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

net/publication/229884314

Consumer Learning and the Effects of Virtual Experience

Relative to Indirect and Direct Product Experience

Article  in  Psychology and Marketing · July 2008

DOI: 10.1002/mar.20225

CITATIONS READS
115 1,644

3 authors:

Terry Daugherty Hairong Li

University of Akron Michigan State University
36 PUBLICATIONS   1,969 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   3,720 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Frank Biocca
Syracuse University
154 PUBLICATIONS   9,378 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Presence: Measurements, Effects and Conditions (IST-2001-37661) View project

Wharton Future Advertising Program (Chinese CEOs Survey) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Terry Daugherty on 13 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 568

Consumer Learning and

the Effects of Virtual
Experience Relative to
Indirect and Direct Product
Experience
Terry Daugherty
The University of Texas at Austin

Hairong Li and Frank Biocca

Michigan State University

ABSTRACT

The Internet has the ability to serve as a more powerful medium than
traditional print or broadcast media because consumers are able to
interact with products in 3D multimedia environments, thus simulat-
ing a new form of experience—a virtual experience. However, very lit-
tle research has explored the impact of this new type of experience,
especially in combination with indirect (advertising) and direct
(product trial) experience. Therefore, this study presents the findings
from two laboratory experiments designed to empirically test both
the single and sequential impact of consumer exposure to indirect,
direct, and virtual experiences on brand attitude, product knowledge,
and purchase intention when evaluating a digital video camcorder.
The results indicate that exposure to a virtual experience preceding
both indirect and direct product experience is more effective at influ-
encing brand attitudes. The research proposition is that virtual expe-
rience from 3D product visualization is more similar to direct
experience than to indirect experience in terms of consumer learn-
ing. Implications for business-to-consumer Internet marketing and
e-commerce are discussed. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25(7): 568–586 (July 2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20225
568
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 569

While the Internet has demonstrated a high capacity for disseminating infor-
mation about products and services, it has often fallen short of expectations
when consumers want to “experience” a product. As a result, consumers tradi-
tionally do not achieve as rich an experience online as they would in a conven-
tional store, such as experiencing the store atmosphere, interacting with a
salesperson, and seeking sensory stimulation. More recently though, three-
dimensional (3D) product visualization technology has emerged online as a new
form of rich media advertising, enabling consumers to interact with a virtual
product much like they would with a physical product. Li, Daugherty, and Biocca
(2001) have conceptualized this new and challenging type of consumer experi-
ence as a virtual experience. Even though the term has been used in previous
research (Hoffman & Novak, 1996; Klein, 1998), Li and colleagues characterize
a virtual experience as a vivid, involving, active, and affective psychological
state that consumers encounter when interacting with 3D products in a
computer-mediated environment. Consumers are able to experience psycholog-
ical states online because the Internet creates a sense of interactivity and enjoy-
ment resulting in increased learning, altered behaviors, and a perceived sense
of control (Hoffman & Novak, 1996; Huang, 2006). A virtual experience is a sim-
ulation of a real or physical experience, which occurs within a computer-mediated
environment, and has been construed to be located between direct (i.e., product
trial) and indirect (i.e., traditional advertising) experience along the spectrum
of consumer learning (Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2001). Current research, however,
has failed to empirically confirm this position completely, as the unique and dis-
tinctive characteristics that distinguish a virtual experience from indirect and
direct experience have not been examined. Therefore, the purpose of this research
is to expand the theoretical knowledge of consumer learning by testing the
impact of a virtual product experience relative to indirect and direct product
experiences. Experiment 1 compares the effects of examining a commercial prod-
uct via virtual, direct, or indirect product experiences in order to isolate and
understand the influence of each on consumer learning. In turn, Experiment 2
extends this work by examining the sequential exposure of virtual experience
in conjunction with either indirect or direct product experiences. The implica-
tions of such findings could: (1) potentially provide scholars with a better theo-
retical understanding of consumer psychological processes and behavior online
when interacting with 3D product visualization; and (2) improve the prediction
for effective persuasive Internet marketing strategies.

CONSUMER LEARNING

Researchers have delineated two main types of experience associated with con-
sumer learning of products or services: indirect experience and direct experi-
ence (Deighton, 1984; Hoch & Deighton, 1989; Hoch & Ha, 1986; Kempf &
Smith, 1998; Smith & Swinyard, 1982, 1983, 1988; Wright & Lynch, 1995).
While indirect experience can occur from various sources (i.e., word of mouth,
Consumer Reports, etc.), the most prevalent form of exploration in consumer
learning is advertising. This form of experience can provide several advantages
for both consumers and advertisers. First, advertising is a mediated experi-
ence where messages are framed to emphasize the most important product
information. Second, advertising exposure can stimulate consumer awareness

