Virtual reality is so cool! How technology innovativeness shapes consumer
responses to service preview modes

Vanja Bogicevic a,*, Stephanie Q. Liu b, Soobin Seo c, Jay Kandampully b, Nancy A. Rudd b a Jonathan M. Tisch Center of Hospitality, New York University, 7 East 12th St, New York, NY 10003, USA b Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA c Carson College of Business, Washington State University, 915 N Broadway, Everett, WA 98201, USA

ABSTRACT
Today’s hospitality brands often gain a competitive advantage through being cool and employing cutting edge
technologies. Virtual Reality (VR) is one of the most novel tools to advertise brands, introduce new products/
services, and draw customers. Despite the marketing potential of VR, there is scant research revealing the
psychological processes associated with the use of VR as a cool technology. To bridge the gap in the current
literature, this research examines how consumers with different degrees of technology innovativeness respond to
marketing of hospitality brands through three main service preview modes: VR, static images, and 360◦ tour. The

findings from a lab experiment show that as consumers’ technology innovativeness increases, VR boosts self-
brand connection that consequently elevates their visit intentions toward the hotel brand. The findings from

this study would help hospitality marketers better target their efforts at a specific consumer segment.

1. Introduction
   “If you’re going to make the decision of [booking] a cruise, wouldn’t it be
   COOL if you could check out the ship [virtually] before you spend that
   much money?”
   — Arthur Chapin, Expedia’s Senior Vice President, Product and
   Design
   Virtual reality (VR) embraces the potential of bringing people’s
   imagination and dreams closer to that of reality, and therefore, has been
   one of the most discussed and awaited innovative technologies in the
   business spheres (Panetta, 2017). In the 21st century’s market, there is a
   device for every customer’s pocket: from more affordable Google
   Cardboard and Samsung Gear add-ons that convert smartphones into VR
   devices to more elaborate Sony PlayStation VR, high-end Oculus Rift
   and Quest, and HTC Vive interactive, low-latency devices. Tourism and
   hospitality services have seen the rise in VR applications designed to
   market destinations and enhance tourism experiences (Bogicevic et al.,
   2019; Jung and tom Dieck, 2017; Marasco et al., 2018; Tussyadiah et al.,
   2018). Because of its sensory richness and the power to attract visitors
   (Kim et al., 2019; Yeh et al., 2017; Tussyadiah et al., 2018), VR has been
   aligned with ‘experiential marketing’ approaches that focus on creating

extraordinary experiences and impactful memories (Le et al., 2019).
Moreover, VR has been recognized as a useful advertising format for
brand managers seeking to elicit exciting, sophisticated, or rugged brand
personality (De Gauquier et al., 2019). As limited research contrasted
VR with traditional advertising formats (e.g., mobile VR video vs. video
ad) in its ability to prompt brand impressions, experiences and, purchase

intentions (Bogicevic et al., 2019; De Gauquier et al., 2019; Van Ker-
rebroeck et al., 2017) there is a need to compare VR with other mar-
keting tools. The current research focuses on the VR marketing of hotel

brands, which is yet to reach its full potential once the booking process is
integrated into hotel VR experiences (Revfine, n.d.).

One particular attribute brands employ to target customers is ‘cool-
ness’. Brands leverage coolness, defined as innovative fashionability and

originality (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2012), to elevate the brand above its
competitors (Warren et al., 2019). Interestingly, when consumers first
see VR experiential marketing, they typically say: “Cool!” (Burch, 2015).
Cool, as an epithet of approval and appreciation has been associated
with personality traits (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2012), brands that set global
trends (Warren and Campbell, 2014), and even technology platforms
such as Apple’s watch, Google’s Home, Amazon’s Alexa voice assistants,
or Tesla’s electric cars (Bruun et al., 2016; Sundar et al., 2014).
With the proliferation of curated, lifestyle brands, hotels are

competing to align their name with the coolest trends. For example,
Marriott is hoping to make W brand cool again and hotel guests pursue

self-validation by staying with cool and exciting hotels (Su and Rey-
nolds, 2017). Many operators believe that emerging technologies such

as Connie concierge robot at Hilton hotels, ChatBotlr front-desk chatbot,
VR Postcards destination at Marriott, and smart sensors add value and
relevance to its businesses in the marketplace (HTN, 2017; Liu and
Mattila, 2019; Stone, 2018). However, it is not clear whether supposedly
cool technologies spillover to positive hotel brand responses.
Despite the growing interest in VR marketing research (Beck et al.,
2019; Wei, 2019), little is known about how VR could shape consumers’
formation of brand impressions in comparison with images and 360◦
tours (Hudson et al., 2018; for notable exceptions see De Gauquier et al.
(2019) and Van Kerrebroeck et al. (2017). To bridge the gap in the
current literature, this research aims to extend the present knowledge
about the use of VR for hospitality branding from a marketing

perspective. Specifically, this research investigates the following ques-
tions: 1) How does VR compare with marketing tools such as images,

and 360◦ tours? 2) Can hotel brands leverage ‘allegedly cool’ VR tech-
nology in marketing to elicit favorable brand responses and consumer

behaviors?

Although coolness is proposed as a predictor of consumers’ self-
brand connection (Nevid and Pastva, 2014; Warren et al., 2019), pre-
vious literature has not empirically tested whether hospitality busi-
nesses could exploit VR (vs. more traditional marketing tools) to signal

coolness to consumers and prompt forming of brand bonds and behav-
ioral responses. The current study tests these relationships through a

laboratory experiment. In addition, it seeks to examine whether con-
sumers’ brand and behavioral responses depend on their personal pre-
disposition toward new technologies, namely technology innovativeness

(Parasuraman and Colby, 2015). Hotel consumers may think of VR as
cool; however, their technology innovativeness could moderate how

they connect with brands that use VR and develop visit intentions to-
ward the hotel brand (Fig. 1).

We start by reviewing the recent VR marketing literature and the
differences among the three service previews in our study (VR, images,
and 360◦ tours). Next, we define the concept of coolness in branding,
explain the relevance of coolness and technology for the formation of
self-brand connection, and introduce technology innovativeness as an
individual trait to build our conceptual framework. We then present the
study experimental methods and discuss our findings that VR, as a cool

service preview, motivates self-brand connection. As hospitality con-
sumers become more technology-innovative this self-brand connection

translates into visit intentions toward the hotel brand. Finally, we

conclude our paper with the relevant theoretical and managerial im-
plications and suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical background
   2.1. How VR compares with other service preview modes
   In the process of new tourism and hospitality product development,

marketers are implementing sensory-rich and interactive ways to visu-
alize a new hotel brand by informing consumers about its features,

interior design, amenities, location, and atmosphere via brand decks

with hotel images, 360◦ web-based tours, and recently VR. These pre-
view modes differ in technical affordances such as the ability to realis-
tically portray visuo-spatial perspective and the degree of interactivity

(i.e., the extent of users’ ability to manipulate the virtual environment).
Compared to static images, 360◦ tours allow users to change the viewing
angle of the virtual space and simulate rotation and movement which
results in increased interactivity and lessened visual bias (Lurie and
Mason, 2007). However, immersive, tethered VR extends the ability to
manipulate the virtual space by enabling real-time feedback, direct
interaction with virtual objects and navigation in space beyond the
simple control over gaze of 360◦ tours (Elmezeny et al., 2018; Ryan,
2015). Given their fundemental differences in realism and interactivity
dimensions, consumer may engage in different judgments and decision
making processes involving the same service encounter experience
presented by VR, 360◦ tour, and static images. Indeed, the shift in
destination branding from two-dimensional images to
three-dimensional virtual presentations via 360◦ web-based tours or
virtual worlds (Sundar et al., 2015) is found to increase brand equity
(Nah et al., 2011), boost storytelling about the brand (Cho et al., 2002),

and lead to more favorable ad and brand attitudes (vs. traditional bro-
chures) for specific tourism destinations and types of consumers (Chiou

et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2007).
While extant tourism and hospitality research has recognized the

positive association between consumers exposure to VR and their sub-
sequent behavior (Israel et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Pantano and

Servidio, 2011; Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2019), empirical
evidence of the advantage of VR over traditional marketing mediums (i.
e., 2D videos, images on websites and brochures) in eliciting tourists’

and customers’ behavioral intentions is inconsistent. Compared to ser-
vice previews via traditional marketing, VR is characterized by high

interactivity which drives its effectiveness (Bogicevic et al., 2019; Cho

et al., 2002; Leung et al., 2019). Additionally, VR prompts higher im-
mediate visit intentions toward a destination (Rainoldi et al., 2018; Yeh

et al., 2017), but not higher long-term hotel purchase intentions (Leung
et al., 2019). Alternative findings suggest that virtual visits may decrease
interest in visiting an actual destination when the experience between
the “real” and virtual destination is perceived as too similar (Deng et al.,
2018). Unlike this line of research, the current study focuses on the
context of a newly developed hotel brand which may not have an
explicit real-life destination reference point in consumers’ minds. To
lend further support to the former empirical insights that predict a

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of proposed relationships.

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

3

positive spillover of VR experiences on destination behavioral in-
tentions, we hypothesize that:

H1. VR preview mode evokes higher visit intentions toward the hotel brand
compared to a) static images and b) 360◦ tour preview mode.
2.2. Inferring coolness
Coolness is a desirable, though socially and culturally fluid trait
(Dar-Nimrod et al., 2012; Pountain and Robins, 2000). In business and
brand management, perception of coolness emerges from a brand’s or a
product’s attractiveness, originality, but also rebelliousness, norms
evasion, subcultural appeal, autonomy, and iconic symbolism
(Mohiuddin et al., 2016; Warren and Campbell, 2014; Warren et al.,

2019). Across various business contexts, Warren et al. (2019) demon-
strate that coolness strengthens brand outcomes (i.e., brand attitudes,

self-brand connection, brand love) and behavioral outcomes (i.e.,
word-of-mouth and willingness-to-pay-more).
Imbuing technology products or brands with coolness became an
imperative of user experience design because coolness increases the
appeal of technology innovations in the market (Raptis et al., 2017;
Read et al., 2011) and boosts evaluations, expectations, and adoption

(Kim et al., 2015). For instance, interactive technology devices charac-
terized by kinetic properties and haptic feedback can activate coolness

perceptions (Bruun et al., 2016; Sundar et al., 2014). Further anecdotal

evidence suggests that interactive visual technologies that provide im-
mediate feedback according to a users’ input, such as multi-touch

museum exhibitions, VR, and AR, are generally believed to be ‘cool
gadgets’ (Hornecker, 2008; Yim et al., 2017), although this proposition
has not been empirically tested. Unlike traditional marketing through
360◦ tours and two-dimensional images, fully immersive VR is designed
with highly interactive affordances (Rainoldi et al., 2018) which may
lend greater coolness perceptions. We propose to empirically examine
this notion through the following hypothesis:
H2. VR preview mode evokes higher coolness compared to a) static images
and b) 360◦ tour preview mode.
2.3. Why are technology and coolness relevant for brand management?
Hospitality literature implies that technology enhances consumers’
relationship with hospitality brands (King, 2017) and that
technology-infused integrated marketing communications contribute to
brand equity building (Seri ˇ ́c et al., 2014). Because hospitality marketing
and operations are heavily infused by technology (Liu and Mattila,
2019), it is important to consider how hospitality brands can extract
technology’s coolness for brand building purposes. As implied in Warren
et al.’s (2019) study, coolness is a predictor of self-brand connection,

conceptualized as the special emotional and cognitive bond that con-
sumers form with brands by integrating them into their self-concept

(Escalas and Bettman, 2003; Kemp et al., 2012; Park et al., 2010).
Consumers credit products and brands with symbolic meanings that
resonate with their own personally relevant identities (Escalas and
Bettman, 2003; Mittal, 2006; Park et al., 2010). By consuming or
experiencing a brand that signals ‘cool’, consumers hope to project
coolness on themselves.
Marketing communications are the key tools that help connect with
consumers and signal brand meanings (Fournier and Alvarez, 2019).
Fournier and Alvarez (2019) suggest that “technology also affects the
way brands are used as mechanisms for self-expression” (p. 526),
because it can strengthen or weaken how consumers integrate brands
into their self-concepts. This is true for marketing across many service
contexts that employ interactive technologies to change how consumers
construct their identities. For example, integrating interactive,
game-like elements in digital product demos helps engage consumers
with brands and thereby facilitates self-brand connection (Berger et al.,
2017). Compared to non-AR online retail environments, AR retail

environments enhance consumers’ abilities to express their own iden-
tities and develop deep emotional relationships (i.e., brand love) with

the store brands they are “virtually trying” (Huang, 2019). The height-
ened physical presence in a virtual retail environment elevates con-
sumers’ self-brand connection with a store brand (Jin and Bolebruch,

2009).
With its possibilities to simulate immersive, interactive experiences,

brand managers see VR as a medium that could enhance brand im-
pressions by captivating the audience in a brand’s story (O’Brien, 2017).

Building on prior research, we speculate that hospitality brands could
potentially employ technologically advanced VR marketing to signal
‘cool’ to consumers who are previewing a hotel brand and thereby
facilitate the formation of brand bonds. This proposition is formally
expressed in the following hypothesis:
H3. Perceived coolness mediates the effect of VR on self-brand connections.
2.4. The moderating role of consumers’ technology innovativeness
However, some consumers might be more intrigued by coolness
signaled through VR marketing than others. In the current research, we
focus on consumers’ technology innovativeness as a trait in influencing
their responses to service encounter experience presented by VR, 360◦
tour, and static images to understand customers’ technology-infused
experiences in hospitality and tourism (Tussyadiah, 2016; Wei, 2019).

Empirical research suggests that consumers’ low predisposition to-
ward technology leads to more negative sentiment toward technology-
infused marketing (Mady, 2011). Thus, brands seeking to communi-
cate their offerings via novel technology mediums should target con-
sumers with favorable views of technology that are relevant to their

self-concepts (Jackson et al., 2010). Trait technology innovativeness
captures consumer’s “tendency to be a technology pioneer and thought
leader” (Parasuraman, 2000, p. 311), and it identifies those who stand
out from the mainstream culture through early adoption of technology
gadgets (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Kim et al., 2015). Testing that idea

in the context of travel, extant research recognized individual technol-
ogy innovativeness as a predictor of usage of smartphones (Tussyadiah,

2016), self-service technologies (Kaushik and Rahman, 2017), AR
destination marketing platforms (Kourouthanassis et al., 2015), and as a
moderator of the relationship between VR vividness and presence (Wei
et al., 2019).
Further services and hospitality branding research draws on the
image congruence hypothesis (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967) to suggest
that consumers express more favorable views and consumption behavior
toward innovations that are congruent with their self-image (Kleijnen

et al., 2005). For example, more innovative resort guests exhibit stron-
ger self-image congruence with a resort brand, which leads to the

development of brand passion (Ahn, 2019). Likewise, the young,

affluent, and innovative consumer is more likely to exhibit positive at-
titudes toward cool products that reflect his/her self-identity (Noh et al.,

2014). In the context of marketing of hospitality brands, these views can
be unified by the idea that more technology innovative consumers are
expected to respond favorably to technological advancements in hotel
marketing.
Given that commercial VR devices, particularly the immersive,

tethered headsets have not become mainstream marketing tools, tech-
nology pioneers could be attracted by the coolness of VR and the

congruence between their self-identities and a hotel brand that employs
VR (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). Adopting a self-image congruency

view, we thereby predict that hotel consumers relatively high in tech-
nology innovativeness would respond more favorably to new brands

that utilize more interactive, and therefore cooler marketing mediums

such as VR (vs. static images and 360◦ web-based tour). Because cool-
ness signaling is important for brand building (van den Bergh and

Behrer, 2016), VR preview could motivate this group of consumers to
integrate the brand into their self-concepts. Hence, ensuring the fit

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

4
between the preview of hotel offerings and consumers’ technology

innovativeness could lead to enhanced brand responses and visit in-
tentions toward the hotel brand. The following hypotheses define the

proposed relationships:
H4. As consumer’s technology innovativeness increases, VR preview mode
evokes higher visit intentions compared to a) static images and b) 360◦ tour
preview mode.
H5. As consumer’s technology innovativeness increases, VR preview mode
evokes higher self-brand connection compared to a) static images and b) 360◦
tour preview mode.
2.5. The mediating role of self-brand connection
The self-brand connection is recognized in prior hospitality and
tourism literature as an important predecessor of consumer patronage
(Hemsley-Brown and Alnawas, 2016; Liu and Mattila, 2017). Warren
et al. (2019) also posit self-brand connection as a mediator between
coolness and behavioral outcomes toward a brand. In line with these
findings, we propose that when a hotel brand employs a
highly-interactive VR preview that signals coolness, they motivate
technology innovative consumers to reinforce their identity by forming
self-brand connections. As consumers become less apprehensive of new

technological gadgets, this self-brand connection can arise instanta-
neously, the moment that the brand is introduced to the consumers for

the first time. Such an immediate self-brand connection could reinforce
future visit intentions toward the new hotel. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H6. The effect of VR preview mode on visit intentions toward the hotel
brand is mediated through self-brand connection.
The conceptual framework with proposed relationships is displayed
in Fig. 1.

3. Methods
   3.1. Design, sample, and procedures
   The study was conducted as a between-subjects one-factor (preview

mode: static images vs. 360◦ tour vs. VR) lab experiment with technol-
ogy innovativeness as a self-reported continuous variable. Two-hundred

seventy-nine students, staff, and faculty were recruited through
university-generated mailing lists and incentivized with Amazon Gift
Cards to participate in the experiment over five weeks of data collection.

This targeted sample belongs to a population of well-travelled con-
sumers with adequate prior exposure to hotel marketing. To qualify for

participation, subjects were required to be over 18, with no prior history
of cybersickness, motion sickness, migraines, and seizures. Our sample
was mostly female (77%), Caucasian (75.9%), between 18 and 69 years
old with an average age of 23.02, and household income greater than
$49,999 (48.7%). In addition to basic demographics, participants in our
study reported their previous experience with the three preview modes
and hotels. 35.1% of respondents were experienced users of immersive

VR (i.e., used VR previously), in contrast to 76.7% of those who expe-
rienced 360◦ tour, and 79.6% of those who experienced computer-
generated images. More than 90% of respondents stayed at hotels

within a year of study participation and more than 37% have stayed at
extended-stay hotels in the past.
In the study scenario, participants were first instructed to imagine
they were taking an extended trip and were considering staying with a
fictitious hotel brand. Next, they were invited to view an interior of the
hotel suite and were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental
conditions (static images, 360◦ tour, or VR). In all conditions we used

the same hotel suite interior developed by a professional 3D visualiza-
tion company, however, we manipulated the preview mode across the

conditions. Those assigned to the static images condition saw 12 images

representing the hotel suite interior on a computer screen. In the second

condition, the same screen was used to display the hotel suite via a web-
based 360◦ tour. Participants assigned to the VR condition previewed

the hotel suite via a fully immersive, VR headset device (HTC Vive
brand). Experimental stimuli are displayed in Fig. 2.
To reduce researcher bias, the same researcher provided a scripted,
verbal explanation to participants in all three conditions. Across all
conditions, the researcher verbally explained to participants how to
explore the hotel suite using the assigned preview mode (e.g., switch
between images in images condition or navigate the environment in
360◦ tour and VR condition). The researcher minimized subsequent
interaction with participants during exposure to the stimuli and
reminded them to complete the survey before leaving the room. No
significant difference in dependent variables attributed to duration of
exposure to experimental stimuli was found across the conditions (Roy’s
Largest Root = .018, F(3, 273) = 1.600, p = 0.190). Participants’ prior
exposure to VR did not moderate the effect of preview mode on the
dependent variables (Roy’s Largest Root = .022, F(3, 271) = 1.966, p =
0.119).
3.2. Measures
The response variables were adapted from prior literature and
measured using 7-point Likert-type or semantic differential scales (see
Table 1). Manipulation effectiveness was measured with the perceived
interactivity item, adapted from Kalyanaraman and Sundar (2006)
(Please rate the extent to which the preview is interactive, 1 = not at all
interactive, 7 = extremely interactive).
The survey included additional questions to control for the

Fig. 2. Experimental stimuli (top to bottom: images, 360◦ tour, and
VR screenshot).

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

5
confounding effect of alternative individual-level differences among
participants. The first covariate, consumer’s need for uniqueness (NFU),

denotes an individual’s tendency to acquire goods, services, and expe-
riences to enhance a unique self-image (Tian et al., 2001). Because NFU

was suggested to influence the relationship between self-brand
connection and behavioral outcomes (Saenger and Thomas, 2014), we
measured it with Wan et al. (2013) scale (α = .821). Another covariate,

immersive tendencies, captures the extent of an individual’s involve-
ment and immersion in virtual environments. Specifically, those higher

on immersive tendencies have enhanced experiences in VR (Alcaniz ̃
et al., 2019). To control for the effect of immersive tendencies, we
assessed them via Witmer and Singer’s (1998) scale (α = .811).
In addition, we collected information about scenario realism (M =
5.84; t = 25.87, p < .001, as compared to the midpoint) and easiness of
imagining the described situation (1 = very difficult, 7 = very easy; M =
5.83; t = 21.95, p < 0.00, as compared to the midpoint).

4. Results
   4.1. Manipulation checks
   The results of a one-way ANOVA on perceived interactivity measure
   showed a main effect of preview mode (F(2,276) = 69.02, p < 0.001). On
   average, participants rated the interactivity of the VR preview the
   highest, followed by the 360◦ tour (MVR = 5.98 vs. M360 = 5.58, t = 2.85,
   p < .05), and then the static images (MVR = 5.98 vs. Mimg = 4.06, t =
   10.22, p < .001). As expected, the static images were rated as less

interactive than the 360◦ tour (t = 7.62, p < .001).
4.2. Main effects
4.2.1. Visit intentions toward the hotel brand
To test our Hypothesis 1 and investigate whether VR prompts higher
visit intentions than the static images and the 360◦ tour, we conducted a
one-way ANCOVA on visit intentions as the outcome, and immersive
tendencies, NFU, and frequency of hotel stay as control variables. The
results indicated a statistically significant effect of preview mode (F

(2,270) = 4.165, p < .05). The post-hoc test suggested that after con-
trolling for extraneous variables, on average, the VR preview prompted

higher visit intentions than the 360◦ tour and the images previews (MVR
= 5.72 vs. M360 = 5.38, p < .05; MVR = 5.72 vs. Mimg = 5.36, p < .05).
However, no differences in visit intentions were noticed between the
groups that previewed the hotel via the 360◦ tour and the images (p ~
1.00). The results lend support to Hypothesis 1 and suggest that the VR
preview elevates visit intentions compared to the traditional marketing
previews.
4.2.2. Perceived coolness
To examine whether VR is seen as a cool marketing tool, we
compared the average perceived coolness across the three modes of

hotel preview by conducting a one-way ANCOVA with immersive ten-
dencies, and NFU as controls. The analysis revealed that, on average,

there was a statistically significant difference in perceived coolness
among the three modes of preview (F(2,274) = 66.589, p < .001). More
specifically, pairwise comparisons showed that the VR preview was
perceived as cooler than the 360◦ tour (MVR = 6.54 vs. M360 = 5.71, p <
.001) and the images preview (MVR = 6.54 vs. Mimg = 5.13, p < .001),
whereas 360◦ tour was cooler than the images preview (p < .001).
Therefore, after controlling for the extraneous variables, the VR preview
was perceived as cooler than both images and 360◦ tour previews, thus
providing support for Hypothesis 2.
4.3. Moderation and mediation analyses
4.3.1. Simple mediation of perceived coolness
To examine whether the VR coolness effect spills over to self-brand
connection, we tested Hypothesis 3 using PROCESS macro with the
two dummies for preview mode as the focal predictors, NFU and
immersive tendencies as covariates, perceived coolness as the mediator
and self-brand connection as the outcome (Model 4: Hayes, 2013). The
analysis revealed a statistically significant indirect effect of the two
preview dummies on self-brand connection through perceived coolness
(DVR vs. Img: a1b1 = − 0.64; 95% CI [− 0.935, − .374]; and DVR vs. 360: a2b2

= − 0.38; 95% CI [− 0.594, − .202]), and statistically insignificant rela-
tive direct effect of the preview mode dummies on self-brand connection

(DVR vs. Img: c’1 = .40, t = 1.865, p = .06; and DVR vs. 360: c’1 = .09, t = .50,
p = .61). In conclusion, after controlling for extraneous variables NFU
and immersive tendencies, VR preview elevates self-brand connection
indirectly through perceived coolness, but not directly, thus confirming
our Hypothesis 3.
4.3.2. Moderation on visit intentions
Hypothesis 4 was tested via a moderation analysis with the two

dummies for preview mode as the focal predictors, technology innova-
tiveness, NFU, immersive tendencies, and frequency of hotel stay as

covariates, and visit intentions as the outcome (Hayes, 2013). The
analysis revealed a significant main effect of technology innovativeness
(a2 = .22, t = 2.99, p < 0.01), and a significant DVR vs. Img × technology
innovativeness interaction (a3 = − 0.26, t = − 2.13, p < 0.05), whereas
the main effect of preview mode became insignificant. As displayed in
Fig. 3, the conditional effect of the VR preview became statistically
significant from zero at moderate levels (around the sample mean) of
technology innovativeness (Mtechinn = 4.60, θX→Y= − 0.35; 95% CI

Table 1
Constructs reliabilities and scales.
Construct Scale Items

Technology innovativeness trait (
Zhu et al., 2013), α = .836

In general, I am among the first in my circle of
friends to acquire new technology when it
appears.
I can usually figure out new high-tech
products and services without help from
others.
I enjoy the challenges of figuring out high-tech
gadgets.
I find I have fewer problems than other people
in making technology work for me.

Perceived coolness* (Sundar et al.,
2014), α = .877

preview makes Aevum Hotels look cool.
When I think of things that are cool, preview
like this comes to mind.
This preview is cool. My reaction to this preview is “That’s
cool!”.
If I made a list of cool technologies,
preview would be on it.
_ preview is more cool than other
previews that fulfill a similar function.

Self-brand Connection (Escalas and
Bettman, 2003), α = .912

Aevum Hotels brand reflects who I am. (1 =
Not at all, 7 = Extremely well)
I can identify with Aevum Hotels brand. (1 =
Not at all, 7 = Extremely well)
I feel a personal connection to Aevum Hotels
brand. (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much so)
I can talk about staying with Aevum Hotels to
communicate who I am to other people.
(1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely well)
I think Aevum Hotels could help me become
the type of person I want to be.
(1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely well)
I consider Aevum Hotels brand to be “me”. (1
= Not “me”, 7 = “me”)
Aevum Hotels suits me well. (1 = Not at all, 7
= Extremely well)

Visit intentions (Wakefield and
Baker, 1998), α = .782

I would visit this hotel.
In the future, I would very probably visit this
hotel.
I would patronize this hotel.

*piped text is marked with a line.
V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

6
[− 0.638, − .076]). The results suggest that the VR preview induces
higher visit intentions than the images preview for consumers that are
relatively more technologically innovative, thus supporting Hypothesis
4a. However, no statistically significant difference in visit intentions was

seen between the VR preview and the 360◦ tour contingent on con-
sumers’ technology innovativeness. Therefore, Hypothesis 4b is not

supported.
4.3.3. Moderation on self-brand connection
The test for Hypothesis 5 was conducted as a moderation analysis
with preview mode (two dummies) as the focal predictor, technology
innovativeness as the moderator, self-brand connection as the outcome,
and the same covariates. The analysis revealed a significant main effect
of technology innovativeness (a2 = .28, t = 3.08, p < 0.01), a marginally
significant main effect of DVR vs. 360 (a1 = 1.42, t = 1.92, p < 0.1), and a
significant DVR vs. img × technology innovativeness interaction (a3 =

− 0.36, t = − 2.31, p < 0.05). The results demonstrated that the condi-
tional effect of VR preview became statistically significant from zero at

relatively higher levels (one SD above the sample mean) of technology
innovativeness (Mtechinn = 5.85, θX→Y = − 0.68; 95% CI [− 1.199,
− 0.167]), thus providing support for the Hypothesis 5a (Fig. 4).

Therefore, as consumers see themselves as more technologically inno-
vative, they feel enhanced self-brand connection from the VR preview

than the images preview of the hotel brand. Because there were no

differences in the effect of VR preview compared to the 360◦ tour pre-
view on self-brand connection depending on consumers’ technology

innovativeness (p = 0.19), Hypothesis 5b was not supported.
4.3.4. Moderated mediation
Hypothesis 6 integrated the previous two hypotheses in a moderated

mediation model of the effect of preview mode technology on con-
sumers’ visit intentions via self-brand connection, contingent on tech-
nology innovativeness. To test Hypothesis 5, we employed a conditional

process model of moderated mediation (Model 8: Hayes, 2013). The
bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence interval computed from 10,
000 samples for the indirect effect slope excluded zero (a3b2 = − 0.127;
95% [CI = − 0.259, − .011], thus lending support that the mediation is

moderated. Therefore, the indirect effect of preview mode on visit in-
tentions toward the hotel brand through self-brand connection depends

on consumers’ technology innovativeness. Compared to the images

preview, the VR preview increases visit intentions among those rela-
tively higher in technology innovativeness indirectly through self-brand

connection (Mtechinn = 5.85, θX→Y= − 0.24; 95% CI [− 0.461, − .053]).
Hence, this pattern of results lends support for Hypothesis 6.

5. Discussion
   Although VR is among the most discussed ‘cool’ technologies that
   revolutionized the marketing content delivery in hospitality and tourism
   (Barnes, 2017), the question arises whether VR marketing can

contribute to brand building and behavioral outcomes (e.g, visit in-
tentions toward hotel brand), beyond offering interesting technical

affordances. To address this question, the current research reports on
consumers’ behavioral and brand outcomes prompted by different
experiential service previews (images vs. 360◦ tour vs. VR). In addition,
it demonstrates how consumers with different levels of technology
innovativeness respond to the preview of experiential service brands.
This research registered an increase in consumers’ visit intentions
after the VR preview of an extended-stay suite of a new hotel brand,
compared to the more traditional preview modes, i.e., static images and
360◦ tour, and purported similar findings about the enhanced tourists’
behavioral intentions after VR experiences (Leung et al., 2019; Rainoldi
et al., 2018; Yeh et al., 2017).
Furthermore, our research built on the association between novel
technology and coolness and investigated whether the “perceived
coolness effect” of VR preview enabled tech-savvy consumers to form
meaningful connections with the marketed hotel brand, which in turn

increased their visit intentions toward that hotel brand. While technol-
ogy corporations develop new “cool” gadgets that reinforce the “cyber

cool” identities of their consumers (i.e., coolness stemming from IT sub-
culture) (Belk et al., 2010), the current study findings demonstrate that

coolness of VR preview mode can spillover to consumers self-brand

connection with hospitality brands. We extend Huang’s (2019) find-
ings on brand love arising from immersive retail technologies by

showing that although all consumers perceive VR to be cool,
technology-innovative consumers respond to hotel VR (vs. images)
marketing by forming enhanced self-brand connections instantaneously.
However, technology-innovative consumers exhibit comparable
self-brand connections evoked by a moderately interactive, 360◦ tour
preview mode as those evoked by VR, which could be a consequence of
the game-like nature of 360◦ tours (Berger et al., 2017). As consumers’

technology innovativeness levels increase, they report higher visit in-
tentions toward the hotel brand that is previewed via VR vs. the images,

while this difference is not observed among consumers who score lower
on technology innovativeness or when consumers are exposed to 360◦
tours, regardless of their technology innovativeness level. Because
Errichiello et al. (2019) observed similar levels of VR-added value and

Fig. 3. The interaction preview mode × technology innovativeness on
visit intentions.

Fig. 4. The interaction preview mode × technology innovativeness on self-
brand connection.

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

7
VR-usage intentions among tourists with varying levels of technology
innovativeness, we draw attention to different outcomes of our studies

and invite follow-up studies to investigate the role of personal innova-
tiveness in VR hospitality and tourism marketing.

We further extend the scarce literature on brand bonds facilitated
through virtual technology-enabled brand encounters (Berger et al.,
2017; Huang, 2019; Jin and Bolebruch, 2009) by demonstrating that
such consumer-brand bonds are heightened among tech-innovative
consumers who appreciate the like-minded brand that employs VR
marketing which further motivates their visit intentions toward the
hotel brand. Our conclusions are congruent with prior findings that VR
enhances consumers’ brand attitudes toward the advertisement, which
further translate into higher brand attitudes and purchase intentions
(Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017), as well as that VR induces positive
attitude change and preference for the tourist destination (Tussyadiah
et al., 2018). Therefore, the current research shows that VR and 360◦
marketing have positive effects on brand impressions and consumer
patronage.
5.1. Theoretical implications
There are several theoretical implications of this study contributing

to the hospitality literature. With the growing competition among hos-
pitality brands in technology adoption (Revfine, n.d.), there is a need to

expand the theoretical knowledge about VR contribution to hospitality
branding. While distinct streams of literature posited “coolness” as a
desirable brand trait (Schnurr, 2017; Warren and Campbell, 2014),
proposed the positive association between coolness and technology
(Bruun et al., 2016; Liu and Mattila, 2019; Sundar et al., 2014), and
identified the relationship between technology coolness and its adoption

rate (Kim et al., 2015; Sundar et al., 2014) the current research in-
tegrates prior findings and examines the perceptions of VR coolness in

the context of branding of experiential hospitality services. Since nearly
40% of our respondents assigned to the VR condition in our study said
the word “cool” when exploring the hotel suite in VR, the current
research provided the first empirical evidence for such belief.
Although hotels and tourist destinations have extensively employed
360◦ web tours and mobile VR for marketing and sales purposes, fewer
academic studies contrasted VR with common advertising stimuli such
as videos, 360◦ web tours, and static photos (Beck and Egger, 2018;

Bogicevic et al., 2019; Griffin et al., 2017; Leung et al., 2019; Van Ker-
rebroeck et al., 2017). The current study supports this stream of research

by providing a comprehensive evidence that VR marketing generally
enhances immediate visit intentions over 360◦ web tours and static
photos.
Specifically, our study extends the knowledge about the effects of VR
on hospitality consumer behavior by examining the moderating role of
technology innovativeness trait on consumers’ visit intentions toward
the hotel brand and brand responses to VR marketing in hotels. Contrary
to Errichiello et al. (2019) who did not find differences in behavioral
responses to VR destination experiences among consumers with
different levels of technology innovativeness, but consistent with Wei
et al. (2019) who identified technology innovativeness as a significant
moderator of the relationship between vividness and presence in VR
theme park attractions, our study illustrates how hospitality brands can
capitalize on marketing through cool technology gadgets, such as VR, to
connect with the tech-innovative consumer segments and prompt them
to visit their premises. Our novel findings also contribute to general
brand management research that reported positive associations between
consumers’ experiences with virtual marketing platforms and
strengthening of consumer-brand connections, and brand relationships
(Berger et al., 2017; Huang, 2019; Jin and Bolebruch, 2009).
Finally, recent reviews on VR research in tourism and hospitality
suggested the lack of research on VR hospitality marketing (Beck et al.,

2019; Wei, 2019). Addressing this gap, our results illuminate the psy-
chological processes associated with the effectiveness of VR marketing,

explaining that VR motivates technology innovative consumer’s inten-
tion to visit the hotel in-real-life through heightened self-brand

connection. In contrast, consumers with relatively lower technology
innovativeness might ultimately rely on other brand stimuli and active
engagement with the hotel brand to form self-brand connections. The

findings demonstrate that hotel brands can employ VR, a cool technol-
ogy, to appeal to the hospitality consumers in the digital era.

5.2. Managerial implications
While the hospitality practice has seen the potential in employing VR
platforms to market their offers, the existing research, mostly applicable
to cultural and heritage sights, provided limited understanding of the
practical benefits of VR marketing (tom Dieck et al., 2018; Tussyadiah
et al., 2018; Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017; Wei, 2019). The current study,
on the other hand, offers valuable practical implications for hospitality
managers about how VR can stimulate patronage and favorable brand
impressions.
In the present-day technology-pervasive market hospitality firms are
rapidly adopting the latest technology to capture the consumers who
live in synergy with technology. Because virtual technologies can be
particularly helpful with bridging the gap between consumers and

intangible, hospitality service offerings, hotel companies have tradi-
tionally employed 3D images and 360◦ tours to attract the investors and

customers alike. Our findings advise managers to utilize VR or 360◦
technology in the brand launch process to stimulate consumers to visit
hotels in-real-life. However, managers should be aware that the
technology-innovative consumer can still be attracted by the 360◦ tours
of properties.

Furthermore, technology became an integral factor in helping con-
sumers to integrate brands into their self-concepts (Fournier and

Alvarez, 2019) because it shapes the way consumers engage with brands
and helps keep the brand relevant in consumers’ eyes (Lischer, n.d.).
Because consumers ascribe coolness to VR marketing which transfers to
the hotel brand itself (e.g., in response to how well the adjective ’cool’
describes Aevum Hotels, respondents agreed that Aevum brand is
perceived as cooler when previewed in VR (F(2,206) = 8.646, p < .001;
MVR = 6.51 vs. M360 = 6.05, p < .01; MVR = 6.51 vs. Mimg = 6.00, p <
.01), we advise managers to utilize coolness-infused VR marketing to
form brand bonds with guests.
Consistent with findings that consumers self-identify with their

Apple laptops (Nevid and Pastva, 2014), our findings draw hotel man-
agers’ attention to the alignment between technology innovative con-
sumers and hotel brands that pioneer VR technology. In other words, if a

consumer thinks of himself/herself as a technology innovative person,
he/she is likely intrigued by the cool VR technology and may feel more
connected and more motivated to stay with a hotel brand presented in
VR (which is cooler than other non-VR properties). By associating
oneself with the cool practices of the hotel brand that mastered VR
marketing, consumers could stimulate their social roles (i.e., a consumer
of cool things who forms relationship with others who use cool things).
In Table 2, we provide an overview of the strategies hoteliers could use
to implement VR in experiential services marketing to their advantage as
well as risks for implementation.
Because the technology innovativeness is positively correlated with
age (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015), VR marketing could be particularly
effective for the Generation Z (i.e., the generation born after 1996) who

rely heavily on technology in consumption decisions. Hospitality com-
panies such as Marriott have integrated technology-enabled marketing

in their Moxy or Aloft lifestyle brands that cater to the Generation Y

guests (Richards, 2018). As hoteliers shift their focus from the Genera-
tion Y to Generation Z (Hess, 2017), offering cool technological affor-
dances, such as VR, meaningful for this customer segment is paramount

to secure patronage. For instance, hospitality brand designers can
develop targeted VR campaigns to foster self-brand connection and
communicate a forward-looking, innovative brand image that fits this

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

8
“born into technology” generational cohort for whom tech-savviness is
integral to their lifestyle.
5.3. Limitations and future research suggestions
While this study provides novel insights into the application of VR
technology for marketing purposes, it has a few limitations. Our
research examined the role of technology innovativeness independent of
consumer age due to the relatively younger sample who are relatively

high in technology innovativeness. Prior research suggests that Gener-
ation Z’s (also known as “iGen”) consumption and work habits have

been entirely shaped by the technology (BBC, 2018). Therefore, future
research should examine the effectiveness of VR marketing in enhancing
self-brand connection and behavioral intentions across different

consumer generational cohorts.

Our sample was limited to US consumers who had extensive expe-
rience with hotels in general, and specifically with extended-stay hotels.

As a consequence, the study findings could not be generalized to a cross-
cultural consumer context. Therefore, we invite future research to

validate our findings across different countries.
Next, we restricted this research to consumers’ responses toward a
new, fictitious hotel brand to control for prior brand experience and

relationships. Follow up studies could test the effectiveness of VR mar-
keting efforts for new and existing hotel brands. Consumers’ familiarity

or existing relationship with the brand (Fournier et al., 2015) could

amplify or attenuate the effect of VR on self-brand connection and vis-
it/usage intentions. Furthermore, this study did not identify the

boundaries of the VR coolness contingent on the brand identity. Cool-
ness judgments could be affected by the characteristics such as a

rebellious or disadvantaged reputation of the firm (Biraglia and Brakus,
2015), which stresses the importance of investigating a hospitality
firm’s identity congruence with a “cool” VR marketing.
Finally, follow-up research is suggested to consider the alignment
between VR marketing and other personality traits or individual-level
differences (John and Srivastava, 1999). Openness to experience, is

one of the Big Five personality traits, defined as the extent of an in-
dividual’s originality, curiosity, and inventiveness, which was identified

as a predictor of perceived technology usefulness (Devaraj et al., 2008).
VR marketing, therefore, may resonate well with consumers who are
open to experiences because that trait is conceptually aligned with
innovativeness.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by Case 3D VR development studio
and the Ohio State University Alumni Grant for Graduate Research and
Scholarship.
References
Agarwal, R., Prasad, J., 1998. A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf. Syst. Res. 9 (2),
204–215.

Ahn, J., 2019. Cognitive antecedents and affective consequences of customers’ self-
concept in brand management: a conceptual model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage.

31 (5), 2114–2128.
Alcaniz, ̃ M., Guixeres, J., Bigne, E., 2019. Virtual reality in marketing: a framework,
review and research agenda. Front. Psychol. 10, 1530.
Barnes, S.J., 2017. Understanding virtual reality in marketing: nature, implications and
potential. SSRN Electron. J.
BBC, 2018. How Generation Z Is Shaping Digital Technology. Retrieved from. http
://www.bbc.com/future/sponsored/story/20160309-youth-connection.
Beck, J., Egger, R., 2018. Emotionalise me: self-reporting and arousal measurements in
virtual tourism environments. In: Stangl, B., Pesonen, J. (Eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2018 Proceedings of the International
Conference in Jonk ̈ oping, ̈ Sweden, 24-26 January. Springer, Cham, pp. 3–15.
Beck, J., Rainoldi, M., Egger, R., 2019. Virtual reality in tourism: a state-of-the-art
review. Tour. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0049.
Belk, R.W., Tian, K., Paavola, H., 2010. Consuming cool: behind the unemotional mask.
In: Belk, R.W. (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, Bingley, pp. 183–208.
Berger, A., Schlager, T., Sprott, D.E., Herrmann, A., 2017. Gamified interactions:
whether, when, and how games facilitate self–brand connections. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
1–22.
Biraglia, A., Brakus, J.J., 2015. Rebel with a (profit) cause: how rebellious brand
positioning leads to the perceived coolness. In: Proceedings from ACR North
American Advances. Duluth, MN: Labovitz School of Business & Economics.
Bogicevic, V., Seo, S., Kandampully, J.A., Liu, S.Q., Rudd, N.A., 2019. Virtual reality
presence as a preamble of tourism experience: the role of mental imagery. Tour.
Manag. 74, 55–64.
Bruun, A., Raptis, D., Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B., 2016. Measuring the coolness of
interactive products: the COOL questionnaire. Behav. Inf. Technol. 35 (3), 233–249.
Burch, A., 2015, Nov. 11. The VR (virtual Reality) Consumer Sentiment Report –

Infographic. Retrieved from. https://touchstoneresearch.com/the-vr-virtual-reality-
consumer-sentiment-report-infographic/.

Chiou, W.B., Wan, C.S., Lee, H.Y., 2008. Virtual experience vs. brochures in the
advertisement of scenic spots: how cognitive preferences and order effects influence
advertising effects on consumers. Tour. Manag. 29 (1), 146–150.

Table 2
Marketing strategies related to the usage of VR.
Opportunities for extracting
benefits

Risks for implementation

Coolness
transfer
(follows from
H2 and H3)

Due to the proliferation of
hotel brands, differentiation is
challenging. Hotel brands
could consider:
• Launching a new hotel
development campaign in
VR to signal brand coolness

• Using VR to showcase re-
branding efforts of mature

brands that have lost their
appeal and to signal
coolness

• With the mass adoption of
VR in hotel marketing, VR
may lose its coolness appeal
(i.e., moving to “mass
coolness” from “niche
coolness”)

Type of
customer
(follows from
H4)

• Using VR marketing for
customers segments with
relatively higher levels of
technology innovativeness
• Targeting Generation Z or
Millennials with VR
marketing (Hess, 2017)
• Segmentation strategies that
consider technology
innovativeness trait to
attract guests

• Technology innovative
customers seek for constant
improvements that may
incur costs for VR
development
• VR devices are still bulky
and expensive but will
likely become miniaturized
and more affordable in
future editions

Brand
management
(follows from
H5)

• Creating opportunities for
target customers to connect
with a brand through

sensory-rich, experience-
inviting VR content (e.g.,

smooth navigation, view
from a window, sounds of
nature, specialty amenities,
…)
• Enabling individualized VR
hotel campaigns (e.g., VR
journey based on customers’
interests)
• Integrating “call-to-action”
options in VR interface that
take customers to hotel
webpages or enable
conference meetings in VR
(Revfine, n.d.)

• 360◦ tours are less costly
marketing solutions with
favorable evaluations
• VR platforms are not yet
integrated well with social
networks, or video
conference platforms such
as Zoom, Skype, or Google
Meet

Sales/Booking
context
(follows from
H1)

• Linking VR experience
across various distribution
channels to motivate visit
intentions (e.g., hotel
website, online travel
agencies, Steam digital
distribution service) (Street,
2017)
• Utilizing VR marketing in
the direct sales process to
special corporate travel
clients (e.g. IT entrepreneurs
who are innovators) (HTN,
2019)

• Unlike 360◦ web-based
tours, VR platforms are not
easily integrated with

booking engine and sales-
force video chat and web

conferencing

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

9
Cho, Y.H., Wang, Y., Fesenmaier, D.R., 2002. Searching for experiences: the web-based
virtual tour in tourism marketing. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 12 (4), 1–17.
Dar-Nimrod, I., Hansen, I., Proulx, T., Lehman, D., Chapman, B., Duberstein, P., 2012.
Coolness: an empirical investigation. J. Individ. Differ. 33, 175–185.
De Gauquier, L., Brengman, M., Willems, K., Van Kerrebroeck, H., 2019. Leveraging
advertising to a higher dimension: experimental research on the impact of virtual
reality on brand personality impressions. Virtual Real. 23 (3), 235–253.
Deng, X., Unnava, H.R., Lee, H., 2018. “Too true to be good?” when virtual reality
decreases interest in actual reality. J. Bus. Res. 100, 561–570.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R.F., Crant, J.M., 2008. Research note—how does personality matter?
Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Inf. Syst. Res. 19
(1), 93–105.
Elmezeny, A., Edenhofer, N., Wimmer, J., 2018. Immersive storytelling in 360-degree
videos: an analysis of interplay between narrative and technical immersion.
J. Virtual Worlds Res. 11 (1).
Errichiello, L., Micera, R., Atzeni, M., Del Chiappa, G., 2019. Exploring the implications
of wearable virtual reality technology for museum visitors’ experience: a cluster
analysis. Int. J. Tour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2283.
Escalas, J.E., Bettman, J.R., 2003. You are what they eat: the influence of reference
groups on consumers’ connections to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 13 (3), 339–348.
Fournier, S., Alvarez, C., 2019. How brands acquire cultural meaning. J. Consum.
Psychol. 29 (3), 519–534.
Fournier, S., Breazeale, M., Avery, J., 2015. Strong Brands, Strong Relationships.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Griffin, T., Giberson, J., Lee, S.H.M., Guttentag, D., Kandaurova, M., Sergueeva, K.,
Dimanche, F., 2017. Virtual reality and implications for destination marketing. In:
Proceedings from TTRA International Conference on Travel & Tourism Research
Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. Quebec, 20-22 June paper 29.
Grubb, E.L., Grathwohl, H.L., 1967. Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market
behavior: a theoretical approach. J. Mark. 31 (4), 22–27.
Hayes, A., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: a Regression-based Approach. Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
Hemsley-Brown, J., Alnawas, I., 2016. Service quality and brand loyalty: the mediation
effect of brand passion, brand affection and self-brand connection. Int. J. Contemp.
Hosp. Manage. 28 (12), 2771–2794.
Hess, D., 2017, March 3. Millennials 2.0: Gen Z Seeks Seamless Tech, Casual Vibe.
Retrieved from. http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/121290/Millennials-2
0-Gen-Z-seeks-seamless-tech-casual-vibe.
Hornecker, E., 2008. “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”-visitor interactions with
a multi-touch table in a museum. In: Proceedings from 2008 3rd IEEE International
Workshop on Horizontal intEractive Human Computer Systems. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: IEEE.
HTN, 2017, July 17. Aloft Hotels, Part of Marriott International, Launches “ChatBotlr”
Mobile Service. Retrieved from. https://hoteltechnologynews.com/2017/09/alo
ft-hotels-part-marriott-international-launches-chatbotlr-mobile-service/.
HTN, 2019, November 5. More Hotels Embrace Immersive Visuals and Virtual Reality for
Groups Sales and Direct Booking. Retrieved from. https://hoteltechnologynews.co
m/2019/11/more-hotels-embrace-immersive-visuals-and-virtual-reality-for-gro
ups-sales-and-direct-booking/.
Huang, T.L., 2019. Psychological mechanisms of brand love and information technology
identity in virtual retail environments. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 251–264.
Hudson, S., Matson-Barkat, S., Pallamin, N., Jegou, G., 2018. With or without you?
Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J. Bus. Res. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.062.
Israel, K., Zerres, C., Tscheulin, D.K., 2019. Presenting hotels in virtual reality: Does it
influence the booking intention? J. Hosp. Tour. Technol.

Jackson, L.A., von Eye, A., Fitzgerald, H.E., Zhao, Y., Witt, E.A., 2010. Self-concept, self-
esteem, gender, race and information technology use. Comput. Human Behav. 26

(3), 323–328.
Jin, S.A.A., Bolebruch, J., 2009. Virtual commerce (v-commerce) in Second Life: the roles
of physical presence and brand-self connection. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 2 (4).
John, O.P., Srivastava, S., 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin, L.A., John, O.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research, 2nd ed. The Guilford Press, London, pp. 102–138.
Jung, T.H., tom Dieck, M.C., 2017. Augmented reality, virtual reality and 3D printing for
the co-creation of value for the visitor experience at cultural heritage places. J. Place
Manag. Dev. 10 (2), 140–151.
Kalyanaraman, S., Sundar, S.S., 2006. The psychological appeal of personalized content
in web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? J. Commun. 56
(1), 110–132.
Kaushik, A.K., Rahman, Z., 2017. An empirical investigation of tourist’s choice of service
delivery options: SSTs vs service employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (7),
1892–1913.
Kemp, E., Childers, C.Y., Williams, K.H., 2012. Place branding: creating self-brand
connections and brand advocacy. J. Prod. Brand. Manag. 21 (7), 508–515.
Kim, K.J., Shin, D.-H., Park, E., 2015. Can coolness predict technology adoption? Effects
of perceived coolness on user acceptance of smartphones with curved screens.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18 (9), 528–533.
Kim, M.J., Lee, C.K., Jung, T., 2019. Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality
tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. J. Travel. Res.
0047287518818915.
King, C., 2017. Brand management–standing out from the crowd: a review and research
agenda for hospitality management. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (1),
115–140.
Kleijnen, M., De Ruyter, K., Andreassen, T.W., 2005. Image congruence and the adoption
of service innovations. J. Serv. Res. 7 (4), 343–359.

Kourouthanassis, P., Boletsis, C., Bardaki, C., Chasanidou, D., 2015. Tourists responses to
mobile augmented reality travel guides: the role of emotions on adoption behavior.
Pervasive Mob. Comput. 18, 71–87.
Le, D., Scott, N., Lohmann, G., 2019. Applying experiential marketing in selling tourism
dreams. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 36 (2), 220–235.
Leung, X.Y., Lyu, J., Bai, B., 2019. A fad or the future? Examining the effectiveness of
virtual reality advertising in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 102391.
Lischer, B., n.d. Why technology is critical for brand advancement. Retrieved from
http://www.ignytebrands.com/why-technology-is-critical-for-brand-advancement/.
Liu, S.Q., Mattila, A.S., 2017. Airbnb: online targeted advertising, sense of power, and
consumer decisions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 60, 33–41.
Liu, S.Q., Mattila, A.S., 2019. Apple pay: coolness and embarrassment in the service
encounter. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 78, 268–275.
Lurie, N.H., Mason, C.H., 2007. Visual representation: implications for decision making.
J. Mark. 71 (1), 160–177.
Mady, T.T., 2011. Sentiment toward marketing: Should we care about consumer
alienation and readiness to use technology? J. Consum. Behav. 10 (4), 192–204.
Marasco, A., Buonincontri, P., van Niekerk, M., Orlowski, M., Okumus, F., 2018.
Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing.
J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 9, 138–148.
Mittal, B., 2006. I, me, and mine—how products become consumers’ extended selves.
J. Consum. Behav. 5 (6), 550–562.
Mohiuddin, K.G.B., Mohiuddin, K.G.B., Gordon, R., Gordon, R., Magee, C., Magee, C.,
Lee, J.K., 2016. A conceptual framework of cool for social marketing. J. Soc. Mark. 6
(2), 121–143.
Nah, F.F.H., Eschenbrenner, B., DeWester, D., 2011. Enhancing brand equity through
flow and telepresence: a comparison of 2D and 3D virtual worlds. Mis Q. 731–747.
Nevid, J.S., Pastva, A., 2014. “I’m a mac” versus “I’m a PC”: personality differences
between mac and PC users in a college sample. Psychol. Mark. 31 (1), 31–37.
Noh, M., Runyan, R., Mosier, J., 2014. Young consumers’ innovativeness and hedonic/
utilitarian cool attitudes. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 42 (4), 267–280.
O’Brien, C., 2017. How Virtual Reality Can Boost a Brand’s Storytelling. Retrieved from.
https://digitalmarketinginstitute.com/the-insider/14-09-16-how-virtual-reality-ca
n-boost-a-brands-storytelling.
Panetta, K., 2017. Top Trends in the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies,

