Effects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality on Visitor Experiences in Museum

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the impact of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) on the overall visitor experience in the context of museum. In tourism research, few attempts have been made to examine factors which enhance visitor experience using new and emerging technologies such as VR & AR respectively, however research on visitor experience in the mixed environment by combining both VR & AR is scarce. In particular, this study examined the impact of social presence on visitor experience in the mixed (VR & AR) environment by applying social presence theory and experience economy theory. Questionnaires administered to 163 museum visitors revealed that social presence in mixed (VR & AR) environments is a strong predictor of four realms of experience economy. Furthermore, all aspects of experience economy, except for esthetic experience, have a significant influence on visitor experience, which consequently induce the tourists’ intention to revisit Geevor museum. The results of this study provide theoretical and managerial implications for adoption of VR & AR technologies in museum.

Full text

Effects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality on
Visitor Experiences in Museum
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the impact of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)
on overall visitor experience in the context of museum. In tourism research, few attempts have
been made to examine factors enhancing visitor experience using new and emerging technologies
such as VR & AR respectively, however research on visitor experience in the mixed environment
by combining both VR & AR is scarce. In particular, this study examined the impact of social
presence on visitor experience in the mixed (VR & AR) environment by applying social presence
theory and experience economy theory. Questionnaires administered to 163 museum visitors
revealed that social presence in mixed (VR & AR) environments is a strong predictor of 4 realms
of experience economy. Further, all aspects of experience economy, except for esthetic
experience, have significant influence on visitor experience, which consequently induce tourists’
intention to revisit Geevor museum. The results of this study provide theoretical and managerial
implications for adoption of VR & AR technologies in museum.
Keywords: Virtual Reality; Augmented Reality; Visitor Experience; Experience Economy;
Museum
1 Introduction
Many cultural tourism organisations tried to use Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual
Reality (VR) to enhance the visitor experience (Jung et al., 2015). Particularly AR
started to be picked up by tourism practitioners as a tool for the provision of tourism
information and creation of an enjoyable and interactive tourism experience as
examples such as Dublin AR (Han et al., 2014), AR at Deoksugung palace in South
Korea (Lee et al., 2015b) or Manchester Art Gallery (Leue et al., 2015) show. VR has
a number of implementations within the tourism context, according to Guttentag (2010),
ranging from planning and management, marketing, entertainment and education to the
preserving of history and accessibility of tourism attractions and destinations. However,
in tourism research, little attempts have been made to examine factors enhancing visitor
experience using both AR and VR technologies.
Social presence is referred to “the extent to which other beings (living or synthetic) also
exist in the virtual environment” (Schuemie et al., 2001, p. 184)” and it is considered
as one of the key factors which influences on experiences. The role of social presence
was previously investigated focusing on the VR environment and with an increase in
importance of VR & AR within the tourism context, tourists are increasingly immersed
in the real and virtual environment. Thus, social presence is gaining importance in the
tourism context (Lee, 2002). According to Kang and Gretzel (2012), the less tourists
perceive their experience to be artificial or mediated, the more strongly social presence
occurs. While most studies about social presence have focused on the VR environment,
only limited study focused on the roles of social presence in the context of AR
environment or in the mixed (VR & AR) environment. Therefore, the aim of this paper
is to examine whether visitor’s overall experience could be enhanced by social presence
in the mixed (VR & AR) environment and further inducing revisit intention to visitor
attraction.

2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
The potential of AR to enhance immediate surroundings through the projection of
digital content into users’ real environment has been discussed in various research
contexts (Jung et al., 2013). For the tourism industry, an increasing number of scholars
recognise the potential of AR for the enhancement of the tourism experience (Jung et
al., 2015; tom Dieck et al., 2015). Through the use of marker or location-based AR
applications, tourists are able to receive instant information on unknown surroundings
(Han et al., 2013). Especially for cultural heritage sites, AR allows for the provision of
digital signage and content without compromising on the original architecture or
landscape (Han et al., 2013). Furthermore, Leue et al., (2015) revealed that the
availability of enjoyable and engaging AR applications can contribute to a tourism
learning experience.
In contrast to VR, AR allows tourists to naturally experience attractions and
destinations with the enhancement of overlaid digital content (Jung et al., 2015). VR is
the full immersion in a digital created environment (Guttentag, 2010). Guerra et al.
(2015, p. 50) suggested that the “difference between augmented reality and virtual
reality is that the first digital information is added to images and real-life contexts, while
the second offers the user a new world in which he is immersed allowing, for example,
to fly over a city without taking his feet off the ground”. With the development of highly
powerful, low-cost and user-friendly VR devices such as Samsung Gear or Oculus Rift,
use cases and prototype application are starting to become publically and commercially
available. Tourism organisations such as Marriott recognised the opportunity to show
potential customers destinations and hotel facilities to decrease uncertainty and
facilitate the booking decision (Marriott, 2014). In addition, VR offers the opportunity
to tourists to visit endangered sites as a substitute to the real visitation in order to sustain
heritage attractions and destinations for generations to come (Guttentag, 2010).
Likewise, difficult-accessible sites can be made available to tourists using VR which is,
according to Guerra et al. (2015), beneficial for the conservation and study of culture
and tourism. According to Guerra et al. (2015), AR and VR are two technologies that
open new opportunities for the tourism industry and academia and industry needs to
identify and exploit these new technological possibilities. However, research
investigating mixed-reality, both AR and VR, is scarce and therefore, future research is
needed to understand the full potential of AR and VR in the tourism and visitor
attraction context.
2.2 Social Presence Theory
Presence is defined as “the sense of being in an environments” (Steuer et al., 1995) and
has been regarded as a crucial component for improving performance of medium by
providing users with experience of “being there” (Nowak & Biocca, 2003; Steuer et al.,
1995). Presence is multidisciplinary concept and numerous researchers have tried to
define or classify it (e.g. Heeter, 1992; Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Sheridan, 1999).
Lombard & Ditton (1997) represented presence as social richness, realism,
transportation, immersion, social actor within medium, medium as social actor. Heeter
(1992) classified presence into three types: personal, social and environmental presence.

Among them, social presence has been treated as a crucial component of technology
experience (Gefen & Straub, 2004; Kang & Gretzel, 2012; Schuemie et al, 2001).
According to social presence theory posited by Short et al. (1976), the amount of social
cues allowed in media are able to increase the degree of social presence. In other words,
social presence defined as “the extent to which other beings (living or synthetic) also
exist in the virtual environment” (Schuemie et al., 2001, p. 184). With technology
advance, numerous information systems used in tourism destinations (e.g. VR & AR)
have increasingly provided tourists with more real and immersive virtual environments,
which conveys strong social presence (Lee, 2002). In other words, the less technology
users perceive artificial or mediated experience, the more strongly social presence
occurs (Kang & Gretzel, 2012; Lee, 2002). Therefore, it is natural that social presence
has been actively investigated in the context of virtual environment provided by
information communication technologies (e.g. Kang & Gretzel, 2012; Lee et al., 2013;
Lewis & George, 2008; Nowak & Biocca, 2003; Schuemie et al., 2001). Kang &
Gretzel (2012) investigated the impact of social characteristic of podcast on social
presence, tourists experience and environmental stewardship. The results showed that
two characteristics of podcast (e.g. information source composition and narration style)
have influence on social influence, which ultimately influences on tourist’s experience
and attitudinal stewardship. Lee et al. (2013) examined the impact of social presence in
smartphone applications on tourist’s experience (educational, entertainment and escape)
and satisfaction. Social presence was found to predict entertainment and escape
experience that induce tourist’s satisfaction. However, in the context of AR, little has
been done to study the roles of social presence. In contrary to VR providing complete
virtual environment, AR provides virtual images that superimposed on the real world
view captured from the camera of device (Kounavis et al., 2012), thus, social presence
in AR environments can be different from that in VR environments. Therefore, this
study extended research territory to the AR environment by including both social
presence in VR & AR environments.
2.3 Experience economy
The paradigm of tourism business have been shifted from focusing product or service
itself to enhancing tourist’s experience and making it memorable (Pine & Gilmore,
1998; Oh et al., 2007). Tourist’s life is filled with mixed experiences which are not
simply classified bad or good (Löfgren, 2008). According to previous literature (e.g.
Urry, 1990; Kang & Gretzel, 2012), tourists experiences have socially and culturally
originate in various sensescapes such as soundscapes, smellscapes, and tastescapes.
Recently, numerous technologies also have been found to play important roles of
enriching tourist’s experience by facilitating interactions between tourists and
destination (Gretzel, 2010; Kang & Gretzel, 2012). The attempts to extend tourist’s
experience to technology-originated by investigating mixed experience of VR & AR is
needed.
Pine & Gilmore (1998)’s experience economy has been regarded as a predominant
concept in experience area. Pine & Gilmore (1998) insisted the importance of ‘stage
experience’, which is core product of tourism industry (Sternberg, 1997), and classified
‘staged experience’ into four realms (or dimensions) of experience economy by two

spectrums of participation (passive and active participation) and connection (absorption
and immersion): entertainment, education, esthetic, and escape experience (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Experience economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1998)
First of all, in education experience, tourists tends to participate in activities in tourism
destination in order to increase their skills and knowledge (Oh et al., 2007). For instance,
tourists are able to acquire information and knowledge about destination by using VR
or AR. In this vein, numerous studies have focused on the role of VR from the education
perspective (e.g. Mintz et al., 2001). Second, in entertainment experience, the most
prevalent concept of today’s tourism environments (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), tourists are
able to enjoy activities in tourism destination for pleasure. Entertainment (or enjoyment)
experience have been regarded as a crucial component of hedonic information system
adoption (e.g. Van der Heijden, 2004). Finally, Esthetic and escapist experience have a
feature of immersion, which is defined as “becoming physically or virtually a part of
the experience itself” (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 31). In this vein, esthetic and escapist
experience have been actively investigated by numerous research about VR (e.g.
Marković, 2010; Salem et al., 2009) and AR (e.g. Lee et al., 2015a, Lee et al., 2015b).
In these experience, tourists are able to be immersed in VR’s virtual world or AR’s
virtually enhanced real world (Di Serio et al., 2013). In other words, well-designed VR
& AR’s environments enable tourists to perceive authenticity (Guttentag, 2010), or to
enjoy from their tedious routine lives (Urry, 1990).
3 Research Model and Hypotheses Development
This study mainly investigates the relationship between social presence on visitor
experience through VR & AR mixed experience. Taking into consideration the
previous literature, we conceptualize the research model of this study in Fig. 2.
Absorption
Passive
participation Active
participation
Entertainment Education
Immersion
Esthetic Escapist

Fig. 2. Proposed research model
3.1 Social presence and experience economy
The importance of social presence on the IS learning, education and escape experience
in the tourism context has been thoroughly investigated by Kang and Gretzel (2012).
In addition, esthetics and entertainment are considered important dimensions of the
experience economy (Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Oh et al., 2007; Pine & Gilmore,
1998) and esthetics was found to influence AR acceptance (Lee et al., 2015a).
Integrating the AR and VR experience in all dimensions, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
H1: Social presence has a positive impact on education experience
H2: Social presence has a positive impact on esthetic experience
H3: Social presence has a positive impact on entertainment experience
H4: Social presence has a positive impact on escape experience
3.2 Experience economy and visitor experience
According to Pine and Gilmore (1998), the four realms of experience are essential
components for developing memorable experiences. Particularly in the tourism context,
staging of educational, entertaining, esthetic and escaping experiences are considered
important for satisfying vacations (Morgan et al., 2009). In addition, VR & AR are
technologies that facilitate learning and entertainment (Leue et al., 2015), offer esthetics
(Lee et al., 2015a) and contribute to the escaping of reality (Jung et al., 2015) and
therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5: Education experience has a positive impact on visitor experience
H6: Esthetic experience has a positive impact on visitor experience
H7: Entertainment experience has a positive impact on visitor experience
H8: Escape experience has a positive impact on visitor experience
Visitor
Experience
AR
Education
Education
Experience
VR
Education
AR
Escape
Escape
Experience
VR
Escape
Intention to
revisit attraction
H
5
H
6
H
7
H
8
H
9
AR
Social presence
Social Presence
VR
Social presence
: first order
: second order
H
1
H
2
H
3
H
4
AR
Esthetics
Esthetics
Experience
VR
Esthetics
AR
Entertainment
Entertainment
Experience
VR
Entertainment

3.3 Visitor experience and intention to revisit visitor attraction
The strong effect of experience towards behavioural intentions has been well proven
within previous research (Keng et al., 2007). According to Hosany and Witham (2010),
also in the tourism context, a well-staged experience leads to satisfied customers and
intentions to re-visit which is particularly important in the intangible tourism industry
and thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H9: Visitor experience has a positive impact on intention to revisit the visitor attraction
4 Methods
4.1 Data Collection
The data was collected at Geevor Tin Mine Museum in Cornwall from 15th to 16th of
July 2015. Every visitor visiting the museum during the days of experiments was asked
to participate in the research and 163 agreed to participate. The reason to approach
every visitor is due to small visitor numbers. As part of the experiment, participants
tried the Geevor AR application which provided overlaid text, video and audio as well
as 3D animations and avatars to further explain the museum and aspects of its history.
In addition, participants tried a Samsung Gear VR application which allowed them to
experience the lift ride down the mining shaft to re-enact how miners originally started
work. As the lift is currently not accessible to visitors, this experience was unique for
those using VR. After visiting the museum using AR and VR, the 163 participants
completed a questionnaire.
Fig. 3. Snapshot of VR & AR experience in Geevor Tin Mine Museum
4.2 Measures
Measurement items of this study were adopted from previous literature (e.g. Chung et
al., 2015; Gefen & Straub, 2003; Kim & Tussyadiah, 2013; Oh et al., 2007). Social
presence and 4Es experiences were measured as first-order constructs which have
reflective measurements of VR & AR. This procedure yield 47 items which are
summarized by each construct (Table 1). All items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree) by using 7-point-likert scale. The survey questionnaire was
developed in English.

5 Analysis and Results
5.1 Measurement model
In order to test the proposed research model (Fig. 2), we used a partial least squares
(PLS) regression analysis, using PLS-Graph version 3.0. With PLS-Graph, the analyses
were implemented by taking two steps: measurement model analysis and structural
equation modelling (SEM).
Chin (1998) suggested that before conducting SEM, reflective constructs be validated
through composite reliability, cronbach’s alpha and AVE. To be more specific,
composite reliabilities and cronbach’s alphas are required to be greater than the
threshold value of 0.7, and AVEs are required to exceed threshold value of 0.5.
Moreover, square roots of AVE for each constructs are required to exceed correlation
between that construct and other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). These
procedures establish composite reliability and discriminant/convergent validity of each
constructs. It was found that composite reliabilities (range from 0.848 to 0.966),
cronbach’s alphas (range from 0.718 to 0.952), and AVEs (range from 0.651 to 0.876)
of each constructs satisfied the requirements.
Table 1. Measurement model
Constructs & Measurement Mean S.D C.R alpha AVE
EDU
VR
I learned something new during VR use
5.95 0.81 0.883 0.823 0.654
The experience made me more knowledgeable
It stimulated my curiosity to learn new things
VR provided a good experience for learning
AR
I learned something new using AR
6.01 0.84 0.930 0.899 0.769
The experience has made me more knowledgeable
It stimulated my curiosity to learn new things
AR provided a good experience for learning
EST
VR
Using VR was very attractive
5.79 0.86 0.848 0.718 0.651
VR demo played close attention to detail
Using VR was very pleasant
AR
Using AR was very attractive
5.70 0.99 0.923 0.874 0.799 The setting of AR paid close attention to details
Using AR was very pleasant.
ENT
VR
Using VR was amusing
6.10 0.92 0.936 0.903 0.786
Using VR was captivating
Using VR was entertaining
Using VR was fun
AR
Using AR was amusing
5.51 1.09 0.942 0.916 0.802
Using AR was captivating
Using AR was entertaining
Using AR was fun
ESC
VR
I felt I played a different character when using VR
4.95 1.29 0.923 0.887 0.749
I felt like I was living in a different time or place
The VR experience let me imagine being someone else
I completely escaped from reality
AR I felt I played a different character when using AR 3.84 1.46 0.966 0.952 0.876

