SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences / 2026 / Sayı: 70

Virtual reality technologies viewing experience and point of view: A study of university students in Istanbul

Sanal gerçeklik teknolojilerinde izleme deneyimi ve bakış açısı: İstanbul’daki üniversite öğrencileri üzerine bir araştırma

Berceste Gülçin Özdemir(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0009-0001-3377-6249
Simge Şişman Bal(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5551-2220
Pages
138–161
Publication Date
2026-07-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that viewing experiences presented through POV of virtual reality headsets—which utilise new communication technologies to provide 360° viewing —are of interest to the younger generation studying film, and suggest that individual viewing experiences outside cinema theatres may be preferred over collective viewing experiences within them.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted to identify trends in demand and preferences regarding the change and transformation of the concepts of viewing experience and point of view (POV) within the framework of film narratives, particularly among students studying in the Radio, Television and Cinema department, within the context of new communication technologies (NCTs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:In line with the aim of the study, the Virtual Reality Experience Questionnaire, the Film Viewing Experiences Scale and the Point of View Scale in Film Narratives—all developed by the researchers for this study—were administered to 214 university students aged between 18 and 25 (104 women, 110 men) studying at various universities within the province of Istanbul.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that viewing experiences presented through POV of virtual reality headsets—which utilise new communication technologies to provide 360° viewing —are of interest to the younger generation studying film, and suggest that individual viewing experiences outside cinema theatres may be preferred over collective viewing experiences within them.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Seyir deneyimi · sanal gerçeklik · bakış açısı

Abstract

This study was conducted to identify trends in demand and preferences regarding the change and transformation of the concepts of viewing experience and point of view (POV) within the framework of film narratives, particularly among students studying in the Radio, Television and Cinema department, within the context of new communication technologies (NCTs). In line with the aim of the study, the Virtual Reality Experience Questionnaire, the Film Viewing Experiences Scale and the Point of View Scale in Film Narratives—all developed by the researchers for this study—were administered to 214 university students aged between 18 and 25 (104 women, 110 men) studying at various universities within the province of Istanbul. The findings reveal that viewing experiences presented through POV of virtual reality headsets—which utilise new communication technologies to provide 360° viewing —are of interest to the younger generation studying film, and suggest that individual viewing experiences outside cinema theatres may be preferred over collective viewing experiences within them.

Özet

Bu çalışma, yeni iletişim teknolojileri çerçevesinde, özellikle Radyo, Televizyon ve Sinema bölümünde okuyan öğrenciler bağlamında, film anlatıları çerçevesinde seyir deneyimi ve bakış açısı kavramlarının değişimi ve dönüşümüne dair talep ve tercih eğilimlerini tespit etmek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda İstanbul ili içerisinde bulunan çeşitli üniversitelerde öğrenimi gören 18-25 yaş arasında 214 üniversite öğrencisine (104 kadın, 110 erkek) çalışma kapsamında araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen Sanal Gerçeklik Deneyimi Anketi, Film İzleme Deneyimleri Ölçeği ve Film Anlatılarında Bakış Açısı Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, yeni iletişim teknolojilerinin kullanıldığı 360° görüntü boyutu sağlayan sanal gerçeklik gözlüklerinin bakış açısıyla sunulan seyir deneyimlerinin sinema eğitimi alan genç kuşak tarafından merak edildiğini ve sinema salonlarındaki kolektif seyir deneyimlerine göre sinema salonları dışındaki bireysel seyir deneyimlerinin daha fazla tercih edilebileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özdemir, B. G., Bal, S. Ş. (2026). Virtual reality technologies viewing experience and point of view: A study of university students in Istanbul. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, Sayı: 70, 138–161. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2026-1804184

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Arcagni, S., & D’Aloia, A. (2021). VR Storytelling: Potentials and limitations of virtual reality narratives. Cinergie – Il Cinema E Le Altre Arti, 10(19), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/13412 google scholar
  2. Barreda-Ángeles, M., Aleix-Guillaume, S., & Pereda-Baños, A. (2021). Virtual reality storytelling as a double-edged sword: Immersive presentation of nonfiction 360°-video is associated with impaired cognitive information processing. Communication Monographs, 88(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1803496 google scholar
  3. Baudrillard, J. (2011). Simülakrlar ve simülasyon (O. Adanır, Trans.). Doğu Batı Yayınları. google scholar
  4. Baudry, J.-L. (1974). Ideological effects of the basic cinematographic apparatus (A. Williams, Trans.). Film Quarterly, 28(2), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1211632 google scholar
  5. Benjamin, W. (2012). Pasajlar. (A. Cemal, Trans.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
  6. Binark, M. (2014). Yeni medya çalışmalarında araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri. Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
  7. Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. University of Wisconsin Press. google scholar
  8. Bosworth, M., & Sarah, L. (2019). Crafting stories for virtual reality. Routledge. google scholar
  9. Bukatman, S. (1991). There’s always tomorrowland: Disney and the hypercinematic experience. October, 57(Summer), 55–78. google scholar
  10. Bown, J., White, E., & Boopalan, A. (2017). Looking for the ultimate display: A brief history of virtual reality. In J. Gackenbach & J. Bown (Eds.), Boundaries of self and reality online (pp. 239–259). Academic Press. google scholar
  11. Carroll, N. (1993). Toward a theory of point-of-view editing: Communication, emotion, and the movies. Poetics Today, 14(1), 123–141. google scholar
  12. Carpio, R., Baumann, O. & Birt, J. Evaluating the viewer experience of interactive virtual reality movies. Virtual Reality, 27, 3181–3190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00864-2 google scholar
  13. Casetti, F. (2011). Sinemasal deneyim (D. Kırmızı, Trans.). Sinecine, 2(2), 81–93. google scholar
  14. Ceuterick, M. (2021). Post-cinematic spectatorship in virtual reality: Negotiating 3DoF and 6DoF in Queerskins: Ark. NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies, 10(1), 325–337. https://necsus-ejms.org/post-cinematic-spectatorship-in-virtual-reality-negotiating-3dof-and-6dof-in-queerskins-ark/ google scholar
  15. Chatman, S. (2009). Öykü ve söylem: Filmde ve kurmacada anlatı yapısı (Ö. Yaren, Trans.). Deki Yayınları. google scholar
  16. Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2015). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. google scholar
  17. Çalışkan, Ö. (2025). Cinema without frames: How Darkening bridges virtual and real to redefine presence and narrative embodiment. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 0(0) 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565251383405 google scholar
  18. Ding, N., Zhou, W., & Fung, A. Y. H. (2018). Emotional effect of cinematic VR compared with traditional 2D film. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1572–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.04.003 google scholar
  19. Dorta, T., Pierini, D. & Boudhraâ, S. (2016). Why 360° and VR headsets for movies? Exploratory study of Social VR via Hyve-3D. Actes de la 28ième conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine (pp.211–220), http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3004107.3004117 google scholar
  20. Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., Kelly, K., & Lister, M. (2009). New media: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. google scholar
  21. Elsaesser, T. (2006). Early film history and multimedia: An archaeology of possible futures? In W. H. K. Chun & T. Keenan (Eds.), New media, old media: A history and theory reader (pp. 13–25). Routledge. google scholar
  22. Elsaesser, T., & Hagener, M. (2010). Film kuramı: Duyular yoluyla bir giriş (B. Soner & B. Yıldırım, Çev.). Dipnot Yayınları. google scholar
  23. Erkuş, A. (2013). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci. Seçkin Yayıncılık. google scholar
  24. Flew, T. (2002). New media: An introduction. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  25. Gunning, T. (2010). Moving away from the index: Cinema and the impression of reality. In M. Furstenau (Ed.), The film theory reader: Debates & arguments (pp. 255–269). Routledge. google scholar
  26. Hart, A. C. (2018). killer POV: First-Person camera and sympathetic identification in modern horror. Imaginations, 9(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.17742/IMAGE.p70s.9.1.6 google scholar
  27. Haywood, N. & Cairns, P. (2006) Engagement with an interactive museum exhibit. In McEwan, T., Gulliksen, J., Benyon, D. (Eds.), People and computers XIX — The bigger picture, (pp. 1–16). Springer. google scholar
  28. Hull, R. & Reid, J. (2003). Designing engaging experiences with children and artists. In Blythe, M.A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A.F., Wright, P.C. (Eds.), Funology. Human-computer interaction series vol.3 (pp. 469–478). Springer. google scholar
  29. Kattenbelt, C. (2009). Intermediality in theatre and performance: Definitions, perceptions and medial relationships. Cultura, Lenguaje Y Representación, Culture, Language and Representation. 6, 19–29. https://www.e-revistes.uji.es/index.php/clr/article/view/30 google scholar
  30. Kaur, J. (2025). Cinema and hyperreality: A philosophical perspective. International Journal of Language, Literature and Culture. 5(2), 69– 72. https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijllc.5.2.10 google scholar
  31. Kracauer, S. (2015). Film teorisi: Fiziksel gerçekliğin kurtuluşu (Ö. Çelik, Trans.). Metis Yayınları. google scholar
  32. Laarni N.S., Ravaja J., Kallinen, K., & Saari, T. (2004). Transcendent experience in the use of computer-based media. In A. Hyrskykari (Ed.), NordiCHI Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 409–412). ACM. google scholar
  33. Larsen, M. (2018). Virtual sidekick: Secondperson POV in narrative VR. Journal of Screenwriting, 9(1), 73– 83, https://doi.org/10.1386/josc.9.1.73_1 google scholar
  34. Lasko-Harvill, A. (1992). Identity and mask in virtual reality. Discourse, 14(2), 222–234. google scholar
  35. Li, J. (2023). The application of VR technology in film production. Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology, 57, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.54097/hset.v57i.10018 google scholar
  36. Lippit, A. M. (1994). Virtual annihilation: Optics, VR, and the discourse of subjectivity. Criticism, 36(4), 595–610. http://www.jstor.com/stable/23116106 google scholar
  37. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. MIT Press. google scholar
  38. Morse, M. (1998). Virtualities: Television, media art, and cyberculture. Indiana University Press. google scholar
  39. Muth, C., Raab, H. M., Carbon, C. C. (2015). The stream of experience when watching artistic movies. Dynamic aesthetic effects revealed by the Continuous Evaluation Procedure (CEP). Frontiers in Psychology Cognitive Science, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00365 google scholar
  40. Nold, C. (2009). Emotional cartography: Technologies of the self. In (C. Nold Ed.). Emotional cartography: Technologies of the self (pp. 3-13). Space Studios. google scholar
  41. Rancière, J. (2015). Özgürleşen seyirci (E. B. Şaman, Çev.). Metis Yayınları. google scholar
  42. Rigby, J., Brumby, B. D., Gould, J.J. S. & Cox, L. A. (2019). Development of a questionnaire to measure immersion in video media: The Fflm IEQ. In ACM International conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX’19), (pp. 757–764). https://doi.org/10.1145/3317697.3323361 google scholar
  43. Romano, M., Cavallaro, A., La Penna, I., & Frolli, A. (2025). Cinema in the metaverse: A focus group study on user experience in virtual reality film viewing. In Proceedings of the 16th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter (Article 32, pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3750069.3750330 google scholar
  44. Rogers, A. (2023). Camera movement in VR: Spatial mediation, user positioning, and A Virtual Dinner Party. Film Criticism, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.4739 google scholar
  45. Shin, D. (2017). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012 google scholar
  46. Sutherland, I. (1968). A head-mounted three-dimensional display. In AFIPS proceedings of the joint computer conference (pp. 757–764). AFIPS. google scholar
  47. Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074 google scholar
  48. Smith, M. (1995). Film spectatorship and the institution of fiction. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/431540 google scholar
  49. Stefanek, F., Skorupa, A., Brol, B. & Flakus, M. (2023). Immersion and socio-emotional experiences during a movie–polish adaptation of the movie consumption questionnaires. Psychological Reports, 126(1), 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211048472 google scholar
  50. Soto-Sanfiel, M., Angulo-Brunet, A. (2020). How European adolescents get engaged with films?: Psychometric properties of the narrative engagement scale. Profesional de la información, 29(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.sep.02 google scholar
  51. Szita, K., Gander, P., & Wallstén, D. (2018). The effects of cinematic virtual reality on viewing experience and the recollection of narrative elements. Presence, 27(4), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00338 google scholar
  52. Szita, K., Moss-Wellington, W., Sun, X., & Ch’ng, E. (2024). Going to the movies in VR: Virtual reality cinemas as alternatives to in-person co-viewing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 181, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103150 google scholar
  53. Trifonova, T. (2002). Time and point of view in contemporary cinema. Cineaction, 58, 11–31. google scholar
  54. Trifonova, T. (2004). Special effects: Simulation in cinema. Kinema: A Journal for Film and Audiovisual Media, 21(Spring). https://doi.org/10.15353/kinema.vi.1072 google scholar
  55. Van Dijk, J. (2009). The network society: Social aspects of new media (2nd ed.). Sage. google scholar
  56. Vera, C. R., & Gutierrez, J. S. (2023). The blurred lines between spectator and character: Narrative integration of the user in cinematic virtual reality. L’Atalante: Notebook of Film and Audiovisual Studies, 35, 109–123. google scholar
  57. Vertov, D. (1984). Kino-eye: Writings of Dziga Vertov (K. O’Brien, Trans.; A. Michelson, Ed.). University of California Press. google scholar
  58. Shin, D. (2017). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012 google scholar