Content uploaded by Insook Han
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Insook Han on Apr 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Immersive virtual reality for increasing presence and empathy
Insook Han
1
| Hyoung Seok Shin
2
| Yujung Ko
3
| Won Sug Shin
4
1
College of Education and Human
Development, Temple University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA
2
College of Dentistry, Pusan National
University, Pusan, South Korea
3
Division of Social Sciences, Hanyang Cyber
University, Seoul, South Korea
4
College of Education, Incheon National
University, Incheon, South Korea
Correspondence
Won Sug Shin, College of Education, Incheon
National University, Incheon, South Korea.
Email: wsshin@inu.ac.kr
Yujung Ko, Department of Platform EdTech
Hanyang Cyber University Seoul, South Korea.
Email: 1220005@hycu.ac.kr
Funding information
Incheon National University, Grant/Award
Number: 2019-0076
Abstract
Background: Immersive VR is still rarely used as an intervention for meeting the
affective end goals of student learning despite its positive impact on affection. Also,
studies regarding the use of immersive VR as an intervention for affective achieve-
ment in broader educational contexts are still lacking. Objectives: This study aimed to
examine the effect of immersive VR and perspective-taking on presence and
empathy.
Methods: A total of 148 pre-service teachers participated in experiments, using
either a head-mounted display or a flat screen device to view two VR videos with dif-
ferent perspective-taking affordances. This study used a mixed design with one
between-subject variable of immersion level and one within-subject variable of per-
spective-taking to explore how immersive VR experiences influenced participants’
perceived level of presence and empathy.
Results and Conclusions: The results showed that the level of immersion affects per-
ceived presence, but it was the type of perspective-taking that affects empathetic
reactions. We also found an interaction effect between immersion levels and
perspective-taking. The direct embodiment in VR combined with high immersion pro-
duced stronger empathy than with low immersion, while the perspective of an
observer was better in evoking empathy when experienced with low immersion.
Implications: This study gives a guidance on how to take advantage of this new tech-
nology in educational settings, and apply it to instructional activities to enhance stu-
dents’empathy. In addition, it could serve as a reference when developing or
introducing educational contents with respect to the types of contents that are more
effective in educational settings.
KEYWORDS
empathy, immersion, perspective-taking, presence, virtual reality
1|INTRODUCTION
Affective learning has been consistently recognized as important in
teacher education (Shoffner, 2009). Particularly, empathy is a critical
skill for interacting with students because it “connects what a teacher
knows or thinks about students and families to what he or she actually
does when negotiating appropriate responses to students' needs, or
when the teacher is arranging learning experiences for students”
(Warren, 2018, p. 171). Empathy is also important for developing
culturally relevant and responsive teaching practices for diverse stu-
dents, whose identities may differ from their teachers' (McAllister &
Irvine, 2002; Warren, 2018). Therefore, many researchers assert that
teacher education should cultivate empathy among preservice
teachers (Bullough, 2019; Jaber et al., 2018). Some interventions for
this include cross-cultural simulation, cultural immersion trips
(McAllister & Irvine, 2002) and online training using staged videos
(Knigge et al., 2019), but emerging technology now offers new poten-
tial ways of facilitating empathy development.
Received: 4 May 2021 Revised: 21 February 2022 Accepted: 12 March 2022
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12669
J Comput Assist Learn. 2022;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcal © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
Immersive virtual reality (VR) is an emerging technology that has
gained tremendous attention for its potential benefits for education
(Freeman et al., 2017; Jensen & Konradsen, 2018; Parong &
Mayer, 2018). Studies have found that it increases presence by using
a head-mounted display (HMD) (Filter et al., 2020; Han, 2020;
Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018), which could positively affect learning
(Lee et al., 2010). Unlike the mixed results of studies on the relation-
ship between presence and cognitive learning (Makransky et al., 2019;
Moreno & Mayer, 2002), many studies have consistently demon-
strated that increased presence in immersive VR enhances affective
outcomes by provoking positive perception, emotions, interest, moti-
vation or attitude (Filter et al., 2020; Han, 2020; Makransky
et al., 2020; Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018).
Moreover, researchers have identified potential in immersive
VR for creating an environment for development of empathetic
reactions. To comprehend others' emotional states and empathize,
a person must experience a situation from another's perspective
(Batson, 2009). This relies on perspective-taking, or “the cognitive
and social skills individuals need to understand how other people
think and feel”(OECD, 2019, p. 173). It has long been used as an
effective strategy for increasing empathy in educational settings,
as it requires learners to simulate situations, events, or people's
viewpoints that they cannot experience directly (Bertrand
et al., 2018; Pecukonis, 1990). Due to its high levels of immersion
and presence, immersive VR has been recognized as a tool for
enhancing such simulations, and consequently, empathy (Sánchez
Laws, 2020; Shin, 2018; van Loon et al., 2018).
Despite its potential, research on immersive VR as an interven-
tion for empathy development is in its infancy, and more studies
need to be conducted in educational settings. To outline interven-
tions that maximize its benefits, researchers need to explore fac-
tors of VR experiences that can influence designs for promoting
empathetic reactions. Therefore, this study investigated how dif-
ferent immersion levels and perspective-taking affordances in
immersive VR affect presence and empathy. The results have
implications for designing interventions to increase empathy
among students and teachers.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 |Immersive virtual reality, presence,
and empathy
Presence is a prominent phenomenon of people's VR experiences,
and research has well documented this as a construct that affects
learning. Many scholars defined it as a term that refers to the psy-
chological state, or feeling, of being in one place (Dede &
Richards, 2017; Slater, 1999; Slater & Usoh, 1993). Contrary to
this, immersion is often defined as a non-subjective property of
technological systems (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Although
both the terms are distinct, they are often used interchangeably in
VR literature, because current technologies with high fidelity and
immersive virtual affordances are likely to make people feel more
“present”in high immersive VR environments (Dalgarno &
Lee, 2010; Johnson-Glenberg, 2018). In fact, many experimental
studies proved that HMDs maximizepresenceinhighimmersive
environments (Adachi et al., 2020; Breves, 2020; Han, 2020;
Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018; Zhao et al., 2020), by visually isolat-
ing users from their physical spaces (Witmer & Singer, 1998), and
thus enhancing their feeling of being situated in a virtual space
(Brown & Cairns, 2004).
The well-established relationship between immersion and pres-
ence also attracted researchers' interest in using VR to enhance empa-
thetic responses (Sánchez Laws, 2020; Shin, 2018; van Loon
et al., 2018). The seminal work of de la Peña et al. (2010) pioneered
research on immersive journalism, enabled by the use of immersive
VR, and the effect of presence in journalistic storytelling. It claimed
that immersive journalism triggers viewers' feelings of being part of
the story, and deeper empathetic responses (de la Peña et al., 2010).
This study opened up wider explorations of a direct connection
between enhanced virtual presence and empathy in immersive VR,
and comparisons of the impact of HMDs and non-immersive media
(e.g., computer monitor) on empathy in journalism (Archer &
Finger, 2018; Calvert, Abadla, & Tauseef, 2019; Johnson, 2018;
Nelson et al., 2020; Steinfeld, 2020). For example, a study by Herrera
et al. (2018) examined how different levels of immersion affect empa-
thy and prosocial behaviours, and found that high immersive VR
induced more positive and longer-lasting affective responses and
increased commitments to prosocial behaviour.
Attempts have also been made to examine the impact of immer-
sion on empathy in educational settings, despite this being in its
infancy. Some studies demonstrated that immersive VR increases
empathy by allowing students to witness historical events first-hand
(Calvert et al., 2019; Han & Patterson, 2020). Moreover, researchers
suggest medical students engage in experiential learning through VR,
to enhance empathy before beginning field work with patients
(Donnelly et al., 2020), as affective skills and caring are vital for
practitioner–patient interactions (Blasco & Moreto, 2012;
Brown, 2011; Rogers et al., 2017). Similarly, teacher empathy is
important in teacher-student interactions (Warren, 2018), but any
study is yet to examine the uses of immersive VR in preservice
teachers' education for developing empathy.
2.2 |Perspective-taking and empathy
While many studies confirm the positive relationship between
immersion and empathetic responses (Archer & Finger, 2018),
others further identify VR design elements that could inter-play for
increasing empathy (Nelson et al., 2020; Sánchez Laws, 2020;
Steinfeld, 2020; van Loon et al., 2018). Particularly, they explored
the effect of perspective-taking in VR on emotional responses, and
compared first- and third-person perspectives in relation to
embodiment. Embodiment refers to a subjective feeling of owning
a virtual body presented in immersive VR (Makransky &
2HAN ET AL.
Petersen, 2021). Its degrees are determined in continuum by the
amount of sensorimotor engagement, gestural congruency and
immersion (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017).
Generally, perceived embodiment is maximized when all three
constructs are combined at a high level, regardless of the
type of perspective taken in immersive VR (Galvan Debarba
et al., 2017; Johnson-Glenberg, 2018; Johnson-Glenberg &
Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017; Makransky & Petersen, 2021).
However, compared to a third-person perspective, a first-person
perspective is sufficient, despite the absence of multisensory input
and gestures to provide body ownership in a passive VR movie,
because controlling camera orientation with HMDs allows users to
observe a virtual body from a natural viewpoint (Galvan Debarba
et al., 2017). The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning
(CAMIL) (Makransky & Petersen, 2021) also posits that this psy-
chological state of experiencing a virtual self as the actual self is
associated with an increased level of embodiment (Biocca, 1997).
Moreover, studies argue that body ownership is the best predictor
of changes in empathy (Barbot & Kaufman, 2020). Therefore, tak-
ing a first-person perspective toward a virtual body in immersive
VR could enhance the sense of immersion and promote a certain
level of embodiment, or 2nd-degree embodiment according to the
Embodied Education Taxonomy by Johnson-Glenberg (2018), and
thus increase empathy.
While the relationship between viewpoints and empathy has
often been discussed in VR literature, the effects of situating users
variously in this first-person perspective setting has not been empiri-
cally examined. For instance, a user can be situated either as a protag-
onist who directly experiences via a virtual body, or as a bystander in
someone else's narrative (de la Peña et al., 2010). Different position-
ings might cause users to experience empathy differently. Sánchez
Laws (2020) provided a nuanced discussion on this potential differ-
ence, and asserted that although assuming a self does enhance real-
ism, positioning that directly embodies a virtual self may not make
viewers empathetic, as there is no “other.”Research also suggests
that the nature of perspective-taking in a VR experience can evoke
different emotional reactions. For example, among college students
who interacted with an ostensible partner during a VR simulation,
those who took the partner's perspective showed higher empathy,
than those who took a different person's perspective (van Loon
et al., 2018). This could be because they understood the partner stu-
dent's context better, which is in agreement with Sánchez
Laws' (2020) finding that background knowledge increases viewers'
perceptions of the scene, and thus, enhances empathetic reactions.
Building on this argument, Nelson et al. (2020) showed that framing
background knowledge, either positively or negatively, affects
viewers' emotional reactions and behaviours.
2.3 |Purpose of research
Although the positive relationship between immersion and
presence suggests that immersive VR can increase empathy,
there is no consensus on the interaction among immersion,
empathy and perspective-taking in immersive VR. Therefore,
more empirical studies are needed to understand how VR
experiences trigger empathetic responses. The goal of this
study is to explore the effect of immersive VR factors on pres-
ence and empathy.
Based on well-founded research on the relationship between
immersion and presence (Adachi et al., 2020; Makransky &
Petersen, 2021; Zhao et al., 2020), and immersion and empathy
(Herrera et al., 2018), one would expect high immersive VR to
evoke more presence and empathy. Conversely, little is known
about the effect of different types of perspective-taking in a first-
person VR, on presence and empathy. Pre-existing knowledge on
this is mixed; it states no effect of viewpoints on presence (Gorisse
et al., 2017), and an indirect positive effect of first-person perspec-
tive on immersion (Ho & Ng, 2020). Moreover, research on empathy
is insufficient to inform which is better in evoking empathetic
responses. In addition to asserting that embodying a virtual self to
be in another's shoes has a positive effect on empathy (Barbot &
Kaufman, 2020), studies also imply that taking the first-person per-
spective of a bystander, without a virtual self per se, could induce
empathy, if information about the situation is provided (Sánchez
Laws, 2020). In the face of little experimental research on this, we
took an exploratory approach to examine how a first-person per-
spective, with and without a virtual body, affects presence and
empathy differently. We further investigated if there was an interac-
tion effect between immersion levels and types of perspective-
taking on presence and empathy.
3|METHODOLOGY
3.1 |Participants
To determine the sample size required, a power analysis was
conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007). It was
found that a total sample of 128 people was required to detect
a medium size effect (f=0.25) (Cohen, 1977), with 80% power
and alpha at 0.05. To allow for missing data, we increased the
TABLE 1 Participant majors by gender
Major Male Female Total
Korean Language Education 12 13 25
English Education 8 8 16
Mathematics Education 11 21 32
History Education 10 4 14
Ethics Education 7 5 12
Japanese Language Education 2 3 5
Physical Education 16 2 18
Early Childhood Education 1 25 26
Total 67 81 148
HAN ET AL.3
target sample size and recruited 149 participants. Among
149, one participant did not complete one set of surveys and
was removed from the final analysis. All 148 participants were
undergraduate students (67 male and 81 female), with various
majors, at the College of Education in South Korea (see
Table 1). Participants were rewardedmonetarilyoncompletion
of all study procedures.
3.2 |Research design and intervention
This study used a mixed design, with one between-subject
variable of immersion level, and one within-subject variable of
perspective-taking, to explore how immersive VR experiences
influenced participants' perceived presence and empathy
levels.
3.2.1 | Level of immersion
A total of 148 participants were randomly assigned to either a high
immersive VR condition with an HMD, or a less immersive VR condition
with a flat-screen device (Figure 1). The HMD used was the Oculus
Quest, an all-in-one VR headset that provides high-quality immersive VR
experiences. For the flat-screen condition, an iPad was used. Both
devices are similar in providing a 360-degree scene. However, HMDs dis-
play objects in the direction of the user's gaze, with 3D inertial sensors
that track and monitor head movements (Xu et al., 2015), and thus, maxi-
mize the realism and immersion of experiences. Moreover, they effec-
tively isolate users from their physical spaces and help focus attention on
the stimuli provided by VR (Witmer & Singer, 1998). Compared to this,
VR experiences with an iPad offer lower immersion, because it has to be
moved 360 degrees to view the surroundings in the VR content. This
makes it possible to retain focus on the laboratory surroundings as well.
FIGURE 1 Screenshot of a participant
with a head-mounted display (left) and
with a flat screen device (right)
FIGURE 2 Screenshots of a virtual patient VR content
4HAN ET AL.
3.2.2 | Perspective-taking
Once assigned to either the high or low immersive condition, partici-
pants watched two VR videos in a random sequence. We carefully
reviewed the pre-recorded VR videos freely available on YouTube, to
select those with perspective-taking designs that positioned partici-
pants differently in the VR narratives. The first VR video was a virtual
patient scenario, which gave a first-person perspective with a virtual
body (Figure 2). In this video, participants were positioned to experi-
ence emergency room situations such as evaluation, surgery and
recovery, from a viewpoint that directly embodied them in the
patient's body. The emergency room scene was shown with live dia-
logues, without any additional narration. This design allowed partici-
pants to feel that they were indeed in the space at that moment—as
the patient in the video. The second VR video was a mural town sce-
nario, wherein participants could virtually tour a neighbourhood
famous for murals, and indirectly experience the residents' distress as
an observer. Unlike the virtual patient VR, they did not have a virtual
body to directly experience the residents' perspectives. Instead, they
only heard noises from the street as a bystander, along with recorded
narrations explaining the disturbance created by so many visitors
(Figure 3).
3.3 |Measures
Participants' immersive tendency, dispositional empathy, presence
and empathy were measured through survey questionnaires.
Immersive tendency and dispositional empathy were control variables
in the pre-survey, since both are individual characteristics that affect
the dependent variables; the level of immersive tendency interacts
with that of immersion in VR, and consequently affects users' pres-
ence and empathy toward the VR content (Shin & Biocca, 2018). Simi-
larly, dispositional empathy is a personal trait related to the tendency
to react to other people's observed experiences (Davis, 1983).
Presence and empathy were included in the post- survey as depen-
dent variables. All survey items were adopted from survey instru-
ments used in previous studies, translated from English to Korean,
and examined for validity by researchers fluent in both Korean and
English.
3.3.1 | Immersive tendency
Items for immersive tendency were drawn from Witmer and
Singer (1998). The original survey comprised 16 items; 14 of these
were adopted for involvement and focus, as the remaining two related
to video game play. Slight modifications were made to phrases and
words of the survey items, to better serve our study purposes.
Involvement was defined as the tendency to become involved in
activities (e.g., Do you ever become so involved in a television program or
book that people have problems getting your attention?). The focus scale
measured tendencies to maintain focus on current activities (e.g., Do
you easily become entirely involved in films or TV shows/dramas?). The
participants responded to each item on a seven-point Likert scale,
with 1 being never; 4, occasionally; and 7, often. The immersive ten-
dency items had good internal validity (Cronbach's α=0. 732, with a
95% confidence interval from 0.663 to 0.791).
3.3.2 | Dispositional empathy
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), developed by Davis (1980),
was used to measure the participants' dispositional empathy level.
The IRI includes four subscales: perspective-taking (e.g., I try to look at
everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision), fantasy
(e.g., I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that
might happen to me), empathic concern (e.g., I often have tender, con-
cerned feelings for people less fortunate than I) and personal distress
(e.g., In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill at ease). Each
FIGURE 3 Screenshots of a mural town VR content
HAN ET AL.5
subscale has seven items, with a total of 28 items. The participants
responded to the items on a five-point scale from 0 (does not describe
me)to5(describes me very well). The Cronbach's alpha value was
0.765, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.706 to 0.817, implying
good internal validity.
3.3.3 | Presence
The participants' perceived presence was measured with the Igroup
Presence Questionnaire (IPQ), “a scale for measuring the sense of
presence experienced in a virtual environment”(Schubert
et al., 2001). It consists of 13 items with three subscales that measure
general presence: involvement (four items, e.g., I was not aware of my
real environment), spatial presence (five items, e.g., I felt that the virtual
world surrounded me) and realism (four items, e.g., How real did the vir-
tual world seem to you?). Three IPQ items employ a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree or not at all)to5(strongly agree
or very much). The internal validity of the items ranged from accept-
able to good (Cronbach's αwas 0.696 for the first post survey, with a
95% confidence interval from 0.618 to 0.764, and 0.743 for the sec-
ond post survey, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.677 to 0.800).
3.3.4 | Empathy
Empathy items were adopted from the Basic Empathy Scale (BES; You
et al., 2018). It measures “the multidimensional aspects of empathetic
feelings”(Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006), and consists of two subscales:
cognitive empathy and affective empathy. We were interested in
understanding participants' reflection and comprehension of others'
emotional states, in each situation delivered through VR. Therefore,
we adopted and modified the cognitive empathy subscale for applica-
tion in these situations, for example, “I can understand the feelings of
the character(s) in the VR content as she/he feels.”The survey
responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly
disagree)to5(strongly agree). The internal validity for situational
empathy ranged from good to excellent (Cronbach's αwas 0.758 for
the first post survey, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.691 to
0.814, and 0.896 for the second post survey, with a 95% confidence
interval from 0.868 to 0.920).
3.4 |Procedure
The experiments were conducted in a laboratory equipped with an
HMD, an iPad and two laptops. Upon arrival, the participants were
briefed about the consenting process, and provided an overview of
the IRB policies. Then, they completed a pre-survey questionnaire on
demographic information (e.g., gender, major and year in college),
immersive tendency and dispositional empathy. Thereafter, they were
provided a short, written description of the VR content they were
about to experience. After reading this, they watched two VR videos
(i.e., a virtual patient and a mural town) for less than 10 min on their
assigned devices. The participants completed the post survey twice,
one after each VR video. These included items on presence and empa-
thy. The entire experiment took about 45 min. At least one researcher
was present, out of the participants' sight, to monitor the procedure,
and two research assistants guided them throughout the experiment.
4|RESULTS
4.1 |The impact of immersion levels on presence
and empathy
First, we examined whether different immersion levels affected pres-
ence and empathy. Descriptive statistics showed that participants
who watched content with high immersive VR felt more spatial pres-
ence, involvement and realism, than those who watched content with
low immersive VR (Table 2).
To determine whether differences in mean scores for the three
subcategories were significant after controlling for individuals'
immersive tendencies, a multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) with a covariate of immersive tendency was conducted.
The result of the Box's test of equality of covariance matrices was sta-
tistically nonsignificant (Box's M=12.27, F=2.00, p=0.06), implying
that it met the homogeneity assumption for a multivariate test. The
MANCOVA confirmed a statistically significant effect of immersion
level on presence (Wilks' λ=0.86, F[3, 143] =7.70, p<0.001, partial
η
2
=0.14). Further, the tests of between-subject effects revealed that
differences were statistically significant in spatial presence (F=10.38,
p=0.002, partial η
2
=0.067) and involvement (F[1, 145] =20.04,
p<0.001, partial η
2
=0.12). However, the difference in realism was
TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics of presence scores by immersion
levels
Immersion MSD N
Spatial Presence Low 15.27 2.69 74
High 16.58 2.10 74
Involvement Low 11.54 2.88 74
High 13.65 2.76 74
Realism Low 7.91 0.88 74
High 7.93 1.15 74
TABLE 3 Descriptive statistics of presence scores by perspective-
taking in VR (N=148)
Presence Perspective-taking MSD
Spatial Presence Mural town (observer) 16.44 2.69
Virtual patient (self) 15.41 3.04
Involvement Mural town (observer) 12.98 3.35
Virtual patient (self) 12.21 3.50
Realism Mural town (observer) 7.92 1.19
Virtual patient (self) 7.92 1.24
6HAN ET AL.
non-significant (F[1, 145] =0.017, p=0.90, η
2
< 0.001). Therefore, as
expected, the high immersive VR increased the participants' percep-
tions of spatial presence and involvement.
Unlike presence, immersion levels did not affect participants'
empathy. Descriptive statistics showed that empathy levels were
almost the same between the high (N=74, M=22.70, SD =3.34)
and low (N=74, M=22.77, SD =3.71) immersive VR groups. After
confirming the homogeneity in variances with the Levene's test
(F[1, 146] =0.41, p=0.52), a one-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was conducted with a covariate of dispositional empathy.
The test result confirmed that there was no significant difference
between empathy levels of the high and low immersive VR groups
(F[1, 145] =0.007, p=0.93, η
2
< 0.001). Hence, we concluded that
immersion levels did not affect empathy, contrary to our hypothesis.
4.2 |Perspective-taking on presence and empathy
Second, we investigated whether perspective-taking affected pres-
ence and empathy differently, using the two VR videos. The partici-
pants obtained slightly higher scores on spatial presence and
involvement, when they experienced the mural town (as an observer),
as compared to the virtual patient (as the patient themselves;
Table 3). However, a repeated MANCOVA with a within-subject vari-
able of perspective-taking and a covariate of immersive tendency,
found no significant effect on presence (Wilks' λ=0.96,
F[3, 144] =0.22, p=0.88, η
2
=0.005). Three univariate tests con-
firmed that there were no significant differences between the two VR
videos in spatial presence (F[1, 146] =0.185, p=0.667, partial
η
2
=0.001), involvement (F[1, 146] =0.415, p=0.520, partial
η
2
=0.003) and realism (F[1, 146] =0.249, p=0.618, partial
η
2
=0.002).
Furthermore, participants showed more empathy after viewing
the mural town (N=148, M=23.50, SD =3.82), than the virtual
patient (N=148, M=21.96, SD =4.60). According to a repeated
ANCOVA, this difference was marginally significant, after
controlling for participants' dispositional empathy from the pretest
(F[1, 146] =3.826, p=0.052, partial η
2
=0.026).
To examine differences according to types of perspective-taking,
we considered the sequence of viewing, as evidence suggests that
sequence could affect perceived presence (Han, 2020). We assumed
that people would react more strongly if they experienced more
immersive VR content first. Descriptive statistics showed that regard-
less of which video was viewed first, the difference in empathy levels
was larger for the first video than the second, although mean scores
for the virtual patient showed less variance (Table 4). To examine
whether these differences were statistically significant, we conducted
two one-way ANCOVAs with a covariate of dispositional empathy for
each exposure. We compared empathy scores for the mural town and
virtual patient when the participants first viewed them. The Levene's
test confirmed equal variances (F[1, 146] =1.03, p=0.31), and a one-
way ANCOVA result showed that the difference in empathy scores
was statistically significant, after controlling for dispositional empathy
(F[1, 145] =10.11, p=0.002, partial η
2
=0.065). On repeating
the analysis for the second exposure, the Levene's test also confirmed
the homogeneity assumption (F[1, 146] =3.57, p=0.061).
However, the difference in empathy evoked by the videos diminished
in the second viewing, and became statistically non-significant
(F[1, 145] =2.63, p=0.11, partial η
2
=0.018). Therefore, when
viewed first in the sequence, the mural town VR video that situated
TABLE 4 Descriptive statistics of
empathy scores by perspective-taking
and sequence Perspective-taking
First in sequence Second in sequence
MSDNMSDN
Mural town (observer) 23.90 3.84 77 23.07 3.79 71
Virtual patient (self) 22.09 3.76 71 21.84 5.28 77
TABLE 5 Descriptive statistics of
presence scores by perspective-taking
and immersion levels
Presence Perspective-taking Immersion MSDN
Spatial presence Mural town (observer) Low 15.80 2.98 74
High 17.08 2.20 74
Virtual patient (self) Low 14.74 3.18 74
High 16.08 2.75 74
Involvement Mural town (observer) Low 11.99 3.20 74
High 13.97 3.21 74
Virtual patient (self) Low 11.09 3.23 74
High 13.33 3.42 74
Realism Mural town (observer) Low 7.92 1.07 74
High 7.92 1.31 74
Virtual patient (self) Low 7.89 1.11 74
High 7.95 1.37 74
HAN ET AL.7
participants in the story as an observer, along with recorded narra-
tions, evoked stronger empathetic reactions, than the virtual patient
VR video that embodied them as the patient.
4.3 |Interaction effects between immersion levels
and perspective-taking
Finally, we examined whether there is an interaction effect between
immersion levels and perspective-taking on presence and situational
empathy. For the virtual patient VR video, participants in the high
immersive VR group had higher scores on the three subscales of pres-
ence, than those in the low immersive VR group (Table 5). Meanwhile,
for the mural town VR video, participants in the high immersive VR
group obtained higher scores only on spatial presence and involve-
ment, as compared to those in the low immersive VR group. Both
groups felt almost the same level of realism for the mural town VR
video. To determine the statistical significance of these differences, a
repeated MANCOVA with a covariate of immersive tendency was
conducted. The result of Box's test of equality of covariance matrices
was borderline (Box's M=34.17, F=1.56, p=0.05). The repeated
MONCOVA results showed that the interaction effect between the
VR content and device types on overall presence was not significant
(Wilks' λ=1.00, F[3, 143] =0.099, p=0.96, η
2
=0.002). Further,
univariate tests confirmed no interaction effect on the three subscales
of presence: spatial presence (F[1, 145] =0.020, p=0.89),
involvement (F[1, 145] =0.24, p=0.62), and realism
(F[1, 145] =0.076, p=0.78).
Next, the interaction effect on empathy was investigated. For the
mural town VR video, participants experiencing low immersive VR felt
slightly more empathetic (M=23.59, SD =3.75, N=74), than those
experiencing high immersive VR (M=23.41, SD =3.92, N=74).
However, for the virtual patient VR video, participants obtained
almost identical scores in the low (M=21.95, SD =5.14, N=74) and
high (M=21.98, SD =4.02, N=74) immersive VR groups. To deter-
mine the statistical significance of these differences, a repeated MAN-
COVA was conducted with a covariate of dispositional empathy. The
results of Box's test of equality of covariance matrices confirmed the
homogeneity assumption (Box's M=5.41, F=1.78, p=0.15). How-
ever, the interaction effect was not statistically significant (Wilks'
λ=1.00, F[1, 145] =0.085, p=0.77, η
2
=0.001).
We further examined interaction effects by considering the expo-
sure sequence. According to the descriptive statistics, the interaction
effect between immersion levels and perspective-taking on empathy
seemed larger for the first viewing (Table 6). For example, when
watching the mural town VR video first, the low immersive VR
induced more empathy than the high immersive VR. The opposite was
true for the virtual patient VR video. However, for the second view-
ing, the difference between the mean scores was lesser, and the high
immersive VR induced more empathy for the mural town, as did the
low immersive VR for the virtual patient.
To examine the differences, a two-way ANCOVA with a covariate
of dispositional empathy was conducted for each exposure sequence.
First, the Levene's tests confirmed equal variances for the first
(F[3, 144] =0.90, p=0.44) and second VR viewing (F[3, 144] =1.89,
p=0.13). The ANCOVA result for the first viewing revealed that
when participants viewed the content first in the sequence, the inter-
action effect between perspective-taking and immersion levels on
empathy was statistically significant, after controlling for dispositional
empathy (F[4, 143] =6.14, p=0.014, partial η
2
=0.041; see
Figure 4). However, no significant interaction effect was found
in empathy scores when either content was viewed second
(F[4, 143] =2.85, p=0.094, partial η
2
=0.020).
5|DISCUSSION
This study adds to existing literature on the uses of immersive VR for
enhancing presence and people's empathy toward others. First, this
study examined the degree to which people felt present and
TABLE 6 Descriptive statistics of
empathy scores by type of perspective-
taking and immersion levels depending
on the sequence
Perspective-taking Immersion
First in sequence Second in sequence
M SDNM SDN
Mural Town (observer) Low 24.84 3.29 37 22.35 3.82 37
High 23.04 4.14 40 23.85 3.65 34
Virtual Patient (self) Low 21.57 4.00 37 22.32 6.10 37
High 22.66 3.45 34 21.40 4.41 40
FIGURE 4 Interaction effect between perspective-taking and
immersion levels on situational empathy for the first viewing
8HAN ET AL.
empathetic in the VR narratives, depending on immersion levels and
perspective-taking. Consistent with previous studies (Filter
et al., 2020; Han, 2020; Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018), it found that
high immersive VR increased perceived presence more than low
immersive VR. However, in this study, high immersive VR did not
increase empathy more than low immersive VR. This result suggests
that immersion alone may not produce empathetic reactions, which is
consistent with research highlighting the interplay among immersion,
empathy and other variables in VR narratives (Nelson et al., 2020;
Sánchez Laws, 2020; Steinfeld, 2020; van Loon et al., 2018). More-
over, empathetic responses may depend on the magnitude of emo-
tions in VR narratives, as immersive VR tends to evoke strong
reactions to stressful or dreadful situations (Fadeev et al., 2020; Kim
et al., 2018). For example, Kim et al. (2018) examined the relationship
between immersion levels and emotional responses, and found that
not every emotion gets amplified through immersive VR. Specifically,
using HMDs for watching a horror movie produced stronger fear reac-
tions, but the viewing device had no influence when watching a movie
intended to induce an empathetic response. In our study, the nature
of the VR videos did not necessarily require a stronger perception of
the situation, thus, the use of HMDs may not have amplified the
empathic emotions as it would have done with a horror movie.
Second, this study found that different types of perspective-
taking did not affect presence levels. Building upon a previous study
that found no effect of either first- or third-person viewpoints on
presence (Gorisse et al., 2017), it further suggests that taking a first-
person perspective with a virtual body does not necessarily increase
presence, in comparison to not having a virtual body. However,
perspective-taking could influence empathy, as participants felt more
empathetic toward the mural town VR video, than the virtual patient
VR video. In viewing the latter, participants experienced the situation
by embodying the patient themselves. Such a bodily representation in
VR produces feelings of self-location (Kilteni et al., 2012). Although it
enhances realism, this sense of self-location does not necessarily cor-
relate with that of “being there,”namely, subjective experiences of
being spatially located in virtual space (Slater, 2009). Moreover,
experiencing a virtual body as a self might not allow viewers to feel
empathy toward others, as there is no “other”(Sánchez Laws, 2020).
This relationship between the sense of self-location and empathy has
been conceptually presented, but rarely examined empirically, which
is a pertinent need. Contrary to the virtual patient video, the mural
town video situated the participants in the narrative as an observer.
From a first-person perspective, the participants were able to observe
the mural town and, with the recorded narrations, learn about the res-
idents' distress. This type of perspective-taking provided targeted
“others”to feel empathy for. Additionally, the narrated story might
have induced more empathy toward the characters. This result is
supported by earlier studies that demonstrated the benefits of story-
telling for empathy (Bang & Yildirim, 2018; Fallace, 2007;
Hibbin, 2016). Furthermore, people tend to be more empathetic to an
unfortunate story (Feshbach & Feshbach, 2011), which was the case
for the mural town VR.
Third, we found an interaction effect between immersion levels
and types of perspective-taking on increasing empathy. It was demon-
strated that generally, taking a first-person perspective without a vir-
tual body in the mural town VR video was better in evoking
empathetic responses. However, the interaction effect suggests that
types of perspective-taking might interact with immersion levels for
triggering emotional reactions. For example, for the virtual patient VR,
participants reported being more empathetic when they used the high
immersive VR, in comparison to the low immersive VR. This result is
consistent with a previous finding which stated that as the feeling of
presence increases, so does the effect of direct perspective-taking on
empathy (van Loon et al., 2018). This could be due to the increased
level of embodiment. Both the VR videos were passive, with low sen-
sorimotor input and no gestures (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-
Romanowicz, 2017). However, while using a virtual body promoted
self-location and embodiment (Kilteni et al., 2012), an HMD enhanced
immersion, further adding to the increased levels of embodiment
(Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017). Therefore, when
high level of immersion is combined with a first-person perspective
with a virtual body, it enhances embodiment and triggers a stronger
emotional reaction.
In contrast, taking a first-person perspective as a bystander, with-
out a virtual body, promoted more empathy in the low immersive
VR. In the mural town VR, participants took the tourists' perspective
and hence could maintain a distance from the residents, toward whom
they showed empathy. In this case, the contextual information pro-
vided by the narrations enhanced participants' understanding and thus
evoked empathy (Bang & Yildirim, 2018; Fallace, 2007; Hibbin, 2016;
Sánchez Laws, 2020), rather than the sense of embodiment or pres-
ence. Considering that a non- or low- immersive virtual environment
is often paired with a third-person perspective to provide more infor-
mation and increase awareness of the surroundings (Galvan Debarba
et al., 2017), taking a bystander's viewpoint might have been better in
evoking empathetic responses in low immersive VR. Therefore, empa-
thetic responses can also be induced when a first-person observer's
perspective is taken in low immersive VR.
6|LIMITATIONS
First, freely available, pre-recorded VR videos were used, making it
difficult to control for extraneous variables, to ensure comparability
between control and intervention groups. Custom-made VR systems
have cost-intensive development, maintenance and software configu-
ration issues (Mantovani et al., 2003), and thus, are not easily accessi-
ble to educators. Hence, educational researchers and practitioners
mostly use widely available, free VR content (Freeman et al., 2017).
We purposefully did the same, so that our research implications would
be meaningful in an educational context. However, considering the
emerging nature of the field, a follow-up study with more controlled
interventions needs to be conducted to better inform VR design
decisions.
HAN ET AL.9
The study used VR videos with passive VR, without direct manip-
ulation affordances. Considering that interactivity affects the sense of
agency and embodiment in VR (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-
Romanowicz, 2017; Makransky & Petersen, 2021), future research
needs to further explore whether increased embodiment with sensori-
motor input and gesture congruency would help people develop more
empathy than a passive, low embodied VR.
Additionally, we acknowledge the limitation of using self-reported
measures. While the study used measures that have been validated in
many previous studies, triangulating self-reported data with other
sources, such as interviews, could have enhanced result interpreta-
tions. Moreover, a mixed method, using qualitative data, could have
provided a holistic understanding of immersion levels, participants'
prior experiences of VR stories, sense of presence, and empathy.
7|CONCLUSION
This study explored the possibility of using immersive VR to enhance empa-
thy in educational contexts. With the world becoming increasingly inter-
connected, empathy has been recognized as an essential competence for
students and teachers (Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Warren, 2018), both
nationally and internationally (Deardorff, 2009; OECD, 2019;
UNESCO, 2013). While some studies have examined the role of immersive
VR in developing empathy in journalism (de la Peña, 2010; Sánchez
Laws, 2020; Shin, 2018), those suggesting its educational uses are rare.
This study contributes to literature on this topic, by guiding the
application of this new technology in educational settings, for enhanc-
ing empathy among preservice teachers. It particularly explored the
fundamental relationships among VR constructs. For example, using
HMDs induced more empathetic reactions, when learners directly
experienced VR content as a protagonist from a first-person perspec-
tive. The use of low immersive VR is educationally beneficial when
learners experience VR content as a simple bystander. It can be con-
cluded that the use of VR devices needs to be aligned with the design
of VR content, and choosing the appropriate educational content and
device is important for increasing learners' empathy and presence.
Despite these limitations, this exploratory study can be used as a
reference to design and develop follow-up studies on using VR for
instructional interventions, for increasing empathy among both stu-
dents and teachers, and in turn, developing affective competencies
required in education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Incheon National University Research
Grant in 2019 (#2019-0076).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no potential conflict of interest.
PEER REVIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.
com/publon/10.1111/jcal.12669.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Won Sug Shin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6391-4182
REFERENCES
Adachi, R., Cramer, E. M., & Song, H. (2020). Using virtual reality for tour-
ism marketing: A mediating role of self-presence. The Social Science
Journal. Advance Online Publication,1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03623319.2020.1727245
Archer, D., & Finger, K. (2018). Walking in another's virtual shoes: Do
360-degree video news stories generate empathy in viewers?. Tow Cen-
ter for Digital Journalism, Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.
7916/D8669W5C
Bang, E., & Yildirim, C. (2018). Virtually empathetic? Examining the effects
of virtual reality storytelling on empathy. Proceedings international
conference on virtual augmented and mixed reality (pp. 290–298).
Barbot, B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). What makes immersive virtual reality
the ultimate empathy machine? Discerning the underlying mechanisms
of change. Computers in Human Behavior,111, 106431. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106431
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but dis-
tinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience
of empathy (pp. 85–97). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/
9780262012973.003.0002
Bertrand, P., Guegan, J., Robieux, L., McCall, C. A., & Zenasni, F. (2018).
Learning empathy through virtual reality: Multiple strategies for train-
ing empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embod-
ied virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI,5, 26. https://doi.org/10.
3389/frobt.2018.00026
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in vir-
tual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,3(2),
JCMC324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x
Blasco, P. G., & Moreto, G. (2012). Teaching empathy through movies:
Reaching learners' affective domain in medical education. Journal of
Education and Learning,1(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.
v1n1p22
Breves, P. (2020). Bringing people closer: The prosocial effects of
immersive media on users' attitudes and behavior. Nonprofit and Vol-
untary Sector Quarterly,49(5), 1015–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0899764020903101
Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immer-
sion. Proceedings of CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in
computing systems (pp. 1297–1300).
Brown, L. (2011). Revisiting our roots: Caring in nursing curriculum design.
Nurse Education in Practice,11(6), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nepr.2011.03.007
Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2019). Empathy, teaching dispositions, social justice
and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching,25(5), 507–522.
Calvert, J., Abadia, R., & Tauseef, S. M. (2019). Design and testing of a vir-
tual reality enabled experience that enhances engagement and simu-
lates empathy for historical events and characters. Proceedings of the
26th IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, VR
2019 (pp. 868–869).
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Aca-
demic Press.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of
3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology,
41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences
in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,10, 85.
10 HAN ET AL.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evi-
dence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.
1.113
de la Peña, N., Weil, P., Llobera, J., Giannopoulos, E., Pomés, A.,
Spanlang, B., Friedman, D., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2010).
Immersive journalism: Immersive virtual reality for the first-person
experience of news. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
19(4), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00005
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Understanding the challenges of assessing global
citizenship. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in
study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship
(pp. 346–364). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203
876640-29
Dede, C., & Richards, J. (2017). Strategic Planning for R&D on
Immersive Learning. In D. Liu, C. Dede, R. Huang, & J. Richards
(Eds.), Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education
(pp. 237–244). Springer.
Donnelly, F., McLiesh, P., & Bessell, S. A. (2020). Using 360video to
enable affective learning in nursing education. Journal of Nursing
Education,59(7), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-
20200617-11
Fadeev, K. A., Smirnov, A. S., Zhigalova, O. P., Bazhina, P. S.,
Tumialis, A. V., & Golokhvast, K. S. (2020). Too real to be virtual: Auto-
nomic and EEG responses to extreme stress scenarios in virtual reality.
Behavioural Neurology,2020, 5758038. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2020/5758038
Fallace, T. D. (2007). Once more unto the breach: Trying to get preservice
teachers to link historiographical knowledge to pedagogy. Theory &
Research in Social Education,35(3), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00933104.2007.10473343
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behav-
ioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,39,
175–191.
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (2011). Empathy and education. In J.
Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 85–
97). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.
003.0008
Filter, E., Eckes, A., Fiebelkorn, F., & Büssing, A. G. (2020). Virtual reality
nature experiences involving wolves on YouTube: Presence, emotions,
and attitudes in immersive and nonimmersive settings. Sustainability,
12(9), 3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093823
Freeman, A., Becker, A. S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Giesinger, H. C.
(2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon report: 2017 K–12 edition. The New Media
Consortium.
Galvan Debarba, H., Bovet, S., Salomon, R., Blanke, O., Herbelin, B., &
Boulic, R. (2017). Characterizing first and third person viewpoints and
their alternation for embodied interaction in virtual reality. PLoS One,
12(12), e0190109. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190109
Gorisse, G., Christmann, O., Amato, E. A., & Richir, S. (2017). First-and
third-person perspectives in immersive virtual environments: Presence
and performance analysis of embodied users. Frontiers in Robotics and
AI,4, 33.
