View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A 'Front-Row Seat' to Catastrophe: Testing the Effect of Immersive Technologies on Sympathy and Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Context of Rising Sea Levels

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A 'Front-Row Seat' to Catastrophe: Testing the Effect of Immersive Technologies on Sympathy and Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Context of Rising Sea Levels
Language: English
Authors: Lara Ditrich (ORCID 0000-0002-6043-7576), Martin Lachmair (ORCID 0009-0006-4728-9042)
Source: Environmental Education Research. 2026 32(3):569-587.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Students, Environmental Education, Climate, Oceanography, Computer Simulation, Simulated Environment, Sensory Experience, Computer Uses in Education, Educational Technology, Consciousness Raising, Emotional Response, Intention
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2459340
ISSN: 1350-4622
1469-5871
Abstract: For 63% of the world's population living farther than 100 km (60 miles) from the coast, rising sea levels due to climate change represent a distal, abstract problem that might not appear to require urgent action. This poses a challenge to environmental educators seeking to foster pro-environmental responses. We tested if and how using immersive digital technologies like virtual reality (VR) can aid educators in overcoming this challenge. Participants in our experiment (N = 146) viewed a report on how rising sea levels affect contemporary Fijians either in high immersive VR (360° video in a head-mounted display) or in low immersive VR (360° video on a traditional computer screen). Pro-environmental intentions did not differ between the experimental conditions. However, perceived presence, a sense of 'being there', was higher in the high immersion condition than in the low immersion condition. Presence, in turn, correlated positively with pro-environmental intentions and sympathy but not problem awareness. This suggests that environmental education on rising sea levels aimed at promoting pro-environmental intentions might benefit from creating a heightened perception of presence.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503386
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE4sm8tMyaQz7SUMEdwH2rEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGOd-B9VLTuNURzDmAIBEICBmzNviKiPPd9f1w7QoX2tyhxz8lIxo1JrfrlZBTcskSIjTlbAMf0wfv8SsnIicmRzJlVLuQFZzdQorFZzZhPhqFhvwBVeIS4MDcOxtcepqcRtv6s5HLfsfb3Pemr80S0N0m3GsxLdHCPDSpY7IaAHK8BQAnnxreD2tCZCwWQ_tBWeWu4wBlz74HxO46ajvPIlBphPAIvZ3c_TbHdl
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191948496;eed01mar.26;2026Mar04.01:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191948496-1">A 'front-row seat' to catastrophe: testing the effect of immersive technologies on sympathy and pro-environmental behavior in the context of rising sea levels </title> <p>For 63% of the world's population living farther than 100 km (60 miles) from the coast, rising sea levels due to climate change represent a distal, abstract problem that might not appear to require urgent action. This poses a challenge to environmental educators seeking to foster pro-environmental responses. We tested if and how using immersive digital technologies like virtual reality (VR) can aid educators in overcoming this challenge. Participants in our experiment (N = 146) viewed a report on how rising sea levels affect contemporary Fijians either in high immersive VR (360° video in a head-mounted display) or in low immersive VR (360° video on a traditional computer screen). Pro-environmental intentions did not differ between the experimental conditions. However, perceived presence, a sense of 'being there', was higher in the high immersion condition than in the low immersion condition. Presence, in turn, correlated positively with pro-environmental intentions and sympathy but not problem awareness. This suggests that environmental education on rising sea levels aimed at promoting pro-environmental intentions might benefit from creating a heightened perception of presence.</p> <p>Keywords: Virtual reality; presence; sympathy; pro-environmental behavior; sea level rise</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In 2021, the United Nations started an initiative titled 'Decade of Ocean Science' as part of its agenda for sustainable development. Experts and stakeholders from across the world collaborate on the shared mission of developing 'transformative ocean science solutions for sustainable development, connecting people and our ocean' (Oceandecade: Vision & Mission, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref1">58</reflink>]). One core challenge they seek to tackle is changing humanity's relationship with the ocean to promote sustainable, environmentally friendly (pro-ocean) behavior at all levels of society. They regard two elements as crucial to achieving this goal: environmental education and effective science communication (Glithero et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]). Classically, environmental education – which can take place in formal (e.g. schools) and non-formal (e.g. museums, aquariums) settings or via mass media (e.g. nature documentaries, news broadcasts, games) – refers to all processes and efforts that aim to make individuals aware of and understand environmental issues and instil in them the knowledge, values, motivation, and skills necessary to address environmental problems (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref3">79</reflink>]). With regard to 'changing humanity's relationship with the ocean', Ocean Decade experts argue that it will be central to focus on enhancing ocean literacy, that is, individuals' understanding of the relationships between climate change, the oceans, and human well-being (Glithero et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, these relationships may not be equally apparent to everyone: 63% of our world's population live farther than 100 km (60 miles) from the coast (United Nations Environment Programme [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref5">80</reflink>]). For them, climate change-induced changes to the ocean and their implications for human well-being are likely to be abstract phenomena that only concern people and places far away (frequently called psychologically distant threats).</p> <p>This may create a challenge for environmental educators seeking to foster pro-environmental inclinations. After all, personal experiences with natural hazards are linked to greater pro-environmental action intentions (van Valkengoed and Steg [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref6">83</reflink>]), particularly if these hazards are attributed to climate change (Ogunbode et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref7">59</reflink>]). Hence, environmental educators seeking to strengthen pro-environmental (and particularly pro-ocean) inclinations among their audience may need to find ways for learners to experience the threat first-hand, thereby potentially turning abstract into concrete threats and connecting learners to the ocean. Herein, we investigate whether using technologies characterized by high immersion to communicate about rising sea levels could help (marine) environmental educators create this connection.</p> <p>One such technology is Virtual Reality (VR). Several recent reviews and studies address and point to its potential usefulness for environmental education (e.g. Ahn et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]; Calil et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]; Fauville, Queiroz, and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]; Fraustino et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]; Greussing [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]; Markowitz and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref14">51</reflink>]; Nowak et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref15">57</reflink>]). However, the psychological processes underlying the effects of using (immersive) VR beyond creating a heightened perception of presence (Cummings and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>]) are still relatively poorly understood. This is especially true in the case of 360° videos, which are readily available to environmental educators from various platforms, including YouTube, but have received relatively little scholarly attention to date (for exceptions, see Breves and Schramm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; Fonseca and Kraus [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]; Greussing [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref19">37</reflink>]; Oh et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref20">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>We aim to add to this growing field of research in three ways. First, we investigate whether presenting VR 360° videos is more effective in enhancing pro-environmental intentions when using a system high (vs. low) in immersion (herein treated as an objective system characteristic; Slater [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref21">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref22">72</reflink>]). Second, we address two possible routes by which immersive VR might foster pro-environmental intentions to contribute to a better understanding of the psychological processes underlying their effect. Specifically, we study a cognitive route via increased problem awareness and an affective route via increased sympathy for those affected by climate change. Third, we do so in a context central to ocean literacy – rising sea levels caused by (anthropogenic) climate change, which points to one way the climate, the ocean, and human well-being are interconnected.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-3">Fostering ocean literacy through environmental education</hd> <p>Fostering ocean literacy is central in experts' recommendations for tackling the challenges identified for the UN Ocean Decade (e.g. Glithero et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref23">36</reflink>]). Ultimately, increased ocean literacy is supposed to motivate people to make decisions that reduce marine pollution, protect marine ecosystems, and foster climate change adaptation and mitigation. An intuitive first step educators may be tempted to take to enhance this understanding is simply to inform learners about the links between the climate, the ocean, and human activity and well-being. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be particularly successful. Several theorists treat knowledge as but one precursor of pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref24">47</reflink>]; van der Linden [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref25">81</reflink>]; van Valkengoed, Abrahamse, and Steg [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref26">82</reflink>]) and ocean literacy (Stoll-Kleemann [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref27">77</reflink>]) – among emotions, attitudes, values, and structural as well as socio-cultural factors. In addition, empirical evidence suggests that while greater knowledge is (weakly) linked to greater pro-environmental inclinations (van Valkengoed and Steg [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref28">83</reflink>]), the effectiveness of information-based educational interventions to enhance pro-environmental behavior is very small (for a meta-analysis, see Bergquist et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]), leading authors to conclude that knowledge is 'a necessary but insufficient condition for behavioral change' (Bergquist et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>], p. 5). Accordingly, contemporary models of ocean literacy have shifted from being knowledge-centric to focusing on active participation, engagement from diverse audiences, creating emotional connections, and opportunities for experiential learning (McKinley, Burdon, and Shellock [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref31">54</reflink>]). This shift implies that next to triggering (knowledge-focused) cognitive processes, triggering emotional processes may also be central in environmental educators' quest to foster pro-environmental inclinations. Moreover, it resonates with a recent review of environmental education interventions more broadly, which concludes that interventions should focus on issues of local relevance and rely on action-oriented learning to create tangible effects (e.g. through including fieldwork; Ardoin, Bowers, and Gaillard [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the highly complex, often abstract and sometimes even invisible learning content related to ocean literacy makes creating such interventions in real life complex for environmental educators. For example, rising sea levels are not of equal local relevance to learners across the globe, and designing field trips to areas suffering from rising sea levels will often prove impractical at best or impossible at worst. Using digital technologies, especially VR applications, might help to overcome this problem.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-4">The potential of (immersive) digital technologies: creating the illusion of personal experien...</hd> <p>Digital technologies allow users to have experiences that would otherwise be impossible, dangerous, costly, or counterproductive (Fauville, Queiroz, and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]; Markowitz and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref34">51</reflink>]). This is especially true for VR systems, which are designed to create virtual worlds that range from highly sophisticated simulations to 360° videos in which users can change their perspective through head movements (i.e. cinematic VR, Archer and Finger [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]) or by moving a computer mouse (i.e. desktop VR). According to Slater ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref36">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref37">72</reflink>]), systems used to deliver VR content can vary in immersion, an objective technological property affected by aspects such as image quality, movement tracking, or the field of view. Crucially, he argues that technologies should be considered more immersive the better they 'support natural sensorimotor contingencies for perception' (Slater [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref38">72</reflink>], p. 432). That is, a system like a head-mounted display (HMD) in which a user's perception is technologically isolated from the real world, yet actions the user performs (e.g. turning their head) have the same effect as they would have in the real world (i.e. being able to look at what is behind one's back) would be considered higher in immersion than a computer screen (here, turning the head would result in no longer perceiving the virtual world). Systems allowing users to interact with the content (e.g. to manipulate objects within the virtual world) would be even more immersive (Huang et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>A system's (objective) extent of immersion, in turn, can shape users' (subjective) psychological responses to using the system: Systems high (vs low) in immersion create a stronger perception of presence, the illusion of being physically and perceptually within the virtual environment (for a meta-analysis, see Cummings and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]). This can turn abstract, distant problems like rising sea levels into concrete, immediate ones that can be directly experienced. In the context of climate change, such experiences have been linked to greater concern and intention to act pro-environmentally (e.g. Brügger, Demski, and Capstick [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>]; van der Linden [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref42">81</reflink>]; van Valkengoed and Steg [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref43">83</reflink>]; although this link appears to be stronger for personal experiences and people who already believed in the reality of climate change before making the experience; for discussions, see Howe [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]; Reser and Bradley [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref45">66</reflink>]). Therefore, we hypothesize:</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-5">Hypothesis 1:</hd> <p>Learning about the effects of climate change-induced rising sea levels via a technology high (vs low) in immersion will foster pro-environmental behavior intentions.</p> <p>Several studies already hint at such a beneficial effect of using immersive VR for environmental education (for reviews, see Fauville, Queiroz, and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]; Markowitz and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref47">51</reflink>]), with some studies suggesting that this is also true for topics of marine environmental education, such as educating people on ocean acidification (Markowitz et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref48">52</reflink>]), marine wildlife (Pimentel and Kalyanaraman [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref49">63</reflink>]), or rising sea levels (Calil et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref50">19</reflink>]). However, this field is relatively young and still growing. Accordingly, little is known about the psychological processes that might underlie the effect of immersive technologies on pro-environmental intentions. Building on research and theorizing highlighting the roles of knowledge and emotional engagement, we herein focus on two candidate processes: a cognitive route via problem awareness and an affective route via sympathy for victims of rising sea levels.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-6">The cognitive route: increasing problem awareness</hd> <p>Two recent overviews discuss the multiple contexts and formats in which VR has been and continues to be used for (marine) environmental education (Fauville, Queiroz, and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]; Markowitz and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>]). Both identify psychological distance – perceiving climate change and its effects as something far away (both spatially and temporally) and happening to other people – as a core obstacle to fostering pro-environmental behavior. However, regarding climate change per se, support for this idea is mixed at best (for a review, see van Valkengoed, Steg, and Perlaviciute [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref53">84</reflink>]): A majority of the general public seems to agree that 'climate change is happening here and now'. Given the myriad phenomena linked to climate change (be the association scientifically proven or not), this perception may be based on different experiences depending, for instance, on where people live: Australians may base their assessment of the reality of climate change on their experience of wildfires and flooding rather than increasingly severe hurricanes. Residents of Florida, Texas or Louisiana, in turn, might base their assessment on experiences with severe hurricanes rather than melting glaciers, an aspect potentially more psychologically close for Swiss or Alaskans. Despite their varied experiences, however, it appears likely that many of these people would agree that 'climate change happens here and now' and that they 'have seen the effects of global warming'. Both sentiments indicate that the rather abstract concept of 'climate change' is psychologically close for them – even though this closeness is likely based on very different experiences.</p> <p>This could explain why studies have shown classic approaches to reducing the psychological distance of climate change to be ineffective (see, e.g. Brügger, Morton, and Dessai [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]; Loy and Spence [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref55">49</reflink>]; van Valkengoed, Steg, and Perlaviciute [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref56">84</reflink>]). These studies often compare the effects of highlighting the consequences of climate change for participants' countries of residence to describing how the same phenomena affect other countries (15 out of 30 studies reviewed by van Valkengoed, Steg, and Perlaviciute [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref57">84</reflink>]). Assuming, as described above, that participants are familiar with the specific effects of climate change on their area of residence, such an approach is likely to prove insufficient as there is no distance to reduce in the first place. Instead, it might be necessary to 'proximise' those consequences of climate change with which learners lack personal experience – as likely is the case with rising sea levels for the 63% of the world's population living farther than 100 km (60 miles) from the sea – to enhance their pro-environmental inclinations. VR technologies can support this endeavor through their potential for creating a perception of presence at a far away (or even completely artificial) location, allowing people to witness unfamiliar consequences of climate change first-hand and turning these from abstract pieces of knowledge to 'lived experiences' (for similar arguments, see, e.g. Fauville, Queiroz, and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]; Markowitz and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref59">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Support for this idea stems from research showing that participants reported higher personal relevance and severity of (spatially) distant environmental damages when they learned about them through a 360° video viewed via an HMD rather than a computer screen (Breves and Schramm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]). Other studies likewise show that immersive technologies can increase perceived risk and intentions to show risk-mitigating behavior (Ahn et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>]; Nowak et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]), or point to a negative relationship between perceived psychological distance and perceived problem severity (e.g. Carmi and Kimhi [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref63">20</reflink>]; Fox et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]). Thus, immersive technologies appear capable of raising risk awareness – even of risks for faraway locations. General risk awareness, in turn, is posited as a central predictor of pro-environmental behavior (e.g. Kollmuss and Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref65">47</reflink>]; for empirical evidence, see, e.g. Arlt, Hoppe, and Wolling [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]; Panno et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref67">61</reflink>]; Verachtert [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref68">85</reflink>]). Moreover, several studies suggest that viewing climate change as a risk to distant parts of the world or vulnerable others is linked to greater endorsement of mitigation behaviors (Brügger, Morton, and Dessai [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref69">17</reflink>]; Flórez Bossio, Coomes, and Ford [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref70">31</reflink>]; Spence, Poortinga, and Pidgeon [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref71">73</reflink>]; Verplanken, Marks, and Dobromir [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref72">86</reflink>]). Therefore, we hypothesize:</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-7">Hypothesis 2:</hd> <p>Learning about the effects of rising sea levels via a high (vs low) immersion technology will foster pro-environmental behavior intentions mediated via heightened problem awareness (i.e. awareness of climate change being real and problematic).</p> <p>As already implied, however, the cognitive route of increased problem awareness is unlikely to be the only way to foster pro-environmental behavior intentions. Instead, researchers agree that emotional involvement is key to fostering pro-environmental behavior, ocean literacy (Kollmuss and Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]; Stoll-Kleemann [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref74">77</reflink>]), and climate change mitigation behavior (Weber [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref75">87</reflink>]). Prior research suggests that VR technologies may also trigger this emotional route, showing that they affect the inclusion of nature into the self (Ahn et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>]) or emotional responses more broadly (Meijers et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref77">55</reflink>]). Glithero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref78">36</reflink>]) specifically emphasize the role of creating empathy and the closely related emotion of sympathy, as well as promoting altruism as motivators for pro-environmental action. We posit that especially immersive VR may be a powerful tool to create these emotions and, thereby, foster pro-environmental responses – a proposition rarely tested in prior work (for an exception, see Fonseca and Kraus [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref79">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-8">The affective route: creating sympathy for those affected</hd> <p>VR applications have the potential to span not only spatial and temporal distances but also social distances by allowing users to see the world as another person sees it. This gives them a chance to become acutely aware of another's needs or difficulties, which can foster prosocial responses on an emotional and behavioral level (Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref80">70</reflink>]). Regarding the emotional level, we herein focus specifically on what others have called sympathy (Eisenberg, Eggum, and Di Giunta [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref81">29</reflink>]; Lazarus [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref82">48</reflink>]), emotional empathy (Martingano, Hererra, and Konrath [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref83">53</reflink>]), empathic concern (e.g. Davis [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref84">24</reflink>]), or simply empathy (Batson, Batson, Batson, et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>]): 'other-oriented feelings congruent with the perceived welfare of another individual' (Batson, Batson, et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>], p. 621). Following recommendations from a review on the empathy concept (Cuff et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>]), we adopt the term 'sympathy' herein in lieu of empathy to highlight our focus on observers' emotional responses to observing another's plight (emotions <emph>for</emph> others).</p> <p>Prior work suggests that VR applications can foster this emotional response: They can enhance the effectiveness of perspective-taking instructions (Herrera et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref88">41</reflink>]), with perspective-taking being a cognitive prerequisite for and correlate of sympathy (e.g. Myers, Laurent, and Hodges [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref89">56</reflink>]). Similar effects regarding sympathy for individuals affected by adversities stem from a study showing that individuals who viewed a Syrian refugee's daily life in VR reported greater sympathy for her, mediated via a presence-like measure of engagement (Schutte and Stilinović [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref90">69</reflink>]). Sympathy, in turn, has been reliably linked to pro-social behavior (Batson et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref91">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref92">10</reflink>]; Myers, Laurent, and Hodges [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref93">56</reflink>]; for a review, see Eisenberg, Eggum, and Di Giunta [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref94">29</reflink>]), and there is reason to assume that it would also promote pro-environmental responding.</p> <p>As pro-environmental behavior is often effortful or costly for those undertaking it without producing immediate rewards, self-interest would dictate refraining from such actions. This 'selfish' tendency can be offset by concurrently activated socio-altruistic, normative values (Steg et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref95">75</reflink>]; van der Linden [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref96">81</reflink>]), such as caring about others' welfare. These values can be activated by becoming aware of another's plight (Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref97">70</reflink>]) – which immersive VR should allow. Experiencing sympathy as a consequence can further alert perceivers to the presence of these values (Batson, Turk, et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref98">12</reflink>]), thereby promoting pro-environmental responding.</p> <p>In line with this idea, dispositional sympathy – with humans as well as nature – has been found to correlate positively with intentions to show pro-environmental behavior (Pfattheicher, Sassenrath, and Schindler [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref99">62</reflink>]; Tam [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref100">78</reflink>]), and sympathy inductions cause stronger pro-environmental intentions (Heinz and Koessler [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref101">39</reflink>]; Pfattheicher, Sassenrath, and Schindler [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref102">62</reflink>]). Given the link between presence and sympathy reported by Schutte and Stilinović ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref103">69</reflink>]) and the well-established effect of immersion on presence (Cummings and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref104">23</reflink>]), we, therefore, hypothesize:</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-9">Hypothesis 3a:</hd> <p>Learning about the effects of climate change-induced rising sea levels via a high (vs low) immersion technology will foster pro-environmental behavior intentions mediated via heightened sympathy for those directly affected.</p> <p>Based on findings from earlier research showing that immersion might foster an egocentric perspective (Bae et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref105">7</reflink>]), which should counteract feeling sympathy for another's plight by suppressing perspective-taking, one may also assume that technologies high in immersion may reduce sympathy. Assuming that sympathy indeed fosters pro-environmental intentions, this would imply that immersive technologies might adversely affect these intentions by lowering sympathy (<emph>Hypothesis 3b</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-10">The current study</hd> <p>In the current study, we investigated the potential benefits of using immersive technologies in environmental education aimed at fostering ocean literacy. Specifically, we compared the effects of viewing a 360° video on the devastating consequences of rising sea levels for contemporary Fijians via two media differing in immersion: a head-mounted display (with head-tracking) and a standard computer screen (that allowed changing viewpoints throughmouse movements) – technologies currently available at scale to environmental educators in most industrialized countries.</p> <p>We predicted that participants who viewed the video via an HMD (high immersion condition) would report stronger intentions to show pro-environmental behavior than those viewing the same video on a standard computer screen (low immersion condition; Hypothesis 1) and that this effect would be mediated by greater problem awareness (Hypothesis 2) and sympathy with the individuals affected by rising sea levels (Hypothesis 3a). We tested these predictions in a preregistered experimental study (for preregistration[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>], see https://aspredicted.org/zswk-2bct.pdf; for conceptual model, see Figure 1). To account for the possibility of reverse effects (as described for sympathy above), we used two-sided tests throughout.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Conceptual model of hypothesized relationships.</p> <p>Following open science criteria, we report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. The study procedure was approved by the ethics committee at the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, prior to data collection (LEK 2019/004). Data and analysis code are available at https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15947 (data) and https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15948 (code); study materials can be found in the supplement.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-11">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191948496-12">Participants and design</hd> <p>Our experiment had a one-factorial design, manipulating whether participants were in the high immersion condition (i.e. viewed a 360° video via an HMD) or the low immersion condition (i.e. viewed the 360° video on a regular computer screen). As our study focused on testing mediation effects, we based our sample size planning on the simulation studies conducted by Fritz and MacKinnon (Fritz and MacKinnon, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref107">35</reflink>]) for indirect effects using the bias-corrected bootstrap method. We expected the effect of immersion on the two mediators (sympathy and problem awareness), as well as the association between the mediators and pro-environmental behavior intentions, to be of small-to-medium size (α/β = 0.26). To be able to detect an indirect effect of our immersion manipulation on pro-environmental behavior intentions via either mediator with 80% likelihood (should such an effect exist), 162 participants are required.</p> <p>To account for technical issues or missing data, we recruited 180 participants from the authors' institute's participant pool, which mainly comprises students from a German university situated roughly 420 km (260 miles) from the nearest coast. Of these, we excluded 34: 26 were suspicious of our hypotheses (preregistered), technical problems occurred for four participants (not preregistered), and four participants' responses were identified as statistical outliers (i.e. had studentized deleted residuals values larger than |2.65|, meaning that their response was less than 1% likely to be natural; preregistered) in a linear regression regressing pro-environmental intentions on immersion. Thus, 146 respondents remained for analyses (32 male, 112 female, two did not indicate their gender, <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs>=24.00, 18–34, one participant did not provide information on age).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-13">Procedure</hd> <p>The study was conducted in two adjacent laboratories. Upon the arrival of the participants, the experimenter greeted them and alternatingly assigned them to the high or low immersion condition to ensure balanced group sizes. Next, participants received written information about the study and provided informed consent to participate.