I felt like I was living in a different time or place.
The AR experience let me imagine being someone else
I completely escaped from reality
SCP
VR
There is a sense of human contact in VR
4.33 1.27 0.946 0.914 0.853
There is a sense of sociability in VR
There is a sense of human warmth in VR
AR
There is a sense of human contact in AR
4.73 1.46 0.965 0.945 0.902 There is a sense of sociability in AR
There is a sense of human warmth in AR
EXP
Using VR & AR contributed positively to my overall visitor experience.
5.79 0.99 0.959 0.935 0.886
Using VR & AR helped me to enjoy my travel.
Using VR & AR assisted me in gaining a meaningful visitor experience.
VST
I will visit Geevor again after experiencing VR & AR
4.55 1.18 0.917 0.881 0.738
I intend to visit Geevor frequently after experiencing VR & AR
I will continue to visit Geevor in the future after experiencing VR & AR
I want to recommend Geevor to others after experiencing VR & AR
Note. EDU = Education experience, EST=Esthetics experience, ENT=Entertainment experience,
ESC=Escape experience, SCP=Social presence, EXP=Visitor expereince, VST=Intention to revisit
attraction
Furthermore, we examined the relationships between the latent variables and their
corresponding constructs by checking cross-loadings. Table 2 shows that all items have
high loadings and cross-loadings on their corresponding constructs.
Table 2. Cross loadings for reflective items
Constructs
Loading
EDU EST ENT ESC SCP
EXP VST
VR AR VR AR VR AR VR AR VR AR
EDU VR1 .765** .463** .412** .410** .244** .395** .428** .369** .332** .280** .384** .344**
VR2 .861** .579** .575** .489** .419** .447** .513** .402** .425** .353** .528** .434**
VR3 .771** .587** .487** .491** .532** .494** .331** .258** .427** .286** .604** .520**
VR4 .836** .609** .712** .575** .596** .505** .480** .262** .398** .310** .648** .457**
AR1 .558** .847** .434** .578** .437** .484** .460** .297** .304** .402** .515** .381**
AR2 .636** .924** .442** .631** .488** .556** .511** .343** .387** .412** .635** .464**
AR3 .633** .849** .521** .675** .550** .675** .378** .331** .439** .392** .668** .504**
AR4 .607** .885** .530** .711** .521** .656** .381** .282** .357** .450** .635** .429**
EST VR1 .521** .485** .802** .449** .641** .457** .376** .195*.370** .288** .517** .410**
VR2 .603** .410** .737** .488** .421** .417** .483** .438** .488** .392** .534** .420**
VR3 .529** .435** .875** .468** .654** .410** .472** .264** .431** .302** .576** .375**
AR1 .539** .659** .513** .885** .530** .735** .410** .342** .433** .479** .590** .507**
AR2 .556** .634** .519** .867** .427** .590** .418** .374** .394** .426** .539** .434**
AR3 .544** .692** .526** .930** .540** .764** .478** .430** .449** .489** .634** .539**
ENT VR1 .396** .410** .536** .459** .802** .521** .345** .226** .354** .299** .545** .450**
VR2 .615** .572** .658** .496** .888** .522** .522** .288** .438** .399** .708** .498**
VR3 .451** .481** .613** .493** .928** .541** .463** .213** .346** .396** .616** .486**
VR4 .527** .551** .711** .531** .924** .553** .515** .267** .450** .424** .710** .512**
AR1 .446** .508** .461** .638** .515** .869** .286** .436** .381** .421** .559** .481**
AR2 .581** .653** .478** .704** .492** .860** .422** .492** .419** .514** .631** .496**
AR3 .512** .652** .503** .731** .599** .933** .404** .448** .437** .511** .646** .607**

AR4 .510** .611** .459** .720** .547** .918** .416** .454** .403** .493** .630** .581**
ESC VR1 .455** .349** .467** .403** .425** .371** .880** .593** .497** .395** .426** .415**
VR2 .527** .491** .501** .443** .433** .338** .885** .528** .516** .349** .452** .431**
VR3 .547** .493** .544** .507** .525** .434** .897** .519** .530** .438** .531** .494**
VR4 .336** .375** .389** .324** .428** .335** .797** .441** .430** .338** .415** .340**
AR1 .384** .333** .325** .354** .272** .489** .587** .931** .604** .469** .443** .471**
AR2 .368** .337** .340** .431** .246** .488** .581** .960** .597** .469** .438** .473**
AR3 .377** .363** .370** .430** .264** .461** .549** .924** .574** .504** .441** .402**
AR4 .358** .306** .348** .388** .268** .469** .543** .930** .602** .430** .406** .445**
SCP VR1 .470** .411** .533** .454** .447** .395** .522** .515** .916** .435** .519** .461**
VR2 .427** .397** .475** .440** .403** .423** .519** .586** .929** .514** .484** .497**
VR3 .465** .370** .470** .428** .394** .450** .541** .655** .926** .488** .486** .490**
AR1 .355** .432** .358** .474** .367** .502** .384** .435** .402** .939** .423** .350**
AR2 .358** .451** .383** .460** .448** .504** .425** .480** .498** .964** .465** .410**
AR3 .372** .461** .410** .544** .406** .537** .441** .504** .569** .946** .464** .399**
EXP EXP1 .628** .657** .650** .615** .695** .638** .485** .441** .506** .444** .952** .562**
EXP2 .623** .658** .617** .636** .680** .674** .468** .431** .504** .438** .959** .571**
EXP3 .655** .664** .635** .607** .684** .633** .536** .431** .506** .460** .912** .546**
VST VST1 .437** .412** .402** .457** .469** .544** .449** .474** .466** .342** .483** .923**
VST2 .411** .391** .336** .396** .333** .448** .389** .384** .386** .323** .389** .801**
VST3 .417** .392** .375** .429** .422** .470** .411** .417** .416** .377** .443** .888**
VST4 .549** .500** .526** .555** .579** .568** .408** .365** .486** .346** .639** .802**
Note. The diagonal letters in boldface are the cross loading of each constuct.
Moreover, as shown in Table 3, square root of AVE for each constructs were found to
be greater than correlations between that construct and other constructs. Based on these
procedures, reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of our measurement model
were established.
Table 3. Correlations among constructs
Construct Correlations
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
(1)VR_EDU 0.809
(2)AR_EDU .689** 0.877
(3)VR_EST .680** .549** 0.807
(4)AR_EST .605** .740** .586** 0.894
(5)VR_ENT .545** .568** .699** .558** 0.887
(6)AR_ENT .565** .673** .532** .777** .603** 0.896
(7)VR_ESC .539** .493** .555** .484** .519** .424** 0.865
(8)AR_ESC .403** .358** .384** .428** .282** .510** .601** 0.936
(9)VR_SCP .489** .425** .541** .477** .449** .457** .570** .634** 0.924
(10)AR_SCP .380** .471** .411** .518** .426** .539** .438** .498** .514** 0.950
(11)EXP .663** .701** .676** .657** .727** .687** .528** .461** .538** .474** 0.941
(12)VST .521** .492** .480** .532** .524** .587** .481** .478** .509** .403** .566** 0.855
Note. The diagonal elements in boldface in the “correlation of constructs” matrix are the square root of the
average variance extracted (AVE). For adequate discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be
greater than the corresponding off-diagonal elements. ** p<0.01

5.2 Structural model
Structural equation modelling was conducted in order to assess hypothesized
relationships. The size of bootstrapping was 500. The results were shown in Fig. 4 and
Table 4.
Fig. 4. Path estimates by PLS analysis
Social presence was found to have strong influence on all of the 4Es: education
(β=0.552 t=9.429, p<0.001), esthetic (β=0.626, t=12.487, p<0.001), entertainment
(β=0.604, t=11.496, p<0.001) and escape experience (β=0.690, t=16.321, p<0.001),
thus, the hypotheses H1 to H4 were supported. This indicates that social presence in VR
& AR environments is crucial factor of enhancing their users’ experience. Education
(β=0.302, t=3.412, p<0.001), entertainment (β=0.452, t=5.036, p<0.001) and escape
experience (β=0.096, t=1.842, p<0.1) were found to have impact on visitor experience,
and especially entertainment showed the strongest impact on visitor experience.
Therefore, Hypotheses H5, H7 and H8 were supported. In contrast, esthetic experience
was not found to significant influence visitor experience (β=0.085, t=0.918, n.s), thus,
Hypothesis H6 was not supported. This indicates that users’ esthetic experience
enhanced by VR & AR environments is not able to induce enhanced visitor experience.
Table 5. Standardized Structural Estimates and Test of the Hypotheses
Hypotheses Estimates t-value Results
H1 Social presence →Education experience 0.552 9.429 Supporte
d
H2 Social presence →Esthetic experience 0.626 12.487 Supporte
d
H3 Social presence →Entertainment experience 0.604 11.496 Supporte
d
H4 Social presence →Escape experience 0.690 16.321 Supporte
d
H5 Education experience →Visitor experience 0.302 3.412 Supporte
d
Tour
Experience
R
2
=0.701
AR
Education
Education
Experience
R
2
=0.304
VR
Education
AR
Esthetics
Esthetics
Experience
R
2
=0.392
VR
Esthetics
AR
Entertainment
Entertainment
Experience
R
2
=0.364
VR
Entertainment
AR
Escape
Escape
Experience
R
2
=0.476
VR
Escape
Intention to
revisit destination
R
2
=0.354
AR
Social presence
Social Presence
VR
Social presence
0.552
***
0.626
***
0.604
***
0.690
***
0.302
***
0.085
0.452
***
0.096
+
0.595
***
0.870
***
0.873
***
0.905
***
0.935
***
0.861
***
0.914
***
0.892
***
0.898
***
0.876
***
0.913
***
+
p<0.1,
***
p<0.001

