This study examined how virtual reality (VR) influences consumer attitudes toward tourism destinations. 202 participants experienced VR walks of Tokyo or Porto using Google Cardboard or Samsung Gear VR. The researchers found that attention allocation during VR significantly impacted feelings of being present in the virtual environment. Higher levels of presence, specifically feelings of departure from the real world and self-location in the virtual one, positively influenced changes in attitudes toward the destinations. However, the type of VR device or prior visitation experience did not impact responses. The researchers concluded VR can effectively shape destination marketing by increasing feelings of presence, but user distractions need to be minimized.

1. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 1
Virtual Reality and Attitudes toward
Tourism Destinations
Iis P. Tussyadiah Dan Wang Chenge (Helen) Jia
University of Surrey, UK
The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong
i.tussyadiah@surrey.ac.uk d.wang@polyu.edu.hk chenge.jia@polyu.edu.hk

2. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 2
Introduction
Recent developments in VR platforms,
devices, hypermedia content lead to:
“VR in everyday experience”
“VR roles in tourism marketing & management”
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/109244/20151123/oculus-
debuts-concepts-store-as-samsung-gear-vr-now-available.htm
http://uk.businessinsider.com/googles-self-driving-car-
gets-in-worst-accident-yet-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

3. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 3
VR for Tourism
• Substitute to travel and tourism products
– Management of protected areas
– Positive contributor to sustainability
• Marketing opportunities
– “Try before you buy” experience
(Huang, et al., 2016; Williams & Hobson, 1995; Williams, 2006)

4. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 4
Goal
Identifying the effectiveness of VR
in shaping consumer attitudes
toward tourism destinations.

5. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 5
VR for Tourism
Destinations are faced with challenges to make
strategic investment to leverage VR technology to
influence consumers’ travel decisions.
How persuasive is VR?

6. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 6
VR Persuasiveness
• Presence: the sense of being there
– Facilitate consumer learning
– Increase product recall
– Increase brand recognition
– Increase memory of experiences
“Generate positive attitude and behavioural responses”
(Kim & Biocca, 1997; Mania & Chalmers, 2001; Suh & Lee, 2005)

7. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 7
Spatial Presence
“The psychological state in which media users feel
lost or immersed in the mediated environment.”
“The degree to which users feel that they are
somewhere other than the actual environment.”
“Perception of self-location in a VR environment
and separation from the actual environment.”
(Slater & Usoh, 1993; Wirth et al., 2007; Weibel, et al., 2015; Leonardis, 2014)

8. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 8
Presence: Antecedents
“Ability to produce
vivid spatial images in
the mind.”
“A greater allocation
of attentional
resources to the VR
environment.”
Spatial
Presence
Spatial
Presence
Spatial
Ability
Spatial
Ability
Attention
Allocation
Attention
Allocation
(Bystrom, Barfield, &
Hendrix, 1999; Weibel et
al., 2015)
(Wirth et al., 2007)

9. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 9
Spatial
Ability
Spatial
Ability
Attention
Allocation
Attention
Allocation
Presence: Outcome
Spatial
Presence
Spatial
Presence
Attitude
Change
Attitude
Change
(Hyun and O’Keefe,
2012; Klein, 2003)

10. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 10
Spatial
Ability
Spatial
Ability
Attention
Allocation
Attention
Allocation
Hypotheses
Spatial
Presence
Spatial
Presence
Attitude
Change
Attitude
Change
VR StimuliVR Stimuli
Prior
Experience
Prior
Experience
(Wirth et al., 2007)

11. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 11
Research Design
• Spatial Ability and Attention Allocation: MEC-SPQ
(Vorderer et al., 2004)
• Spatial Presence: SUS questionnaire (Slater, Usoh,
& Steed, 1994), telepresence (Kim & Biocca,
1997), MEC-SPQ (Vorderer et al., 2004)
• Post-VR Attitude Change

12. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 12
Virtual Walkthrough
Tokyo, Japan (Urban Hikes)
with Google Cardboard
Porto, Portugal (Vertigo VR)
with Samsung Gear VR

13. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 13
Participants
• Young users: UG and PG students
• 202 Participants: 97% below 25; 80% female
• 67% used Google Cardboards
• 71% never visited destinations in VR

14. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 14
Findings: Spatial Presence
• “Departure” and “Self-Location”
• Effect of Attention Allocation on Departure
(Effect Size = .288, p = .000; R2
= .319).
• Effect of Attention Allocation on Self-Location
(Effect Size = .410, p = .000; R2
= .423)

15. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 15
Departure
Note: Covariates are evaluated at: Attention Allocation = 3.575, Spatial Ability = 3.243

16. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 16
Self-Location
Note: Covariates are evaluated at: Attention Allocation = 3.575, Spatial Ability = 3.243

17. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 17
Findings: Attitude Change
Significant influences of Departure (Effect Size = .
022, p = .035) and Self-Location (Effect Size = .039, p
= .006) on Attitude Change (R2
= .184).
No significant effects of VR Stimuli and Prior
Visitation.

18. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 18
Attitude Change
Note: Covariates are evaluated at: Departure = 3.063, Self-Location = 3.313

19. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 19
Conclusion & Implication
• Spatial presence was significantly
influenced by attention allocation
(consistent with Bystrom, Barfield, & Hendrix, 1999; Draper, Kaber, & Usher, 1998; Wirth et
al., 2007)
➔Importance of eliminating distractions
• Spatial presence contributes positively to
attitude change toward destinations
➔Effectiveness of VR for destination marketing

20. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 20
Conclusion & Implication
• No differences in spatial presence and
attitude change across different devices
➔ using low cost, less sophisticated devices still
results in comparable experiences and responses
➔ statistical representativeness issue

21. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 21
Limitations
• Respondents dominated by young female
consumers
• Disproportionate numbers: stimuli and
prior visitation

22. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 22
THANK YOU!
Iis P. Tussyadiah
i.tussyadiah@surrey.ac.u
k
Dan Wang
d.wang@polyu.edu.hk
Helen (Helen) Jia
chenge.jia@polyu.edu.hk