than the other. Further, spatial presence did not play a role in counterargument as hypothesized. It is possible the presence of the journalist guiding the experience kept the participants’ minds conscious
111 of being inside a news experience, and no group was more or less affected by it. In
LC4MP terms, the participants may be more motivated to allocate cognitive resources to critical evaluation and counterargument when the reporter serves as a visual reminder that the purpose of the experience is to inform.
Anecdotal Evidence
After each participant was debriefed, I asked a few follow-up questions to get an informal snapshot of what they thought about the medium, its use in news, what they thought they most paid attention to, whether they enjoyed the experience, and anything remarkable that may have stood out to them that was not addressed in the data collection phase of the experiment.
Of note, several remarked they felt an affinity for the Graffiti Wall. Likewise, others remarked they felt a strong affinity for the freedom of speech represented by the wall, regardless of which political group in the manipulation succeeded in having it removed. It is interesting to note that, despite this anecdotal evidence, self-identified partisans sided with their respective ideological groups, and the moderates were more likely to side with the aggressor group and the administration in favor of the act of censorship. Which pull, then, is more powerful? Those with ingrained ideologies were more likely to side with their tribe than be persuaded by the message, but those without a preferred tribe were more likely to be persuaded by the message that the aggressor group and its action was correct.
Beyond the message, participants made a variety of comments about the medium itself. Some disliked the headset on the front of their faces, remarking that no matter how
112 engrossing they found the virtual environment they couldn’t ignore or suspend belief that the Oculus Go headset was strapped to their heads. Some remarked they felt attention in the 360VR experience was compulsory, but where and when to allocate attention was a struggle. One participant remarked that they enjoyed the perception of freedom to move around within the experience but felt no real compulsion to do so. Indeed, although the virtual environment surrounded each participant, the story was not entirely encompassing from a visual perspective. In each shot the reporter used at least 180 degrees of space, but there were few opportunities for the reporter to utilize the full 360-degrees when directing attention throughout the news story.
One of the elements I included in order to cue the audience to shift attention or move within the experience to focus on a story element was audio. In one shot of a female interviewee, she was positioned behind the participant, with an audio cue to let them know they needed to turn to see her. Strong audio cues letting an audience member know there is something off to the side or behind them of interest is something content creators and researchers need to explore. It is possible audio cues are less distracting than overt visual cues. I did not utilize ambisonic, spatialized audio for my stimuli – a future study may explore the efficacy of audio and visual cues. An audience needs a cue to indicate to them there is something going on inside the environment in a space they may not already be focused on, something they need to turn or move to see.
One participant remarked they were not sure if they got anything more out of the
360VR news experience than they would have if they’d watched the story on a regular
2D video because they did not pick up on the audio cues. The storytelling grammar is still
113 in the early stages of development, and our audience is letting us know what works and what does not. So many things influence how they will feel about a shot, a scene, a story, the experience overall, and we have to listen to their feedback in order to help build on that grammar.
Beyond their comments, some of my own observations of how the participants engaged and interacted with the environment are worth mentioning. As each participant explored the news experience, I paid attention to how they did (or did not) engage. I had each participant seated in a swivel chair with a full 360-degree range of motion. It appeared the height of the camera, which was positioned at eye level with the reporter and each interviewee, distressed some of the seated participants. They would reach out for something to hold onto and commented during or afterward they felt dissociated from their bodies to a certain extent. Some felt anxiety, vertigo, with their eyes and ears telling them they are standing but their bodies telling them they are seated. This is not something
I anticipated.
From a composition and editing perspective, observation of each of the participants tells me the inclination is to orient themselves visually for 5-10 seconds in each shot, evinced by them moving their heads, turning the chair, looking around at the beginning of the experience and at the beginning of each scene change. Each participant explored visually during that period to get a feel for the scene. This was more pronounced by those who claimed it was their first time – or first few times – with the technology.
However, those more experienced reported a similar orientation inclination, which may have led to an attention deficit at first. This may go down after orientation has occurred,
114 or the coolness or shine of the experience wears off. Regardless, it is important when constructing an experience to allow for this orientation to occur prior to beginning the news-oriented information transmission.
Experiment 2 - Conclusion
This experiment was designed to explore cognitive processing as it relates to memory performance and activated spatial presence response. It was also designed to evaluate sense of community and its effect on journalist credibility, and on its role in a user’s perception of community-oriented 360VR news content. Most importantly, it was designed to begin an exploration into the factors that influence persuasion and attitude change in a virtual reality news environment.
It found subtle differences in aural memory performance between the moderate group and liberal group, which may be attributed to a motivational factor influence on attention and information processing. It found a person’s sense of community, when paired with place-based storytelling featuring a familiar setting and a journalist relaying information perceived as relevant to them, were more likely to feel present in the virtual environment and were more likely to perceive the journalist as credible.
It also found that a subtle political manipulation galvanized partisans and persuaded moderates – those without deep-seeded ideological factors influencing message processing – more susceptible to the influence of the manipulation than those who experienced the news story through an ideological lens.
115 The findings in this experiment may serve as a baseline for future research into community journalism, virtual reality-based persuasion, and may help content creators design effective strategies for 360VR storytelling.
116 Chapter 9: General Discussion
There is a complex interplay between production technology, content creation, headset technology, and the user (Watson, 2017). This complexity presents a challenge for research, as news organizations and entertainment entities are still experimenting with content creation, industry developers are still advancing headset technology, and audiences are still flirting with medium adoption. Virtual reality can be an intense, even overwhelming experience. It can elicit an emotional response (although I call into question others’ referring to it as an “empathy machine”). This study has demonstrated
360VR news content can influence the perception of journalist credibility, it can affect cognitive processing and memory performance, and, most importantly, it can persuade.
The findings in Experiment 1 indicate neither the presence nor absence of an on- screen reporter in a 360VR news story affects a user’s memory performance but it did affect attention, with the user focusing more on the reporter and less on the environment when the reporter was visually present. The findings in Experiment 2 indicate moderate ideologues are more susceptible to attitude change than partisans. Both studies found sense of community influenced how present a user felt in the experience, and how credible they found the journalist, whether or not that journalist was visually present.
Cognitive load may have affected memory performance, which supports LC4MP (Lang,
2000; Lang, Bradley, Park, Shin, & Chung, 2006; Lang, 2009) and Schaap et al (2018), but it did not appear to affect attitude change or counterargument.
Regarding whether or not to utilize an on-screen reporter, I suggest context matters. What is more important to the story, the environment or the report? It does not
117 have to be an either/or. The presence of the on-screen reporter spurred the participant to allocation attention and focus on that reporter, in line with Wermeskerken et al (2017).
Faces, people, movement, all also attract attention and focus, and cognitive power is allocated to assess the cues they present (Brasel & Gips, 2017; Wang & Antonenko,
2017; Borji & Itti, 2012; Cerf, Frady & Koch, 2009; Yarbus, 1967). The reporter, who was directed to make and maintain eye contact with the 360 camera, creating the illusion of eye contact with the user when the HMD was donned, gained and held attention when she was present. The user was less likely to explore the surrounding environment with the reporter anchoring the experience.
When pieces of information in a news story need to be communicated, the appearance of a reporter to capture, maintain, and direct a user’s attention may be a positive influence on memory performance, and may positively influence the perception of credibility. However, when the exploration of the environment itself is the message intended to be communicated, the presence of the reporter may be a hindrance. Consider a news package where a reporter appears on camera to introduce a news story, then additional footage is cut in while the reporter continues to provide information in the form of a voiceover. The reporter sporadically reappears during transitions, disappears into voiceover, then reappears at the story’s conclusion to wrap it up. As there was no difference in memory performance between the two conditions, perhaps a combination of the two may help to both direct attention, build a parasocial relationship between journalist and user, and relay the necessary information without restricting a user’s agency during the experience.
118 Regarding attitude change, this finding gives me trepidation. In political communication – particularly advertising – messages designed to target and sway moderates may be more effective in 360VR. Fonseca and Kraus (2016) found 360VR facilitated attitude change in a persuasive experience tying meat consumption to climate change. Aitamurto et al (2018) found 360VR helped persuade its users to feel personally responsible for helping to address gender inequality after being subject to an immersive first-person experience depicting an inequality event. Sundar et al (2017) found those subjected to a 360VR experience depicting refugees were more likely to express empathy, a powerful and persuasive emotion. The finding here goes further than these other studies, and specifically looks at political persuasion, finding moderates more susceptible to influence. More research need to be done to explicitly focus on this finding. For example, we could forego the community and journalism orientation of the experiments in this dissertation and focus exclusively on manipulating politicized messages and measure differences in ideological groups. Further, are political messages, or political campaigns, more or less effective on moderate ideologues in virtual reality than in other forms of media? Are their effects just as brief or more lasting? A comparative study examining differences between groups, one examining differences between media, and a longitudinal study examining the staying power of persuasive messages, perhaps carefully timed to culminate with an explicit voting behavior in an election, could shed more light on the matter.
As de la Pena (2010), Aitamuro et al (2018), Sundar et al (2017), and others suggest, the norm with immersive news content is to explore environments and events
119 that are unique, unfamiliar, and novel – things a person would likely never experience in real life, such as war zones, ice caves, refugee camps, and swimming with sharks. The exploration of the unfamiliar. My research here, however, is an exploration of the familiar. The community-oriented news stories in each stimulus experience were written for, shot in, and relevant to, members of a specific, geographically defined community.
The findings in both experiments are clear indicators that the familiar, that place-based news experiences featuring environments users personally know and have strong ties to, may be just as immersive, activate spatial presence mechanisms just as readily, and help facilitate credibility, than the unfamiliar, exotic locations used in the aforementioned (and other) immersive and virtual reality journalism research. Scholars have clearly demonstrated reciprocal relationships between a person’s sense of community and community journalism consumption (Atkins, 2016; Meyer & Daniels, 2011; Carey &
Meyer, 2016; Deuze, 2006; Deuze, Bruns & Neuberger, 2007; Lewis et al, 2014;
McCollough, Crowell, & Napoli, 2017). Journalism as a whole, and particularly community journalism publications, are facing a series of difficult challenges, including adapting or evolving along with ever-increasing technological sophistication and correlating evolving audience consumption tastes. While larger, more well-funded news outlets have the potential and breathing room to experiment with or implement innovations both procedural (ex: participatory) and technological (ex: 360 video), community publications have to largely rely on community members to be engaged with their content, purchase or subscribe, give meaningful and relevant feedback, give news or story tips as well as serving as sources of information (and sometimes the content itself).
