Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Virtual reality and tourism marketing:

conceptualizing a framework on presence,
emotion, and intention

Ryan Yung , Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore & Leigh Ellen Potter

To cite this article: Ryan Yung , Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore & Leigh Ellen Potter (2020): Virtual
reality and tourism marketing: conceptualizing a framework on presence, emotion, and intention,
Current Issues in Tourism

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1820454

Published online: 21 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1820454

REVIEW ARTICLE

Virtual reality and tourism marketing: conceptualizing a

framework on presence, emotion, and intention
a a
Ryan Yung , Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore and Leigh Ellen Potterb
a
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia; bSchool of
Information and Communications Technology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In a post-COVID landscape, building interest and evoking positive Received 14 November 2019
emotions toward tourism products are vital for destination recovery. As Accepted 1 September 2020
a result, interest and opportunity for the use of immersive technologies
KEYWORDS
such as virtual reality (VR) for tourism marketing has intensified. Despite Virtual reality; destination
the ubiquity of presence as a concept in VR research, exploring and marketing; presence;
adapting presence for tourism marketing remains in infancy. In emotion; intention
particular, there is still limited understanding of the importance and
interplay of the determinants of presence. Through a critical review of
presence research in ICT, education, psychology, psychiatry, marketing,
and tourism, this paper establishes a comprehensive conceptual
framework (named PEI framework) encompassing the determinants
(immersion, engagement, sensory fidelity) and consequences of
presence (P) on emotional response (E) and behavioural intention (I).
This paper also found that presence research remains a disparate body
of work. Frameworks and measures from which to bridge disciplines and
contexts remain nascent. The interplay between presence determinants
and their effects on emotional response, shown to be context-
dependant in this review of presence VR research, has yet to be tested
or theorized in tourism research. Suggestions for advancing the
framework, both context and method-wise, are made for future VR
research.

1. Introduction
1.1. Virtual reality research in tourism
In a post-COVID 19 landscape, there is growing interest and opportunity for cutting-edge technol-
ogies in contributing to destination recovery. During these unprecedented times, it is vital for desti-
nation marketers to communicate their tourism products in a clear and compelling format to
potential visitors. In particular, the increase in interactivity, immersion, and visualization that virtual
reality (VR) is purported to provide, suggests the technology may be an invaluable resource to com-
municate the intangible and experiential nature of tourism as a product (Guttentag, 2010; Huang
et al., 2016; Hyun & O’Keefe, 2012). Research has suggested VR’s ability to visualize spatial depth,
unprecedented in traditional media forms, would be its biggest strength when applied to tourism
contexts (Guttentag, 2010). Putting on a VR headset and being virtually transported to preview
different destinations and travel experiences could not only help consumers make informed
decisions (Cheong, 1995), but build interest and intention to visit these attractions when the pan-
demic restrictions are eased.

CONTACT Ryan Yung ryan.yung@griffithuni.edu.au

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. YUNG ET AL.

However, even though the consumer VR market size is projected to grow from USD 3.7b in 2016 to
USD 16.3b in 2022 (Statista, 2019), VR adoption rates in tourism contexts remain relatively low, poten-
tially due to organizations being hesitant about the effectiveness of the technology (Pearlman &
Gates, 2010; Sox et al., 2014). Additionally, studies to-date on innovation in tourism, and more specifically
VR, have mainly been applied approaches (ie. prototyping) and conceptualizing (Hjalager, 2010). Gaps in
literature remain around the various dimensions surrounding consumer behaviour and experience
using VR (Beck et al., 2019; Flavián et al., 2019; Wei, 2019); prompting calls for research in the area to
be more substantive and theory-based (Hjalager, 2010; Huang et al., 2016; Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017).

1.2. Problem statement

In information technology research, studies on VR and immersive media in general have focused on
the constructs of presence (Nunez & Blake, 2001). Presence has been the focus of many studies of VR
because it is the subjective experience of being in an environment, whilst physically being situated in
another (Witmer & Singer, 1998); the theoretical underpinning of evoking vicarious experiences or
virtual transportation. Unsurprisingly, researchers have suggested that presence is vital in measuring
VR effectiveness (Meehan et al., 2005; Sheridan, 1992; Zeltzer, 1992). However, despite the promi-
nence of presence in information and communications technology (ICT)-based VR research, to
date only a handful of presence studies have started to emerge in the tourism marketing VR literature
(for example Bogicevic et al., 2019; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). More importantly, despite VR researchers
emphasizing the importance of focusing on the determinants of presence (North & North, 2016), this
approach has been lacking in tourism; prompting calls for future researchers to explore specifically
the determinants of presence (Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
The impact of presence on real-world performance remains in infancy (Marasco et al., 2018;
Stevens & Kincaid, 2015). Additionally, researchers have emphasized that the impact of presence is
context dependant and thus, not necessarily transferrable (Schultze, 2010; Thie & van Wijk, 1998).
The determinants and effects of context-specific immersive stimuli remain relatively understudied
(Suh & Prophet, 2018). Calls have been made for more interdisciplinary studies across VR studies
on presence (Draper et al., 1998; Lombard & Ditton, 1997) and emotion (Banos et al., 2008; Riva
et al., 2007; Riva et al., 2016; Villani et al., 2012) for better understanding of the consequences of pres-
ence. The lack of research combining presence and emotion in tourism is especially highlighted when
juxtaposed against the growing importance of emotion research in destination marketing (Hazlett &
Hazlett, 1999; Li et al., 2016). Researchers have highlighted the importance of emotional experiences
as influencers and predictors of tourist behavioural intentions in the pre-visit stage (Goossens, 2000;
Prayag et al., 2013). This study attempts to fill that gap in tourism research through reviewing litera-
ture bridging presence and emotion in various disciplines, interpolating findings from existing
research into a destination marketing context.
Through a critical review of presence literature inside and outside of tourism, this paper syn-
thesizes how and where VR has been theorized and analyses its relevance for tourism. The critical
review manifests in a top-to-bottom framework encompassing the determinants and consequences
of presence on emotional response and behavioural intention. Establishing a framework through
critical review provides a platform from which future research can build upon and adapt to
different contexts (Grant & Booth, 2009). In addition, potential directions for future research in advan-
cing the framework will be recommended.

2. Literature review
2.1. Presence
Presence is widely accepted to be the psychological sense of ‘being there’ in an environment (in the
case of VR, a mediated virtual environment), whilst physically being situated in another (Beck et al.,
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 3

2019; Nash et al., 2000; Schuemie et al., 2001; Schultze, 2010; Slater et al., 1994; Tussyadiah et al.,
2018). Ultimately, when a sense of presence in a virtual environment (VE) is high enough, the user
achieves a perceptual illusion of non-mediation (Bartle, 2007; Lombard & Ditton, 1997). This means
the user starts experiencing the VE as an actual, physical place; suspending disbelief, and forgetting
that the VE is being viewed through a computer device (Bystrom et al., 1999; Draper et al., 1998;
Nicovich, 2017; Sheridan, 1992; Steuer, 1992). A key result of high presence levels, particularly for
tourism, is that the user remembers the VE as a place rather than as a set of pictures (Slater et al.,
1999). Understanding presence, and more importantly, the different configurations and combi-
nations of its determinants, is important for improving interface design and user experience,
toward improving efficiency and effectiveness of immersive VE systems across a range of fields
(North & North, 2016). From a practical perspective, this is an important engineering requirement,
particularly when considering trade-offs between various system components, for economic or
context-specific requirements (Slater & Steed, 2000). For instance, the level of visual and aural
quality would likely be highly important factors in VEs designed to entertain such as video games
or marketing; whereas in VEs designed for skills training or simulation purposes, tactile feedback
or sensory cues would likely contribute to better performance instead.
Research on measuring and conceptualizing presence remains largely heterogeneous; a con-
stantly evolving process, in part because of technological advancement (Schultze, 2010). For
example, whilst presence has been adapted for VR research outside ICT in contexts such as education
(Mikropoulos & Strouboulis, 2004; Sun et al., 2015), aviation (Vora et al., 2002), computer-mediated
conferences (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), cyber psychology (Banos et al., 2004), advertising (Li
et al., 2002), and dementia (Flynn et al., 2003); the technology used were limited to desktop monitors
instead of the head-mounted displays or immersive cave automatic virtual environment (CAVE)
systems currently available. Additionally, whilst development of applied presence research has
increased throughout the years, theoretical aspects of presence remains limited (North & North,
2016).
Researchers have continually debated the concept and its related methods and measurements
(see Draper et al., 1998; Nash et al., 2000; Schubert, 2009; Slater, 1999; Vasconcelos-Raposo et al.,
2020; Witmer & Singer, 1998). Nash et al. (2000)’s review of studies on presence and performance
in VEs found that a majority of research findings were non-conclusive, with preliminary issues of
establishing validity, reliability, and standardized measures of presence. Recent studies have found
issues with reliability to still be apparent, even when using established measures (see van Berlo
et al., 2020). Other studies continue to explore and adapt these established presence measures for
different environments and contexts (Vasconcelos-Raposo et al., 2020). As a result, despite a
rapidly growing body of research, the effects of an individual’s sense of presence in VEs on their
real-world performance remains relatively unknown (Stevens & Kincaid, 2015). Calls have been
made for more correlative studies of objective and subjective measures (Draper et al., 1998;
Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Loureiro Krassmann et al., 2020), and studies of performance measures
and contributing factors (Nash et al., 2000). Perhaps the fragmentation of presence research
outside tourism explains the scarcity of empirical testing utilizing the concept in tourism contexts.
In fact, ‘it is worth noting that, to date, very few virtual experience in marketing studies have used
presence measures’ (Alcaniz et al., 2019, p. 9). However, as noted above and will be repeatedly
observed below; incorporating presence is vital in tourism research attempting to understand the
effects from the impending influx of immersive technological advancements.

2.2. Determinants of presence

Research investigating the factors that contribute to a sense of presence and the variety of conse-
quences it produces, have been limited until relatively recently (Alcaniz et al., 2019; Lombard &
Ditton, 1997). However, there is a growing number of studies that have explored the determinants
of presence, which can broadly be split into external stimuli (VE delivery), and internal tendencies
4 R. YUNG ET AL.

(user characteristics) (Lessiter et al., 2001; Schultze, 2010; Witmer & Singer, 1998). With regard to deliv-
ery of the VE, findings largely concur that presence is facilitated by immersion, involvement, interac-
tivity, richness, attention allocation, and fidelity (Bystrom et al., 1999; Hou et al., 2012; Mikropoulos &
Strouboulis, 2004; Nash et al., 2000; North & North, 2016; Schultze, 2010; Steuer, 1992; Sun et al., 2015).
Tables 1 and 2 examine and synthesize key studies on presence research in ICT and outside ICT (cate-
gorized based on 21 disciplines that inform tourism research (Weiler et al., 2012)) respectively.
From Tables 1 and 2, it is clear that studies of presence within ICT focus on the determinants of
presence. Studies outside ICT focus more on the consequences of presence and how it influences
users such as their resultant emotions, intentions, or transfer of learning. For a more comprehensive
and holistic understanding, there appears a clear gap to merge the different approaches; forming a
top-to-bottom framework that encompasses both determinants and consequences of presence.
Unsurprisingly, tourism researchers have called for future research on immersive technologies to
incorporate presence as a factor (Lee et al., 2020), and more specifically, focus on the presence deter-
minants (Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
Notably, the studies, especially those focused on emotion in psychology, also often call for use of
additional measures as part of their conclusions. Studies which reported unexplained results like
North and North (2016) (presence levels exceeded 100%) and Thie and van Wijk (1998) (results
from earlier presence study could not be replicated when not using Head-Mounted Displays
(HMDs)), could have benefitted from the addition of a qualitative interview stage to further under-
stand how their results were obtained. The studies in both Tables 1 and 2 also largely inform the
rest of this literature review section where the complexity of presence determinants is explored.
Addressing individual user variables or internal tendencies (Table 1); adaptability, willingness to
suspend belief, and willingness to experience presence have been shown as key determinants of
invoking virtual presence (Hou et al., 2012; Nash et al., 2000; Sas & O’Hare, 2003; Slater et al., 1994;
Stevens & Kincaid, 2015; Witmer & Singer, 1998). However, empirical research from the media
user’s perspective remains scarce; likely because understanding of VE delivery and inducing a
sense of presence remains largely fragmented. For instance, Loureiro Krassmann et al. (2020) recently
found that internal immersive tendencies were not a critical factor for experiencing presence, refut-
ing Witmer and Singer (1998)’s seminal findings. Firstly, establishing that the hardware and software
can deliver a high sense of presence is vital, before exploring how users receive it. This highlights the
need to develop a framework, as well as a scientific body of knowledge to assist researchers in the
development of efficient and effective VE applications and VR adaptations (North & North, 2016).
Several reviews of presence and performance in virtual environments have broadly categorized
determinants of presence into three variables – immersion, sensory fidelity, and engagement
(Bystrom et al., 1999; Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Nash et al., 2000; Schuemie et al., 2001; Schultze,
2010). These variables are explained in the following sections.

2.2.1. Immersion
Sensory stimulation depends on the capabilities of the VE delivery tool. Immersion has commonly
been defined as the quantifiable features and specifications influencing the stimulation of these
senses, coupled with minimization of real world stimuli (Bailenson et al., 2008; Bystrom et al., 1999;
Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Nash et al., 2000; Nunez & Blake, 2001). These features include quantifiable
specifications such as the display resolution (number of pixels in each dimension), image quality (per-
ceived image degradation), field of view (extent of observable world seen), motion-tracking (replica-
tion of user motion from real world to virtual environment), and haptic feedback (physical force to
user simulating force exerted in virtual environment). When comparing modern VR and traditional
video for instance, using a head-mounted display gives the user visual, audio, motion tracking,
and a larger field-of-view. Crucially, head-mounted displays also block out the real world, an instru-
mental aspect of providing isolation and sustaining user immersion in the VE (Witmer & Singer, 1998).
Therefore, immersion is considered an important factor in positively influencing presence (Lessiter
et al., 2001; Loureiro Krassmann et al., 2020).
Table 1. Presence studies from ICT.
Presence
Presence determinants consequences

Involvement

Social Presence
Negative Effects

Detachment

External Environment

Memory
Cognitive Presence
Sense of Physical Space
Attentional Resource Allocation

Perceptual Realism
Engagement
Sensory Fidelity

Ecological Validity

Arrival/Departure

Social Realism

Internal Tendencies

Specific Stimuli Characteristics

Natural Motion Mapping
Emotion
Individual User Variables

Persuasion
Enjoyment
Immersion

Authors Year Context Avenues for future research

Kim and Biocca (1997) x x x x Presence and • Technological drawbacks: Not
Performance in VR.
Virtual Environments
Lombard and Ditton (1997) x x x x x Presence and • Not Empirical
Performance in
Virtual Environments
Draper, Kaber, and (1998) x Presence and • Not Empirical
Usher Performance in
Virtual Environments
Thie and van Wijk (1998) x x x Presence and • Technological drawbacks:
Performance in Desktop VE. • Could not
Virtual Environments reproduce results of experiment
when not using HMDs.
Witmer and Singer (1998) x x x Presence and • Technological drawbacks:
Performance in Desktop VE.

CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM

Virtual Environments
Bystrom, Barfield, (1999) x x x Presence and • Not Empirical
and Hendrix Performance in
Virtual Environments
Nash, Edwards, (2000) x x x x x Presence and • Not Empirical
Thompson, and Performance in
Barfield Virtual Environments
Nunez and Blake (2001) x Presence and • Not Empirical
Performance in
Virtual Environments
Lessiter and (2001) x x x x • Authors state questionnaire
Freeman should be tested in different

(Continued )

5
Table 1. Continued.

6
Presence
Presence determinants consequences

R. YUNG ET AL.
Involvement

Social Presence
Negative Effects

Detachment

External Environment

Memory
Cognitive Presence
Sense of Physical Space
Attentional Resource Allocation

Perceptual Realism
Engagement
Sensory Fidelity

Ecological Validity

Arrival/Departure

Social Realism

Internal Tendencies

Specific Stimuli Characteristics

Natural Motion Mapping
Emotion
Individual User Variables

Persuasion
Enjoyment
Immersion

Authors Year Context Avenues for future research

Presence and contexts in combination with
Performance in other questionnaires.
Virtual Environments
Sas and O’hare (2003) x x Presence and • Technological drawbacks:
Performance in Desktop VE.
Virtual Environments
Meehan, Razzaque, (2005) x Physiological Reactions • Focuses only on specific stimuli
Insko, Whitton, to Presence characteristics’ influence on
and Brooks Presence.
Villani, Repetto, (2012) x x x x Anxiety in Virtual Job • Psychophysiological results
Cipresso, and Riva Interviews inconclusive.
Banos, Etchemendy, (2012) x Efficacy of VEs in • Technological drawbacks:
Castilla, Garcia- Promoting Positive Desktop VE.
Palacios, Quero, Emotions
Botella
Hou, Nam, Peng, and (2012) x x x x x Effects of Screen Size • Technological drawbacks:
Lee on Presence, Mood, Desktop VE.
and Enjoyment of
Video Games.
Shafer, Carbonra, (2014) x x x Motion-based Video • Suggestions to use
and Popova Games Neuroscientific measures such
as EEG & MRI.
Stevens and Kincaid (2015) x x x Virtual Simulation- • Technological drawbacks: VR-
based Army Training type unclear.
North and North (2016) x x Presence and • Suggestions to use physiological
Performance in and objective measures.
Virtual Environments • Participants total sense of
presence exceeded 100% –
unexplainable finding.
Weech, Kenny, (2020) x x Narrative, Gaming • Technological drawbacks: VR-
Lenizky, and Experience, and type should be more consistent
Barnett-Cowan Cybersickness in VR across participants.
Vasconcelos-Raposo, (2020) x x x x Adapting the Presence • Adapted specifically for
Melo, Barbosa, Questionnaire for Portuguese speakers.
Teixeira, Cabral, Portuguese • Suggestions to adapt
and Bessa population instruments to specific cultural
and linguistic environments.
Pallavicini, Pepe, (2020) x x Positive Emotions, Ease • Suggestions to compare
Ferrari, Garcea, of Interaction, and between VR types.
Zanacchi, and Presence in • Questionnaire and content
Mantovani commercial VR limited by data collection
setting (Milan Design Week).

CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM

7
 8
Table 2. Presence studies outside ICT.
Presence determinants Presence consequences

Sense of Physical Space

Sensory Fidelity

Mental Imagery
Ecological Validity

Transformative Experiences
Interactivity

Purchase Intention
Involvement

User Focus

Self-reflectiveness
Life Engagement
Stereoscopy

Personal Efficacy
Negative Effects

Emotion
Familiarity

Enjoyment

Knowledge Transfer
Immersion

Attitude

Destination Image
Input Devices

Product Knowledge
Engagement

R. YUNG ET AL.
Avenues for
Authors Year Context Discipline future research
Li, Daughterry, (2002) x x x Three-Dimensional Marketing • Technological
and Biocca Advertising in e- drawbacks: Not
Commerce VR.
Vora, Nair, (2002) x Effectiveness of VR Transportation • Technological
Gramopadhye, as Aircraft Visual drawbacks: Low
and Duchowski Inspection VR Quality
Mikropoulos and (2004) x x x Presence in Education • Technological
Strouboulis Educational VEs drawbacks: Low
for Children VR Quality
Riva, Mantovani, (2007) x x x x x Effectiveness of VR Psychology • Suggestions for
Capideville, for Inducing physiological
Preziosa, Specific measures.
Morganti, Emotions • Suggestions to
Villani, Gaggioli, use valence for
Botella, and emotion
Alcaniz measurement.
Banos, Botella, (2008) x x Influence of Psychology • Suggestions to
Rubio, Quero, Stereoscopy on use
Garcia-Palacios, Presence and physiological
and Alcaniz Emotions and objective
measures.
Gorini, Griez, (2010) x x x x Effectiveness of VR Psychiatry • Comparing VR to
Petrova, and for generating real world.
Riva emotional
responses in
eating disorder
patients.
Hyun and O’Keefe (2012) x Destination Marketing • Technological
Marketing (Tourism) drawbacks: Only
Websites website 3D
tours.
Siriaraya and Ang (2014) x x x x Virtual Psychology • Technological
Environments drawbacks:
for People with Desktop VE.
Dementia
Sun, Li, Zhu, and (2015) x x x Somatosensory VR Education • Technological
Hsiao Learning drawbacks:
Systems Desktop VE.
Diemer, Alpers, 2015 x x VR for Treatment Psychology • Not empirical.
Peperkorn, of Mental
Shiban, and Disorders
Muhlberger
Choi, Ok, and Choi (2016) x x x x The Role of Marketing • Technological
Telepresence in (Tourism) drawbacks: Not
DMO Website VR.
Performance
Riva, Banos, (2016) x x x x Potential of VR for Psychology • Suggestions to
Botella, Supporting use
Mantovani, and Personal and physiological
Gaggioli Clinical Change and objective
measures.
• Not Empirical.
Tussyadiah, Wang, (2018) x x X Potential of VR as a Marketing • Suggestions to
Jung, tom Dieck Destination (Tourism) use
Marketing Tool physiological
and objective
measures.
Bogicevic, Seo, (2019) x x x VR as a Hotel Marketing • Suggestions to
Kandampully, Marketing Tool (Tourism) use real tourism
Liu, and Rudd brands.
• Suggestions to

CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM

further
manipulate
sensory
modalities.
Loureiro (2020) x x Learning in Virtual Education • Suggestions to
Krassmann, Reality use objective
Melo, Peixoto, and more
Pinto, Bessa, realistic
and Bercht measures.
Van Berlo, van (2020) x x x x Branded VR games Marketing • Suggestions that
Reijmersdal, Mit, for Brand poor scale
and van der Memory of reliability
Laan Chocolate affected results.

9
10 R. YUNG ET AL.

Whilst it has been argued that immersion is a necessary condition for presence (Mikropoulos &
Strouboulis, 2004; Slater, 1999; Witmer & Singer, 1998), researchers have emphasized that the impact
of high levels of immersion on performance and efficiency is context-dependent. For example,
studies have found that the highest levels of immersion may not be required for effective virtual train-
ing or education (Dede, 2009; Stevens & Kincaid, 2015). Lim et al. (2006), in their study on 3D VEs for
science lessons, found that too much immersion and vividness distracted students from engaging
with the learning tasks. Instead of focusing on their learning quests, students frequently spent more
time exploring other elements of the Atlantis VE; resulting in handing in incomplete work (Lim et al.,
2006). In contrast, studies in advertising have found that the higher immersion of virtual 3D enhanced
presence; and to varying degrees, positively influenced product knowledge, brand memory, brand atti-
tude and purchase intention of consumers (Li et al., 2002; van Berlo et al., 2020). Because research on
presence determinants is still nascent in tourism contexts, the importance and influence of immersion
as a presence determinant on tourism marketing performance is not yet known.

2.2.2. Sensory fidelity

As seen in Tables 1 and 2, another determinant commonly seen in presence research is sensory
fidelity; sometimes also referred to as ecological validity. Where immersion is determined by the
extent of which senses are stimulated, sensory fidelity is determined by how well the senses are
stimulated. Sensory fidelity is generally defined as the degree to which the VE accurately represents
the real world (Bystrom et al., 1999; Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Nash et al., 2000). Research has
suggested that presence tends to increase as the fidelity of a reproduction or simulation of the phys-
ical world increases (Lessiter et al., 2001). Sensory fidelity of a VE can largely be attributed to visual
fidelity and behavioural fidelity (Schultze, 2010).
Visual fidelity, which has otherwise been termed visual perceptual realism (Lombard & Ditton,
1997) concerns the VEs ability to visually simulate the world. These include visual cues such as
shadows, texture, spatial depth, self-representation (Bystrom et al., 1999; Nash et al., 2000), and
how closely they mimic the real world (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). More importantly, many researchers
argue that realistic behaviour of these visual representations rather than simply how they look have a
bigger influence on the user’s sense of presence (Mikropoulos & Strouboulis, 2004; North & North,
2016; Schultze, 2010).
Also referred to as social realism (Lombard & Ditton, 1997), behavioural fidelity is the extent to
which the VE is able to reflect realistic interaction and behaviour. This includes social and cultural
cues, object response to manipulation, navigation, auditory representation, and consistency (Nash
et al., 2000; Schultze, 2010; Shafer et al., 2014). For example, a VE may appear photo-realistic, but if
behaviour within that VE is not realistic, such as bumping into invisible walls, or objects not respond-
ing correctly to manipulation, then the user’s illusion of non-mediation will be broken, lowering their
sense of presence.
Like immersion, execution of sensory fidelity to achieve presence and performance is highly
context-dependent. Mikropoulos and Strouboulis (2004) studied presence in a VR learning environ-
ment. They found that despite lower immersion, their participants still achieved a high level of pres-
ence due to their VE’s high sensory fidelity; allowing items to be manipulated in an expected manner.
Similarly, exploring the viability of VR for simulating job interviews, Villani et al. (2012) found that par-
ticipants felt a higher sense of presence within the VR simulation, as well as higher anxiety, when
compared to the real-world simulation. This was attributed to the social and cultural cues that
more closely matched their participants’ expectations (Villani et al., 2012). Whilst it seems unlikely
that in an identical situation, VR could elicit a higher sense of presence compared to reality; Villani
et al. (2012)’s findings suggest that especially for training scenarios, VEs may be able to simulate
more effective representations of desired scenarios in addition to being more cost-effective; provided
that the VEs sensory fidelity matches the users expectations. These studies encapsulate the complex-
ity of establishing presence; where the influence of just the sensory fidelity and immersion determi-
nants vary according to differing situations.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 11

In destination marketing, where the typical goal may be to provide potential tourists a vicarious
experience of the destination (Huang et al., 2016), VR will likely provide higher sensory fidelity and
presence, when compared to traditional media. The ability to simulate spatial depth has repeatedly
been postulated as VR’s biggest strength in a tourism context (Guttentag, 2010). Providing more rea-
listic representations, and thus more information, of the destination or experience has been shown to
decrease perceived risk as well as improve destination image, leading to more confidence in consu-
mer decision-making (Kladou & Mavragani, 2015; Lin et al., 2009). However, much like immersion,
sensory fidelity could reach a point where instead of complementing destination marketing, VR
could begin to threaten corporeal travel altogether. This underlines the growing importance of a
measurable framework in preparation for this threshold. Comparing different delivery types and plat-
forms of VR in the future, and understanding determinants to presence like sensory fidelity, will
ensure destination marketers and developers are able to work within parameters suitable for the
VEs intended purpose.

2.2.3. Engagement
User involvement and engagement have been cited as particularly important determinants for pres-
ence and task performance (Lessiter et al., 2001; Schuemie et al., 2001; Witmer & Singer, 1998).
Research has suggested that the nature of the task within the VE influences the level of presence
(Bystrom et al., 1999; Lombard & Ditton, 1997). The more the user thinks, feels, and acts in the VE,
and the more unrelated stimuli are inhibited within the real world, the higher sense of presence
(Sas & O’Hare, 2003; Witmer & Singer, 1998). As a result, the user’s sense of self is enveloped by
the VE such that the VE, and not the real world, takes up primary position in consciousness (Shafer
et al., 2014). Busselle and Bilandzic (2008) described engagement as ‘shifting the centre of the
user’s experience from the actual world into the fictional world, experiencing the VE “from the
inside”’ (p. 272).
Accordingly, greater potential for interactivity has been shown to reduce barriers between the
user and VE, leading to greater presence (Shafer et al., 2014; Steuer, 1992). For instance, Lessiter
et al. (2001) found that the ability to physically control and manipulate aspects of the displayed
environment, even with unsophisticated devices, enhanced the sense of presence. Choi et al.
(2016) similarly suggested that destination marketing websites incorporate more interactivity to
increase users’ sense of telepresence. This study extends their suggestions to VR, as an advancement
to information dissemination. Where Choi et al. (2016) suggested that interactivity was a key charac-
teristic in evoking presence on destination marketing websites, we do not yet know the extent that
the same can be said for destination marketing VR experiences.
Additionally, researchers have emphasized that the nature of the task or activity should match the
intended purpose of the VE (Bystrom et al., 1999; Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Sheridan, 1992). In video
games for instance, the more the player feels effective within the VE and perceives the game to be
interactive, the higher their sense of presence will be, which positively impacts enjoyment, causing
the player to want the experience to continue (Shafer et al., 2014). In contrast, in an education setting,
Loureiro Krassmann et al. (2020) found higher interactivity actually detracted from their student’s
learning outcomes; instead finding immersion (motion-tracking and 180’ vision) was more important
for understanding concepts. van Berlo et al. (2020) similarly found that involvement and sensory
fidelity did not affect brand memory in their study on advertising chocolate through VR games. As
with the previous determinants, context is important. For destination marketing, while studies
have shown that establishing a high overall sense of presence leads to positive outcomes (Bogicevic
et al., 2019; Tussyadiah et al., 2018), there is still limited understanding of the importance and inter-
play of the different determinants.
Looking to the future, researchers have suggested that establishing engagement should come to
the forefront of VEs looking to increase presence. Whereas realistic sensations and visual appeal cur-
rently have the most significant impacts (Marasco et al., 2018), they may begin to offer diminishing
results as technologies continue to advance (Chertoff et al., 2008). However, because the quality of
12 R. YUNG ET AL.

VRs and VEs has only recently experienced exponential advancements, very little is known about the
influence of these task and activity variables. Hence, the need for continued research, particularly on
better understanding of how VE and VR characteristics, through the presence determinants interre-
late when situated in a destination marketing context.

2.3. Consequences of presence

Presence in general is thought to have an intensifying effect on media users, increasing or enhancing
enjoyment, involvement, task performance and training, desensitization, persuasion, and memory
(Lombard & Ditton, 1997). The most prominent psychological impact of higher presence is enjoyment
and delight. In the video game industry, presence has been shown to influence enjoyment (Shafer
et al., 2014). Stimuli that evokes more vivid and concrete experiences through higher presence
can create more emotionally involved responses and favourable evaluations of the media experience
itself, including feeling greater mood change and reporting greater enjoyment (Hou et al., 2012). Yet,
because presence research has generally been explored in ICT contexts, much of the research focuses
on how presence affects system performance. Research on the effects of presence on real-world per-
formance, particularly psychologically, remains in infancy (Stevens & Kincaid, 2015). This despite
researchers advocating presence theories to better understand the potential psychological impact
of immersive virtual advertising (Li et al., 2002).
It has been suggested that a higher level of presence leads to greater performance as an effective
marketing tool (Dinh et al., 1999). Cho et al. (2002) posited that being able to simulate direct experi-
ences with a product, results in consumers feeling significantly more convinced about the attributes
of the product, compared to just being exposed to advertisements. Kim and Biocca (1997), in an
experiment on television advertising, found that higher presence led to higher confidence for
viewers in their attitudes toward the product information presented. They concluded that the
virtual experience, with a high enough sense of presence, simulated a direct experience with the pro-
ducts, increasing persuasion. Li et al. (2002) similarly postulated presence as mediating the persuasive
impact, suggesting that theories of presence and virtual experiences would contribute toward better
understanding of 3D advertising. Ultimately, research on consequences of presence remains scarce
and largely fragmented. In tourism, empirical studies have not yet sufficiently explored how virtual
experiences affect travellers’ behaviour (Marasco et al., 2018). Thus, this underpins the significance
of future research, which will offer further understanding of VR’s role in influencing travel planning
behaviour, uncovering its potential in destination marketing.

2.3.1. The effects of presence on VR effectiveness in destination marketing

In the context of destination marketing, researchers have suggested that presence is a necessary part
of DMO website performance (Choi et al., 2016; Hyun & O’Keefe, 2012). Destination marketing web-
sites have to be engaging to enhance users’ sense of presence, which then leads them to feel that
they are actually at the destination and perceive that time spent as enjoyable. When online visitors
feel present in a destination through web-mediated virtual information, studies have shown that
users remember vividly what they experienced on the website, leading to familiarity, knowledge,
interest, and positively influencing intention to visit the destination (Choi et al., 2016). As Slater
et al. (1999) noted, a key result of high presence is that the user remembers the VE as a place
rather than as a set of pictures. Hyun and O’Keefe (2012) similarly suggested that 3D tours provided
potential tourists an experience partway between advertising and trialling the product; supporting
Cho et al. (2002)’s conceptual paper on the topic. Tussyadiah et al. (2018)’s findings also suggested
that higher presence increases enjoyment of VR experiences, leading to higher level of visitation
intention.
Although they were not focused specifically on the concept of presence, several studies on VR in
tourism have suggested behavioural effects beyond visitation intention. Griffin et al. (2017) found
intention to visit the destination only showed marginal difference, when comparing VR to traditional
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 13

media; whereas intention to recommend the VR experience and to a lesser extent, the destination,
saw significant difference. Although their results were preliminary, they found that participants
intended to spread positive word-of-mouth or discuss the VR experiences with family and friends,
even if they did not intend to visit the destination. Marchiori et al. (2018) similarly found that 23
out of their 23 participants intended to recommend the VR experience to others. This suggests
that even indirectly, destination marketing through VR could benefit word-of-mouth advertising
for destinations. As Marchiori et al. (2018) and Griffin et al. (2017) found, the advertising and destina-
tion marketing experience itself could generate word-of-mouth recommendations primarily due to
the stimuli delivery method (VR). Extending these findings by situating them within the presence fra-
mework could provide interesting insights toward further understanding behavioural consequences
of presence and VR in tourism.
Because many of the factors involved in destination marketing and advertising also increase pres-
ence, it would be logical to find a positive relationship between presence and destination marketing
performance. Though limited in quantity, the above studies suggest that the consequence of higher
presence is higher visitation intention. However, research into the different determinants of presence,
as outlined in earlier sections, remain scarce in tourism research. Understanding the different
configurations and combinations of its influencing factors, is important toward improving
efficiency and effectiveness of immersive VE systems across a range of fields (North & North,
2016). This highlights the importance of addressing the calls to advance presence research in
tourism to include and focus on the presence determinants (Tussyadiah et al., 2018).

2.3.2. Measuring VR effectiveness through emotion

There has been increasing emphasis on the importance of emotional response in evaluating pro-
motional advertisements’ effectiveness (Hazlett & Hazlett, 1999; Li et al., 2016). More specifically,
researchers have highlighted the importance of emotional experiences as influencers and predictors
of tourist behavioural intentions in the pre-visit stage (Goossens, 2000; Prayag et al., 2013). Marketing
material that can provoke positive attitudes are more likely to improve purchase intentions and thus,
considered more effective (Goossens, 2000; Spears & Singh, 2004). In the travel planning stage, posi-
tive emotions have also been shown to play a pivotal role in tourists’ destination selection (Walters
et al., 2012). For instance, Bastiaansen et al. (2018) evaluated the effectiveness of film as destination
marketing material in coupling positive emotions to a destination. They found that participants
reacted with more positive emotion towards Bruges after they had been exposed to a movie
based in the city. Similarly, Teixeira et al. (2012), studying internet video advertisements, revealed
joy and surprise to be the dual routes to ad effectiveness. Goossens (2000), in his seminal paper
on the significance of emotions in tourists decision making, called for future research on VR; positing
that the technology would intensify emotional responses and resulting behavioural intentions.
Huang et al. (2013), in exploring the influence of Second Life (a virtual world) on destination
choice, found that positive emotions, emotional involvement, and flow had a significant effect on
behavioural intentions. Griffin et al. (2017) similarly found that using VR for destination promotion
material generated more positive emotions toward the destination. Although their results were pre-
liminary, they suggested that this could be an indicator of VR being beneficial to destination market-
ers; calling for further research to better understand implications and opportunities for destination
marketers.

2.3.3. The effect of presence on emotion

Researchers have studied the relationship between presence and emotional response in various con-
texts. Correlations between presence and emotional experience in VR have been consistently
reported, especially in the literature on VR exposure therapy (Robillard et al., 2003; Price and Ander-
son, 2007; Riva et al., 2007; Bouchard et al., 2008; Alsina-Jurnet et al., 2011; Price et al., 2011). Studies
have found that the higher presence in virtual experiences, alongside natural and easy-to-use
motion-based controllers were able to better provide stimulation and engagement to users, resulting
14 R. YUNG ET AL.

in stronger positive emotions (Pallavicini et al., 2020; Siriaraya & Ang, 2014). Investigating the efficacy
of using VEs to promote active aging for the elderly, Baños et al. (2012) similarly found that partici-
pants showed an increase in positive emotions and a decrease in negative emotions after use of the
VE, alongside high sense of presence. Gorini et al. (2010) utilized presence and emotion as their theor-
etical underpinnings to gauge the effectiveness of VR in generating anxiety for patients with eating
disorders. Their findings suggested that higher levels of presence generated more intense emotional
responses; concluding that VR is more effective than static pictures in treating the disorders. Riva et al.
(2007), in studying the possibility of VR virtual parks as an affective medium, found positive corre-
lations between presence and negative emotions in parks that were designed to evoke anxiety,
and positive correlations between presence and positive emotions in parks that were designed to
evoke relaxation. Meehan et al. (2005), in a series of four experiments on presence characteristics,
put participants in a virtual height simulation. Higher sense of presence was found to be significantly
correlated to higher change in emotional response (fear) in participants. In summary, research has
shown that users experiencing a higher level of presence are more prone to reporting more negative
emotions in negative VEs and more positive emotions in positive VEs (Schuemie et al., 2001).
In their review of VR and AR research in psychiatry, Riva et al. (2016) posited the technologies’
potential for transformative experiences in supporting personal and clinical change. Their findings
also supported use of the technologies in inducing positive emotions and improving attitudes of
non-clinical subjects, attributing this ability to presence and engagement. In relation to destination
marketing, previous research suggests that the higher presence from using VR will likely generate
more intense emotional responses. Destination marketing materials are designed to evoke positive
emotions to influence destination selection. The ability to generate more intense positive emotions
would suggest VR is a more effective information dissemination tool for destination marketers. Yet,
studies investigating presence, emotion and intention in tourism contexts remain in infancy.

2.4. Conceptualizing the framework for VR research in tourism

Thus far, the literature review has uncovered gaps in the effect of presence on real-world intention.
Perhaps more importantly, research on the determinants of presence and their effects in tourism con-
texts remain in infancy. Additionally, gaps remain in VR research on destination marketing. Previous
research has increasingly emphasized evoking positive emotions as vital in consumers’ destination
selection behaviour in the travel planning stage. Despite the literature showing presence’s ability
to influence emotions, as well as the importance of evoking positive emotions in destination market-
ing, there remains a paucity of knowledge bridging these areas.
Based on the literature reviewed, we encapsulated presence (P), emotion (E), and intention (I) in a
PEI framework to begin research into a replicable and measurable manner will contribute significantly
toward practical applications of the theoretical principals. The PEI framework (Figure 1) summarizes
key ideas from the literature thus far. The theoretical framework postulates that should immersion,
sensory fidelity, and engagement of the display technology increase, a higher sense of presence
will be evoked. Using presence as a theoretical underpinning will differentiate between VR (higher
presence) and traditional media (lower presence). From literature and the theoretical framework,
this would suggest that VR as a destination marketing tool would be more effective from higher pres-
ence contributing toward higher positive emotion, and consequently higher intention to visit.
However, research on the influence of VR and presence on behaviour remains limited (Marchiori
et al., 2018). It is not yet clear if presence in a destination marketing context will lead to intention
to recommend the destination or merely the VR experience itself, and in turn how intention to visit
is then influenced. Although their results were preliminary, Griffin et al. (2017) found intention to
visit only showed marginal difference, when comparing VR to traditional media; whereas intention
to recommend the VR experience and to a lesser extent, the destination, saw significant difference.
Marasco et al. (2018) also similarly posited that if emotional involvement caused by the VE was too
high, it could reduce instead of induce desire to visit the destination. Lastly, to-date, a comprehensive
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 15

Figure 1. Conceptual framework encompassing presence, emotion, and intention.

framework encapsulating the determinants of presence, consequences of presence, and how it affects
tourist behaviour remains absent, hence underlining the growing importance and significance of
future studies when considering the impending growth of VR as media consumption tool.

3. Theoretical contributions
The literature reviewed unearthed several gaps in research that the PEI framework fills. Firstly, pre-
vious research on presence has been shown to be fragmented. As discussed above, not only are
the methods of presence research varied, so too are the different foci from different disciplines.
The problem is that whilst scholars continue to call for interdisciplinary research, there currently is
no accepted framework from which to bridge disciplines and contexts. This finding appears in-line
with research on extended reality technologies, which has been a disparate body of work (Alcaniz
et al., 2019). Secondly, despite the growing emphasis on emotional responses in destination market-
ing research, the links between stronger presence and stronger emotional response, as suggested in
cyberpsychology research, has yet to be tested or theorized in tourism research. Thirdly, despite
studies inside ICT calling for more research on consequences of presence and studies outside ICT
calling for more research on the determinants of presence, there remains a gap for a top-to-
bottom framework addressing calls from both sides. Having a comprehensive framework also
addresses the constant reminder from ICT-based presence researchers that the effects of presence
determinants are highly context-dependant. To-date, presence determinants in tourism-based
research remain in infancy.
Therefore, this conceptual framework is built to highlight the gaps and suggest future research
agenda. The PEI framework works toward addressing the gaps above by establishing a base compre-
hensive framework that takes into account both determinants and consequences of presence, as well
as bringing together the focuses of different contexts into a holistic approach from which to study the
effectiveness of VR for destination marketing.

3.1. Suggestions for advancing the PEI framework for tourism

Whilst the authors are using the PEI framework in a destination marketing context using mixed-
method experiments, there are myriad other contexts in which the framework will be useful for
future tourism research. The discussion thus far in this paper has focused primarily on pre-travel
impact of presence and VR. Adapting the framework for in-situ travel impact of presence and VR
would also provide significant insights. Specifically, for contexts such as overtourism. sustainability,
16 R. YUNG ET AL.

and heritage preservation, adapting the framework to gauge the effectiveness of VR as an experi-
ence-replacement tool or experience-enhancement tool. Using Uluru or the Bagan Temples in
Myanmar as examples, future researchers could investigate the effectiveness of VR-replacements
for these endangered sites. Combining the PEI framework with conceptual models specific to
digital tourism for heritage preservation in these contexts (see Bec et al., 2019), significant insights
would be provided to developers of these VR-replacement experiences in terms of the effects of pres-
ence determinants that differ from pre-travel experiences to in-situ experiences.
When adapted to in-situ experiences, the depth and focus of the chosen context can also range
from using VR’s on theme-park rollercoasters, to using VR in event spaces to preview potential event
setups, to allowing mobility-challenged tourists to experience attractions they might not otherwise
be able to. For each of these contexts, using the PEI framework as an underlying base will allow
researchers to explore the weight of the different presence determinants and their effects on
emotion and behaviour. Understanding why and how these variables and dimensions influence
each other, whether pre-travel, in-situ, or even post-travel, could provide the basis of how, where,
and when the inevitable intrusion of VEs into corporeal travel will transpire.
Method-wise, fitting with the innovative nature of VR is the growing attention toward utilization of
neurophysiological techniques for implicit measurement of consumer behaviour (see Alcaniz et al.,
2019; Bastiaansen et al., 2018; Li et al., 2016; Mazloumi Gavgani et al., 2018). Whilst it remains challen-
ging logistically to implement these measures alongside VR currently, future researchers could con-
sider the use of eye and motion-tracking, electroencephalography (brain-activity tracking), magnetic
resonance imaging (cerebral blood flow tracking), or galvanic skin response (tracking emotional
arousal). Utilizing one or more of these approaches in method triangulation could overcome the limit-
ations of surveys and controlled experiments such as bias or acting in accordance to what the exper-
iment objectives are perceived to be, also providing more detailed insights (millisecond temporal
resolution) into responses not captured by subjective measures (Bastiaansen et al., 2018; Suh &
Prophet, 2018). These tools present myriad options for advancing the framework, whether they
are used to measure emotional response, or even nausea and motion sickness when using immersive
technologies. Alongside robust mixed-methods approaches, including qualitative methods, future
researchers could manipulate the presence determinants to investigate contexts such as evoking
calmness or fear, with VR as the attraction, instead of as a tool to market the product.

4. Conclusion
This paper reviewed existing literature across disciplines to develop a presence, emotion, intention
framework. The framework is built from a combination of research bridging VR, presence, and
emotion from the fields of ICT, cyberpsychology, psychiatry, and tourism; with the aim of providing
strong theoretical grounding for future VR research. The PEI framework as a base is a top-to-bottom
approach, from the determinants of presence, to how presence impacts emotion and consequently,
intentions. Theoretically, avenues for future research include the opportunity to introduce further
dimensions; especially from the growing importance of tourism emotion research through the
lens of cognitive and neuropsychology (Moyle et al., 2019). For example, dimensions from the cog-
nitive appraisal theory could be introduced to explore the relationships between novelty, agency,
or goal importance and the presence determinants and consequences (see Skavronskaya et al.,
2019). Dimensions from imagery processing (Le et al., 2019) could also be incorporated or researched
alongside the framework. Lastly, whilst this paper has focused on exploring the potential benefits of
VR for tourism, the PEI framework could also provide grounding for understanding the threshold of
presence where VR and VE implementation starts to supplant corporeal travel. With a post-COVID 19
landscape affecting accessibility to tourism, demand for and acceptance of virtual travel may be
accelerated. The opportunity for developers to introduce digital tourism experiences comes in con-
junction with the need for understanding how these digital experiences can be appropriately
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 17

constructed. Future researchers could use insights from the PEI framework alongside adaptations of
conceptual models such as presented in Bec et al. (2019) to explore the foundations of virtual tourism.

