Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article introduces a methodological framework for the qualitative analysis of immersive non-fiction virtual reality (VR) storyworlds, focusing on the unique features of VR as a medium for storyliving. In VR, users are not merely watching a story unfold on a screen—they are inside the experience, actively engaging with and storyliving the immersive narrative as it unfolds around them. VR is a spatial, embodied, interactive, multisensory, perceptually rich, affective, and user-oriented medium. The proposed methodology addresses key elements of VR storyworld analysis, such as spatial and temporal design, user roles and perspectives, relationality, emotional engagement, and multisensory embodiment. The framework highlights the importance of examining how VR constructs distance and proximity across multiple experiential domains. Distance and proximity are not just spatial concepts; they are, rather, intricately connected to the domains of temporality, relationality, emotional engagement, and multisensory perceptual inputs. Drawing on interdisciplinary approaches, including visual narrative studies, haptic media studies, and embodied narrative inquiry, this methodology provides a structured approach to analyzing how VR storyliving is constructed and experienced.

Keywords

virtual reality qualitative analysis storyliving storyworld non-fiction VR space time perspective relationality emotions embodiment

Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) is a medium of storyliving, not merely storytelling (Kazlauskaitė, 2024; Maschio, 2017, 2022; Vallance & Towndrow, 2022). It is a spatial, embodied, interactive, multisensory, perceptually rich, affective, and user-oriented medium. What distinguishes VR from earlier media technologies is that VR must closely mirror and respond to the movements of the human body (Lanier, 2017). VR provides a visceral experience and a feeling of “being there” (Kazlauskaitė, 2023; Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Lombard & Jones, 2015) while witnessing another’s situation or emotional story, and/or participating in another spatial or temporal setting. VR storyworlds integrate the experience of an immersive spatial environment with the experience of a story, creating a unified sensory and narrative experience. A key difference from simply watching a story unfold on a screen is that, in VR, users are “inside” the virtual storyworld; they are living the story within the virtual space and they are foregrounded as the “experiencers” of these storyworlds (Aylett & Louchart, 2003). As users turn their heads and move their bodies, a changing scene is rendered and new perceptual information is sent to the senses. When the sensory information provided by the virtual environment aligns with the brain’s expectations of how interactions should unfold, the virtual experience feels immersive. These characteristics of VR guide the framework for analyzing non-fiction VR storyworlds.

Despite the rapid growth of immersive VR content, there remains a significant methodological gap in how to analyze these experiences, particularly non-fiction VR storyworlds. These non-fiction immersive storyworlds include VR documentaries and journalism, educational content, and history and heritage experiences. While the framework presented here is designed with non-fiction VR in mind, it also holds potential for broader application to narrative-driven and affectively rich fictional VR. However, especially game-based VR content, which is more structured around interactivity, goal-oriented play, and game mechanics, may require different analytical tools rooted in ludology and interaction design.

Some notable examples of recent scholarly efforts to provide methodological guidelines for the qualitative analysis of VR content include the content analysis approach by Jones et al. (2022), which introduces the practicalities of undertaking an analysis of the VR game Half-Life: Alyx; the medium-conscious narratological and reader-response analysis by Bell and Ensslin applied to digital fiction (2024); analysis of storytelling in immersive VR journalism (Uskali et al., 2021); analysis of screen grammar in cinematic VR by Dooley (2021); and the process view of narrative applied to VR by Aylett and Louchart (2003). While existing approaches offer valuable insights into methods for analyzing VR experiences, focusing on narrative design or user experience, they tend to provide case-specific and fragmented methodological ideas. What is still lacking is a comprehensive analytical framework for qualitative research that can be applied by social scientists across a range of non-fiction VR content. This article addresses this gap by proposing a methodological framework that guides researchers through the qualitative analysis of non-fiction VR content.

Storyliving VR Narratives

The proposed framework intersects with approaches in visual narrative studies (Pimenta & Poovaiah, 2010), but it goes further by incorporating an exploration of the embodied and multisensory dimensions of VR narratives, beyond ocularcentrism (Kazlauskaitė, 2021). In particular, the elements of touch and haptics need to be incorporated into the analysis of VR narratives (Parisi & Archer, 2017; Parisi et al., 2017).

Narrative is characterized by the presence of both a story (a sequence of events) and a storyteller (Scholes et al., 2006, p. 4). Pimenta and Poovaiah (2010, p. 31) define a story as “a universe that mimics the real or imagined world but is different from the viewer’s world.” This distinction highlights the fundamental difference between VR storyworlds and other visual narratives: in VR, the user shares the spatial and temporal context of the story and characters in it. Since a VR storyworld unites both a narrative and a spatial, embodied experience of users, it extends the domain of narrative as storytelling into the domain of storyliving. As Wilcox et al. (2003, p. 427) observe, “stimuli presented in immersive environments are not correctly processed as symbols and so elicit the same responses as in live interactions.”

With its emphasis on storyliving, VR draws strong parallels to the oral tradition (Maschio, 2022), as it mirrors the immersive nature of rituals and performances of myths, where stories are not merely told, but lived. Participation in rituals and ceremonies can provide identity markers, establish group boundaries, develop and reinforce community bonds, inform participants about their roles in the group, as well as facilitate personal and community transformations (Kealiinohomoku, 1997, p. 70). Like ritualized performances of myths, VR storyliving allows individuals to experience complex emotional states as well as participate in and enact a story in an embodied way: “Myths are not to be seen as stories but as geographically rooted providers of images which, through juxtaposition, enable locals to experience complex emotional states. Thus, myths are not so much narrated as lived, especially at heightened ritualized moments” (MacClancy, 2010, p. 261). VR stories, as immersive digital myths, are not merely recounted from a distance but are experienced firsthand, with participants actively engaging in and living out the narratives. Immersion and interaction transform the virtual experience into something akin to the embodied performances of oral myths, where meaning is co-created through direct engagement with and participating in the narrative. One interviewee in Maschio’s (2022, p. 17) ethnographic study illustrates this point by elaborating on what VR storyliving entails:

It’s like putting on a shell and I can move in ways my body can’t move in and go to places my physical body can’t necessarily go to, giving me a certain newness of mind. It is a shape shifting device. I can become a rat, a helicopter, or another person and that is a new feeling, something that happens in dreams.