Han, I. (2020). Immersive virtual field trips in education: A mixed-methods
study on elementary students' presence and perceived learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology,51(2), 420–435.
Han, I., & Patterson, T. (2020, April). Immersive virtual reality for presence,
empathy, and situational interest [Roundtable Session]. AERA Annual
Meeting San Francisco, CA (Conference Canceled), https://tinyurl.
com/y5h6axax
Herrera, F., Bailenson, 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. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204494
Hibbin, R. (2016). The psychosocial benefits of oral storytelling in school:
Developing identity and empathy through narrative. Pastoral Care in
Education,34(4), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2016.
1225315
Ho, J. C., & Ng, R. (2020). Perspective-taking of non-player characters in
prosocial virtual reality games: Effects on closeness, empathy, and
game immersion. Behaviour & Information Technology,1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1864018
Jaber, L. Z., Southerland, S., & Dake, F. (2018). Cultivating epistemic empa-
thy in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
72,13–23.
Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality
head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Infor-
mation Technologies,23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-017-9676-0
Johnson, C. D. (2018). Using virtual reality and 360-degree video in the
religious studies classroom: An experiment. Teaching Theology & Reli-
gion,21(3), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12446
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2018). Immersive VR and education: Embod-
ied design principles that include gesture and hand controls. Fron-
tiers in Robotics and AI,5, 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.
00081
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2017). Embodied
science and mixed reality: How gesture and motion capture affect
physics education. Cognitive research: principles and implications,2(1),
1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0060-9
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the
basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence,29(4), 589–611. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in vir-
tual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,21(4),
373–387. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00124
Kim, A., Chang, M., Choi, Y., Jeon, S., & Lee, K. (2018). The effect of immer-
sion on emotional responses to film viewing in a virtual environment.
25th IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user Interfaces (pp.
601–602).
Knigge, M., Krauskopf, K., & Wagner, S. (2019). Improving socio-emotional
competencies using a staged video-based learning program? Results of
two experimental studies. Frontiers.Education,4(142). https://doi.org/
10.3389/feduc.2019.00142
Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2012). The relationship between bullying,
victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy
among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education,15(1), 41–58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9
Lee, E. A. L., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual
reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling
approach. Computers & Education,55(4), 1424–1442. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006
Makransky, G., Andreasen, N. K., Baceviciute, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2020).
Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a sci-
ence simulation and generative learning strategies promote learning in
immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology,113, 719–
735. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473
Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling
investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in
education. Educational Technology Research and Development,66(5),
1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of
immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of
learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review,33,
937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive
virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but
less learning. Learning and Instruction,60, 225–236. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
HAN ET AL.11
Mantovani,F.,Castelnuovo,G.,Gaggioli,A.,&Riva,G.(2003).Virtual
reality training for health-care professionals. Cyber Psychology &
Behavior,6(4), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1089/10949310332
2278772
McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching cultur-
ally diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs. Journal of
Teacher Education,53(5), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002248702237397
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality
multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology,94(3), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.94.3.598
Nelson, K. M., Anggraini, E., & Schlüter, A. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool
for environmental conservation and fundraising. PLoS One,15(4),
e0223631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223631
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual
reality. Journal of Educational Psychology,110(6), 785–797. https://doi.
org/10.1037/edu0000241
Pecukonis, E. V. (1990). A cognitive/affective empathy training program as
a function of ego development in aggressive adolescent females. Ado-
lescence,25(97), 59–76.
Rogers, G. D., Mey, A., & Chan, P. C. (2017). Development of a phenome-
nologically derived method to assess affective learning in student
journals following impactive educational experiences. Medical
Teacher,39(12), 1250–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.
2017.1372566
Sánchez Laws, A. L. (2020). Can immersive journalism enhance empathy?
Digital Journalism,8(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.
2017.1389286
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of
presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments,10(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601
300343603
Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment:
To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied
experience? Computers in Human Behavior,78,64–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012
Shin, D., & Biocca, F. (2018). Exploring immersive experience in journalism.
New Media & Society,20(8), 2800–2823. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444817733133
Shoffner, M. (2009). The place of the personal: Exploring the affective
domain through reflection in teacher preparation. Teaching and
Teacher Education,25(6), 783–789.
Slater, M. (1999). Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and
Singer presence questionnaire. Presence: teleoperators and virtual
environments, 8(5), 560-565
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behav-
iour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B Biological Sciences,364(1535), 3549–3557. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with
immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI,3, 74.
Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993). Representations systems, perceptual posi-
tion, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,2(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/
10.1162/pres.1993.2.3.221
Steinfeld, N. (2020). To be there when it happened: Immersive journalism,
empathy, and opinion on sexual harassment. Journalism Practice,14(2),
240–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1704842
UNESCO. (2013). Intercultural competences: Conceptual and operational
framework. UNESCO.
van Loon, A., Bailenson, J., Zaki, J., Bostick, J., & Willer, R. (2018). Virtual
reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific
others. PLoS One,13(8), e0202442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0202442
Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for
culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education,69(2),
169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual envi-
ronments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Vir-
tual Environments,7(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/
105474698565686
Xu, X., Chen, K. B., Lin, J. H., & Radwin, R. G. (2015). The accuracy of the
oculus rift virtual reality head-mounted display during cervical spine
mobility measurement. Journal of Biomechanics,48(4), 721–724.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.005
You, S., Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2018). Validation of basic empathy scale: Explor-
ing a Korean version. Current Psychology,37(4), 726–730. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12144-016-9554-8
Zhao, J., LaFemina, P., Carr, J., Sajjadi, P., Wallgrün, J. O., & Klippel, A.
(2020). Learning in the field: Comparison of desktop, immersive virtual
reality, and actual field trips for place-based stem education. 2020
IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 893–
902. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00012
How to cite this article: Han, I., Shin, H. S., Ko, Y., & Shin, W.
S. (2022). Immersive virtual reality for increasing presence and
empathy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12669
12 HAN ET AL.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