H6 Esthetic experience →Visitor experience 0.085 0.918 Rejected
H7 Entertainment experience →Visitor experience 0.452 5.036 Supporte
d
H8 Escape experience →Visitor experience 0.096 1.842 Supporte
d
H9 Experience →Intention to revisit visitor
attraction 0.595 11.666 Supported
R2
Education experience 0.304 (30.4%)
Esthetic experience 0.392 (39.2%)
Entertainment experience 0.364 (36.4%)
Escape experience 0.476 (47.6%)
Visitor experience 0.701 (70.1%)
Intention to revisit visitor
attraction 0.354 (35.4%)
6 Discussion and Conclusion
The results showed that social presence in mixed (VR & AR) environments is a strong
predictor of 4 realms of experience economy. This result is partially similar with Kang
& Gretzel (2012)’ study which showed strong relationships between social presence
and experiences (e.g. enjoyment and escape experiences). Moreover, except for esthetic
experience, all of experience economy have significant influence on visitor experience,
which consequently induce tourists’ intention to revisit visitor attraction. Especially,
entertainment experience was found to be the strongest predictor of tour experience.
This phenomenon can be explained by carry-over effect which means that pleasure or
arousal evoked from an initial experience continues in subsequent experience (Menon
& Kahn, 2002). In our context, entertainment experience from VR and AR can lead to
enhanced overall tour experience.
Based on these results, the present study provides theoretical and practical implications.
One of the theoretical implications is that we extended the territory of social presence
research to AR environments. While numerous studies have focused on social presence
in VR environments, little study has been done in the context of AR environments.
However, because AR plays an important role of enhancing tourist’s social awareness
and experience as well as historical and geological knowledge (Jung et al., 2015), it is
meaningful to broaden the research territory of social presence to AR environments.
Moreover, the present study tried to investigate whether individual’s experience
enhanced by technologies such as VR and AR can contribute to improving overall tour
experience and even inducing intention to revisit tourism destination. Since only a small
number of studies (e.g. Kang & Gretzel, 2012; Pallud & Straub, 2014) have put
emphasize on the role of enhanced experience by technologies in inducing visitors to
return to physical destination, this study can be regarded as worthwhile. Finally, the
results of the present study provide VR and AR developers, tourism institutions and
organizations with practical implications. In order to enrich tourists’ experience and
ultimately attract them to revisiting the destinations, it is required to have more focus
on tourists’ social presence and experience in VR and AR environments. To be more
specific, by offering high quality of resolution or sound, more authentic VR and AR
environments in which tourists can be fully immersed should be provided. Moreover,
they should further the captivating factors such as avatars and 3D animations in order

to enhance tourists’ entertainment experience which are crucial factor of tourists’
overall experience and intention to revisit destination.
However, the present study has some limitations. First of all, we conducted experiments
with participants who were asked to use both VR and AR. Therefore, it is possible that
design and functional differences between VR and AR were ignored. Although we
focused mixed experience of VR and AR, it can be also meaningful to investigate
tourists’ social presence and experience in VR and AR environments separately.
Second, although experience economy of Pine & Gilmore (1998) has been regarded as
an eminent theoretical framework, other factors (e.g. technological, demographical,
perceptional, and so forth) to influence or be influenced by social presence also should
be investigated.
References
Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists’ intention to visit destination: Role of augmented
reality applications for heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior, 50: 588-599.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern
methods for business research, 295(2): 295-336.
Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on
students' motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68: 586-596.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.
Gefen, D. & Straub, D. W. (2003). Managing user trust in B2C e-services. E-service Journal,
2(2): 7-24.
Gretzel, U. (2010). Travel in the network: Redirected gazes, ubiquitous connections and new
frontiers. In Post-global Network and Everyday Life (pp. 41-58). In M. Levina & G. Kien
(Eds), NY: Peter Lang.
Guerra, J. P., Pinto, M. M. & Beato, C. (2015). Virtual Reality-Shows A new vision for tourism
and heritage. European Scientific Journal, 11(9): 49-54.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism
Management, 31(5): 637-651.
Han, D. I., Jung, T., & Gibson, A. (2013). Dublin AR: Implementing Augmented Reality (AR)
in Tourism, In Z. Xiang, & I. Tussyadiah (Eds), Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism (pp. 511-523). Springer Computer Science: New York,
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators
and virtual environments, 1(2): 262-271.
Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers' experiences, satisfaction, and
intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49 (3): 351-364.
Jung, S., Kim, S. & Kim, S. (2013). Augmented reality-based exhibit information personalized
service architecture through spectator's context analysis. International Journal of
Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 8(4): 313-320.
Jung, T., N. Chung, N. & Leue. M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use
augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management,
49: 75-86.
Kang, M. & Gretzel, U. (2012). Effects of podcast tours on tourist experiences in a national park.
Tourism Management, 33(2): 440-455.
Keng, C. J., Huang, T. L., Zheng, L. J., & Hsu, M. K. (2007). Modeling service encounters and
customer experiential value in retailing: An empirical investigation of shopping mall
customers in Taiwan. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(4): 349-
367.

Kim, J. & Tussyadiah, I. P. (2013). Social networking and social support in tourism experience:
The moderating role of online self-presentation strategies. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 30(1-2): 78-92.
Kounavis, C. D., Kasimati, A. E., & Zamani, E. D. (2012). Enhancing the Tourism Experience
through Mobile Augmented Reality: Challenges and Prospects. International Journal of
Engineering Business Management, 4(10): 1-6.
Lee, K. M. (2002). Social responses to synthesized speech: Theory and application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
Lee, H., Chung, N. & Jung, T. (2015a). Examining the Cultural Differences in Acceptance of
Mobile Augmented Reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland. In I. Tussyadiah &
A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (pp. 477-
491). Springer: Heidelberg.
Lee, H., Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2015b). Moderating Effects of Distrust and Social Influence on
Aesthetic Experience of Augmented Reality: Motivation--Opportunity--Ability Model
Perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic
Commerce 2015 (p. 22). ACM.
Lee, K., Lee, H. R., & Ham, S. (2013). The Effects of Presence Induced by Smartphone
Applications on Tourism: Application to Cultural Heritage Attractions. In Information
and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014 (pp. 59-72). Springer International
Publishing.
Leue, M. C., Jung, T. & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google Glass Augmented Reality: Generic
Learning Outcomes for Art Galleries. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information
and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (pp. 463-476). Vienna: Springer.
Lewis, C. C. & George, J. F. (2008). Cross-cultural deception in social networking sites and face-
to-face communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6): 2945-2964.
Löfgren, O. (2008). The Secret Lives of Tourists: Delays, Disappointments and Daydreams 1.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(1): 85-101.
Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Marriott (2014). #GetTeleported. Available at: http://news.marriott.com/2014/09/getteleported-
the-most-immersive-4-d-virtual-travel-experience-arrives-taking-guests-to-parts-
known-and-unknown-as-marri.html
Marković, S. (2010). Aesthetic experience and the emotional content of paintings. Psihologija,
43(1): 47-64.
Mehmetoglu, M. & Engen, M. (2011). Pine and Gilmore's concept of experience economy and
its dimensions: An empirical examination in tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 12(4): 237-255.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. (2002). Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the
Internet shopping experience. Journal of retailing, 78(1), 31-40.
Mintz, R., Litvak, S., & Yair, Y. (2001). 3D-virtual reality in science education: An implication
for astronomy teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
20(3): 293-305.
Morgan, M., Elbe, J., & de Esteban Curiel, J. (2009). Has the experience economy arrived? The
views of destination managers in three visitor-dependent areas. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 11(2): 201-216.
Nowak, K. L. & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users'
sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence,
12(5): 481-494.
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M. & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism
applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2): 119-132.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business
review, 76: 97-105.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business
a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Salem, B., Nakatsu, R., & Rauterberg, M. (2009). Kansei experience: aesthetic, emotions and
inner balance. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence,
3(2): 18-36.
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.
Sheridan, T.B. (1999). Descartes, Heidegger, Gibson, and God: Towards an eclectic ontology of
presence. Presence, 8: 551–559.
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London, England: Wiley.
Sternberg, E. 1997. The iconography of the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research,
24(4), 951-969.
Steuer, J., Biocca, F. & Levy, M. R. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining
telepresence. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual
reality. (pp. 33-56). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
tom Dieck, M.C. & Jung, T. (2015). A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance
in urban heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, online first: 1-21.
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze. London, U.K: Sage.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly,
28(4): 695-704.