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 569

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 570

for unknown products. Third, exposure enables consumers to evaluate impor-

tant information across multiple brands in a short amount of time. On the
other hand, direct experience is an unmediated interaction between a con-
sumer and a brand in full sensory capacity and occurs from product sampling,
trial, or purchase (Gibson, 1966). This multisensory interaction also leads to sev-
eral advantages. First, evidence in direct experience is self-generated and the
most trustworthy for a consumer. Second, a consumer may manage the way a
product is experienced by controlling the focus and pace of an inspection to
maximize informational input. Third, direct experience promotes better mem-
ory because information is more vivid and concrete (Hoch & Ha, 1986). Fourth,
this form of learning is more likely to influence behavior because of internal
attributions and motivation (Smith & Swinyard, 1982). Nevertheless, strong
implications for both indirect and direct forms of experiences have been reported
under certain circumstances.
Smith and Swinyard (1982) proposed an integrated information response
model outlining the processes by which indirect and direct experiences affect con-
sumer learning. The model implies that indirect experience offers little influence
on consumer behavior because advertising is perceived as a biased source of
information. Deighton (1984) later developed a two-step model of advertising
effectiveness to test how advertising is able to initiate expectations, which will
be confirmed or rejected during direct experience. Hoch and Ha (1986) extended
this work, investigating how consumers find and interpret information either
to support existing beliefs about products or to confirm expectations induced
from advertising. More recently, Wright and Lynch (1995) refined the theory of
advertising effects by differentiating search from experience attributes of prod-
ucts. Search attributes are qualities that can easily be verified, such as a product’s
color or price, and this verification can take place prior to purchase. In contrast,
experience attributes are characteristics that can only be verified by direct expe-
rience, such as how a car rides or how a product tastes (Nelson, 1974). The dis-
tinction is that direct experience is more effective than advertising (indirect)
in presenting experience attribute information. Nevertheless, there has been
some speculation that the type of medium may limit the effect of advertising,
and a more powerful medium for communicating the details and experiences of
a product, such as the Internet, could have a stronger impact on consumer learn-
ing (Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2003).

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE

The Internet is a more powerful medium than traditional print and broadcast
media in the sense that consumers are able to interact with products in 3D mul-
timedia environments, thus simulating a new form of experience—a virtual
experience. A virtual experience is a psychological and emotional state consumers
undergo while interacting with 3D visual products in a computer-mediated envi-
ronment (Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2001). The conceptualization of a virtual
experience has emerged because technological developments indicate a move-
ment toward more multisensory interactions incorporating high-quality visuals,
stereo sound, and rich imagery (Fiore, Jin, & Kim 2005; Soukup, 2000).
Fundamentally, it is the interactive and vivid nature of 3D product visuali-
zation that stimulates a consumer’s mental processing when experiencing a

570 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 571

sensory-rich mediated environment. Higgins (1996) refers to this process as an

activation of accessible knowledge via salient influences that serve to prime
an individual during a stimulus event. Salient experiences in turn are capable
of raising attention (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992), affecting memory (Higgins
et al., 1994), provoking judgments (Higgins & Brendl, 1995), and ultimately
influencing behavior when information is contextually accessible (Higgins &
Chaires, 1980). The implication from examining 3D product visualization is that
knowledge is made accessible and applicable and thus is more likely to have a
positive impact on learning, to encourage evaluation, and to affect behavior. The
result is heightened perception from the experience serving as a simulation
heuristic generated from the imagery created (Schlosser, 2003).
Klein (1998) suggests the greatest value of a virtual experience is that it
allows consumers to assess product performance prior to purchase, essentially
turning experience attributes into search attributes for products. By so doing,
a virtual experience could be perceived as being equivalent to a direct experi-
ence. This occurs because virtual experience incorporates elements of both indi-
rect and direct experiences, exceeding the limits of each. Like traditional
advertising, 3D product visualization enables consumers to form prior hypothe-
ses by framing the information presented. However, different from traditional
forms of advertising, 3D product visualization is able to offer user control over
the inspection of a product. In fact, it is the control that positions a virtual expe-
rience similarly to direct experience because consumers are able to inspect 3D
products from different perspectives at their own pace. This level of control is
not simply a representation of an actual product, but rather a simulation of the
consumption experience.
Traditionally, effective consumer learning is assumed to be a critical media-
tor of consumption and is ascertained from cognitive, affective, and/or conative
dimensions (Hutchinson & Alba, 1991; Lutz, 1985; Wright & Rip, 1980). Like-
wise, numerous techniques for measuring advertising effectiveness are intended
to examine components of an ad from the same domains (Beerli & Santana, 1999;
Ehrenberg, 1974; Karson & Fisher, 2005; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; MacInnis &
Jarworski, 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981), such as information recall or product
knowledge, brand attitudes or attitudes toward specific advertisements, and
purchase or behavior intent. Certainly, measuring the effects of consumer learn-
ing should be the ultimate goal for identifying consequences associated with
interactive 3D forms of virtual experience.

EXPERIMENT 1

The concept of virtual experience is used in this study with the claim that it shares
the properties of both direct and indirect experience. It shares properties of indi-
rect experience because it is a mediated representation of an object or world. How-
ever, more so than with past media, virtual experience shares the properties of
direct experience because consumers can interact with objects and products
through multisensory iconic representations that simulate the properties of direct
experience. The research proposition is that consumers are more likely to per-
ceive a virtual experience to be richer than indirect experience and closer to direct
experience because of interactivity, vividness, personal relevance, enjoyment,

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 571

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 572

and a sense of presence stimulated when examining 3D interactive products

(Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2001, 2002, 2003). Consequently, virtual experience
should mimic consumer evaluations involving direct experience (i.e., null hypoth-
esis) yet exceed that of indirect experience, resulting in the following hypothesis:

H1: Virtual experience will result in (a) greater product knowledge, (b) a more
favorable brand attitude, and (c) elevated purchase intent than exposure
to an indirect experience.

Method
Experiment Design. To test the hypothesis, a between-subjects design was
used with indirect, direct, and virtual consumer experiences serving as the inde-
pendent variables. Traditional advertising effectiveness measures, such as prod-
uct knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intent served as the dependent
variables.

Participants. A total of 90 undergraduate students enrolled at a major mid-

western university participated in the experiment and were randomly assigned
to one of the three experimental conditions.

Stimuli. Product. To investigate the impact of a virtual experience compared

to an indirect and a direct experience, the test product needed (1) to be effec-
tively represented in each type of experience, (2) to require participants to engage
in information processing, (3) to contain both search and experience attributes,
and (4) to represent an impartial brand of interest. The first parameter stems from
the need to minimize the differences between the stimulus materials in order to
properly isolate the type of experience as the influencing variable. Thus, the pre-
sentation of the product needs to be as identical as possible throughout all con-
ditions, with the only differences stemming from the inherent features of each
experience. The second parameter is necessary to engage the participants in
active processing for evaluation of the test product. This is commonly achieved
in consumer behavior research by informing participants that they will be asked
to record their opinions and thoughts on completion of the study (Kempf & Smith,
1998). In addition, previous research investigating the impact of experience in con-
sumer learning has also indicated that a higher-involving type of product should
produce more evaluative processes (Marks & Kamins, 1988; Smith & Swinyard,
1982). High involvement is defined as any product requiring extensive informa-
tion gathering and problem solving from a consumer to make a purchase deci-
sion. Finally, the third and fourth requirements are important in order to balance
the expected evaluation criteria to prevent biasing one type of experience over
another and to minimize any preconceived brand preference.
Numerous products were evaluated and considered prior to the selection of
a digital video camera as the test product. A digital video camera was judged
appropriate because it represents a high-involvement purchase item that can
be evaluated using both experience attributes (i.e., weight, size, visual clarity,
etc.) and search attributes (i.e., price, warranty, special effect features, etc.). To
confirm this, a pretest (n
76) was conducted using a six-item seven-point scale
constructed from successfully tested items for determining levels of involve-
ment (Zaichkowsky, 1985) with participants asked to rate their purchase decision

572 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 573

for a digital video camcorder (unimportant/important, of no concern/of concern

to me, irrelevant/relevant, means a lot to me/means nothing, doesn’t matter/mat-
ters to me, insignificant/significant to me). The results indicated that participants
overall felt a digital video camcorder is slightly above average in product pur-
chase involvement (M
4.11, SD
1.11) (
.90). Further, to increase the
legitimacy of the study, a reputable digital video camcorder company needed to
be selected and tested for preference. Participants were asked to rate the per-
ceived quality of five digital video camcorder brands (Cannon, JVC, Panasonic,
Sharp, and Sony) using a seven-point scale (low quality/high quality) with Pana-
sonic identified as an acceptable brand given its moderate rating (M
4.88,
SD
1.18). A complete list of the brand ratings is presented in Table 1 within
the Method section of Experiment 2.
Materials. The first step in developing the stimulus material was to identify
salient product attributes using a free-elicitation technique recommended by
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and common in consumer learning research (Kempf &
Smith, 1998; Smith, 1993). During the pretest, participants were asked to write
down the most important product attributes they would consider when buying
a digital video camcorder. A total of 27 different attributes were listed with an
average of 5.18 per participant. Price was the most salient attribute listed (70%)
followed by size and weight (66%), special effects such as zoom (47%), quality
(43%), ease of use (41%), brand name (38%), warranty (38%), video clarity (36%),
and battery length (24%). The results of the free-elicitation technique were used
to design the virtual, indirect, and direct experience stimulus materials. Because
the purpose of the study was to isolate each experience, the message content
served as a control with the information held constant across each experience.
Furthermore, the message appeal was positively framed, using phrases such as
“crystal clear detail” and “easy to use functionality,” and combined with an
informative approach derived from the pretest of salient attributes. The Pana-
sonic logo, slogan, and graphic image of the product were placed in identical
locations throughout the stimuli.
Of course, there are inherent differences associated with each experience
that distinguish the stimuli. The 3D product Web site, representing the vir-
tual experience, provided the ability to rotate and control product movement
from all angles, allowed users to zoom in and out for detailed inspection, used
animation to simulate movement of the LCD display, and identified each com-
ponent as the mouse moved over the product. Each of these interactive fea-
tures was identified from previous research as creating an effective virtual
experience (Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2001). For the indirect experience, a pro-
fessionally produced two-page, full-spread, four-color print advertisement iden-
tical in layout and content to the Web site was constructed. The spread format
was used because it allowed for the most accurate layout and ratio of space
between the text and visual elements of the virtual and indirect stimulus mate-
rial. Finally, the direct experience allowed the full sensory inspection of the
digital video camcorder. In order to remain consistent across stimuli, the phys-
ical product was presented along with the same information as each of the pre-
vious experiences using the magazine ad (minus the product image) as a
point-of-purchase display.

Procedure. The study was conducted in a laboratory setting and began with
the administration of a short survey designed to collect background information

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 573

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 574

on each participant. In particular, the questionnaire was designed to measure

participant involvement with the product and prior brand preference using the
same items from the aforementioned pretest (see Table 1 within the Method
section of Experiment 2). Once the survey was completed, participants were
escorted by a research assistant into a large laboratory and seated in the area
corresponding to their randomly assigned condition. Participants were instructed
that the purpose of the study was to record their evaluation of the product and
to thoroughly examine the materials in order to determine how they think and
feel about the product. For the virtual experience condition, brief navigation
instructions were given to explain how to rotate and zoom in or out to examine
the product. Further, in order to minimize overexposure to one type of experi-
ence yet provide enough duration not to hinder the inherent advantages asso-
ciated with direct and virtual experiences, examination times were restricted to
five minutes. Finally, participants were told that upon completion of their exam-
ination they would be asked to complete a survey to record their evaluation.
This served to prime participants to engage in cognitive processing and is con-
sistent with previous consumer experience studies (Kempf & Smith, 1998).

