Exploring the Impact of Multisensory VR on Travel Recommendation: A Presence Perspective

  • Jasmin HopfEmail author
  • Melina SchollEmail author
  • Barbara Neuhofer
  • Roman Egger
Conference paper


The rapid development of Virtual Reality (VR) technology offers new opportunities for the promotion of tourism products and experiences. VR provides potential tourists with a compelling imagery and a chance to get a first impression of what it feels like to be at a destination. Previous studies have mostly focused on visual and auditory VR experiences and have rather neglected the possibility of adding additional sensory stimuli, i.e. haptic and olfactory feedback, to a VR experience. This study is novel in that it takes a multisensory approach to VR and examines its impact on the intention to recommend a destination through the lens of presence. A multi-stage laboratory experiment with 64 participants was conducted. The analysis reveals that the stimulation of additional senses does not lead to a significant enhancement of the user’s sense of presence. However, a significant increase in the user’s intention to recommend a destination can be observed. For destination marketers, this study proposes multisensory VR as a novel and effective tool to positively influence travel recommendations.


Virtual Reality Presence Travel recommendation 


  1. 1.
    Rivera M, Croes R, Zhong Y (2016) Developing mobile services. Int J Contemp Hospitality Manage 28(12):2721–2747. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wei W, Qi R, Zhang L (2019) Effects of virtual reality on theme park visitors’ experience and behaviors: a presence perspective. Tourism Manage 71:282–293. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guttentag DA (2010) Virtual reality: applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Manage 31(5):637–651. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiang Z, Tussyadiah IIS (eds) (2014) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014. In: Proceedings of the international conference in Dublin, Ireland, 22–25 January 2014. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tussyadiah IP, Wang D, Jung TH (2018) Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Manage 66:140–154. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung N, Lee H, Kim J-Y (2018) The role of augmented reality for experience-influenced environments: the case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea. J Travel Res 57(5):627–643. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones S, Dawkins S (2018) The sensorama revisited: evaluating the application of multi-sensory input on the sense of presence in 360-degree immersive film in virtual reality. In: Jung T, Tom Dieck MC (eds) Augmented reality and virtual reality, vol 10. Springer, Cham, pp 183–197Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang YC, Backman KF, Backman SJ (2016) Exploring the implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: an integrated research framework. Int J Tourism Res 18(2):116–128. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffin T, Giberson J, Lee SHM et al (2017) Virtual reality and implications for destination marketingGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martins J, Gonçalves R, Branco F (2017) A multisensory virtual experience model for thematic tourism: a port wine tourism application proposal. J Destination Mark Manage 6(2):103–109. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tussyadiah IP, Wang D, Jia C (2017) Virtual reality and attitudes toward tourism destinations. In: Schegg R, Stangl B (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2017: proceedings of the international conference in Rome, Italy, 24–26 January 2017, vol 74. Springer, Cham, pp 229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson A, O’Rawe M (2018) Virtual reality as a travel promotional tool: insights from a consumer travel fair. In: Jung T, Tom Dieck MC (eds) Augmented reality and virtual reality, vol 11. Springer, Cham, pp 93–107Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paquet E, Viktor HL (2005) Long-term preservation of 3-D cultural heritage data related to architectural sites. In: Proceedings of the ISPRS Working Group, vol 4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuburger L, Beck J, Egger R (2018) Chapter 9 the ‘Phygital’ tourist experience: the use of augmented and virtual reality in destination marketing. In: Camilleri MA (ed) Tourism planning and destination marketing, vol 77. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp 183–202Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Neil S (2016) Live, 360, or virtual video: Facebook’s new video formats catch marketers’ eyes. Accessed 20 Jun 2019
  16. 16.
    McFee A, Mayrhofer T, Baràtovà A et al (2019) The effects of virtual reality on destination image formation. In: Pesonen J, Neidhardt J (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2019: proceedings of the international conference in Nicosia, Cyprus, 30 January–1 February 2019, vol 16. Springer, Cham, pp 107–119Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pan S, Ryan C (2009) Tourism sense-making: the role of the senses and travel journalism. J. Travel Tourism Mark. 26(7):625–639. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Porges S (2016) Get Ready for Multisensory Virtual Reality That Goes Far Beyond Sight and Sound. Accessed 20 Jun 2019
  19. 19.
    Agapito D, Oom do Valle P, da Costa Mendes J (2013) The cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: a confirmatory analysis. J Travel Tourism Mark 30(5):471–481. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Law AW, Ip JW, Peck BV et al (2009) Multimodal floor for immersive environments. In: Wigdor D (ed) ACM SIGGRAPH 2009 emerging technologies. ACM, New York, p 1Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gutiérrez MAA, Vexo F, Thalmann D (2008) Stepping into virtual reality. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7(3):225–240. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Diemer J, Alpers GW, Peperkorn HM (2015) The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: a review of research in virtual reality. Front Psychol 6:26. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Witmer BG, Jerome CJ, Singer MJ (2005) The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 14(3):298–312. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schuemie MJ, van der Straaten P, Krijn M (2001) Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. Cyberpsychol Behav 4(2):183–201. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meehan M, Razzaque S, Insko B (2005) Review of four studies on the use of physiological reaction as a measure of presence in stressful virtual environments. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 30(3):239–258. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dawson C (2015) What Americans Really Think About VR: Highlights from our 2015 U.S. Consumer Report. Virtual Reality Consumer Study by Greenlight Insights. Accessed 20 Jun 2019
  28. 28.
    Rooney B, Benson C, Hennessy E (2012) The apparent reality of movies and emotional arousal: a study using physiological and self-report measures. Poetics 40(5):405–422. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Satmetrix (2019) What Is Net Promoter? Accessed 20 Jun 2019
  30. 30.
    Prion S, Haerling KA (2014) Making sense of methods and measurement: Spearman-rho ranked-order correlation coefficient. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 10(10):535–536. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wiederhold BK, Jang DP, Kaneda M et al (2001) An investigation into physiological responses in virtual environments: an objective measurement of presence. In: Galimberti C, Riva G (eds) Towards cyberpsychology: mind, cognition and society in the internet age. IOS, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences SalzburgPuch/SalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations