Advertisement

Presenting Your Products in Virtual Reality: Do not Underestimate Cybersickness

  • Kai Israel
  • Christopher ZerresEmail author
  • Dieter K. Tscheulin
  • Lea Buchweitz
  • Oliver Korn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11588)

Abstract

For e-commerce retailers it is crucial to present their products both informatively and attractively. Virtual reality (VR) systems represent a new marketing tool that supports customers in their decision-making process and offers an extraordinary product experience. Despite these advantages, the use of this technology for e-commerce retailers is also associated with risks, namely cybersickness. The aim of the study is to investigate the occurrence of cybersickness in the context of the customer’s perceived enjoyment and the perceived challenge of a VR product presentation. Based on a conceptual research framework, a laboratory study with 533 participants was conducted to determine the influence of these factors on the occurrence of cybersickness. The results demonstrate that the perceived challenge has a substantially stronger impact on the occurrence of cybersickness, which can only be partially reduced by perceived enjoyment. When realizing VR applications in general and VR product presentations in particular, e-commerce retailers should therefore first minimize possible challenges instead of focusing primarily on entertainment aspects of such applications.

Keywords

Cybersickness Virtual reality Product presentation User experience 

References

  1. 1.
    Guttentag, D.A.: Virtual reality. Applications and implications for tourism. Tour. Manag. 31(5), 637–651 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malone, T.W.: Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces. In: Nichols, J.A., Schneider, M.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 63–68. ACM Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lau, K.W., Lee, P.Y.: Shopping in virtual reality: a study on consumers’ shopping experience in a stereoscopic virtual reality. Virtual Reality (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Disztinger, P., Schlögl, S., Groth, A.: Technology acceptance of virtual reality for travel planning. In: Schegg, R., Stangl, B. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017, pp. 255–268. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manis, K.T., Choi, D.: The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. J. Bus. Res. (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DiVi Inc: The lost future: VR shooter. https://www.icaros.com. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  7. 7.
    ARLOOPA Inc. Augmented and virtual reality apps: chemistry VR – cardboard. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.arloopa.chemistryvr. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  8. 8.
    Fusion Tech Inc: Stanford health anatomy tours. https://appadvice.com/app/stanford-health-care-anatomy-tours-with-vr/1101932135. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  9. 9.
    Sotheby’s international realty: 3D tours and virtual reality on sothebysrealty.com. https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/virtual-reality. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Arns, L.L., Cerney, M.M.: The relationship between age and incidence of cybersickness among immersive environment users. In: IEEE Proceedings. VR 2005. Virtual Reality, 2005, pp. 267–268. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stanney, K.: Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way. In: Proceedings Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium 1995, pp. 28–34. IEEE Computer Society Press (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    LaViola, J.J.: A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 32(1), 47–56 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mousavi, M., Jen, Y.H., Musa, S.N.B.: A review on cybersickness and usability in virtual environments. Adv. Eng. Forum 10, 34–39 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reason, J.T.: Motion sickness adaptation: a neural mismatch model. J. R. Soc. Med. 71(11), 819–829 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riccio, G.E., Stoffregen, T.A.: An ecological theory of motion sickness and postural instability. Ecol. Psychol. 3(3), 195–240 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Treisman, M.: Motion sickness: an evolutionary hypothesis. Science 197(4302), 493–495 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shafer, D.M., Carbonara, C.P., Korpi, M.F.: Modern virtual reality technology: cybersickness, sense of presence, and gender. Media Psychol. Rev. 11(2) (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pausch, R., Crea, T., Conway, M.: A literature survey for virtual environments: military flight simulator visual systems and simulator sickness. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1(3), 344–363 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jinjakam, C., Hamamoto, K.: Simulator sickness in immersive virtual environment. In: The 5th 2012 Biomedical Engineering International Conference, pp. 1–4. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manus VR: The pinnacle of virtual reality controllers. https://manus-vr.com. Accessed 16 Jan 16 Jan 2019
  22. 22.
    Birdly®: The ultimate cream of flying. https://www.somniacs.co/. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  23. 23.
    Teslasuit: full body haptic suit. https://teslasuit.io. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  24. 24.
    Taclim: The VR haptic feedback system for human limbs that further immerses you in VR worlds. https://taclim.cerevo.com. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  25. 25.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghani, J.A., Deshpande, S.P.: Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human-computer interaction. J. Psychol. 128(4), 381–391 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22(14), 1111–1132 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B.: Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Market. 46(3), 92 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim, J., Fiore, A.M., Lee, H.-H.: Influences of online store perception, shopping enjoyment, and shopping involvement on consumer patronage behavior towards an online retailer. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 14(2), 95–107 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ozkara, B.Y., Ozmen, M., Kim, J.W.: Examining the effect of flow experience on online purchase: a novel approach to the flow theory based on hedonic and utilitarian value. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 37, 119–131 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scarpi, D.: Work and fun on the internet the effects of utilitarianism and hedonism online. J. Interact. Market. 26(1), 53–67 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nichols, S., Haldane, C., Wilson, J.R.: Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 52(3), 471–491 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin, J.J.-W., Duh, H.B.L., Parker, D.E., Abi-Rached, H., Furness, T.A.: Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In: Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2002, pp. 164–171. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Litman, J.: Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: wanting and liking new information. Cogn. Emot. 19(6), 793–814 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E.: Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 24(4), 665–694 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moon, J.-W., Kim, Y.-G.: Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf. Manag. 38(4), 217–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rouibah, K.: Social usage of instant messaging by individuals outside the workplace in Kuwait: a structural equation model. Inf. Technol. People 21(4), 34–68 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P., Fincham, F.D.: Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. J. Pers. Assess. 82(3), 291–305 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Loewenstein, G.: The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol. Bull. 116(1), 75–98 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klein, L.R.: Creating virtual product experiences: the role of telepresence. J. Interact. Market. 17(1), 41–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nowak, K.L., Biocca, F.: The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12(5), 481–494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Steuer, J.: Defining virtual reality. Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 42(4), 73–93 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sanchez-Vives, M.V., Slater, M.: From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 332–339 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J.: Interactive advertising and presence. J. Interact. Advertising 1(2), 56–65 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Song, K., Fiore, A.M., Park, J.: Telepresence and fantasy in online apparel shopping experience. J. Fashion Market. Manag. Int. J. 11(4), 553–570 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P.A.: Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116(1), 2–20 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hair, J.F., Hult, T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2017)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: SmartPLS 3. http://www.smartpls.com. Accessed 16 Jan 2019
  51. 51.
    Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Yung, Y.-F.: Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modeling approach. Market. Sci. 19(1), 22–42 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S.: Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J. Retail. 77(4), 511–535 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3(3), 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dijkstra, T.K., Henseler, J.: Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 39(2), 297–316 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43(1), 115–135 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science, Burlington (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Geisser, S.: A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61(1), 101–107 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Stone, M.: Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 36(2), 111–147 (1974)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Marcoulides, G.A.: Modern Methods for Business Research. Psychology Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Israel
    • 1
  • Christopher Zerres
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dieter K. Tscheulin
    • 2
  • Lea Buchweitz
    • 1
  • Oliver Korn
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences OffenburgOffenburgGermany
  2. 2.University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations