Keywords

1 Introduction

In 2023, the rapid development of VR was mirrored in the release and announcement of the latest VR hardware, such as the Meta Quest Pro and Apple Vision Pro. This ushered in an era of unprecedented possibilities by opening new avenues for integrating the physical and digital world. The tourism industry has been significantly impacted by these advances [1, 2], as physical travel is becoming more exclusive, valuable and cost intensive compared to virtual experiences. In the future, successful organizations and brands need strategies for both the physical and virtual worlds [3], as well as for a mix of both - hybrid worlds. To remain competitive tourist organizations are adopting their marketing strategies by delivering immersive virtual experiences to tourists [1, 2, 4, 5].

The engagement with cyber-worlds is rooted in people’s desire to transcend the constraints of reality [6]. While physically exploring travel destinations offer a multisensory experience (such as the perception of heat or cold, distinctive scents or wind), reliance on images, videos or 360-degree-footage, falls short of capturing the sensory richness of a destination. This gap between the multisensory reality of a destination and the audio-visual pre-travel media constitutes an opportunity to enhance the pre-travel phase, enabling a greater sense of presence [1, 7, 8].

The salty scent of the sea, the brisk wind on a mountain peak, the warmth of the sun on your skin - multisensory stimuli like that add depth to the travel experience and often are the most memorable parts of a journey. Thus, in past research, multisensory components have been added to VR experiences, to allow a greater feeling of presence [8,9,10]–the ‘sense of being there’ [26]. The unique aspect of this work is the extended multisensory aspect, allowing the active tasting of regional products through the novel pass-through feature of the latest VR-glasses, the effect of mist, heat and wind as additional sensual components within a high-quality VR surrounding.

This work therefore aims to answer the following primary research question, with three subsidiary research questions:

  • RQ: Does the use of multisensory VR in the pre-travel phase enhance the sense of presence and technology acceptance compared to traditional VR?

  • RQ1: Is there a difference in the sense of presence experienced by potential tourists in the pre-travel phase using multisensory VR compared to VR?

  • RQ2: Is there a difference in technology acceptance among potential tourists in the pre-travel phase using multisensory VR compared to VR?

  • RQ3: Is there a correlation between the enhanced sense of presence through multisensory stimuli and increased technology acceptance?

In response to these research questions, a novel multisensory VR experience for the pre-travel phase, incorporating olfactory, gustatory, and haptic stimuli (including heat, wind, and moisture) was tested. This was compared with a VR-only control group (without multisensory) in a user study, focusing on the user’s technology acceptance and presence. The contribution is threefold: (1) The creation of a unique, multisensory VR experience for the pre-travel phase, integrating a range of sensory stimuli, (2) A comparative study investigating the potential benefits of multisensory VR over traditional VR in a tourism context and (3) Valuable insights for the future design of multisensory VR experiences in the pre-travel phase.

2 Related Works

2.1 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The basis for the willingness to use new technologies can be traced back to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of [11], which analyzed the acceptance of new information technologies by users in a professional context. The basic idea was the assumption that behavioral acceptance depends on the two central factors “perceived usefulness” (PU) and “perceived ease of use” (PEU). PU is understood as “the prospective user’s subjective probability that using a specific application system will increase his or her job performance within an organizational context.” (ibid., p. 985). PEU “refers to the degree to which the prospective user expects the target system to be free of effort.” (ibid.). The core statement of the model is that the use of technology is positively influenced by simple or easy-to-use applications and by technological solutions with a high added value for the user.

The TAM has been empirically tested many times, validated [12] and further developed. First, the external factors influencing perceived usefulness were examined in more detail and five additional determinants (determinants of PU) and two moderators were integrated into the construct in TAM 2 [13]. Thus, stimuli were identified that explain social influence and cognitive instrumental processes [14]. The construct underwent further development as TAM 3 (ibid.) by integrating six factors as directly influencing PEU [15]. Venkatesh and Bala [14] indicate that the following factors are significant predictors of PEU: (1) Computer Self-Efficacy, (2) Perception of External Control, (3) Computer Anxiety, (4) Computer Playfulness, (5) Perceived Enjoyment and (6) Objective Usability.

In this paper, we examine the extent to which multisensory elements of VR technology in a travel context can enhance perceived ease of use. Disztinger et al. [16] highlight the potential of VR in tourism and emphasize its ability to provide additional sensory and visual information. Referring to the predictors 4 and 5 of the TAM3, it is conceivable that a playful interaction of the user with multisensory elements such as wind or warm/cold sensation or the perceived enjoyment can have positive effects. By including multisensory elements into VR, the immersion of the system is enhanced, which should also lead to a higher presence experienced by users [26]. We propose, that it is through the increased presence achieved by multisensory stimuli that PU and PEU rise in the context of pre-travel experiences, as the environment is easier to understand through contextual variables like wind or heat, and the experience should be more useful in terms of pre-experiencing a travel destination holistically (see Fig. 1 for our conceptual framework).

2.2 Multisensory VR and Presence in Tourism

VR can have a number of contributions on the tourism sector, including the fields of entertainment, education, management, planning, heritage conservation and accessibility at different stages of the customer journey [17, 18]. By providing a 360-degree perspective, VR facilitates pre-trip exploration, a new form of information gathering as users can immerse themselves in destinations before their trip. This concept also applies within the destination [1]. Traditional methods of learning about new destinations, such as brochures, images or videos at information points, are evolving. VR experiences itself are now being offered and embraced as unique encounters [19]. In addition, tourists can share 360-degree videos with friends and family after their trip, which not only helps them relive their experience, but also inspires others in their travel planning [7, 20].

Research showed that VR has a greater impact on creating a desire to visit a destination than traditional promotional materials [20]. The use of VR increases consumer confidence in the product and increases the likelihood of purchase, especially when the tourism product is complex [21]. This contradicts to findings arguing that fully immersive VR encounters are less influential than traditional travel guides [22]. People physically unable to take on climbs can now participate, by exploring a digital replication of a certain place. This illustrates the inclusive potential of VR in tourism [23]. Nevertheless, users interact differently.

Female participants manifest higher levels of spatial presence in an emotional domain. The feelings of enjoyment, satisfaction, involvement and virtual engagement with the destination is stronger [8].

A notable recent development is the evolution from audio-visual VR to multisensory VR experiences. Since the essence of tourism is intangible yet multisensory, it’s recommended to engage all five human senses for a more authentic encounter. This includes sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch [1, 7, 24]. The inclusion of haptic and olfactory components has a positive impact on the audio-visual VR experience, especially in the domain of escapism. Meaning that multisensory components lead to a greater desire to escape the everyday surroundings in form of a mental or emotional getaway [7].

The integration of multisensory components within virtual contexts generates the feeling of presence which subsequently leads to positive emotional states and increased experiential satisfaction [2, 8]. This phenomenon influences favorable consumer behavior towards tourism sector offerings and at the same time increases the willingness to adopt VR technologies [8]. Given the relevant literature, authors suggest the use of high-quality VR content [1], a controlled experimental setting for further investigations in the pre-travel and post-travel phase [7], as well as sample that extends beyond students [8] for further research.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Conceptual research framework. Social Presence is excluded, as there are no social encounters in the presented multisensory experience.

Full size image

3 Methodology

3.1 Study Design and Procedure

To answer our research questions, we adopted a mixed-methods approach in our user-study, integrating qualitative and quantitative data. The strengths of both data types allow a more holistic understanding of the impact of multisensory VR compared to traditional VR in the context of tourism. For the study design we employed a between-subjects design with two conditions: participants experiencing (1) multisensory VR (MSVR) or (2) ‘traditional’, audio-visual VR (VR).

A total of 103 participants were recruited. The MSVR group consisted of 61 participants who experienced the virtual tourist destination environments during a trade fair in a separate booth. The VR group consisted of 42 volunteers of a tourism institution on their premises in a dedicated room.

In both scenarios, each participant was welcomed and briefed by the experimenter about participating in a scientific VR experiment, without revealing the study’s specific goal. After signing a consent form and completing a sociodemographic questionnaire, the user was equipped with a Meta Quest Pro headset and instructed on the VR system. The participants familiarized themselves with the system in a habituation environment before starting the VR experience, which consisted of three scenes over three minutes each. After the experience, the equipment was removed, and participants completed the questionnaire. The qualitative data was gathered through open ended feedback from participants, providing rich insights into their subjective experiences. The entire procedure lasted approximately 15 min and the tests for both groups were conducted across August 2023. See Fig. 2 for an overview of the design and procedure.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Study design and procedure.

Full size image

3.2 Virtual Environment and Multisensory Enhancement

Three virtual environments were developed in the Unity engine, merging high-definition 360-degree photographs with 3D assets. The three virtual environments of Austrian sights are displayed in Fig. 3. The resulting virtual experience was run on a Meta Quest Pro headset and included the hand-tracking features in two variants: In scene one (mountain top) and two (pier by the lake), virtual hands controlled via hand-tracking were displayed. In scene three, the passthrough video feature of the Meta Quest Pro was used to cut out and display the participant’s own hands.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

The three virtual environments: (a) misty mountain top, (b) pier by the lake and (c) view platform in the mountains.

Full size image

For the MSVR group, the three scenes were enhanced with multisensory stimuli. The setup consisted of four strong lamps placed above the user to induce heat, two fans for wind and one mist diffuser to cool down the wind and produce moisture. In scene (a), the snowy mountain top was enhanced with mist and wind, to create the feeling of standing on top of a misty mountain. In scene (b) and (c), the heat lamps simulated the sun on a summer day, mixed with warm wind. Scene (c) additionally included the senses of smell and taste. Herewith, on a table at the end of a viewing platform in the mountains, a 20 cm \(\times \) 10 cm area was cut out of the virtual world to display the camera passthrough. In this spot, a table was placed in the physical environment, with a platter of local cheese, which participants could collect and consume, merging the physical and virtual environment.

3.3 Measurements and Procedure

To assess differences in technology acceptance between the MSVR and VR group, several items for the factors Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) and Behavioral Intention (BI) of the TAM model were analyzed [16]. As the MSVR group experienced the scenes at a trade fair, the number of items per factor was shortened to two items each - meaning two excluded items for PU and PEU and one excluded item for BI.

For measuring the state of presence, the Multimodal Presence Scale (MPS) for virtual reality environments [25] was used, which consists of three scales: Physical Presence (i.e., the sense of being physically present in the virtual environment, 5 items), Social Presence (i.e., the sense of interacting with other entities or individuals in the virtual environment, 5 items), and Self-Presence (i.e., the sense of one’s own virtual embodiment within the environment, 5 items). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Do not agree at all” to “Agree Completely”. Given that the virtual environments used in this study did not include any form of social interaction, solely the items for Physical Presence and Self-Presence were conducted. Self-Presence was of interest, as participants would interact with their hands (either virtual representations or pass-through video of their actual hands), while Physical Presence is aimed more at the ‘sense of being there’ [26].

Qualitative data was collected with three open questions at the end of the questionnaire, where participants would write down positive and negative aspects of their experience, as well as suggestions for improving the system. These were intentionally formulated in a broad way because of the explorative nature of this study. As multisensory VR in the context of tourism is still an emerging field, clear categories for assessing the experience are still to be defined.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Boxplots of Presence items (left) and Technology Acceptance Items (right). Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale. Asterisks mark statistical significance of the paired t-test for \( \alpha < 0.05 \).

Full size image

4 Results

4.1 Empirical Results

A total of 103 participants were included in the analysis. 61 were part of the MSVR group (26 male, 35 female), with a mean age of 38.3 years (SD = 12.1), 42 were part of the VR group (19 male, 23 female), with a mean age of 32.7 years (SD = 9.4). In both samples 64% of participants were employees of tourism organizations and 7% were college students in the field of tourism. The remaining participants were a mix of researchers (2% MSVR, 5% VR), consultants (10% MSVR, 2% VR), and occupations with one occurrence like creators or marketing employees (13% MSVR, 21% VR). For the analysis of group differences for technology acceptance and presence, one-sided Mann-Whiteney-U-Tests (the non-parametric alternative to independent sample t-tests) were calculated for the 5 scales. One-sided testing was chosen as we hypothesize an improvement in the scales for the MSVR group. All p-values were corrected using the FalseDiscovery-Rate (FDR) [27]. For boxplots of the results, see Fig. 4.

The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference in the perceived usefulness between the MSVR and the VR group (U = 1120.5, p = 0.841). Both groups reported a median score of 4.5. A significant difference was observed between the two groups concerning their perceived ease of use (U = 1474, p = 0.039). While both groups had a median score of 5, the rank-based nature of the U test indicates that the distributions of scores in these groups were different, suggesting varying perceptions of ease of use between the groups. No significant difference was detected in the behavioral intention to use between the MS and VR groups (U = 1370.5, p = 0.213). The MS group reported a slightly higher median score (4.75) compared to the VR group (4.5).

While there was a noticeable difference in the median scores for physical presence between the MSVR (3.8) and VR (3.5) groups, this difference was not statistically significant (U = 1443, p = 0.106). A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups regarding their feelings of self-presence (U = 1542, p = 0.027). The MSVR group had a higher median score (3.6) compared to the VR group (3.2), suggesting that participants in the MSVR group felt a greater sense of self-presence than those in the VR group. In conclusion, among the TAM items, only the Perceived Ease of Use showed a significant difference between the two groups. For the presence items, the Self Presence stood out with a significant difference, with the MSVR group indicating a stronger feeling of Self Presence compared to the VR group. All results for the technology acceptance and presence scales are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Means, Medians, U-values and p-values of the U-tests.
Full size table

Looking at the correlations between presence and technology acceptance scales, medium correlations emerged between PEU and the two presence scales (rPP = 0.37 (MSVR) and 0.41 (VR), rSP = 0.33 (MSVR) and 0.30 (VR)) and between BI and the two presence scales (rPP = 0.26 (MSVR) and 0.24 (VR), rSP = 0.36 (MSVR) and 0.31 (VR)) in both groups. A notable difference between the groups could be observed for PU: Whereas the correlation with SP in the VR group is medium (r = 0.37) it was high in the MSVR group (r = 0.55). Similarily, the correlation between PU and PP was medium in the VR group (r = 0.40) and high in the MSVR group (0.53). The link between presence and perceived usefulness was thus stronger when the experience was enhanced with multisensory stimuli.

4.2 Qualitative Results

The answers to the open question for open feedback were coded using the software Atlas.ti. Using the AI-coding feature, thematic codes were found inductively and further combined. Regarding positive feedback on the experience, five main themes were identified: General positive comments regarding the (1) quality of the experience, comments highlighting the (2) multisensory aspects, comments regarding the felt (3) realim and presence, the (4) soundscape and the (5) visuals. Comments from all 103 participants of the quantitative analysis were included. On a descriptive level it can be observed, that quality of experience as well as realism & presence were mentioned similarly often in the MSVR and the VR group. A thematic shift in the comments became clear regarding which sensory elements were highlighted: Whereas the VR group often praised the graphics and the soundscape, the MSVR group explicitly highlighted the multisensory elements as a positive aspect of the experience (38%) and less the ‘conventional’ sensory elements such as visuals (16% vs. 42% in the VR group) or the soundscape (5% vs. 17% in the VR group).

5 Discussion

The study aimed to investigate the differential impacts of multisensory virtual reality (MSVR) and conventional virtual reality (VR) on the user’s technology acceptance and state of presence in pre-travel experiences. While no statistically significant difference was found in terms of physical presence between the MSVR and VR groups, there was a notable divergence in self-presence (RQ1). Specifically, the MSVR group reported a significantly higher sense of self-presence compared to the VR group. This suggests that multisensory elements can effectively enhance the individual’s sense of being within the virtual environment. Thus, the statements on the positive effects and promotion of authentic perceptions of tourist experiences through multisensory stimuli [1, 7, 17] can be confirmed. It lends credence to the notion that MSVR, by providing a richer, more immersive sensory experience, has the potential to increase the user’s emotional and psychological engagement with the virtual destination.

Interestingly, no significant difference was found between the MSVR and VR groups in terms of perceived usefulness and behavioral intention to use the technology (RQ2), which contradicts some prior work [8]. This could be interpreted in several ways: it may be that the added sensory elements did not necessarily contribute to a perception of the technology as being more useful, or it could imply that other factors (e.g., personal affinity with the tourism industry) influenced these metrics. However, there was a significant difference in perceived ease of use, suggesting that the multisensory elements in MSVR might make the technology appear more accessible or intuitive to users, which is in line with prior work on accessibility of VR [22].

Data showed medium to high correlations between the presence scales and the perceived usefulness in the MSVR group (RQ3), indicating that an enhanced sense of presence through multisensory stimuli positively correlates with higher technology acceptance. This is an intriguing result and could suggest that there is an interactive effect between the enhanced sensory inputs in MSVR and its consequent impact on technology acceptance.

The study’s limitations lead to suggestions for future research. First, the sample, including participants from mainly the tourism industry, restricts the generalizability of the findings due to a potential professional bias. Second, the lack of random sampling affects the study’s external validity and risks introducing selection bias. Third, multisensory stimuli and the user’s active interaction with the virtual environment were limited. This could lead to even more insights about MSVR. Future research should diversify the participant pool to include tourists, broaden the multisensory stimuli used, and employ randomization.

6 Conclusion and Implications

This study evaluated the efficacy of multisensory virtual reality (MSVR) against traditional audio-visual virtual reality (VR) in enhancing pre-travel experiences by the user’s technology acceptance and state of presence. While no significant difference in the degree of PU was noted, differences emerged in PEU and self-presence, pointing to the unique benefits of MSVR. The findings offer partial support for the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the MSVR context. This leads to a need for an extended TAM model that incorporates the factor of presence, especially given its stronger correlation with PU in the MSVR setting. Concerning our framework (Fig. 1), it could be noted that Physical presence is largely determined by the audio-visual fidelity (as there were no differences between the groups), whereas Self Presence could be heightened by the inclusion of multisensory stimuli, leading to an adapted model.

The study provides further managerial implications, recommending the use of multisensory virtual reality experiences to enhance pre-travel phase. Tactile and olfactory stimuli have a large role to play. Guests are given a sense of teleportation, a tantalizing preview within a sensual 360-degree perspective. The Meta Quest Pro headset with its advanced features is recommended. The high acceptance of VR technologies is evident. To effectively engage visitors, a trade fair-style approach to attracting attention and interest is recommended. Guided VR experiences by an experimenter are preferred to passive displays. A VR zone where visitors can capture photographs with VR headsets creates a form of virtual memorabilia.

This study demonstrates that both the straightforward use of VR technology and the incorporation of multisensory stimuli present new avenues for destination marketing. Multisensory VR addresses the dual nature of tourism as both a tactile and tech-driven industry.