140 likes | 223 Views
Experiential product placements in Virtual Environments:. Presence, information processing and advertising effectiveness. Dan Grigorovici Pennsylvania State University ICA 2003 Presence Panel. Roadmap. IVE as “invisible persuasive medium”
E N D
Experiential product placements in Virtual Environments: Presence, information processing and advertising effectiveness Dan Grigorovici Pennsylvania State University ICA 2003 Presence Panel
Roadmap • IVE as “invisible persuasive medium” • Persuasive effects of presence via physiological (arousal) & cognitive moderators (depth & level of processing) • Application to persuasion & advertising: • Commercial messages: • Product placements
Background • Two-step theoretical model of persuasion-related effects is proposed[1]: • More presence more arousal and affect impact on depth of processing (user more likely to process information affectively, more implicitly and heuristically) • Effect of making the user less aware of an embedded persuasive message moderating effect on various advertising-related outcomes: less ad recall, but more positive brand attitudes and favorable purchase intentions. • Product placements = more effective than blatant advertisements [1] Grigorovici, D. (2003), Persuasive effects of presence in Immersive Virtual Environments, in G. Riva, F. Davide & W. Ijjsselsteijn (Eds.), Being There: concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments(Emerging Communication Book Series, Vol. 5) (pp. 191-208). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Research objectives • 1. empirical testing of an original model of cognitive effects of presence on persuasion (applications in advertising effectiveness, persuasive arguments, etc.) • 2. establishing a link between form & content-based presence and persuasion models (ELM, HSM) • 3. empirical testing & validating standardized presence scales using SEM (ITC-SOPI; IPQ; Witmer & Singer)
Methods Study 1-pretest • N of observations = 248 • Sample size = 31 undergraduate students • 24 worlds varying in: • VE content arousal (high, medium, low) • scene type (outdoor, indoor) • sound (yes, no) • interactivity (yes, no) • random order and world viewing sequencing was performed
Methods Study 2 • 2 (task type) x 2 (VE content type) x 2 (3D ad type) x 4 (3D Ad product type) x 2 (3D Ad brand name) x 2 (product type) x 4 (3D Site ID) mixed design • task type and VE content type = between-participants variables • 3D ad type, ad product type, ad brand name, product type and 3D site ID = within-participants variables • Eight 3D-VRML immersive Web pages: 4 high arousal, 4 low arousal (pretested in Study 1) • N = 240 undergraduate students • Stimuli
Methods Study 2 • Independent variables • task type = categorical, 2 levels: experiential-navigation, search-selection • VE content arousal = ordinal, 2 levels: high and low • 3D ad type = categorical, 2 levels: a 3D product placement, vs. same 3D on a billboard • 3D ad product type = categorical, 4 levels: soda can, car, cell phone, solar panel • Dependent variables • Presence • ITC-SOPI • IPQ Sense of Presence Questionnaire • Cognitive capacity • skin conductance response (SCR), heart-rate (EEG) and secondary task reaction time (RT) measures throughout the test period • Attention • via Skin Conductance Response (SCR) measurement, as well as through Electrocardiogram (ECG)
Methods Study 2 • Dependent variables: • recall and recognition memory • memory for the 3D content was also assessed post-test with free and cued recall as well as recognition memory items included in the post-test questionnaire. • attitude towards the site • ad awareness • eight recognition items, each with four multiple-choice, closed-ended response • free recall • attitude towards the ads • ten 7-point Likert scale items derived from Machleit and Wilson (1988) • attitude towards the brands (advertised in the 3D ads) • three 7-point Likert scale items used by Muehling and Laczniak (1988) • purchase intention: three-item, 7-point Likert scale • attitudes towards environment scale • navigation patterns (movement speed and routes followed, stop timestamps, etc.) = tracked in real time
Preliminary Results • Spatial presence factor of ITC-SOPI positively predicts arousal level: F (1,230)=142.34, p<.0001 • When controlling for “engagement”, main effect of “spatial presence” on arousal is not significant • Main effect of previous VR experience on spatial presence = not significant • Main effect of gender on spatial presence, engagement, naturalness = non significant • Main effect of gender on negative FX: F(1,230)=78.60, p<.0001
Preliminary Results • Validation of ITC-SOPI, using first order CFA (Lisrel): • Original model fits our data poorly, since Chi square (df=1184)=4930.14, p=0.0; Chi square/df = 4.16 (>3); RMSEA=0.14 (90% CI – 0.14, 0.14) > recommended 0.05; AGFI=0.41; CFI=0.89; SRMR=0.29; ECVI=30.53, with 90% CI – 29.41;31.47 (while ECVI for saturated model=11.04) • Suggested model modification: • Correlating SpPres-Eng; SpPres-Natural; Eng-Natural • Chi square (df=1181)=5767.66, p=0.00; Chi square/df=4.88; RMSEA=0.13 • Correlating error covariances between several observed variables from the initial ITC-SOPI • The factors of ITC-SOPI are not independent/mutually exclusive • Analysis of the physiological data (SCR, ECG) & secondary reaction time measures: • currently on going
Preliminary Results • Validation of ITC-SOPI, using first order CFA (Lisrel):
Discussion – pattern of findings • 1. Results from ITC-SOPI CFA suggest the need for further refinement of the scale using SEM • 2. The “engagement” factor from ITC-SOPI presence scale seem to make an important contribution above and beyond the remaining 3 factors in the overall “sense of presence” ratings • When controlling for engagement level, main effect of arousal on presence is not significant • 2. When highly arousing, AD-related variables (Aad, Ad recall, etc.) do not show significant effects for product placements but they do for billboards (due to the nature of the ad-presentation); however, BRAND-related variables (brand perceptions, purchase intention, etc.), show significant positive effects for product placements, but not for billboards • 3. The reverse is true for the low arousing VE content • 4. Data analysis for the ELM-type persuasive argument manipulation is on going (expected findings = similar to those at 3 & 4 above), which would confirm our model of cognitive effects of presence
Applications • Is there a distinction between product placements and classical advertisements in IVE? • NO, same 3D object can be both • Task type differentiates between them
Further research (on going) • Study 3: • 3 x 2 x 2 between participants design • Task type = 3 levels (navigation, search, cognitive) • Immersion level: high, low (fishtank VE, ImmersaDesk, CAVE) • Stereoscopy (presence, absence) • Expected findings: • Study 4: • Classic ELM persuasive argument manipulation in an environmental context: 2 (presence) x 2 (argument strength) mixed design • Expected findings: • Significant interaction: Study 3 & 4 currently in the design stage