Digital Journalism

ISSN: 2167-0811 (Print) 2167-082X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20

Immersive Journalism and Telepresence

Does virtual reality news use affect news credibility?

Seok Kang, Erin O’Brien, Arturo Villarreal, Wansoo Lee & Chad Mahood

To cite this article: Seok Kang, Erin O’Brien, Arturo Villarreal, Wansoo Lee & Chad Mahood
(2019) Immersive Journalism and Telepresence, Digital Journalism, 7:2, 294-313, DOI:
10.1080/21670811.2018.1504624

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1504624

Published online: 07 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1346

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rdij20
 IMMERSIVE JOURNALISM AND
TELEPRESENCE
Does virtual reality news use affect news
credibility?

Seok Kang, Erin O’Brien, Arturo Villarreal, Wansoo Lee and

Chad Mahood

Although news in virtual reality (VR) is currently on the rise, relatively little empirical evi-
dence on its effects has been reported. This study tests if telepresence in VR news con-
sumption can affect news credibility. In a posttest-only experiment (N ¼ 80), 40 subjects
watched VR news: 20 with a headset (Google Cardboard) and 20 in 360 degrees with-
out a headset. A group of 20 subjects watched 2D video news. Twenty subjects only
answered a questionnaire without VR exposure. The comparison of four groups revealed
that VR news groups showed significantly higher telepresence than did the group with
no exposure. Both the VR with a headset and 360-degree groups also marked higher in
news credibility than did the group with no exposure. There were only a few significant
differences between the 360-degree group and the 2D video group in telepresence and
credibility. In an interaction effect test, VR news groups with high telepresence eval-
uated news credibility better than the group with no exposure. There were no differen-
ces among the headset, 360-degree, and 2D news groups with high telepresence in
credibility. Study implications, limitations, and suggestions are discussed.

KEYWORDS virtual reality; news; immersive journalism; telepresence; news

credibility

Virtual reality (VR) has received dramatic attention in both academia and the
industry in the last decade. Recent advancements in mobile VR applications and view-
ing devices have further boosted their applicability and utility (Dove 2016). VR has
been studied in a variety of fields, from gaming (e.g. Aron 2014; Wadley, Carter, and
Gibbs 2015) to therapy and rehabilitation (e.g. Cheung et al. 2013; Molina et al. 2014),
education (e.g. Mayer, Warmelink, and Bekebrede 2013; Xu 2014), teamwork (e.g.
Bassanino, Fernando, and Wu 2014; Hakonen and Bosch-Sijtsema 2014), and communi-
cation (e.g. Dodds, Mohler, and Bu €lthoff 2011; Qu et al. 2014).
VR was originally understood as “near reality” (Doyle 2015). What people experi-
ence as human beings, in general, is called reality. When the experience is almost
“near” reality, it is understood as VR. Human beings’ experience in reality is a combin-
ation of sensory information and their brain mechanisms for the information. From the

Digital Journalism, 2019

Vol. 7, No. 2, 294–313, https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1504624
This work was authored as part of the Contributor's official duties as an Employee of the
United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accord-
ance with 17 USC. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under US Law.
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 295

near reality perspective, VR refers to situations when information is presented with a

version of reality that is not really there, but the individual perceives, feels telepresence,
and interacts with it as real (Parsons, Gaggioli, and Riva 2017; Robbins 2009).
Recently, the VR experience going beyond entertainment or learning is imple-
mented in journalism as VR news also called immersive journalism. When audiences
consume VR news, they may perceive the information as more real than when they
just read the story. Perceiving more real means that as the separation shrinks between
audiences and news subjects, VR news can gain social, economic, and political power.
In this sense, audience members may view VR news as credible because they are not
news users, but witnesses who experience news closely (Owen et al. 2015).
However, there is also a concern that VR news presentation can be flawed by pro-
viding deceptive quality. For instance, the VR scenes of battles or epidemics are for real,
and their effects can be visceral, but VR news can be framed with considerable hype,
which can be a kind of lie (Owen 2016). Therefore, VR news has yet to be tested if the
audience perceives the news as true and objective or false and subjective. In the current
news environment with low news credibility ratings and fake news (Nelson 2017), it is
imperative to examine whether VR news, as a new journalistic format, delivers credibility.
Although both theoretical and practical attempts in VR research have been taking
place, VR research from the journalism perspective is still in its inceptive stage. The
studies remain empirically mute on questions of the effectiveness of VR journalism
even though an increasing number of news organizations offer VR news to the audi-
ence. There have been few theoretical discussions (e.g. de la Pen ~ a et al. 2010) even if
industry reports about VR journalism are increasing (e.g. Nuwer 2015; Oputu 2014;
Watson 2017).
In this study, an attempt to assess audience responses to VR news is imple-
mented. This study examines how the telepresence experience with VR news affects
news credibility by employing the theory of telepresence and news credibility litera-
ture. Investigating VR news consumption and its relationship with news credibility can
offer the potential of immersive journalism as a pervasive news format.

Literature Review
Telepresence Theory
The theory of telepresence (Steuer 1992) states that as a user’s feeling of “being
there” increases, the user’s sense of telepresence is also facilitated, resulting in a posi-
tive assessment of the experience such as satisfaction and comprehension. The theory
views telepresence in VR from a human experience perspective going beyond technol-
ogy. As VR refers to a mediated experience of humans, the locus of VR shifts from hard-
ware to the perceptions of individual users. Telepresence theory suggests that VR
research examine individual experience, differences, and perceptual processes in deter-
mining its nature and influence (Steuer 1992). The human cognitive system explains
perceptual mechanisms in human communication. In the mediated environment where
a sense of telepresence occurs, users can interact and experience sensory stimuli
employed in the environment. As such, telepresence is a function of perceiver as well
as technology (Held and Durlach 1992).
296 S. KANG ET AL.

As telepresence tests human perceptions through mediated experiences, deter-

minants of telepresence are vividness and interactivity. Users of VR can feel sensorial
richness (vividness) in the mediated environment. Users can also perform control over
a virtual environment such as speed, range, and viewing experience mapping (inter-
activity) (Steuer 1992). The results of VR news experience in this view would vary
depending on what format individuals experience and how they feel the moments.
Individuals experience high accessibility to the mediated information and low
accessibility to the unmediated information, leading to a high evaluation of the experi-
ence (Kim and Biocca 1997; Mahood and Hanus 2017). As the VR environment likely
provides higher telepresence compared to 2D static images and video clips, the experi-
ence can enhance the acceptance of the communication. In turn, VR generates a com-
pelling sense of telepresence because the environment offers spatial presence,
proximity, richness of mediation, and breadth (Suh and Lee 2005). Through telepres-
ence in which experiential sensory stimuli are conveyed, VR enables users to get know-
ledge of the story.

Telepresence and VR News

In a mediated telepresence environment, an individual is aware of a sentient
being through psychological engagement (Biocca, Harms, and Gregg 2001). The depth
of co-presence and feeling of engagement determine the degree of being with others
in a virtual environment. With the new characteristics, VR news is an alteration to the
landscape of news production and consumption in the information and communica-
tion technology (ICT) era (Koski 2015). Specifically, VR news offers the sense of spatial
telepresence, which is defined as an experience of feeling physically placed within a vir-
tually mediated space (Steuer 1992; Wirth et al. 2007). By assumption, VR news viewers
can be more likely than those who watch other types of news to be aware of the story
because they may feel they are transported to the mediated interface while watching it
and create a perceptual illusion of telepresence.
In similar views, VR news offers a virtual environment where the participants pos-
sess a sense of plausibility (illusive experience of happenings) and virtual body owner-
ship (illusion of entire body ownership based on cognitive neuroscience) (Slater 2009;
Slater et al. 2009). The convergence of physical and virtual worlds occurs in the
“metaverse” space of VR news. In the converged world, humans are participants in a
universe of mixed reality. The core premise of VR news is the feeling that the user has
experienced something that will make him or her care more deeply about it and
become empathetic (Owen 2016). Accordingly, the influence of VR news can be power-
ful because the immersive engagement with VR news content can spark a conscious
decision to accept the story and take action as a result of both the emotional and cog-
nitive processing of the event shown in the news.

Telepresence and News Credibility

The abundance of news on the Internet raises questions of news truthfulness. As
the public’s trust in news is at a record low in the U.S. news industry (Swift 2016),
whether or not VR news can affect low news credibility is still in question. News
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 297

credibility, defined as the perceived believability of a message, source, or medium, is

the news media’s longstanding norm. Within the range of framing news in the imaged
realm of VR, the visual traits of VR news have the possibility of control and manipula-
tion. Framed news can mislead and be false, which can fatally affect news credibility
(Martins, Weaver, and Lynch 2018).
Research on news credibility identifies several factors consisting of credibility.
Meyer (1988) indicated that journalistic credibility represents factualness, accuracy, and
community affiliation. In turn, professional credibility and civic credibility best present
aspects of journalistic depth and completeness (Gaziano and McGrath 1986). News
credibility is also represented as journalistic quality, which refers to news containing
newsworthiness that has information validity and lacks deficiencies (Sundar 1999).
Audiences assess journalistic quality by objectivity, representativeness, and liking, while
journalistic values in quality journalism emphasize audiences’ enjoyment through news
participation, representation, and presentation (Coleman and Ross 2010; Meijer 2013).
Audiences today aspire to participate in the journalistic process in both news produc-
tion and consumption (Meijer 2008, 2009). If the audience senses the news compo-
nents closer and in a more immersed manner in VR news than traditional news, an
assumption of high credibility is possible.
Newhagen and Nass (1989) mention that telepresence shifts a news story’s focus
from the institutional level to the personal intimacy level. Thus, the audience tends to
attribute higher credibility to messages with telepresence than those without telepres-
ence. Very few research attempts examining the effect of VR news on credibility have
been conducted to date. In some related research on presence and news credibility,
viewers with the feeling of telepresence in animation manipulated news formats com-
pared to without the feeling of telepresence positively affected the perceived credibil-
ity of crime news (Lo and Cheng 2017) and viewers’ assessment of a suspect’s guilt
(Cheng and Lo 2015). Specifically, the research suggests that telepresence influences
news audiences’ perceived fairness, completeness, bias, accuracy, and trustworthiness.
As such, telepresence in news can affect the audience’s evaluation of news authenticity
and beliefs. Similar studies discovered that viewers’ sense of telepresence and immer-
sion in high-quality graphic news led to a positive evaluation of credibility (Bracken
2005, 2006). Likewise, when audiences feel closer to the news content, they are likely
to be persuaded by the news. Indicators of a real-world feel or feeling of being con-
nected with the story such as photographs and warm colors in news reports contribute
to audiences’ high ratings of news credibility (Hofstetter, Zuniga, and Dozier 2001). As
VR news offers a richer sensory depth compared to 2D videos, it can transmit more
detailed content elements through the immersive experience. Hence, VR news can be
viewed as a medium that can increase credibility.
As audiences in VR news can experience the enriched representation of a story,
the news can be viewed as a window to the world, as well as a vehicle for and a touch-
stone of the realities represented (Coleman and Ross 2010). A recent commentary on
VR news points out that both VR news with a headset, such as Google Cardboard or
Samsung Gear, and 360-degree VR news lack storytelling quality, which may lead to
low news credibility (Grut 2016). This assumption has yet to be tested in empir-
ical research.
298 S. KANG ET AL.

Research Hypotheses
This study tests the degree to which VR news presents telepresence compared to
other news, and if such an experience affects the evaluation of news credibility. In
another analysis, the traits of telepresence are compared with news credibility between
different formats of VR news. The literature review suggests that traits contained in VR
video offer viewers a different telepresence experience than a traditional video
(Coleman and Ross 2010; Suh and Lee 2005). Studies demonstrate that the experience
of telepresence affects a positive evaluation of news credibility. In four experimental
conditions—(a) a VR news video with a headset, (b) a 360-degree VR news video, (c) a
2D video news video, and (d) a control group (no exposure to VR news)—respondents
in this study evaluate the components of telepresence and news credibility.
VR offers digitally recreated simulations of real-world activities. VR news allows
the audience to experience dynamic social stimuli. The new virtual environment may
engender a sense of telepresence in users that can serve to enhance an understanding
of the content (Parsons, Gaggioli, and Riva 2017). The immersive environment of VR
news isolates the user from the physical world and replaces the sensory streams com-
ing from the real world. Users viewing the VR news feel that the technology has
become part of their bodies and they are immersed. When they feel telepresence in
VR, they react emotionally and cognitively, as if the virtual world exists physically
(Waterworth and Riva 2014). The following research hypotheses claim that there are
variations among the groups with differing news formats in terms of telepresence and
news credibility.
H1: The VR groups (VR news with a headset and 360-degree VR news) will
experience more telepresence than will the traditional news groups (2D and
no exposure).

Another hypothesis poses that news viewers’ credibility evaluation is affected by

VR news because the subjects’ news consumption experiences are different from those
of the 2D news and control group. Finally, the role of telepresence in news credibility
evaluation is investigated.
H2: The VR groups (VR news with a headset and 360-degree VR news) will evaluate
news credibility more highly than will the traditional news groups (2D and
no exposure).

H3: There will be a positive relationship between the subjects’ evaluation of

telepresence and news credibility.

Method
Sample and Stimuli
A VR news mobile application by The New York Times called NYTVR was installed
on two iPhone 6 (H 5.44 in.; W 2.64 in.; D 0.27 in.; lens 0.302 in.; weight 4.6 oz.) devices.
As of October 31, 2016, 23 VR videos were available on the NYTVR app. A VR news
story on the app consists of the VR mode with a headset and the standard mode of
360-degree VR news. Therefore, VR news apps including NYTVR contain 360-degree
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 299

videos in the VR news category. The VR news with a headset requires viewing goggles
such as Google Cardboard. For 360-degree videos, the user turns the mobile phone
around to see other sides of the video.
A VR news video entitled, “The Fight for Falluja,” was selected for the experiment.
There are two reasons for selecting this VR news video. First, it was one of the two VR
news videos covering an ongoing issue at the time of the experiment (the other video
featured news about the 2016 presidential election). From the first-person perspective,
the selected video showed a real battle scene taken by an embedded journalist with a
narration, which showed the real moments of shooting exchanges in the city of Falluja,
Iraq. Second, all the other videos on the app were entertainment stories, such as a car
race, the top of One World Trade Center, and Pluto’s Frigid Heart. These VR videos
were considered less reflective of the meaning of news credibility relatively than “The
Fight for Falluja” because they mainly aimed at information and entertain-
ment delivery.
After obtaining Human Subjects Review approval from the Institutional Review
Board of the first author’s university in October 2016, undergraduate communication
majors were recruited for the study. They were compensated with extra course credit
for their participation. All students in the course were equally given the opportunity to
partake in the experiment and receive a 10-percent additional credit to their class par-
ticipation grading category. Only the students who volunteered took part in the experi-
ment and received the credit.
Eighty students were recruited for four experimental conditions from November
2016 to October 2017. Each condition was conducted at different points in time due to
recruitment and lab reservation. Of 80 student volunteers, 20 students were randomly
assigned to the VR news with a headset group. Another group of 20 students was ran-
domly assigned to the group with VR news in 360 degrees. The subjects of the two
groups could pan right or left or tilt up or down the phone to view a different angle
(see Figure 1).
The third group was asked to watch the 2D video news about “The Fight for
Falluja” for one and a half minutes. Then they answered the same questions with those
for Group 1 (VR video with a headset) and 2 (360-degree video without a headset). The
fourth group of 20 students was the control group, which was asked to complete a
questionnaire without viewing any VR video. The participants of Group 4 were asked
about their general feelings of telepresence and credibility in their any previous video
news consumption experience in all types of electronic media except for VR news for-
mats. The control group answered the same questions with those for the other
three groups.
The VR news group used Google Cardboards (8.75 in. by 22 in., and 0.06 in. thick-
ness) to watch the video, “The Fight for Falluja.” Before students were recruited, they
were provided with a safety warning for when they use Google Cardboard. The safety
information about Google Cardboard mentions that there might be a risk of nausea,
discomfort, eyestrain, and disorientation when people use the device. Therefore, those
who had epilepsy or a history of seizures were prohibited from participating in
the experiment.
As for the relatively small sample size, a priori power analysis was conducted
using GPower to verify if the sample size is sufficient to provide valid test outcomes.
300 S. KANG ET AL.

FIGURE 1
Experimental video conditions. VR news with a headset (top left), 360-degree VR news
(top right), VR news app interface (bottom left), and two types of views (bottom right)

Past communication research has found that sample size and effect size was negatively
correlated. The suggested effect size for small samples ranges from .35 to .45 in audi-
ence behaviors (Eisend 2015; Levine, Asada, and Carpenter 2009). In detecting effects
of that size (.40) for the current study’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, using a
Bonferroni-corrected a error probability of .05 and a .80 level of power (1-b) (Cohen
1988), 3 degrees of freedom, and 4 groups, a total sample size at least 73 participants
was determined to be necessary. Therefore, the current sample of 80 for four groups is
within the acceptable range of sample for further analysis.

Procedures
The experiment administrators introduced the recruited students to the video,
“The Fight for Falluja.” The subjects were asked a screening question about the treat-
ment VR videos addressing whether they had ever been exposed to the videos. All par-
ticipants answered “no” to the question, assuring that the precondition of the
experiment for the subjects was equal. In a media lab, Groups 1 and 2 were asked to
watch VR news with a headset and 360-degree VR news. The original length of the
video is 11 minutes and 8 seconds, but the subjects were asked to watch for the first
one and a half minutes and complete a post-experimental survey.1 The experiment
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 301

administrators used two iPhone 6 devices for the VR news group with a headset
(Group 1) and the 360-degree VR news group (Group 2). Groups 1 and 2 used identical
sets of earphones to listen to the audio, including ambiance and a reporter’s narration
while watching the video. Group 3 received an email that asked the participants to
watch a YouTube video about the “Fight for Falluja” (https://youtu.be/Z3jbUSIsNms) for
one and a half minutes and complete a post-experiment survey. The students were
asked to finish the experiment without an interruption.
Given the experiment administration, the setting for Groups 1–3 is a combination
of lab and field experiments. Other past communication research used the identical
method to collect data with the current study. For instance, Valentino, Traugott, and
Hutchings (2002) conducted the same political ad effect experiment at home and lab
for a large number of participants. They found a similar persuasive effect in both sam-
ples. The differing experiment conditions, however, should be interpreted with caution
because confounding factors (e.g. different experimental setting) are present. Variations
in computers used, noise, and circumstance can restrict participants’ foci of attention,
which can affect test results (Xu and May 2013).
Group 4 received an email that asked to complete the same questions with the
other groups about telepresence and credibility. The group 4 setting bears some meth-
odological limitations in terms of questions (asking them as if they watched video
news before). The issues are mentioned as a study constraint in the limitation section.
All participants provided their student IDs in the survey to receive extra course credit
after completing the experiment.

Measurement Instruments
Telepresence
The items measuring telepresence were adopted from the telepresence scale in a
VR environment (Kim and Biocca 1997). The eight items were rephrased to test the sub-
jects’ VR news experience. Following the conceptual definition of telepresence (a view-
er’s feeling of being present in the mediated environment and not being present in
the unmediated physical environment), the items measured feelings of “being there” in
the VR interface from departure to arrival.
The items (from Strongly Disagree ¼1 to Strongly Agree ¼7) were (a) “When the
news ended, I felt like I came back to the ‘real world’ after a journey”; (b) “The news
came to me and created a new world for me, and the world suddenly disappeared
when the news journey ended”; (c) “During the news, I felt I was in the world the news
created”; (d) “During the news, I forgot that I was in the middle of an experiment”; (e)
“During the news, my body was in the room, but my mind was inside the world cre-
ated by the news”; (f) “During the news, the news-generated world was more real or
present for me compared to the ‘real world’”; (g) “The news-generated world seemed
to me ‘somewhere I visited’ rather than ‘something I saw’”; and (h) “During the news,
my mind was in the world created by the news, not in the room.” Cronbach’s alpha for
the scale from the four groups yielded .92. The average of the items was created as a
new variable, called telepresence, for additional analysis in two-way ANOVA.
302 S. KANG ET AL.