120 One of the other primary issues journalists have been facing over the last decade or so is the perception of credibility. 360VR is a technological innovation ripe for community journalism. Its use in reporting by national and international news organizations is evidence it is effective and has an ever-increasing audience. Now, while local news organizations do not have the resources to deliver more than a million Google Cardboard
HMD devices to its subscribers as the New York Times did in 2016 to introduce its
Daily360 initiative and supporting smartphone app, they do have the resources to purchase an inexpensive 360VR camera and publish content to their websites and social media accounts. While just two years ago a decent 360-degree camera rig was cost- prohibitive, new innovations have brought camera quality up and production procedure costs in terms of money, time, and skill, down to an affordable level. What this all means is that the barriers to community journalists producing and publishing this type of content for their audiences have been seriously diminished, if not brought down entirely. They are free to shoot and publish content taken in their communities, about their communities, featuring members of their communities, to their community-oriented website for their audiences – members of their communities – to engage with. This type of innovation and engagement at the local news level is ripe for community journalists. One of the reasons I decided to conduct my experiments in a community journalism context – besides allowing me careful control over the experimental stimulus – was to measure how sense of community influenced memory, presence, and the perception of journalist credibility.
In both experiments, sense of community played a role. It predicted credibility and aided presence. It stands to reason, then, community journalists interested in both innovation
121 and increasing perception of credibility from their audiences may utilize 360VR to do so.
A challenge, however, for community journalists at this stage, beyond barriers to entry, is diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003), a dynamic process that relies on the innovation itself, the communication channels in which it operates, the passage of time, and the external influences of a social system. Personal traits, such as personality, the draw toward innovation that first adopters feel, or the push away from technological change inherent to luddites, all play a role. A community news organization could adopt the
360VR innovation by targeting its first adopters and early majority. Rich content aimed at strengthening both sense of community and credibility could bring in the late majority and laggards over time, and could monetize the content in such a way as to advance its business interests. In this way, 360VR and immersive media could represent a sustainable method of delivering community news experiences to the members of that community and help usher in an evolution of immersive journalism.
Shifting gears, journalists are tasked with relaying factual information about news events (among other things), creating and strengthening connections between an audience and a story, and are responsible for helping develop and maintain community relations by informing the publics they serve. 360VR journalism presents the opportunity to address what de la Pena et al. (2010) calls the strain of the credibility of journalistic integrity which may undermine the ability to bring accurate reporting to the public. De la Pena was referring to a type of immersive journalism she and her team pioneered, using gaming engines and computer animation to re-create a news event by using careful reporting and interviewing, artist reconstructions, and actual audio recordings of the events to immerse
122 a news audience into a virtual news story. 360VR does not rely on animation – the realism of video over animation, no matter how photorealistic and faithful to depictions of reality, adds to journalist credibility. In both experiments, credibility was measured at high levels. I agree with de la Pena et al. (2010) when they state virtual reality journalism, now including 360VR journalism, offers a profoundly unique way to experience a news story that allows an audience to connect to that story in a way that is otherwise impossible. I also argue that 360VR community-oriented news stories offer equally unique ways to experience a news event, integrating an audience into a story about a location they may already be familiar with. Immersive journalism and 360-degree news stories aren’t just about the unique, the weird, the sensational, the emotional – news doesn’t happen exclusively in unusual or unique locations ordinary people will never travel to, such as Syrian migrant camps or Guantanamo Bay, or under exotic circumstances ordinary people will likely never find themselves, such as a desert military firefight, or a dangerous survival-motivated border crossing. The majority of journalism is local – it reports on events, analyzes happenings, and profiles people in our communities, towns, regions, states. As emerging technologies continue to become more affordable, local newsrooms will find the barriers to entry significantly reduced.
Understanding how news audiences respond to 360VR news stories, helping develop the storytelling grammar that will eventually lead to a normalized best practice, is vital to ensuring journalists in the future are equipped to tell the stories they need to tell in the most effective way. It also informs its audience of the effects of the messages included in
123 those stories published in that medium and helps them recognize and guard against those effects.
Tanja Aitamurto (2019) also brings up a compelling point regarding 360VR news stories by presenting a paradox for journalists which I’ve touched on in terms of sacrificing control but will reiterate here: building news experiences with a 360-degree field of vision may present an audience with a more accurate representation of what took place, where, and how, but relinquishing control over selective framing and allowing a user to choose the field of view may not increase that user’s understanding of the news story, particularly if that user is neophyte (Aitamurto, 2019). An increase in journalistic transparency, which may influence the perception of credibility, may sacrifice end-user accuracy. The possibility that the journalist may be attempting to tell one story, but the user only gets fragments, or sees a different story altogether is a possibility worth considering. Further, software advances carry the potential for content creators to manipulate the imagery to remove camera and audio equipment, for example, to create a cleaner image for a user. This presents an ethical paradox: is it okay to use advanced manipulation and editing methods to, say, remove an errant microphone, to edit out a tripod stand, to add a motion blur or lighting cue in post-production to direct or capture attention? The pursuit of a more holistic, more representative news story using virtual reality may, in fact, compromise ethical principles and norms. Such manipulation is well in the wheelhouse of entertainment producers, advertisers, and propagandists, but journalists will have to address the ethicality issue sooner rather than later and establish clear-cut normative practices.
124 Chapter 10: Limitations
The two experiments in this study were conducted in a specific community. The news stories I produced to serve as my stimuli I did so with that specific community in mind. While steps were taken to ensure generalizability of my findings, it is important to recognize that while communities share much in common, they are different enough to where the argument could be made the effects in this study may not translate to other communities. In order to make a valid generalizability argument, a similar study or replication of these experiments may be conducted in similar fashion in a different community. Replicability, after all, is the cornerstone of social science. Replication on its own, however, is only a piece (albeit a large piece) of what makes good science, and a tunnel-vision approach may actually be detrimental to social science as a whole. As
Finkel, Eastwick, and Reis (2017) point out, it is too easy for us, and the public, to equate replication with validity. Simply because another researcher using a different population sample in another location at another time under mostly similar conditions could not measure the exact same finding at the exact same power and statistical significance does not necessarily mean the study under replication was a bad study, not worthwhile, or that the original researcher(s) engaged in poor decision-making, poor planning and execution, data manipulation, found a false positive and published it anyway, or some other horrible thing. There are innumerable potential unforeseen or uncontrolled-for confounds in every experimental study, some occurring by chance and some occurring as a result of the decisions the researchers made when constructing and deploying their studies. An exclusive focus on replication devalues the impact on external and internal validity, the
125 tradeoff of a tightly-controlled experimental environment for experimental realism, assumptions about underlying process mechanisms when making observations, favoring one theoretical approach over another that may be more applicable, and so on (Aronson,
Wilson, & Brewer, 1998; Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2017; Open Science Collaboration,
2015; Nosek et al, 2018). A few such tradeoffs are mentioned below.
During the first experiment, the script for the first stimulus was based on a long- gestating news story in the community where the experiment was conducted. The stimulus was fact-based taking into context what people may or may not know about the subject matter, but the outcome of the action in the story was entirely fictional. However, for the second experiment, the stimulus was entirely fabricated but based on a series of polarizing events which occurred in the community, specifically vandalism in the form of hate speech appearing both on campus and off. The object at the center of the fictional story is of significance to both students and local residents as it is regularly used to promote community events and organizations, making it relevant to both students, staff, and faculty, as well as the general public. However, it is possible the proposed censorship in the story may have triggered a response beyond the intended political ideology manipulation. For example, a participant may not be affected by an opposing political party group taking action against the participant’s chosen group, but the participant may be affected by a perceived encroachment on free speech. The manipulation still worked, but it is worth mentioning.
126 Although participant gender or race did not play a significant factor in these experiments, the gender and race of the on-screen reporter may have. I did not include measures that would account for a potential participant race or gender bias.
It is important to note the participants in Experiment 2 were recruited from both student and general public populations. The participant pool is diverse and reflective of the makeup of the general population of Athens, Ohio, including age, experience with news and VR, profession, sense of community, and political ideology. I made the decision to heavily recruit volunteers from the general public during the summer of 2019 by setting up controlled laboratory space at five different venues. While this decision did relinquish explicit control by not having each participant go through the experience in the exact same physical environment, it increases the generalizability of the findings by including a much more diverse experimental population than if I would have relied exclusively on undergraduates as most social scientific experiments tend toward. Instead of a population of 18 to 21-year-olds I have a population of 18 to 78-year-olds running the gamut from students to handymen, from bartenders to government retirees, from unemployed to librarian, from a sheet metal fabricator to retired journalism professor, from construction worker to city councilman. I also argue that by nature, a head-mounted virtual reality experience places each individual user into an identical environment shed of the physical world around them, which to a degree offsets the variance I introduced when I moved the lab to multiple venues.
Another limitation worth mentioning in the second experiment is power. When I split my participants into ideological groups, the group sizes decreased. Liberals in both
127 conditions were more represented than either moderates or conservatives. While this breakdown does, in fact, reflect the demographics of the general population, it does reduce the power in the analysis. Future research should take that into consideration and increase the number of participants in order to increase the size of the smaller groups or specifically target the smaller groups so they are more represented in the dataset. This may reduce generalizability but may increase the strength of the results.
128 Chapter 11: Conclusion
Content creators are just beginning to discover the potential of 360-degree virtual reality video. Audiences of all types are tentatively testing the waters of head-mounted displays and VR experiences. Journalists and news organizations are in the early stages of developing the grammar of a language they are just beginning to comprehend.
Researchers are just beginning to explore the effects of all of the above. Even now, as this dissertation is being finalized, production of 360VR nonfiction narratives is advancing, research is becoming more prevalent, and academic interest at universities and research institutions around the globe is increasing. This dissertation is a small, but vital piece in advancing this exploration.
This study advances our understanding of how virtual reality news affects its audience. Early research almost exclusively focused on different elements of presence, followed almost exclusively by a focus on emotional affect and empathy. This moves beyond, advancing research into the realm of cognition and persuasion. However, it measured cognition using self-reports and memory performance exams, and persuasion in a single post-test snapshot. More precise measurements on attention using eye tracking technology may provide a more robust understanding of how people interact with 360VR news stories. A study measuring attitude change over time may help us clarify whether the findings in this study are short-term or long-term effects. A study measuring repeat exposures, or measuring mean world, hostile media, or other cultivation effects as a response to 360VR content is also needed. This dissertation may help serve as a baseline or jump-off point.
129 References
Abramowitz, A. & Webster, S. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike
parties but behave like rabid partisans. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(1).
119-135.
Abril, E.P. (2018). Subduing attitude polarization? How partisan news may not affect
attitude polarization for online publics. Politics and the Life Sciences, 37(1), p.
68-79.
Aitamuro, T. (2019). Normative paradoxes in 360 journalism: Contested accuracy and
objectivity. New Media & Society, 21(1), 3-19.
Aitamurto, T., Zhou, S., Sakshuwong, S., Saldivar, J., Sadeghi, Y., Tran, A. (2018).
Sense of presence, attitude change, perspective-taking and usability in first-person
split-sphere 360 video. CHI 2018, Montreal, Quebec, p. 1-12.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social
psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (pp. 99-142). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication,
oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics,
74(1), p. 174-186. doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100123X
Adobe.com (n.d.). 180 and 360/VR editing: More immersive storytelling. Adobe.com.
Retrieved from https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/virtual-reality.html
AP.org (2016, Feb. 17). AP launches virtual reality and 360 video channel in
130 collaboration with AMD. The Associated Press. Retrieved from
https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2016/ap-l aunches-virtual-reality-and-360-
video-channel-in-collaboration-with-amd
Atkins, A (2016). Sense of community, political participation, and civic engagement: An
examination of the relationships between local daily newspapers, news websites,
and their communities. [master’s thesis]. Retrieved from Virginia Tech library.
Atkins, A., McLean, D., & Canter, W. (2017). Immersive narratives, 360 video and
virtual reality: A pilot experiment and comparison of news narratives and
transportation effects in 360 video and virtual reality conditions [conference
paper]. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
annual conference, Chicago.
Atkins, A. & Srivastava, J. (2018). Fake news, competence, and the internet: An
experimental examination of self-assessment and perceptions of ability to assess
truth in social media news stories [conference paper]. International
Communication Association, May 25, Washington, D.C.
Baig, E C. (2015, Feb. 16). View-Master enters digital age. USA Today, p.
04B. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A401824475/OVIC?u=athe17405&sid=OVIC&xid
=33b15f71. Accessed 11 Mar. 2019.
Bahle, B., Mills, M., & Dodd, M. (2017). Human Classifier: Observers can deduce task
solely form eye movements. Attention Perception Psychophys, 79(5), p. 1415-
1425. doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1324-7
131 Baiocchi-Wagner, E.A. & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2010). Audience perceptions of female
sports reporters: A social identity approach. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 3, p. 261-274.
Bajpai, R. (2018, April 17). Common 360 video mistakes and how to avoid them.
International Center for Journalists 2018. Retrieved from
https://ijnet.org/fa/node/639
BBC News (n.d.). Research and Development: 360 video and virtual reality news.
BBC.com. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/360-video-virtual-
reality
Beach, R. (1993). A Teacher’s Guide to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana, Ill, National
Council of Teachers of English, ISBN: -0-8141-5018-7
Biocca, F. (1992, Autumn). Virtual Reality Technology: A Tutorial. Journal of
Communication, 42(4), 23-72.
Biocca, F. & Levy, M. (1995). Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality. Hillsdale,
NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN: 0-8058-1549-X
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual
environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
Biocca, F. (2002). The evolution of interactive media: Toward In “being there” in
nonlinear narrative worlds. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, and T. C. Brock (Eds.),
Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. (pp. 97-130). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J.K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and
132 measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence Teleoperation
in Virtual Environments, 12(5), p. 456-481.
Bishop, B. (2013, June 14). Digital empathy: how ‘Hunger in Los Angeles’ broke my
heart in a virtual world. The Verge. Retrieved from
zttps://www.theverge.com/2013/6/14/4431308/digital-empathy-how-hunger-in-
los-angeles-broke-my-heart-virtual-reality
Blanchard, A.L. (2004). Virtual behavior settings: An application of behavior setting
theories to virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
9(2): 00.
Blanchard, A.L., Welbourne, J.L., & Boughton, M.D. (2011). A model of online trust:
The mediating role of norms and sense of virtual community. Information,
Communication & Society 14(1): 76-106.
Bloom, P. (2017, Feb. 3). It’s ridiculous to use virtual reality to empathize with refugees.
TheAtlantic.com.
Boehm-Schnitker, N., & Gruss, S. (2014). Neo-Victorial Literature and Culture:
Immersions and Revisitations. London and New York, Routledge.
Borji, A., & Itti, L. (2012). State-of-the-art in modeling visual attention. IEEE Trans.
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 35, p. 185–207.
Bradley, R. (2018, Nov. 3). How Nonny de la Peña, the ‘Godmother of VR,’ Is Changing
the Mediascape. The Wall Street Journal Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nonny-de-la-pena-the-godmother-of-vr-is-
changing-the-mediascape-1541253890
133 Brasel, A. & Gips, J. (2017). Media multitasking: How visual cues affect switching
behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, p. 258-26.
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.042
Burke, T. (2018, March 31). How America’s largest local TV owner turned its news
anchors into soldiers in Trump’s war on the media. Deadspin. Retrieved from
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-
its-news-anc-1824233490
Cantril, H. (1940). The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic.
Routlege, Taylor & Francis: London, New York.
Carey, M. C., & Meyer, H. K. (2016). The influences of participation and moderation on
the development of a sense of virtual community. International Journal of Web
Based Communities, 12(4), 326-341.
Cauwenberge, A., Schaap, G., & Van Roy, R. (2014). TV no longer commands our full
attention: Effects of second-screen viewing and task relevance on cognitive load
and learning from news. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, p. 100-109.
Cerf, M., Frady, E., & Koch, C. (2009). Faces and text attract gaze independent of the
task: Experimental data and computer model. Journal of Vision, p. 9.
Chaiken, S. & Eagly, A. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of
persuasion: The role of communicator salielce. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(2), p. 241-256.
Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A., (1990). Sense of community in the urban
134 environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 55-81.
Chia, S. & Cenite, M. (2012). Biased news or biased public? An examination of
audiences’ perceived news bias in an authoritarian press system. Journalism
Studies, 13(1), p. 124-140.
Cho, E.J., Lee, K.M., Cho, S., Choi, Y. (2015). Displays, 35(2), p59-65. doi:
10.1016/j.displa.2014.01.004
Cho, H. & Han, M. (2004). Perceived effect of the mass media on self vs. other: A cross-
cultural investigation of the third person effect hypothesis. Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication, 14(2), p. 299-318.
Christofi, M. & Grigoriou, D. (2017). Virtual reality for inducing empathy and reducing
prejudice towards stigmatized groups: A survey [conference paper]. 23rd
International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM)
doi: 10.1109/VSMM.2017.8346252
Chung, S. & Sparks, J. (2016). Motivated processing of peripheral advertising
information in video games. Communication Research, 43(4), p. 518-541.
Chung, S. & Waheed, M. (2016). Biased systematic and heuristic processing of
politicals’ messages: effects of source favorability and political interest on attitude
judgment. International Journal of Communication, 10, p. 2556-2575.
Clark, J.K., Wegener, D.T., & Fabrigar, L.R. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence and
135 message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information
and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, p. 565-580. doi: 10.1177/0146167207312527
Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., & Bond, B.J. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions
of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2) p. 201–219.
Costa, D.P., Sampaio, P.N., & Martins, V.F. (2017). Gesture interaction metaphors
within 3D environments: Revisiting the literature. 2017 XLIII Latin American
Computer Conference (CLEI), Cordoba, p. 1-10. doi:
10.1109/CLEI.2017.8226414
CNN.com (n.d.). CNN VR. CNN.com. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/vr
Cowles, D. (n.d.). 360 and VR Video: New Technologies, New Possibilities. Adobe
Create Magazine. Retrieved from
https://create.adobe.com/2016/4/13/_360_and_vr_video_new_technologies_new_
possibilities.html
Coddington, R. (2018). Civil War daguerreotypes: Last of photography’s celebrated first
format. Military Images, 36(4), p. 44-46.
De la Pena, N., Weil, P., Liobera, J., Giannopoulos, E., Pomes, A., Spanlang, B.,
Friedman, D., Sanchez-Vives, M., & Slater, M. (2010). Immersive journalism:
Immersive virtual reality for the first-person experience of news. Presence, 19(4),
p. 291-301.
De la Pena, N., Lichtenstein, B., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2016). Across the line [360VR film].
United States: Emblematic Group.
136 Deuze, M. (2006). Ethnic media, community media, and participatory culture. Journalism
Practice, 7(3).
Deuze, M., Bruns, A. & Neuburger, (2014). Reciprocal journalism. Journalism practice,
8(2).
Docubase MIT (n.d.). Hunger in Los Angeles. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Open Documentary Lab. Retrieved from https://docubase.mit.edu/project/hunger-
in-los-angeles/
Domonoske, C. (2018, April 2). Video reveals power of Sinclair, as local news anchors
recite script in unison. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/04/02/598794433/video-reveals-power-of-sinclair-as-local-news-
anchors-recite-script-in-unison
Druckman, J. & Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects
voters. Journal of Politics, 67(4), p. 1030-1049.
Dyer, E., Swartzlander, B., Gugliucci, M.R. (2018). Using virtual reality in medical
education to teach empathy. Journal of the Medical Library Association,
106(4)498-501. dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.518
Dyson, F. (2009). Sounding New Media: Immersion and Embodiment in the Arts and
Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Calif. ISBN: 978-
0-520-25898-3
Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington. ISBN: 0-253-11139-0
Edwards, B. (2015, Aug. 21). Unraveling the enigma of Nintendo’s Virtual Boy, 20 years
137 later. Fast Company.com. Retrieved from
https://www.fastcompany.com/3050016/unraveling-the-enigma-of-nintendos-
virtual-boy-20-years-later
Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York, Vintage
Books.
Emmett, B.P. (1966). The design of investigations into the effects of radio and television
programmes and other mass communications. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 129(1), p. 26-60.
Feldman, L. (2011). The opinion factor: The Effects of opinionated news on information
processing and attitude change. Political Communication, 2011, 28(2) p. 163–
181.
Feldman, L. (2011a). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the
hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33(3) p. 407–432.
Ferchaud, A., Grzeslo, J., Orme, S., & LaGroue, J. (2018). Parasocial attributes and
YouTube personalities: Exploring content trends across the most subscribed
YouTube channels. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, p. 88-96.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Findahl, O. & Hoijer, B. (1985). Some characteristics of news memory and
comprehension. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29(4), p. 379-396.
Finkel, E.J., Eastwick, P.W., & Reis, H.T. (2017). Replicability and other features of a
high-quality science: Toward a balanced and empirical approach. Journal of
138 Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 244.