Dependent Measures. The dependent variables (product knowledge, brand

attitude, and purchase intention) were measured using established seven-point
semantic differential and Likert-type items.
Product Knowledge. An established three-item scale was used to assess par-
ticipants’ self-reported product knowledge (Smith & Park, 1992). More specifi-
cally, participants were asked to indicate their agreement (strongly
disagree/strongly agree) regarding how knowledgeable they felt about the prod-
uct, the amount of additional information they would need to make a purchase
decision, and a quality judgment of the product using seven-point Likert-type
items. While Smith and Park’s (1992) original scale included a fourth item (i.e.,
the ability to provide advice to a friend about different brands), previous research
indicated low reliability, resulting in the exclusion of the item from this study
(Biocca, Li, & Daugherty, 2001).
Brand Attitude. Overall brand attitude was assessed using a reliably proven
and valid six-item scale common in advertising effectiveness measurement
(Bruner, 1998). Participants were asked to indicate how they feel about the prod-
uct using seven-point semantic differential items (bad/good, unappealing/appeal-
ing, unpleasant/pleasant, unattractive/attractive, boring/interesting, dislike/like).
Purchase Intention. Purchase intent is a common effectiveness measure and
often used to anticipate a response behavior. Thus, an established four-item
seven-point semantic differential scale (unlikely/likely, improbable/probable,
uncertain/certain, definitely/definitely not) was used to measure the likelihood
that participants would purchase the evaluated product (Bearden, Lichtenstein, &
Teel, 1984).

Results
Data Analysis. The sample consisted of 66 women (73.3%) and 24 men
(26.7%) with an average age of 21.7 (SD
1.93). In addition, the majority of par-
ticipants were upperclassmen including 68 seniors (75.6%), 18 juniors (20.0%),
and 4 sophomores (4.4%). Reliability assessment was conducted using Cronbach’s
alpha on the dependent variables with composite measures used during analysis

574 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 575

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00 Product knowledge

Brand attitude
Purchase intent
1.00
Indirect Virtual Direct
Figure 1. Product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention across experi-
ence conditions.

to reduce measurement error. All scales exceeded the generally accepted guide-
line of .70 (Hair et al., 1998, p. 118).

Hypothesis Testing. The results show significant main effects for product
knowledge, F (2,89)
17.09, p  .01, h2
.28; brand attitude, F (2,89)
3.90,
p  .05, h2
.08; and purchase intention, F (2,89)
8.69, p  .01, h2
.17, sug-
gesting the dependent measures were affected differently across the treatment
conditions (Figure 1). To test for the possibility of confounding effects due to
individual differences associated with product involvement and/or brand pref-
erence, a multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted on each of the
dependent variables. Controlling for involvement and brand preference for Pana-
sonic did not eliminate the observed effects for product knowledge, F (4,85)

14.1, p  .01, h2
.41; brand attitude, F (4,85)
5.21, p  .01, h2
.20; and pur-
chase intention, F (4,85)
20.83, p  .01, h2
.51.
Univariate contrast comparisons were conducted to test the proposed hypoth-
esis, which stated that a virtual experience would heighten product knowledge,
increase brand attitude, and elevate purchase intention above an indirect expe-
rience. Indeed, the results support the hypothesis with participants reporting
significantly higher product knowledge (M
4.57, SD
1.21), brand attitude
(M
5.40, SD
.96), and purchase intention (M
3.39, SD
1.31) from a vir-
tual experience compared to the reported product knowledge (M
2.78, SD

1.42, t(58)
5.26, p  .01), brand attitude (M
4.68, SD
1.18, t(58)
2.61,
p  .05), and purchase intention (M
2.18, SD
1.36, t(58)
3.49, p  .01)
from evaluating the indirect experience. As expected, the null hypothesis was
supported with no reported differences for brand attitude (M
4.94, SD
.88,
t(58)
1.93, p  .05), and purchase intention (M
3.38, SD
1.17, t(58)
.05,
p  .05) for direct experience relative to virtual experience. Surprisingly, though,
a significant difference was detected for product knowledge with participants indi-
cating they felt more knowledgeable from the virtual rather than the direct
experience (M
3.23, SD
1.04, t(58)
4.58, p  .01).

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 575

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 576

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this first experiment was to expand the theoretical knowledge of
consumer learning by testing the impact of a virtual experience compared to
indirect and direct consumer experiences. Rather than provide absolute evidence
in support of a virtual product experience, this study extends our understanding
of the cognitive, affective, and conative outcomes traditionally associated with con-
sumer learning to include the combination of this new type of consumer experi-
ence. The result is that consumers are more likely to perceive the examination
of products in a virtual experience as being richer than indirect experience. Par-
ticipants reported significantly higher levels of product knowledge, brand atti-
tude, and purchase intention after evaluating the Web site incorporating 3D
product visualization compared to the magazine advertisement. This suggests that
the virtual experience enhanced consumer learning, as measured from these
constructs, over the indirect experience. In turn, the virtual experience was
expected to emulate the effects of direct product experience with no differences
between the two evaluations. While no significant differences between direct and
virtual experiences were detected for brand attitude and purchase intention,
surprisingly, participants indicated more product knowledge after evaluating
the test product in the virtual experience rather than the direct experience. Per-
haps the impact of virtual experience is not understood by simply testing dif-
ferent experiences, but rather the greatest influence may come from the
combination of experiences as marketers engage in traditional advertising, direct
consumers to product Web sites, and rely on product exposure via retail stores.