4.1. Limitations
Whilst this paper has attempted to build a holistic framework, there remain several limitations. As is
typical of critical reviews, while the goal is to aggregate literature on a topic, the interpretative
elements are necessarily subjective and open to bias; with the resulting framework serving as a start-
ing point or launch pad for a new phase of conceptual development rather than an endpoint in itself
(Grant & Booth, 2009). Ideally, an all-encompassing framework would also include the stimuli charac-
teristics for each of the presence determinants. The intricacy and interplay between these character-
istics will likely inform the future development of VR for tourism, especially for practical implications.
The negative effects of using VR, as well as users’ characteristics were also omitted as presence deter-
minants. These complex dimensions, which computer–human interaction and cyberpsychology
research continue to debate (Hunt & Potter, 2018; Paroz & Potter, 2018; Weech et al., 2020),
present complementary avenues and angles for future research to explore; especially as widespread
VR adoption continues alongside longer, more expansive VR experiences.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Ryan Yung http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3755-2557
Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2858-870X

References
Alcaniz, M., Bigne, E., & Guixeres, J. (2019). Virtual reality in marketing: A framework, review, and research agenda.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01530
Alsina-Jurnet, I., Gutiérrez-Maldonado, J., & Rangel-Gómez, M. (2011). The role of presence in the level of anxiety experi-
enced in clinical virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 504–512. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.09.018
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The Use of immersive virtual reality in the
learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17
(1), 102–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793141
Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Alcaniz, M., Liano, V., Guerrero, B., & Rey, B. (2004). Immersion and emotion: Their impact on the
sense of presence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(6), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.734
Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Rubio, I., Quero, S., Garcia-Palacios, A., & Alcaniz, M. (2008). Presence and emotions in virtual
environments: The influence of stereoscopy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.
2007.9936
Baños, R. M., Etchemendy, E., Castilla, D., García-Palacios, A., Quero, S., & Botella, C. (2012). Positive mood induction pro-
cedures for virtual environments designed for elderly people. Interacting with Computers, 24(3), 131–138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.002
Bartle, R. (2007). Presence and flow. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 10(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.5840/
techne200710311
Bastiaansen, M., Straatman, S., Driessen, E., Mitas, O., Stekelenburg, J., & Wang, L. (2018). My destination in your brain: A
novel neuromarketing approach for evaluating the effectiveness of destination marketing. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 7, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.09.003
Bec, A., Moyle, B., Timms, K., Schaffer, V., Skavronskaya, L., & Little, C. (2019). Management of immersive heritage tourism
experiences: A conceptual model. Tourism Management, 72, 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.10.033
Beck, J., Rainoldi, M., & Egger, R. (2019). Virtual reality in tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Review, 74(3), 586–612.
https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-03-2017-0049
18 R. YUNG ET AL.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.
009
Bouchard, S., St-Jacques, J., Robillard, G., & Renaud, P. (2008). Anxiety increases the feeling of presence in virtual reality.
Presence, 17, 376–391. doi:10.1162/pres.17.4.376
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative com-
prehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.
x
Bystrom, K.-E., Barfield, W., & Hendrix, C. (1999). A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments.
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(2), 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566107
Cheong, R. (1995). The virtual threat to travel and tourism. Tourism Management, 16(6), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0261-5177(95)00049-T
Chertoff, D. B., Schatz, S. L., McDaniel, R., & Bowers, C. A. (2008). Improving presence theory through experiential design.
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 17(4), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.17.4.405
Cho, Y.-H., Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Searching for experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(4), 1–
17. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v12n04_01
Choi, J., Ok, C., & Choi, S. (2016). Outcomes of destination marketing organization website navigation: The role of tele-
presence. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1024913
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66–69. doi:http://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1167311
Diemer, J., Alpers, G. W., Peperkorn, H. M., Shiban, Y., & Muhlberger, A. (2015). The impact of perception and presence on
emotional reactions: a review of research in virtual reality. Front Psychol, 6(26). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00026.
Dinh, H. Q., Walker, N., Hodges, L. F., Chang, S., & Kobayashi, A. (1999). Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input
on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In Virtual Reality. Proceedings., IEEE, 222-228. https://doi.
org/10.1109/vr.1999.756955.
Draper, J. V., Kaber, D. B., & Usher, J. M. (1998). Telepresence. Human Factors, 40(3), 354. https://doi.org/10.1518/
001872098779591386.
Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S., & Orús, C. (2019). Integrating virtual reality devices into the body: Effects of technological
embodiment on customer engagement and behavioral intentions toward the destination. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 36(7), 847–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1618781
Flynn, D., van Schaik, P., Blackman, T., Femcott, C., Hobbs, B., & Calderon, C. (2003). Developing a virtual reality-based
methodology for people with dementia: A feasibility study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 591–611. https://doi.
org/10.1089/109493103322725379
Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 301–321. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00067-5.
Gorini, A., Griez, E., Petrova, A., & Riva, G. (2010). Assessment of the emotional responses produced by exposure to real
food, virtual food and photographs of food in patients affected by eating disorders. Annals of General Psychiatry, 9, 30.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-9-30
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Griffin, T., Giberson, J., Lee, S. H., Guttentag, D. A., & Kandaurova, M. (2017). Virtual reality and implications for destination
marketing. Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally, Quebec, Canada.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated con-
ferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08923649709526970
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Hazlett, R. L., & Hazlett, S. Y. (1999). Emotional response to television commercials: Facial EMG vs. Self-report. Journal of
Advertising Research, 39(2), 7–24. https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA60072159&sid=
googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00218499&p=AONE&sw=w.
Hjalager, A.-M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012
Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., & Lee, K. M. (2012). Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on
game experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.007
Huang, Y.-C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., & Chang, L. L. (2016). Exploring the implications of virtual reality technology in
tourism marketing: An integrated research framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 116–128.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2038
Huang, Y.-C., Backman, S. J., McGuire, F. A., Backman, K. F., & Chang, L.-L. (2013). Second life: The potential of 3D virtual
worlds in travel and tourism industry. Tourism Analysis, 18(4), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354213 (
13736372326154
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 19

Hunt, X., & Potter, L. E. (2018). High computer gaming experience may cause higher virtual reality sickness Proceedings of
the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 598-601): ACM.
Hyun, M. Y., & O’Keefe, R. M. (2012). Virtual destination image: Testing a telepresence model. Journal of Business Research,
65(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.011
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), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.
1997.tb00073.x
Kladou, S., & Mavragani, E. (2015). Assessing destination image: An online marketing approach and the case of
TripAdvisor. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.
003
Le, D., Scott, N., & Lohmann, G. (2019). Applying experiential marketing in selling tourism dreams. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 36(2), 220–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1526158
Lee, H., Jung, T. H., tom Dieck, M. C., & Chung, N. (2020). Experiencing immersive virtual reality in museums. Information &
Management, 57(5), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103229
Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001). A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-sense of presence
inventory. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1162/
105474601300343612
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase
intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.
10673675.
Li, S., Walters, G., Packer, J., & Scott, N. (2016). Using skin conductance and facial electromyography to measure emotional
responses to tourism advertising. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1223023
Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging students in science
lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00531.x
Lin, P.-J., Jones, E., & Westwood, S. (2009). Perceived risk and risk-relievers in online travel purchase intentions. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(8), 782–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620903235803
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 3, 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Loureiro Krassmann, A., Melo, M., Peixoto, B., Pinto, D., Bessa, M., & Bercht, M. (2020). Learning in virtual reality:
Investigating the effects of immersive tendencies and sense of presence. In Virtual, augmented and mixed reality.
Industrial and everyday life applications (pp. 270–286). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49698-2_18.
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. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.12.002
Marchiori, E., Niforatos, E., & Preto, L. (2018). Analysis of users’ heart rate data and self-reported perceptions to understand
effective virtual reality characteristics. Information Technology & Tourism, 18(1-4), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40558-018-0104-0
Mazloumi Gavgani, A., Walker, F. R., Hodgson, D. M., & Nalivaiko, E. (2018). A comparative study of cybersickness during
exposure to virtual reality and “classic” motion sickness: Are they different? J Appl Physiol (1985), https://doi.org/10.
1152/japplphysiol.00338.2018
Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Insko, B., Whitton, M., & Brooks, F. P., Jr. (2005). Review of four studies on the use of physio-
logical reaction as a measure of presence in stressful virtual environments. Applied Psychophysiology and
Biofeedback, 30(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-005-6381-3
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Strouboulis, V. (2004). Factors that influence presence in educational virtual environments.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(5), 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.582
Moyle, B. D., Moyle, C.-l., Bec, A., & Scott, N. (2019). The next frontier in tourism emotion research. Current Issues in Tourism,
22(12), 1393–1399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1388770
Nash, E. B., Edwards, G. W., Thompson, J. A., & Barfield, W. (2000). A review of presence and performance in virtual environ-
ments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1201_1
Nicovich, S. (2017). Presence as a sense of place in a computer mediated communication environment. http://
digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=ama_proceedings
North, M. M., & North, S. (2016). A comparative study of sense of presence of traditional virtual reality and immersive
environments. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 20. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v20i0.1168.
Nunez, D., & Blake, E. (2001). Cognitive presence as a unified concept of virtual reality effectiveness. Proceedings of the 1st
international conference on Computer graphics, virtual reality and visualisation, 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1145/
513867.513892.
Pallavicini, F., Pepe, A., Ferrari, A., Garcea, G., Zanacchi, A., & Mantovani, F. (2020). What is the relationship among positive
emotions, sense of presence, and ease of interaction in virtual reality systems? An on-site evaluation of a commercial
virtual experience. Presence: Virtual and Augmented Reality, 27(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00325
Paroz, A., & Potter, L. E. (2018). Impact of air flow and a hybrid locomotion system on cybersickness Proceedings of the 30th
Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 582-586): ACM.
20 R. YUNG ET AL.

Pearlman, D. M., & Gates, N. A. (2010). Hosting business meetings and special events in virtual worlds: A fad or the future?
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 11(4), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2010.530535
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., & Odeh, K. (2013). The role of tourists’ emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding
behavioral intentions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jdmm.2013.05.001
Price, M., & Anderson, P. (2007). The role of presence in virtual reality exposure therapy. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21,
742–751. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.11.002
Price, M., Mehta, N., Tone, E. B., & Anderson, P. L. (2011). Does engagement with exposure yield better outcomes?
Components of presence as a predictor of treatment response for virtual reality exposure therapy for social
phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 763–770. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.03.004
Riva, G., Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Mantovani, F., & Gaggioli, A. (2016). Transforming experience: The potential of
Augmented reality and virtual reality for enhancing personal and clinical change. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 164.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00164
Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C. S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., Gaggilo, A., Botella, C., & Alcaniz, M. (2007).
Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence and emotions. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(1),
45–56. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9993
Robillard, G., Bouchard, S., Fournier, T., & Renaud, P. (2003). Anxiety and presence during VR immersion: a comparative
study of the reactions of phobic and non-phobic participants in therapeutic virtual environments derived from com-
puter games. Cyberpsychol Behav, 6(5), 467–476. doi:10.1089/109493103769710497
Sas, C., & O’Hare, G. M. (2003). Presence equation: An investigation into cognitive factors underlying presence. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761315.
Schubert, T. W. (2009). A new conception of spatial presence: Once again, with feeling. Communication Theory, 19(2), 161–
187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01340.x
Schuemie, M. J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & van der Mast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117884
Schultze, U. (2010). Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: A review. Journal of Information Technology, 25(4), 434–
449. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.25
Shafer, D. M., Carbonara, C. P., & Popova, L. (2014). Controller required? The impact of natural Mapping on interactivity,
realism, presence, and enjoyment in motion-based video games. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 23
(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00193
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1
(1), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.120
Siriaraya, P., & Ang, C. S. (2014). Recreating living experiences from past memories through virtual worlds for people with
dementia. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ‘14.
Skavronskaya, L., Moyle, B. D., Scott, N., & Kralj, A. (2019). The psychology of novelty in memorable tourism experiences.
Current Issues in Tourism, 1–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1664422
Slater, M. (1999). Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and Singer presence questionnaire. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566477
Slater, M., Pertaub, D., & Steed, A. (1999). Public speaking in virtual reality: Facing an audience of avatars. IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, 19, 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.749116.
Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence, 9(5), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1162/
105474600566925.
Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 3(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1994.3.2.130
Sox, C. B., Kline, S. F., & Crews, T. B. (2014). Identifying best practices, opportunities and barriers in meeting planning for
generation Y. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.009
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Statista. (2019). Global consumer virtual reality market size 2016-2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/528779/virtual-
reality-market-size-worldwide/
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x.
Stevens, J. A., & Kincaid, J. P. (2015). The relationship between presence and performance in virtual simulation training.
Open Journal of Modelling and Simulation, 3(2), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmsi.2015.32005
Suh, A., & Prophet, J. (2018). The state of immersive technology research: A literature analysis. Computers in Human
Behavior, 86, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.019
Sun, H. M., Li, S. P., Zhu, Y. Q., & Hsiao, B. (2015). The effect of user’s perceived presence and promotion focus on usability
for interacting in virtual environments. Applied Ergonomics, 50, 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.03.006
Teixeira, T., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Emotion-Induced engagement in internet video advertisements. Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0207
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 21

Thie, S., & van Wijk, J. (1998). A general theory on presence. Proceedings of the Presence in Shared Virtual Environments
Workshop, First International Workshop on Presence, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003
van Berlo, Z. M. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., Smit, E. G., & van der Laan, L. N. (2020). Inside advertising: The role of presence in
the processing of branded VR content. In T. Jung, M. C. Tom Dieck, & P. Rauschnabel (Eds.), Augmented reality and
virtual reality (pp. 11–22). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37869-1_2.
Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., Melo, M., Barbosa, L., Teixeira, C., Cabral, L., & Bessa, M. (2020). Assessing presence in virtual
environments: Adaptation of the psychometric properties of the presence questionnaire to the Portuguese popu-
lations. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1754911
Villani, D., Repetto, C., Cipresso, P., & Riva, G. (2012). May I experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual
reality than in reality? An answer from a simulated job interview. Interacting with Computers, 24(4), 265–272. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.008
Vora, J., Nair, S., Gramopadhye, A. K., Duchowski, A. T., Melloy, B. J., & Kanki, B. (2002). Using virtual reality technology for
aircraft visual inspection training: Presence and comparison. Applied Ergonomics, 33(6), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0003-6870(02)00039-X
Walters, G., Sparks, B., & Herington, C. (2012). The impact of consumption vision and emotion on the tourism consumer’s
decision Behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1096348010390815
Weech, S., Kenny, S., Lenizky, M., & Barnett-Cowan, M. (2020). Narrative and gaming experience interact to affect presence
and cybersickness in virtual reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 138), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhcs.2020.102398
Wei, W. (2019). Research progress on virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) in tourism and hospitality. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 10(4), 539–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhtt-04-2018-0030
Weiler, B., Moyle, B., & McLennan, C.-l. (2012). Disciplines that influence tourism doctoral research. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(3), 1425–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.009
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3),
225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686.
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2017). New realities: A systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality
in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(17), 2056–2081. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1417359
Zeltzer, D. (1992). Autonomy, interaction, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 127–132.
https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.127