2017. Retrieved from. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/top-trend
      s-in-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2017/.
      Pantano, E., Servidio, R., 2011. An exploratory study of the role of pervasive
      environments for promotion of tourism destinations. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2 (1),
      50–65.
      Parasuraman, A., 2000. Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to
      measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J. Serv. Res. 2 (4), 307–320.
      Parasuraman, A., Colby, C.L., 2015. An updated and streamlined technology readiness
      index: TRI 2.0. J. Serv. Res. 18 (1), 59–74.
      Park, W.C., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B., Iacobucci, D., 2010. Brand
      attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of
      two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74 (6), 1–17.
      Pountain, D., Robins, D., 2000. Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude. Reaktion books,
      London.
      Rainoldi, M., Driescher, V., Lisnevska, A., Zvereva, D., Stavinska, A., Relota, J., Egger, R.,
2018. Virtual reality: an innovative tool in destinations’ marketing. Gaze J. Tour.
      Hosp. 9, 53–68.
      Raptis, D., Bruun, A., Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B., 2017. Converging coolness and
      investigating its relation to user experience. Behav. Inf. Technol. 36 (4), 333–350.
      Read, J., Fitton, D., Cowan, B., Beale, R., Guo, Y., Horton, M., 2011. 2011, May).
      Understanding and designing cool technologies for teenagers. CHI’11 Extended
      Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1567–1572.
      Revfine, n.d. The latest technology trends in the hospitality industry. Retrieved from http
      s://www.revfine.com/technology-trends-hospitality-industry/.

Richards, K., 2018, April 12. Why Marriott Continues to Bet Big on These Incredible Pop-
up Hotel Rooms at Coachella. Retrieved from. https://www.adweek.com/brand-mar

keting/why-marriott-continues-to-bet-big-on-these-incredible-pop-up-hotel-r
ooms-at-coachella/.
Ryan, M.L., 2015. Narrative as Virtual Reality 2: Revisiting Immersion and Interactivity
in Literature and Electronic Media. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Saenger, C., Thomas, V., 2014. I’m not telling: how self-brand connected consumers’
need for uniqueness affects word of mouth to different reference groups. ACR North
American Advances.
Schnurr, B., 2017. The impact of atypical product design on consumer product and brand
perception. J. Brand. Manag. 24 (6), 609–621.
Seri ˇ ́c, M., Gil-Saura, I., Ruiz-Molina, M.E., 2014. How can integrated marketing
communications and advanced technology influence the creation of customer-based
brand equity? Evidence from the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 39,
144–156.
Stone, R., 2018, Jul 3. Technologies Every Hotelier Needs to Understand: Latest From
Skift Research. Retrieved from. https://skift.com/2018/07/03/technologies-eve
ry-hotelier-needs-to-understand-latest-from-skift-research/.
Street, T., 2017. Expedialabs Takes Virtual Reality to New Heights. Retrieved from. https
://viewfinder.expedia.com/expedialabs-takes-virtual-reality-new-heights/.
Su, N., Reynolds, D., 2017. Effects of brand personality dimensions on consumers’
perceived self-image congruity and functional congruity with hotel brands. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 66, 1–12.
Sundar, S.S., Tamul, D.J., Wu, M., 2014. Capturing “cool”: measures for assessing
coolness of technological products. Int. J. Hum. Stud. 72 (2), 169–180.

V. Bogicevic et al.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021) 102806

10
Sundar, S.S., Go, E., Kim, H.S., Zhang, B., 2015. Communicating art, virtually!
Psychological effects of technological affordances in a virtual museum. Int. J. Hum.
Interact. 31 (6), 385–401.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., Hunter, G.L., 2001. Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale
development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 28 (1), 50–66.
tom Dieck, D., tom Dieck, M.C., Jung, T., Moorhouse, N., 2018. Tourists’ virtual reality
adoption: an exploratory study from Lake District National Park. Leis. Stud. 37 (4),
371–383.
Tussyadiah, I.P., 2016. The influence of innovativeness on on-site smartphone use among
American travelers: implications for context-based push marketing. J. Travel Tour.
Mark. 33 (6), 806–823.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D., Jung, T.H., tom Dieck, M.C., 2018. Virtual reality, presence,
and attitude change: empirical evidence from tourism. Tour. Manag. 66, 140–154.
Van den Bergh, J., Behrer, M., 2016. How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Branding to Generations
Y and Z. Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Van Kerrebroeck, H., Brengman, M., Willems, K., 2017. When brands come to life:
experimental research on the vividness effect of Virtual Reality in transformational
marketing communications. Virtual Real. 21 (4), 177–191.
Wakefield, K.L., Baker, J., 1998. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on
shopping response. J. Retail. 74 (4), 515–539.
Wan, C.S., Tsaur, S.H., Chiu, Y.L., Chiou, W.B., 2007. Is the advertising effect of virtual
experience always better or contingent on different travel destinations? Inf. Technol.
Tour. 9 (1), 45–54.

Wan, E.W., Xu, J., Ding, Y., 2013. To be or not to be unique? The effect of social
exclusion on consumer choice. J. Consum. Res. 40 (6), 1109–1122.
Warren, C., Campbell, M.C., 2014. What makes things cool? How autonomy influences
perceived coolness. J. Consum. Res. 41 (2), 543–563.
Warren, C., Batra, R., Loureiro, S.M.C., Bagozzi, R.P., 2019. Brand coolness. J. Mark.
0022242919857698.
Wei, W., 2019. Research progress on virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) in
tourism and hospitality: a critical review of publications from 2000 to 2018. J. Hosp.
Tour. Technol.
Wei, W., Qi, R., Zhang, L., 2019. Effects of virtual reality on theme park visitors’
experience and behaviors: a presence perspective. Tour. Manag. 71, 282–293.
Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J., 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence
questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7 (3), 225–240.
Yeh, C.H., Wang, Y.S., Li, H.T., Lin, S.Y., 2017. The effect of information presentation
modes on tourists’ responses in Internet marketing: the moderating role of emotions.
J. Travel Tour. Mark. 34 (8), 1018–1032.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C., Sauer, P.L., 2017. Is augmented reality technology an effective
tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. J. Interact. Mark.
39, 89–103.
Zhu, Z., Nakata, C., Sivakumar, K., Grewal, D., 2013. Fix it or leave it? Customer recovery
from self-service technology failures. J. Retail. 89 (1), 15–29.