TABLE 1
Comparison between VR news with headset group and 360-degree VR news group in
viewing format

360-Degree VR news group

No Yes Total
VR news with Headset group No 0 (0%) 10 (100%) 10 (100%)
Yes 17 (56.7%) 13 (43.3%) 30 (100%)
Total 17 (42.5%) 23 (57.5%) 49 (100%)

News credibility
The four groups were asked questions about news credibility that were adopted
from professional and civic credibility measures (Gaziano and McGrath 1986).
Professional credibility assessed journalists’ professional skills for news reflecting the
following elements: “The news I watched is (a) Unfair/fair, (b) Does not tell the whole
story/tells the whole story, (c) Inaccurate/accurate, (d) Cannot be trusted/can be
trusted, and (e) Opinionated/factual, and (f) Poorly presented/well presented.” Civic
credibility measured items reflecting journalistic practices that relate to ordinary citi-
zens: “The news I watched is (a) Does not meet a viewer’s interest/meets a viewer’s
interest, (b) Does not separate fact from fiction/does separate fact from fiction, and (c)
Concerned with profits/concerned about public interest.” Respondents were asked to
rate the nine items on a seven-point semantic differential scale. A preliminary factor
analysis yielded single dimensionality and Cronbach’s alpha for the unidimensional
credibility scale was .83. A new variable, credibility, was created to compare the
four groups.

Manipulation Check
This study checked manipulation during the experiment by evaluating whether
or not the subjects accurately understood the different formats of VR news.
Experimental subjects in the VR news with a headset and 360-degree VR news condi-
tions were asked to indicate whether the news version they watched was VR news with
a headset or standard 360-degree VR news (1 ¼ No, 2 ¼ Yes). The items were (a) “The
news I watched is VR news with a headset” and (b) “The news I watched is standard
video news in 360 degrees.” If a significant difference is found between the two
responses from the respondents, it indicates the manipulation is adequately estab-
lished. A chi-square test between VR news with a headset and 360-view VR news was
performed, X2 (1, n ¼ 40) ¼ 9.85, p < .01.
The comparison showed that majority viewers of VR news with Google
Cardboard correctly understood that they were watching it with a headset and not
watching 360-degree VR news (Table 1). Another manipulation check was conducted
by comparing the difference in telepresence among the four groups. The results are
presented in the “Findings” section.
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 303

TABLE 2
Group difference in telepresence (N ¼ 80)

Group (M, SD)

Item 1 (n ¼ 20) 2 (n ¼ 20) 3 (n ¼ 20) 4 (n ¼ 20) F (df) g p
1 4.75 (1.37) 4.95 (1.43) 4.50 2.85 (1.59) 10.27 .53 .000
(0.82) (3, 76)
2 4.20 (1.54) 4.95 (1.19) 3.50 2.60 (1.31) 9.75 .53 .000
(1.54) (3, 76)
3 4.55 (1.35) 5.50 (1.10) 4.10 3.90 (1.86) 5.08 .41 .003
(1.21) (3, 76)
4 4.20 (1.54) 4.25 (1.55) 4.35 3.05 (1.63) 2.95 .32 .038
(1.63) (3, 76)
5 4.65 (1.13) 5.40 (1.04) 4.50 3.60 (1.75) 5.87 .43 .001
(1.39) (3, 76)
6 4.35 (1.59) 4.90 (1.02) 3.80 3.00 (1.55) 6.50 .45 .001
(1.43) (3, 76)
7 4.30 (1.30) 5.35 (1.26) 3.85 4.38 (1.66) 5.47 .41 .001
(1.66) (3, 76)
8 4.60 (1.39) 5.15 (1.22) 4.55 3.50 (1.60) 4.90 .40 .002
(1.31) (3, 76)
Telepresence 4.45 (1.11) 5.05 (0.82) 4.18 3.25 (1.39) 9.43 .52 .000
(0.95) (3, 76)

Notes: Items are 1. When the news ended, I felt like I came back to the “real world”
after a journey, 2. The news came to me and created a new world for me, and the world
suddenly disappeared when the news ended journey, 3. During the news, I felt I was in
the world the news created, 4. During the news, I forgot that I was in the middle of an
experiment, 5. During the news, my body was in the room, but my mind was inside the
world created by the news, 6. During the news, the news-generated world was more
real or present for me compared to the “real world,” 7. The news-generated world
seemed to me “somewhere I visited” rather than “something I saw,” and 8. During the
news, my mind was in the world created by the news, not in the room.
Group 1: VR news with a headset; Group 2: 360-degree VR news; Group 3: 2D video
news; Group 4: Control.
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Findings
The sample was composed of 24 males (30.0%) and 56 females (70.0%). Age
range was between 18 and 36 (M ¼ 22.19, SD ¼ 2.93). The school year distribution was
senior (n ¼ 46, 57.5%), junior (n ¼ 20, 25.0%), sophomore (n ¼ 13, 16.3%), and freshman
(n ¼ 1, 1.3%).
For group comparisons of telepresence and news credibility, one-way ANOVA
and two-way ANOVA for main and interaction effects were used. Hypothesis 1 tested if
the VR groups (VR news with a headset and standard 360-degree VR news) would
show higher telepresence than the traditional news groups (2D and control). This ana-
lysis allowed for another manipulation check because the purpose of the experiment
was to examine if telepresence exists in the subjects’ experiences with VR news with a
headset and 360-degree VR news. An ANOVA test for items showed that the effects of
VR news with a headset and 360-degree VR news on telepresence compared to the
control group were significant (Table 2).
304 S. KANG ET AL.

TABLE 3
Group difference in news credibility (N ¼ 80)

Group (M, SD)

Item 1 (n ¼ 20) 2 (n ¼ 20) 3 (n ¼ 20) 4 (n ¼ 20) F (df) g p
1 4.95 (1.31) 5.30 (1.12) 4.75 4.40 (1.27) 1.71 .25 .171
(1.41) (3, 76)
2 4.15 (1.78) 4.95 (1.39) 3.25 3.80 (1.19) 4.80 .40 .004
(1.37) (3, 76)
3 4.60 (1.04) 5.30 (1.38) 4.65 3.60 (1.14) 5.74 .43 .001
(1.59) (3, 76)
4 4.75 (1.25) 5.05 (1.35) 4.40 3.65 (1.13) 3.84 .36 .013
(1.69) (3, 76)
5 4.65 (0.83) 4.80 (1.43) 4.85 3.15 (1.26) 7.44 .48 .000
(1.66) (3, 76)
6 4.55 (1.46) 5.45 (1.63) 4.90 4.20 (1.43) 2.68 .31 .053
(1.25) (3, 76)
7 5.10 (1.25) 5.40 (1.05) 4.30 4.30 (1.17) 3.66 .36 .016
(1.30) (3, 76)
8 4.85 (1.30) 5.25 (1.74) 5.00 4.25 (1.25) 1.73 .25 .167
(1.41) (3, 76)
9 5.05 (1.43) 5.10 (1.44) 4.95 4.25 (1.51) 1.52 .24 .217
(1.35) (3, 76)
Credibility 4.73 (0.85) 5.17 (0.94) 4.56 3.95 (0.63) 7.02 .47 .000
(0.95) (3, 76)

Notes: Items are: The news I watched (is) 1. Unfair/fair, 2. Does not tell the whole story/
tells whole story, 3. Inaccurate/accurate, 4. Cannot be trusted/can be trusted, 5.
Opinionated/factual, 6. Poorly presented/well presented, 7. Does not meet a viewer’s
interest/meet a viewer’s interest, 8. Does not separate a fact from fiction/does separate a
fact from fiction, and 9. Concerned with profits/concerned about public interest.
Group 1: VR news with a headset; Group 2: 360-degree VR news; Group 3: 2D video
news; Group 4: Control.
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Post hoc analyses using Scheffe’s criterion for significance indicated that the
assessment of telepresence was significantly higher in the VR with a headset group
and the 360-degree VR group than in the control group (no exposure). This result, how-
ever, should be accepted with caution because the control group was not exposed to
the stimulus message. There were two significant relationships between the VR groups
and the 2D news group. Two telepresence items, “(a) During the news, I felt I was in
the world I created” and (b) “The news-generated world seemed to me somewhere I
visited rather than something I saw,” showed a significant difference between the 360-
degree video group (high) and the 2D group (low). There was no significant difference
between VR news with a headset and 360-degree news. No differences were found
between 2D news and no exposure. As a result, H1 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted the VR news groups would show a better evaluation of
news credibility than the traditional news groups (2D and control). An ANOVA test for
news credibility found that the effects of VR news with a headset and 360-degree VR
news on news credibility compared to the traditional news groups were significant in “(a)
Does not/does tell the whole story,” “(b) Inaccurate/accurate,” “(c) Cannot/can be trusted,”
“(d) Opinionated/factual,” and “(e) Does not/does meet viewer’s interest” (Table 3).
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 305

TABLE 4
Main and interaction effects of group and telepresence on news credibility (N ¼ 80)

Source Sum of squares df Mean squares F p

News group 9.43 3 3.14 5.37 .002
Telepresence 4.05 1 4.04 6.91 .010
News group  telepresence 9.45 3 3.15 5.38 .002
Error 42.14 72 0.58
Total 1769.82 80

Note. p < .05. p < .01.

Post hoc analyses using Scheffe’s criterion found several significant relationships.
There was a significant difference between the 360-dgree group (high) and the 2D
news group (low) in “Does not/does tell the whole story.” In other post hoc analyses,
significant differences were found between the 360-degree group and the control
group in “(a) Inaccurate/accurate,” “(b) Cannot be trusted/trusted,” and “(c)
Opinionated/factual.” There was no significant difference between VR news with a
headset and 360-degree news. No difference was found between 2D news and no
exposure. The results indicate that the 360-degree group is effective in invoking a posi-
tive news credibility. Therefore, H2 received partial support.
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between telepresence and news
credibility. For the analysis, two-way ANOVA was used by creating composite variables
of telepresence and credibility (Table 4). Telepresence was divided into two groups by
the median (4.25). In the analysis, the four groups had a main effect on news credibility.
Telepresence had a significant main effect on news credibility as well (Table 4). In the
interaction effect, news credibility was significantly affected by the groups in high tele-
presence (Figure 1). Therefore, H3 received full support. A post hoc Scheffe test for
group difference showed no difference among the VR group with a headset, the 360-
degree video group, and the 2D video group with high telepresence in credibility.
Significant differences were found only between the VR news groups with high pres-
ence (with a headset and 360-degree) and the control group (no exposure) in
credibility.

Discussion
The current study was designed to examine the effectiveness of VR news regard-
ing telepresence and news credibility. VR news with a headset (Google Cardboard) and
360-degree VR news were compared to the traditional news groups (2D video and no
exposure) in news credibility.
The results of Hypothesis 1 demonstrate that subjects’ experience with VR news
presents a significantly higher level of telepresence than the control group (no expos-
ure). In turn, the VR news on the tested mobile app likely enhanced the subjects’ feel-
ings of being co-present with others in the mediated space (Ijsselsteijn et al. 2000). The
subjects evaluated that the VR news created a new world like going on a journey, and
they felt as though they were coming back to the real world after the journey when
306 S. KANG ET AL.

the news viewing ended. These results indicate that the audience is being sent to the
different environment and being immersed (Kim and Biocca 1997). The study partici-
pants highly assessed the VR news-generated world as more real and present com-
pared to the real world. These findings suggest the potential VR news has for the
audience’s immersive news consumption. Notably, the 360-degree group shows a sig-
nificant response to telepresence compared to the 2D video group, indicating that
without a headset, viewers can still feel telepresence through viewing 360-degree VR
news on the phone, compared to the 2D video. The 360-degree group felt they visited
the world they created. The results, therefore, suggest the potential utility of 360-
degree VR news in the mobile news market.
With regard to Hypothesis 2, VR news groups showed higher evaluations on cred-
ibility than the control group in several items. The significant differences were found in
the “inaccurate/accurate,” “opinionated/factual,” and “cannot be trusted/can be trusted”
items between the 360-degree group and the control group. Again, it is likely that the
viewers viewed the 360-degree video as more accurate and trusted as compared to no
exposure. Further, the viewers evaluated that the 360-degree video tells the whole
story compared to the 2D video. The results imply that VR news can increase the audi-
ence’s assessment of accuracy and factuality (Watson 2016). Particularly, the results also
suggest that VR news can increase news objectivity not only by showing but also by
having audiences experience news from trusted sources (Graham 2016). News organiza-
tions making VR news can consider these factors (accuracy, factuality, and trust) when
they choose VR news topics and produce a video to increase those credibility factors
(accuracy, factuality, trust in a story, and storytelling). However, news fairness, fiction,
and public interest turned out no group differences. The results imply that depending
on framing or individual variations, VR news can differently affect viewer interpretations
of the news. News organizations making VR news can consider these factors (accuracy,
factuality, and trust) when they choose VR news topics and produce a video to increase
those credibility factors (accuracy, factuality, trust in a story, and storytelling).
The results of Hypothesis 3 showed that there is an interaction effect of news
groups and telepresence on news credibility. The result affirms that telepresence brings
credibility to news consumption. However, there is no significant difference between
VR news and 2D news with high telepresence for credibility. This result means that,
when evaluating credibility, viewers do not feel a substantial difference between VR
news and 2D news with high telepresence (Figure 2).
In connection with understanding VR from the human experience perspective
(Steuer 1992), the focus of VR is likely not on the headset or mobile screen but on the
communicators’ perception of being present in the same virtual space created by the
mediated environment. When the experience evokes a feeling of telepresence, the user
interacts and evaluates the virtual moments. As H2 and H3 results demonstrated (no
significant difference among VR with a headset, 360-degree news, and 2D video news),
technology did not distinguish differences. Along the line with no difference, Steuer’s
conceptualization of telepresence emphasizing medium, experience, perception, and
individuals as well as the technology itself offers how VR can be studied in communica-
tion, including immersive journalism. Future research on VR news can test not only VR
settings, sensory information, and a mediated environment but also context-based fac-
tors such as task difficulty, content, vividness, and individual differences in cognitive
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 307