EXPERIMENT 2

While comparing the individual differences between indirect, virtual, and direct
experience is an important first step, examining the interaction of these expe-
riences could offer marketers greater insight in developing online marketing
strategy. Smith and Swinyard’s (1982) Integrated Information Response Model
illustrates how exposure to advertising typically generates lower-order beliefs
leading to product awareness and trial, which represents an attempt by the
consumer to move toward higher-order beliefs via direct experience interaction.
However, indirect experience, such as advertising, under certain circumstances
can lead to higher-order beliefs for products high in search attributes relying less
on direct experience (Wright & Lynch, 1995). Essentially, the predisposition cre-
ated by advertising is reinforced by product trial elevating consumer learning.
Yet, when product trial precedes advertising, the confidently held higher-order
beliefs formed from direct experience overshadow the indirect experience, lim-
iting the overall evaluation. From an advertising perspective, the traditional
sequence of exposure enhancing consumer learning the most occurs when indi-
rect experience precedes direct experience, with numerous findings supporting
this model (Marks & Kamins, 1988; Moore & Lutz, 2000; Smith, 1993; Smith &
Swinyard, 1983; Wright & Lynch, 1995).
Because 3D product visualization incorporates elements of both indirect and
direct experience, virtual experience can potentially exceed the limits of each type
individually (Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2001, 2002, 2003). For instance, both indi-
rect and virtual experiences are mediated occurrences that provide marketers

576 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 577

the ability to deliver persuasive forms of communication. In most cases, however,

interactive advertising, such as 3D product visualization, provides richer experi-
ences than indirect experience, including traditional advertising. Similarly, virtual
experience is also able to resemble direct experience since both provide elements
of interactivity with products. For example, the ability to visually inspect a prod-
uct from all angles is easily simulated in a 3D environment. In addition, like direct
product experience, 3D virtual experiences allow consumers to examine products
from varying distances by zooming in or out during inspection. Thus, a virtual
experience is able to incorporate benefits of both indirect and direct experiences
in consumer learning, which is perhaps the strongest advantage.
The purpose of the second experiment is to extend our understanding by test-
ing the impact of a virtual experience in combination with indirect and direct
product experiences compared to traditional indirect and direct sequential expo-
sures. Based on the aforementioned literature and findings from Experiment 1,
a virtual experience should emulate the expected outcomes associated with the
sequence of exposure from direct experience when combined with indirect expe-
rience. Meaning, there should be no differences between an indirect Sdirect and
an indirect Svirtual experience sequence (and vice versa) when the sequences
correspond in the same order (i.e., null hypothesis). However, a considerable
amount of research has supported the proposition that cognitive, affective, and
conative measures are influenced by repeated exposure to both direct and indirect
experience (Batra & Ray, 1986; Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Fazio et al., 1982; Mitchell &
Olson, 1977). Research investigating the general priming of repeated stimuli
evaluations (Higgins, Bargh, & Lombardi, 1985), as well as the influence of
advertising repetition, has demonstrated positive influences associated with
frequency of exposure (Berger & Mitchell, 1989; Sawyer, 1981). The overall
proposition is that repeated exposure in evaluative terms allows individuals to
process more information, thus influencing consumer learning. Since virtual
experience is theoretically closer to direct experience, the sequential exposure
involving virtual and direct experiences, as well as direct and virtual experi-
ences, will increase consumer learning over sequences involving indirect and
direct experience, resulting in the following hypotheses:

H2: Exposure to an indirect Svirtual experience sequence will result in

(a) greater product knowledge, (b) a more favorable brand attitude, and
(c) elevated purchase intent than will exposure to a directSindirect expe-
rience sequence.

H3: Exposure to a virtualSdirect experience sequence will result in (a) greater

product knowledge, (b) a more favorable brand attitude, and (c) elevated
purchase intent than will exposure to an indirectSdirect experience
sequence.

H4: Exposure to a virtualSdirect experience sequence will result in (a) greater

product knowledge, (b) a more favorable brand attitude, and (c) elevated
purchase intent than will exposure to a directSindirect experience sequence.

Because of the similarity between virtual and direct experiences, a direct

experience is not expected to limit the overall evaluation of a product for a vir-
tual experience as typically experienced in the directSindirect sequence.

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 577

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 578

H5: Exposure to a directSvirtual experience sequence will result in (a) greater

product knowledge, (b) a more favorable brand attitude, and (c) elevated
purchase intent than will exposure to an indirectSdirect experience
sequence.

H6: Exposure to a directSvirtual experience sequence will result in (a) greater

product knowledge, (b) a more favorable brand attitude, and (c) elevated
purchase intent than will exposure to a directSindirect experience
sequence.

Method
Experiment Design. To test the hypotheses, a between-subjects design was
used with the type of product evaluation experience (indirect, direct, and virtual)
paired together and sequentially alternated, resulting in six test conditions.

Participants. A total of 166 undergraduate students enrolled at a major mid-

western university participated in the experiment and were randomly assigned
to each condition. Further, none of the respondents took part in the first
experiment.
Independent Variables. The independent variables were manipulated as a
sequence of exposure involving a paired combination of indirect experience
(mediated traditional print advertising), virtual experience (mediated interac-
tive 3D advertising), and direct experience (unmediated product trial). The
paired combination of two out of the three types of experiences was essential to
isolate and determine the impact of a virtual experience relative to indirect and
direct product experiences. Furthermore, this method allows for comparisons
across previous research testing the sequential impact of indirect and direct
product experiences (Marks & Kamins, 1988; Moore & Lutz, 2000; Smith, 1993;
Smith & Swinyard, 1983). The sequence of exposure was manipulated by alter-
nating the order in which participants were exposed to the stimulus material.
For instance, in the virtual experience participants evaluated the test product
via two conditions: virtual-direct sequential exposure or virtual-indirect sequen-
tial exposure. In turn, direct and indirect experiences were sequentially ordered
similarly for each experience.