</p> <p>Participants in the <emph>low immersion condition</emph> were seated in front of a laptop. The experimenter switched on the screen, ensured that participants saw the instructions, and left the room. Subsequently, participants viewed the video (described below). While watching, participants could change their perspective by 'dragging' the video with the mouse, meaning that the actions participants needed to carry out to change their perspective in the 360° video (i.e. using the mouse) did not correspond to what they would naturally do (i.e. the display was low in immersion due to not supporting natural sensorimotor contingencies; Slater [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref108">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a separate laboratory, participants in the high immersion condition were seated on a rotating chair. The experimenter helped them put on the HMD (HTC Vive Pro). Once participants signalled that they were ready to start, the experimenter started the video and left the room. Participants could change their perspective by turning their heads or rotating the chair. Hence, actions participants would naturally carry out to see what is behind them (i.e. turning their head) had the same effect within the virtual environment (i.e. natural sensorimotor contingencies were supported; Slater [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref109">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>We showed the 7 min via Unity on high-performance gaming laptops with a dedicated graphic card (Nvidia gtx 980ti). It depicted the impact of climate change on three Fijian islands (Heller, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref110">40</reflink>]; https://youtu.be/%5fcZMGoYTRDo). Throughout the video, viewers 'meet' several islanders who report on the effects sea level rise has had on them and their communities. A man from Narikoso describes daily floods, house damage, and land loss while participants 'watch on' from his flooded lawn. A woman from Nukubalavu recounts a terrifying experience with a cyclone. In a third take, villagers and the mayor of Vunidogoloa report that they needed to be relocated due to climate change, loss of land, and loss of food resources (see Figures 2a-c for stills from the video). They urge leaders of larger countries to understand and assist with the reality of climate change. In each case, the videos are shot so that viewers get a full-body view of the interviewees, interspersed with sections where the speaker is not visible to viewers, but their report continues as a voice-over.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. (a). Villager's flooded lawn on Narikoso. (b) Villager's house destroyed by cyclone. (c) Spot of relocated villager's previous house. © 2017 IntoVR.de, All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission.</p> <p>After the video, participants in both conditions were instructed on-screen to move to a second desk and fill out the provided post-manipulation questionnaire on paper to ensure that both conditions contained a media switch. Participants reported on perceived presence, sympathy and perspective-taking[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref111">2</reflink>] with the individuals portrayed in the video, empathy with nature<sups>2</sups>, personal pro-environmental norms<sups>2</sups>, problem awareness, and their intentions to show pro-environmental behavior. Subsequently, we collected demographic information and suspicion checks. Upon returning the filled-out survey to the experimenter, participants were debriefed and could request deletion of their data (in line with the requirements of the local IRB). Overall, the present study lasted roughly 20 min. Participants received 8€ for participating in this and an independent second study.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-14">Key measures</hd> <p>We collected all measures on 7-point Likert scales. Aside from the items assessing presence, which used the same anchors as the original scale, all scales used the anchors 1 = don't agree and 7 = fully agree. We herein report only our key measures (for information on exploratory measures, see supplement).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-15">Sympathy</hd> <p>We assessed sympathy with eight items (α = 0.88), e.g. 'When I think about the people in the video, I am moved', 'I feel sympathy for the people in the video'. Six items were adapted from Batson and colleagues (1991); two items were adapted from de Vos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref112">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-16">Problem awareness</hd> <p>We measured problem awareness with five items (α = 0.70) adapted from Arlt, Hoppe, and Wolling ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref113">6</reflink>]). Example items are 'Climate change is one of the greatest threats to humankind' or 'The numerous storms and warm winters make clear that there is climate change'.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-17">Pro-environmental behavior intentions</hd> <p>We used the eight-item scale (α = 0.82) from Pfattheicher and colleagues' (2016) work, originally based on Schultz, Zelezny, and Dalrymple ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref114">68</reflink>]), to assess pro-environmental intentions. Participants indicated how much they could see themselves engaging in several conservation-related activities (e.g. waste avoidance, sustainable transportation choices, recycling, and social behaviors towards conservation) in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-18">Presence</hd> <p>We assessed perceived presence with the German version of the IGroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ; Schubert, Friedmann, and Regenbrecht [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref115">67</reflink>]). The 14 items (e.g. 'I felt like the virtual world goes on behind me', 'I felt present in the virtual space', 'How real did the virtual world appear to you?') formed a reliable scale (α = 0.86).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-19">Results</hd> <p>We used IBM SPSS (v.25) and Hayes' macro PROCESS for SPSS (v 4.3, Hayes [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref116">38</reflink>]) for data analyses. All tests were conducted two-sided at an alpha-error level of 5%.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-20">Initial check: presence</hd> <p>We first tested whether our assumption that the higher objective immersion of HMDs compared to the computer screen would translate into a heightened perception of presence. Results of an independent samples t-test support the assumption underlying our manipulation: Participants who watched the video <emph>via</emph> an HMD reported significantly stronger perceived presence (<emph>M</emph> = 5.04, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.77) than participants who watched the video on a regular computer screen (<emph>M</emph> = 4.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.95; <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref117">144</reflink>) = −4.92, <emph>p</emph> <.001).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-21">Primary analyses</hd> <p>To test whether, as implied by Hypothesis 1, participants in the high immersion condition report stronger pro-environmental intentions than participants in the low immersion condition, we ran an independent samples t-test. The results reveal a trend towards participants in the high immersion condition expressing stronger intentions (<emph>M</emph> = 6.22, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.67) than those in the low immersion condition (<emph>M</emph> = 6.03, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.91). This difference was, however, non-significant, <emph>t</emph> (134.30) = −1.44, <emph>p</emph> =.153. Hence, we found no support for Hypothesis 1 (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics of all focal variables by condition and Table 2 for correlations between variables).</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics by condition and t-test results, <emph>N</emph> = 146.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Low immersion M (SD) n = 74</td><td>High immersion M (SD) n = 72</td><td><italic>t</italic>(<italic>df</italic>)</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><italic>d</italic></td><td>CI<sub>95%</sub>(Mean Diff)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>LL</italic></td><td><italic>UL</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>presence</td><td char=".">4.33 (0.95)</td><td char=".">5.04 (0.77)</td><td char=".">−4.92 (144)</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">−0.81</td><td char=".">−0.99</td><td char=".">−0.42</td></tr><tr><td>pro-environmental behavior intentions</td><td char=".">6.03 (0.91)</td><td char=".">6.22 (0.67)</td><td char=".">−1.44 (134.30)</td><td char=".">.153</td><td char=".">−0.24</td><td char=".">−0.45</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>problem awareness</td><td char=".">6.30 (0.77)</td><td char=".">6.32 (0.74)</td><td char=".">−0.13 (144)</td><td char=".">.895</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.27</td><td char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td>sympathy</td><td char=".">5.65 (1.03)</td><td char=".">5.75 (0.93)</td><td char=".">−0.62 (143)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td char=".">.535</td><td char=".">−0.10</td><td char=".">−0.42</td><td char=".">0.22</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 One participant in the high immersion condition did not respond to the sympathy items.</p> <p>Table 2. Pearson correlations between core variables (Cronbach's alpha), df = 146.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. Immersion (1 = high, −1 = low)</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0.38<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td>2. presence</td><td /><td>(.86)</td><td>0.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.30<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>3. pro-environmental behavior intentions</td><td /><td /><td>(.82)</td><td char=".">0.41<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td char=".">0.58<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>4. problem awareness</td><td /><td /><td /><td>(.70)</td><td char=".">0.50<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>5. sympathy<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">a</xref></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>(.88)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> < 0.010.</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> < 0.050.</item> <item>5 One participant did not respond to the sympathy items. Thus, df=145 for all correlations involving sympathy.</item> </ulist> <p>Subsequently, we tested Hypotheses 2 and 3 through a mediation analysis. We entered immersion as the predictor, problem awareness and sympathy as parallel mediators, and pro-environmental behavior intentions as the outcome variable. This analysis revealed no effect of immersion on problem awareness, <emph>B</emph> = 0.01, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.06, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref118">143</reflink>) = 0.17, <emph>p</emph> =.868, <emph>CI<subs>95</subs></emph><subs>%</subs> [-0.11, 0.14], nor on sympathy, <emph>B</emph> = 0.05, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.08, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref119">143</reflink>) = 0.62, <emph>p</emph> =.535, <emph>CI</emph><subs>95%</subs> [-0.11, 0.21]. We did, however, find positive relations between problem awareness and pro-environmental intentions, <emph>B</emph> = 0.17, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.08, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref120">141</reflink>) = 2.09, <emph>p</emph> =.038, <emph>CI</emph><subs>95%</subs> [0.01, 0.33], as well as between sympathy and pro-environmental intentions, <emph>B</emph> = 0.41, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.06, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref121">141</reflink>) = 6.47, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>CI</emph><subs>95%</subs> [0.29, 0.54]. Indirect effects emerged neither via problem awareness, <emph>B</emph> = 0.002, <emph>SE<subs>Boot</subs></emph> = 0.01, <emph>CI</emph><subs>95%</subs> [-0.03, 0.03], nor via sympathy, <emph>B</emph> = 0.02, <emph>SE<subs>Boot</subs></emph> = 0.03, <emph>CI</emph><subs>95%</subs> [-0.04, 0.09]. Thus, the results do not suggest that problem awareness or sympathy mediate the effect of immersion on pro-environmental behavior intentions.</p> <p>A closer look at the correlations between our variables of interest suggests that rather than immersion as a technological feature per se, experienced presence might be core to fostering pro-environmental intentions: While manipulated immersion was unrelated to pro-environmental intentions, greater experienced presence was associated with stronger pro-environmental intentions. In addition, we found a positive link between experienced presence and sympathy but not problem awareness. Thus, stronger experiences of presence not only go along with greater pro-environmental intentions but also with greater sympathy for individuals affected by the negative consequences of rising sea levels induced by climate change.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-22">Exploratory analyses</hd> <p>As we found a significant effect of immersion on perceived presence and positive correlations between presence, sympathy, and pro-environmental behavior, we conducted a sequential mediation analysis for exploratory purposes. To this end, we used Process, Model 81. Immersion served as the independent variable, perceived presence as the first-stage mediator, sympathy and problem awareness as parallel second-stage mediators, and pro-environmental intentions as the dependent variable (see Figure 3).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Unstandardized path estimates of the sequential mediation model for pro-environmental intentions with immersion as the predictor. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths; solid lines represent significant paths. *** p <.001, ** p <.010, * p <.050; for full statistics, see Table 3.</p> <p>The analysis revealed a significant sequential indirect effect of immersion on pro-environmental intentions, mediated by perceived presence and sympathy, <emph>B</emph> = 0.05, <emph>SE<subs>Boot</subs></emph> = 0.02, <emph>CI<subs>95%</subs></emph> [0.02, 0.09] (see Table 3). This suggests that the higher experienced presence resulting from watching the video in the HMD (vs. on a computer screen) was associated with sympathy, which was subsequently linked to stronger pro-environmental intentions. Hence, our exploratory analyses tentatively suggest that creating a strong perception of presence could be key to fostering pro-environmental intentions and that this link might be better explained by an emotional route of presence fostering sympathy than by a cognitive route of presence fostering problem awareness.</p> <p>Table 3. Full list of path coefficients from sequential mediation analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Path</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t (df)</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><italic>95% CI</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>LL</italic></td><td><italic>UL</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Direct Effect of Immersion</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Immersion presence</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">4.80 (143)</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char=".">0.49</td></tr><tr><td> Immersion awareness</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−0.30 (142)</td><td char=".">.765</td><td char=".">−0.16</td><td char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td> Immersion sympathy</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">−0.83 (142)</td><td char=".">.409</td><td char=".">−0.24</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td> Immersion pro-envir. intentions</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">1.18 (140)</td><td char=".">.240</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">0.18</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Direct Effects of Presence</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Presence awareness</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">1.22 (142)</td><td char=".">.224</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td> Presence sympathy</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">3.85 (142)</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">0.53</td></tr><tr><td> Presence pro-environ. intention</td><td char=".">0.002</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.03 (140)</td><td char=".">.980</td><td char=".">−0.13</td><td char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Effects of problem awareness & sympathy</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Awareness pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">2.08 (140)</td><td char=".">.039</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.33</td></tr><tr><td> Sympathy pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">0.41</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">6.15 (140)</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td char=".">0.54</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Simple Indirect Effects of Immersion</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Immersion presence pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr><tr><td> Immersion awareness pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">−0.004</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td> Immersion sympathy pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Sequential Indirect Effects of Immersion</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Immersion presence awareness pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">−0.002</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td> Immersion presence sympathy pro-environ. intentions</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Naturally, only the first step in this chain can be causally interpreted since all other paths are based on correlations. Thus, our analyses can only hint at, but not provide evidence for, causal processes. To test such processes, our findings require replication in a stricter experimental setting wherein presence and the mediators are independently manipulated.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-23">Discussion</hd> <p>For most of the world's population, rising sea levels are an abstract phenomenon by which they are or will not be directly affected. We tested whether using immersive digital technologies to educate such people on the consequences of sea level rise would foster pro-environmental behavior and tested two possible routes for such a beneficial effect: one via problem awareness and one via sympathy for affected individuals. In doing so, we compared the effects of two technologies for delivering the same educational content on rising sea levels: a cinematic 360° display via an HMD (a high immersion technology) and a display via a standard computer screen (a low immersion technology).</p> <p>We did not find evidence for our primary hypotheses. That is, participants who 'witnessed' the consequences of rising sea levels for Fijians through an HMD reported descriptively, but not significantly, greater intentions to behave more environmentally friendly in the future than participants who did so via a computer screen (speaking against Hypothesis 1). Speaking against Hypotheses 2 and 3, we likewise found no evidence of high (vs low) immersion affecting behavioral intentions via stronger problem awareness or sympathy for those affected by rising sea levels.</p> <p>The latter finding is in line with a recent meta-analysis suggesting that, while VR can foster sympathy (called 'emotional empathy' in the meta-analysis) compared to non-VR technologies, more immersive VRs are not more effective in doing so than less immersive VRs (Martingano, Hererra, and Konrath [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref122">53</reflink>]). For the former findings, two explanations come to mind. First, the results point to a ceiling effect: The mean for pro-environmental intentions (operationalized as respondents' readiness to show four facets of conservation behavior) is very high, and 66% of the sample reached a value of six or higher on this scale. This might be due to the assessed behaviors all requiring relatively little effort and producing little costs. Thus, to garner a fuller understanding of how immersive VR may impact pro-environmental intentions and create more sensitive measures, future research should go beyond assessing easy-to-implement, private-sphere pro-environmental behavior (Stern [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref123">76</reflink>]) to also include more effortful, potentially even public-sphere behaviors such as joining protests or pro-environmental organizations.</p> <p>Less difficult to address is a second, more theoretical explanation for the absence of an effect of immersion on problem awareness. In the present work, we relied on items assessing awareness of climate change and the threat it poses rather than the consequences of rising sea levels that were portrayed in the stimulus material. Thus, the awareness measure did not fit the learning content, which might have prevented the manipulation from affecting it.</p> <p>On an even more theoretical note, our findings are in line with the demonstrated ineffectiveness of widely-used interventions seeking to foster pro-environmental tendencies by reducing psychological distance. Prior work suggests that climate change per se is not as psychologically distant as previously assumed and that efforts to reduce distance do not reliably foster pro-environmental inclinations (van Valkengoed, Steg, and Perlaviciute [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref124">84</reflink>]). The first finding may explain the second: If climate change is already perceived to be a proximal issue, there is little room for interventions to raise psychological closeness and, thereby, pro-environmental intentions. In the introduction, we suggested that to foster pro-environmental intentions, it might be necessary to 'proximise' specific consequences of climate change that are factually distant to participants and that using immersive technologies might be a means to accomplish this. Our current findings only provide tentative support for this proposition in an exploratory analysis. It showed that more immersive technologies were significantly, but indirectly linked to greater pro-environmental intentions via fostering presence which, in turn, was associated with greater sympathy, a known correlate of pro-environmental intentions (Heinz and Koessler [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref125">39</reflink>]). Therefore, we would argue that further research seeking to 'proximize' factually distant consequences of climate change is necessary before definite conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of this approach. Crucially, this points to a need for scientists and educators to closely consider which consequences of climate change their target groups are likely to be unfamiliar with, that is, which issues are psychologically distant enough that there is actually distance to reduce.</p> <p>In investigating the effectiveness of such targeted approaches, researchers may also seek to manipulate other factors that strengthen pro-environmental inclinations. These include, for instance, enhancing learners' perceived ability to do something against climate change (i.e. self and response efficacy; e.g. van Valkengoed, Abrahamse, and Steg [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref126">82</reflink>]; van Valkengoed and Steg [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref127">83</reflink>]). Through their ability to simulate the outcomes of an individual's actions, VR technologies appear promising in this regard (e.g. Plechatá et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref128">65</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref129">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, such technologies may be more effective when used to present learning material that is more engaging. Herein, we used a publicly accessible video showing the consequences of climate change and rising sea levels for Fijians. While participants got to 'experience' a villager's flooded lawn, they did not get to experience a cyclone or resettlement. Rather, they heard about these from the persons portrayed in the video and saw the aftermath of these events. Using materials (e.g. computer-generated footage or time-lapses) that enable participants to witness such events more directly or even interact with the content more intensively (e.g. in simulations) may allow for immersive technologies to better unfold their potential.</p> <p>From an educational design point of view, however, our findings suggest that to effectively deliver VR content, environmental educators might not need to invest in HMDs. Instead, environmental educators might want to foster perceived presence within the contexts the learning content focuses on: Presence was significantly positively correlated with intentions to show pro-environmental behavior in the future as well as sympathy for those affected by rising sea levels.</p> <p>Admittedly, using well-made, highly immersive technologies such as up-to-date HMDs is one way of raising perceived presence, as suggested by our findings and prior research (Cummings and Bailenson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref130">23</reflink>]). Co-designing virtual worlds with stakeholders appears promising in designing experiences delivered throughsuch technologies (Calil et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref131">19</reflink>]). However, using HMDs is only one way of fostering presence, and future research may address whether it is more effective than other, potentially less expensive and, consequently, more scalable and accessible ways of fostering presence. These include encouraging learners to create vivid mental images of the learning content (Iachini et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref132">44</reflink>]), using realistic audio and spatialized sound (de la Peña et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref133">26</reflink>]), and crafting narratives that give learners an active, agentic role by making them a 'real character' within the narrative who can interact with the learning content (de Bruin et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref134">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Naturally, the latter can effectively be achieved through purposefully designed VR environments that allow for user interactions with the learning material (which may need to be designed to invite interaction, cf., Johnson-Glenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref135">46</reflink>]). This can potentially foster engagement with the VR-content (e.g. Huang et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref136">43</reflink>]) and can aid in the acquisition of practical knowledge. In fact, allowing for and encouraging interactions have been suggested as key ingredients for designing promising VR learning environments (Johnson-Glenberg [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref137">45</reflink>]). This should be particularly relevant for educational efforts aimed at 'training 'learners to lead more sustainable lives (as it also allows giving direct feedback and simulating the consequences of learners' actions, thereby addressing self-efficacy, embodiment, self-regulation and other key factors for immersive learning as suggested, for example, by the Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning, Makransky and Petersen [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref138">50</reflink>]). Given that interacting with the learning content was possible in both conditions of this experiment, we can not draw definite conclusions on the role of interactivity for the processes tested herein. Hence, further research is needed to test to what extent interactivity is needed to create affective connections to the learning content, such as creating sympathy for humans impacted by rising sea levels or for the ocean as a whole, as initiatives within the UN Decade of Ocean Science aim to do (e.g. <emph>Decade of Ocean Empathy</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref139">28</reflink>]; https://thehydro.us/ocean-empathy).</p> <p>In studying these questions, we suggest that future research should address three limitations of the present research. First, participants in our study were predominantly German university students with a corresponding educational level from a context that prides itself on being very environmentally friendly. This may have contributed to the high levels of problem awareness and pro-environmental intentions we observed herein, preventing our manipulation from affecting our measures. At the same time, the homogeneity of our sample limits the generalizability of our findings, which points to the need for future research using more diverse samples and, ideally, samples from other countries. In replicating our study, future researchers may also seek to recruit larger samples, given that the relations we observed were smaller than originally predicted. If we take these relations as estimates of the true population effect size, we have to conclude that the present study failed to achieve the desired 80% power for detecting such effects. This makes a large-scale replication necessary for drawing more definite conclusions on the potential usefulness of different technologies for marine environmental education.</p> <p>Second, our findings largely build on correlational relationships, as presence, sympathy, problem awareness, and pro-environmental intentions were all measured. While we can confidently say that higher immersion caused greater presence, we can only speculate that sympathy for Fijians depicted in the video underlies the downstream link between perceived presence and pro-environmental intentions. We cannot rule out that unassessed third variables might explain this relationship better than sympathy (or problem awareness, for that matter). Future research might tackle this issue by employing the rigorous experimental causal chain approach (Spencer, Zanna, and Fong [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref140">74</reflink>]) by (a) directly inducing high or low presence to assess its causal effect on sympathy and (b) subsequently manipulating sympathy to assess its causal effect on pro-environmental intentions.</p> <p>Finally, future work seeking to investigate the potential benefits of immersive VR for marine environmental education may need to more closely consider interindividual differences between learners. Specifically, recent work suggests that the extent to which individuals attribute extreme weather events to climate change (Ogunbode et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref141">59</reflink>]) and their prior beliefs about climate change (Howe [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref142">42</reflink>]) modulate how they respond to 'experiencing' natural hazards. Moreover, learners' visuospatial abilities can moderate the effects of presentation format (i.e. immersion) and interactions with the learning content on learning outcomes (e.g. Brucker et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref143">15</reflink>]). In the present work, no such potential moderators were assessed.</p> <p>Despite its limitations, our work has implications for marine environmental educators and their use of technology. Our findings suggest that by fostering learners' perception of presence, environmental educators might simultaneously induce learners to experience sympathy for those affected by marine phenomena like rising sea levels, which goes along with a greater willingness to show pro-environmental behavior. Crucially, our findings imply that to foster sympathy for affected people far away, it might not be essential to use expensive and possibly complex hardware. Rather, it appears that fostering perceived presence among learners might suffice to achieve this goal. However, we found no similar relation between presence and problem awareness. This suggests a pivot towards designing (VR) learning experiences that prioritize emotional engagement with the issues, possibly by focusing on storytelling and personal narratives that can evoke other-regarding emotions like sympathy and empathy (e.g. Christofi, Hadjipanayi, and Michael-Grigoriou [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref144">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>By suggesting this shift, in sum, our study contributes to our understanding of how digital technologies, particularly VR, can be optimally designed and utilized in environmental education for rather abstract phenomena, such as rising sea levels for people far from the coasts, to foster emotional engagement and pro-environmental intentions. It suggests that the experienced presence, not immersion per se, and emotional engagement are key correlates of pro-environmental intentions, offering new insights into designing effective VR-based educational interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-24">Authors' contributions</hd> <p>Both authors were involved in the conception and design of the presented Study. The first author carried out the analyses and interpretation of the data, which the second author independently verified. The first author wrote the first draft of the paper; the second author was involved in reviewing and editing this initial draft and all changes made during the review process. Both authors approved the submitted version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-25">Author note</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Dominik Lammer for his help in programming this study and collecting the data. Moreover, they thank the research assistants for their support during data collection.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-26">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-27">Geolocation information</hd> <p>The study was conducted in Germany. Its content deals with the consequences of rising sea levels for Fijians.</p> <hd id="AN0191948496-28">Data availability statement</hd> <p>Data and code for this study are available under the following links: https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15947 (data) and https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15948 (code).</p> <ref id="AN0191948496-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Deviating from the preregistration, we have changed the term "immersion score" to "presence score", and the term "empathy" to "sympathy", to clearly denote that our hypothesis concerns affective aspects of empathy. Moreover, we had originally not considered that technical issues would occur. Thus, our exclusion of participants for whom technical issues occurred was not preregistered but necessary to ensure comparability of participants.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> This measure was collected for exploratory purposes (see supplement for descriptive statistics and correlations with key study variables).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref61" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2025.2459340.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191948496-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ahn, S. J. (Grace), J. N. Bailenson, and D. Park. 2014. " Short- and Long-Term Effects of Embodied Experiences in Immersive Virtual Environments on Environmental Locus of Control and Behavior." Computers in Human Behavior 39 : 235 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.025.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ahn, S. J. (Grace), J. Bostick, E. Ogle, K. L. Nowak, K. T. McGillicuddy, and J. N. Bailenson. 2016. " Experiencing Nature: Embodying Animals in Immersive Virtual Environments Increases Inclusion of Nature in Self and Involvement with Nature." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (6): 399 – 419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ahn, S. J. (Grace), J. M. Hahm, and K. Johnsen. 2019. " Feeling the Weight of Calories: Using Haptic Feedback as Virtual Exemplars to Promote Risk Perception among Young Females on Unhealthy Snack Choices." Media Psychology 22 (4): 626 – 652. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1492939.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Archer, D., and K. Finger. 2018. Walking in Another's Virtual Shoes: Do 360-Degree Video News Stories Generate Empathy in Viewers? https://doi.org/10.7916/D8669W5C.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref32" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, N. M., A. W. Bowers, and E. Gaillard. 2020. " Environmental Education Outcomes for Conservation: A Systematic Review." Biological Conservation 241 : 108224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref66" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Arlt, D., I. Hoppe, and J. Wolling. 2011. " Climate Change and Media Usage: Effects on Problem Awareness and Behavioural Intentions." International Communication Gazette 73 (1–2): 45 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386741.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref105" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bae, S., H. Lee, H. Park, H. Cho, J. Park, and J. Kim. 2012. " The Effects of Egocentric and Allocentric Representations on Presence and Perceived Realism: Tested in Stereoscopic 3D Games." Interacting with Computers 24 (4): 251 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Batson, C. D. 1991. " The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer." Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref85" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Batson, C. D., J. G. Batson, R. M. Todd, B. H. Brummett, L. L. Shaw, and C. M. R. Aldeguer. 1995. " Empathy and the Collective Good: Caring for One of the Others in a Social Dilemma." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (4): 619 – 631. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.619.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C. D., J. Chang, R. Orr, and J. Rowland. 2002. " Empathy, Attitudes, and Action: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Motivate One to Help the Group? " Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (12): 1656 – 1666. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237647.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C. Daniel, Karen Sager, Eric Garst, Misook Kang, Kostia Rubchinsky, and Karen 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C. D., C. L. Turk, L. L. Shaw, and T. R. Klein. 1995. " Information Function of Empathic Emotion: Learning That We Value the Other's Welfare." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (2): 300 – 313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bergquist, M., M. Thiel, M. H. Goldberg, and S. van der Linden. 2023. " Field Interventions for Climate Change Mitigation Behaviors: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120 (13): e2214851120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214851120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breves, P., and H. Schramm. 2021. " Bridging Psychological Distance: The Impact of Immersive Media on Distant and Proximal Environmental Issues." Computers in Human Behavior 115 : 106606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106606.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brucker, B., G. Pardi, F. Uehlin, L. Moosmann, M. Lachmair, M. Halfmann, and P. Gerjets. 2024. " How Learners' Visuospatial Ability and Different Ways of Changing the Perspective Influence Learning about Movements in Desktop and Immersive Virtual Reality Environments." Educational Psychology Review 36 (3): 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09895-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brügger, A., C. Demski, and S. Capstick. 2021. " How Personal Experience Affects Perception of and Decisions Related to Climate Change: A Psychological View." Weather, Climate, and Society 13 (3): 397 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0100.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brügger, A., T. A. Morton, and S. Dessai. 2015. " Hand in Hand: Public Endorsement of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation." PLoS One 10 (4): e0124843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124843.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brügger, A., T. A. Morton, and S. Dessai. 2016. " Proximising" Climate Change Reconsidered: A Construal Level Theory Perspective." Journal of Environmental Psychology 46 : 125 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calil, J., G. Fauville, A. Queiroz, K. Leo, A. Mann, T. Wise-West, P. Salvatore, and J. Bailenson. 2021. " Using Virtual Reality in Sea Level Rise Planning and Community Engagement—an Overview." Water 13 (9): 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carmi, N., and S. Kimhi. 2015. " Further than the Eye Can See: Psychological Distance and Perception of Environmental Threats." Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 21 (8): 2239 – 2257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1046419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christofi, M., C. Hadjipanayi, and D. Michael-Grigoriou. 2022. " The Use of Storytelling in Virtual Reality for Studying Empathy: A Review." 2022 International Conference on Interactive Media, Smart Systems and Emerging Technologies (IMET), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMET54801.2022.9929546.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuff, B. M. P., S. J. Brown, L. Taylor, and D. J. Howat. 2016. " Empathy: A Review of the Concept." Emotion Review 8 (2): 144 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummings, J. J., and J. N. Bailenson. 2016. " How Immersive is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence." Media Psychology 19 (2): 272 – 309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, M. H. 1983. " Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (1): 113 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Bruin, K., Y. de Haan, S. Kruikemeier, S. Lecheler, and N. Goutier. 2022. " A First-Person Promise? A Content-Analysis of Immersive Journalistic Productions." Journalism 23 (2): 479 – 498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920922006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de la Peña, N., P. Weil, J. Llobera, B. Spanlang, D. Friedman, M. V. Sanchez-Vives, and M. Slater. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Vos, B., M. van Zomeren, E. H. Gordijn, and T. Postmes. 2013. " The Communication of "Pure" Group-Based Anger Reduces Tendencies toward Intergroup Conflict Because It Increases out-Group Empathy." Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 39 (8): 1043 – 1052. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213489140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decade of Ocean Empathy. n.d. The hydrous. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://thehydro.us/ocean-empathy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N., N. D. Eggum, and L. Di Giunta. 2010. " Empathy-Related Responding: Associations with Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and Intergroup Relations." Social Issues and Policy Review 4 (1): 143 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fauville, G., A. C. M. Queiroz, and J. N. Bailenson. 2020. " Chapter 5 - Virtual Reality as a Promising Tool to Promote Climate Change Awareness." In J. Kim & H. Song (Eds.), Technology and Health, 91 – 108. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00005-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flórez Bossio, C., O. T. Coomes, and J. Ford. 2022. " What Motivates Urban Dwellers to Adapt to Climate-Driven Water Insecurity? An Empirical Study from Lima, Peru." Environmental Science & Policy 136 : 136 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fonseca, D., and M. Kraus. 2016. " A Comparison of Head-Mounted and Hand-Held Displays for 360° Videos with Focus on Attitude and Behavior Change." Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference, 287 – 296. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994310.2994334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, J., J. McKnight, Y. Sun, D. Maung, and R. Crawfis. 2020. " Using a Serious Game to Communicate Risk and Minimize Psychological Distance regarding Environmental Pollution." Telematics and Informatics 46 : 101320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraustino, J. D., J. Y. Lee, S. Y. Lee, and H. Ahn. 2018. " Effects of 360° Video on Attitudes toward Disaster Communication: Mediating and Moderating Roles of Spatial Presence and Prior Disaster Media Involvement." Public Relations Review 44 (3): 331 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fritz, Matthew S, and David P MacKinnon. 2007. " Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect." Psychological Science 18 (3): 233 – 239. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glithero, L. D., N. Bridge, and N. Hart, et al. 2024. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers - Challenge 10: Restoring Society's Relationship with the Ocean. Paris, France : UNESCO-IOC. https://doi.org/10.25607/EKWN-WH61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greussing, E. 2020. " Powered by Immersion? Examining Effects of 360-Degree Photography on Knowledge Acquisition and Perceived Message Credibility of Climate Change News." Environmental Communication 14 (3): 316 – 331. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1664607.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 3rd ed. New York,NY : The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinz, N., and A.-K. Koessler. 2021. " Other-regarding Preferences and Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Interdisciplinary Review of Experimental Studies." Ecological Economics 184 : 106987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106987.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, M. (Director). 2017. " Warum Dieses Dorf dem Meer Weichen Musste—Ein 360°-Film [Video Recording]. " https://youtu.be/_cZMGoYTRDo</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrera, F., J. Bailenson, E. Weisz, E. Ogle, and J. Zaki. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howe, P. D. 2021. " Extreme Weather Experience and Climate Change Opinion." Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42 : 127 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.05.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, W., R. D. Roscoe, M. C. Johnson‐Glenberg, and S. D. Craig. 2021. " Motivation, Engagement, and Performance across Multiple Virtual Reality Sessions and Levels of Immersion." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37 (3): 745 – 758. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12520.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iachini, T., L. Maffei, M. Masullo, V. P. Senese, M. Rapuano, A. Pascale, F. Sorrentino, and G. Ruggiero. 2019. " The Experience of Virtual Reality: Are Individual Differences in Mental Imagery Associated with Sense of Presence? " Cognitive Processing 20 (3): 291 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0897-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. 2018. " Immersive VR and Education: Embodied Design Principles That Include Gesture and Hand Controls." Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 : 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00081.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson‐Glenberg, M. C., H. Bartolomea, and E. Kalina. 2021. " Platform is Not Destiny: Embodied Learning Effects Comparing 2D Desktop to 3D Virtual Reality STEM Experiences." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37 (5): 1263 – 1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12567.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. " Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior? " Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loy, L. S., and A. Spence. 2020. " Reducing, and Bridging, the Psychological Distance of Climate Change." Journal of Environmental Psychology 67 : 101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., and G. B. Petersen. 2021. " The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): A Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality." Educational Psychology Review 33 (3): 937 – 958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markowitz, D. M., and J. N. Bailenson. 2021. " Virtual Reality and the Psychology of Climate Change." Current Opinion in Psychology 42 : 60 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markowitz, D. M., R. Laha, B. P. Perone, R. D. Pea, and J. N. Bailenson. 2018. " Immersive Virtual Reality Field Trips Facilitate Learning about Climate Change." Frontiers in Psychology 9 : 2364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martingano, A. J., F. Hererra, and S. Konrath. 2021. " Virtual Reality Improves Emotional but Not Cognitive Empathy: A Meta-Analysis." Technology, Mind, and Behavior 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000034.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKinley, E., D. Burdon, and R. J. Shellock. 2023. " The Evolution of Ocean Literacy: A New Framework for the United Nations Ocean Decade and beyond." Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 : 114467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meijers, M. H. C., Torfadóttir, R. ". Heather, Wonneberger, A, and Maslowska, E. " 2023. " Experiencing Climate Change Virtually: The Effects of Virtual Reality on Climate Change Related Cognitions, Emotions, and Behavior." Environmental Communication 17 (6): 581 – 601. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2229043.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, M. W., S. M. Laurent, and S. D. Hodges. 2014. " Perspective Taking Instructions and Self-Other Overlap: Different Motives for Helping." Motivation and Emotion 38 (2): 224 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9377-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowak, G. J., N. J. Evans, B. W. Wojdynski, S. J. (Grace) Ahn, M. E. Len-Rios, K. Carera, S. Hale, and D. McFalls. 2020. " Using Immersive Virtual Reality to Improve the Beliefs and Intentions of Influenza Vaccine Avoidant 18-to-49-Year-Olds: Considerations, Effects, and Lessons Learned." Vaccine 38 (5): 1225 – 1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.11.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oceandecade: Vision & Mission. 2023. " Ocean Decade. " June 8). https://oceandecade.org/vision-mission/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogunbode, C. A., C. Demski, S. B. Capstick, and R. G. Sposato. 2019. " Attribution Matters: Revisiting the Link between Extreme Weather Experience and Climate Change Mitigation Responses." Global Environmental Change 54 : 31 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oh, J., S. Sudarshan, E. Jin, S. Nah, and N. Yu. 2020. " How 360-Degree Video Influences Content Perceptions and Environmental Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Self-Efficacy." Science Communication 42 (4): 423 – 453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020932174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panno, A., G. Carrus, F. Maricchiolo, and L. Mannetti. 2015. " Cognitive Reappraisal and Pro‐Environmental Behavior: The Role of Global Climate Change Perception." European Journal of Social Psychology 45 (7): 858 – 867. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfattheicher, S., C. Sassenrath, and S. Schindler. 2016. " Feelings for the Suffering of Others and the Environment: Compassion Fosters Proenvironmental Tendencies." Environment and Behavior 48 (7): 929 – 945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515574549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pimentel, D., and S. Kalyanaraman. 2022. " The Effects of Embodying Wildlife in Virtual Reality on Conservation Behaviors." Scientific Reports 12 (1): 6439. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10268-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plechatá, A., M. H. Hielkema, L.-M. Merkl, G. Makransky, and M. B. Frøst. 2024. " Shifting from Information- to Experience-Based Climate Change Communication Increases Pro-Environmental Behavior via Efficacy Beliefs." Environmental Communication 18 (5): 589 – 609. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2334727.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plechatá, A., T. Morton, F. J. A. Perez-Cueto, and G. Makransky. 2022. " Why Just Experience the Future When You Can Change It: Virtual Reality Can Increase Pro-Environmental Food Choices through Self-Efficacy." Technology, Mind, and Behavior 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000080.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reser, J. P., and G. L. Bradley. 2020. " The Nature, Significance, and Influence of Perceived Personal Experience of Climate Change." WIREs Climate Change 11 (5): e668. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.668.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schubert, T., F. Friedmann, and H. Regenbrecht. 2001. " The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights." Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10 (3): 266 – 281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz, P. W., L. Zelezny, and N. J. Dalrymple. 2000. " A Multinational Perspective on the Relation between Judeo-Christian Religious Beliefs and Attitudes of Environmental Concern." Environment and Behavior 32 (4): 576 – 591. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972676.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte, N. S., and E. J. Stilinović. 2017. " Facilitating Empathy through Virtual Reality." Motivation and Emotion 41 (6): 708 – 712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, S. H. 1977. " Normative Influences on Altruism." In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221 – 279). New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. 2009. " Place Illusion and Plausibility Can Lead to Realistic Behaviour in Immersive Virtual Environments." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364 (1535): 3549 – 3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. 2018. " Immersion and the Illusion of Presence in Virtual Reality." British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953) 109 (3): 431 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spence, A., W. Poortinga, and N. Pidgeon. 2012. " The Psychological Distance of Climate Change." Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 32 (6): 957 – 972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer, S. J., M. P. Zanna, and G. T. Fong. 2005. " Establishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are Often More Effective than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6): 845 – 851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steg, L., J. W. Bolderdijk, K. Keizer, and G. Perlaviciute. 2014. " An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: The Role of Values, Situational Factors and Goals." Journal of Environmental Psychology 38 : 104 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, P. C. 2000. " New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior." Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 407 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoll-Kleemann, S. 2019. " Feasible Options for Behavior Change toward More Effective Ocean Literacy: A Systematic Review." Frontiers in Marine Science 6 : 273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tam, K.-P. 2013. " Dispositional Empathy with Nature." Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 : 92 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 1977. " Final Report of the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education." October. https://<ulink href="http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-Declaration.pdf">www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-Declaration.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Environment Programme. 2017. " Coastal zone management." UNEP - UN Environment Programme. August 18. <ulink href="http://www.unep.org/topics/ocean-seas-and-coasts/regional-seas-programme/coastal-zone-management">http://www.unep.org/topics/ocean-seas-and-coasts/regional-seas-programme/coastal-zone-management</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Linden, S. 2015. " The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model." Journal of Environmental Psychology 41 : 112 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Valkengoed, A. M., W. Abrahamse, and L. Steg. 2022. " To Select Effective Interventions for Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change, We Need to Consider Determinants of Behaviour." Nature Human Behaviour 6 (11): 1482 – 1492. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Valkengoed, A. M., and L. Steg. 2019. " Meta-Analyses of Factors Motivating Climate Change Adaptation Behaviour." Nature Climate Change 9 (2): 158 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Valkengoed, A. M., L. Steg, and G. Perlaviciute. 2023. " The Psychological Distance of Climate Change is Overestimated." One Earth 6 (4): 362 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.03.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verachtert, S. 2022. " The Effects of Attitudes on Household Energy Behavior. A Study of Climate Change Concern, Responsibility, and Awareness in European Societies." Social Science Quarterly 103 (5): 1221 – 1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verplanken, B., E. Marks, and A. I. Dobromir. 2020. " On the Nature of Eco-Anxiety: How Constructive or Unconstructive is Habitual Worry about Global Warming? " Journal of Environmental Psychology 72 : 101528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, E. U. 2006. " Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (yet)." Climatic Change 77 (1–2): 103 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lara Ditrich and Martin Lachmair</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref144"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503386
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A 'Front-Row Seat' to Catastrophe: Testing the Effect of Immersive Technologies on Sympathy and Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Context of Rising Sea Levels
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lara+Ditrich%22">Lara Ditrich</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6043-7576">0000-0002-6043-7576</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Lachmair%22">Martin Lachmair</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4728-9042">0009-0006-4728-9042</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environmental+Education+Research%22"><i>Environmental Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2026 32(3):569-587.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Climate%22">Climate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oceanography%22">Oceanography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Simulated+Environment%22">Simulated Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sensory+Experience%22">Sensory Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Uses+in+Education%22">Computer Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consciousness+Raising%22">Consciousness Raising</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intention%22">Intention</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2459340
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-4622<br />1469-5871
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: For 63% of the world's population living farther than 100 km (60 miles) from the coast, rising sea levels due to climate change represent a distal, abstract problem that might not appear to require urgent action. This poses a challenge to environmental educators seeking to foster pro-environmental responses. We tested if and how using immersive digital technologies like virtual reality (VR) can aid educators in overcoming this challenge. Participants in our experiment (N = 146) viewed a report on how rising sea levels affect contemporary Fijians either in high immersive VR (360° video in a head-mounted display) or in low immersive VR (360° video on a traditional computer screen). Pro-environmental intentions did not differ between the experimental conditions. However, perceived presence, a sense of 'being there', was higher in the high immersion condition than in the low immersion condition. Presence, in turn, correlated positively with pro-environmental intentions and sympathy but not problem awareness. This suggests that environmental education on rising sea levels aimed at promoting pro-environmental intentions might benefit from creating a heightened perception of presence.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503386
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503386
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2459340
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 569
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Climate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Oceanography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Simulated Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sensory Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Consciousness Raising
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A 'Front-Row Seat' to Catastrophe: Testing the Effect of Immersive Technologies on Sympathy and Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Context of Rising Sea Levels
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lara Ditrich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin Lachmair
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-4622
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5871
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environmental Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1