DOI:https://doi.org/10.65613/739154
Dr. Dahmane Ahmed 1
Laboratory of Administrative Development for Upgrading Economic Institutions in Ghardaia
Email: Dahmane.ahmed@univ-ghardaia.dz
Dr. Hakmi Brahim 2
Laboratory of Administrative Development for Upgrading Economic Institutions in Ghardaia
Email: hakmi.brahim@univ-ghardaia.edu.dz
Dr. Mohammed Samir Toaiba 3
Laboratory of Rural Development Policies in Steppe Regions of Algeria Email: m.toaiba@univ-djelfa.dz
Received: 20/02/2026 , accepted:22/06/2026 , published : 11/07/2026 Abstract
The tourism industry is undergoing a profound structural transformation driven by accelerating digitization and the growing dependence of tourists on immersive representations of destinations prior to visitation. Within this evolving landscape, the virtual experience has transcended its conventional role as a mere promotional display tool, it has metamorphosed into a multidimensional cognitive, sensory, and interactive environment that reproduces the meaning of place and expands the tourism offer from a tangible product into a temporally and spatially
extended experience. This study endeavors to construct an integrated conceptual framework for the notion of the “multidimensional virtual experience” and to rigorously analyze its impact on tourism offer success, drawing upon a theoretical synthesis of the stimulus–organism–response (SOR) model, presence theory, the experience economy paradigm, and technology acceptance models within the domain of smart tourism. The paper posits that the multidimensional virtual experience comprises seven core dimensions: spatial presence, sensory immersion, interactivity, personalization, digital authenticity, social connectedness, and adaptive storytelling. Furthermore, it contends that tourism offer success can be operationalized through interrelated levels encompassing cognitive attraction, behavioral intention, satisfaction, loyalty, electronic word of mouth, competitive differentiation, and destination resilience. A conceptual model is advanced wherein the effect of the virtual experience on tourism offer success is mediated by emotional engagement, place trust, and preview value, and moderated by tourist technological readiness, perceived risk, and cultural sensitivity. The study concludes with substantive implications for destinations seeking to design phygital tourism offers and proposes a comprehensive future research agenda for empirical validation of the proposed model.
Keywords: virtual experience, virtual reality, tourism offer, tourism marketing, presence, immersion, smart tourism, experience economy, digital destinations, phygital tourism
1. Introduction
Tourism has long ceased to be a mere geographical translocation from one point to another, it has evolved into a complex system of meanings, symbols, expectations, and interactions that commence well before departure and persist long after return. In an era characterized by information fluidity, the proliferation of social media platforms, and the rapid advancement of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality technologies, the contemporary tourist experiences a destination multiple times before ever setting foot upon its soil: once through the image, once through the video, once through the virtual tour, and once through the interactions of fellow users and their evaluations. Consequently, the so called “tourist experience” is no longer confined to the moment of onsite consumption, rather, it has extended into the pre experience and post experience phases, forming a continuous chain of moments in which material environments interpenetrate with digital representations.
Within this dynamic landscape, the virtual experience has emerged as one of the most consequential drivers of transformation in tourism marketing not merely because it simulates reality, but because it enables the tourist to envision oneself within the place, to experience its aesthetic, cultural, and sensory dimensions in a manner that reduces uncertainty, enhances desire, and broadens the horizons of personalization. Nevertheless, the preponderance of existing studies and marketing practices continues
to treat the virtual experience as a unifunctional technical medium: either as a promotional instrument, a simulation device, or an educational tool. Rarely is it understood as a multidimensional experience that integrates cognition, affect, interaction, narrative, sociality, and authenticity, and that exerts a cumulative influence on the success of the tourism offer.
This study proceeds from the central premise that the impact of the virtual experience on the tourism offer is not realized merely through the availability of technology, but through its capacity to generate “spatial presence,” “sensory immersion,” “meaningful interactivity,” “adaptive narrative,” and “digital authenticity” in which the tourist places trust. In this regard, the virtual experience transitions from being an informational medium to an experiential structure that reshapes the value of the destination, prolongs the life cycle of the tourism offer, and opens unprecedented avenues for innovation in design, pricing, distribution, and communication.
The problem this study addresses lies in the conspicuous absence of an integrated conceptual framework that explains how the multidimensional virtual experience influences tourism offer success, what the constitutive dimensions of this experience are, and what mediating and moderating mechanisms regulate this influence. Accordingly, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:
- What is meant by the multidimensional virtual experience in the tourism context?
- What are the constitutive dimensions of this experience?
- How can tourism offer success be measured within a digitally–physically interpenetrated environment?
- What are the causal pathways through which the virtual experience affects offer success?
- What are the managerial and marketing implications for destinations and tourism organizations?
The significance of this study resides in its provision of a novel theoretical synthesis that transcends the techno reductionist treatment of virtual reality, proposes conceptual indicators for measuring a multidimensional virtual experience, and advances a model amenable to subsequent empirical testing. Its limitations, however, must be acknowledged: it is fundamentally a theoretical analytical study that constructs a conceptual model without collecting primary field data, though it is expressly designed to pave the way for quantitative, qualitative, and experimental follow up studies.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical foundation and a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, Section 3 elaborates on the seven proposed dimensions of the multidimensional virtual experience, Section 4 reconceptualizes tourism offer success in the digital age, Section 5 presents the proposed conceptual model and hypotheses, Section 6 outlines
a suggested methodology for empirical validation, Section 7 offers a critical discussion, Section 8 derives managerial and marketing implications, Section 9 addresses limitations and future research directions, and Section 10 concludes.
2. Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review
- The Tourism Offer and the Conditions for Its Success
The tourism offer constitutes a composite unit encompassing the place, the service, the experience, the communication, the price, the distribution, and the memory with which the tourist departs. Success, in this context, is no longer reducible to the achievement of short term sales, rather, it extends to the capacity to capture attention, reduce perceived risk, build positive expectations, convert intention into visitation, transform visitation into satisfaction and loyalty, and ultimately generate advocacy. Within the experience economy paradigm, as articulated by Pine and Gilmore (1999), value ascends from the commodity to the service and then to the experience that is personalized for the individual and leaves an indelible imprint on memory. From this vantage point, tourism offer success becomes inextricably linked to its capacity to produce a meaningful experience before, during, and after the visit.
With the integration of technology into the very fabric of destination management, smart tourism has emerged as an ecosystem in which data, infrastructure, platforms, and stakeholders converge to co create shared value (Gretzel et al., 2015). This does not imply that technology supplants the place, rather, it amplifies the place’s signification, rendering it discoverable, customizable, and comparable. The virtual experience, therefore, can be understood as one of the pivotal moments of smart tourism that reengineers the tourist’s journey from aspiration to booking, and from participation to postvisit sharing.
The concept of the tourism offer itself has evolved considerably. Buhalis and Law (2008) traced the trajectory from traditional product centric models to information intensive e tourism frameworks, noting that the offer is no longer a static bundle but a dynamic, co created value proposition. Schmitt (1999) further advanced this perspective through his experiential marketing framework, identifying five strategic experiential modules sense, feel, think, act, and relate that the tourism offer must activate. More recently, Neuhofer et al. (2014) proposed a typology of technology enhanced tourism experiences, distinguishing between technology as a tool, technology as a toy, and technology as a destination, thereby acknowledging that the virtual experience occupies a liminal space between utility and immersion.
2.2 From Virtual Reality to the Multidimensional Virtual Experience
Virtual reality first appeared in the tourism literature as a medium capable of simulating destinations, reducing perceived risk, and enhancing behavioral intentions (Guttentag, 2010, Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Empirical evidence accumulated over the past decade demonstrates that its influence does not stem from visual fidelity alone, but from the user’s sensation of being present within the virtual environment and from the capacity to interact with its elements. As the technology matured encompassing augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and extended reality (XR)the concept broadened to include
digital layers superimposed upon, or blended with, the physical reality, producing hybrid experiences that reshape visitor behavior within museums, heritage sites, cities, and resorts (Flavián et al., 2019).
However, this study proposes to move beyond the technical taxonomy that distinguishes among virtual, augmented, and mixed reality, toward a more procedurally elegant concept: the “multidimensional virtual experience.” By this term, we denote an interactive digital representation of a destination or tourism product that generates, for the tourist, spatial presence, sensory immersion, adaptive narrative, social interaction, and a sense of authenticity, while enabling the customization of the path and content according to the tourist’s characteristics, identity, and motivations. Under this definition, the experience becomes a psycho sociotechnical construct that cannot be reduced to a device or a platform.
This conceptual shift is theoretically motivated by three observations. First, the literature has predominantly examined isolated technological attributes resolution, field of view, latency without considering their experiential integration (Kim et al., 2020). Second, the tourist’s response to virtual environments is mediated by psychological states that are themselves multidimensional: presence, flow, emotion, trust, and perceived value (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Third, the success of the tourism offer depends not on any single dimension of the virtual experience but on their synergistic interaction, a point that existing models have insufficiently addressed.
2.3 The Explanatory Theoretical Pillars
The Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) Model. The SOR framework, originally proposed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and subsequently adapted to tourism contexts by numerous scholars (e.g., Kim et al., 2020, Li et al., 2021), provides a parsimonious yet powerful lens for understanding how virtual environment characteristics (stimuli) influence the tourist’s internal psychological states (organism) and subsequently their behavioral and attitudinal responses. In our model, the stimuli are the seven dimensions of the multidimensional virtual experience, the organism comprises emotional engagement, place trust, and preview value, and the responses encompass intention, satisfaction, loyalty, and electronic word of mouth. This tripartite structure allows us to trace the causal chain from technological design to marketing outcomes while accounting for the mediating psychological processes that are often overlooked in technocentric studies.
Presence Theory. Presence the subjective sensation of “being there” in a mediated environment has been identified as the single most critical determinant of virtual experience effectiveness in tourism (Witmer & Singer, 1998, Slater, 2009). However, presence is not monolithic. Lee (2004) distinguished among spatial presence, social presence, and self presence, while Biocca et al. (2003) proposed a hierarchical model encompassing perceptual, social psychological, and cognitive dimensions. Our study integrates these perspectives by treating spatial presence as a foundational dimension of the multidimensional virtual experience, while acknowledging that it is both an outcome of technological design (e.g., stereoscopic depth, spatial audio) and a precursor to emotional engagement and trust.
The Experience Economy. Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) seminal framework posits that economic value progresses through four realms entertainment, education, escapism, and aesthetics and that the most compelling experiences occur at the intersection of active participation and immersion. Applied to virtual tourism, this implies that a successful virtual experience must not merely entertain (passive viewing) but must invite the tourist into active, immersive participation. The concept of “transformation” in the experience economy where the experience changes the tourist resonates deeply
with the potential of virtual environments to reshape destination perceptions, preferences, and ultimately behavior.
Technology Acceptance and Readiness Models. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989) and its extensions (UTAUT, Venkatesh et al., 2003) remind us that the impact of any technology is contingent upon the user’s readiness, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. In the tourism context, tourist technological readiness (TTR) becomes a critical moderating variable: a technologically sophisticated virtual experience may alienate less digitally literate tourists, particularly older adults or those from cultures with lower technology penetration (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). This insight compels us to incorporate TTR, perceived risk, and cultural sensitivity as moderators in our conceptual model.
2.4 Gaps in the Existing Literature
Despite the proliferation of studies on virtual reality in tourism, several critical gaps persist. First, the majority of empirical studies examine one or two dimensions typically presence and intention while neglecting the multidimensional nature of the experience (Guttentag, 2010, Huang et al., 2016). Second, the concept of “success” is overwhelmingly operationalized as visitation intention, ignoring broader outcomes such as loyalty, advocacy, competitive differentiation, and destination resilience (Buhalis & Law, 2008). Third, mediating mechanisms particularly emotional engagement and place trust are underexplored in virtual tourism contexts, despite their centrality in offline tourism research (Bigné et al., 2005, Prebensen et al., 2013). Fourth, the role of cultural sensitivity as a moderator has been virtually ignored, even though the perception of authenticity, interactivity, and narrative varies dramatically across cultural contexts (Hofstede, 2001, Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Fifth, the notion of “digital authenticity”a concept this study introduces has not been theorized in the tourism literature, despite its obvious relevance to trust and acceptance.
It is precisely these gaps that the present study seeks to address through an integrative conceptual framework.
3. The Seven Dimensions of the Multidimensional Virtual Experience
This study proposes that the multidimensional virtual experience in tourism comprises seven interrelated yet distinct dimensions. These dimensions do not operate in isolation, rather, they interact systematically to produce the tourist’s overall experience of the destination. Each dimension is elaborated below.
3.1 Spatial Presence
Spatial presence refers to the tourist’s sensation of being physically located within the virtual destination. It is not achieved merely by presenting a 360degree panorama, rather, it requires coherence among visual, auditory, and kinesthetic cues, navigational freedom, and clear cognitive mapping of the space. When the tourist can imagine their position within the heritage souk, the museum, or the beach, and can anticipate what would happen if they turned right or left, the spectator is transformed into a “virtual visitor.” Spatial presence, therefore, constitutes a necessary precondition for building trust and reducing destination ambiguity. Drawing on Slater’s (2009) concept of “place illusion” and “plausibility illusion,” we argue that both must be simultaneously activated: the tourist
must feel present (place illusion) and must believe that the environment responds plausibly to their actions (plausibility illusion). In tourism marketing terms, spatial presence is the gateway through which all subsequent experiential dimensions become possible.
Empirically, spatial presence has been shown to mediate the relationship between technological quality and behavioral intention (Kim et al., 2020), and to moderate the effect of interactivity on satisfaction (Huang et al., 2016). However, its interaction with other dimensions particularly emotional engagement and cultural context remains underexplored.
3.2 Sensory Immersion
Sensory immersion concerns the depth to which the tourist’s senses are drawn into the virtual environment. The more channels that are engaged visual, auditory, haptic, olfactory (albeit nascent), and even proprioceptive the greater the capacity of the experience to simulate the affective encounter with the place. Yet immersion must be carefully calibrated: an excess of effects can distract attention and undermine authenticity. What is required is a deliberately designed immersion that places the senses in service of meaning, not spectacle.
This dimension resonates with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) concept of “flow”the optimal state of absorption in an activityand with Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) aesthetic realm, where the tourist is immersed in the environment without necessarily altering it. In virtual tourism, sensory immersion is the mechanism through which the destination’s atmosphereits light, sound, texture, and rhythmis communicated in a way that static images or videos cannot achieve. Recent advances in spatial audio, haptic feedback, and even olfactory simulation (e.g., scentemitting devices) promise to deepen this dimension further, though their tourism applications remain experimental (Ranasinghe et al., 2018).
3.3 Interactivity
Interactivity denotes the tourist’s capacity to influence the trajectory of the experience: selecting a viewpoint, opening informational layers, transitioning from day to night, entering a normally inaccessible site, or posing a question to a virtual guide. Here, the experience shifts from passive observation to cognitive participation. Interactivity generates a sense of agency and controla psychological state strongly associated with experience quality and user satisfaction (Novak et al., 2000).
In the tourism literature, interactivity has been examined primarily as a technological attribute (e.g., number of clickable hotspots, navigation freedom) rather than as an experiential dimension (Buhalis et al., 2003). This study repositions interactivity as a core experiential construct, arguing that its value lies not in the number of interactions available but in their meaningfulness whether they enable the tourist to explore, learn, decide, or co create. The highest form of interactivity in virtual tourism may be what we term “narrative interactivity,” where the tourist’s choices shape the story of the destination, a concept we develop further under adaptive storytelling.
3.4 Personalization
The contemporary tourist does not seek a uniform experience, rather, they seek an experience that resonates with their tastes, capabilities, budget, and cultural identity. The multidimensional virtual experience enables the provision of differentiated pathways: a family path, a heritage path, an adventure path, an accessibility path for persons with disabilities. Personalization, therefore, functions
as a mechanism for transforming the destination from a readymade product into a malleable experience platform.
This dimension draws on the one to one marketing paradigm (Peppers & Rogers, 1993) and on recommender system theory (Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005), but extends them into the experiential domain. In virtual tourism, personalization can operate at multiple levels: content personalization (which sites are shown), narrative personalization (which story is told), sensory personalization (which ambiance is emphasized), and even emotional personalization (which mood is evoked). The ethical dimension of personalization data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the risk of creating filter bubbles must also be acknowledged, though it falls beyond the immediate scope of this conceptual paper.
3.5 Digital Authenticity
A central epistemological challenge in virtual tourism concerns whether the digital representation preserves or distorts the authenticity of the place. This study introduces the concept of “digital authenticity” to denote the degree to which the virtual representation is truthful, transparent in its sources, respectful of cultural context, and clear in distinguishing between documented reality and imaginative reconstruction. Digital authenticity is not a perfect replica of reality, rather, it is an ethical and epistemic promise that what the tourist sees will not mislead.
This concept builds on Wang’s (1999) typology of authenticity objective, constructive, and existential and on Cohen’s (1988) distinction between objectbased and existential authenticity, but transposes them into the digital realm. A virtually rendered heritage site, for instance, may be objectively accurate in its architecture but existentially inauthentic if it strips away the living community that gives the site its meaning. Digital authenticity, therefore, requires not only technical fidelity but also cultural sensitivity, community involvement, and narrative honesty. We posit that digital authenticity is a critical antecedent of place trust and a moderator of the relationship between immersion and behavioral intention: the more authentic the experience feels, the more likely immersion will translate into trust and action.
3.6 Social Connectedness
Tourism is a social act even in its most individualistic manifestations. The virtual experience gains potency when it enables co presence with friends, group exploration, encounters with local guides, or the viewing of trusted evaluations within the environment itself. Social connectedness transforms the experience from a solitary, isolated activity into a shareable, communicable event.
This dimension aligns with Short et al.’s (1976) social presence theory and with the growing literature on social virtual reality (Bailenson, 2018). In tourism, social connectedness can take several forms: synchronous co exploration (multiple users navigating the same virtual destination simultaneously), asynchronous social cues (seeing what others have liked or commented on), and parasocial interaction (engaging with a virtual guide or local resident). The COVID19 pandemic dramatically amplified the relevance of this dimension, as virtual copresence became a substitute for physical togetherness (Sigala, 2020). We argue that social connectedness not only enhances enjoyment but also amplifies electronic word of mouth and reduces perceived risk through social proof.
3.7 Adaptive Storytelling
A place without a story is mere geography. Narrative is what endows landmarks with soul. However, effective storytelling in the virtual environment is not always linear, it adapts to the user’s choices, interests, and browsing duration. Adaptive storytelling implies that the destination must possess a “narrative engine” that links cultural assets with behavioral data to deliver a personalized story without compromising content authenticity.
This dimension draws on narrative transportation theory (Green & Brock, 2000), which posits that individuals who are “transported” into a story experience reduced counter arguing and increased attitude change. In virtual tourism, adaptive storytelling can transport the tourist into the history, culture, and daily life of the destination, creating an emotional bond that static information cannot achieve. The adaptiveness is crucial: a rigid, one sizefitsall narrative may bore the experienced traveler or overwhelm the novice. By tailoring the depth, pace, and emotional tone of the story to the individual, adaptive storytelling maximizes engagement while respecting cognitive limits.
Moreover, adaptive storytelling intersects with personalization and interactivity: the tourist’s choices shape the narrative, and the narrative shapes the tourist’s perception of the destination. This recursive loop is, we argue, the engine of transformation in the virtual tourism experience.
4. Tourism Offer Success: From Sales to Extended Value Experience
Traditionally, tourism offer success has been measured by the number of overnight stays, spending levels, occupancy rates, and market share. While these indicators remain relevant, they have become insufficient in an environment where intention is formed well before booking, where reputation is shaped by user generated content, and where value is constructed through sequential digital and physical moments.
This study proposes a multilevel conceptualization of tourism offer success in the era of the multidimensional virtual experience:
Cognitive Attraction. The offer’s capacity to capture attention, stimulate curiosity, and construct a clear mental image of the destination. In the virtual context, this is the first and most fundamental outcome: if the experience fails to attract cognitively, no subsequent dimension matters.
Perceived Risk Reduction. The tourist’s ability to preview the place, its services, and its cultural context before committing financially. Virtual experiences function as a powerful riskreduction mechanism, particularly for high involvement, high cost, or culturally unfamiliar destinations (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998).
Behavioral Intention. The likelihood of booking, visiting, or recommending after exposure to the virtual experience. While the most commonly used dependent variable in virtual tourism research, intention must be understood not as an endpoint but as a proximal indicator of deeper attitudinal change.
Satisfaction and Expectation–Disconfirmation. The alignment between expectations formed during the virtual experience and the actual onsite experience. A positive disconfirmation (experience exceeds expectation) generates satisfaction, a negative one generates disappointment and distrust. This
dimension underscores the importance of digital authenticity: the more authentic the virtual representation, the higher the likelihood of positive disconfirmation.
Loyalty and Electronic WordofMouth (eWOM). Revisitation, recommendation to others, or production of positive user generated content. In the digital age, eWOM is not merely a byproduct of satisfaction but a strategic asset that amplifies reach at minimal cost (HennigThurau et al., 2004).
Competitive Differentiation. The destination’s possession of a distinctive, memorable digital identity amid a cacophony of competing offers. In a world where every destination can produce a 360degree video, differentiation requires the multidimensional depth that this study theorizes.
Destination Resilience. The capacity of the destination to maintain tourist engagement during crises, restrictions, or periods of physical inaccessibility. The virtual experience, as this study argues, is not merely a marketing tool but a resilience instrument a way of keeping the destination “alive” in the tourist’s imagination when physical travel is impossible (Sigala, 2020).
This reconceptualization shifts the unit of analysis from the transaction to the relationship, from the visit to the journey, and from the product to the value cocreation process.
- The Proposed Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
The central proposition of this study is that the impact of the multidimensional virtual experience on tourism offer success is neither direct nor automatic, rather, it operates through psychological mediators and is contingent upon contextual moderators. The proposed conceptual model is articulated as follows.
5.1 Direct and Indirect Pathways
The seven dimensions of the multidimensional virtual experience (spatial presence, sensory immersion, interactivity, personalization, digital authenticity, social connectedness, and adaptive storytelling) are posited to exert both direct and indirect effects on tourism offer success. The indirect effects operate through three key mediating variables:
Emotional Engagement: The depth of affective involvement the tourist experiences during the virtual encounter. Drawing on Bagozzi et al. (1999), emotional engagement encompasses arousal, pleasure, and dominance, and is theorized to be activated primarily by spatial presence, sensory immersion, and adaptive storytelling.
Place Trust: The tourist’s confidence that the destination will deliver on its virtual promises. Place trust is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing competence trust (the destination can deliver), benevolence trust (the destination cares about the tourist), and integrity trust (the destination is honest). Digital authenticity and social connectedness are posited as the primary antecedents of place trust.
Preview Value: The tourist’s assessment of the utility gained from the virtual experience in informing their decision. Preview value is distinct from functional utility, it encompasses informational value,
experiential value, and transformative value (the extent to which the experience changed the tourist’s perception). Interactivity and personalization are theorized to be the primary drivers of preview value.
5.2 Moderating Variables
Three moderating variables are proposed to condition the strength of the relationships in the model:
Tourist Technological Readiness (TTR): The tourist’s self assessed competence, comfort, and motivation to engage with virtual technologies. High TTR amplifies the positive effects of interactivity and immersion, low TTR attenuates them or even generates reactance (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Perceived Risk: The tourist’s assessment of the potential negative consequences of the visit (financial, social, psychological, physical). High perceived risk may strengthen the positive effect of digital authenticity and social connectedness (as trustbuilding mechanisms) while weakening the effect of pure hedonic dimensions like sensory immersion.
Cultural Sensitivity: The degree to which the virtual experience respects and reflects the tourist’s cultural values, communication styles, and authenticity expectations. Drawing on Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions, we propose that collectivist cultures may respond more strongly to social connectedness and narrative, while individualist cultures may prioritize interactivity and personalization.
5.3 Hypotheses
Based on the foregoing theorizing, the following hypotheses are advanced:
H1: The dimensions of the multidimensional virtual experience (spatial presence, sensory immersion, interactivity, personalization, digital authenticity, social connectedness, and adaptive storytelling) exert a significant positive effect on the tourist’s emotional engagement.
H2: The dimensions of the multidimensional virtual experience exert a significant positive effect on place trust.
H3: The dimensions of the multidimensional virtual experience exert a significant positive effect on perceived preview value.
H4: Emotional engagement exerts a significant positive effect on tourism offer success. H5: Place trust exerts a significant positive effect on tourism offer success.
H6: Perceived preview value exerts a significant positive effect on tourism offer success.
H7: Emotional engagement, place trust, and perceived preview value mediate the relationship between the multidimensional virtual experience and tourism offer success.
H8a: Tourist technological readiness positively moderates the relationship between the multidimensional virtual experience and emotional engagement.
H8b: Perceived risk positively moderates the relationship between digital authenticity and place trust.
H8c: Cultural sensitivity moderates the relative strength of the seven dimensions’ effects on tourism offer success.
These hypotheses collectively form a testable model that can be examined through structural equation modeling (SEM), partial least squares (PLS), or experimental designs, as outlined in the methodology section.
6. Suggested Methodology for Empirical Validation
Although the present study is fundamentally theoretical, it is imperative to lay the groundwork for empirical testing. Accordingly, a three phase mixed methods approach is proposed.
Phase 1: Scale Development
Measurement items for each dimension are derived through a combination of content analysis of existing digital tourism experiences, expert interviews with tourism marketers and experience designers, and cognitive pretesting with a convenience sample of tourists. For instance, spatial presence may be measured using adapted items from Witmer and Singer (1998) (“I felt as though I was actually inside the destination”), digital authenticity using newly developed items (“The virtual representation seemed honest about what the real place is like”), and adaptive storytelling using items inspired by Green and Brock (2000) (“I became emotionally absorbed in the story of the place”).
Phase 2: Experimental Study
Multiple versions of a virtual tour of a single destination are designed, systematically varying in dimensionality: a low interactivity version, a high interactivity version, a linear narrative version, an adaptive narrative version, and a socially connected version. Participants are randomly assigned to conditions, and their responses on presence, trust, engagement, preview value, and intention are compared using ANOVA or MANCOVA. This phase enables the isolation of each dimension’s causal effect.
Phase 3: Longitudinal Field Study
After exposure to the virtual experience, potential tourists are tracked over time: intention is measured immediately, booking behavior is tracked over 3–6 months, actual visitation and satisfaction are recorded postvisit, and loyalty and e WOM are assessed at 6 and 12 months. This phase captures the full trajectory from virtual experience to real world outcomes and allows testing of the mediation and moderation hypotheses through longitudinal SEM.
Ethical considerations informed consent, data privacy, right to withdraw, and the potential psychological effects of immersive technology must be rigorously addressed in all phases, in compliance with institutional review board (IRB) standards and the GDPR where applicable.
- Discussion: Why Some Virtual Experiences Succeed and Others Fail
It can be argued that the virtual experience fails when it is merely a digital replica of a tourism brochure, because in such cases it does not exploit the essential affordances of the medium. It also fails when it overindulges in fantasy and loses credibility, when it overwhelms the user with effects devoid of cultural context, or when it prioritizes spectacle over substance. Success, conversely, is contingent upon achieving a delicate equilibrium between wonder and veracity, between the control granted to the user and the narrative flow that guides them, between personalization and data privacy, and between sociality and the avoidance of reducing the place to a consumable spectacle.
The novel contributions of this study can be distilled into three propositions. First, it shifts the analytical focus from the technology of virtual reality to the “experience” as a multidimensional construct. Second, it expands the concept of tourism offer success to encompass the pre visit and postvisit phases, not merely the moment of consumption. Third, it introduces the concept of “digital authenticity” as both an epistemic and ethical precondition for tourist acceptance of virtual place representations.
The model also offers an explanation for a paradox well known to practitioners: a virtual tour may garner millions of views yet generate negligible bookings. The reason may be that viewing is not presence, that presence without trust does not generate intention, that trust without preview value does not justify the cost, and that all these mechanisms are modulated by the tourist’s readiness and cultural sensitivity. The multidimensional framework makes visible the missing links in this causal chain.
Furthermore, the model predicts interaction effects among dimensions that have not been previously theorized. For example, high interactivity combined with low digital authenticity may back fire the tourist feels manipulated. Similarly, high social connectedness combined with low personalization may feel generic. These interaction effects, if confirmed empirically, would have profound implications for the design of virtual tourism experiences.
8. Managerial and Marketing Implications
The study yields a series of actionable recommendations for destinations and tourism organizations:
- Design the Experience, Not the Application. Projects must not begin with technology selection but with the design of meaning, place narrative, and the dimensions to be activated. The technology is the vehicle, the experience is the destination.
- Build Phygital Offers. Virtual tours should be linked to tangible packages tickets, accommodations, minitours, onsite augmented reality features creating a seamless continuum between the digital and the physical. The term “phygital” (physical + digital) captures this integration (Rauschnabel et al., 2022).
- Deploy Responsible Personalization. Offer pathways according to motivations and capabilities, but with full transparency in data use. Personalization without trust is surveillance, personalization with trust is service.
- Strengthen Digital Involve local communities and cultural heritage in the representation, cite content sources, and clearly distinguish between documentation and reconstruction. Authenticity is not a technical attribute, it is a relational commitment.
- Transform the Tourist into a Content Enable the capture and sharing of moments within the virtual experience, thereby amplifying eWOM organically. The tourist who shares is the tourist who believes.
- Invest in Virtual Experiences for Crisis Management. When physical mobility is constrained by pandemics, conflicts, or natural disasters the virtual experience sustains destination presence and revenue potential (Sigala, 2020).
- Prioritize Inclusivity. Design pathways for persons with disabilities, older adults, and markets with health or spatial The multidimensional virtual experience, at its best, democratizes access to destinations that were previously inaccessible.
- Train Destination Marketers in Experiential Design. The competencies required are no longer those of traditional advertising but of experience architecture, narrative design, and data informed personalization. Tourism marketing curricula must evolve accordingly.
- Limitations and Future Research Directions
The most significant limitation of this study is its theoretical nature, the hypotheses require empirical testing across diverse tourism contexts: heritage, nature, wellness, entertainment, and business tourism. Moreover, the proposed constructs particularly digital authenticity and adaptive story telling require the development and validation of precise measurement instruments.
Future research may pursue several promising avenues. First, the impact of digital twins of destinations on visitation decisions represents a frontier where virtual and physical converge at the infrastructure level (Kritzinger et al., 2018). Second, the role of artificial intelligence in generating adaptive tourism narratives using large language models trained on local knowledge raises both opportunities and ethical questions. Third, the use of biometric data (eye tracking, galvanic skin response, facial expression analysis) to measure emotional engagement in real time offers unprecedented granularity but demands rigorous ethical frameworks (Tom Dieck et al., 2018). Fourth, cross cultural studies of digital authenticity perceptions could reveal whether the concept is universal or culturally contingent. Fifth, the impact of virtual experiences on the perceived scarcity and overcrowding of threatened destinations a paradox where virtual access may either alleviate or exacerbate physical pressure deserves investigation (Gössling et al., 2020).
Additionally, future studies could explore the dark side of the multidimensional virtual experience: addiction, escapism, displacement of physical travel, and the commodification of sacred places. A balanced research agenda must attend to both the promises and the perils of virtual tourism.
10. Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that the multidimensional virtual experience is not a passing technological trend but a structural transformation in the meaning of the tourism offer. It redefines the relationship between tourist and place such that the touristic act begins before arrival and persists after departure. Through its seven dimensions presence, immersion, interactivity, personalization, digital authenticity, social connectedness, and adaptive story telling the virtual experience becomes a marketing and epistemic structure capable of generating emotional engagement, place trust, and preview value, and thereby achieving tourism offer success in its broadest sense.
Yet this success is not guaranteed by technology alone. It depends on the destination’s capacity to craft a digital representation that is truthful, adaptive, inclusive, and respectful of local culture. In this sense, the multidimensional virtual experience becomes a test of tourism intelligence: Can the destination tell its own story without losing its soul? Can it bring the tourist into the place before the tourist enters the place? The affirmative answer is what makes the difference in tourism markets where desire accelerates, abundance shifts, and imagination becomes the platform of decision.
The virtual experience, when properly conceived, does not replace the real, it enriches the real, extends the real, and sometimes saves the real. For the tourism industry standing at the intersection of technology and human longing, this is not merely an academic proposition it is an existential opportunity.
References
Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the stateoftheart and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(6), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2005.99
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272005
Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do.
- W. Norton & Company.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–
Bigné, E., Sánchez, M. I., & Sánchez, J. (2005). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: Interrelationship. Tourism Management, 26(4), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.03.003
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the InternetThe state of eTourism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005
Buhalis, D., O’Connor, P., & Wong, I. A. (2003). Application of information technologies in tourism: A review. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2003 (pp. 3–14). Springer.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371–
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Flavián, C., IbáñezSánchez, S., & Orús, C. (2019). The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. Journal of Business Research, 100, 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.79.5.701
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1252501501968
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
HennigThurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic wordofmouth via consumeropinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Huang, T. L., Wang, C. H., & Liao, S. (2016). Understanding the factors influencing tourists’ behavioral intention to use virtual reality: A semiexperimental approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 7(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT0420160033
Kim, M. J., Lee, C.K., & Jung, T. (2020). Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulusorganismresponse model. Journal of Travel Research, 59(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518818915
Kritzinger, W., Karner, M., Traar, G., Henjes, J., & Sihn, W. (2018). Digital twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification. IFACPapersOnLine, 51(11), 1016–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682885.2004.tb00302.x
Li, J., Bonn, M. A., & Ye, B. H. (2021). Hotel employee’s artificial intelligence and robotics awareness and its impact on turnover intention: The moderating roles of perceived organizational support and competitive psychological climate. Tourism Management, 73, 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.006
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.98.2.224
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2014). A typology of technologyenhanced tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(4), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1958
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.1.22.15184
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1993). The one to one future: Building relationships one customer at a time. Currency Doubleday.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press.
Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2013). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512463185
Ranasinghe, N., Jain, P., Karwita, S., Tolley, D., & Do, E. Y. L. (2018). Virtual taste and smell: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3190649
Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., & Hinsch, C. (2022). Augmented reality marketing: How mobile ARapps can improve brands through inspiration. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.004
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
Sigala, M. (2020). Tourism and COVID19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(12), 1987–1992. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1799891
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01607383(97)000728
Tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, D. (2018). Enhancing museum visitor experience through wearable technology: The effect of an augmented reality enhanced guide. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2018 (pp. 347–359). Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management, 66, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686