Just as users can learn a new skill in VR by physically mimicking the movements, they can also adopt, learn, and rehearse certain attitudes, values, and behaviors in VR, by embodying story-prescribed movements, modes of feeling and/or relation within the virtual spaces. Virtual storyworlds are designed to evoke a particular sense of place, which becomes a setting for rehearsing and performing a virtual self. A virtual self assigns a role and a perspective to users, guiding them to adopt and enact specific actions and interactions, not only with the environment but also with other users or characters in VR stories. A virtual self models users’ behaviors, attitudes, values, and beliefs. Like myths, VR provides an opportunity to simultaneously be both itself and something else, to be both here and somewhere else, or, in other words, to inhabit multiple spatiotemporal dimensions and selves.

In this sense, VR is a transformative technology and medium. As an “affective medium” capable of evoking complex emotions (Mancuso et al., 2023; Riva et al., 2007), VR significantly impacts memory. Research has demonstrated that VR can elicit specific emotional reactions such as awe, gratitude, or anxiety (Chirico et al., 2018; Collange & Guegan, 2020; Felnhofer et al., 2015). Emotionally charged experiences enhance attention and trigger strong affective responses, making it more likely that these experiences will be remembered vividly and in detail (Mancuso et al., 2023). A key finding on the impact of VR on memory is that VR experiences become part of the users’ autobiographical memory (Bluck et al., 2005; Kisker et al., 2021a, 2021b; Schöne et al., 2019, 2023). Autobiographical memory is shaped by factors such as personal relevance, self-referential processing, and self-involvement (Conway, 2005; Roediger & Marsh, 2003), all of which are intrinsic to VR experiences, as VR emphasizes the role of users as the “experiencers.” Autobiographical memory shapes users’ beliefs and understanding of who they are and who they can become, how they relate to others, how they evaluate the significance of past events, the futures they imagine, and how they plan for those futures (Conway, 2005; Fivush, 2011). By providing new, emotionally impactful experiences that are remembered as something that happened to “me,” VR can reshape users’ interpretations of past events, influence their perceptions of themselves and others, as well as guide their future-oriented actions and behaviors.

By analyzing how VR storyworlds are designed, we can critically assess how they may shape individuals’ sense of self and their understanding of the world around them. It is important to recognize, however, that a VR storyworld can evoke varying experiences and emotional responses depending on users’ cultural backgrounds, personal histories, attention levels, and contexts of engaging with VR. While immersive experiences can evoke a wide range of interpretive and emotional responses, the framework proposed here does not aim to account for all user variability. Instead, it begins with a focused analysis of the experiential design features of the VR storyworld, as experienced by the researcher.

This analysis focuses on a first-person “experiencer” point of view, which is central to the VR medium. The researcher examines the design of the storyworld by describing what it feels like to storylive it. The elements of the storyworld design are described as they are perceived by the researcher, emphasizing and showcasing how user’s personal experience contributes to creating the narrative. This is important because, as Aylett and Louchart (2003, p. 6) note, users in VR “play a central part in the building of the story and their own overall experience since this depends upon their actions, reactions and behaviour within the world itself.”

As the “experiencer” in the storyworld, the researcher provides a detailed account of how the narrative unfolds, how its visual, spatial, auditory, interactive elements are perceived, and what emotional reactions arise. This method aims to capture both the structure of the storyworld and its felt impact on the individual within it, or, in other words, both the “textual features” and the “reader constructions” of the text (Bortolussi & Dixon, 2002, p. 37). The first-person viewpoint allows the researcher to describe and assess storyworld elements as they are directly encountered in the virtual environment, providing insights into the mechanisms by which VR storyworlds create meaning, evoke emotions, and potentially shape identity and worldviews. This analysis of the storyworld design could be integrated with broader user experience research, which explores how different individuals respond to and make sense of the virtual storyworlds. Such research might draw on the core questions introduced in the proposed framework to explore variable user responses. Combining these approaches can provide a more comprehensive understanding of both the structural design and the diverse ways it can be reinterpreted by users.

In analyzing VR storyworlds, four foundational questions serve as the starting point for analyzing the immersive experience:

1. Where am I?

• What kind of world is the user inhabiting, and how is this spatiotemporal context constructed to facilitate specific feelings, meanings, or actions?

2. Who am I?

• What role, perspective, and identity is the user assigned, and how does this virtual identity shape their interactions and behaviors? What does it feel like to be in the storyworld?

3. Who am I with, and what is our relation?

• Who are the other characters or users present, and what are the relationships and interactions between them and the user?

4. What am I doing?

• What is the user physically doing in the virtual space? How do VR storyworlds use embodied presence—through vision, touch, audition, movement, and interaction—to facilitate specific feelings, meanings, or actions?

In the sections that follow, I expand on each of these guiding questions and propose additional considerations for analysis.

Where am I? Space, Time, Situation

This section outlines the first step of the methodological framework, focused on analyzing the spatiotemporal context of the VR storyworld. VR is a spatial medium. It immerses users in synthetic places, or storyworlds, that are experienced from within, in embodied and perceptually rich ways. Consequently, VR experiences are remembered as events that happened “to me” in a specific location and at a certain time, not as a story watched unfolding on a screen (Schöne et al., 2023). There is an inherent link between spatial experiences and memory (Bond, 2021; Sutton, 2024). As VR experiences take place in spatial immersive environments, they are integrated into users’ autobiographical memory (Riva et al., 2024). As Riva and Wiederhold (2022, p. 356) highlight, for our brains, “our location is the space we can move through, not the space we are seeing. […] videoconferencing systems and other digital social platforms are not places, and, therefore, do not directly connect the experiences we have within them with our autobiographical memory.” Thus, for example, experiences on social media are not integrated within autobiographical memory in the same way that VR experiences are.

Space and Time

Users inhabit the time and space of the storyworld. In VR, this virtual space-time merges with actual physical time and space and can be perceived by the senses of the body. Users are simultaneously both “here” and “there.” As a result, users do not just learn about the storyworld—they experience it by living it (Maschio, 2017). The virtual space is deliberately crafted by its creators to become a specific kind of place, designed to evoke a certain atmosphere, emotional responses, and meaning (Kazlauskaitė, 2024). In other words, immersive storyworlds structure meaning-making by acting as virtual models or cognitive templates for interpreting the self within a given space. The crafted sense of place imparts essential experiential knowledge to users, shaping their understanding and emotional responses to the storyworld. In some VR experiences, the spatiotemporal navigation can become so prominent that it overshadows narrative progression, creating explorable worlds “without a narrative organization of content” (Arcagni & D’Aloia, 2021, p. 3).

Spaces and places form the foundation of our lived experiences. Spaces evolve into places when people become familiar with them, assigning personal value and meaning to them (Tuan, 2001 [1977], p. 3). In VR, spaces and places similarly serve as fundamental components of the storylived experience. Virtual environments, or “story-places,” are carefully crafted by their creators to evoke a distinct sense of place which should trigger specific emotional response. However, the meaning of these virtual places is not solely constructed by their creators—it is co-created and reinterpreted by users, who interact with and move through these places, infusing them with their own personal meanings and emotions on the basis of personal contexts and histories (e.g., Bell & Ensslin, 2024).

Space is intertwined with time. Not only does space exist in the present, as Tuan (2001 [1977], p. 119) observes, but it is also experienced in the present. In VR, whether users are engaging with representations of past events or speculative future scenarios, they are immersed in these environments as if they are unfolding in real-time. The sense of immersion and presence in VR collapses the temporal distance, making the past and future feel accessible and immediate. This sensation of “being there” blurs the boundaries between different timeframes, which is why VR is frequently marketed as a time-travel machine. The promise of VR to transport users into different historical moments or imagined futures, while simultaneously grounding them in the “now” of the virtual experience, highlights how this technology can be used to manipulate users’ perception of both spatial and temporal dimensions. Some VR experiences utilize spatial immersion to represent multiple temporalities within a single immersive environment. These temporal layers may coexist, overlap, or allow users to move seamlessly between different time periods, offering a unique narrative structure (e.g., Book of Distance VR; The Changing Same Ep.1; Here VR; see also Kazlauskaitė, 2022b). In such experiences, users can explore the past, present, and future simultaneously, all within the same virtual space, blurring the boundaries between different temporal dimensions.

Distance and Proximity in Space and Time

By encountering unfamiliar places, past situations, potential future scenarios, and people in virtual storyworlds, users are positioned at varying levels of proximity or distance (Kazlauskaitė, 2022b). These spatiotemporal contexts act as experiential models, encouraging users to reflect on what it would feel like to inhabit these situations or to consider how others might have experienced them. In some VR experiences, users have the ability to navigate VR storyworlds freely, physically interacting with objects by touching, holding, or manipulating them, thus collapsing the spatial distance and enhancing the sense of presence (e.g., Book of Distance VR; The Dawn of Art). Conversely, other VR experiences position users as fixed observers or witnesses—immersed in the space yet simultaneously interactively distanced (e.g., immersive 360° videos). The spatial proximity or distance of other characters or users in the storyworld also conveys meaning. For instance, an “enemy” character approaching the users closely and intruding into their personal space can be used in the narrative to evoke feelings of fear and threat (Kazlauskaitė, 2022a). Similarly, observing a character encroaching on someone else’s territory or occupying a space that does not belong to them can be used in the narrative to provoke feelings of anger, resentment, and indignation (for more on proxemic conventions of communication, see Hall, 1959, 1966, 1974).

Applying the Framework: Guiding Questions

The analysis of VR storyworlds should, therefore, begin by examining their spatiotemporal setting. The design of such a setting in virtual storyworlds provides users with both implicit and explicit rules on how to behave and relate to the virtual situation. VR storyworlds serve as a spatiotemporal setting for the rehearsal of appropriate responses to particular situations or scenarios involving interaction with one’s environment. Additionally, they may provide an immersive space for reflection and exploration of different points of view and alternative courses of action. To guide the analysis, the following analytical questions (Table 1) can serve as a framework. The researcher engages with the VR experience, taking detailed notes during and/or after the experience. The researcher attends closely to how the space is organized, how it feels to move through it, and how the temporal positioning is structured. Observations may also include emotional reactions to the spatiotemporal setting, a sense of spatial restriction or freedom of movement, and the sensory qualities of the environment. These questions should be applied to each distinct segment of the experience (e.g., location, scene, chapter) to produce a comprehensive analysis of how it contributes to the overall experience.

Table 1.

Analysis of Spatiotemporal Context

Spatial context	How is the virtual space organized? How does it feel to be “there”? What sense of place does it evoke?
Spatial mobility	What level of navigation and interactivity is possible? Are users able to navigate the space freely, physically interacting with objects, or are they restricted in their movement? Are users embodied within the space (e.g., walking, feeling their virtual presence, seeing the virtual limbs or the reflection of the avatar in mirrors)?
Visual style	What is the visual style of the environment? Is the virtual environment photorealistic or graphically stylized, and how does this influence the user experience?
Agency in spatial organization	Are users placed directly into a predefined virtual space? Are they participating in the co-construction of the virtual environment?
Temporal context	What is the temporal context? Does the VR environment present multiple temporal contexts within a single immersive space?
Temporal mobility	Are users able to move across temporal contexts, or are they restricted to certain moments in time?

However, spatial and temporal context alone do not determine meaning-making. Just as important is the way the user is positioned within the storyworld—what role they inhabit, whose perspective they are made to adopt, and how they are invited to feel and act as particular virtual selves. The next step in the framework therefore turns to the question: Who am I and who am I with?

Who am I and Who am I With? Role, Perspective, Relationality, and Emotions

This section outlines the second step of the framework. It builds on two core questions: Who am I? and Who am I with? Just as a VR storyworld models a spatiotemporal environment, it also defines how users should embody a specific character within it. Moreover, in the process of defining the virtual self, VR storyworlds establish guidelines for how users are expected to relate to other characters in the story, including both in-groups and out-groups. Sharing space with others in the virtual environment further contributes to a distinct sense of place. It also helps to construct a virtual identity, shaping the understanding of who “I” or “we” are in the context of the storyworld, who “they” are, and how “I” or “we” should relate to “them,” the surrounding environment, or the represented events, whether in the past, present, or future. In this context, distance and proximity are key storytelling and storyliving tools in shaping how users inhabit the virtual storyworlds, relate to others in them, and what kind of virtual selves they enact.

Relational Distance and Proximity

The strategic design of distance and proximity can be implemented through a variety of elements. Kazlauskaitė (2022b) highlights the significance of examining how immersive VR experiences position users in relation to the represented events or experiences. Users can be positioned to adopt different modes of relation, such as projection, replication, rupture, and dialogical interaction with the represented events or experiences. These modes are not mutually exclusive. They are structured using relational proximity and distance, which may be combined in different ways to create a distinctive approach in each VR experience.

Projection in VR storyworlds involves a first-person, embodied perspective, where users are positioned to interpret the represented experiences or events through the lens of their own values, feelings, and beliefs. When users attempt to emotionally connect with the represented experiences or events in this mode, they typically imagine how they would feel in another’s place, but without fully considering the differences between their perspective and that of the people they are trying to understand. Projection prompts users to ask: What would it be like for me to be there? This perspective is referred to as the “imagine-self perspective” (Batson, 2009). It is self-oriented, and its defining characteristic is that it evokes both empathic concern and personal distress, the latter being linked with negative feelings of worry, alarm, grievance, and upset (Batson et al., 1997; Batson, 2009). While personal distress may motivate prosocial action, it can make a person become so focused on their own personal distress that they lose sight of the other’s situation altogether (Batson, 2009).

Dialogical attention is a second-person mode of engaging with events or experiences, characterized by a balance between active engagement and disengagement. Unlike the third-person detachment or the first-person projection of oneself onto the events, this approach involves encountering the events as distinct from oneself while simultaneously engaging with them emotionally, morally, or ideologically. The dialogical second-person mode situates the user in an embodied perspective that acknowledges the difference between the self and the other. In this mode, emotional connection does not imply a loss of critical distance; instead, it fosters a self-reflexive process. This perspective has been defined as the “imagine-other” perspective (Batson, 2009). It is other-oriented and focuses on the effects of the situation on the other. An imagine-other perspective elicits empathic concern, fostering more positive emotions such as compassion, tenderness, warmth, and softhearted sympathy for the other. Unlike the imagine-self perspective, it maintains distance and does not provoke empathic distress because the identification and projection onto the other’s experience is not as intense.

Replication represents a third-person, detached perspective on events or experiences, which are observed from an external, objective point of view (Kazlauskaitė, 2022b). The focus is on the accurate replication and reconstruction of events or experiences in specific spatiotemporal contexts. In this mode, the goal is to create a mimetic match between the events and their representation, ensuring fidelity to the facts and accuracy of representation. Emotional connection is not the primary objective in this approach; rather, the focus is on minimizing subjective biases and affective responses.

Finally, the fourth mode of relation to the represented events or experiences is that of rupture (Kazlauskaitė, 2022b). In this approach, the events or experiences are presented as unknowable, alien, and incomprehensible. Any effort to understand or fully grasp the events is considered futile or unsuccessful, as they are seen as so fundamentally different that they defy interpretation from the present perspective. The gap between the user’s current understanding and the events themselves is so vast that it cannot be bridged, emphasizing an unresolvable distance between them. Several of these modes of relation can be combined in a single VR experience, or a single mode may be prioritized.

User Roles

Distance and proximity in VR can also be designed by assigning users specific roles—such as embodied witness, disembodied witness, participant, or impersonator—each shaping the user’s relationship to the virtual environment and the events within it (e.g., Kazlauskaitė, 2021).

As an embodied witness, the user is represented as a virtual self within the environment. They may be partially or fully embodied and have visible virtual limbs, hear their own voice, and be acknowledged by other characters through direct eye contact or dialogue. The spatial and emotional proximity to other characters in the embodied witness role may cause feelings of anxiety and discomfort or sympathy and closeness (e.g., Dooley, 2020). Although embodied witnesses are observers rather than active participants, their presence in the immersive space still affects how they perceive and are affected by the unfolding events.

In contrast, as a disembodied witness, the user takes on a ghost-like, invisible role, hovering in the virtual space without a visible body or direct engagement with the characters. While still “inside” the storyworld, disembodied witnesses maintain a more distanced observational stance. However, even though they observe unfolding events without interacting, their presence within the virtual environment keeps them from being entirely neutral or detached from the experience.

Participants move beyond observation to take an active role in the virtual events. They may be embodied fully or partially, and their actions, interactions, and choices directly shape the narrative as it unfolds.

Finally, as an impersonator, the user occupies the body or role of another individual within the virtual environment. This role can have negative ethical and psychological implications, such as the phenomenon of “toxic re-embodiment” (Nakamura, 2020), where user’s identification may be harmful and inappropriate. Similarly, this role may risk fostering “improper distance” (Chouliaraki, 2011; Nash, 2018), where users fail to maintain a critical perspective on the experiences or virtual identities they inhabit.

These roles—embodied witness, disembodied witness, participant, and impersonator—are not mutually exclusive and may overlap or shift within a single immersive experience. Each role necessitates careful consideration, as the ways users are positioned can profoundly influence their engagement and interpretation of the virtual content.

Virtual Selves and Emotional Modeling

It is also important to analyze who these virtual personas are—not merely what roles they play within the storyworld, but how they are designed to behave, think, and feel (Kazlauskaitė, 2022a). The influence of digital self-representations in VR on users’ behavior is evident in the phenomenon known as the Proteus effect. This effect refers to a phenomenon in which the characteristics of a user’s digital representation influence their behavior within virtual environments. For example, a study by Peña et al. (2009) found that avatars with stereotypically “aggressive” traits, like wearing black cloaks or KKK-related costumes, led to increased aggression in users. Similarly, research by Yee and Bailenson (2007) demonstrated that taller or more attractive avatars increased users’ confidence and friendliness. These behavioral changes are triggered automatically by situational cues, such as specific costumes or bodily characteristics, which are linked to associated memories and stereotypes (Peña et al., 2009).

Embodying a virtual self in VR allows users to practice or rehearse a repertoire of feeling and emotional display rules (Ekman, 1972; Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Goffman, 1959; Hochschild, 1979, 1983). Emotional display rules refer to socially shared norms that dictate appropriate emotional expressions in particular situations and roles (Ekman, 1972; Goffman, 1959). Users’ virtual selves are embedded within a framework of appropriate emotional expression prescribed by the VR experience. For instance, in the Polish “Postcard from the Uprising” VR experience, users are guided to feel specific emotions, such as victimhood, resentment, or empowerment, as part of their assigned role within the historical reenactment (Kazlauskaitė, 2022a). The VR’s narrative design not only prompts users to align their emotional responses with the characters they embody, shaping their engagement with the virtual story, but also potentially influences their emotional responses beyond the VR storyworld, by providing an experience of being one of “us,” allowing users to feel what it means to belong to a group and depend on it for survival in the context of war.

Applying the Framework: Guiding Questions

To guide the analysis, the following analytical questions (Table 2) can serve as a framework. The researcher engages with the VR experience, reflecting on the assigned role(s) and virtual selves, the nature of interaction with other characters and/or users, and emotional display and feeling rules. The researcher makes notes for each segment of the experience, tracking how the user is positioned to feel and act.

Table 2.

Analysis of User Roles, Virtual Self, Modes of Relation, and Emotional Modeling

Relation	How does the VR experience model the user’s relationship to the represented environment, other characters, events and experiences? Does it enable or inhibit the user’s ability to understand others and their contexts? Does it focus attention on the experience of the self or others? Does it support wider contextualization of events and experiences?
Virtual self and others	Who is the virtual self and who are the other characters or users present in the VR storyworld? What are their characteristics (e.g., bodily traits, costumes)? What are the relationships and interactions between other characters and the user? How do these interactions shape experiences of proximity and distance as well as emotional responses?
Role	What role is assigned to the user? Are users positioned as (embodied/disembodied) witnesses, participants, or impersonators? How do these roles affect their engagement with and emotional responses to the story?
Emotions	What emotions does the VR experience evoke? Does it enforce specific feelings or emotional display rules about the self, the represented events, or other people and their experiences?

What am I Doing? Body, Movement, Multisensory Experience

The final step of the framework focuses on embodied interaction and multisensory immersion: how the user moves, acts, and perceives through the body in VR. The sense of “being there” in VR is closely linked to the embodied “doing there” (Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005; Slater & Steed, 2000; Slater et al., 1998), dependent on the user’s awareness of the body and its movement, balance, and position in the virtual space. This bodily sensory engagement enhances the realism of the experience, as users not only see and hear the virtual storyworld but also feel as though they are moving in it. The activation of bodily senses plays a crucial role in how VR influences perception, memory, and emotional responses (Riva & Wiederhold, 2022; Riva et al., 2024; Szita et al., 2018).

Movements and Gestures

Gestures and bodily movements enhance the sense of presence and memorability of VR experiences (Cohen, 1981; Cook et al., 2008, 2010; Kazlauskaitė, 2023). The interaction of sensorimotor and autobiographical memory enables individuals to recall not only what occurred but also how it felt and what physical actions were involved in those events (Ianì, 2019). Because memory is fundamentally rooted in sensorimotor experience, shaping memory involves shaping the corresponding sensorimotor patterns (Ianì, 2019; Sutton & Williamson, 2014). Bodily movements and gestures support the encoding of memories and making their retrieval easier. Lastly, bodily movement plays a central role in integrating the various sensory inputs into a coherent, unified conceptual framework that encompasses visual, auditory, kinesthetic, proprioceptive, and tactile sensory information (Paterson, 2007). Through active exploration and physical movement in VR, users can integrate different sensory inputs into a higher order cognitive framework. Bodily movement is intrinsically tied to meaning-making and conceptualization (Hampe, 2017; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999).

The defining feature of VR, as opposed to other media, is that the user is positioned inside the virtual world. This immersion enables movement and interaction within the environment, although the extent of this interaction varies by content type. In cinematic VR, or 360-degree videos, users have a limited capacity for movement, which restricts their sense of agency and interaction. They are immersed in pre-rendered videos and can engage with them primarily by turning their heads to look in different directions. This is referred to as having three degrees of freedom (3DoF), allowing for head rotation left and right, looking up and down, and tilting. In contrast, fully computer-generated VR environments provide six degrees of freedom (6DoF). This means users can not only rotate their heads but also move their entire bodies left or right, forward or backward, and up or down, offering significantly more freedom, agency, and presence within the virtual space. Using hand-tracking or hand-held controllers, users are able to touch, grasp, and manipulate various objects and other elements present in the virtual space. Users may also be offered different interactive elements in computer-generated VR experiences, such as choice points for branching narratives (Dooley, 2017, 2021).

Non-Verbal Communication

The possibility of movement in VR introduces non-verbal forms of communication through gestures and bodily movements, both by users and characters in the storyworlds, which can convey meaning and emotion. Just as animals living in groups, including humans, communicate through body postures and movements (Finnegan, 2014), users/characters in VR can express a range of social cues through specific body postures, facial expressions, movements, and stances. These can indicate friendliness, hostility, receptiveness, or dominance, shaping the dynamics of social interaction in the virtual storyworld. Analyzing gestures and bodily movements in VR involves considering how particular postures, gestures, facial expressions, and movements of other users or characters in the storyworld impact users’ perceptions of the storyworld and their engagement with other characters or users. Furthermore, examining how the VR storyworld shapes and organizes the user’s own bodily postures and gestures is essential for understanding not only the relational dynamics at play but also the way in which the VR experience designs the user’s virtual self. Virtual storyworlds can prescribe “proper” bodily postures, stances, and gestures for users to embody in different situations or scenarios, guiding the behavior of their virtual selves and their emotional responses.

Touch

VR is both audiovisual and tactile-embodied. Touch significantly contributes to the sense of presence and immersion in VR (Campbell et al., 2018; Muthukumarana et al., 2020). Paterson (2007) observes that touch extends beyond mere skin sensations and is an embodied experience, involving spatial awareness through the integration of proprioception (the sense of the body’s position in space), kinesthesia (the sense of movement), and the vestibular sense (the sense of balance). Touch is fundamental to how we experience and understand the world, ourselves, and our connections with others. Touch is also governed by social norms that dictate who can touch whom or what, as well as where, how, and when such interactions are appropriate (Finnegan, 2014, pp. 205–212; Price et al., 2021, p. 865). Repeated interactions with haptic technologies in VR position “the body as an object disciplined and trained through repeated interactions” (Parisi et al., 2017, p. 1518). Lastly, touch is the main sense through which physical co-presence is directly embodied and experienced (Finnegan, 2014, p. 194). As Finnegan (2014, p. 196) observes, “[t]he experience of physically touching something – other people, external objects – assures us of being in touch with the world outside ourselves and with our own embodied actuality.”

Tactile elements can be incorporated into VR storyworlds by using mid-air haptics, vibrotactile, exoskeletal and electromechanical haptic solutions that are integrated into various specialized hardware, such as gloves, vests, suits, and controllers (Price et al., 2021). Haptic feedback allows the user to touch and feel something in the VR environment that is not present in the physical environment. When touch is incorporated in consumer VR experiences, the most common device for haptic interaction is controllers. In some VR experiences, touch is completely virtual, meaning that there is no physical sensation of touch, but there is gesture-based interaction without actual haptic feedback. Such “touchless touch” (Price et al., 2021, p. 869) relies on tight coupling of movement and gesture to visualization. When analyzing VR storyworlds, it is essential to consider how tactile sensations organize the user’s body, its gestures, and movements. Culturally specific forms of tactile contact can communicate messages of “affection, support, aggression, disapproval, control, recognition, sympathy and a host of other things appropriate and intelligible within particular groups and particular situations” (Finnegan 2014, p. 201). Researchers should explore how the integration of tactile sensations, haptic feedback, and gestures in VR experiences creates experiential proximity or distance to the represented events and experiences and their emotional impact. For example, haptic feedback can be employed to increase the users’ felt proximity to the represented events or places. Alternatively, it could also be used to anchor users in their physical reality while in VR, thereby creating more experiential distance. The latter approach may result in users feeling more like witnesses or observers rather than direct participants in the virtual environment, which, in turn, can foster a more reflexive or nuanced engagement with the represented events (Kunjam, 2024).

Sound

Sound is another essential perceptual element in shaping immersive experiences in VR storyworlds. Spatialized sound creates experiential proximity. By closely replicating the way humans naturally perceive sound in three-dimensional spaces, spatial audio provides directional cues that convey the depth and distance of sounds, guiding users on where to turn and focus their attention. This auditory realism not only reinforces a sense of presence but may deepen the user’s sense of connection to the virtual storyworld (Dinh et al., 1999; Hendrix & Barfield, 1996; Kazlauskaitė, 2022b; Kern & Ellermeier, 2020; Larsson et al., 2007; Potter et al., 2022).

Applying the Framework: Guiding Questions

To apply this final step of the framework, the researcher attends to bodily movements, gestures, and the tactile and auditory dimensions of immersion. The researcher documents how the user’s body is positioned, how movement is facilitated or constrained, and how various sensory elements shape the overall experience across different segments of the VR storyworld. The following analytical questions (Table 3) provide structured guidance at this stage of analysis.

Table 3.

Analysis of Embodiment and Movement

Embodied movement	What physical gestures and movements does the virtual self perform within the VR environment? Is the user’s movement embodied and tangible (e.g., walking, touching, grasping), or is it more abstract (e.g., floating viewpoint)? Are users allowed to freely explore and wander in the environment? Is their movement restricted or strictly guided?
Embodied interaction	How do specific gestures, postures, and movements—whether performed by the user, characters in the storyworld, or other users—shape the user’s perception of the storyworld and the relational dynamics in it?
Touch	Can users interact with objects, characters, or the environment through touch? How does this tactile interaction influence their sense of proximity to or distance from those elements and the overall story? What kind of emotions does tactile interaction evoke?
Sound	How is spatialized sound strategically used to enhance the user’s sense of presence in the virtual space?

Ethical Considerations

VR is a powerful technology capable of inducing intense emotional responses, and its impact can be significant when VR content engages with topics of trauma, violence, or emotionally charged historical and social issues. Emotional intensity plays a key role in the encoding of intrusive memories, particularly in the context of trauma (Arntz et al., 2005). More specifically, emotion enhances perceptual memory—a form of memory that is distinct from conceptual memory and is especially prominent in traumatic recall. Research has shown that when emotionally traumatic events are processed primarily through sensory, visuospatial, or perceptual ways, rather than through verbal or conceptual processing, the likelihood of recurrent, intrusive traumatic memories increases (Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Halligan et al., 2002; Holmes & Bourne, 2008).

The latter distinction is particularly relevant to VR, as VR experiences emphasize perceptual and visuospatial immersion and sensory proximity. This suggests that immersive VR experiences depicting distressing content may elicit significant stress responses and, in some cases, symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress. Dibbets and Schulte-Ostermann (2015) specifically tested the impact of VR in comparison to traditional trauma-inducing films. They found that participants reported greater immersion in the VR condition compared to 2D film, and that much milder VR scenes depicting a physical assault elicited intrusive memories and negative mood. These findings underscore the potential negative psychological impact of non-fiction VR content and the need for ethical considerations in research contexts.

These risks apply not only to participants in broader VR user experience research, but also to the researcher-analyst, who may engage repeatedly and intensively with the same emotionally charged material. Prolonged exposure during close analysis may have cumulative psychological effects. As such, researchers must approach analysis of VR content with self-awareness, recognize their own vulnerability, and take steps to mitigate emotional strain. If the proposed framework is used alongside broader user research, additional ethical safeguards must be in place. These may include clear content warnings, informed consent procedures, voluntary participation protocols, and access to emotional support and debriefing procedures.

Conclusion

This article presents a framework for the qualitative analysis of immersive non-fiction VR storyworlds, highlighting VR’s unique characteristics as a medium for storyliving. This methodological framework focuses on key aspects of VR storyworlds, such as spatial and temporal design, user roles and perspectives, relationality, emotional engagement, and the integration of multisensory elements. The framework highlights the importance of examining how VR constructs distance and proximity across multiple experiential domains. Distance and proximity are not just spatial concepts, but they are intricately connected to the domains of temporality, relationality, emotional engagement, and multisensory perceptual inputs.

As VR technology continues to evolve, further research into its impact on user experience will be critical to fully understanding its role in shaping future modes of non-fiction storytelling and storyliving. An interdisciplinary approach will be essential for refining this analytical framework as new technological capabilities emerge, such as more sophisticated haptic feedback, artificial intelligence-driven interactions, and neural interfaces. Understanding how these developments shape the user’s perception and emotional responses will be crucial in optimizing the ethical use of VR for non-fiction storytelling and storyliving. This framework aims to provide a foundation for examining how VR storyworlds are not only designed and experienced but also how they contribute to the evolving landscape of narrative practices in immersive media.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Rūta Kazlauskaitė

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the European Union (Horizon Europe, PLEDGE: Politics of Grievance and Democratic Governance, PN: 101132560).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

References

Arcagni

D’Aloia

(2021). VR storytelling: Potentials and limitations of virtual reality narratives. Cinergie – Il Cinema E Le Altre Arti, 10(19), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/13412

Arntz

de Groot

Kindt

(2005). Emotional memory is perceptual. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 36(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2004.11.003

Aylett

Louchart

(2003). Towards a narrative theory of virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 7(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-003-0114-9

Batson

C. D.

(2009). Two forms of perspective taking: Imagining how another feels and imagining how you would feel. In Markman

K. D.

Klein

W. M. P.

Suhr

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (1st ed., pp. 267–280). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809846-23

Batson

C. D.

Sager

Garst

Kang

Rubchinsky

Dawson

(1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.495

Bell

Ensslin

(2024). Reading digital fiction: Narrative, cognition, mediality (1st ed., Vol. 1). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003110194

Bluck

Alea

Habermas

Rubin

D. C.

(2005). A TALE of three functions: The self–reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition, 23(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198

Bond

M. S.

(2021). Wayfinding: The art and science of how we find and lose our way. Picador.

Bortolussi

Dixon

(2002). Psychonarratology: Foundations for the empirical study of literary response (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511500107

10.

Campbell

Hogan

Fraser

(2018). Feeling virtual worlds: An exploration into coupling virtual and kinaesthetic experiences. In Proceedings of the Twelfth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (TEI’18) (pp. 279–285). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173281

11.

Chirico

Ferrise

Cordella

Gaggioli

(2018). Designing awe in virtual reality: An experimental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02351

12.

Chouliaraki

(2011). Improper distance’: Towards a critical account of solidarity as irony. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(4), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877911403247

13.

Cohen

R. L.

(1981). On the generality of some memory laws. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22(1), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1981.tb00402.x

14.

Collange

Guegan

(2020). Using virtual reality to induce gratitude through virtual social interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, Article 106473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106473

15.

Conway

M. A.

(2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(4), 594–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.005

16.

Cook

S. W.

Mitchell

Goldin-Meadow

(2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106(2), 1047–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.010

17.

Cook

S. W.

Yip

T. K.

Goldin-Meadow

(2010). Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.002

18.

Dibbets

Schulte-Ostermann

M. A.

(2015). Virtual reality, real emotions: A novel analogue for the assessment of risk factors of post-traumatic stress disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00681

19.

Dinh

H. Q.

Walker

Hodges

L. F.

Song

Kobayashi

(1999). Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality (Cat. No. 99CB36316), Houston, TX. IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/756955

20.

Dooley

(2017). Storytelling with virtual reality in 360-degrees: A new screen grammar. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 11(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2017.1387357

21.

Dooley

(2020). A question of proximity: Exploring a new screen grammar for 360-degree cinematic virtual reality. Media Practice and Education, 21(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2019.1641005

22.

Dooley

(2021). Cinematic virtual reality: A critical study of 21st century approaches and practices. Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

23.

Ehlers

Clark

D. M.

(2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(4), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0

24.

Ekman

(1972). Universal and cultural differences in facial expression of emotions. In Cole

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 207–283). University of Nebraska Press.

25.

Ekman

Friesen

W. V.

(1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1(1), 49–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49

26.

Felnhofer

Kothgassner

O. D.

Schmidt

Heinzle

A.-K.

Beutl

Hlavacs

Kryspin-Exner

(2015). Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 82, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.004

27.

Finnegan

(2014). Communicating: The multiple modes of human communication (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315869872

28.

Fivush

(2011). The development of autobiographical memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131702

29.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

30.

Hall

E. T.

(1959). The silent language. Doubleday.

31.

Hall

E. T.

(1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday.

32.

Hall

E. T.

(1974). Handbook for proxemic research. Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.

33.

Halligan

S. L.

Clark

D. M.

Ehlers

(2002). Cognitive processing, memory, and the development of PTSD symptoms: Two experimental analogue studies. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 33(2), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7916(02)00014-9

34.

Hampe

(Ed.). (2017). Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge University Press.

35.

Hendrix

Barfield

(1996). The sense of presence within auditory virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1996.5.3.290

36.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049

37.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

38.

Holmes

E. A.

Bourne

(2008). Inducing and modulating intrusive emotional memories: A review of the trauma film paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 127(3), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.11.002

39.

Ianì

(2019). Embodied memories: Reviewing the role of the body in memory processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(6), 1747–1766. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01674-x

40.

Jones

Osborne

Sullivan-Drage

Keen

Gadsby

(2022). Virtual reality methods: A guide for researchers in the social sciences and humanities (1st ed.). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2n7j137

41.

Kazlauskaitė

(2021). Perspective and the past: Modeling historical representation from camera obscura to virtual reality. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 16(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341470

42.

Kazlauskaitė

(2022a). Embodying ressentimentful victimhood: Virtual reality re-enactment of the Warsaw uprising in the Second World War Museum in Gdańsk. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 28(6), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2022.2064897

43.

Kazlauskaitė

(2022b). KNOWING IS SEEING: Distance and proximity in affective virtual reality history. Rethinking History, 26(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2022.2031803

44.

Kazlauskaitė

(2023). Virtual reality as a technology of memory: Immersive presence in Polish politics of memory. Memory, Mind & Media, 2, Article e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2023.9

45.

Kazlauskaitė

(2024). Pictures in our heads: Politics of space, time, and memory in Polish virtual reality storyworlds. Memory Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980241283895

46.

Kealiinohomoku

J. W.

(1997). Dance, myth and ritual in time and space. Dance Research Journal, 29(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/1478237

47.

Kern

A. C.

Ellermeier

(2020). Audio in VR: Effects of a soundscape and movement-triggered step sounds on presence. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.00020

48.

Kisker

Gruber

Schöne

(2021a). Experiences in virtual reality entail different processes of retrieval as opposed to conventional laboratory settings: A study on human memory. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3190–3197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00257-2

49.

