Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Consumer Behavior Towards Virtual Reality Service

  • Fei-Hui HuangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)


This study evaluates the user experiences (UXs) of watching a 360° scooter ride video in a laboratory using a fully immersive virtual reality (VR) system. The aim is to understand of the factors that will impact VR service adoption in experiencing a scooter ride. This study adopts the technology acceptance model (TAM) to investigate the factors that may influence user acceptance of fully immersive VR service. Data were collected from an experiment involving a total of 46 individual scooter commuters. The participants were asked to use the scooter VR service and to complete a questionnaire. The results verified that the important factors that influence a user’s usage intention in a scooter VR services were found to be ‘perceived ease of use’ and ‘attitude’. Based on these results, a number of suggestions are proposed for the design of related VR service for strengthening the advantages of VR service in experience for simulated vehicle rides.


Technology acceptance model Virtual reality Immersive experiences 


  1. 1.
    Hertel, P.T.: Remembering reactions and facts: the influence of subsequent information. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 8(6), 513–529 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keller, K.L.: Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 57, 1–22 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heim, M.: Virtual Realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burdea, G.C., Coiffet, P.: Virtual Reality Technology. Wiley, Hoboken (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Villa, C., Labayrade, R.: Validation of an online protocol for assessing the luminous environment. Light. Res. Technol. 45(4), 401–420 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fonseca, D., Kraus, M.: A comparison of head-mounted and hand-held displays for 3600 videos with focus on attitude and behavior change. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (AcademicMindtrek 2016), pp. 287–296. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ray, M.: Virtual reality. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica (2016).
  8. 8.
    Ajzen, I.: From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl, J., Beckman, J. (eds.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behaviour, pp. 11–39. Springer, New York (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S.: The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park, S.Y.: An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(3), 150–162 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century: Improving the Health of Diverse Populations. Speaking of health: assessing health communication strategies for diverse populations (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latan, H., Ghozali, I.: Partial Least Squares: Concept and Application Path Modelling using Program XLSTAT-PLS. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, H., Daugherty, T., Biocca, F.: Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence’. J. Advert. 31(3), 43–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowry, P.B., Gaskin, J., Twyman, N., Hammer, B., Roberts, T.: Taking ‘fun and games’ seriously: proposing the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM) (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schepers, J., Wetzels, M.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inf. Manag. 44, 90–103 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22(14), 1111–1132 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, I.J., Yang, K.F., Tang, F.I., Huang, C.H., Yu, S.: Applying the technology acceptance model to explore public health nurses’ intentions towards web-based learning: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 45(6), 869–878 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    King, W.R., He, J.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 740–755 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Distribution ManagementOriental Institute of TechnologyPan-ChiaoTaiwan, R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations