Keywords

1 Introduction

Virtual Reality as a novel and innovative tool to attract visitors to destinations has gained significant interest from researchers and tourism businesses over the last years [1, 2]. According to Guttentag [3], VR is defined as “the use of a computer-generated 3D environment – called a ‘virtual environment’ (VE) – that one can navigate and possibly interact with, resulting in real-time simulation of one or more of the user’s five senses” (p. 638). In this regard, VR technology enables viewers to virtually experience and explore destinations by immersing them into an VE and triggering a feeling of ‘being present’. From a marketing perspective, VR is expected to revolutionize tourism experiences as well as the promotion and selling of tourism products. Tourism products are intangible by nature. The reason VR has major potential lies in its ability to provide extensive sensory information and by doing so, allowing potential visitors to assess experiences before the physical visit [3, 4]. In fact, existing research discovered that image representations through VR enhance tourists’ desire to experience sites since it offers more compelling imagery of a tourism destination and gives the tourists a sense of what it is like to be there [5].

This subjective experience of being present in the VE is commonly defined as presence [5]. Research by Tussyadiah et al. [5] has revealed that an enhanced sense of presence in a virtual world leads to a higher level of interest, liking and preference of the real destination. Moreover, other researchers have found that the feeling of ‘being there’ positively affects tourists’ satisfaction, their intention to visit, and intention to recommend the real destination [6]. In addition, numerous studies have shown that the more human senses are engaged, the more immersive is the experience, which in turn leads to a higher level of presence in the VE [7]. Moreover, recent work suggests that presence in a VE enhances the intention to recommend the destination [2].

Whilst the body of literature on the use of VR in information sciences and marketing is growing rapidly [5, 8], VR is still a nascent area in tourism research [9]. In fact, only little research examined the impact of presence enabled by HMDs (head-mounted displays) on users’ intention to recommend the destination. Moreover, most of the existing studies have been limited to 3D VR experiences, i.e. to the visual and auditory representation, and have neglected other sensory dimensions. Based on this rationale, this study is the first to a) introduce the concept of 4D VR, namely multisensory VR experiences, and b) investigate the effect of multisensory VR experiences on the intention to recommend the destination based on the conceptual foundation of the sense of presence. This study aims to address the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    What effect does addressing more senses in a virtual experience have on the sense of presence compared to a 3D virtual experience?

  2. 2.

    How does the sense of presence affect the intention to recommend the destination?

In a first step, this paper offers an overview of the current literature on VR in tourism, multisensory dimensions of VR and the concept of presence. Next, the methodological approach through a laboratory experiment is explained to measure the differences in the degree of presence between 3D VR and 4D VR experiences as well as the impact of presence on the intention to recommend a destination. Finally, the results of this study, its limitations as well as suggestions for further research are discussed.

2 Literature Review

2.1 VR in Tourism

The main aim of VR applications is to create a virtual environment for users to experience that environment as if it were real [10]. The role of VR in tourism, hospitality and marketing has been discussed in the tourism literature for the past three decades [3, 5]. According to Tussyadiah et al. [11], VR can encourage destination marketers to create memorable experiences that can be integrated in their communication strategies in order to support tourists’ information search and decision-making processes.

Indeed, VR has the potential to revolutionize the way tourism companies promote, market and sell their products [5]. Due to the intangibility of tourism products, tourism companies have not been able to offer a ‘try before you buy’ experience to their potential customers as common in other sectors [12]. However, with the emergence of VR applications, tourism companies can provide an experience so similar to reality that it allows for better communication and generates positive attitudes towards a destination as well as a favorable behavior [5, 11]. Due to this similarity, some scholars even believe that VR will function as a substitute for real tours in the future. In this context, many situational and personal factors play a crucial role for tourists to accept VR as a substitute for traditional tours [3]. However, as Paquet and Viktor [13] noted that “most people want to see reality and not only virtuality” (p. 1), the majority of researchers focus on the great advantages of VR stimulating tourists’ travel intention.

In this context, virtual tours of destinations with 360-degree videos are becoming increasingly popular for tourism marketing [14]. These videos allow users to experience a destination in 360-degrees by rotating around a certain angle [15]. This presentation facilitates the interaction with a destination before its actual consumption and enables capturing the user’s attention, which can lead to more interest in a destination [5, 12]. Furthermore, a study conducted by McFee et al. [16] confirms the positive effects of VR on the image of a destination as users of VR experience a high level of involvement. In addition, by interacting with a destination and freely navigating through it, the loyalty of customers as well as their intention to recommend a destination to others can be strengthened [2]. In order to increase the effectiveness of VR as a marketing tool in tourism and to fully immerse users into an VE, it is suggested to engage the five human senses as the experience becomes closer to reality [10].

2.2 Multisensory VR Experience

Pan and Ryan [17] pointed out that “the touristic experience is multisensory” (p. 628) and the sensory dimension helps enhance the tourist experience. A recent study suggests that an experience tends to be more immersive if more human senses are involved in a VE [10]. Furthermore, an article published in Forbes by Porges [18] demonstrated that by implementing further sensory stimuli to VR experiences, designers could create a virtual environment that seems realistic, and could subsequently enhance the ability of the device to teleport. Hence, Porges [18] believes that multisensory VR could genuinely be a game-changer in the digital world.

The first multisensory VR system, known as Sensorama, consisted of a set of equipment, which was arranged with a seat and allowed viewers to sit and savor a multisensory experience. The system was designed to display 3D stereoscopic images, replicate stereo sound, stimulate wind and provide aromas. Although the outcomes were appreciated by the society, the system was not widely implemented as it failed to produce a credible experience. Since then, VR systems have been advanced, however they have been kept simpler [19]. Furthermore, with the advancement of technologies, VR-related systems are integrated with several senses that can stimulate to present users with a ‘real’ experience in the VE [10]. One example of such a system is the Multimodal Floor, which is comprised of a multimodal interface and allows users to experience an immersive virtual and augmented reality environment. The system is able to stimulate tactile, auditory and visual response to users’ steps and deliver the feeling of walking on the natural floor, such as snow and ice [20].

2.3 The Sense of Presence

According to Martins et al. [10], multisensory cues are important to achieve credibility and a high level of presence in VEs, as humans experience the world through all their five senses. It has been widely argued in the literature that presence is the ‘sense of being in the VE’ instead of being in the place where the participant’s body is situated. Gutiérrez et al. [21] propose that the feeling of presence is connected with a user’s psychology and is indeed subjective. However, the quality of data delivered by a VR system influences the user’s sense of presence. Witmer and Singer [22] suggest that the level of presence in a virtual environment depends on the degree to which the user feels transported from being physically in an existing environment to being immersed in a VE. Not surprisingly, according to Diemer et al. [23], the experience of presence is in fact a complex, multidimensional perception constructed by an interplay of multisensory information and several cognitive processes. The user’s sense of presence is experienced when the existence of the medium (i.e. VR device) is not noticed and the user acts as if the medium was not there [5].

Antecedents of VR Presence.

Previous literature has sought to explain what factors contribute to the formation of the feeling of presence [2]. Witmer and Singer [22] were among the first to investigate antecedents of presence and classify them into meaningful groups of similar items. In 2005, Witmer et al. [24] further refined the aspects underlying the concept of presence. This analysis led to four factors influencing the user to experience presence, namely (1) Involvement/Control, (2) Adaptation/Immersion, (3) Sensory Fidelity and (4) Interface Quality.

The sub-item Involvement/Control refers to a psychological state, which is experienced as a consequence of focusing one’s attention on the VE (=involvement). Thereby, it addresses the perceived ability to control events in the VE as well as its responsiveness to user-initiated actions (=control) [24]. Regarding the sub-item Adaptation/Immersion, immersion characterizes a psychological state in which an individual perceives to be enveloped by, included in and interacting with the virtual environment. It can be stated that a higher sense of immersion produces a greater level of presence in the VE. For instance, a user will feel more immersed if the VR experience allows for isolation from the physical surroundings, thus avoiding distractions from external stimuli [22]. Additionally, users feel more immersed if they adapt quickly and readily to the VE, which Witmer et al. [24] describe as the term ‘adaptation’. The third factor, Sensory Fidelity is defined as the degree to which the user’s interactions feel natural and to what extent the VE is consistent with reality. Lastly, the factor Interface Quality describes the extent to which a user is distracted from the virtual environment by control devices or display devices, such as VR headsets and how well the user can concentrate on the virtual experience [24].

Measurement of Presence.

When it comes to the measurement of presence, it is important to mention that different users can experience different levels of presence in the same VE since it is a subjective sensation, i.e. a product of the individual’s mind. To measure presence, it is necessary to conduct experimental research for subjective and objective measurement techniques to be applied. Previous research has mainly focused on subjective ratings, e.g. through questionnaires, which constitute the most commonly used method to measure presence. For the purpose of this study, the presence questionnaire by Witmer et al. [24] was used, as it has been tested and approved in a variety of settings.

In addition, objective, physiological measures, such as heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature or skin conductance can be applied to determine the level of presence [25, 26]. In particular, heart rate and skin conductance are considered to be reliable, objective and valid parameters to measure the sense of presence [26]. Concerning the relationship between presence and physiological response, it was found that the heart rate as well as skin conductance positively and significantly correlate with presence [26]. However, other researchers note that most physiological measures are not directly related to presence, but to emotional arousal [25]. To overcome these limitations, a combination of subjective and objective techniques is proposed in the literature and made use of within this study. More precisely, the objective data consists of the measurement of the participants’ heart rate.

Based on the reviewed literature, it is suggested that a multisensory VR experience (4D) of a 360-degree destination video leads to greater levels of presence than a VR experience which is limited to visual and auditory sensory stimuli (3D). As a consequence, the following hypotheses and sub-hypotheses are proposed:

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

2.4 Intention to Recommend the Destination

Presence in VR contexts has been widely explored to understand consumers’ attitudes and future behavioral intentions [2]. The study carried out by Tussyadiah et al. [5] discovered positive impacts of the sense of presence on overall tourism destination experiences. For instance, a higher sense of presence positively influences the level of liking, preference and interest of users in the actual tourism destination. Furthermore, the sense of presence, which is created with the help of VR technology, positively affects overall satisfaction, intention to revisit as well as the recommendation of cultural heritage sites and museums [6]. Hence, considering the important role of multisensory VR influencing the sense of presence, this study suggests that multisensory VR, which leads to a higher level of presence, has a greater impact on the intention to recommend a destination. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3::

The 4D VR experience (higher level of presence) shows greater impact on the intention to recommend the destination than the 3D VR experience

3 Methodology

This study employed an experimental research design. A laboratory experiment in a contrived setting was conducted and participants were randomly assigned to two different groups, namely control and experimental group. This randomization was done using a website which created a random list with the numbers zero and one, whereby one represented the assignment to the experimental group and zero to the control group. A 360-degree video available on invirovr.com about the destination of Costa Rica was used and a ‘multisensory VR cabin’ was built for the purpose of this study. The control group watched the video through an HTC Vive headset, whereas the experimental group experienced the video with the same headset but in a multisensory VR setting addressing two more senses (olfactory, haptic) in addition to vision and auditory. In this regard, the 4D feedback was represented by temperature changes, wind, light drizzle as well as the typical smell of the ocean and the rainforest. These stimuli were matching with the different scenes of the video.

The video lasted for 6:03 min. Two measurement methods were applied, (1) a questionnaire for subjective measurement as well as (2) physiological data collection for objective measurement. In this context, the heart rate of the participants was measured with the iom Biofeedback-Sensor and the Alive clinical software of somaticvision.

A purposive convenience sampling strategy was applied to recruit participants via email and in person through proximity to the lab/university environment. A sample, largely comprised of students, was targeted, as a study conducted by Greenlight VR in 2015 showed that Millennials (aged 18–34) as well as Generation X (35–50) indicate the highest interest in travel related VR content [27]. Furthermore, it was proposed by Tussyadiah et al. [11] to select undergraduate and graduate students as they are an appropriate target group for VR studies in a tourism marketing context. To overcome the novelty effect of using VR the first time, participants were asked to attend a VR experience at least one day prior to the actual experiment. This is also suggested by Rooney et al. [28] since the test group is likely to be more fascinated and enthusiastic when experiencing a new technology for the first time.

Participants were scheduled an individual time slot, each procedure lasted between 20–25 min. Upon arrival, participants were explained the procedure and asked to sign a consent form. The experiment was divided into three phases. The first phase was a relaxation period of three minutes followed by the VR experience and completing the online questionnaire. Physiological measurement devices were put on the participants’ fingertips during both the relaxation phase and the VR experience. Both groups answered the same questionnaire, which was adapted from Witmer et al. [24] and collected with surveymonkey. The presence questionnaire consisted of the four subscale-items, namely Adaptation/Immersion, Involvement/Control, Sensory Fidelity and Interface Quality and has been tested and approved to be suitable for measuring presence in a variety of settings [24]. All questions concerning presence could be answered on a 7-point Likert-scale. The overall presence score was the sum of the four subscale ratings. The questionnaire included a total of 38 questions, broken down into 28 presence questions, one question concerning the intention to recommend the destination as well as questions about participants’ socio-demographic factors and general questions about VR. To compare the intention to recommend between the two groups, the Net Promoter Score (NPS) was applied [29] which was classified into detractors, passives and promoters using a scale from 1 to 10.Footnote 1

The responses of the questionnaire as well as the physiological data were analyzed using SPSS Version 21. A total of usable 64 responses were gathered, of which all responses were complete and therefore none of the datasets had to be eliminated. The sample size of 64 is acceptable, whilst borderline, thus requiring a cautious interpretation of the results. In the following section, the sample profile is outlined, Cronbach’s test for internal reliability is shown, and the results of the hypotheses are presented.