Fonseca, D. & Kraus, M. (2016). A comparison of head-mounted and hand-held displays
for 360-degree videos with focus on attitude and behavior change. Proceedings of
the 20th International Mindtrek Conference. ACM. 287-296.
Fortin, J. & Bromwich, J. (2018, April 2). Sinclair made dozens of local news anchors
recite the same script. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair-news-anchors-
script.html
Franz, M.M. & Ridout, T.N. (2007). Does political advertising persuade? Political
Behavior, 29(4), p. 46-491.
Fraustino, J.D., Lee, J.Y., Lee, S.Y., & Ahn, H. (2018). Effects of 360 video on attitudes
toward disaster communication: Mediating and moderating roles of spatial
presence and prior disaster media involvement. Public Relations Revies, 44, p.
331-341. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.003
Gao, Y.& Lang, A. (2009). Dimensions of information density and cognitive load
[conference paper]. International Communication Association, May 2009,
Chicago.
Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of
public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701.
Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-Imagery Model of
139 narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, and T. C. Brock (Eds.),
Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. (pp. 161-176). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2005). Persuasiveness of narratives. In T. C. Brock and M.
C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives. (pp. 117-
142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Greene, M., Liu, T., & Wolfe, J. (2012). Reconsidering Yarbus: A failure to predict
observers’ task from eye movement patterns. Vision Research, 62, p. 1–8.
Gunter, B. (1980). Remembering television news: Effects of picture content. Journal of
General Psychology, 102, p. 127-133.
Gunter, B. & Furnham, A. (1987). Effects of time of day and medium of presentation on
immediate recall of violent and nonviolent news. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
1, p. 255-262.
Hartmann, T., Wirth, W., Schramm, H., Klimmt, C., Vorderer, P., Gysbers, A., Bocking,
S., Ravaja, N., Laarni, J., Saari, T., Gouveia, F., & Sacau, A. (2016). The spatial
presence scale: A short self-report measure for diverse media settings. Journal of
Media Psychology, 28(1), p. 1-15. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000137
Hawkins, R., Pintree, S., Hitchon, J., Radler, B. (2005). What produces television
attention and attention style? Human Communication Research, 31(1), p. 162-
187.
Heilig, M. (1962). U.S. Patent #3,050,870. Retrieved from
http://www.mortonheilig.com/SensoramaPatent.pdf
140 Heise, D.R. (1970). The Semantic Differential and Attitude Research. Chapter 14: Attitde
Measurement.Chicago: Rand McNally.
Henderson, J., Shinkareva, S., Wang, J., Luke, S., & Olejarczyk, J. (2013). Predicting
cognitive state from eye movements. Plos One., p. 8.
Herrera, F., Ballenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., Zaki, J. (2018). Building long-term
empathy: A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-
taking. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0204494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204494.
Hill, M. (2014, Nov. 21). The Sega VR headset that never was. Gizmodo.co.uk. Retrieved
from http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/11/the-sega-vr-headset-that-never-was/
Horning, M.A. (2017). Interacting with news: Exploring the effects of modality and
perceived responsiveness and control on news source credibility and enjoyment
among second screen viewers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, p. 273-283.
Huhn, A.E., Khan, V., Ketelaar, P., Riet, J., Konig, R., Rozendaal, E., Batalas, N., &
Markopoulos, P. (2017). Does location matter? A field study on the effects of
location-based advertising on perceived ad intrusiveness, relevance and value.
Computers in Human Behavior, 73, p. 659-668.
Ivory, J.D. & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007). The effects of technological advancement and
violent content in video games on players’ feelings of presence, involvement,
physiological arousal, and aggression. Journal of Communication, 57, 532-555.
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466/2007.00356x
Ivory, A.H., Fox, J., Waddell, T. F., & Ivory, J. (2014). Sex role stereotyping is hard to
141 kill: A field experiment measuring social responses to user characteristics and
behavior in an online multiplayer first-person shooter game. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, p. 148-156.
Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K.S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological
selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), p. 19–39.
Jamieson, P. E., & Romer, D. (2014). Violence in popular U.S. prime time TV dramas
and the cultivation of fear: A time series analysis. Media & Communication, 2(2),
31.
Jennsen, W. (1966). Sales effects of TV, radio, and print advertising. Journal of
Advertising Research, 6(2), p. 2-7.
Jin, S.A. (2011). “It feels right. Therefore, I feel present and enjoy”: The effects of
regulatory fit and the mediating roles of social presence and self-presence in
avatar-based 3D virtual environments. Presence, 20(2), p. 105-116.
Jones, S. & Dawkins, S. (2018). Walking in someone else’s shows: creating empathy in
the practice of immersive film. Media Practice and Education, 19(3), 298-312.
doi: 10.1080/25741136.2018.1520538
Kamhawi, R. (2003). Emotional non-redundancy in television messages: The impact on
audience memory [conference paper]. International Communication Association
annual conference, San Diego, Calif. p. 1-4.
Kandaurova, M. & Lee, S.H. (2018). The effects of virtual reality on charitable giving:
The role of empathy, guilt, responsibility, and social exclusion. Journal of
Business Research. doi 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.027
142 Kim, O. & Kim, H. (2013). The effect of arousal level and image presentation on ad
element recall. American Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings. 2013,
p. 127-137.
Kim, J., Ahn. S., Kwon, E., & Reid, L. (2017). TV advertising as a state of immersion
and presence. Journal of Business Research, 76, p. 67-76.
Kim, J. & Song, H. (2016). Celebrity self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial
relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human
Behavior, 62, p. 570-577.
Klimmt, C. (2003). Media psychology “is not yet there”: Introducing theories on media
entertainment to the presence debate. Presence, 12(4), p. 346-359.
Lang, A. (2000). The information processing of mediated messages: A framework for
communication research. Journal of Communication, 52.
Lang, A. (2006). Using the limted capacity model of motivated mediated message
processing to Design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of
Communication, 56, p. 557-580.
Lang, A., Bradley, S., Park, B., Shin, M., & Chung, Y. (2006). Parsing the resource pie:
Using STRTs to measure attention to mediated messages. Media Psychology,
8(4), p. 369-394.
Larsen, S.F. & Plunkett, K. (1987). Remembered experienced and reported events.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 1-26.
Lasswell, H.D. (1927). The theory of political propaganda. The American Political
Science Review, 21, p. 627-631.
143 Lasswell, H.D. (1927). Propaganda Technique in the World War. Publisher: Peter Smith,
1927. University of Michigan Press.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The People's Choice: How the Voter
Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press.
Lee, S., Chen, Y., Harmon, M. (2016). Reality TV, materialism, and associated
consequences: An exploration of the influences of enjoyment and social
comparison on reality TV’s cultivation effects. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 24(4), 228-241.
Lewis, S.C., Holton, A.E., & Coddington, M. (2014). Reciprocal journalism. Journalism
Practice, 8(2), 229-241.
LibraryIreland (n.d.). Irish Artists – Robert Barker, Painter of Panoramas, 1739-1806.
LibraryIreland: History, Genealogy, Culture. Retrieved from
https://www.libraryireland.com/irishartists/robert-barker.php
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Lodge, M. & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing.
American Political Science Review, 80(2), p. 505-519. doi.org/10.2307/1958271
Loon, A., Ballenson, J. Zaki, J., Bostick, J. & Willer, R. (2018). Virtual reality
perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PLOS ONE
13(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202442
Lord, C.G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1979). Biased assimilation Biased assimilation
and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered
evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11) p. 2098–2109.
144 Lubeck, A., Bos, J., Stins, J. (2015). Equally moved and not really sick from viewing 2D
and 3D motion stimuli on a TV screen. Displays, 41, p. 9-15.
Maio, G.R., Bell, D.W. & Esses, V.M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The
processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 32, 513-536.
Mastrorocco, N. & Minale, L. (2018). News media and crime perceptions: Evidence from
a natural experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 165, p. 230-255.
Matos, A.P., Ferreira, J.A. & Haase, R.F. (2012). Television and aggression: A test of a
mediated model with a sample of Portuguese students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 152(1), p. 75-91.
McCombs, M.E. & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass
media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), p. 176. doi:10.1086/267990
McGraw, K.M. & Pinney, N. (1990). The effects of general and domain-specific
expertise on political memory and judgment. Social Cognition, 8, p. 9-30.
doi.org/10.1521/soco.1990.8.1.9
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology 14: 6-23.
McMillan, D. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4),
315-325.
Mersey, R.D., (2009). Online news users’ sense of community: Is geography dead?
Journalism Practice, 3(3), 347-360. doi: 10.1080/17512780902798687
Mersey, R.D., (2009a). Sense of community differs for print, online readers. Newspaper
145 Research Journal, 30(3), 105-119.
Mersey, R.D., (2010). Reevaluating Stamm’s theory of newspapers and communities
in a new media environment: Toward a new theory based on identity and
independence. Northwestern University Law Review, 104(2), 517-535.
Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an
index. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 65(3).
Meyer, H.K. & Carey, M.C. (2015). Men are more likely to post online newspaper
comments. Newspaper Research Journal, 36(4), p. 469-481. doi:
10.1177/0739532915618417
Meyer, H.K., Marchionni, D., & Thorson, E. (2010). The journalist behind the news:
Credibility of straight, collaborative, opinionated, and blogged “news”. American
Behavioral Scientist, 54(2), p. 100-119.
Mihai, S. (2013, Feb. 9). Virtual Boy – warnings, cautions, and bad ergonomics.
SebastianMihai.com. Retrieved from
http://sebastianmihai.com/main.php?t=73&n=Virtual-Boy-warnings-cautions-
and-bad-ergonomics
MultipleJournalism (2013, n.d.). Hunger in L.A.: A virtual news game that creates the
feeling of ‘being there’ as a food crisis unfolds in Los Angeles. Retrieved from
http://www.multiplejournalism.org/case/hunger-in-la
Nascivera, N., Alfano, Y.M., Annunziato, T., Messina, M., Iorio, V.S., Cioffi, V.,
Sperandeo, R., Rosato, M., Longobardi, T., Maldonato, N.M. (2018). Virtual
empathy: The added value of virtual reality in psychotherapy [conference paper].
146 9th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications, Aug 22-24,
2018, Budapest, Hungary.
