Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

Impact of VR on impulsive desire for a destination T

Hyunjeong Kang
College of Business Administration, Hongik University, Inmun A208, Wausan-ro 94, Mapo-gu, Seoul, South Korea, 04066

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study proposes a research model to analyze and evaluate — through affective and cognitive processes based
Immersive technology on construal level theory and telepresence — the impact of head-mounted displays (HMD) VR on a tourism
HMD VR product that has experiential and hedonic characteristics. A laboratory experiment using 89 student samples
Construal level theory compared HMD VR and video. The HMD VR produced 47% higher telepresence than video. The higher level of
Affective
telepresence, in turn, through the affective process, shortened participants’ hypothetical distance by 45%, in-
Cognitive
Tourism
tensified affection by 62%, and increased their impulsive desire by 75%. Although dual path affective and
cognitive processes both affected impulsive desire, the affective process seemed to have the stronger effect in the
case of the tourism product.

1. Introduction we previously could only imagine.

It is no longer necessary to go to the airport and spend a handsome
amount of money for a vacation. In Tokyo, you only need to travel to
the middle of the busy Ikebukuro district. From there you can go any-
where in the world by simply putting on a virtual reality (VR) headset.
This entertainment facility imitates travel abroad by using VR gear in a
room that replicates an airplane cabin (Tachibana, 2017). SeaWorld
Orlando recycled its old rollercoasters by taking riders wearing VR
headsets on an underwater journey. VR provides an opportunity to
breathe new life into old rides, and the park saves money (Economist,
2017). Expedia is working on offering VR versions of its hotel listings,
expecting to change the way people make their booking decisions by
allowing users to virtually step into a hotel room and view its features
(Tan, 2017).
VR is transforming the tourism and hospitality business (Chiao,
Chen, & Huang, 2018/ce:cross-ref > ; Patiar, Ma, Kensbock, & Cox,
2017; Tussyadiah, Wang, & Jia, 2017; Wei, Qi, & Zhang, 2019; Yung &
Khoo-Lattimore, 2019). Thanks to the development of accessible
headsets, VR technology is quickly and effectively becoming a new way
of traveling to new destinations (Law, Buhalis, & Cobanoglu, 2014;
Neuhofer, Buhalis, & Ladkin, 2014). According to recent research re-
ports, tourism is one of six domains in which VR is expected to fun-
damentally change everyday life (Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2017). VR
can deliver new experiences or information to people without any
constraints of time and space. Now, VR can bring the digital world to
our real world. People can experience remote or nonexistent objects
right in front of their eyes or have a 360-degree look at them from any
angle. Therefore, we are now able to obtain a vivid experience of what
VR moves a user (or a user's avatar) to another (possibly virtual)
environment. Therefore, VR will have its greatest effect when the en-
vironment there is significant. For example, VR is expected to be ef-
fective in transporting users to places other than here, such as tourism
destinations. Tourism sites have attractions that draw tourists such as a
view, events, activities, or historic significance. The pulling factors of
such places stays physically there. not here, and hence it is VR that
moves us there and enables us to experience the attractions without
changing location (Dann, 1981; Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Therefore, in
tourism, VR is appropriate for a pre-experience exploration without
time and space constraints (Kjeldskov, 2004; Tussyadiah et al., 2017;
Wei et al., 2019; Yovcheva, Buhalis, & Gatzidis, 2013). In this study, we
focused only on VR to determine the factors affecting the degree of
tourists' intent to visit a place after a VR experience. In the tourism
business, a pre-experience exploration via VR can be useful in helping
tourists to choose a destination among all the many candidates avail-
able.
VR can be broadly divided into two types, immersive and non-
immersive VR, depending on the level of immersion (Mills & Noyes,
1999). Immersive VR is expected to have a significant impact on the
travel industry by enabling travelers to access realistic travel informa-
tion. Although most of the empirical studies on VR have been related to
nonimmersive VR (Suh & Lee, 2005), the rapid advancement of im-
mersive VR technology needs more research and applications. This
study aims to analyze the effects of VR from the point of view of tele-
presence and the construal level theory (CLT) within the context of
tourism.
The study has four main implications. First, because most VR