Procedure. This study used the same stimulus materials as in Experiment 1

and was conducted in a laboratory setting with participants randomly assigned
to each condition. In addition, a strict protocol was scripted and followed to
minimize external influence and ensure consistency. The study began with the
administration of the same short survey previously detailed to gather back-
ground information and measure product involvement and brand preference
(Table 1). Once the survey was completed, participants were seated in an
area designed for the appropriate experience corresponding to their assigned
condition.
For illustrative purposes, only the virtual-direct experience sequence condition
is described in detail. Participants were instructed that the purpose of the
study was to record their evaluation of the product and to thoroughly examine
the Web site for the video camera in order to determine how they think and feel
about the product. Brief navigation instructions were given to explain how to

578 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 579

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation for Self-Reported Product Involve-

ment and Brand Preference.
Brand

Involvement Sony Canon Panasonic Sharp JVC

Pretest
Mean 4.11 6.04 5.16 4.88 4.59 4.33
St. Deviation 1.11 1.03 1.06 1.18 1.40 1.41
Experiment 1
Mean 4.35 6.00 5.09 4.93 4.63 4.34
St. Deviation 1.15 .99 .97 1.21 1.43 1.29
Experiment 2
Mean 4.10 6.09 5.33 5.10 4.73 4.59
St. Deviation 1.12 .97 1.28 1.16 1.30 1.15

interact with the product as in Experiment 1. In order to minimize overexpo-

sure, yet provide enough duration not to hinder the inherent advantages asso-
ciated with direct and virtual experiences, examination times were again
restricted to five minutes. Following the virtual experience, research assistants
escorted participants to the second experience station depending on their con-
dition, which is direct experience in this example. Approximately two to three
minutes elapsed between when a participant exited the first experience until
beginning the second experience. Participants were again instructed to take the
next five minutes to thoroughly examine the video camcorder to determine
how they think and feel about the product. Finally, they were told that on com-
pletion of their examination they would be asked to take a survey to record
their evaluation.

Results
Data Analysis. The sample consisted of 84 women (50.6%) and 82 men
(49.4%) with an average age of 21.8 (SD
2.35). Reliability assessment was
again conducted on the dependent variables using Cronbach’s alpha and found
acceptable with composite measures used accordingly.

Hypothesis Testing. The results show significant main effects for product
knowledge, F (5,165)
3.04, p  .05, h2
.09; brand attitude, F (5,165)
16.52,
p  .01, h2
.34; and purchase intention, F (5,165)
2.66, p  .05, h2
.08, sug-
gesting the dependent measures were affected differently across the treatment
conditions. Furthermore, participants indicated the highest level of product
knowledge when exposed to a direct experience preceding a virtual experience
(M
4.63, SD
1.24) (Table 1). However, exposure to a virtual experience
preceding both indirect (M
5.48, SD
.92) and direct (M
5.55, SD
.97)
experiences accounted for the strongest impact on brand attitude. Participants
exposed to a virtual experience preceding an indirect experience (M
3.58,
SD
1.36) indicated they were more likely to purchase the test product
(Figure 2). Results of the MANCOVA again indicated that controlling for involve-
ment and brand preference did not eliminate the observed effects for product

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 579

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 580

3
Product knowledge
2 Brand attitude
Purchase intent
1
I-D D-I I-V V-I V-D D-V

Figure 2. Product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention across sequen-
tial exposure conditions.

knowledge, F (7,166)
5.80, p  .01, h2
.20; brand attitude, F (7,166)
11.89,

p  .01, h2
.34; and purchase intention, F (7,166)
6.65, p  .01, h2
.22.
Univariate contrast comparisons were conducted to test the proposed hypothe-
ses. Based on the proposition that a virtual experience will function more closely
as a direct experience, the second set of hypotheses predicted that an indi-
rectSvirtual exposure sequence should result in greater product knowledge,
brand attitude, or purchase intention than a directSindirect exposure sequence.
This expectation stems from previous research on consumer learning that has
established that indirectSdirect sequences are greater than directSindirect. If
a virtual experience emulates direct experience, the same order should hold
true. Results reveal that product knowledge and brand attitude were indeed
greater when participants were exposed to an indirectSvirtual exposure
sequence compared to a directSindirect sequence, as expected, supporting H2a
and H2b. However, hypothesis H2c was rejected because participants indicated
they were significantly more likely to purchase the product after exposure to a
directSindirect sequence (Table 2).

Sequential Exposure Conditions. The next set of hypotheses are based

on the proposition that sequential exposure involving the combination of a vir-
tual and direct experience will increase consumer learning because virtual expe-
rience behaves more like product trial, and repeated exposure in evaluative
terms allows individuals to process more information. Thus, Hypothesis 3 states
that exposure to a virtualSdirect experience sequence will increase product
knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention above an indirectSdirect
sequence. Contrast comparisons support the prediction for brand attitude (H3b),
as well as provide marginal support for purchase intention (H3c), with a
virtualSdirect sequence positively influencing participants over an indirectS
direct sequence. Yet, participants literally reported no differences between the
two conditions pertaining to how knowledgeable they felt about the product,
and H3a was rejected.

580 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 581

Table 2. Contrast Comparisons for Sequential Exposure Conditions.

Independent Variables

ISD DSI ISV VSD DSV F p

Product knowledge
H2a — 3.51 4.38 — — 8.00 .00
H3a 4.31 — — 4.31 — .000 .99
H4a — 3.51 — 4.31 — 6.75 .01
H5a 4.31 — — — 4.63 1.086 .30
H6a — 3.51 — — 4.63 13.24 .01
Brand attitude
H2b — 3.31 4.64 — — 22.25 .00
H3b 4.82 — — 5.55 — 6.67 .02
H4b — 3.31 — 5.55 — 65.23 .00
H5b 4.82 — — — 4.97 .258 .61
H6b — 3.31 — — 4.97 34.57 .00
Purchase intention
H2c — 3.39 2.67 — — 4.76 .04
H3c 2.67 — — 3.23 — 2.96 .08
H4c — 3.39 — 3.23 — .226 .64
H5c 2.67 — — — 3.22 2.85 .09
H6c — 3.39 — — 3.22 .253 .62

Hypothesis set 4 predicts that a virtualSdirect exposure sequence will result

in greater product knowledge, more favorable brand attitudes, and elevated
purchase intent over a directSindirect exposure sequence. The results verify
that product knowledge and brand attitude were higher for participants in the
virtualSdirect sequence than in the directSindirect exposure sequence, sup-
porting H4a and H4b. However, H4c was rejected as no differences were
detected. By simply reversing the sequential exposure combination of virtual
and direct experiences, the fifth set of hypotheses assert that a directSvirtual
experience sequence will result in greater product knowledge, more favorable
brand attitudes, and elevated purchase intention than an indirectSdirect
sequence. The results indicate no differences between product knowledge, brand
attitude, and only moderate support for purchase intention across the treatment
conditions.
Finally, exposure to a directSvirtual sequential experience was predicted to
have a greater impact on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase
intention than a directSindirect sequence. The combination of a virtual with
direct experience resulted in participants reporting increased product knowledge
and more favorable brand attitudes over a directSindirect sequence, support-
ing H6a and H6b. Yet, H6c was rejected, as neither sequence resulted in par-
ticipants more likely to purchase the product.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to expand the theoretical knowledge of con-
sumer learning by testing the sequential impact of a virtual experience when

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 581

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 582

paired with a direct or indirect experience. Therefore, a virtual experience

was expected to emulate the behavior of direct experience resulting in the
reinforcement of cognitive, affective, and conative measures because virtual
experience is posited to be richer than indirect experience and closer to direct
experience. The results largely support the proposed model for product knowledge
and brand attitude when participants were exposed to an indirect experience
followed by a virtual experience, as well as combinations of virtual and direct
experience.
A considerable amount of research supports the notion that repeated expo-
sure in evaluative terms allows individuals to process more information, result-
ing in increases in cognitive, affective, and conative measures (Berger &
Mitchell, 1989; Mitchell & Olsen, 1977; Sawyer, 1981). Because a virtual expe-
rience is theoretically closer to direct experience, any sequential exposure
involving the combination of virtual and direct experiences together (i.e., VSD
or DSV) should increase consumer learning over all other sequential expo-
sures. The experiment provides partial support for this proposition. For
instance, in terms of increasing product knowledge, a virtualSdirect sequence
and a directSvirtual sequence were only found to be significantly greater
than a directSindirect exposure sequence. Since previous research has doc-
umented the value of advertising when evaluating search attribute-oriented
products (Wright & Lynch, 1995), perhaps increases in product knowledge
would be greater for a virtualSdirect sequence when testing a more experi-
entially driven product. However, in terms of increasing brand attitude, the
strongest impact resulted primarily from the virtualSdirect exposure sequence.
As one might expect, both the virtualSdirect sequence and directSvirtual
sequence resulted in more favorable brand attitudes than the directSindi-
rect sequence. When compared with the indirectSdirect exposure sequence,
a virtualSdirect sequence was perceived as increasing higher-order brand
attitude beliefs. The plausible explanation is that because a virtual experience
incorporates elements of both indirect and direct experience, the combination
of information cues and the simulation of sensory experience reinforces the
effectiveness.
The implications of these results also strongly suggest that advertising com-
bined with virtual experience (i.e., indirectSvirtual) could be considered as an
alternative to product sampling for increasing brand attitudes, but further
research is needed to reaffirm these results. Of course, this also could poten-
tially represent some type of novelty or enjoyment effect as well. For purchase
intention, there were marginally significant differences when comparing
virtualSdirect and directSvirtual sequences against an indirectSdirect
sequence. In comparison, the indirectSvirtual exposure sequence resulted in
even higher purchase intentions compared to the virtualSdirect and directS
virtual sequences over an indirectSdirect sequence; however, these findings
should be interpreted with caution considering the limited differences across
comparisons.

Limitations
Inherent within any study are limitations that affect the overall validity and reli-
ability of the results. With regard to this study, there are obvious limitations that
should be considered when interpreting the research findings. One limitation is

582 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 583

the use of a student sample in combination with conducting a laboratory exper-

iment. This type of experiment restricts the external validity and should be
kept in mind when interpreting the results. While strong consideration and
planning took part in the selection of an appropriate test product, the use of a
student sample combined with an expensive brand of digital camcorder more
than likely influenced the behavior measure. Furthermore, the product cate-
gory was selected because it matched the necessary virtual features as well as
combined various search and experience attributes. However, the selection of
different product categories or incorporation of alternative brands including
more search or experience attributes could impact the results. As a result, these
findings are certainly not generalizable to all products and situations. Another
limitation is that Internet access and computer performance was controlled in
this study with participants not exposed to the effects of slow download times
or poor computer performance. The findings of this study should be more per-
tinent in e-commerce when consumers can access 3D product visualization
through broadband Internet connections.

CONCLUSIONS

Fundamentally, the results of this research have established virtual experience

as an alternative consumer experience, suggesting that it resembles product
trial more closely than traditional forms of advertising. Because marketers are
capable of exerting influence over the consumer learning process (Hoch &
Deighton, 1989), a virtual experience may extend product knowledge, affect
brand attitude, and influence purchase by enhancing e-commerce sites using
3D visualization technology. The verified relationship between established cog-
nitive, affective, and conative effectiveness measures reinforces the need for
marketers to consider the impact of virtual experience in planning indirect and
direct marketing tactics. Consideration of these findings suggests that a vir-
tual experience in combination with indirect or direct experience is capable of
increasing product knowledge and influencing brand attitude over individual and
traditional types of sequential exposure.
While the impact of an indirectSvirtual sequence was not always statistically
different from other combinations, this fact does not mean a sequential exposure
involving a virtual experience is less effective. To fully understand the impact
of utilizing 3D products in consumer learning, more theoretical research is
needed that is designed to explore the unique and distinctive characteristics
which separate virtual experience from other consumer actions. In addition, research
designed to explore the impact of message-content appeals, low-involvement prod-
ucts, and alternative types of sensory immersion (auditory) are essential to fully
understand the potential impact a virtual experience offers marketers. Finally,
this study represents two laboratory experiments in a new and relatively under-
explored area. Therefore, replications and extensions of this work are needed to
verify and validate the results and to fully understand the impact of a virtual
experience and 3D product visualization. Under the present experimental con-
ditions, however, it is reasonable to conclude that a virtual experience can emu-
late the expected outcome from a direct product experience while exceeding it
in certain instances.