4 Results

4.1 Sample Description and Reliability Analysis

The tested sample consisted of 64 participants, 51.6% (n = 33) of these participants were assigned to the 4D VR experience (experimental group) whereas 48.4% (n = 31) were allocated to the 3D VR experience (control group). Most of the participants are between 18 and 24 years old (59%), 37.5% are between 25 and 34 years old and 2 respondents state to be between the ages 35 and 44. The sample is composed of 53% male and 47% female. To measure whether the applied questionnaire completely and consistently represents the constructs of presence, an internal reliability analysis with Cronbach’s alpha was conducted. As a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.922 was reached, the minimum value of α = .7 is fulfilled, and therefore the presence questionnaire proved to be internally consistent.

4.2 Test of Normality and Hypotheses

As a first step, both the questionnaire and the physiological data were tested for normality with the Shapiro Wilk test. The heart rate proved to be normally distributed. On the contrary, the data of the questionnaire resulted to be abnormally distributed as the p-value was below 0.05. Thus, the authors chose to apply the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric tests for both datasets.

Thereafter, the hypotheses were tested for differences between the 3D VR and the 4D VR group. A 7-point Likert-scale was used for the questionnaire, where the value of 1 represented the worst and 7 the best rating. Consequently, values between 4.5 ≤ M ≤ 7 describe the more positive answers. With regard to the physiological data, the relaxation period was used to measure the baseline heart rate of each participant as physiological levels often vary widely between individuals. The change in heart rate was therefore calculated as follows: HR = HR Mean VR – HR Mean Baseline. Hereafter, the hypotheses mentioned above are tested for acceptance or rejection.

H1: The Mann-Whitney U-Test shows no significant difference between the 4D VR group (Mdn = 5.39) and the 3D VR group (Mdn = 5.04) (U = 389.5; z = −1.64; p = .101). Having a closer look at the mean values, it can be seen as well that the difference (∆M = 0.19) between the two groups is small. This indicates that the 4D VR experience did not lead to significantly greater subjectively experienced sense of presence for the experimental group, which suggests the rejection of H1.

H1a: Regarding the sub-scale item Involvement/Control, the Mann-Whitney U-Test shows no significant difference between the 4D VR group (Mdn = 5.1) and the 3D VR group (Mdn = 4.8) (U = 437.5; z = −.995; p = .320). When comparing the difference of the mean values between both groups (∆M = 0.235), the 4D VR experience shows greater Involvement/Control but no significant difference. Thus, H1a has to be rejected.

H1b: The 4D VR experience shows greater Adaption/Immersion (Mdn = 5.67) than the 3D VR experience (Mdn = 5.08). The mean values also show greater differences between the two groups (∆M = 0.42). Moreover, the Mann-Whitney U-test confirms that the two groups are significantly different (U = 341.5; z = −2.287; p = .022). Hence, H1b can be accepted.

H1c: The 4D VR experience reveals the same Sensory Fidelity (Mdn = 6.0) as the 3D VR experience. Comparing the means, the 4D VR experience shows higher Sensory Fidelity (M = 5.91) than the 3D VR experience (M = 5.84). However, there is no significant difference between the groups when looking at the Mann-Whitney U-Test (U = 491.5; z = −.273; p = .785), which results in the rejection of H1c.

H1d: The Mann-Whitney U-test displays no significant difference regarding the Interface Quality between the 4D VR group (Mdn = 5.25) and the 3D VR group (Mdn = 5.0) (U = 432.5; z = -1.066; p = .286). Having a closer look at the mean values, it can be seen as well that the difference (∆M = 0.24) between the two groups is only small. Therefore, H1d has to be rejected.

H2: On average, the heart rate measure for the 4D VR group (M = 10.67) is higher than the 3D VR group (M = 9.56). However, this difference is not significant (U = 532.00; z = −.275; p = .783) and therefore hypothesis 2 needs to be rejected.

H3: The 4D VR experience results in a Net Promoter Score of 39.3% (54,5%–15,2%), whereas the 3D VR experience indicates a Net Promoter Score of 0% (29%–29%). Due to the results of the Mann-Whitney U-test which show a significant difference between the two groups (U = 361,0; Z = −2,066; p = .039), hypothesis 3 can be accepted. These results implicate that a 4D VR experience has a greater impact on the intention to recommend the destination than a 3D VR experience.

4.3 Correlation Analysis

Spearman’s Rho correlation was used to investigate possible relationships between the different parameters and constructs. The results of the full sample (Table 1) show that the antecedents of presence positively and significantly correlate with the overall sense of presence. Furthermore, the overall sense of presence positively and significantly correlates with the intention to recommend the destination. A correlation analysis was also conducted between the physiological reaction and the self-reported measure of presence. The results reveal that the heart rate does not significantly correlate with self-reported presence.

Table 1. Correlations (compiled by authors)
Full size table

In addition, the strength of the correlation between presence and intention to recommend was examined separately for each of the two groups. Both the 3D VR group (.360; p = 0.046) and the 4D VR group (.619; p = 0.00) show a positive correlation. To interpret the strength of correlation, the following classification for Spearman’s rho (rs) is applied: 0 to 0.20 is negligible, 0.21 to 0.40 is weak, 0.41 to 0.60 is moderate, 0.61 to 0.80 is strong, and 0.81 to 1.00 is considered very strong [30]. Consequently, the 3D VR group only indicates a weak correlation while the 4D VR group presents a strong correlation. This leads to the conclusion that adding sensorial stimuli to a VR experience even enhances the positive relationship between the sense of presence and the user’s intention to recommend the displayed destination.

5 Discussion

Previous research done by Wei et al. [2] found that visitors’ feeling of presence in a VR experience is an essential factor driving the intention to recommend the destination to others. Moreover, research conducted by Chung et al. [6] suggests that the feeling of presence provoked by VR technologies positively affects the intention to recommend cultural heritage sites and museums. This study is in line with previous research in that it reveals a positive correlation between VR-induced presence and the intention to recommend the displayed destination. Adding to the existing research, this study found out that by addressing additional senses within the virtual experience (4D), the users’ intention to recommend a destination increases significantly.

This study further reveals that the sense of presence is not significantly enhanced if additional human senses are addressed. This finding contradicts the results of previous research done by Jones and Dawkins [7], which states that added sensory stimuli to a 360-degree film leads to an increased level of presence in a virtual environment. However, having a closer look at the antecedents of presence, it can be outlined that the subscale Adaptation/Immersion results in a significant increase when experiencing a multisensory VR setting. Hence, it is assumed that adding sensory dimensions to the VR experience is the driving factor that isolates users from reality and enhances their immersion into the virtual environment. Moreover, the study reveals that concerning the physiological reaction, the heart rate does not appear to be a good measure of presence as it even shows a negative, yet not significant, correlation with presence. This result is also in line with previous research conducted by Wiederhold et al. [31]. What sets this research apart from its predecessors is that both the 3D VR as well as the 4D VR group received the exact same information and VR headset. Nevertheless, as the setting differed between the two groups, it is concluded that adding sensory stimuli significantly impacts the intention to recommend a given tourism destination.

6 Conclusion

This study aimed to explore multisensory VR and examine its impact on the intention to recommend a destination through the concept of presence. The results show that stimulating more senses during a VR experience has a positive impact on the intention to recommend a destination, while the sense of presence is not significantly affected. This study recommends VR as a useful marketing tool for the tourism industry. With 4D VR, tourists can better explore and more realistically experience the desired destination without actually visiting it. For tourism businesses adopting VR experiences, it is thus suggested to integrate at least two more senses (olfactory and haptic) in addition to vision and auditory feedback during the use of VR. Multisensory VR is particularly useful for DMOs to present their products and services in a more engaging way.

In terms of theoretical implications, the study is the first to tap into 4D multisensory VR and makes a contribution to VR research in a tourism context. The study stands in contrast with previous research on VR presence as it shows no significant increase in a multisensory VR setting. Nevertheless, adding additional sensory stimuli does in fact positively affect travel recommendation. For further research it is recommended to explore other factors, such as the users’ enjoyment or emotional arousal, that could influence their intention to recommend a destination experienced through multisensory VR. In the course of the study, another physiological reaction, namely the participants’ skin conductance, was measured. However, one limitation of this research is that the resulting data of the skin conductance could not be considered as the measurement device failed to record reliable data. For future research it is thus suggested to investigate presence through other objective measurement techniques, such as skin conductance.

Moreover, it is also acknowledged that the limited purposive sample (n = 64), with the majority of the respondents between 18 and 34 years, leads to a limited generalizability of the results. Future studies could conduct similar studies with a greater sample size and use different, high quality VR content. This study is novel in that it opened an investigation of multisensory VR experiences. Future research is encouraged to expand and replicate both subjective and objective measurement techniques to verify and confirm the results.