Can a virtual supermarket bring realism into the lab? Comparing shopping behavior using virtual and pictorial store representations to behavior in a physical store

Immersive virtual reality techniques present new opportunities for research into consumer behavior. The current study examines whether the increased realism of a virtual store compared to pictorial (2D) stimuli elicits consumer behavior that is more in line with behavior in a physical store. We examine the number, variety, and type of products selected, amount of money spent, and responses to price promotions and shelf display, in three product categories (fruit & vegetables, milk, and biscuits). We find that virtual reality elicits behavior that is more similar to behavior in the physical store compared to the picture condition for the number of products selected (Milk: Mstore = 1.19, Mvirtual = 1.53, Mpictures = 2.58) and amount of money spent (Milk: Mstore = 1.27, Mvirtual = 1.53, Mpictures = 2.60 Euro), and for the selection of products from different areas of the shelf, both vertically (purchases from top shelves, milk and biscuits: Pstore = 21.6%, Pvirtual = 33.4%, Ppictures = 50.0%) and horizontally (purchase from left shelf, biscuits: Pstore = 35.5%, Pvirtual = 53.3%, Ppictures = 66.7%). This indicates that virtual reality can improve realism in responses to shelf allocation. Virtual reality was not able to diminish other differences between lab and physical store: participants bought more products and spent more money (for biscuits and fruit & vegetables), bought more national brands, and responded more strongly to price promotions in both virtual reality and pictorial representations than in the physical store. Implications for the use of virtual reality in studies of consumer food choice behavior as well as for future improvement of virtual reality techniques are discussed.

[1]  Dimitrios Tzovaras,et al.  Can a virtual reality cognitive training application fulfill a dual role? Using the virtual supermarket cognitive training application as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. , 2015, Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD.

[2]  R. Pieters,et al.  When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon , 2009 .

[3]  I. Simonson,et al.  The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior , 1990 .

[4]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  May I experience more presence in doing the same thing in virtual reality than in reality? An answer from a simulated job interview , 2012, Interact. Comput..

[5]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Shelf management and space elasticity , 1994 .

[6]  Barb Ruppert,et al.  New Directions in the Use of Virtual Reality for Food Shopping: Marketing and Education Perspectives , 2011, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[7]  Kavita Shah,et al.  Late-onset Alzheimer's disease, heating up and foxed by several proteins: pathomolecular effects of the aging process. , 2014, Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD.

[8]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Are Food Choices Really Habitual? Integrating Habits, Variety‐Seeking, and Compensatory Choice in a Utility‐Maximizing Framework , 2013 .

[9]  R. Rizley,et al.  Innovations in Shopper Marketing: Current Insights and Future Research Issues , 2011 .

[10]  Raymond R. Burke.  Virtual Shopping: Breakthrough in Marketing Research , 1996 .

[11]  Cliona Ni Mhurchu,et al.  Effects of a price increase on purchases of sugar sweetened beverages. Results from a randomized controlled trial , 2014, Appetite.

[12]  Els Gijsbrechts,et al.  Computer-simulated shopping experiments for analyzing dynamic purchasing patterns: Validation and guidelines , 1998 .

[13]  Martijn J. Schuemie,et al.  Research on Presence in Virtual Reality: A Survey , 2001, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[14]  Michel Tuan Pham.  The Seven Sins of Consumer Psychology , 2013 .

[15]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  External validity tests of laboratory studies of information integration , 1983 .

[16]  Etienne Bressoud,et al.  Testing FMCG innovations: experimental real store versus virtual , 2013 .

[17]  Leonard M. Lodish,et al.  Comparing Dynamic Consumer Choice in Real and Computer-simulated Environments , 1992 .

[18]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  The Factor Structure of the Presence Questionnaire , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[19]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[20]  Robert D. Melara,et al.  Adapting to a retail environment: Modeling consumer–environment interactions , 2010 .

[21]  Wilma E Waterlander,et al.  The effects of a 25% discount on fruits and vegetables: results of a randomized trial in a three-dimensional web-based supermarket , 2012, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[22]  Edward Hill,et al.  Influence of point-of-sale tobacco displays and graphic health warning signs on adults: evidence from a virtual store experimental study. , 2014, American journal of public health.

[23]  Yannan Jiang,et al.  Using a 3D Virtual Supermarket to Measure Food Purchase Behavior: A Validation Study , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[24]  Matthew Lombard,et al.  At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence , 2006 .

[25]  Wilma E Waterlander,et al.  The virtual supermarket: An innovative research tool to study consumer food purchasing behaviour , 2011, BMC public health.

[26]  M. Lepper,et al.  When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? , 2000 .

[27]  B. Kahn.  Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: An integrative review , 1995 .

[28]  Jonathan Freeman,et al.  A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[29]  Alma Berneburg,et al.  Interactive 3D Simulations in Measuring Consumer Preferences: Friend or Foe to Test Results? , 2007 .

[30]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior , 1992 .

[31]  Paco Underhill,et al.  Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping , 1999 .

[32]  Erica van Herpen,et al.  The relationship between in-store marketing and observed sales for organic versus fair trade products , 2011, Marketing Letters.

[33]  I HerpenvanH.W.,et al.  The Variety of An Assortment : An Extension to the Attribute-Based Approach , 2002 .

[34]  B. Kahn,et al.  The Impact of Context on Variety Seeking in Product Choices , 1995 .

[35]  Wilma E Waterlander,et al.  The use of virtual reality in studying complex interventions in our every-day food environment. , 2012 .

[36]  Antonella Trisorio,et al.  The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay , 2001 .

[37]  Russell S. Winer,et al.  Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external validity , 1999 .

[38]  B. Wansink,et al.  Smart Shopping Carts: How Real-Time Feedback Influences Spending , 2013 .

[39]  Jonathan Steuer,et al.  Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence , 1992 .

[40]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .

[41]  Aner Tal,et al.  Turning Virtual Reality into Reality: A Checklist to Ensure Virtual Reality Studies of Eating Behavior and Physical Activity Parallel the Real World , 2011, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[42]  Vassilis-Javed Khan,et al.  Pervasive Application Evaluation within Virtual Environments , 2011, PECCS.

[43]  G. Riva,et al.  Assessment of the emotional responses produced by exposure to real food, virtual food and photographs of food in patients affected by eating disorders , 2010, Annals of general psychiatry.

[44]  John R. Nevin,et al.  Laboratory Experiments for Estimating Consumer Demand: A Validation Study , 1974 .

[45]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  On feeling (the) present: An evolutionary account of the sense of presence in physical and electronically-mediated environments , 2010 .

[46]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2008 .

[47]  Patrick Bordnick,et al.  Using virtual reality to study food cravings , 2013, Appetite.

[48]  A. Chernev.  When More Is Less and Less Is More: the Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice This Research Argues That Choices from Different Size Assort- Ments Are a Function of the Degree to Which Consumers Have , 2022 .