ENTER2020 eTourism Conference presentation

1. Exploring the impact of
multisensory VR on
travel recommendation:
A presence perspective
Jasmin Hopf, Melina Scholl, Barbara
Neuhofer, Roman Egger

2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi
et rutrum felis, eget tristique tortor.
Maecenas lobortis mattis turpis ut
hendrerit. Fusce placerat ipsum at
dictum lobortis. Etiam porta nunc
sit amet pellentesque feugiat. Nunc
gravida sapien eu tempor lacinia.
Introduction
to the topic
o Increasing interest in VR in the tourism industry
(e.g. Tussyadiah et al. 2018, Huang et al. 2016)
o VR as a marketing tool, triggering the “feeling
of being there” (Witmer & Singer 1998)
 presence
o The more human senses are engaged, the
more realistic and immersive the experience
(Martins et al. 2017)
o Research on multisensory VR limited in tourism
(e.g. Martins et al. 2017)
 research relevance gap
2

3. 1.
2.
How does the sense of presence affect the
intention to recommend the destination?
What effect does addressing more senses in a virtual
experience have on the sense of presence
compared to a 3D virtual experience?
3
Research
Questions

4. Process: 3 minutes of relaxation, 6
minutes of VR experience,
questionnaire
Sample was randomly assigned
to either the experimental or
control group
Laboratory experiment at FH
Salzburg using a VR cabin, HTC
VIVE & 360° destination video
2 measurements:
objective (heart rate)
subjective (questionnaire)
Sample size: 64 participants
4
Methodology

5. 5

6. Sensory Fidelity
Adaptation/Immersion
Interface Quality
Questionnaire
6
1
2
3
4
Involvement/Control
Adapted from Witmer et al. (2005)
Comprised of

7. Hypotheses
H1: The 4D VR experience shows greater reactions on the self-report measure of presence than the 3D VR
experience.
• H1a: The 4D VR experience shows greater Involvement/Control than the 3D VR experience.
• H1b: The 4D VR experience shows greater Adaptation/Immersion than the 3D VR experience.
• H1c: The 4D VR experience shows greater Sensory Fidelity than the 3D VR experience.
• H1d: The 4D VR experience shows greater Interface Quality than the 3D VR experience.
H2: The 4D VR experience shows greater reactions on the heart rate measure than the 3D VR experience.
H3: The 4D VR experience (higher level of presence) shows greater impact on the intention to recommend
the destination than the 3D VR experience.
7

8. Results
8
5.04
4.80
6.00
5.08 5.00
5.39
5.10
6.00
5.67
5.25
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
OVERALL
PRESENCE
INVOLV/CONTROL SENSORYFID ADAPT/IMMERS INTERFACEQ
3D
4DSense of
Presence
*Adapt/Immers: Significant difference with p = .022
Heart Rate
Control: Mdn = 9.83
Experimental: Mdn = 10.21
 no significant difference (p = .783)

9. Results
Intention to
Recommend
9
NPS Control Group: 29% - 29% = 0%
NPS Experimental Group: 54,5% - 15,2% = 39,3%
Significant difference with p = .039
How likely would you recommend the experienced destination to others?

10. Results
10
Correlation
Full Sample (N = 64) Spearman’s Rho
Involvement/Control  Presence .929**
Adaptation/Immersion  Presence .924**
Sensory Fidelity  Presence .694**
Interface Quality  Presence .588**
Presence  Intention to recommend .582**
Heart rate  Presence -.093
**correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

11. Results
11
Correlation
Spearman’s rho correlation:
• Interpretation
.0 < 𝑟 <= .2 negligible correlation
.21 < 𝑟 <= .4 weak correlation
.41 < 𝑟 <= .6 moderate correlation
.61 < 𝑟 <= .8 strong correlation
.81 < 𝑟 <= 1.0 very strong correlation
• Results
Control group: r = .360  weak correlation
Experimental group: r = .619  strong correlation
Presence  Intention to recommend

12. • 4D VR leads to higher
intention to
recommend
• Marketing purposes
Practical
Implication
Conclusion
• Sense of presence not
significantly different
• Heart Rate did not appear
to be a good measure of
presence
Presence
Explore other factors of VR,
e.g. enjoyment or emotional
arousal that could influence
the intention to recommend
a destination
Future Research
12

13. THANK
YOU