Kisker

Gruber

Schöne

(2021b). Virtual reality experiences promote autobiographical retrieval mechanisms: Electrophysiological correlates of laboratory and virtual experiences. Psychological Research, 85(7), 2485–2501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01417-x

50.

Kunjam

(2024). Tactile narratives in virtual reality [Master’s Thesis]. University of Waterlook. https://hdl.handle.net/10012/21051

51.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). The metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

52.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.

53.

Lanier

(2017). Dawn of the new everything: Encounters with reality and virtual reality. Henry Holt and Company.

54.

Larsson

Västfjäll

Olsson

Kleiner

(2007, October 25–27). When what you hear is what you see: Presence and auditory-visual integration in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Barcelona, Spain.

55.

Lombard

Ditton

(1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), Article JCMC321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

56.

Lombard

Jones

M. T.

(2015). Defining presence. In Lombard

Biocca

Freeman

Ijsselsteijn

Schaevitz

R. J.

(Eds.), Immersed in media (pp. 13–34). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

57.

MacClancy

(2010). Will the real Maurice Leenhardt please stand up? Four anthropologists in search of an ancestor. In Parkin

de Sales

(Eds.), Out of the study and into the field: Ethnographic theory and practice in French anthropology (pp. 255–272). Berghahn.

58.

Mancuso

Bruni

Stramba-Badiale

Riva

Cipresso

Pedroli

(2023). How do emotions elicited in virtual reality affect our memory? A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, Article 107812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107812

59.

Maschio

(2017). Storyliving: An ethnographic study of how audiences experience VR and what that means for journalists. https://newslab.withgoogle.com/assets/docs/storyliving-a-study-of-vr-in-journalism.pdf

60.

Maschio

(2022). Digital cultures, lived stories and virtual reality. Routledge.

61.

Muthukumarana

Elvitigala

D. S.

Forero Cortes

J. P.

Matthies

D. J. C.

Nanayakkara

(2020). Touch me gently: Recreating the perception of touch using a shape-memory alloy matrix. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376491

62.

Nakamura

(2020). Feeling good about feeling bad: Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412920906259

63.

Nash

(2018). Virtual reality witness: Exploring the ethics of mediated presence. Studies in Documentary Film, 12(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2017.1340796

64.

Parisi

Archer

J. E.

(2017). Making touch analog: The prospects and perils of a haptic media studies. New Media & Society, 19(10), 1523–1540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817717517

65.

Parisi

Paterson

Archer

J. E.

(2017). Haptic media studies. New Media & Society, 19(10), 1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817717518

66.

Paterson

(2007). The senses of touch: Haptics, affects, and technologies (1st ed.). Berg.

67.

Peña

Hancock

Merola

N. A.

(2009). The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings. Communication Research, 36(6), 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209346802

68.

Pimenta

Poovaiah

(2010). On defining visual narratives. Design Thoughts, 3, 25–46.

69.

Potter

Cvetković

De Sena

(2022). On the relative importance of visual and spatial audio rendering on VR immersion. Frontiers in Signal Processing, 2, Article 904866. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsip.2022.904866

70.

Price

Jewitt

Yiannoutsou

(2021). Conceptualising touch in VR. Virtual Reality, 25(3), 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00494-y

71.

Riva

Mantovani

Capideville

C. S.

Preziosa

Morganti

Villani

Gaggioli

Botella

Alcañiz

(2007). Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence and emotions. CyberPsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 10(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9993

72.

Riva

Wiederhold

B. K.

(2022). What the metaverse is (really) and why we need to know about it. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 25(6), 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0124

73.

Riva

Wiederhold

B. K.

Mantovani

(2024). Searching for the metaverse: Neuroscience of physical and digital communities. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 27(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0040

74.

Roediger

H. L.

III Marsh

E. J.

(2003). Episodic and autobiographical memory. In Healy

A. F.

Proctor

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Experimental psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 475–497). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

75.

Sanchez-Vives

M. V.

Slater

(2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1651

76.

Scholes

Phelan

Kellogg

(2006). The nature of narrative: Fortieth anniversary edition, revised and expanded. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195151756.001.0001

77.

Schöne

Kisker

Lange

Gruber

Sylvester

Osinsky

(2023). The reality of virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1093014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093014

78.

Schöne

Wessels

Gruber

(2019). Experiences in virtual reality: A window to autobiographical memory. Current Psychology, 38, 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9648-y

79.

Slater

Steed

(2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474600566925

80.

Slater

Steed

McCarthy

Marinelli

(1998). The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Human Factors, 40(3), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779591368

81.

Sutton

(2024). Situated affects and place memory. Topoi, 43(3), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10053-8

82.

Sutton

Williamson

(2014). Embodied remembering. In Shapiro

(Ed.) The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (1st ed., pp. 315–325). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775845-36

83.

Szita

Gander

Wallstén

(2018). The effects of cinematic virtual reality on viewing experience and the recollection of narrative elements. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 27(4), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00338

84.

Tuan

Y.-F.

(2001). Space and place: The perspective of experience (8th ed.). University of Minnesota Press.

85.

Uskali

Gynnild

Jones

Sirkkunen

(Eds.). (2021). Immersive journalism as storytelling: Ethics, production, and design (1st ed., Vol. 1). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429437748

86.

Vallance

Towndrow

P. A.

(2022). Perspective: Narrative storyliving in virtual reality design. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, Article 779148. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.779148

87.

Wilcox

L. M.

Allison

R. S.

Elfassy

Grelik

(2003). Personal space in virtual reality. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 47(20), 2097–2101. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120304702004

88.

Yee

Bailenson

(2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x

A Framework for Qualitative Analysis of Non-fiction Virtual Reality Storyworlds

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Storyliving VR Narratives

Where am I? Space, Time, Situation

Space and Time

Distance and Proximity in Space and Time

Applying the Framework: Guiding Questions

Who am I and Who am I With? Role, Perspective, Relationality, and Emotions

Relational Distance and Proximity

User Roles

Virtual Selves and Emotional Modeling

Applying the Framework: Guiding Questions

What am I Doing? Body, Movement, Multisensory Experience

Movements and Gestures

Non-Verbal Communication

Touch

Sound

Applying the Framework: Guiding Questions

Ethical Considerations

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References