FIGURE 2
Interaction Effect of group and telepresence on credibility

and emotional engagement (Laurel 1991). More concretely, research can be conducted
on what merits VR news can bring to the audience compared to 2D video news by
focusing on individual differences. The advantages can be measured by storylines,
involvement, sympathy, empathy, and other psychological engagement.
When VR news is combined with telepresence, the news consumption experience
can fortify news credibility. Besides telepresence, it will be worth exploring how news
narratives in VR can affect credibility or attitudes. The method of news presentation
can be the next step to identify VR news traits better. From a storytelling perspective,
the current VR news does not follow traditional news production (e.g. reporter appear-
ance). Since it likely corresponds to a documentary video, further development of a
suitable news story format for VR is recommended.
As telepresence theory (Steuer 1992) states, media richness, vividness, and inter-
activity in VR news enhances the feeling of telepresence and positive credibility evalua-
tions. VR offers a three-dimensional environment, in which the user can navigate and
be linked by specific behaviors and dynamic properties (Zahorik and Jenison 1998).
Telepresence in VR news is an experience resulting from the interaction of a user with
a given medium. The sense of “being there” in VR news is related to the user’s ability
to successfully “act there” in the space where he or she is situated virtually. This notion
is linked with Gibson’s concept of affordance (1977), clues in the environment that indi-
cate possibilities for action. In the case of VR news, the more effectively the virtual
environment allows for user engagement in an intended behavior, the greater sense of
telepresence he or she will feel (Gilbert 2017; Parsons, Gaggioli, and Riva 2017). It
seems that audiences hold a possibility of affordance, in which they are likely to take
action after VR news consumption. Continued investigations on VR news narratives and
projected post actions are necessary.
News organizations are encouraged to make VR news on different news topics.
They need to set up a mass production system for VR news with a variety of topics.
308 S. KANG ET AL.

Hence, audiences will be able to access VR news anytime and anywhere readily. As the
goal of VR news is to deliver truth and facts, rather than deception, such diffusion
efforts may help increase public perceptions of news credibility. The results that 360-
degree news explains credibility better than the other groups suggest that news organ-
izations develop the ways for viewers to readily experience quality VR news on their
phones without a headset.

Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This exploratory study has some important limitations to be addressed, and it
suggests future research ideas for this news format. The sample was small for valid
causality. Although the GPower test assured the appropriateness of the current sample
size (N ¼ 80), a more substantial number of adult subjects can strengthen the causation
between VR news viewing and credibility evaluation. Further, findings from many sub-
jects can extend to the generalizability of the study. Future research should conduct
either multiple experiments from different audience groups or one experiment from at
least over 50 subjects for each group. The results also have limited internal validity due
to the use of student subjects.
This posttest-only study entails the limitation of the real effect of the treatment
because there is no indication of the subjects’ prior attitudes toward VR news. Future
research should conduct a new experiment for elaboration. The study design of the
control group is another limitation because this study asked the subjects the same
questions with those for VR groups even though they were not exposed to any video.
The questions were ambiguous for the control group because it was assuming the sub-
jects watched the news just before answering the questions.
The use of one public affair message (Iraq War) for the experiment limits results
applicability to other topics such as entertainment. VR news researchers can compare
the effectiveness of VR news in different genres, such as sports, science, crime, and pol-
itics. Varying types of effectiveness may be observed among the genres. Such attempts
can demonstrate better fitting news genres for VR. A replication of message effects
using other messages in the same topic is suggested. Further, showing multiple videos
of the message can increase result reliability (Bergan 2011). The experiment for Group
3 was not conducted in the same lab as Groups 1 and 2. The differing condition has an
explicit methodological limitation. Although a similar pattern of significance is shown
in lab and field experiments for the same stimulus in past research (e.g. Valentino,
Traugott, and Hutchings 2002), the lab result is stronger than the field result (Jerit,
Barabas, and Clifford 2013). Future research on the same topic should be implemented
in a consistent experimental setting. Besides, a comparison between a lab and a field
experiment on the same experiment material can increase result reliability.
This study did not measure the level of news content comprehension. In addition
to news credibility, news content comprehension can be a comparison result from the
exposure to VR or 2D news. It will be worth examining viewers’ opinions about social
and public affairs after watching the VR news.
During the experiment, the VR video—particularly the VR news with a headset—
was substantially affected by WiFi connection capacity. Even though the app has a
download and play option, the size of the video (608 MB) is too large to download to a
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 309

phone that has an insufficient hard space. News organizations may need to accommo-
date solid VR video play in any Internet connection circumstances to get more consid-
erable audience access to VR news. This study had a limitation on how the subjects
thought about the VR news viewing experience. Future research on VR journalism can
ask participating subjects open-ended questions about their feelings in written
evaluations.
Further research can test differences in headsets, such as Samsung Gear and
Oculus Rift. The headsets may show a higher-quality VR video than Google Cardboard,
so audience responses to the viewing experience may differ, as well. As for 360-degree
VR news, screen size may affect viewing experience and evaluation. Watching a 360-
degree VR news story on a phone, tablet PC, or desktop PC with a mouse for turning
directions can provide viewers with different experiences.

Conclusion
The present study explored the potential of immersive journalism through an
experiment of VR news viewing. The results found that viewers experienced more tele-
presence in VR news than did non-viewers. In a separate post hoc analysis, there were
only a few significant differences in telepresence and credibility between VR news and
2D video news viewing. The 360-degree news was a bit more useful than 2D news in
telepresence. There was no difference between VR news with a headset and 2D news.
No significant difference was found between the VR news with a headset and the 360-
degree video either in telepresence and credibility. Therefore, news organizations need
to devise ideas to offer VR news viewers with a headset more distinct experience than
2D news viewing. VR news with a headset needs to be in better resolution, news-
worthy, easy access to headsets and video, video play without buffering, and a well-
organized storyline to sufficiently impress digital audiences. More research attempts on
VR are necessary to find efficient, cost-effective, technical error-free, and quality news
storytelling. VR journalism experts point out that the VR news industry still has a poor
understanding of its audience both in terms of content, content discovery, and audi-
ence attitudes to the software and hardware (Watson 2017). Given the findings of this
study, VR news is a news format that has some potential to improve news credibility
and more news organizations can adopt it.

