The Effects of Virtual Reality on Consumer Learning: An Empirical Investigation1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As competition in business-to-consumer e-commerce becomes fiercer, Web-based stores are attempting to attract consumers’ attention by exploiting state-of-the-art technologies. Virtual reality (VR) on the Internet has been gaining prominence recently because it enables consumers to experience products realistically over the Internet, there by mitigating the problems associated with consumers’ lack of physical contact with products. However, while the employment of VR has increased in B2C e-commerce, its impact has not been explored extensively by research in the IS field. This study investigates whether and under what circumstances VR enhances consumer learning about products. In general, VR enables consumers to learn about products thoroughly by providing high-quality three-dimensional images of products, interactivity with the products, and increased telepresence. In addition, congruent with the theory of cognitive fit, the effects of VR are more pronounced when it exhibits products whose salient attributes are completely apparent through visual and auditory cues (because most VR on desktop computers uses only those two sensory modalities to deliver information). Based on these attributes, we distinguish between two types of products—namely, virtually high experiential (VHE) and virtually low experiential (VLE) products—in terms of the sensory modalities that are used and required for product inspection. Hypotheses arising from the distinctions expressed by these terms were tested via a laboratory experiment. The results support the predictions that VR interfaces increase overall consumer learning about products and that these effects extend to VHE products more significantly than to VLE products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".