See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342492592

VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Conference Paper · August 2019

CITATIONS READS
5 931

2 authors:

Nannan Xi Juho Hamari

Tampere University Tampere University
18 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS    172 PUBLICATIONS   14,569 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gamification View project

Crowd Science View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nannan Xi on 27 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Completed Research

Nannan Xi Juho Hamari

University of Turku Tampere University
nannan.xi@utu.fi juho.hamari@tuni.fi

Abstract
Via the recent proliferation of consumer-grade head-mounted VR technologies, the retailers as well as
related scholarly areas have started to increasingly notice the possible potential of virtual reality. However,
there is no coherent understanding of the state-of-the-art of the literature on VR shopping, how VR
shopping has been investigated and what empirically indicated benefits VR has for a variety of marketing
outcomes. Therefore, in this paper, we systematically review the published body of literature on VR
shopping (N = 40). The current study contributes to the VR shopping and marketing literature by
mapping the VR technologies, product types, consumer experiences and research methods in the extant
literature. The review shows that the literature on VR shopping is still in its infancy and there remains
ample room for progression both in breadth and depth in the literature on VR shopping in terms of
methodological rigor and theoretical prowess.

Keywords

Virtual reality, marketing, retail, CAVE, HMD, v-commerce

Introduction
Imagine a day when you wake up in your own small apartment and surprisingly find yourself in the Fifth
Avenue in New York, you can navigate the whole shopping street, try on different clothes, smell the
delicious food and hear the buzzing sounds of the street. With the aid of virtual reality technology such as
the head-mounted display, haptic gloves, body-tracking sensors, motion-tracked controllers, 360-
treadmills (that allow unlimited movement in space while stationary), and other wearables, these visions
of future shopping and retails are ever closer to reality. Virtual reality technology is thus believed to solve
the limitation of space and time and enables the replication and creation of any shopping environment for
consumers that is accessible any time thus providing the benefits of efficiency (Serrano et al. 2016).
While during the last decades, the term “virtual reality” has been loosely used to refer to things such as the
internet as a whole or virtual worlds, today, VR primarily refers to visual output technologies that aim to
approximately fully cover the field of view of the user (and therefore VR is often referred to as immersion
or presence inducing technology). Some prominent examples of VR technology are head-mounted
displays (HMD) and cave automatic virtual environments (CAVE)1. In addition to visual output that
covers the users entire field-of-view (FOV), VR commonly employs stereoscope; i.e. different visual feed is
being outputted to both eyes in order to create a 3-dimensional experience of “being there” (Steuer 1992;
Greenbaum 1992). The possible warranted and unwarranted expectations related to VR are especially
related to this “immersive” human-computer interaction modality that makes it possible to experience an
immersive experience of “being there” from anywhere in the world. These affordances are similarly now
being connected with the hype of increased VR-based shopping.

1 Cave automatic virtual environment: An environment where projectors are directed to between three and six of the walls of a room-sized cube.

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 1

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

However, while these alluded promising affordances for shopping have become more prominent
(Speicher et al. 2018), there still has been a dearth of pervasive adoption of VR by retail companies as well
as relatively little research on VR in the shopping context especially related to its effects on the consumer
experience. Shopping experience emerges from the interaction in a situation or retail environment (e.g.
online or physical store, shop, shopping mall, supermarket) and during a period of time between an
individual and an object (Arnould & Thomson 2005). Compared with physical and online shopping, the
realized benefits and detriments of VR shopping are still unknown. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to
develop a comprehensive understanding of the current state of literature and knowledge in it on how VR
technology has been wielded, the advantages and disadvantages of VR in shopping context, in what
shopping context it has been used, what effects it has had on customers’ shopping experiences as well as
to derive future research avenues. The systematic literature review covered all identified papers that are
related to VR and shopping (overall 4o manuscripts).

Literature review
We followed an adapted version of PRISMA study selection guidelines (Moher et al. 2009) according to
which the process would include steps of identification of literature, screening of identified literature,
checks for eligibility of screened literature and finally the synthesis of the literature. As a systematic
literature review does not require e.g. harvesting of quantitative data of prior studies at would be the case
with a quantitative meta-analysis, screening and eligibility steps could be combined as thematic fir and
match with quality criteria could be assessed simultaneously. The literature coding and synthesis were
carried out based on the guidelines of Webster & Watson (2002): 1) identification: 1a) exploratory
literature search to map relevant keywords related to the phenomenon of interest, 1b) systematic
literature search, 2) screening and eligibility check procedures, 1c) backward and forward search, 3)
synthesis: 3a) author-centric coding, 3b) concept-centric coding, 3c) reporting of findings.
The literature search was carried out in December 2018. The database of Scopus was queried using the
following search string on 12/12/2018: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“virtual real*” OR “VR”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY
(shop* OR retail* OR mall OR supermarket OR store) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , “cp”) OR LIMIT-TO
(DOCTYPE , “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , “ch”)). The keyword virtual real* and VR includes all forms
of the word virtual reality and its abbreviation. Keywords shop* OR retail* OR mall OR supermarket OR
store were used to include literature related to consumer’s experience in shopping or retail environment.
The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles in journals, books and conferences. One-thousand-five-
hundred-seventy-two (1572) records were identified.
The screening and eligibility checks proceeded as follows: 1) first, by investigating the titles and abstracts,
24 duplicates were identified. 2) The manuscripts were superficially screened for a thematic match with at
least either VR or shopping to be more closely screened for eligibility. 3) We investigated those records
that had been flagged as pertaining to VR whether they were also related to shopping. The records that did
not hold relevance for shopping were omitted. 4) The same process was conducted for records flagged as
pertaining to shopping. 5) From the remaining pool of 45 eligible records, 7 records were inaccessible
Finally, through 6) forward and backward searches, five more records were identified, screened and
deemed eligible (Table 1). In step 2) for omitted papers, VR matched e.g. with Variable Ratio scheduling,
VR-S and other unrelated terms. For the omitted paper that matched with shopping search terms, words
such as shop floor (related to manufacturing plants), store as a storage of information and other unrelated
terms were common. In steps 3) and 4) in most cases the omission was due to a completely lacking
relevance for VR or shopping, however, in many cases e.g. VR might have referred to virtual worlds or 3D
presentations of a product on a website, such as VRML2, web-based online shop/store and Second-Life. In
accordance with the scope of the study, such records were omitted. In step 4, paper satisfying eligibility in
terms of thematic match with VR but not shopping might have included e.g. a shop as a context of for
other than shopping related study, such as for learning, training, and health-care purposes and pure

2 VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language) is independent of HTML and specifically designed to describe 3D scenes (Cao & Hu 2012)

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 2

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

psychological test (user’s spatial knowledge, spatial object-location memory, collaboration and
competition in navigation tasks, understanding of the spatial layout, etc.). Thus, manuscripts related to
virtual action planning supermarket (VSP-S) 3 were also omitted in this study since they were only web-
based 3D research background (neither virtual reality nor shopping experience). Moreover, during coding
of the extant literature, 3 records were further omitted as they only included a research plan (Step 7).
Step Description Add or delete Amount

Literature search: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“virtual real*” OR “VR”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY

Step 0 (shop* OR retail* OR mall OR supermarket OR store) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, + 1572 1572
“cp”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , “ch”))
Step 1 Duplicated manuscripts - 224 1548
Step 2 No relation to either VR or shopping - 1053 495
Step 3 Only related to virtual reality but not the shopping experience - 265 230
Step 4 Only related to the shopping experience, but not virtual reality - 185 45
Step 5 Inaccessible -7 38
Step 6 Other relevant (forward and backward) +5 43
Step 7 Omitted due to failing eligibility in the coding phase -3 40

Table 1. Literature search and inclusion

Findings: the synthesis of the literature

Research methods

Experiments have been the most frequently used method in the extant literature (n = 31). This is quite
natural as the emphasis in the discussion on the potential of VR in shopping has focused on psychological
factors and consumer behavior and the difference in them compared with non-VR shopping. In order to
gauge and infer about such differences, laboratory and field experiments are the appropriate
methodologies. Beyond experiments, there are singular studies that have used literature review, case
studies, prototyping and interviewing along with four conceptual papers.
Research method Studies Amount

Altarteer et al. (2016); Bigne et al. (2016); Carlson et al. (2011); Dzardanova et al.
(2017); Ketelaar et al. (2018); Ketoma et al. (2018); Khan et al. (2012); Lau et al.
(2014); Lau & Lee (2018); Liang et al. (2018); Liu & Uang (2011 & 2013 & 2016);
Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018); Meißner et al. (2017); Moes & van Vliet (2017);
Experiment 31
Nordbo et al. (2015); Pantano & Laria (2012); Pfeiffer et al. (2017); Ploydanai et al.
(2017); Siegrist et al. (2018); Sikström et al. (2016); Speicher et al. (2018); Tomono
et al. (2011); Tonkin et al. (2011); Van Kerrebroeck et al. (2017); van Herpen et al.
(2016); Verhulst et al. (2016 & 2017); Zhao et al. (2017 & 2018)
Survey Ohta et al. (2015) 1
Literature review Elradi et al. (2017) 1
Case study Kapusy & Lógó (2017) 1
Interview Ruppert (2011) 1
Prototyping Laria & Pantano (2011) 1
Lui et al. (2007); Pierański & Strykowski (2017); Yaoyuneyong et al. (2014); Zhang
Conceptual studies 4
et al. (2014)

Table 2. Summary of the research methods employed by the reviewed manuscripts

3 The Virtual Action Planning-Supermarket (VAP-S) is a virtual supermarket that was developed to meet the need for a clinically feasible and
ecologically valid tool for planning a component of executive functions (EF). The VAP-S was shown to be a valid assessment for EF for people with
schizophrenia and mild cognitive impairment (Josman et al. 2014)

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 3

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Devices and technologies: input and output

After the advent of the current VR trend, HMD has been the most prominent and visible piece of
technology pertaining to VR which is also visible in the extant body of literature where approximately
one-third of the studies (17) have focused on HMD one way or the other. However, VR does not
necessitate a HMD but rather any display technology that can sufficiently create an immersive experience;
i.e. cover the field-of-view of the user. Therefore, as also visible in the extant literature, where
TVs/monitors (7), projectors/powerwalls (7), CAVE (7) and other implementations have been tested as
VR technology. Moreover, headphones, haptic device and smartphone have been used in some studies, to
provide the additional information, sense of sound and touch in addition to the visual output (Table 3).
However, it should be noted that it has not been categorically established what degree of “immersiveness”
is enough for a set of technology to be regarded as.
The input modalities used in the extant literature could be divided between input devices that are
controlled by hands, legs or head/eye-movement. For hand-input, VR controllers were the most
frequently employed input devices. They are wireless controllers that afford (“hand”) position and
movement tracking as well as buttons. Five studies employed gloves or hand trackers which afford similar
interactions but provide increased granularity in the form of finger movement tracking. These controllers
afford e.g. selecting, grabbing, holding and rotating products. In two cases, touchscreen of a mobile device
was used as a mean to make shopping decisions. However, extant literature has also employed the more
traditional input modalities in forms of keyboards, mice and gamepads. This was often the case in
research where the participant would not be movement tracked within the physical space but instead used
input devices to move the virtual representation of the customer in the VR environment. The input
devices controllable by leg movement were used to support stationary walking as an input to move in
the virtual space. Important aspects of navigation and browsing in a store is where the consumer is
looking and focusing their gaze. Head orientation and movement as well as eye tracking are used as
some of the primary modalities of human-computer interaction both as ways to interact with the VR
shop but also to capture important measures of consumer behavior in terms of their attention
allocation. Whereas head movement and orientation are used to capture macro-level attention
allocation, eye tracking devices have been used both inside HMD and attached to a monitor to
capture the micro attention allocation on products (Table 4).
Output devices Source Amount

3D TV set Altarteer et al. (2016);

24’’ PC monitor Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018)

TVs/monitors 3D monitor (with polarized glasses) Liu & Uang (2011) 7

PC with three monitors Ploydanai et al. (2017); van Herpen et al (2016)

TFT LCD (two studies with glass/lens) Liu & Uang (2011 & 2013 & 2016)

One back-projected screen Verhulst et al. (2016)

One large-screen powerwall Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018); Tonkin et al. (2011)

One-wall display of CAVE Carlson et al. (2011)

Projector/ Front projection screen of CAVE (with
Meißner et al. (2017) 7
3D glasses)
powerwall
Two projectors (with polarized
Pantano & Laria (2012)
glasses)

Rear-projected screen with two-

Laria & Pantano (2011)
projectors system (polarized glasses)

Two screens (front and floor forming

CAVE Pfeiffer et al. (2017) 6
an L-shape)

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 4

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Three big screens Tomono et al. (2011)

Three walls and one floor Bigne et al. (2016)

Four walls Ketelaar et al. (2018); Khan et al. (2012)

Five walls Carlson et al. (2011)

Smart phone -based Dzardanova et al. (2017); Moes & van Vliet (2017)

Ketoma et al. (2018); Nordbo et al. (2015); Ohta et al.