NOTE
1. The experiment administrators first planned to show 2 minutes but due to the
poor WiFi connection in the lab, the amount of time was adjusted to 1 minute
and 30 seconds. Longer exposure at faster WiFi speed is needed in
future research.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
310 S. KANG ET AL.

FUNDING
This research was supported by the Faculty Research Development Fund of the
Department of Communication at the University of Texas, San Antonio.

REFERENCES
Aron, Jacob. 2014. “Real Holodeck Turns Your Living Room into a Game.” Reed Business
Information Limited (New Scientist) 224: 24–25. [CrossRef][10.1016/S0262-
4079(14)61946-1]
Bassanino, May, Terrence Fernando, and Kuo-Cheng Wu. 2014. “Can Virtual Workspaces
Enhance Team Communication and Collaboration in Design Review Meetings?”
Architectural Engineering & Design Management 10 (3/4): 200–217. doi:10.1080/
17452007.2013.775102.
Bergan, Daniel. E. 2011. “Can Online Videos Increase Turnout? A Field Experiment Testing
the Effect of Peer-Created Online Videos on Youth Turnout.” Journal of Political
Marketing 10 (1/2): 80–87. doi:10.1080/15377857.2011.540195.
Biocca, Frank, Chad Harms, and Jenn Gregg. 2001. “The Networked Minds Measure of Social
Presence: Pilot Test of the Factor Structure and Concurrent Validity.” Paper presented
at the 4th International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA, May.
Bracken, Cheryl. 2005. Presence and Image Quality: The Case of High Definition Television.
Media Psychology 7: 191–205
Bracken, Cheryl. 2006. “Perceived Source Credibility of Local Television News: The Impact of
Television Form and Presence.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 50 (4):
723–741.
Cheng, Benjamin K. L., and Wai Han Lo. 2015. “The Effects of Melodramatic Animation in
Crime related News.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 92 (3): 559–579.
doi:10.1177/1077699015581799.
Cheung, Jessica, Melissa Maron, Sandy Tatla, and Tal Jarus. 2013. “Virtual Reality as Balance
Rehabilitation for Children with Brain Injury: A Case Study.” Technology & Disability 25
(3): 207–219. doi:10.3233/TAD-130383.
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Coleman, Stephen, and Karen Ross. 2010. The Media and Public: ‘Them’ and ‘Us’ in Media
Discourse. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
de la Pen~a, Nonny, Peggy Weil, Joan Elias, Giannopoulos Pomes, and Bernard Spanlang.
2010. “Immersive Journalism: Immersive Virtual Reality for the First-Person Experience
of News.” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 19 (4): 291–301.
Dodds, Trevor, Betty Mohler, and Henrich B€ ulthoff. 2011. “Talk to the Virtual Hands: Self-
Animated Avatars Improve Communication in Head-Mounted Display Virtual
Environments.” PLoS One 6 (10): 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.002575.
Dove, Jackie. 2016. “11 Great Virtual Reality Apps that You Should Try Out Right Now.”
Macworld – Digital Edition. Accessed October 22. https://www.macworld.com/article/
3032143/iphone-ipad/11-great-virtual-reality-apps-that-you-should-try-out-right-now.
html.
Doyle, David. 2015. “Is Virtual Reality Near-Reality?” Linked In. Accessed November 12.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/virtual-reality-near-reality-david-doyle.
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 311

Eisend, Martin. 2015. “Have We Progressed Marketing Knowledge? A Meta-Meta-Analysis of

Effect Sizes in Marketing Research.” Journal of Marketing 79 (3), 23–40. doi:10.1509/
jm.14.0288.
Gaziano, Cecilie, and Kristin McGrath. 1986. “Measuring the Concept of Credibility.”
Journalism Quarterly 63: 451–462.
Gibson, James. 1977. “The Theory of Affordances.” In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, edited
by Robert Shaw and James Bransford, 67–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilbert, Jeremy. 2017. “Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality by The Washington Post.”
Global Editors Network VR Tour, October 1–7.
Graham, Jefferson. 2016. “Virtual Reality Gets Gritty with Breaking News.” USA Today, 03b,
November 18.
Grut, Stale. 2016. “The Battle for High-Quality VR.” Nieman Lab. Accessed October 12. http://
www.niemanlab.org/2016/12/the-battle-for-high-quality-vr/.
Hakonen, Marko, and Petra Bosch-Sijtsema. 2014. “Virtual Worlds Enabling Distributed
Collaboration.” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 7 (3): 1–19.
Held, Richard. H., and Nathaniel I. Durlach. 1992. “Telepresence.” Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments 1 (1): 102–112.
Hofstetter, Richard, Stephen Zuniga, and David Dozier. 2001. “Media Self-Efficacy: Validation
of a New Concept.” Mass Communication & Society 4 (1): 61–76. doi:10.1207/
S15327825MCS0401_05.
Ijsselsteijn, Wijnand A., Huib de Ridder, Jonathan Freeman, and Steve E. Avons. 2000.
“Presence: Concept, Determinants, and Measurement.” Proceedings Volume 3959,
Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V. doi:10.1117/12.387188.
Jerit, Jennifer, Jason Barabas, and Scott Clifford. 2013. “Comparing Contemporaneous
Laboratory and Field Experiments on Media Effects.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (1):
256–282.
Kim, Taeyong, and Frank Biocca. 1997. “Telepresence Via Television: Two Dimensions of
Telepresence May Have Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion.” Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication 3 (2): 1–24.
Koski, Olivia. 2015. “Virtual Reality Lets the Audience Step into the Story.” Nieman Reports 69
(1): 8–11.
Laurel, Branda. 1991. Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Levine, Timothy R., Kelli. J. Asada, and Chris Carpenter. 2009. “Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes
are Negatively Correlated in Meta-Analyses: Evidence and Implications of a
Publication Bias against Nonsignificant Findings.” Communication Monographs 76 (3):
286–302. doi:10.1080/03637750903074685.
Lo, Wai, and Benjamin Cheng. 2017. “The Use of Melodramatic Animation in News, Presence
and News Credibility.” Journalism Studies 18 (6): 787–805. doi:10.1080/
1461670X.2015.1087814.
Mahood, Chad, and Michael Hanus. 2017. “Role-Playing Video Games and Emotion: How
Transportation into the Narrative Mediates the Relationship between Immoral Actions
and Feelings of Guilt. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 6 (1): 61–73.
Martins, Nicole, Andrew J. Weaver, and Teresa Lynch. 2018. “What the Public "Knows" about
Media Effects Research: The Influence of News Frames on Perceived Credibility and
Belief Change.” Journal of Communication 68 (1): 98–119. doi:10.1093/joc/jqx004.
312 S. KANG ET AL.

Mayer, Igor, Harald Warmelink, and Geertje Bekebrede. 2013. “Learning in a Game-Based
Virtual Environment: A Comparative Evaluation in Higher Education.” European Journal
of Engineering Education 38 (1): 85–106. doi:10.1080/03043797.2012.742872.
Meijer, Irene. 2008. “Checking, Snacking and Bodysnatching. How Young People Use the
News and Implications for Public Service Media Journalism.” In From Public Service
Broadcasting to Public Service Media, edited by Gregory Lowe and Jo Bardoel,
167–186. Goteborg: Nordicom.
Meijer, Irene. 2009. “Quality Taste or Tasting Quality? Excellence in Public Service Media
from an Audience Point of View.” In the Public in Public Service Media, edited by
Gregory Lowe and Gregor Daschman, 189–213. Gotenburg: Nordicom.
Meijer, Irene. 2013. “Valuable Journalism: A Search for Quality from the Vantage Point of the
User.” Journalism 14 (6): 754–770. doi:10.1177/1464884912455899.
Meyer, Philip. 1988. “Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an
Index.” Journalism Quarterly 65: 567–588.
Molina, Karina, Natalia Ricci, Suzana de Moraes, and Monica Perracini. 2014. “Virtual Reality
Using Games for Improving Physical Functioning in Older Adults: A Systematic
Review.” Journal of Neuro Engineering & Rehabilitation 11 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1186/1743-
0003-11-156.
Nelson, Jacob. 2017. “Is Fake News a Fake Problem?” Columbia Journalism Review. Accessed
January 31. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-facebook-audience-drudge-breit-
bart-study.php.
Newhagen, John, and Clifford Nass. 1989. “Differential Criteria for Evaluating Credibility of
Newspapers and TV News.” Journalism Quarterly 66 (2): 277–284.
Nuwer, Rachel. 2015. “Journalism’s New Reality.” Pacific Standard. Accessed February 16.
https://psmag.com/journalism-s-new-reality-68c936cc9bf2#.7ict9c1sg.
Oputu, Edirin. 2014. “Can You Sort Fact from Fiction in Stories about Google Glass?”
Columbia Journalism Review 53 (2): 13.
Owen, Taylor. 2016. “Can Journalism be Virtual?” Columbia Journalism Review Fall/Winter: 55
(2):102–111.
Owen, Taylor, Fergus Pitt, Raney Aronson-Rath, and James Milward. 2015. Virtual Reality
Journalism. The Tow Center for Digital Journalism. New York, NY: Columbia Journalism
School Press.
Parsons, Thomas, Andrea Gaggioli, and Guiseppe Riva. 2017. “Virtual Reality for Research in
Social Neuroscience.” Brain Sciences 7 (4): 1–21. doi:10.3390/brainsci7040042.
Qu, Chao, Willem-Paul Brinkman, Yun Ling, Pascal Wiggers, and Ingrid Heynderickx. 2014.
“Conversations with a Virtual Human: Synthetic Emotions and Human Responses.”
Computers in Human Behavior 34: 58–68. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.033.
Robbins, Sarah. 2009. “Defining Virtual Worlds.” Rocky Mountain Communication Review 6 (1):
8–13.
Slater, Mel. 2009. “Place Illusion and Plausibility Can Lead to Realistic Behaviour in
Immersive Virtual Environments.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London 364 (1535): 3549–3557.
Slater, Mel, Daniel Perez-Marcos, Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria Sanchez-Vives. 2009. “Inducing
Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Body.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 3(2): 214–220.
Steuer, Jonathan. 1992. “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.”
Journal of Communication 42 (4): 73–93.
 VIRTUAL REALITY NEWS AND CREDIBILITY 313

Suh, Kil-Soo, and Young Eun Lee. 2005. “The Effects of Virtual Learning on Consumer
Learning: An Empirical Investigation.” MIS Quarterly 29 (4): 673–697.
Sundar, Shyam. 1999. “Exploring Receiver’s Criteria for Perception of Print and Online News.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 76: 373–386.
Swift, Art. 2016. “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low.” Gallup. Accessed May
21. http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.
aspx.
Valentino, Nicholas A., Michael W. Traugott, and Vincent L. Hutchings. 2002. “Group Cues
and Ideological Constraint: A Replication of Political Advertising Effects Studies in the
Lab and in the Field.” Political Communication 19 (1): 29–48. doi:10.1080/
105846002317246470.
Wadley, Greg, Marcus Carter, and Martin Gibbs. 2015. “Voice in Virtual Worlds: The Design,
Use, and Influence of Voice Chat in Online Play.” Human-Computer Interaction 30 (3/4):
336–365. doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.987346.
Waterworth, John, and Giuseppe Riva. 2014. Feeling Present in the Physical World and in
Computer-Mediated Environments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Watson, Zillah. 2016. “Factual Storytelling in 360 Video.” BBC. Accessed November 11. http://
www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2016-11-360-video-factual-storytelling.
Watson, Zillah. 2017. “VR for News: The New Reality?” Digital News Report. Accessed
October 5. http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2017/vr-news-new-reality/.
Wirth, Werner, Tilo Hartmann, Saskia Bocking, Peter Vorderer, Christoph Klimmt, Holger
Schramm, Timo Saari, et al. 2007. “A Process of the Formation of Spatial Presence
Experiences.” Media Psychology 9: 493–525. doi:10.1080 ¼ 15213260701283079.
Xu, Lifeng. 2014. “Research on Effect of Education Quality of Sports Teaching Mode Based
on Virtual Reality Technology.” Journal of Chemical & Pharmaceutical Research 6 (7):
1119–1123.
Xu, Sun, and Andrew May. 2013. “A Comparison of Field-Based and Lab-Based Experiments
to Evaluate User Experience of Personalised Mobile Devices.” Advances in Human-
Computer Interaction 2013: 1–9. doi:10.1155/2013/619767.
Zahorik, Pavel, and Rick Jenison. 1998. “Presence as Being-in-the-World.” Presence
Teleoperators and Virtual Environment 7: 78–89.

Seok Kang (author to whom correspondence should be addressed),

Department of Communication, The University of Texas at San Antonio,
San Antonio, Texas, USA. E-mail: seok.kang@utsa.edu
Erin O’Brien School of Business and Leadership, Our Lady of the Lake
University, San Antonio, Texas, USA. E-mail: eobrien08@yahoo.com
Arturo Villarreal Department of Communication, The University of Texas at
San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA. E-mail: dotcomet@gmail.com
Wansoo Lee Division of Media and Communication, Dongseo University,
Busan, South Korea. E-mail: wansoo1960@gmail.com
Chad Mahood Department of Communication, University of Texas at San
Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA. E-mail: chad.mahood@utsa.edu