ENTER2019

1. The Effects of Virtual Reality on
Destination Image Formation
Ashelle McFee, Tanja Mayrhofer, Andrea Barátová, Barbara Neuhofer,
Mattia Rainoldi and Roman Egger
Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Austria

2. 30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 2
Does viewing a 360-
degree video through
VR goggles lead to an
increased intention to
visit a destination in
comparison to a
computer platform?

3. 3 Types of Destination Image
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 3
Conative
Image
Cognitive
Image
Affective
Image
Gartner (1994)

4. Virtual Reality (VR) and 360-degree video
• VR requires a high level of involvement by users (Gutierrez et
al, 2008).
• The level of involvement during the information gathering
process benefits the destination image of potential visitors
(Frías et al, 2008).
• VR has the potential to transit information with low
equivocation and low uncertainty (Punj and Moor, 2009) via
virtual tours.
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 4

5. Virtual Reality (VR) and 360-degree video
• Virtual tours convey richer information
about a destination, which increases the
destination’s image quality (Vogt and
Fesenmaier, 1998).
• VR creates a seemingly stronger affective
image (Diemer et al, 2015) and the
information is more likely to be recalled
later (Marchiori et al, 2017).
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 5

6. Model of Research Processes & Hypotheses
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 6
H1: Virtual Reality (high level of involvement) has a positive impact on cognitive image.
H2: Virtual Reality (high level of involvement) has a positive impact on affective image.
H3: A favourable cognitive image has a positive impact on overall image.
H4: A favourable cognitive image has a positive impact on affective image.
H5: A favourable affective image has a positive impact on overall image.
H6: A favourable overall image has a positive impact on tourists’ intention to visit.
Molinillo et al. (2018)

7. Methodology
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 7
Purposive
Convenience
Sampling
• Email
• Personal Approach
Madrid 360-
degree video
• VR Goggles
Novelty
• Computer
Quantitative
Questionnaire
• All 126
Participants
RQ: Does viewing a 360-degree video through VR googles lead to an increased intention
to visit a destination in comparison to a computer platform?

8. Tools Used
3 May 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 8
vs.
72 54
Random Assignment

9. Quantitative Survey
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 9
VR Goggles or Computer
Molinillo et al. (2018)
Cognitive image: 7 items
Affective image: 4 items
Involvement: 3 items
Overall image: 1 item
Intention to visit: 4 items
Demographic data

10. Demographic Data
3 May 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 10
Sample Characteristics
Number Percentage
Gender
Male 69 55%
Female 55 44%
Education
A-Level 34 27%
Apprenticeship 4 3%
Bachelors 52 41%
Diploma 15 12%
Master’s Degree 19 15%
PhD 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Age
18-24 47 37%
25-34 64 51%
35-44 7 6%
45-54 2 2%
55-64 5 4%
above 65 1 1%
Occupation
Non-Student 56 44%
Student 70 56%

11. Reliability Analysis
3 May 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 11
Construct Number of
Factors
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Affective Image 4 .728
Cognitive 7 .629
Involvement 3 .766
Overall Image 1 1
Intention to Visit 4 .818

12. Hypotheses Testing
3 May 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 12

13. Conclusion and Implications
3 May 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 13
• VR has a positive impact on the affective and cognitive images
• Users of the VR goggles felt more involved in comparison to the
computer group
• The device used to absorb information is what impacts the formation
of destination image

14. Conclusion and Implications
• Practical Implications
• Travel agents can use VR to present destinations to potential customers
• Content production companies are encouraged VR compatible 360-degree
videos
• Can be used by destinations to manage overcrowding and seasonality
• Theoretical Implications
• Validates Molinillo’s et al (2018) model and expands that it is reliable across
various platforms
• Proves that VR is a useful tool for the tourism industry
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 14

15. Limitations and Future Research
• Limitations
• The purposive convenience sampling led to a limited generalisability of results
• The age range 18-34 was dominant throughout the research
• Uneven distribution between VR and computer groups
• Future Research
• Test model and content across a wider range of platforms and devices
• Expand the model to include interesting dimensions e.g. concept of flow
• Include the sensory dimensions of the VR user and test the effect on image
formation
30 January 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 15

16. Thank You!
Ashelle McFee, Tanja Mayrhofer, Andrea Barátová, Barbara Neuhofer, Mattia
Rainoldi and Roman Egger
Contact: Barbara.Neuhofer@fh-Salzburg.ac.at
3 May 2019 ENTER2019 – Research Track Page 16