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 583

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 584

REFERENCES

Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moder-
ating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 432–445.
Bearden, W. O., Lichtenstein, D. R., & Teel, J. E. (1984). Comparison price, coupon, and
brand effects on consumer reactions to retail newspaper advertisements. Journal of
Retailing, 60, 11–34.
Beerli, A., & Santana, J. (1999). Design and validation of an instrument for measuring
advertising effectiveness in the printed media. Journal of Current Issues and Research
in Advertising, 21, 11–30.
Berger, I., & Mitchell, A. (1989). The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, atti-
tude confidence, and the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer Research,
2, 269–279.
Biocca, F., Li, H., & Daugherty, T. (2001). Experiential ecommerce: Relationship of phys-
ical and social presence to consumer learning, attitudes, and decision-making. Presented
at Presence, 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence in Philadelphia, PA,
May 21–23.
Bruner, G. C. (1998). Standardization and justification: Do ad scales measure up? Jour-
nal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 1–18.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cog-
nitive response, recall and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 97–109.
Deighton, J. (1984). The interaction of advertising and evidence. Journal of Consumer
Research, 11, 763–770.
Ehrenberg, A. (1974). Repetitive advertising and the consumer. Journal of Advertising
Research, 14, 25–34.
Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility,
attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the object evaluation association.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339–357.
Fiore, A. M., Jin, H., & Kim, J. (2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image inter-
activity and responses toward an online store. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 669–694.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analy-
sis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In
E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic princi-
ples (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., & Lombardi, W. (1985). Social cognition and social perception.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 218–243.
Higgins, E. T., & Brendl, M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some “activation rules”
influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 218–243.
Higgins, E. T., & Chaires, W. M. (1980). Accessibility of interrelational constructs: Impli-
cations for stimulus encoding and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
16, 348–361.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections
for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 276–286.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience.
Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–20.
Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of prod-
uct experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–233.

584 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 585

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-based

environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50–68.
Huang, M. (2006). Flow, enduring, and situational involvement in the web environment:
A tripartite second-order examination. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 383–411.
Hutchinson, J. W., & Alba, J. W. (1991). Ignoring irrelevant information: Situational deter-
minants of consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 325–345.
Karson, E. J., & Fisher, R. J. (2005). Reexamining and extending the dual mediation
hypothesis in an on-line advertising context. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 333–351.
Kempf, D. S., & Smith, R. E. (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and the influ-
ence of prior advertising: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing
Research, 35, 325–338.
Klein, L. R. (1998). Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a different
lens: Search versus experience goods. Journal of Business Research, 41, 195–203.
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G.A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertis-
ing effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, 59–62.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2001). Characteristics of virtual experience in ecom-
merce: A protocol analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 13–30.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3D advertising on product knowl-
edge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal
of Advertising, 31, 43–58.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2003). The role of virtual experience in consumer
learning. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 395–405.
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A
conceptual framework. In L. F. Alwitt & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes
and advertising effects: Theory, research and application (pp. 45–63). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements:
Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–23.
Marks, L., & Kamins, M. (1988). The use of product sampling and advertising: Effects of
sequence of exposure and degree of advertising claim exaggeration on consumers’
belief strength, belief confidence, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 25,
266–282.
Mitchell, A., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Cognitive effects of advertising repetition. In W. D.
Perreault, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 4, pp. 213–220). Atlanta, GA:
Association for Consumer Research.
Moore, E. S., & Lutz, R. J. (2000). Children, advertising and product experience: A mul-
timethod inquiry. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 31–48.
Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 729–754.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary
approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). The accessibility of source likability as a
determinant of persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 19–25.
Sawyer, A. G. (1981). Repetition, cognitive responses, and persuasion. In R. E. Petty et al.
(Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 237–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in a virtual world: The role of goals and
imagery in influencing attitudes versus intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30,
184–198.
Smith, R. E. (1993). Integrating information from advertising and trial: Processes and
effects on consumer response to product information. Journal of Marketing Research,
30, 204–219.
Smith, R. E., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and
advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 296–313.
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated
approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 81–93.

VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE 585

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar257_20_20225.qxd 5/27/08 12:14 PM Page 586

Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude-behavior consistency: The impact of

product trial versus advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 257–267.
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1988). Cognitive response to advertising and trial: Belief
strength, belief confidence and product curiosity. Journal of Advertising, 17, 3–14.
Soukup, C. (2000). Building a theory of multi-media CMC. New Media & Society, 2,
407–425.
Wright, A. A., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1995). Communication effects of advertising versus
direct experience when both search and experience attributes are present. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 708–718.
Wright, P., & Rip, P. D. (1980). Product class advertising effects on first time buyers’ deci-
sion strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 176–188.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 341–352.

The authors would like to thank Bonnie Reece and Steve Edwards for their comments
and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript and Matt Eastin, Carrie Trimble,
and Harsha Gangadharbatla for their assistance during the data collection.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Terry Daugherty, Department
of Advertising, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78729 (Terry.
Daugherty@mail.utexas.edu).

586 DAUGHERTY, LI, AND BIOCCA

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

View publication stats