E-mail address: hjkang@hongik.ac.kr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.02.003
Received 25 April 2019; Received in revised form 31 January 2020; Accepted 1 February 2020
Available online 07 February 2020
1447-6770/ © 2020 CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION. Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
H. Kang
research so far has been about non-immersive VR, this study explores
the effects of the more recent technology of immersive VR, which has
undergone little empirical study. Second, most of the work on VR has so
far analyzed the influence of vividness and interactivity on telepresence
and its effect on a user's attitude or on the purchase of products. The
present study combined telepresence with CLT to create a new view of
the affective process based on psychological distance. Third, by
studying the content of immersion VR in the travel industry, which is
where VR is expected to be the most influential, it will help to predict
its influence and suggest the prospects for its application in this in-
dustry in which its use is currently in its infancy. Finally, although most
of the research on VR has so far focused on the utilitarian products, this
study focuses on a hedonic product and on the relative importance of
the affective and cognitive processes.
In the following sections, we first review the previous research on
the tourism business and on immersive technology and telepresence to
derive our hypotheses on the impact of VR on impulsive desire for a
tour destination. We then explain our research method, including in-
dependent and dependent variables, and the experimental design. The
next section presents our data analysis and results. Then we conclude
with a summary of the results of the experiment, the implications of our
results for theory and practice, and make suggestions for future re-
search.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Tourism business and immersive Technology
A tourism product is typically experiential consumption (or a pur-
chase) (Bruwer & Alant, 2009; McIntosh, 1998; Sanchez, Callarisa,
Rodriguez, & Moliner, 2006; Schmitt, Joško Brakus, & Zarantonello,
2015). The salient attributes of tourism products are mainly experi-
ential, but direct experience (i.e., product trials) before purchasing is
impossible. People experience tourism products indirectly through
books, videos, or others’ travel stories. However, advances in immersive
technologies, such as VR, make it possible to experience a tour desti-
nation “virtually” and inexpensively (Huang, Backman, Backman, &
Chang, 2016; Tussyadiah, Wang, Jung, & tom Dieck, 2018; Yung &
Khoo-Lattimore, 2019). People can watch the scenery of a place and
hear the sound of wind at a destination as they enter the virtual en-
vironment by wearing VR equipment (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019).
Therefore, VR technology has the potential to change the way tourism
products are promoted (Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2017).
Another characteristic is that most tourism products are hedonic,
except for some business trips with a clear purpose, which describes
goods consumed mainly for affective or sensory gratification purposes
(Bruwer & Alant, 2009). Whereas the research on the effect of VR on
business so far has been largely about utilitarian goods (Jiang &
Benbasat, 2004, 2007; Suh & Chang, 2006; Suh & Lee, 2005), the at-
titudes and purchase processes of hedonic goods differ from those in-
volved with utilitarian goods (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Batra &
Ahtola, 1991; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). In the tourism business, the
former findings could be easily applied to business trips with utilitarian
purposes, and the result would be presumed to be predictable. For in-
stance, virtual technologies have been validated as suitable for long-
distance business meetings by saving time and money while satisfying
the utilitarian needs of a business trip (Cheong, 1995; Perry Hobson &
Williams, 1995). However, because VR studies on hedonic products are
lacking, despite the potential impact of immersive technology, we chose
the hedonic aspect of tourism as our research arena. Fig. 1 illustrates
our research model.
There are research gaps in the methods for measuring a true VR
experience. Review studies have called for 360-degree VR (Yung 2019;
Navío-Marco, Ruiz-Gómez, & Sevilla-Sevilla, 2018; Loureiro, Guerreiro,
& Ali, 2020), since tourism studies on VR have usually included non-
immersive VR devices. Now, technology has advanced to head-mounted
245
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
devices (HMDs), which lead to a greater feeling of presence. HMDs are
immersive and provide a true 360-degree VR experience. Immersive
HMDs enable users not only to see in a 360-degree range, but also to
move, touch, or interact with VR objects, thereby providing the highest
degree of presence. The current study employs an immersive HMD VR
device to fill the methodological gap in previous tourism research to
enable VR experiences that are closer to a real experience.
A theoretical gap also exists, as few theories have been employed to
explain the impact of VR on tourism, and an interdisciplinary integra-
tion with tourism, psychology, engineering, and information tech-
nology is necessary (Yung 2019). The current study borrows CLT to
explain the ability of VR to bring distant places and times closer.
Moreover, the dual-path model is used to explain the cognitive and
affective processes occurring while tourists experience VR, before they
actually visit the destination. CLT is applied to VR tourism as a theory
base, because it explains how the cognitive and affective states change
as the psychological distance is perceived to be near.
2.2. Immersive Technology and Telepresence
Immersion is often confused with a separate but similar concept of
presence. According to Slater and Wilbur (1997), who provided a clear
distinction between the two concepts, immersion can be regarded as the
quality of a system's technology. It is an objective measure of how much
the system represents a vivid virtual environment while obscuring the
physical reality. On the other hand, presence in a virtual environment is
essentially a function of the user's psychology, indicating the extent to
which individuals experience the virtual environment consciously.
Immersive technology crosses the boundary between the physical
world and the digital or simulated world, thereby creating a sense of
immersion (Lee, Shan, & Chen, 2013). VR, a realistic computer-gener-
ated environment in which people become immersed (Wexelblat,
2014), is a representative immersive technology. This technology can
be categorized into two types based on the extent of immersion: im-
mersive and nonimmersive (Mills & Noyes, 1999; Suh & Lee, 2005). In
the immersive VR used in tourism, users wear head-mounted displays
(HMD) and are fully surrounded by enclosed virtual environments
(Guttentag, 2010) while shutting out physical reality. In contrast,
nonimmersive VR is implemented only in a computer's display monitor
and speakers (Cheong, 1995; Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi, & Kishino,
1995); users' experiences are limited to what they can see and hear by
using such applications as YouTube.
Presence is the most important concept used to describe VR within
the context of a user's experience. Presence refers to a natural experi-
ence of perceiving an environment, and it is called telepresence when
this virtual environment is experienced through a medium such as VR.
Telepresence is a sense of “being there” in an environment mediated by
a communication medium (Kjeldskov, 2004; Steuer, 1992). The per-
ceptual illusion of being there is, in varying degrees, a product of all
media (Reeves & Nass, 1996). For example, people watching a movie
may have a sense of being inside a scene. This illusion or feeling is
associated with telepresence (Suh & Chang, 2006).
Telepresence increases when users are engaged with a vivid and
interactive medium. The representational richness — vividness — of a
mediated environment is the creation of a specific medium's sensory
breadth and depth (Steuer, 1992). The breadth of a stimulus refers to
the number of sensory dimensions presented at the same time. For
example, video uses both audio and visual channels to deliver in-
formation that static pictures deliver only through a visual channel.
Thus, in this comparison, video excels in terms of breadth. The depth of
a stimulus refers to the quality of information within each channel. For
example, ultra-high definition (UHD) televisions exhibit greater depth
than high definition (HD) televisions. Moreover, the stimulus of the
same content can be sensed deeper when delivered three-dimensionally
(3D films) instead of two-dimensionally (2D films) (Hyun, Lee, & Hu,
2009).
H. Kang
Fig. 1. Research model.
Interactivity is related to the degree to which people have sufficient
real-time control of a mediated environment to alter its form and
content (Steuer, 1992). The feeling of interactivity is increased when
users get immediate responses through their perceptions, indicating
changes in a mediated environment because of their input (Klein,
2003). VR incorporates higher levels of interactivity than either video
or static pictures because users can engage with the information in ways
that reflect their personal interests and preoccupations (Pimentel &
Teixeira, 1993). VR has two types of interactivity: navigational and
transformational interactivity. Navigational interactivity is related to
looking and moving around in the virtual settings, but transformational
interactivity is related to transforming an outcome. We considered only
navigational interactivity in this study because transformational inter-
activity is not yet well developed in most VR applications other than
gaming.
According to an analysis of 83 studies on the influence of immersive
technology on presence (Cummings & Bailenson, 2016), the features
producing major effects on presence were the number of degrees of
freedom of the users’ input, stereoscopy such as 3D, and the immersive
level (e.g., HMD compared with a desktop display). However, image
quality (e.g., visual detail, quality, and overall levels of realism) and
sound (e.g., the relative presence or absence of sound) had a relatively
small effect on presence. In addition to providing the highest immersive
levels and 3D screens, a user of HMD VR has the freedom to alter his or
her view by moving in any direction, depending on his input, whereas
video on 2D screens is less immersive and a user has a relatively lesser
degree of freedom. Thus, even with the same or better image or sound
quality, users with 2D screens are expected to feel less sense of tele-
presence than users with HMD VR. Therefore, we hypothesize the fol-
lowing:
H1-1. The telepresence of HMD VR users will be higher than that of
video users.
Telepresence decreases with distance, but its size is expected to vary
depending on media. An HMD VR will provide a higher immersive
level, increasing the sense of realism. Therefore, longer distances are
expected to lower telepresence in general, but the telepresence felt by
users of HMD VR is probably less affected by physical distance than the
effect felt by users of video at the same distance. That is, the effect of
the medium (HMD VR vs. video) on telepresence is moderated, so that
the difference in telepresence between HMD VR and video is larger with
greater distance. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H1-2. The telepresence felt by HMD VR and video users will be
moderated by the physical distance from the site where the content is
located.
2.3. Telepresence and affective process
The affective process assists in identifying whether consumer emo-
tions are influenced by a stimulus (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), and the
246
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
CLT explains the influence of telepresence on the affective process. In
the CLT, when the psychological distance is short, a lower and concrete
construal level occurs. Conversely, a long psychological distance yields
a higher and abstract construal level (Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak,
2007). An individual has a construal level as a unique characteristic
that changes in response to an external stimulus or situation. These
situational conditions include spatial, hypothetical, social, and tem-
poral distances (Trope et al., 2007; Trope & Liberman, 2010).
Telepresence is closely related to spatial distance. According to the
sense of “being there” definition of telepresence, the perceived spatial
distance will be shorter if telepresence is high and if it feels just like
being in a real place. According to the CLT, if the spatial distance is
shorter, the user's psychological distance through which he or she
perceives the object (in this case, a tour location) will also decrease the
other dimensions of psychological distance (i.e., hypothetical, social,
and temporal distance) (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman,
2006; Henderson et al., 2006, Henderson, Wakslak, Fujita, & Rohrbach,
2011; Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Williams & Bargh, 2008). It
has been suggested that the dimensions of psychological distance share
a common analogy and that the cross-dimensional difference between
far and near is interchangeable (Maglio, Trope, & Liberman, 2013).
Similarly, the distance-on-distance effect in CLT would influence dif-
ferent types of psychological distance simultaneously (Williams &
Bargh, 2008). The result is that a shorter spatial distance will also make
the hypothetical distance shorter — in other words, generate a higher
possibility of an expected behavior (Yan, 2014). Therefore, when the
tour location is delivered virtually in front of you through higher tel-
epresence, you will sense all the visual stimulations in a virtual place
realized closer to your current position; thus, you might not only feel
the objects in the virtual place nearer to you but also the possibility,
social relationship, and time of context will be sensed closer to you. The
spatial distance made shorter by telepresence would also increase hy-
pothetical proximity, that is, the probability of a certain occurrence.
Among these three types of distance, this research will investigate
the hypothetical distance to a real purchase because we are interested
in how much impact the content of VR tours has on the urge to travel.
Psychological proximity, including spatial proximity, will play a role in
shifting a reference-point in the purchase of a certain good (Thaler,
1980). For instance, a seller of oriental rugs might deliver a rug to the
home of a customer before she decides to purchase it. The customer
refers to the current and realized states of the rug at the home of the
purchaser rather than those in a remote store, a change that results in
expediting the final purchase decision (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991;
Knetsch, Thaler, & Kahneman, 1987). Likewise, spatial proximity in-
creased by telepresence will cause a certain event to be perceived as
more probable. That is, a higher degree of telepresence will lead a user
to feel the tour location is closer and consequently feel he or she has a
higher probability of visiting the location. Therefore, we hypothesize
the following:
H2. As telepresence increases, users will perceive a shorter hypothetical
distance.
H. Kang
Psychological proximity strengthens the feeling attached to an ob-
ject beyond what is felt when it is distant, and the valence of either a
positive or negative emotion may be intensified because the object is
psychologically closer (Williams, Stein, & Galguera, 2013; Wong &
Bagozzi, 2005). Physical distance is usually used as an analogical bridge
to explain the dynamics of psychological distance. The reason for this is
that physical distance has long been attached to instinct emotions, such
as intimacy or threat, closely related to survival in social development
(Bowlby, 1969; Clark, 1973; Mandler, 1992). For instance, people feel
safe and cared for (i.e., positive) when caretakers are physically close;
conversely, they feel fearful and insecure (i.e., negative) when a po-
tential predator is nearby (Williams & Bargh, 2008). Promotion typi-
cally emphasizes the positive aspects of tours (Baloglu & Mangaloglu,
2001; Martins, 2015; Pereira, 2015; Xu & Ye, 2018); hence, psycholo-
gical proximity will have an increased effect on amplification of the
positive affect. VR experiences are usually constructed to promote a
tour destination (Huang et al., 2016; Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Yung &
Khoo-Lattimore, 2019), e.g., in advertisements. Hence, they include
positive aspects of the destination, e.g., beautiful scenery, exciting en-
vironments, or relaxing views. The VR for a tour promotion has no need
to show the negative reality, e.g., crowds, noise, or bad hygiene. These
experiences are, by nature, designed to include the most positive as-
pects of the destination to attract tourists to visit (Cho, Wang, &
Fesenmaier, 2002; Jung, tom Dieck, Lee, & Chung, 2016). The view
included in this study is also intended to promote the destination;
hence, it only includes positive scenery and experiences, and excludes
uncomfortable contexts.
The analogy of physical distance to psychological distance may be
generalized to other dimensions of psychological distance, such as hy-
pothetical, social, and temporal distance. Any type of psychological
distance will intensify the subjective emotions attached to the corre-
sponding objects. In the same way, this applies to hypothetical distance.
If we think a positive event is highly probable soon, we feel delighted
and excited about the imminent event. People are more attached
emotionally to events that are highly probable than to those that are
not. If an event rarely occurs, we lose interest, do not expect it, and do
not act at all. Therefore, the affect is expected to intensify with psy-
chological proximity, and the higher probability (i.e., hypothetical
proximity) will increase the affective attachment to the travel location.
In conclusion, as hypothetical distance shortens (i.e., becomes highly
probable), the affective attachment to the product will also intensify.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H3. As the hypothetical distance becomes shorter, users will experience
a higher affect.
2.4. Telepresence and cognitive process
Telepresence is created when users interact with virtual environ-
ments, and it impacts how users learn about their real environments (Li,
Daugherty, & Biocca, 2002). The cognitive process refers to determi-
nation of the degree to which a particular marketing stimulus attracts
users' attention. This degree of attraction can be measured by users'
perceptions of the knowledge they have obtained (Bettman & Park,
1980). The more telepresence the users perceive in the immersive
technology, the closer and more concrete they perceive the tour loca-
tion and the knowledge they acquire from the context. The sensory
stimulation of telepresence makes all the dimensions of psychological
distance closer, and hence, makes all the information from the im-
mersive environment real, concrete, and feasible. Information that is
vivid and dynamically moving based on users' input attracts selective
attention (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Direct experiences, such as product
trials, also increase users' attention and memory because product trials
use multiple sensory channels, thus providing users with multimodal
stimuli (Kempf & Smith, 1998; Suh & Chang, 2006). Telepresence in the
context of tourism produces a sense of virtual experience that through
247
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
its vividness and salience not only intensifies users' attention but also
reinforces their memory of the experience (Kim & Biocca, 1997).
Seeking, and evaluating, potential destinations also does more to bol-
ster consumers’ self-motivation than they would derive from simply
looking at the scenery; hence, their attention and memory are en-
hanced. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H4. As telepresence increases, users will perceive that their knowledge
about the destination is greater.
Consumers' perceptions of uncertainty have potentially adverse
consequences in the purchase of a product or service (Dowling &
Staelin, 1994). Although they perceive risks in most purchase decisions
(Cox & Rich, 1964), consumers may identify tourism products as riskier
purchases than physical products because they lack an advance op-
portunity to examine them before making a purchase decision. Con-
sidered a major obstacle to consumers' making purchase decisions,
perceived risk has been used to explain their behavior (Rao & Farley,
1987; Srinivasan & Ratchford, 1991). However, consumers’ perceptions
of risk may arise because of a lack of sufficient information available
before a purchase decision (Dowling & Staelin, 1994) and this can be
reduced in tourism if consumers have more knowledge about a desti-
nation that can assist them in evaluating its quality and desirability
(Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Forsythe & Shi, 2003). Therefore, we hy-
pothesize the following:
H5. As perceived knowledge increases, users will have less perceived
risk.
2.5. Dual path of affective and cognitive processes in decision making
It is commonly assumed that consumers arrive at judgments and
purchasing decisions in two ways. One is a cognitive, reasoned ap-
proach of careful analysis of the attributes of the item under con-
sideration (Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993). The other, called the
affective approach, holds that such decisions can also reflect a sub-
jective spur-of-the moment reaction to a product's attributes (Hong &
Chang, 2015; Pham, 1998; Schwarz, 1990). Many theories have been
advanced to explain why and how these dual processes of affective and
cognitive decision-making occur. The traditional view of these two
distinctive processes considered them mutually exclusive. The heur-
istic-systematic process theory (Chaiken, 1980) proposes two counter-
part processes. In the systematic process, receivers of information focus
primarily on the central content of the given information and exert
considerable cognitive effort in performing the task. For instance, when
recipients of a message use a systematic processing strategy, content
characteristics (e.g., comprehensibility and validity of argumentation)
may exert a stronger impact on persuasion than source characteristics
(e.g., credibility and likability). Conversely, in the heuristic view of
persuasion, recipients avoid detailed processing of message content and
instead, in judging message acceptability, rely on information such as
the source's identity.
Similarly, the elaboration likelihood model validated two basic
routes to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). One route is based on
the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue; the other
is based on affective associations or simple inferences tied to peripheral
cues in the persuasion context. For instance, the manipulation of ar-
gument quality has a greater impact on attitudes under high involve-
ment than under a low one, but the manipulation of a product endorser
has a greater impact under low involvement than under a high one.
A two-system framework is proposed for understanding the pro-
cesses that enable or undermine self-control as exemplified in the delay
of gratification paradigm. A cool, cognitive “know” system and hot,
emotional “go” system is postulated (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). The
cool system is cognitive, emotionally neutral, contemplative, flexible,
integrated, coherent, spatiotemporal, slow, episodic, and strategic. It is
the seat of self-regulation and self-control. The hot system is the basis of
H. Kang
emotionality, fears, and passions — impulsive and reflexive — initially
controlled by innate releasing stimuli; it is fundamental for emotional
conditioning and undermines efforts at self-control. Therefore, the
stronger the shared affective intensity, the more impulsive the emo-
tional desire will be toward the destination by triggering the emotional
“go” system.
According to Kempf (1999), both affective and cognitive responses
proved critical in product trials and the corresponding evaluation.
However, it is interesting to note that the product type, hedonic or
utilitarian, differentiated the degree and relative importance of the
affective or cognitive responses. For example, although an affective
process such as arousal was more influential with a hedonic product,
arousal had little influence with a utilitarian product but brand cogni-
tion exerted significant influence.
This result implies that we should consider the affective and cog-
nitive processes at the same time when we evaluate products by product
trial and that the effect of both is different between hedonic and utili-
tarian products. Therefore, for our purposes, we need to investigate the
relative importance of affective and cognitive processes on the eva-
luation of a tour location while a virtual trial by media provides tele-
presence to consumers.
In a heuristic process of decision making, affect has been known to
play a role as the information on which a consumer relies to evaluate
and judge the product at hand. The affect-as-information model is also
suggested in the affect infusion theory because such an affect is infused
into the cognitive process as a basis for a decision (Forgas, 1995).
Consumers not only evaluate the features of a product in a cognitive
rationale; they also recall the feelings and emotions attached to the
product features or context in the past and use the affective information
for heuristic decision-making. Decisions and behaviors reflect not only
an arithmetic of utility but also affective experiences to the related
event (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982). Likewise, the preconscious
affective feelings may rapidly trigger closely related cognitions and
behaviors (Chaiken & Bargh, 1993).
Affect is no longer considered a peripheral or subordinate state that
can be ignored and that should be controlled for accurate cognitive
evaluation; instead affect is regarded as critical and central input into
the cognitive process for a final evaluation (Niedenthal, 1990). Further,
affect-as-information has been articulated in the earlier conditioning
theory in which it explains the role of affect as a precondition to consult
when we evaluate the related event (Clore & Byrne, 1974).
Perceived knowledge is a representative dimension of the cognitive
process in which rationality plays a role. When we evaluate a product,
the efficacy with which we know most of the product's features is the
most important criterion that lets us stop the search and exploration of
other information and conclude our purchase of the product. Knowing
something is a definite cognitive process, and we presume that the in-
tensified positive affect derived from the provision of VR content will
reassure a consumer that he or she knows the product well enough to
decide whether to consume or purchase it, in this case a tourism pro-
duct. VR is able to enhance additional knowledge about the destination
and hence increase desire to actually visit the site (Refsland, Ojika,
Addison, & Stone, 2000). The effect of VR to enhance perceived
knowledge will increase especially when the tourists' primary purpose
in visiting a site is to seek information, rather than to seek prestige,
social interaction, relaxation, or novelty (Hanqin & Lam, 1999).
The degree to emphasize affect over cognition depends on the in-
dividual or the situational context (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Emotion-
ally intelligent consumers will be better at monitoring the relationship
between emotion and cognition that is embedded in decision making
(Mayer & Geher, 1996), and they use affect as the basis for integrating
various types of information to reach a decision. Likewise, for a hedonic
product, such as tourism content, consumers will need more emotional
information such as fantasy, pleasure, and adventure than they will
require for a utilitarian product (Nicoletta & Servidio, 2012). Therefore,
the intensified emotion will increase her or his confidence in her or his
248
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
knowledge of the product. Finally, the cognitive-affective system theory
(Mischel, 1973; Mischel & Shoda, 1995) proposes that not only cogni-
tive but also affective responses are activated by the features or situa-
tions drawn from past experience and memories. Therefore, we hy-
pothesize the following:
H6. As users' affect increases, users will have higher perceived
knowledge.
Generally, before traveling, people form an image of the tour lo-
cation by retrieving information about the destination through tradi-
tional media such as television or printed material (Bae, Lee, Suh, &
Suh, 2017; Cho et al., 2002). When a positive emotion for a destination
occurs, it collects information more actively through the web and
generates an “evaluative image” while experiencing a virtual tour. As
virtuality is enhanced with more presence and additional information,
it heightens a tourist's desire to visit the destination beyond the point it
would have been without the vivid and interactive VR experience
(Buhalis, 2003; Dewailly, 1999; Guttentag, 2010; He, Wu, & Li, 2018;
Refsland et al., 2000). Although it is controversial whether the VR ex-
perience can fulfill the a desire to visit a destination sufficiently to re-
place the desire to physically visit it, many studies have found the VR
experience stimulated curiosity and desire for a direct physical ex-
perience of the destination (Cheong, 1995; Paquet & Viktor, 2005;
Sussmann & Vanhegan, 2000). These VR experiences will create a
strong impulsive desire to visit the destination and people will begin
planning a specific travel date or start to estimate costs. Therefore, the
impulsive desire for a destination after experiencing the evaluative
image plays an important role as a predictor of the purchase of a travel
product.
Impulse purchasing is highly subject to the variable of affect or
mood (Rook, 1987). Strong feelings are especially known to antecede
impulsive urges or purchases. With these intensified affects, people are
inclined to act immediately or buy a product instantly without a second
thought (Goldenson, 1984). It is usually felt as a force or compulsion,
and people feel as if they are physically pushed to act. Among these
affects, positive emotions influence impulsive urges more than negative
emotions (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998). Similarly, according to the psycho-
logical literature, a person in a good mood (i.e., enjoying a positive
affect) is likelier to adopt approach behavior than avoidance behavior.
In a tour context, vivid, lively, and exciting feelings will strengthen
the positive emotion expected from the tour and, in the aggregate,
bolster an impulsive desire to actually visit the real location. Therefore,
we hypothesize the following:
H7. As users' affect increases, users will have higher impulsive desire
for a destination.
One of the determinants of a purchasing decision is confidence,
which is the opposite of perceived risk (Howard & Sheth, 1969; Huang
et al., 2016). Confidence in a specific brand has a positive relationship
with purchase intention (Bennett & Harrell, 1975). Insufficient con-
fidence or high perceived risk may result from lack of information
available before making purchases (Dowling & Staelin, 1994). The
higher the perceived risk, the more information consumers seek from
various sources. However, success in their research can reduce per-
ceived risk as consumers become more knowledgeable in evaluating the
quality of products (Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Forsythe & Shi, 2003).
Perceived risk is considered an especially important factor in travel
decision making because the decisional process is largely opaque in the
absence of an advance opportunity to explore and experience product
quality (Maser & Weiermair, 1998; Wu & Cheng, 2018). In general,
perceived risk takes on more importance in rational decision-making,
but it still has a significant role even in impulsive decisions. Reduced
perceived risk may not always result in a heightened impulsive desire;
however, consumers will not desire to make a purchase if they perceive
high risk. Thus, in general, perceived risk exerts a negative impact on
consumers’ impulsive desires. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H. Kang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255

H8. As users' perceived risk decreases, users will have higher impulsive
desire for a destination.
3. Research method
We used a laboratory experiment to empirically test the effects of
HMD VR and video on the users’ impulsive desire to visit a destination
in the tourism context. The laboratory experiment method permitted
close control over independent, dependent, moderating, and possible
confounding variables to accomplish a high degree of internal validity
(Singleton Jr, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988). We selected VR
tourism products shown in a commercial VR application with the goal
of achieving as much realism as possible in terms of experimental and
real events and permitting generalization of the findings.
3.1. Experimental design
and questionnaire. One participant unintentionally skipped one page of
the questionnaire and was excluded. Of the 89 participants, 50 were
male, and 39 were female. On average, they were 23.2 years old, and
73% were business students. Among the participants, 52% had previous
experience with HMD VR, 62% had experienced 360° VR, and 26% had
no experience with any VR applications. We measured the participants’
involvement in travel and impulse buying tendency by using three
items from Ratchford (Ratchford, 1987) and (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998),
respectively. A Chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences
in gender (X2 = 4.56, p = 0.21) or academic major (X2 = 35.26,
p = 0.64) among the groups. A one-way ANOVA further ensured that
no significant differences emerged among the groups in terms of age
(F = 0.18, p = 0.91), previous experience with HMD VR (F = 0.21,
p = 0.89), 360° VR (F = 0.01, p = 0.998), travel involvement
(F = 0.95, p = 0.42), and impulse buying propensity (F = 0.80,
p = 0.50). Participants who were randomly assigned to each treatment
are shown in Table 1.

A 2 × 2 factorial design with between-subject factors was used. The

3.3. Variable measures
media, the main variable of interest, had two levels: HMD VR and
video. The HMD VR offered users the opportunity to experience tour
Most of the scales were adapted from the previous literature, and
destinations via three-dimensional video presentations through HMD
some were modified to adjust to the HMD VR/video experiment setting.
equipment. The HMD VR content was developed in collaboration with a
The perceived telepresence was measured using eight Likert-scale items
commercial tour VR application provider, d.AntWort (www.d-antwort.
adapted from (Kim & Biocca, 1997). Four items of affective intensity
com). The video content was produced for the actual promotion of the
were adapted from (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991; Rook, 1987; Shiv &
Woljeongli beach at Jeju island in Korea, a beach not well-known as a
Fedorikhin, 1999). Perceived knowledge was measured by three items
tourist destination. The VR and video content for a kayak tour in
adapted from (Smith & Park, 1992). Perceived risk was measured using
Woljeongli had a duration of 49 s. In the experiment, the subjects in the
three items modified from Suh and Chang (Suh & Chang, 2006). Im-
HMD VR group wore Oculus Rift HMD and viewed a short 3D movie.
pulsive desire was measured by four items from (Beatty & Ferrell,
They could move their heads and bodies freely to explore the movie
1998). Hypothetical distance was measured using three items devel-
while it was underway. The video group subjects viewed the movie on a
oped for this study based on CLT.
27-inch HD monitor. The movie was exactly the same in all aspects,
All the variables were measured using semantic differentials and
except that it was reproduced by a GoPro VR Player from a 2D movie
seven-point Likert scales. These variables were operationalized using
into a 3D VR movie with no loss in quality. The duration time for the VR
reflective items. These items should show satisfactory internal con-
movie was also 49 s. To check if the two treatments represented the
sistency as well as correlation with each other because each one links to
same content, after the main survey we asked the subjects four ques-
the same construct (Bollen, 1984). Table 2 lists all the measurements
tions about the details of the movie. There was no significant difference
used.
between the two groups (t = 0.88, sig. p = 0.38): 89.4% of HMD VR
group answered correctly, and 86.4% of the video group answered
3.4. Experiment procedures
correctly.
The other variable, physical distance, also had two levels: near and
A pre-experiment survey was distributed and completed by poten-
far. The experiment participants were notified that the location in the
tial participants at the location where we recruited and scheduled the
movie was the XYZ beach, about 27 Km or 7426 Km from where they
experiment participants. This survey asked about demographic in-
were, and that it was selected randomly. The place taped in the movie is
formation, experience with HMD VR or 360° VR, involvement in travel,
hardly known by the public. Thus, we assumed that they would accept
and any tendency toward impulse buying. Before the main experiment,
the manipulated distance. To check the manipulation, we asked them
a pilot study was conducted to find any problems in the procedures and
after they viewed the movie if they knew it was Woljeongli; 17.4% of
possible awkward and vague questionnaire items. From this pilot study,
the near group and 27.9% of the far group, respectively, answered that
it was possible to verify the experimental procedures.
they knew it was Woljeongli. There was no statistically significant
For the experiment, participants were assigned randomly to one of
difference between the two (t = 1.18, p = 0.24).1 After the experiment,
the four groups. The experiment was conducted individually. The HMD
we acknowledged that the place was in fact Woljeongli and that the
VR group was trained in wearing HMD and moving the head up-down,
information given to them was manipulated for the purposes of the
right-left, and front-back while experiencing the VR environment. After
experiment to which they had consented.
brief training, the movie about the kayak tour was played and viewed
under each participant's control. In contrast, each participant in the
3.2. Participants video group sat in chair and viewed the same kayak tour content
through a computer monitor. All of the subjects in all groups were told
Ninety undergraduate students, most of them business majors, at a of their distances from the place where the kayak tour occurred. After
large university participated in the experiment. Participation was vo- viewing the 49-s HMD VR or video content, the participants moved to
luntary; all the participants received a nominal course credit for the the next room and completed the primary questionnaire, which con-
purpose of increasing their motivation and involvement in the experi- tained items concerning telepresence, hypothetical distance, affective
ments. With one exception, all participants completed the experiment intensity, perceived knowledge, perceived risk, and impulse desire.
After answering the main questionnaire, the participants answered
1
The percentage of participants who recognized Woljeongli was higher than whether they knew the place was Woljeongli and were tested for an
we expected. Thus, we ran the statistics both ways, the exclusion or inclusion of equal-treatment manipulation check. This test consisted of four items
those who already knew the place. The results did not generate any differences containing true-false questions about the content they watched. Finally,
in the effect (i.e., path coefficients) in the research model. they were told that the place they saw was Woljeongli on Jeju island,

249
H. Kang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255

Table 1 4.1. Measurement model

Experimental design and participants assigned.
Media
HMD VR Video
Physical Near 23 23
Distance Far 22 21
Sum 45 44
that the distance was intentionally manipulated for the purposes of the
experiment, and they were thanked for their participation.
4. Results and analysis
We evaluated the research model and hypotheses by using the
partial least squares (PLS) procedure because it allows use of a rela-
tively small sample to test a structural path model and because it does
not need distributional restriction on the data (Chin, 1998; Venkatesh &
Agarwal, 2006). We used the recent version of SmartPLS 3.o for the
analysis (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). The model is originally
structural model and is empirically tested with structural equation
model based tool, which is PLS used in this specific study. ANOVA is
only for one to one relationship testing, however, PLS enables testing
layered hypotheses as presented in this research. The discrete value of
independent variable is usually misunderstood to be tested with
ANOVA but when the discrete variable is investigated to see how it
affects continuous mediating and dependent variables at the same time.
It is usually implemented in studies to see the multiple relationships
including mediation at once (Bogicevic, Seo, Kandampully, Liu, &
Rudd, 2019). SEM based research model is the appropriate method to
validate our research model since the hypotheses are not only to vali-
date the direct impact of VR on ultimate desire, which might be ana-
lyzed with ANOVA, but also the mediated relationships of H2 through
H8 at once.
Sum Because the model was established with constructs loaded with re-
flective measures, we examined whether the loadings were appropriate
for each construct, and they were all discriminant from other con-
structs. Table 2 presents most of the scales, all of which are well loaded
46
43 on their intended constructs with recommended values above 0.70
89 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979), except for two measures marginally above
0.50. However, these two exceed the cross-loadings with other con-
structs (i.e., > 0.281, > 0.321), and we included them in the model.
One subscale of affect intensity was dropped because it was below 0.50.
Internal consistency reliability was provided by calculation of
composite reliability (CR) in Table 3. All the CR estimates for the
constructs included in the model exceed 0.7, which is a generally ac-
cepted cutoff (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011; Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1978). In Table 4, convergent validity was established in that
the squared roots of the average variance extracted (AVE), which are
provided on the diagonal, all exceed 0.50, which is a generally accepted
cut-off (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, the AVE of each latent
variable is greater than the shared variance with other constructs, as
shown in the off-diagonal in Table 4. This follows the criteria of tol-
erable discriminant validity suggested in the literature (Barclay,
Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Chin, 1998).
To test for common-method variance, we validated the multi-
collinearity and one-factor extraction test. To evaluate multi-
collinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) among latent variables
was provided. All of them were below 2, where the greatest value was
1.69 and did not exceed the tolerance level of 10 (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007; Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002). For the one-factor extraction test, the
principal factor analysis of the six latent variables was implemented. All
the constructs explained about 68% of the total variance, and the first
factor explained 23% of the variance, which did not exceed the 50%
that was suggested as the tolerance level (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Therefore, we concluded that the measures are statistically valid for
further analysis.

Table 2
Measurements
Construct Names Measurement Items References

Telepresence When the video ended, I felt like I came back to the “real world” after a journey. Kim and Biocca (1997)
The video came to me and created a new world for me, and the world suddenly disappeared when the broadcast ended.
While watching the video, I felt I was in the world the video created.
While watching the video, I NEVER forgot that I was in the middle of an experiment. (reverse)
While watching the video, my body was in the room, but my mind was inside the world created by the video.
While watching the video, the video-generated world was more real or present for me compared to the “real world.”
The video-generated world seemed to me only “something I saw” rather than “somewhere I visited.” (reverse)
While watching the video, my mind was in the room, not in the world created by the video. (reverse)
Hypothetical Distance I think it is highly probable that I will do the kayak experience that I just saw at the XYZ beach. Developed
I do not think I will do the kayak experience I just saw at the XYZ beach. (reverse)
It is possible that I will do the kayak experience that I just saw at the XYZ beach.
Affect Intensity I could sense a desire to touch water at the XYZ beach. Hoch and Loewenstein (1991);
I felt a strong, irresistible urge to take the kayak experience at the XYZ beach. Rook (1987);
I felt an impulse to take the kayak experience at the XYZ beach. Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999)
The emotional side of me was aroused when I saw the kayak experience at the XYZ beach.
Perceived Knowledge I felt very knowledgeable about the kayak experience I just viewed at the XYZ beach. Li et al. (2002);
If I had to purchase the kayak experience at the XYZ beach, I would need to gather very little additional information to Smith and Park (1992)
make a wise decision.
I feel very confident about my ability to judge the quality of the kayak experience at the XYZ beach.
Perceived Risk If I undertake the kayak experience at the XYZ beach, the quality will be less than expected. Suh and Chang (2006)
If I undertake the kayak experience at the XYZ beach, it will have some deficiencies.
If I undertake the kayak experience at the XYZ beach, I will be disappointed with the actual experience.
Impulse Desire I experienced a number of sudden urges to do the kayak experience at the XYZ beach I had not planned. Beatty and Ferrell (1998)
When I viewed the video, I wanted to experience the kayak at the XYZ beach even though it was not on my list.
I experienced no strong urge to make an unplanned kayak experience after this video view. (reverse)
After this video view, I felt a sudden urge to do the Kayak experience.

250
H. Kang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255

Table 3
Construct loadings of measures.
Affect Hypothetical Distance Impulse Desire Perceived Knowledge Perceived Risk Telepresence
Intensity

AFF2 0.825 0.461 0.582 0.384 −0.056 0.515

AFF3 0.898 0.579 0.81 0.478 −0.221 0.568
AFF4 0.849 0.544 0.649 0.494 −0.123 0.564
HD1 0.594 0.919 0.542 0.448 −0.012 0.413
HD2 0.57 0.906 0.582 0.448 −0.171 0.44
HD3 0.244 0.526 0.281 0.209 −0.198 0.134
IB1 0.796 0.597 0.954 0.514 −0.234 0.482
IB2 0.746 0.559 0.943 0.495 −0.251 0.503
IB3 0.68 0.515 0.868 0.358 −0.293 0.302
IB4 0.745 0.577 0.939 0.508 −0.304 0.528
KNOW1 0.503 0.424 0.48 0.843 −0.391 0.511
KNOW2 0.233 0.191 0.321 0.624 −0.138 0.315
KNOW3 0.417 0.435 0.34 0.8 −0.24 0.435
RISK1 −0.09 −0.142 −0.233 −0.418 0.923 −0.151
RISK2 −0.03 −0.01 −0.175 −0.259 0.881 −0.106
RISK3 −0.291 −0.168 −0.351 −0.268 0.87 −0.229
TELE1 0.545 0.402 0.431 0.554 −0.234 0.87
TELE2 0.457 0.314 0.33 0.499 −0.148 0.807
TELE3 0.623 0.426 0.486 0.499 −0.09 0.891
TELE5 0.529 0.379 0.39 0.454 −0.12 0.87
TELE6 0.476 0.357 0.379 0.307 −0.062 0.703
TELE7 0.515 0.313 0.444 0.401 −0.187 0.768
TELE8 0.49 0.324 0.34 0.458 −0.218 0.756

4.2. Structural model
Fig. 2 shows the results of the structural model testing, such as path
coefficients, effect size, and effect direction. First, the model explains
the variance of impulse desire by 68.8%, which is surprisingly high,
even considering the experimental setting. However, as we originally
hypothesized, this proves that the dual path of cognitive and affective
processes strongly determines the impulse desire in the provision of
HMD VR content. The media types of HMD VR and video had sig-
nificantly different effects on telepresence (β = 0.472, t = 6.104,
p < 0.001), supporting H1-1. The moderating effect of physical dis-
tance on the relationship between media type and telepresence did not
prove significant (β = −0,104, t = 1.101, p > 0.05), contrary to our
expectation. The affective path activated by telepresence contributed
significantly to impulse desire through two latent variables: First, tel-
epresence positively increased the hypothetical distance (β = 0.445,
t = 4.6, p < 0.001) and second, the hypothetical distance increased
the affect intensity (β = 0.621, t = 9.506, p < 0.001), supporting H2
and H3, respectively. The cognitive process of the dual path was vali-
dated as activated by telepresence, also through two factors: Tele-
presence positively influenced perceived knowledge (β = 0.388,
t = 3.148, p < 0.01), and perceived knowledge significantly reduced
perceived risk (β = −0.364, t = 3.934, p < 0.01), supporting H4 and
H5, respectively. As a link between the affective and cognitive pro-
cesses, it was hypothesized that affect intensity would be a positive
antecedent to cognitive infusion, and this was also validated. Affective
intensity had a positive and significant impact on perceived knowledge
(β = 0.284, t = 2.426, p < 0.01), supporting H6. Both the affective
and cognitive variables exerted significant influence on the final de-
pendent variable of impulse desire. This confirmed our hypotheses 7
and 8. As affect was intensified (β = 0.751, t = 12.795) and as per-
ceived risk decreased (β = −0.160, t = 2.403, p < 0.01), impulse
desire significantly increased. Only age (β = −0.170, p < 0.01)
among the control variables had statistically significant effects on tel-
epresence or impulse desire.
5. Discussion
VR is expected to soon have a significant effect on the tourism in-
dustry (Bec et al., 2019; Guttentag, 2010; McCabe, Sharples, & Foster,
2012; Sigala, 2018; Tavakoli & Wijesinghe, 2019; Tussyadiah et al.,
2018). Guttentag (2010) presented several promising research direc-
tions for VR within the tourism industry. For example, he suggested
building on the work of Wan, Tsaur, Chiu, and Chiou (2007), which
compared VR with brochures, to further develop comparisons of VR
with other marketing devices such as video and advocated studies to
investigate the effectiveness of various VR output devices such as HMD.
Based on such VR literature in the tourism area, this study proposed a
research model and conducted a laboratory experiment to examine the
impact of HMD VR in the context of tourism through the affective and
cognitive processes based on telepresence and CLT. The HMD VR pro-
duced a higher level of telepresence than video. Telepresence in turn
shortened consumers’ hypothetical distance, intensified affection, and
increased impulsive desire through the affective process. Telepresence
also increased perceived knowledge, reduced perceived risk and in-
creased impulsive desire through the cognitive process. Although both

Table 4
Internal reliability, discriminant validity, and descriptive statistics.
CR Mean SD AI HD ID PK PR TP

Affect Intensity 0.893 3.64 1.34 0.858

Hypothetical Distance 0.838 4.15 1.25 0.621 0.804
Impulse Desire 0.96 4.23 1.59 0.802 0.608 0.927
Perceived Knowledge 0.802 2.97 1.12 0.532 0.484 0.508 0.761
Perceived Risk 0.921 2.93 1.05 −0.164 −0.127 −0.29 −0.364 0.892
Telepresence 0.93 3.27 1.39 0.639 0.445 0.491 0.569 −0.188 0.811

*The diagonal is the squared root of average variance estimate (AVE).

251
H. Kang
Fig. 2. Results of research model.
the dual path affective and cognitive processes affected impulsive de-
sire, the affective process seemed to have stronger effect on a tourism
product. This is consistent with previous studies (Kempf, 1999) that
concluded emotional factors are more important for hedonic products.
The current study provides useful guidelines for implementing HMD
VR in the travel industry, which is growing year by year around the
world. First, it will help to predict the influence of this technology and
suggest its potential for future success in applications in this industry
since its usage is now in its infancy. Next, the results of our study
suggest to developers of immersive technology for the travel industry
that their content should emphasize an emotional appeal. This is be-
cause the affective process outweighs the cognitive process in the
promotion of travel goods.
6. Conclusions
There are several limitations in interpreting the results of the pre-
sent study. First, an artificial distance was given to the subjects to
manipulate the physical distance, but an unexpected effect could have
occurred because more people than expected already knew about the
place. Their knowledge might be the reason that physical distance did
not show a moderating effect on the relationship between media type
and telepresence, contrary to our expectation. Next, in this study, we
used the same resolution file for HMD VR and video. In this case, the
HMD VR resolution is dispersed in each eye and reduced by half, which
is substantially lower than the video resolution. If the resolution were
the same, the telepresence of HMD VR might be higher. Another po-
tential limitation is the relatively small sample size of 89 students, 73%
of whom were business majors. Although there may be an unknown
influence, the current sample is unlikely to be a significant threat to the
validity of the study. Partial least squares is a well-known method to
detect statistically meaningful results even with small samples (do Valle
& Assaker, 2016; Willaby, Costa, Burns, MacCann, & Roberts, 2015). In
addition, most of the students in the sample, even if their business
major may have lent itself to a bias, were in their twenties, their in-
volvement in touring was quite high (i.e., 5.4 on a 7-point Likert scale),
and they were knowledgeable of VR (74% of our subjects had experi-
ence with some type of VR technology). These demographics fit espe-
cially well with the profiles of young tourists who search, reserve, or
pay for tourism online and show the most interest in using VR
(Kucukusta, Law, Besbes, & Legohérel, 2015; Li, Yang, & Pan, 2015).
Many scholars and practitioners are concerned about the bilateral
influence of the development of VR technology on the tourism industry.
That is, if the tourists can have a similar experience when using VR or
traveling by themselves, many people will choose to stay at home to
252
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
save money and time. Studies on the positive effect of VR on tourism
verified that the VR experience enhanced the intention to revisit and to
recommend to others the theme park, owing to the increased presence,
focused immersion, enjoyment, control, curiosity, and participation
(Wei, 2019). Tussyadiah et al. (2017) proved that the feeling of being in
the virtual environment increased the enjoyment of VR experiences;
hence, the stronger liking and preference for the destination finally
increased the intention to visit it. The perceived visual appeal enhanced
by VR leads to emotional involvement and an intention to visit the
destination (Marasco, Buonincontri, van Niekerk, Orlowski, & Okumus,
2018). Bec et al. (2019) found that VR not only simulates the heritage
or museum experience, but also enhances the engagement level for
understanding historical facts. Others also found that the liking, pre-
ference, and interest in the destination, heightened by VR, increases the
intention to actually visit (Chung, Lee, Kim, & Koo, 2018; Lee, Lee, Kim,
& Mjelde, 2010).
In contrast, Leung et al. (2019) showed that when consumers were
exposed to a VR advertisement of a hotel room, their willingness to
purchase was no different from that of traditional ads, when their re-
sponses were delayed after the exposure; however, their willingness
increased with an immediate response. This may seem like a negative
result of VR studies; however, it implies that VR could be used for
marketing activities intended to encourage an immediate purchase.
Likewise, a research result indicating that VR seems to decrease the
actual travel to a physical destination could provide insights into
creating new and innovative tour services that have not been seen be-
fore. The traditional perspective of tourism will be changed to a com-
pletely new service, just as many other industries have been trans-
formed into new business forms because of innovative IT.
Even if people opt to enjoy a VR-driven destination instead of a real
trip, it is a good opportunity to create new tour services and a new
market. Inaccessible locations, e.g., heritage sites, jungles, or the North
Pole, will be visited through VR, and the site's nature will be protected.
This will encourage more people to come and virtually experience the
inaccessible destinations, and VR-only tours will be inevitable (Hales &
Caton, 2017). This two-sided impact of VR should be considered in
future research. This study's scope is limited to showing the emotional
and cognitive route to reach an impulse desire for a tour destination.
With these results, we can design another research model to compare
the bilateral effects to see whether the different levels of cognitive and
affective stimulation by a VR experience will result in an impulse desire
to visit or stay.
The intuitive relationship between presence and the intention to
visit a destination has been largely explored in previous literature.
However, this study fills a research gap by explaining the mental
H. Kang
process of reaching the intention. Previous research has recommending
finding out the mediating factors or processes through which VR leads
to the intention or engagement to visit the destination (tom Dieck &
Jung, 2018). The current study also fills the theoretical gap with CLT.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experimental study to
directly measure and validate the impact of the construal level in the
relationship between VR and tour intention. The research model was
originally intended to see how the VR-driven presence triggered the
impulse desire to visit the destination with two differential paths (i.e.,
cognitive vs. affective) and how the construal level influenced the
process. With current results, we can expand the experiment by in-
troducing more interesting moderating effects, e.g., the characteristics
of the tourists and destinations, in a future study. Another potential
limitation is the use of student subjects. However, their use is unlikely
to be a significant threat to validity because it is the younger genera-
tion, such as our college students, that shows the most interest in using
VR. Seventy-four percent of the subjects participating in our experiment
had already experienced some type of VR technology.
This study has both theoretical and practical contributions. First,
although most of the work on VR has so far analyzed the influence of
vividness and interactivity on telepresence, we combined telepresence
with CLT, which was applied to explain how both the affective and
cognitive processes affect impulse desire. Hypothetical proximity
mediated the relationship between telepresence and affect intensity in
the affective process of the model. Second, although most of the IS
research on VR has so far focused on a utilitarian product, this study
focused on a hedonic product and the relative importance of the af-
fective and cognitive processes. The results of this study contribute to
overcoming the lack of an empirical and theoretical balance between
the cognitive and affective aspects of impulse dynamics. Because of the
previously biased perspective that immersive technology would only
yield affective stimulation, only the entertainment, game, and leisure
industries have been interested in adopting VR technology and making
the huge investments required. Another biased perspective that con-
tended only cognitive enhancement would occur has limited the ap-
plication of immersive technology to supplementary and peripheral
roles in product marketing. The results of our study will balance these
perspectives on the objectives of immersive technology and expand its
areas of adoption. Third, this study investigated the effects of the more
recent technology of immersive VR, which has been rarely studied in
the tourism field.
Because a tourism product sends a user to a certain place to ex-
perience the situation at that location, it is an experiential good. On the
other hand, VR “brings the place to you here and now” (Kjeldskov,
2004; Tscheu & Buhalis, 2016). A real tour and tour via VR can be
considered equivalent in that they both offer a realistic experience of an
attraction situated in a certain location (Guttentag, 2010; Tussyadiah
et al., 2018). If that is the case, several promising directions for future
research can be suggested. Is the tour via VR able to replace the real
one? When can it, when can it not? What are the moderating variables?
For example, if it is too dangerous or too expensive, people would likely
be satisfied with a tour via VR and not bother with making an actual
visit (Dewailly, 1999; Perry Hobson & Williams, 1995). However, if a
place is neither, can a VR experience stimulate more visits? Another
research topic is about the development of content to maximize the
effect of immersive VR. For example, the influence of field of view (i.e.,
close-up or long-shots) and dynamic control of content on telepresence
and a sense of immersion is an interesting and promising question.
As immersive technologies become more pervasive, advanced
technologies, including HMD VR, will be more widely adopted by
various industries. It is important to know when and under what con-
ditions immersive technologies are effective for customers learning
about products. This study is expected to play a small role as a starting
point.
253
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Hongik University Research Fund and
the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5A2A03048360).
References
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bae, S. J., Lee, H., Suh, E.-K., & Suh, K.-S. (2017). Shared experience in pretrip and ex-
perience sharing in posttrip: A survey of airbnb users. Information & Management,
54(6), 714–727.
Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt,
Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism
Management, 22(1), 1–9.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (pls) approach to
casual modeling: Personal computer adoption ans use as an illustration.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of con-
sumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.
Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of
Retailing, 74(2), 169–191.
Bec, A., Moyle, B., Timms, K., Schaffer, V., Skavronskaya, L., & Little, C. (2019).
Management of immersive heritage tourism experiencs: A conceptual model. Tourism
Management, 72, 117–120.
Bennett, P. D., & Harrell, G. D. (1975). The role of confidence in understanding and
predicting buyers' attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research,
2(2), 110–117.
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase
of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of
Consumer Research, 7(3), 234–248.
Bogicevic, V., Seo, S., Kandampully, J. A., Liu, S. Q., & Rudd, N. A. (2019). Virtual reality
presence as a preamble of tourism experience: The role of mental imagery. Tourism
Management, 74, 55–64.
Bollen, K. A. (1984). Multiple indicators: Internal consistency or no necessary relation-
ship? Quality and Quantity, 18(4), 377–385.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. London: Hogarth Press.
Bruwer, J., & Alant, K. (2009). The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: An
experiential view. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(3), 235–257.
Buhalis, D. (2003). eTourism: Information technology for strategic tourism management.
Pearson Education.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment, Vol. 17. Sage
publications.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of
source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(5), 752.
Chaiken, S., & Bargh, J. A. (1993). Occurrence versus moderation of the automatic attitude
activation effect: Reply to Fazio.
Cheong, R. (1995). The virtual threat to travel and tourism. Tourism Management, 16(6),
417–422.
Chiao, H. M., Chen, Y. L., & Huang, W. H. (2018). Examining the usability of an online
virtual tour-guiding platform for cultural tourism education. Journal of Hospitality,
Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 23, 29–38.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295–336.
Cho, Y.-H., Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Searching for experiences: The web-
based virtual tour in tourism marketing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(4),
1–17.
Chung, N., Lee, H., Kim, J. Y., & Koo, C. (2018). The role of augmented reality for ex-
perience-influenced environments: The case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea.
Journal of Travel Research, 57(5), 627–643.
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. Cognitive development and the
acquisition of language, 27, 63.
Clore, G. L., & Byrne, D. (1974). A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. Foundations of
interpersonal attraction, 143–170.
Cox, D. F., & Rich, S. U. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer decision-making: The case of
telephone shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, 32–39.
Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of
the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2),
272–309.
Dann, G. M. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2),
187–219.
Dewailly, J. M. (1999). Sustainable tourist space: From reality to virtual reality? Tourism
Geographies, 1(1), 41–55.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2018). A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality
acceptance in urban heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(2), 154–174.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119–134.
Economist, T. (2017, July 13). Virtual reality gives old fairground rides new purpose. The
Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/21724983-recycling-rollercoasters-virtual-reality-gives-old-fairground-
H. Kang
rides-new-purpose.
Ericsson Consumer Lab. (2017). Merged reality: Understanding how virtual and aug-
mented realities could transform everyday reality. An Ericsson Consumer Insight
Summary Report. Retrieved from https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/
consumerlab/reports/merged-reality.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin, 117(1), 39.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50.
Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet
shopping. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 867–875.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance
and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278–282.
Goldenson, R. M. (1984). Longman dictionary of psychology and psychiatry. Addison-Wesley
Longman Ltd.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism.
Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651.
Hales, R., & Caton, K. (2017). Proximity ethics, climate change and the flyer's dilemma:
Ethical negotiations of the hypermobile traveller. Tourist Studies, 17(1), 94–113.
Hanqin, Z. Q., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of Mainland Chinese visitors' motivations to
visit Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20(5), 587–594.
Henderson, M. D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Transcending the" here":
The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(5), 845.
He, Z., Wu, L., & Li, X. R. (2018). When art meets tech: The role of augmented reality in
enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tourism Management, 68,
127–139.
Henderson, M. D., Wakslak, C. J., Fujita, K., & Rohrbach, J. (2011). Construal level theory
and spatial distance. Social Psychology, 42, 165–173.
Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer
self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.
Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). “I” follow my heart and “We” rely on reasons: The
impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making.
Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392–1411.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. 63 New York.
Huang, Y. C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., & Chang, L. L. (2016). Exploring the im-
plications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: An integrated research
framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 116–128.
Hyun, M. Y., Lee, S., & Hu, C. (2009). Mobile-mediated virtual experience in tourism:
Concept, typology and applications. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(2), 149–164.
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and func-
tional control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 111–147.
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and task complexity
on online consumers' product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 475–500.
Jung, T., tom Dieck, M. C., Lee, H., & Chung, N. (2016). Effects of virtual reality and
augmented reality on visitor experiences in museum. Information and communication
technologies in tourism 2016 (pp. 621–635). Cham: Springer.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and
biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kempf, D. S. (1999). Attitude formation from product trial: Distinct roles of cognition and
affect for hedonic and functional products. Psychology and Marketing, 16(1), 35–50.
Kempf, D. S., & Smith, R. E. (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and the in-
fluence of prior advertising: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing
Research, 325–338.
Kim, T., & Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence
may have different connections to memory and persuasion. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 3(2) JCMC325.
Kjeldskov, J. (2004). Lessons from being there: Interface design for mobile augmented
reality. Virtual applications (pp. 159–188). Springer.
Klein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 17(1), 41–55.
Knetsch, J., Thaler, R., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Reluctance to trade: An experimental re-
futation of the Coase Theorem, Vol. 3, Tucson, Ariz: Public Choice27–30.
Kucukusta, D., Law, R., Besbes, A., & Legohérel, P. (2015). Re-examining perceived
usefulness and ease of use in online booking: The case of Hong Kong online users.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(2), 185–198.
Law, R., Buhalis, D., & Cobanoglu, C. (2014). Progress on information and communica-
tion technologies in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 26(5), 727–750.
Lee, C. K., Lee, J. H., Kim, T. K., & Mjelde, J. W. (2010). Preferences and willingness to
pay for bird-watching tour and interpretive services using a choice experiment.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 695–708.
Lee, Y.-C. N., Shan, L.-T., & Chen, C.-H. (2013). System development of immersive
technology theatre in museum. Paper presented at the international conference on vir-
tual, augmented and mixed reality.
Leung, X. Y., Lyu, J., & Bai, B. (2019). A fad or the future? Examining the effectiveness of
virtual reality advertising in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 102391.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on
level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523–534.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowl-
edge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal
of advertising, 31(3), 43–57.
Li, J., Yang, M., & Pan, B. (2015). Network analysis of navigation paths of tourists' trip
planning and power structure of the online tourism in China. Asia Pacific Journal of
254
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
Tourism Research, 20(sup1), 1451–1465.
Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., & Ali, F. (2020). 20 years of research on virtual reality
and augmented reality in tourism context: A text-mining approach. Tourism
Management, 77, 104028.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural ante-
cedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of
Marketing, 48–65.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and
validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing
techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.
Maglio, S. J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2013). Distance from a distance: Psychological
distance reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 644.
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological
Review, 99(4), 587.
Marasco, A., Buonincontri, P., van Niekerk, M., Orlowski, M., & Okumus, F. (2018).
Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9, 138–148.
Martins, M. (2015). The tourist imagery, the destination image and the brand image.
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 3(2), 1–14.
Maser, B., & Weiermair, K. (1998). Travel decision-making: From the vantage point of
perceived risk and information preferences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
7(4), 107–121.
Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emo-
tion. Intelligence, 22(2), 89–113.
McCabe, S., Sharples, M., & Foster, C. (2012). Stakeholder engagement in the design of
scenarios of technology-enhanced tourism services. Tourism management perspectives,
4, 36–44.
McIntosh, A. (1998). Mixing methods: Putting the tourist at the forefront of tourism re-
search. Tourism Analysis, 3(2), 121–127.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification:
Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: A class
of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Paper presented at the Telemanipulator
and telepresence technologies.
Mills, S., & Noyes, J. (1999). Virtual reality: An overview of user-related design issues revised
paper for special issue on “virtual reality: User issues” in interacting with computers, may
1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of person-
ality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246.
Navío-Marco, J., Ruiz-Gómez, L. M., & Sevilla-Sevilla, C. (2018). Progress in information
technology and tourism management: 30 years on and 20 years after the inter-
net—revisiting Buhalis & law's landmark study about eTourism. Tourism Management,
69, 460–470.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2014). A typology of technology‐enhanced
tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(4), 340–350.
Nicoletta, R., & Servidio, R. (2012). Tourists' opinions and their selection of tourism
destination images: An affective and motivational evaluation. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 4, 19–27.
Niedenthal, P. M. (1990). Implicit perception of affective information. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 26(6), 505–527.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social
judgment.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
Paquet, E., & Viktor, H. (2005). Long-term preservation of 3-D cultural heritage data
related to architectural sites. Proceedings of the ISPRS working group. Vol. 4.
Patiar, A., Ma, E., Kensbock, S., & Cox, R. (2017). Students' perceptions of quality and
satisfaction with virtual field trips of hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 31, 134–141.
Pereira, A. M. (2015). Tour guides and destination image: Evidence from Portugal.
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 3(7–8), 129–150.
Perry Hobson, J., & Williams, A. P. (1995). Virtual reality: A new horizon for the tourism
industry. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 1(2), 124–135.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer.
Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision
making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144–159.
Pimentel, K., & Teixeira, K. (1993). Virtual reality through the new looking glass.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531–544.
Rao, S., & Farley, J. U. (1987). Effects of environmental perceptions and cognitive
complexity on search and information processing. Psychology and Marketing, 4(4),
287.
Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research,
27(4), 24–38.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Palo alto. CA: CSLI Publications.
Refsland, S. T., Ojika, T., Addison, A. C., & Stone, R. (2000). Virtual heritage: Breathing
new life into our ancient past. IEEE MultiMedia, 7(2), 20–21.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. ,
Accessed date: 15 July 2016.
Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189–199.
Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R. M., & Moliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of
the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394–409.
H. Kang
Schmitt, B., Joško Brakus, J., & Zarantonello, L. (2015). From experiential psychology to
consumer experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 166–171.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of
affective states. Guilford Press.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1–2),
11–36.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3),
278–292.
Sigala, M. (2018). New technologies in tourism: From multi-disciplinary to anti-dis-
ciplinary advances and trajectories. Tourism management perspectives, 25, 151–155.
Singleton, R., Jr., Straits, B. C., Straits, M. M., & McAllister, R. J. (1988). Approaches to
social research. Oxford University Press.
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE):
Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.
Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and
advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 296.
Srinivasan, N., & Ratchford, B. T. (1991). An empirical test of a model of external search
for automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 233–242.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal
of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
Suh, K.-S., & Chang, S. (2006). User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores:
The role of telepresence. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 99–113.
Suh, K.-S., & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: An
empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 673–697.
Sussmann, S., & Vanhegan, H. (2000). Virtual reality and the tourism product substitution
or complement? ECIS 2000 proceedings. Vol. 117.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/
Pearson Education.
Tachibana, K. (2017, March 28). Take virtual flight from Ikebukuro. The Jakarta Post.
Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2017/03/28/take-virtual-
flight-from-ikebukuro.html.
Tan, Y. (2017, April 10). Expedia wants you to step into your hotel rooms with virtual reality.
MashableAsia. Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2017/04/10/expedia-vr-
travel/#DC_04DOMbmqT.
Tavakoli, R., & Wijesinghe, S. N. (2019). The evolution of the web and netnography in
tourism: A systematic review. Tourism management perspectives, 29, 48–55.
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.
Thatcher, J. B., & Perrewe, P. L. (2002). An empirical examination of individual traits as
antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly, 381–396.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological Review, 117(2), 440.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological dis-
tance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.
255
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 244–255
Tscheu, F., & Buhalis, D. (2016). Augmented reality at cultural heritage sites. Information
and communication technologies in tourism 2016 (pp. 607–619). Cham: Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., & Jia, C. H. (2017). Virtual reality and attitudes toward
tourism destinations. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2017 (pp.
229–239). Cham: Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality,
presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism
Management, 66, 140–154.
do Valle, P. O., & Assaker, G. (2016). Using partial least squares structural equation
modeling in tourism research: A review of past research and recommendations for
future applications. Journal of Travel Research, 55(6), 695–708.
Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2006). Turning visitors into customers: A usability-centric
perspective on purchase behavior in electronic channels. Management Science, 52(3),
367–382.
Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts, and opportunities. Pearson
Education.
Wan, C.-S., Tsaur, S.-H., Chiu, Y.-L., & Chiou, W.-B. (2007). Is the advertising effect of
virtual experience always better or contingent on different travel destinations?
Information Technology & Tourism, 9(1), 45–54.
Wei, W., Qi, R., & Zhang, L. (2019). Effects of virtual reality on theme park visitors'
experience and behaviors: A presence perspective. Tourism Management, 71, 282–293.
Wexelblat, A. (2014). Virtual reality: Applications and explorations. Academic Press.
Willaby, H. W., Costa, D. S., Burns, B. D., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2015). Testing
complex models with small sample sizes: A historical overview and empirical de-
monstration of what partial least squares (PLS) can offer differential psychology.
Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 73–78.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping one's distance: The influence of spatial
distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19(3), 302–308.
Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2013). The distinct affective consequences of
psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6),
1123–1138.
Wong, N. Y., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2005). Emotional intensity as a function of psychological
distance and cultural orientation. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 533–542.
Wu, H. C., & Cheng, C. C. (2018). Relationships between technology attachment, ex-
periential relationship quality, experiential risk and experiential sharing intentions in
a smart hotel. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 42–58.
Xu, H., & Ye, T. (2018). Dynamic destination image formation and change under the
effect of various agents: The case of Lijiang,'The Capital of Yanyu'. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 7, 131–139.
Yan, D. (2014). Future events are far away: Exploring the distance-on-distance effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 514.
Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C. (2013). Engineering augmented tourism ex-
periences. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013 (pp. 24–35).
Springer.
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019). New realities: A systematic literature review on
virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism,
22(17), 2056–2081.