Newton, C. & Bishop, B. (2015, Jan. 24). How virtual reality ate the Sundance Film
Festival: The future of film may not be film at all. The Verge. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/24/7882339/sundance-film-festival-2015-
virtual-reality
New York Times (1938). Radio Listeners in Panic, Take War Drama as Fact. New York
Times, page 1. Retrieved from
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/WOTW-NYT-headline.jpg
Nosek, B., Camerer, C., Dreber, A., Holzmeister,F., Ho, T., Huber, J., Johannesson, M.,
Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N.,Chan, t., Chen, Y.,
Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., Isaksson, S.,
Manfredi, D., Rose, J., Wagenmakers, E., Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the
replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010
and 2015. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 637-644.
NYTimes.com (2016). Introducing The Daily 360. New York Times. Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/nytnow/the-daily-360-videos.html
O'Keefe, D. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological
science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning.
Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
147 Patel. H., Bayliss, LL., Ivory, J.D., Woodward, K., McCarthy, A. & MacDorman, K.
(2014). Receptive to bad reception: Jerky motion can make persuasive messages
more effective. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, p. 32-39.
PBS.org (2017). My Brother’s Keeper. PBS. Retrieved from www.pbs.org/my-brothers-
keeper/home/
Peterson, N.A., Speer, P.W., McMillan, D. (2008). Validation of a brief sense of
community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community.
Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1), p. 61-73.
Pew Research Center (2014, June 11). Items in the ideological consistency scale. 2014
Political Polarization and the American Public. Retrieved from
https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/appendix-a-the-ideological-
consistency-scale/pp-2014-06-12-polarization-a1-01/
Phillips, B. J. & McQuarrie, E. F., (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion
advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, p. 368-392. doi: 10.1086/65308.
Plaisance, P.L. (2014). Media Ethics. Second ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Pooley, J. & Socolow, M.J. (2013, Oct. 28). The myth of the War of the Worlds panic.
Slate.com. Retrieved from https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-
the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-
hysteria.html
Read, G., Lynch, T., & Mathews, N. (2018). Increased cognitive load during video game
148 play reduces rape myth acceptance and hostile sexism after exposure to
sexualized female avatars. Sex Roles, p. 683-697. doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-
0905-9
Reeves, B. (1978). Perceived TV reality as a predictor of children's social behavior.
Journalism Quarterly, 55(4), 682–695.
Resmond, J.J. & Romo, L (2018). Analysis of gambling in the media related to screens:
Immersion as a predictor of excessive use?. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(58), p. 1-17.
Doi:10.3390/ijerph15010058
Riddle, K. (2013). Transportation into vivid media violence: A focus on attention,
emotions, and mental rumination. Communication Quarterly, 61(4), p. 446-462.
Robertson, A. & Zelenko, M. (n.d.). voices from a virtual past: An oral history of a
technology whose time has come again. The Verge Online. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/a/virtual-reality/oral_history
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. New York.
Roody, S. (1952). The effect of radio, television, and motion pictures on the development
of maturity. The English Journal, 41(5), p. 245-250.
Rubenking, B. (2008). Learning From Crime Dramas: The Role of Presence and
Transportation in Attitude Change. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved
from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Rumsey, F. (2015). Immersive audio, objects, and coding. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society: Audio, Acoustics, Applications, 63(5), p. 394-398.
149 Ryan, M.L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in
Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sarnoff. D. (1941). The possible social effects of television. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 213, p. 14-152.
Schaap, G., Kleemans, M. & Cauwenberge, A. (2018). Second screening for news:
Effects of presentation on information processing and program liking. Computers
in Human Behavior, 84, p. 76-8.
Schmidt, S., Bruder, G., & Steinicke, F. (2019). Effects of virtual agent and object
representation on experiencing exhibited artifacts. Computers & Graphics, 83, p.
1-10.
Schmidt, D. F., & Sherman, R. C. (1984). Memory for persuasive messages: A test of a
schema-copy-plus-tag model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47(1), 17-25.
Schwartz, A. B. (2015). Broadcast hysteria : Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds and the
art of fake news. New York : Hill and Wang.
Sell, M.A., Sell, W., & Van Pelt, C. (2000). View-Master Memories. M.A. and W. Sell.
ISBN B0006s314I. Self-published.
Shafer, D., Carbonara, C., & Korpi, M. (2018). Exploring enjoyment of cinematic
narratives in virtual reality: A comparison study. International Journal of Virtual
Reality, 18(1), p. 1-18.
Sherman, W., & Craig, A., (2003). Understanding Virtual Reality. Morgan-Kaufmann
Publishers, Boston, MA.
150 Shin, M., Song, S., Kim, S. Biocca, F. (2019). The effects of 3D sound in a 360-degree
live concert video on social presence, parasocial interaction, enjoyment, and
intent of financial supportive action. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 126, p. 81-93.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of
Telecommunications, Wiley, London.
Setliff, A. & Courage, M. (2011). Background television and infants’ allocation of their
attention during toy play. Infancy, 16(6), p. 611-639. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-
7078.2011.00070.x
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments
(FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence,
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in
immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, 364, p. 3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
Slater M. & Sanchez-Vives, M. (2016). Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive Virtual
Reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, p. 74. doi=10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
Sobieraj, S. & Kramer, N. (2014). Do 3d moviegoers enjoy screenings more than 2D
moviegoers? On the impact of 3D fantasy movie perception on enjoyment.
Presence, 23(4), p. 430-448. doi: 10.1162/PRES_a_00210
Solimini, A.G. (2013). Are there side effects to watching 3D movies? A prospective
151 crossover observational study on visually induced motion sickness. PLOS ONE,
8(2), e56160.
Srivastava, J. (2010). Media multitasking and role of visual hierarchy and formatting cues
in processing of web content [doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio.
Srivastava, J. & Atkins, A. (2019). Is news better in virtual reality? An experimental
examination of news processing outcomes between 2D and 360-degree formats on
mobile platforms. [conference paper. Association of Education and Journalism in
Mass Communication annual conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August
2019].
Srivastava, J., Saks, J., Weed, J., & Atkins, A. (2018). Engaging audiences on social
media: Identifying relationships between message factors and user engagement on
the American Cancer Society’s Facebook page. Telematics and Informatics, 35,
1832-1844.
ST Originals (n.d.). Perspective Ch. 1: The Party synopsis. Retrieved from
http://www.speculartheory.com/perspective/
Sundar, S., Kang, J., & Oprean, D. (2017). Being there in the midst of the story: How
immersive journalism affects our perceptions and cognitions. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(11), 672-682. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2017.0271
Taber, C.S. & Cann, D. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments.
Political Behavior, 31(2), p. 137-155.
Terdiman, D. (2015, Nov. 5). Virtual reality journalism is coming to the Associated
152 Press. FastCompany.com. Retrieved from
https://www.fastcompany.com/3053219/virtual-reality-journalism-is-coming-to-
the-associated-press
Terlutter, R., Diehl, S., Koinig, I., Waiguny, M. (2016). Positive or negative effects of
technology enhancement for brand placements? Memory of brand placements in
2D, 3D, and 4D movies. Media Psychology, 19, p. 505-533, doi:
10.1080/15213269.2016.1142377
Tileli, D. (2019, Jan. 16). The Daily 360: How immersive storytelling saved journalism.
Medium – Entrepreneurial Journalism. Retrieved from
https://medium.com/entrepreneurial-journalism/the-daily-360-how-immersive-
storytelling-saved-journalism-5744928c6ad2
USAToday (n.d.). VR Stories. USA Today. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/vrstories/
Van Der Molen, J.W. & Klijn, M. (2003). The relative effect of television and print news:
Semantic overlap versus reading control [conference paper. International
Communication Association annual conference, San Diego, Calif. p. 1-28.
Vary, A. & Arthur, K. (2015, Jan. 22). The new virtual reality experience that takes you
inside a sexual assault. Retrieved from
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/sundance-perspective-chapter-one-the-
party-new-frontier
Vlessing, E. (2017, July 26). Imax to Screen More Hollywood Tentpoles in 2D, Citing
153 "Clear Preference". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/imax-screen-more-hollywood-
tentpoles-2d-citing-clear-preference-1024590
Wade, A. (2015). Immersive worlds - How virtual reality is shaping our future. Engineer
(Online Edition), 1. Retrieved from
https://proxy.library.ohio.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=108967910&site=eds-live&scope=site
Wang, J., & Antonenko, P.D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects
on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior,
71, p. 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049
Washington Post (n.d.). VR Room. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/vrroom/index.html
Watson, Z. (2016, Nov. 11). Factual storytelling in 360 video. BBC News Research and
Development. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2016-11-360-video-
factual-storytelling
Watson, Z. ((2017). VR for news: The new reality? Digital News Project. Published by
the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Weaver, A.J. & Kobach, M.J. (2012). The relationship between selective exposure and
the enjoyment of television violence. Aggressive Behavior, 38, p. 175-184.
Welles, O. (director), Houseman, J., Welles, O., Stewart, P (producers), Wells, H.G.
(writer), (1938, October 30). War of the Worlds [radio broadcast], The Mercury
Theatre on the Air. New York, NY; Central Broadcasting Service – Radio.
154 Wermeskerken, M., Ravensbergen, S., & Gog, T. (2017). Effects of instructor presence in
video modeling examples on attention and learning. Computers in Human
Behavior, 89, p. 430-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.038
Westerwick, A., Johnson, B., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Confirmation biases in
selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias.
Communication Monographs, 84(3), p. 343-364.
Wilson. E.A.H., Park, D., Curtis, L., Cameron, K., Clayman, M., Makoul. G., Eigen, K.,
& Wolf, M. (2010). Media and memory: The efficacy of video and print materials
for promoting patient education about asthma. Patient Education and Counseling,
80(3), p. 393-398.
Wingfield, N., & Goel, V., (2014, March 25). Facebook in $2 billion deal for virtual
reality company.
The New York Times (2014). Facebook to buy OculusVr, maker of virtual reality
headset. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2014/03/26/
technology/facebook-to-buy-oculus-vr-maker-of-virtual-reality-
headset.html?_r=0
Winter, S. Metzger, M. & Flanagin, A. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple-
motive perspective on information selection in social media environments.
Journal of Communication, 66, p. 669–693.
Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Bocking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Saari, T.,
155 Laarni, J., Ravaka, N., Gouceia, F., Biocca, F., Sacau, A., Jancke, L.,
Baumgartner, T., & Jancke, P. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial
presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), p. 493-525.
Witmer, B.G. & Singer, M.J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A
presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3),
p. 225-240.
Xu, Q. & Sundar, S. (2017). Interactivity and memory: Information processing of
interactive vs. non-interactive content. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, p. 620-
629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.046
Zantal-Wiener, A. (2018, Dec. 18). The State of Virtual Reality: Where We Are and
What’s to Come in 2019. Virtual Reality News. Retrieved from
https://blog.hubspot.com/news-trends/state-of-virtual-reality
Zeri F, Livi S. (2015). Visual discomfort while watching stereoscopic three-dimensional
movies at the cinema. Opthalmic and Physiological optics, 35(3), p. 271-282.
156 Appendix A: Experiment 1 Script
Shot 1: Reporter on camera/off camera opening on Richland crosswalk during empty time. Reporter will open the story with an explanation of the issue, how long it’s been going on, what the walkway’s used for, traffic, etc. We can shoot the on/off at the same time.
On – reporter visible, giving scripted information
Off – camera in same location, no visible reporter, will pull audio from visible condition and use as voiceover – 45 seconds to a minute
Script: The crosswalk on Richland Avenue that connects Ohio University’s West
Green with the area around Porter Hall has been a nuisance and safety hazard for both pedestrians and drivers for the last half-century. But university officials and Athens City
Council are working to fix that.
The Richland Avenue crossing, which has been unofficially used by students since the 1960s but has only been a legal crosswalk since 2008, when the city lowered the curb, painted the ubiquitous yellow stripes, and placed the lights and reflectors to help keep pedestrians safe.
An average of 3,000 people per hour and half as many cars pass through the crossing on any given day. During the busiest times of the day, traffic can be backed up a half-mile in both directions, often taking drivers between 10 and 45 minutes to make it through.
It’s not just an annoyance though – last year alone 10 people were hit by cars in and around the crossing and were treated for concussions and broken bones at the local
157 hospital. The city and university are working together to turn the crosswalk into a tunnel and are shooting for a start date on its construction this summer.
Shot 2: No reporter, no voiceover, camera in center of crosswalk at noon during busy walk/traffic time to illustrate the problem – 30 seconds
Shot 3: City Hall
On – Reporter outside City Council chambers at City Hall – with doors closed and clearly visible. Reporter explaining the city’s plan to build a bridge – 30 seconds
Script: The council put together a six-month study of the area and found that when classes let out or there is an event in the Convo, a constant stream of students cross the street, forcing vehicle traffic to build up, frequently as far south as the Richland traffic circle more than a half-mile away, or as far north as Buffalo Wild Wings on West
Union.
The study concluded a tunnel was the best way to solve the problem and both improve the flow of traffic and reduce the danger to pedestrians.
Shot 4: Inside City Council chambers during council meeting – no reporter, no voiceover
– 30 seconds
Shot 5: Back to busy crosswalk – 15 seconds
Shot 6: back to empty crosswalk to finish – 30 seconds
On – reporter wraps up/concludes story
Off – voiceover audio wraps up/concludes story
158 Script: The estimated cost to raise the street and build the tunnel is just north of $2 million. Construction is set to begin in May once students leave for the semester and will be completed in August before they return.
Although university and city officials agree $2 million is a lot to spend on fixing the crosswalk, they believe that once the tunnel is in place and drivers are no longer forced to wait in line for 30 minutes or more, they are certain everyone will agree it was money well spent.
159 Appendix B: Experiment 2 Script
Shot 1: Beside one clearly defined section of the Richland Wall
Condition 1 – Conservative with liberal aggressor script: The Richland Wall, known at Ohio University as the Graffiti Wall, has long been a cement canvas for student groups to share positive ideas and spark social and political conversation. But the wall has recently come under fire as conservative groups say they are fed up with liberal students spray painting progressive slogans or messages supporting a social agenda.
This spring, liberal groups came together and successfully petitioned the university administration to have the wall completely removed and replaced with Athens Brick. To prevent vandalism, motion-sensor security cameras will be installed and violators prosecuted.
University officials agreed the conservative slogans did more harm than good, and are putting a plan in place to remove the wall by the start of the fall 2020 semester.
Condition 2 – Liberal with conservative aggressor script: The Richland Wall, known at Ohio University as the Graffiti Wall, has long been a cement canvas for student groups to share positive ideas and spark social and political conversation. But the wall has recently come under fire as liberal groups say they are fed up with conservative students spray painting slogans or messages supporting a conservative agenda.
This spring, conservative groups came together and successfully petitioned the university administration to have the wall completely removed and replaced with Athens Brick. To
160 prevent vandalism, motion-sensor security cameras will be installed and violators prosecuted.
University officials agreed the liberal slogans did more harm than good and are putting a plan in place to remove the wall by the start of the fall 2020 semester.
Shot 2: Inside an empty newsroom
For nearly a century, student groups have painted murals on the wall – some were carefully designed, intricate scenes put up to tell a single story, others were little more than a collection of images, words or phrases randomly painted with seemingly little planning or thought. Regardless, the wall is seen by many on campus as a place where students could express themselves freely and openly, and the administration’s decision to remove it is seen by many as an act of censorship.
Shot 3: Inside “the administration” building, outside faculty senate rotunda
Condition 1 – Conservative with liberal aggressor script: The faculty senate met earlier this week to discuss the reasons behind its support for the administration’s decision to remove the wall. The consensus was that although they believe liberal students are well-represented on campus, they agreed the use a piece of university property to push a conservative social agenda unfavorably biased students against liberals and violated University Code 66a, which bans the university and its employees from taking sides in a political debate.
161 Condition 2 – Liberal with conservative aggressor: The faculty senate met earlier this week to discuss the reasons behind its support for the decision to remove the wall. The consensus was that although they believe conservative students are well-represented on campus, they agreed the use of a piece of university property to push a liberal social agenda unfavorably biased students against conservatives and violated University Code
66a, which bans the university and its employees from taking sides in a political debate.
Shot 4: Community space outdoors
Officials said the university will honor the murals already planned for the 2018-19 academic year, but announced it will tear the wall down as soon as students leave campus for the summer. Student response to the announcement has been mixed.
Shot 5: Outdoors, in front of library, green open space
Condition 1 – Conservative with liberal aggressor script:
Liberal supporter: Well, we’re tired of conservative groups on campus vandalizing our murals with their slogans. We all agreed on a schedule of who gets to use the wall and when, and they’re messing all that up by destroying our art with their stupid catch- phrases. So we just want the whole thing gone.
Conservative supporter: I can’t believe they went all the way to administration over this. It’s ridiculous. Just because they can’t handle conservative social ideas doesn’t mean they have to go and ruin it for everyone. How is this not a violation of free speech?
162 Condition 2 – Liberal with conservative aggressor:
Conservative supporter: Well, we’re tired of liberal groups on campus vandalizing our murals with their slogans. We all agreed on a schedule of who gets to use the wall and when, and they’re messing all that up by destroying our art with their stupid catch- phrases. So we just want the whole thing gone.
Liberal supporter: I can’t believe they went all the way to administration over this. It’s ridiculous. Just because they can’t handle liberal social ideas doesn’t mean they have to go and ruin it for everyone. How is this not a violation of free speech?
Shot 6: Graffiti wall, distinctly different wall segment from the opening shot
Condition 1 – Conservative with liberal aggressor script: While removing the wall altogether has students up in arms, liberal groups are considering it a win. They feel vindicated that university officials agreed with them, and believe it’s one less barrier to building a socially liberal campus.
Condition 2 – Liberal with conservative aggressor: While removing the wall altogether has students up in arms, conservative groups are considering it a win. They feel vindicated that university officials agreed with them, and believe it’s one less barrier to building a socially conservative campus.
163 Appendix C: Tables
Table 1 Scale variable reliability measures Scale Alpha Mean SD Spatial Presence .823 5.53 .883 Journalist Credibility .829 5.77 .741 Sense of Community .887 4.77 1.00
Table 2 Memory performance scale Measure Mean SD Aided recall* 3.42 1.14 Cued recall* 2.44 .95 Aural performance* 2.67 1.19 Visual performance* 3.19 1.03 Memory performance** 5.87 1.72 *Range 1-5; **Range 1-10
Table 3 Results of t-tests for SOC, Spatial Presence, Journalist Credibility, Memory Performance Outcome Group 9% CI No reporter Reporter Mean M SD n M SD n Difference t df SOC 4.63 1.05 28 4.95 .937 28 -.321 - 54 1.20 Spatial 5.73 .76 28 5.27 .937 28 .462 2.01 54 Presence* Journalist 5.91 .74 28 5.63 .942 28 .281 1.43 54 Credibility Memory 6.17 1.76 28 5.57 .724 28 .607 1.32 54 Performance *P<.05
164
Table 4 Regression analysis: Spatial Presence predicting Journalist Credibility B SE B β t p Journalist Credibility 3.83 .577 6.63 .000 Spatial Presence .354 .104 .422 .341 .001 Note: r2 = .178
Table 5 Results of t-tests for Gender on SOC, Spatial Presence, Journalist Credibility, Memory Performance Outcome Group 9% CI Males Females Mean M SD n M SD N Difference t df SOC 4.63 .978 19 4.87 1.01 37 -.247 - 54 .874 Spatial 5.31 .975 19 5.60 .828 37 -.292 - 54 Presence* 1.17 Journalist 5.77 .765 19 5.78 .729 37 -.004 - 54 Credibility 0.19 Memory 5.47 2.03 19 6.08 1.53 37 -.607 .1.25 54 Performance *P<.05
Table 6 Crosstab between self-reported ideology and Political Ideology Scale Self-Reported Ideology 2-2.75 3-3.99 4 4.01- 4.8-6 6.01-7 4.75 Conservative 3 10 2 5 3 0
Moderate 1 3 0 14 9 0
Liberal 0 0 0 9 51 14
165
Table 7 Ex 2: Memory Performance Scale
Scale Mean SD Aided Recall* 3.31 1.12 Cued Recall* 2.59 1.29 Aural Performance* 2.93 1.22 Visual Performance* 2.97 1.36 Memory Performance** 5.90 1.98 *Range 1-5; Range 1-10**
Table 8 Independent samples t-test between condition and memory performance Condition n M SD Standard Error Conservative 64 5.91 1.81 .226 Liberal 60 5.90 2.16 .279 * p<.05 t(122)=0.17, p=.986
166
Table 9 RQ1a - Independent samples t-test between political ideology and memory Memory Visual Aural Aided recall Cued recall 0-10 scale Conservative M=5.83 M=3.17 M=2.65 M=3.17 M=2.65 (n=23) SD=2.25 SD=1.49 SD=1.11 SD=1.19 SD=1.34 Liberal M=6.07 M=2.92 M=3.15 M=3.47 M=2.59 (n=74 SD=1.74 SD=1.26 SD=1.17 SD=1.04 SD=1.23 Moderate M=5.52 M=2.93 M=2.59 M=3.00 M=2.51 (n=27) SD=2.36 SD=1.54 SD=1.37 SD=1.24 SD=1.45 *p<.05
Table 10 2-way ANOVA descriptives Variable n M SD Condition 1 64 Liberal 34 3.12 1.35 Moderate 19 3.26 1.04 Conservative 11 2.45 1.41 Condition 2 60 Liberal 40 2.31 .82 Moderate 8 3.66 .81 Conservative 12 3.19 1.02
167 Appendix D: Figures
Figure 3. Reporter condition.
Figure 4. The equivalent of Figure 1 without the presence of a reporter.
168
Figure 3. City council meeting in both conditions.
Figure 4. A police vehicle in both conditions.
169
Figure 5. Normality
Figure 6. Opening Graffiti Wall shot with reporter
170 Figure 7. Closing shot against a different section of the wall with a ladder in the background.
Figure 8. The reporter explaining the story's relevance to the community while standing at a community landmark,
171 Figure 9. A supporter of the aggressor group in each condition.
Figure 10. Comparison of means on memory performance.
Figure 11. Attitude change.
172 Appendix E: Experiment 1 Questionnaire
Condition Welcome to the 360VR and news research study. Please type the number of your assigned number into the blank.
______Q3 What is your age? (ex: 21)
______
Q5 What is your gender?
o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Other (3)
o I do not wish to identify. (4)
Page Break
Q7 Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be:
▢ White or Caucasian (1)
▢ Black or African American (2)
▢ American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
▢ Asian (4)
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
▢ Other (6) ______
Page Break
173 Political ideology How do you identify your political ideology? Very Slightly Slightly Very Conservative Moderate Liberal conservative conservative liberal liberal (2) (4) (6) (1) (3) (5) (7) Political ideology
(1) o o o o o o o
Page Break Area of study What is your area of study? (ex: journalism)
______
Page Break
360 vid frequency How frequently do you view 360-degree videos, either on a computer screen, mobile device, or headset?
o This was my first time. (1)
o I rarely view 360 videos. (2)
o I occasionally view 360 videos. (3)
o I often view 360 videos. (4)
o I frequently view 360 videos. (5)
Page Break
174 HMD familiarity How frequently do you use virtual reality head-mounted displays (headsets)?
o This was my first time. (1)
o I rarely use VR headsets. (2)
o I occasionally use VR headsets. (3)
o I often use VR headsets. (4)
o I frequently use VR headsets. (5)
Page Break news vid familiarity How familiar are you with video news production techniques?
o Not familiar at all (1)
o Slightly familiar (2)
o Moderately familiar (3)
o Very familiar (4)
o Extremely familiar (5) End of Block: Demographics
Start of Block: Sense of Community scale - Brief SOC, Peterson, Speer, McMillan, 2008 SOC intro text Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Athens community:
175 SOC - NF1 I can get what I need in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC - NF2 The Athens community helps me fulfill my needs.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
176 SOC - MB1 I feel like a member of the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC - MB2 I feel like I belong in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
Page Break
177
SOC intro text Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Athens community:
SOC - IN1 I have a say in what goes on in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC - IN2 People in Athens are good at influencing each other.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
178 SOC - EC1 I feel connected to the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC - EC2 I have a good bond with others in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
End of Block: Sense of Community scale - Brief SOC, Peterson, Speer, McMillan, 2008
Start of Block: Midway instructions
179 Instructions Please notify the research assistant that you are ready to begin the 360VR news story. Once it is finished, return to this computer and continue the assessment. End of Block: Midway instructions
Start of Block: Memory retention questions - Memory prompt The following questions will assess what you remember from the story you just saw.
Page Break
Aided recall 1 - aud When did the Richland Avenue street crossing become a legal crosswalk?
o 1963 (1)
o 2008 (2)
o 2012 (3)
o 1981 (4)
Aided recall 2 - aud How many people were hit by cars around the crosswalk in the last year alone?
o 10 (1)
o 6 (2)
o 17 (3)
o 22 (4)
180 Aided recall 3 - aud What is the estimated cost of the project?
o $2 million (1)
o $4.5 million (2)
o $1.2 million (3)
o $960,000 (4)
Aided recall 4 - vis What color were the walls in the City Council chamber?
o Blue (1)
o Red (2)
o White (3)
o Green (4)
Aided recall 5 - vis What was written on the side of the green bus that passed through the crosswalk?
o The Summit at Coates Run (1)
o Ohio University Athletic Department (2)
o Ohio University Student Transport (3)
o River Park Apartments (4)
Page Break
181
Cued recall 1 - aud An average of ______people per hour pass through the crosswalk on any given day.
______
Cued recall 2 - vis A police vehicle passed through the crosswalk. What law enforcement agency did it belong to?
______
Cued recall 3 - vis Describe the hair color of the city councilwoman who spoke during the meeting.
______Cued recall 4 - aud City officials studied the crosswalk for _____ months before making its recommendation.
______
Cued recall 5 - vis The crosswalk is painted in two colors. What are the colors?
______Spatial Presence Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements about your experience:
182 Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly disagree (2) disagree agree agree (5) (6) agree (1) (3) nor (7) disagree (4) I felt like I was actually there in the o o o o o o o news story environment. (1) It seemed as though I actually took o o o o o o o part in the news story. (2) I had the feeling I was in the middle o o o o o o o of the story rather than merely observing. (3) It felt as though I had stepped into a o o o o o o o different place. (4) I felt like I could move around among o o o o o o o the objects in the news story. (5) It seemed to me I could do whatever I o o o o o o o wanted in the news story environment. (6)
183 I felt that I could move freely in the o o o o o o o news story environment. (7) I had the impression I could be o o o o o o o active in the news story environment. (8)
Neither Strongly Somewhat agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Agree disagree disagree nor agree (7) agree (10) (11) (6) (8) disagree (12) (9)
They can be trusted. (1) o o o o o o o They separated fact from o o o o o o o opinion. (2) They accurately reported the
facts of the o o o o o o o story. (3) They told the whole story. (4) o o o o o o o They were unbiased in how they
reported the o o o o o o o story. (5)
184 They were mainly concerned with the o o o o o o o public's interests. (6) They are well-trained.
(7) o o o o o o o They put the community and public interests over other o o o o o o o concerns. (8) Credibility Please consider how much you agree with the following statements regarding the journalists who wrote and produced the story you just experienced:
185 Appendix F: Experiment 2 Questionnaire
Condition Welcome to the 360VR and news research study. Please type the number of your assigned number into the blank.
______
Age What is your age? (ex: 21)
______
Page Break Gender What is your gender?
o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Other (3)
o I do not wish to identify. (4)
Page Break
Race Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be:
▢ White or Caucasian (1)
▢ Black or African American (2)
▢ American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
▢ Asian (4)
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
▢ Other (6) ______
186 Page Break Pol Ideology How do you identify your political ideology? Very Slightly Slightly Very Conservative Moderate Liberal conservative conservative liberal liberal (2) (4) (6) (1) (3) (5) (7) Political Ideology: (8) o o o o o o o
Page Break
Job What is your profession or area of study?
______
360 frequency How frequently do you view 360-degree videos, either on a computer screen, mobile device, or headset?
o This is my first time. (1)
o I rarely view 360 videos. (2)
o I occasionally view 360 videos. (3)
o I often view 360 videos. (4)
o I frequently view 360 videos. (5)
Page Break
187 HMD frequency How frequently do you use virtual reality head-mounted displays (headsets)?
o This is my first time. (1)
o I rarely use VR headsets. (2)
o I occasionally use VR headsets. (3)
o I often use VR headsets. (4)
o I frequently use VR headsets. (5) age Break News production How familiar are you with video news production techniques?
o Not familiar at all (1)
o Slightly familiar (2)
o Moderately familiar (3)
o Very familiar (4)
o Extremely familiar (5)
SOC intro text Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Athens community:
Page Break
188 SOC-NF1 I can get what I need in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC-NF2 The Athens community helps me fulfill my needs.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
189 SOC-MB1 I feel like a member of the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC-MB2 I feel like I belong in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
Page Break
190
SOC-IN1 I have a say in what goes on in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC-IN2 People in Athens are good at influencing each other.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
191 SOC-EC1 I feel connected to the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
SOC-EC2 I have a good bond with others in the Athens community.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
End of Block: Sense of Community - Brief SOC scale
Start of Block: Political ideological Consistency Scale (Pew Research Center, 2014) CLCL order
192
Ideology scale 1 Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly disagree (2) disagree agree agree (5) (6) agree (1) (3) nor (7) disagree (4) Government regulation of business o o o o o o o usually does more harm than good. (1) The government should do o o o o o o o more to help needy Americans. (2) The best way to ensure peace is o o o o o o o through military strength. (3) Stricter environmental regulations are o o o o o o o worth the cost. (4)
Page Break
193
Ideology scale 2 Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Neither Strongly Somewhat agree Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly disagree disagree nor (2) agree (5) (6) agree (7) (1) (3) disagree (4) Immigrants today are a financial burden on our o o o o o o o country. (1) Big corporations make too much profit. o o o o o o o (2) Government benefits don't go far enough to help poor o o o o o o o people have a decent life. (3) We should be doing more to keep manufacturing jobs from o o o o o o o going overseas. (4)
End of Block: Political ideological Consistency Scale (Pew Research Center, 2014) CLCL order
Start of Block: Experiment stop page.
Stop page Please notify the research assistant that you are ready to begin the 360VR news story. Once it is finished, return to this computer and continue the assessment.
End of Block: Experiment stop page.
Start of Block: Assessment instructions 194
Stop page 2 The following questions will assess what you remember from the story you just saw.
End of Block: Assessment instructions
Start of Block: Memory retention
Aided recall - aud What will the Graffiti Wall be replaced with?
o A brick retaining wall (1)
o A dirt and grass embankment (2)
o A metal retaining wall (3)
o Cement stairs (4)
Aided recall - aud When will the Graffiti Wall will be removed:
o Fall 2020 (1)
o Summer 2020 (2)
o Spring 2021 (3)
o Fall 2019 (4)
195 Aided recall - aud What does University Code 66a ban?
o Bans the university and its employees from taking sides in a political debate. (1)
o Bans the university and its employees from engaging in political artistic expression on campus. (2)
o Bans the university and its employees from pushing their views on students outside of class. (3)
o Bans the university and its employees from vandalizing university property. (4)
Aided recall - vis What color was the reporter's shirt?
o Light purple (1)
o Dark red (2)
o Light grey (3)
o Dark blue (4)
Aided recall - vis What organization's name was painted on the wall with the white background?
o UAL - Undergraduate Art League (1)
o KTA - Kappa Tau Alpha (2)
o SPJ - Society of Professional Journalists (3)
o FSD - Friends of Shelter Dogs (4)
196
Cued recall - aud Once the wall is removed, what will officials install to prevent vandalism?
______
Cued recall - aud The reporter stated that many people see the administration's decision to remove the wall as "an act of ______."
______
Cued recall - vis What phrase is painted on the black background on the wall?
______
Cued recall - vis What object was the reporter standing next to as he was concluding the story?
______
Cued recall - vis Describe the color of the male student's shirt.
______
End of Block: Memory retention
Start of Block: Attitude change - semantic differential (Clark, Wegener & Fabrigar, 2008)
197 Att1 With regard to the administration's actions in the news story, I feel they are:
o Extremely inappropriate (1)
o Moderately inappropriate (2)
o Slightly inappropriate (3)
o Neither appropriate nor inappropriate (4)
o Slightly appropriate (5)
o Moderately appropriate (6)
o Extremely appropriate (7)
Page Break Att2 I feel like the decision to remove the Graffiti Wall is:
o Very unfair (1)
o Moderately unfair (2)
o Slightly unfair (3)
o Neither fair nor unfair (4)
o Slightly fair (5)
o Moderately fair (6)
o Very fair (7)
Page Break
198
Att3 I feel the administration's actions will have the following effect on the campus community:
o Very negative effect (1)
o Moderately negative effect (2)
o Slightly negative effect (3)
o Neither negative nor positive effect (4)
o Slightly positive effect (5)
o Moderately positive effect (6)
o Very positive effect (7)
Page Break
Att4 With regard to the administration's actions, I feel like my voice is represented.
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Neither agree nor disagree (4)
o Somewhat agree (5)
o Agree (6)
o Strongly agree (7)
199
Att5 How likely are you to sign a petition protesting the removal of the Graffiti Wall?
o Extremely unlikely (22)
o Moderately unlikely (23)
o Slightly unlikely (24)
o Neither likely nor unlikely (25)
o Slightly likely (26)
o Moderately likely (27)
o Extremely likely (28)
Spatial Presence Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements about your experience:
200 Neither Strongly Somewhat agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Agree disagree disagree nor agree (2) agree (5) (6) (1) (3) disagree (7) (4) I felt like I was actually there in the news story o o o o o o o environment. (1) It seemed as though I actually took part in the o o o o o o o news story. (2) I had the feeling I was in the middle of the story rather than merely o o o o o o o observing. (3) It felt as though I had stepped into a
different place. (4) o o o o o o o I felt like I could move around among the objects in the news story. o o o o o o o (5) It seemed to me I could do whatever I wanted in the
news story o o o o o o o environment. (6) I felt that I could move freely in the news story o o o o o o o environment. (7) I had the impression I could be active in the news story o o o o o o o environment. (8)
201 Jour cred scale Please consider how much you agree with the following statements regarding the journalists who wrote and produced the story you just experienced: Neither Strongly Somewhat agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Agree disagree disagree nor agree (7) agree (10) (11) (6) (8) disagree (12) (9)
They can be trusted. (1) o o o o o o o They separated fact from o o o o o o o opinion. (2) They accurately reported the
facts of the o o o o o o o story. (3) They told the whole story. (4) o o o o o o o They were unbiased in how they reported the o o o o o o o story. (5) They were mainly concerned with the o o o o o o o public's interests. (6) They are well-trained. (7) o o o o o o o They put the community and public interests o o o o o o o over other concerns. (8)
202 Appendix G: Consent Forms
Ohio University Adult Consent Form With Signature
Title of Research: 360VR and local news: An investigation into cognitive processing and attitude change Researchers: Aaron Atkins, Dr. Jatin Srivastava IRB number: 19-X-93
You are being asked by an Ohio University researcher to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks of the research project. It also explains how your personal information/biospecimens will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to sign it. This will allow your participation in this study. You should receive a copy of this document to take with you.
Summary of Study We are researching the effects related to processing of news content in 360-degree, head-mounted virtual reality video. We are interested in understanding how 360VR news content is processed.
Explanation of Study This study is being done because we want to understand how 360VR is processed and how immersive content may influence information processing. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to view a short 360VR news story in a head-mounted display with earphones. Afterward, you will respond to a questionnaire on a computer. You should not participate in this study if you are less than 18 years old. Your participation will last around 20 minutes. If you do not want to participate in the study, you can get the course extra credit by writing a one double-spaced page essay on potential consequences of using virtual reality as a medium for news consumption. If you wish to use this alternative, please let the researcher know and you will be provided with an email id where you can send your essay.
Risks and Discomforts Some participants may experience motion sickness while using the VR headset. If you feel discomfort during the study, you can discontinue participation at any time.If participants withdraw, they will still receive the full course credit.
Benefits This study is important to science/society because it may help us understand how use of 360VR technologies to deliver news may influence information processing quality. You may not benefit, personally by participating in this study.
Confidentiality and Records Your study information will be kept confidential by: we will only write your name down to award course credit. Your answers to surveys are completely anonymous and are never associated with your name. 203 Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with:
* Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research; * Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees the research at OU;
Compensation As compensation for your time/effort, you will receive class credit as decided by your instructor. The credit cannot be more than 2% of the total points for the class. You will receive the same amount of credit as you get for participating in the study if you decide to do the alternative activity of writing a one double-spaced page essay on potential consequences of using virtual reality as a medium for news consumption.
Future Use Statement Identifiers might be removed from data/samples collected, and after such removal, the data/samples may be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.
Contact Information If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the investigator [Aaron Atkins, [email protected], 540-230-6971] or the advisor [Dr. Jatin Srivastava, [email protected], Phone: 740.593.2595].
If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Chris Hayhow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664 or [email protected].
By signing below, you are agreeing that:
you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered; you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your satisfaction; you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this study; you are 18 years of age or older; your participation in this research is completely voluntary; you may leave the study at any time; if you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Signature Date
Printed Name Version Date: [4/19/2019] 204 Ohio University Adult Consent Form With Signature
Title of Research: 360VR and local news: An investigation into cognitive processing and attitude change Researchers: Aaron Atkins, Dr. Jatin Srivastava IRB number: 19-X-93
You are being asked by an Ohio University researcher to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks of the research project. It also explains how your personal information/biospecimens will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to sign it. This will allow your participation in this study. You should receive a copy of this document to take with you.
Summary of Study We are researching the effects related to processing of news content in 360-degree, head-mounted virtual reality video. We are interested in understanding how 360VR news content is processed.
Explanation of Study This study is being done because we want to understand how 360VR is processed and how immersive content may influence information processing. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to view a short 360VR news story in a head-mounted display with earphones. Afterward, you will respond to a questionnaire on a computer. You should not participate in this study if you are less than 18 years old. Your participation will last around 20 minutes. If you do not want to participate in the study, you can get the course extra credit by writing a one double-spaced page essay on potential consequences of using virtual reality as a medium for news consumption. If you wish to use this alternative, please let the researcher know and you will be provided with an email id where you can send your essay.
Risks and Discomforts Some participants may experience motion sickness while using the VR headset. If you feel discomfort during the study, you can discontinue participation at any time.
Benefits This study is important to science/society because it may help us understand how use of 360VR technologies to deliver news may influence information processing quality. You may not benefit, personally by participating in this study.
Confidentiality and Records Your study information will be kept confidential: Your answers to surveys are completely anonymous and are never associated with your name.
Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with:
205 * Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research; * Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees the research at OU;
Compensation There is no compensation for participation in this study.
Future Use Statement Identifiers might be removed from data/samples collected, and after such removal, the data/samples may be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.
Contact Information If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the investigator [Aaron Atkins, [email protected], 540-230-6971] or the advisor [Dr. Jatin Srivastava, [email protected], Phone: 740.593.2595].
If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Chris Hayhow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664 or [email protected].
By signing below, you are agreeing that:
you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered; you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your satisfaction; you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this study; you are 18 years of age or older; your participation in this research is completely voluntary; you may leave the study at any time; if you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Signature Date
Printed Name Version Date: [4/19/2019]
Ohio University Adult Consent Form With Signature
Title of Research: 360VR and local news: An investigation into cognitive processing and attitude change Researchers: Aaron Atkins, Dr. Jatin Srivastava IRB number: 19-X-93 206
You are being asked by an Ohio University researcher to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks of the research project. It also explains how your personal information/biospecimens will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to sign it. This will allow your participation in this study. You should receive a copy of this document to take with you.
Summary of Study We are researching the effects related to processing of news content in 360-degree, head-mounted virtual reality video. We are interested in understanding how 360VR news content is processed.
Explanation of Study This study is being done because we want to understand how 360VR is processed and how immersive content may influence information processing. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to view a short 360VR news story in a head-mounted display with earphones. Afterward, you will respond to a questionnaire on a computer. You should not participate in this study if you are less than 18 years old. Your participation will last around 20 minutes. If you do not want to participate in the study, you can get the course extra credit by writing a one double-spaced page essay on potential consequences of using virtual reality as a medium for news consumption. If you wish to use this alternative, please let the researcher know and you will be provided with an email id where you can send your essay.
Risks and Discomforts Some participants may experience motion sickness while using the VR headset. If you feel discomfort during the study, you can discontinue participation at any time.If participants withdraw, they will still receive the full course credit.
Benefits This study is important to science/society because it may help us understand how use of 360VR technologies to deliver news may influence information processing quality. You may not benefit, personally by participating in this study.
Confidentiality and Records Your study information will be kept confidential by: we will only write your name down to award course credit. Your answers to surveys are completely anonymous and are never associated with your name. Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with:
* Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research; * Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees the research at OU;
207 Compensation As compensation for your time/effort, you will receive class credit as decided by your instructor. The credit cannot be more than 2% of the total points for the class. You will receive the same amount of credit as you get for participating in the study if you decide to do the alternative activity of writing a one double-spaced page essay on potential consequences of using virtual reality as a medium for news consumption.
Future Use Statement Identifiers might be removed from data/samples collected, and after such removal, the data/samples may be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.
Contact Information If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the investigator [Aaron Atkins, [email protected], 540-230-6971] or the advisor [Dr. Jatin Srivastava, [email protected], Phone: 740.593.2595].
If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Chris Hayhow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664 or [email protected].
By signing below, you are agreeing that:
you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered; you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your satisfaction; you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this study; you are 18 years of age or older; your participation in this research is completely voluntary; you may leave the study at any time; if you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Signature Date
Printed Name Version Date: [4/19/2019]
208
209