Oculus Rift (2015); Sikström et al. (2016); Van Kerrebroeck et al.
(2017); Verhulst et al. (2017)
Head-mounted
Ketoma et al. (2018); Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018); 17
display HTC Vive
Siegrist et al. (2018); Speicher et al. (2018)

NVIS nVisor SX60 Zhao et al. (2017)

Lau et al. (2014); Lau & Lee (2018); Liang et al.

Not specified
(2018); Liu & Uang (2011); Zhao et al. (2018)

Smart mirror - Kapusy & Lógó (2017) 1

Laria & Pantano (2011); Sikström et al. (2016); Van

Headphones - 4
Kerrebroeck et al. (2017); Zhao et al. (2018)

Arm Band - Zhao et al. (2018) 1

Table 3. The output devices in VR shopping

Input devices Source Amount

Hand Mouse and keyboard Ploydanai et al. (2017); van Herpen et al (2016) 2
movement -
based input Ketoma et al. (2018); Khan et al. (2012); Pantano & Laria (2012); Lau
VR controller / flystick /
et al. (2014); Lau & Lee (2018); Meißner et al. (2017); Pfeiffer et al. 9
“magic wand” / Wiimote
(2017); Siegrist et al. (2018); Speicher et al. (2018)

Liang et al. (2018); Nordbo et al. (2015); Verhulst et al. (2016);

Gamepad 5
Verhulst et al. (2017); Zhao et al. (2017)

Touchscreen (smart
Ketelaar et al. (2018); Ohta et al. (2015) 2
phone or watch)

Shopping cart handlebar Carlson et al. (2011) 1

(Data) Glove -based Laria & Pantano (2011); Siegrist et al. (2018) 2

Hand movement tracking

Meißner et al. (2017); Sikström et al. (2016); Verhulst et al. (2016) 3
(e.g. leap motion)

Eye/head Bigne et al. (2016); Carlson et al. (2011); Meißner et al. (2017);
movement - Eye tracking Pfeiffer et al. (2017); Siegrist et al. (2018); Tomono et al. (2011); 7
based input Tonkin et al. (2011)

Bigne et al. (2016); Dzardanova et al. (2017); Khan et al. (2012);

Head tracking Nordbo et al. (2015); Pfeiffer et al. (2017); Verhulst et al. (2016 & 6
2017)

Leg Feet pressure sensor Lau et al. (2014); Lau & Lee (2018) 2
movement -
based input Kinect Ketoma et al. (2018); Verhulst et al. (2016) 2

Table 4. The input devices and tracking technologies

Product types

In the reviewed manuscripts, food (n = 10) and beverage (n = 4) such as fruits and vegetables (Verhulst et
al. 2017), cereals (Siegrist et al. 2018), baking mixture (Pfeiffer et al. 2017; ), beer (Martínez-Navarro et al.

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 5

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

2018; Bigne et al. 2016) and wine (Martínez-Navarro et al. 2018; Zhao et al. 2017) were the most common
products used in the studies as object of shopping. Additionally, seven studies selected clothing as the
purchase object. In the remaining seven manuscripts, the consumers’ interactions with stationary, flower,
book, luxury bag, electronics, portable device, hand-held tools, cleaning products and toiletries were
investigated in the VR shopping context.

The shopping experiences

As shown in table 5, the shopping experience can be further divided into: affective (n = 8), cognitive (11),
usability (13), immersion (12), consumer specific psychology (8) and consumer behavior (24). Most
studies indicate that customers had an enjoyable shopping experience in VR. However, several hindrances
to shopping experience include e.g. difficulty to “walk” around the VR shop and control motion (Lau et al.
2014). When wearing VR devices such as HMD, some participants felt uncomfortable (Martínez-Navarro
et al. 2018) and even felt dizzy (Lau et al. 2014). Thus, some studies paid attention to the cybersickness
experience of elders, which is related to usability aspects in VR shopping context (Liu & Uang 2011 & 2013
& 2016). Besides, cognitive aspects related to information and immersion/VR-assumed dimensions were
commonly examined. Further, over half of studies discussed the behavioral aspects, including the
intention to use system, intention to purchase, navigation, information search, product/brand choice,
purchase decisions, approach/avoidance behaviour, etc. Most of the behaviors are related to
technology and device. For example, participants in the five-wall immersive environment spent less time
finding products than in the one-wall environment (Carlson et al. 2011). Participants were more efficient
in terms of task performance using the gamepad rather than using full body gestures (Verhulst et al. 2016).
Construct Source Amount

Emotional response Dzardanova et al. (2017); Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018)

Affective appraisal Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018)

Affective Ketoma et al. (2018); Moes & van Vliet (2017); Sikström et al. 8
Enjoyment
(2016); Verhulst et al. (2016)

Hedonic Khan et al. (2012); Lau & Lee (2018)

Ketoma et al. (2018); Pfeiffer et al. (2017); Siegrist et al.

Information process /attention
(2018); Tonkin et al. (2011)

Memory call (spatial, store/brand Liang et al. (2018); Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018); Moes &
Cognitive recall) van Vliet (2017); Tomono et al. (2011) 11

Perceived risk Yaoyuneyong (2014)

Perceived value/benefit Altarteer et al. (2016); Kapusy & Lógó (2017）

Carlson et al. (2011); Liu & Uang (2011 & 2013 & 2016); Lau et
Comfortable/cybersickness/stress al. (2014); Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018); Speicher et al.
(2018)

Usability Perceived intrusiveness Ketelaar et al. (2018) 13

Perceived ease of use Ohta et al. (2015)

Khan et al. (2012); Nordbo et al. (2015); Ohta et al. (2015);

Perceived usability
Sikström et al. (2016); Verhulst et al. (2016)

Carlson et al. (2011); Meißner et al. (2017); Nordbo, et al.

Perceived realism
(2015); Tonkin et al. (2011)

Immersion/ Dzardanova et al. (2017); Liu & Uang (2011); Liu & Uang
VR-assumed Perceived presence/immersion (2016); Martínez-Navarro et al. (2018); Sikström et al. (2016); 12
dimensions Speicher et al. (2018); Tonkin et al. (2011)

Perceived novelty/attractiveness Khan et al. (2012); Moes & van Vliet (2017)

Body ownership/awareness of Dzardanova et al. (2017); Sikström et al. (2016)

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 6

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

own movement

Opinion/evaluation/preference Laria & Pantano (2011); Moes & van Vliet (2017); Pantano &
towards product and shop Laria (2012); Zhao et al. (2017)

Consumer Perception of the point of

Laria & Pantano (2011); van Herpen et al. (2016)
specific sale/price promotion 8
psychology Consumer confidence Yaoyuneyong (2014)

Ketelaar et al. (2018); Moes & van Vliet (2017); Van

Attitude/satisfaction/loyalty
Kerrebroeck et al. (2017)

Intention to use system Ohta et al. (2015)

Lau & Lee (2018); Lui et al. (2007); Martínez-Navarro et al.

Intention to purchase
(2018); Moes & van Vliet (2017)

Navigation Ketoma et al. (2018)

van Herpen et al. (2016); Zhao et al. (2017); Laria & Pantano
Information search
(2011); Tonkin et al. (2011);

Ketelaar et al. (2018); Siegrist et al. (2018); van Herpen et al.

Product/Brand choice
(2016); Zhao et al. (2017)

Behavioral Purchase decisions Bigne et al. (2016); Ketoma et al. (2018); Verhulst et al. (2017) 24
Impulse buying Ketoma et al. (2018)

Approach/avoidance behaviour
Van Kerrebroeck et al. (2017)
towards the mall

Carlson et al. (2011); Ketoma et al. (2018); Khan et al. (2012);

Time spent
Siegrist et al. (2018); Zhao et al. (2018)

Money spent van Herpen et al. (2016)； Zhao et al. (2018)

Liang et al. (2018); Liu & Uang (2016); Speicher et al. (2018);
Task performance
Verhulst et al. (2016)

General shopping behavior Pantano & Laria (2012); Ploydanai et al. (2017)

Note: Some manuscripts which appear more than one time in the same category only count once
Table 5. The six aspects of shopping experience in the current literature

Conclusion
The paper presents a systematic review of extant literature on virtual reality applications in the retail
environment. By reviewing 40 papers, we analyzed and discussed the findings according to the research
methods, devices and technologies, product types and shopping experiences in extant literature. The
current study contributes to the VR shopping and marketing literature by mapping the VR technologies,
consumer experiences and research methods in the extant literature. The review shows that the literature
on VR shopping is still in its infancy and there remains ample room for progression both in breadth and
depth in the literature on VR shopping in terms of methodological rigor and theoretical prowess. From
the perspective of theory, future VR shopping research could further investigate the affective reflection
and specific psychology of consumers in VR shopping environment. As for the methodological
agenda, future research should improve the experimental design since many studies did not contain
the control group which reduced the internal validity of experimental result. In addition, future
research could choose different product types such as luxury and hedonic products, which contain
higher experiential value than food and drinks. In terms of the apparatus, future research should
choose advanced HMD for improving the comfortableness and efficiency of shopping as well as
consider to provide multi-sensory experience by using haptic devices, auditory output devices and
others.

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 7

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Limitations
Even though we have followed the suggestions by Moher et al. (2009) to ensure the quality of literature
review, the search database might limit the review. Given the literature search was limited to the Scopus,
some publications have been missed. Additionally, some parts have not been reviewed in this paper such
as the related theory, simulated environment, antecedents of VR shopping, which can be further discussed
in the future study.

REFERENCES
Altarteer, S., Vassilis, C., Harrison, D., and Chan, W. 2016. “Product Customisation: Virtual Reality and
New Opportunities for Luxury Brands Online Trading,” in Proceedings of the 21st International
Conference on Web3D Technology, Anaheim, California: ACM, pp. 173-174.
Arnould, E. J., and Thomson, C. J. 2005. “Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research,”
Journal of Consumer Research (31), pp. 868-882.
Bigne, E., Llinares, C., and Torrecilla, C. 2016. “Elapsed Time on First Buying Triggers Brand Choices
within a Category: A Virtual Reality-Based Study,” Journal of Business Research (69: 4), pp. 1423-
1427.
Cao, Z., and Hu, Z. 2012. “Design Virtual Reality Scene Roam for Tour Animations Base on VRML and
Java,” Physics Procedia (25), pp. 693-699.
Carlson, P., Kirpes, C., Pavlik, R. A., Vance, J. M., Yin, L., Scott-Cooper, T., and Lambert, T. 2011.
“Comparison of Single-Wall Versus Multi-Wall Immersive Environments to Support a Virtual
Shopping Experience,” in Proceedings of ASME 2011 World Conference on Innovative Virtual
Reality, Milan, Italy, pp. 287-291.
Dzardanova, E., Kasapakis, V., and Gavalas, D. 2017. “Affective Impact of Social Presence in Immersive
3D Virtual Worlds,” in Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications
(ISCC), Heraklion, Greece: IEEE, pp. 6-11.
Elradi, M., Atan, R., Abdullah, R., and Selamat, M. H. 2017. “A 3D e-Commerce Applications
Development Model: A Systematic Literature Review,” Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic
and Computer Engineering (JTEC) (9: 2-4), pp. 27-33.
Greenbaum, P. 1992. “The lawnmower man,” Film and Video, 9 (3), pp. 58-62.
Josman, N., Kizony, R., Hof, E., Goldenberg, K., Weiss, P. L., and Klinger, E. 2014. “Using the Virtual
Action Planning-Supermarket for Evaluating Executive Functions in People with Stroke,” Journal of
Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (23: 5), pp. 879-887.
Kapusy, K., and Lógó, E. 2017. “Values Derived from Virtual Reality Shopping Experience among
Generation Z”, in Proceedings of 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive
Infocommunications, Debrecen, Hungary: IEEE, pp. 237-242.
Ketelaar, P. E., Bernritter, S. F., van Woudenberg, T. J., Rozendaal, E., Konig, R. P., Hühn, A. E., ... and
Janssen, L. 2018. “ ‘Opening’ Location-based Mobile Ads: How Openness and Location Congruency of
Location-based Ads Weaken Negative Effects of Intrusiveness on Brand Choice,” Journal of Business
Research (91), pp. 277-285.
Ketoma, V. K., Schäfer, P., and Meixner, G. 2018. “Development and Evaluation of a Virtual Reality
Grocery Shopping Application Using a Multi-kinect Walking-in-Place Approach,” in Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2018):
Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, Dubai, United Arab Emirates: Springer, pp. 368-374.
Khan, V. J., Pekelharing, M., and Desle, N. 2012. “Efficient Navigation in Virtual Environments: A
Comparative Study of Two Interaction Techniques: The Magic Wand vs. the Human Joystick,” in
Proceedings of 2012 4th International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction
(IHCI), Kharagpur, India: IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Laria, G., and Pantano, E. 2011. “Immersive Environments for an Advanced Technology-based Store,” in
Proceedings of The 7th International Conference on Networked Computing and Advanced
Information Management, Gyeongju, South Korea: IEEE, pp. 218-221.

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 8

 VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Lau, K. W., Lee, P. Y., and Lau, H. F. 2014. “Shopping Experience 2.0: An Exploration of How Consumers
Are Shopping in an Immersive Virtual Reality,” Advances in economics and business (2:2), pp. 92-99.
Lau, K. W., and Lee, P. Y. 2018. “Shopping in Virtual Reality: A Study on Consumers’ Shopping
Experience in a Stereoscopic Virtual Reality,” Virtual Reality, pp. 1-14.
Liang, H. N., Lu, F., Shi, Y., Nanjappan, V., and Papangelis, K. 2018. “Evaluating the Effects of
Collaboration and Competition in Navigation Tasks and Spatial Knowledge Acquisition within Virtual
Reality Environments,” Future Generation Computer Systems, In Press. doi:
10.1016/j.future.2018.02.029.
Liu, C. L., and Uang, S. T. 2011. “Effects of Presence on Causing Cybersickness in The Elderly within a 3D
Virtual Store,” in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction:
users and applications, Orlando, FL: Springer, pp. 490-499.
Liu, C. L., and Uang, S. T. 2013. “An Efficient Control System for Combating Cybersickness in the Elderly
within a Virtual Store,” Applied Mechanics and Materials (284-287), pp. 3221-3225.
Liu, C. L., and Uang, S. T. 2016. “Effects of Depth Perception Cues and Display Types on Presence and
Cybersickness in The Elderly within a 3D Virtual Store,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and
Humanized Computing (7:6), pp. 763-775.
Lui, T. W., Piccoli, G., and Ives, B. 2007. “Marketing Strategies in Virtual Worlds,” ACM SIGMIS
Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems (38:4), pp. 77-80.
Martínez-Navarro, J., Bigné, E., Guixeres, J., Alcañiz, M., and Torrecilla, C. 2018. “The Influence of
Virtual Reality in E-Commerce,” Journal of Business Research, In Press. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.054.
Meißner, M., Pfeiffer, J., Pfeiffer, T., and Oppewal, H. 2017. “Combining Virtual Reality and Mobile Eye
Tracking to Provide a Naturalistic Experimental Environment for Shopper Research,” Journal of
Business Research, In Press. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.028.
Moes, A., and van Vliet, H. 2017. “The Online Appeal of the Physical Shop: How a Physical Store Can
Benefit from a Virtual Representation,” Heliyon (3:6), Article No. e00336.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., and Prisma Group. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement,”. PLoS Medicine 6(7). doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Nordbo, K., Milne, D., Calvo, R. A., and Allman-Farinelli, M. 2015. “Virtual Food Court: A VR
Environment to Assess People’s Food Choices,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, pp. 69-72.
Ohta, M., Nagano, S., Takahashi, S., Abe, H., and Yamashita, K. 2015. “Mixed-Reality Shopping System
Using HMD and Smartwatch,” in Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint
Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International
Symposium on Wearable Computers, Osaka, Japan: ACM, pp. 125-128.
Pantano, E., and Laria, G. 2012. Innovation in Retail Process: From Consumers’ Experience to Immersive
Store Design. Journal of technology management & innovation (7:3), pp. 198-206.
Pfeiffer, J., Pfeiffer, T., Greif-Winzrieth, A., Meißner, M., Renner, P., and Weinhardt, C. 2017. “Adapting
Human-Computer-Interaction of Attentive Smart Glasses to the Trade-Off Conflict in Purchase
Decisions: An Experiment in a Virtual Supermarket,” in Proceedings of International Conference on
Augmented Cognition, Vancouver, Canada: Springer, pp. 219-235.
Pierański, B., and Strykowski, S. 2017. “Towards a Personalized Virtual Customer Experience,” in
Advanced Topics in Intelligent Information and Database Systems, Studies in Computational
Intelligence 710, ACIIDS 2017, D. Król, N. Nguyen, and K. Shirai(eds.), Springer, pp. 185-195.
Ploydanai, K., van den Puttelaar, J., van Herpen, E., and van Trijp, H. 2017. “Using a Virtual Store as a
Research Tool to Investigate Consumer In-Store Behavior,” Journal of Visualized Experiments(JoVE)
(125), Article no. e55719. doi: 10.3791/55719.
Ruppert, B. 2011. “New Directions in the Use of Virtual Reality For Food Shopping: Marketing and
education perspectives,” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (5:2). doi:
10.1177/193229681100500217.

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 9

View publication stats

VR Shopping: A Review of Literature

Serrano, B., Baños, R. M., and Botella, C. 2016. “Virtual Reality and Stimulation of Touch and Smell for
Inducing Relaxation: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Computers in Human Behavior (55), pp. 1-8.
Siegrist, M., Ung, C. Y., Zank, M., Marinello, M., Kunz, A., Hartmann, C., and Menozzi, M. 2018.
“Consumers’ Food Selection Behaviors in Three-Dimensional (3D) Virtual Reality,” Food Research
International (117), pp 50-59.
Sikström, E., Høeg, E. R., Mangano, L., Nilsson, N. C., De Götzen, A., and Serafin, S. 2016. “Shop’til You
Hear It Drop: Influence of Interactive Auditory Feedback in a Virtual Reality Supermarket,” in
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Munich,
Germany: ACM, pp. 355-356.
Speicher, M., Hell, P., Daiber, F., Simeone, A., and Krüger, A. 2018. “A Virtual Reality Shopping
Experience Using the Apartment Metaphor,” in Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on
Advanced Visual Interfaces, Castiglione della Pescaia, Grosseto, Italy: ACM, Article no. 17.
Steuer, J. 1992. “Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence,” Journal of
Communication (42: 4), pp. 73-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x.
Tomono, A., Kanda, K., and Otake, S. 2011. “Effect of Smell Presentation on Individuals with Regard to
Eye Catching and Memory,” Electronics and Communications in Japan (94:3), pp. 9-19.
Tonkin, C., Ouzts, A. D., and Duchowski, A. T. 2011. “Eye Tracking within the Packaging Design
Workflow: Interaction with Physical and Virtual Shelves,” in Proceedings of the 1st Conference on
Novel Gaze-Controlled Applications, Karlskrona, Sweden: ACM, Article no. 3. doi:
10.1145/1983302.1983305.
van Herpen, E., van den Broek, E., van Trijp, H. C., and Yu, T. 2016. “Can a Virtual Supermarket Bring
Realism into the Lab? Comparing Shopping Behavior Using Virtual and Pictorial Store
Representations to Behavior in a Physical Store,” Appetite (107), pp. 196-207.
Van Kerrebroeck, H., Brengman, M., and Willems, K. 2017. “Escaping the Crowd: An Experimental Study
on the Impact of a Virtual Reality Experience in a Shopping Mall,” Computers in Human Behavior
(77), pp. 437-450.
Verhulst, E., Richard, P., Richard, E., Allain, P., and Nolin, P. 2016. “3D Interaction Techniques for
Virtual Shopping: Design and Preliminary Study,” in Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on
Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications, pp. 271-279.
Verhulst, A., Normand, J. M., Lombart, C., and Moreau, G. 2017. “A Study on the Use of an Immersive
Virtual Reality Store to Investigate Consumer Perceptions and Purchase Behavior toward Non-
Standard Fruits and Vegetables,” in Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Los Angeles, CA,
USA: IEEE, pp. 55-63.
Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature
Review,” MIS Quarterly, xiii-xxiii. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319.
Yaoyuneyong, G., Foster, J. K., and Flynn, L. R. 2014. “Factors Impacting the Efficacy of Augmented
Reality Virtual Dressing Room Technology as a Tool for Online Visual Merchandising,” Journal of
Global Fashion Marketing (5:4), pp. 283-296.
Zhang, L. L., Xie, S. X., Jia, Y. L., and Jia, B. X. 2014. “Consumers Individual Experience on Buying
Clothes Based on Things of Internet and Virtual Reality Technology,” Advanced Materials Research
(962-965), pp. 2944-2946.
Zhao, H., Huang, F., Spence, C., and Wan, X. 2017. “Visual Search for Wines with a Triangle on the Label
in a Virtual Store,” Frontiers in psychology (8). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02173.
Zhao, Y., Ham, J., and van der Vlist, J. 2018. “Persuasive Virtual Touch: The Effect of Artificial Social
Touch on Shopping Behavior in Virtual Reality,” in Symbiotic Interaction. Symbiotic 2017, J. Ham, A.
Spagnolli, B. Blankertz, L. Gamberini and G. Jacucci (eds), Springer, pp. 98-109. doi:
10.1007%2F978-3-319-91593-7_11.

Twenty-fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun, 2019 10