AN EXTENDED TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL ON THEME PARK

VISITOR’S INTENTION TO USE VIRTUAL REALITY

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

In

Hospitality Management

By

Kristen R. Oakley

2019
 SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS: AN EXTENDED TECHNOLOGY

ACCEPTANCE MODEL ON THEME
PARK VISITOR’S INTENTION TO USE
VIRTUAL REALITY

AUTHOR: Kristen R. Oakley

DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2019

Collins College of Hospitality Management

Dr. Wan Yang

Thesis Committee Chair
Hospitality Management _________________________________________

Dr. Myongjee Yoo

Hospitality Management _________________________________________

Dr. Sungsik Yoon

Hospitality Management __________________________________________

ii
 ABSTRACT

The current development of the virtual reality market is driven by the continuous

digitization advancements in the technology. An increasing number of theme parks have

incorporated VR technology as an innovative way to attract more visitors by creating

unique experiences. Theme parks are critical tourism destinations; therefore, it is

important to understand the decision-making process of theme park visitors on newer

innovative technologies. While various research has made contributions to VR literature,

there are currently several research gaps that this paper will identify. The classic

Technology Acceptance Model will be extended and applied to gain a deeper

understanding of a tourist’s intention to use VR during their visit to a theme park. The

purpose of this thesis is to understand the relationships among perceived usefulness,

perceived ease of use, perceived subjective norm, perceived compatibility with lifestyle

and perceived enjoyment with the tourist’s behavioral intention to use VR during a theme

park visit. A multiple regression analysis was conducted and found that perceived

usefulness, perceived compatibility with lifestyle and perceived enjoyment to be

statistically significant predictors of the intention to use virtual reality during a theme

park visit. Implications for theme park owners and operators would benefit from adopting

VR technologies into their theme parks.

Keywords: virtual reality; theme park; technology acceptance model.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page..................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

List Of Tables ..................................................................................................................... v

List Of Figures ................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter One ........................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter Two........................................................................................................................ 4

Literature Review............................................................................................................ 4

Chapter Three.................................................................................................................... 15

Methodology ................................................................................................................. 15

Chapter Four ..................................................................................................................... 19

Results ........................................................................................................................... 19

Chapter Five ...................................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 23

References ......................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 37

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Reliability of Scale......................................................................................18

Table 2. Demographics .............................................................................................20

Table 3. Regression Results .....................................................................................22

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Hypothesis Model………………………………………………………….. 14

vi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The advanced developments of technologies have allowed the tourism industry to

continue to develop, grow and enhance experiences for their visitors. Theme parks are a

major source of revenue for the tourism industry with a forecast of 22 billion U.S. dollars

for 2019. Revenue in theme parks is expected to continue to rise in the future. One

technological advancement that theme parks around the world are starting to incorporate

is virtual reality (VR). Disney Parks and Resorts are among theme parks that have begun

incorporating VR technology to create an immersive exploration. Disney’s virtual reality

attraction, The Void, is an immersive exploration where visitors become disguised as a

Stormtrooper that fight and steal away a powerful weapon from the empire (Craven,

2018). The use of this sort of VR technology that various theme parks are incorporating

can be the type of experience theme park visitors are looking for.

Milman (2009) emphasizes that theme parks should provide their guests with

high-quality experiences through entertainment, dining, or rides and attractions in order

to retain and increase their market share. It is important to understand and identify those

factors that bring visitors to a theme park because the tourism industry needs to

constantly provide and improve experiences for their visitors in order to continue to grow

their market. Theme park visitors are demanding experiences rather than pure ‘products’

or ‘objects’ (Milman, 2009). Virtual reality can be a vital component for theme parks. VR

has the potential to enhance visitor’s experience and increase the likelihood of them

returning.

1
 Previous research pertaining to virtual reality, specifically in theme parks, is fairly

limited. However, previous researchers have used the Technology Acceptance Model

(TAM) to identify and understand the consumer’s attitude toward using virtual reality

within the hospitality and tourism industry (e.g., Guttentag, 2010; Huang, Backman,

Mcguire, Backman, & Chang 2013). TAM has been a widely accepted theoretical model

to explain the individual’s acceptance of information technology, but there is a need for

more substantive factors for a deeper understanding of consumer behaviors. Thus, the

current study will expand the original TAM by introducing three additional predictors to

explain visitors’ behavioral intentions. By providing more key determinants to the current

TAM, the study can provide an improved measurement in predicting and explaining the

individual’s behavioral intentions regarding the use of virtual reality rollercoasters during

their visit to a theme park.

Moreover, there are currently two research gaps that this current study will be

addressing. First, there is limited theoretical research that is being conducted on VR in

the hospitality and tourism sector. The previous research mostly focuses on the

effectiveness of VR technology and user experience but limited research using TAM for

VR to identify potential influencers on behavioral intention. Secondly, there has been

scarce research that focuses on virtual reality in theme parks to understand the visitor’s

experience and their behavioral intentions to use VR with a few exceptions (e.g., Jung,

tom Dieck, Rauschnabel, Ascencao, Tuominen, & Moilanen, 2018; Jung, Chung, &

Leue, 2015; Wei, Qi, & Zhang, 2018). Wei, Qi, & Zhang (2018) highlights a critical need

to study theme park visitors’ experience and behavioral intention associated with VR

applications because of the scarce attention it has received. By evaluating virtual reality

2
rollercoasters, theme park management can determine if this type of technological

advancement should be incorporated in their own theme parks. It is imperative to

understand the tourist perspective in using a virtual reality rollercoaster during their visit

to a theme park in order to explore ways theme parks can enhance their visitor’s

experience and gain a competitive edge.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to bridge the two research gaps presented

above and gain a better understanding of these relationships among the tourist’s

behavioral intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster during a theme park visit. The

current study will adopt TAM and provide three additional key determinants. By

understanding the important determinants of using virtual reality technologies, theme

park operators can better design this technology and implement VR in theme parks to

attract more visitors.

3
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Virtual Reality & Theme Parks

Virtual reality is defined as a computer-generated simulation of a three-

dimensional image or environment that a person can navigate and possibly interact with,

resulting in a real-time simulation of one or more of the user’s five senses (Guttentag,

2010). Virtual reality users can obtain information in multi-sensory modalities including

visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, that are intended to provide a sensation of actual

interaction users of the environment it portrays (Slater & Usoh, 1993; Stanney &

Salvendy; 1998). These environments can be real or imagined by the use of visual

experiences displayed on a computer screen or through special displays (Singh & Lee,

2008). The development of the recent innovation in virtual reality platforms, devices, and

content production tools has allowed virtual reality to evolve for anyone to experience an

abundance of content such as virtual tours of cities and attractions around the world

(Tussyadiah, Wang, Jung, & Dieck, 2018). Wyld (2010) explains that the virtual reality

world is the most important platform for both large organizations and individual

entrepreneurs to conduct business in the virtual environment.

Early research within the tourism and hospitality sector has tested the potential

effectiveness of virtual worlds for networking, entertainment, education, and exploring

new opportunities (Singh & Lee, 2008). Huang, Backman, Mcguire, Backman, & Chang

(2013) used VR to provide tourism management and planning for Starwood Hotels and

Resorts Worldwide, Inc., a hospitality ownership and management company. The

Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide built a prototype hotel in the virtual world to

4
test-market the hotel’s design and get customer feedback on the various aspects of the

hotel (Huang et al., 2013). The use of virtual reality platforms has shown to be effective

in improvements within the tourism industry, and it has demonstrated positive

relationships with consumers attitudes. Huang et al. (2013) expressed “the use of virtual

worlds increases the opportunity for communicating with consumers and is also

important for gaining competitive advantages in today’s increasingly globalized world”

(p. 473).

The current development of the virtual reality market is driven by the new

innovative digitization advancements in the technology. Research indicates that virtual

reality will become mainstream and could surpass $40 billion by the year 2020 (Costello,

2017). Tussyadiah et al. (2018) used mobile virtual reality headsets such as Google

Cardboard, Samsung Gear VR, and Google Daydream to research the sense of presence

during a virtual reality experience within tourism destinations. These researchers

discovered that the feeling of going into a virtual environment, such as a tourist

destination, increases enjoyment of the virtual reality experience. Visiting a tourism

destination virtually can result in a positive attitude change that leads to a higher level of

visitation intention; heightened sense of being there results in stronger liking and

preference in the tourism destination (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Unfortunately, these new

innovating technological advances in virtual reality have scarcely been explored by

hospitality researchers.

Recently, many theme parks have been incorporating VR to enhance and create a

wider variety of experiences for their visitors. Milman (2009) explains that theme parks

are replacing mechanical rides or attractions with postmodern interactive experiences

5
involving all five senses in order to be more competitive. Virtual reality attractions are an

innovative way to enrich pre-existing mechanical rides and attractions by providing a

unique interactive experience. An example of a theme park that has adopted virtual

reality technologies to is Six Flags Magic Mountain. The virtual reality rollercoaster

provides riders an experience where they can become Wonder Woman or Superman

battling Lex Luthor while falling 400 feet at speeds above 85 mph. This type of

technological advancement has yet to be examined and there are currently a few

theoretical researches on VR within theme parks.

However, Wei, Qi, & Zhang (2018) examined theme park visitors who

experienced a VR rollercoaster, and their research suggested that user’s sense of presence

is predominately driven by their feeling of control, participation, effectiveness, curiosity,

vividness, temporal association, and enjoyment provided by the VR system. Their results

demonstrated positive impacts of a sense of VR presence on visitor’s overall theme park

experience and their intentions to revisit and recommend that theme park (Wei, Qi, &

Zhang, 2018). Another study explored a theme park in Jeju Island, South Korea, to

examine users’ satisfaction and intention to recommend maker-based augmented reality

applications. Their research revealed that content, personalized service, and system

quality affected users’ satisfaction and intention to recommend augmented reality

application (Jung, Chung, & Leue, 2015). Jung et al.’s (2015) research also discovered

that personal innovativeness had strengthened the relationships with content quality,

personalized service quality, system quality, and satisfaction. VR has changed the way

tourists experience a destination or attraction, which enables them to have a more

interactive and diversified experience (Han, tom Dieck, & Jung, 2018). Therefore, since

6
theme parks are a vital tourism destination attraction, and it is important to provide more

theoretical research to gain a better understanding of VR technology in theme parks.

The current study will examine the tourist’s intention to use VR during their visit

to a theme park. It is important to understand the customers’ acceptance perspective of

VR rollercoasters because it could benefit theme parks by bringing in more revenue.

Theme park operators will have an advantage by adopting VR because they can

constantly change the experience on what is being shown without having to modify or

design an entire new rollercoaster, ultimately saving money and growing their profits. To

understand the perspective of the tourist, this study will adopt the classic Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and add three additional predictors. The classic

TAM is valid and reliable, but it fails to understand the consumer’s intention to use

innovative technology. Hwang & Good (2014) express that the classic TAM is “limited

in its ability to predict consumers’ behavioral intentions to adopt innovative technology

in a comprehensive manner” (p. 410). TAM is shown to have limited explanatory power

because consumers’ behavioral intentions are thought to be affected by attitude only and

are only expressed by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Hwang & Good,

2014). Therefore, there are other attitudinal characteristics that should be examined to

further enrich the classic TAM in order to connect consumer’s behavioral intention to use

innovative technology. The three variables that will be added to the current TAM are

perceived subjective norm, perceived compatibility with lifestyle, and perceived

enjoyment. These three determinants have been shown to be reliable key factors with

positive relationships pertaining to the intention to use in previous virtual reality research

(e.g., Huang et al., 2013; Gabisch, 2011; Chandra, Srivastava, & Theng, 2012).

7
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a theoretical model that was

proposed by Davis (1989) and is a widely used theory illustrating an individual’s

acceptance of information technology. TAM uses perceived usefulness and perceived

ease of use to determine an individual’s attitude toward using information technology

(Huang, Backman, Backman, & Chang, 2016). Davis (1989) defines perceived usefulness

as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance

his or her job performance” (p. 320). Perceived usefulness describes the extent to which

people believe information technology is beneficial in the improvement of their job

performance (Huang et al., 2013). According to Davis (1989), a system shown high in

perceived usefulness explains that the consumer believes in the existence of a positive

use-performance relationship.

The other determinant of the classic TAM is perceived ease of use which is

defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be

free of effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Davis (1989) claims that users will more likely

accept a system if the application is perceived to be easier to use than another system.

Many researchers within the travel and tourism industry have applied TAM to understand

the use of information technology in trip decision-making processes and the intentions to

travel to tourist destinations (Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006; Kim, Park, & Morrison, 2008).

More recently, Huang at. el. (2013) explored the technological acceptance factors of

perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness concerning behavioral intentions to take a

trip when experiencing the virtual tourism site. Their results implicated that perceived

usefulness had a direct and positive relationship with behavioral intentions (Huang at. el.,

8
2013). The implications of this study showed that the functional aspect of using VR

technology in the travel decision-making process increases consumer’s interests in

visiting the tourism destination in the future (Huang at. el., 2013). Based on current

literature, the following two hypotheses are proposed:

H1: The perceived usefulness of virtual reality will have a positive effect on

tourists’ intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster during their visit to a

theme park.

H2: The perceived ease of use of virtual reality will have a positive effect on

tourists’ intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster during their visit to a

theme park.

Although there are many advantages of using the classic TAM, it fails to capture

many important factors that can influence the consumer’s adoption of different

technologies within various industries (Cobanoglu, Yang, Shatskukh, & Agarwal, 2015).

Other vital determinants that are relevant to the adoption of VR in the intention to use

when visiting a theme park are not included in TAM. These added determinants would

help further enrich the model. TAM fails to understand the consumer’s intention to use

innovative technology. It is essential to extend TAM to get a deeper understanding of a

tourist’s intention to use VR in theme parks.

Subjective Norm

Subjective norm is defined as “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to

perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). Kim, Ham, Yang, & Choi (2013) further

9
explain that subjective norm is the perceptible opinions of people who are close to the

individual that influences their decision-making, which affects the individual’s behavior

to perform or not to perform an action. Raab, Baloglu, & Chen (2018) indicate that the

more favorable the subjective norm, the stronger the intention to perform the behavior

should be. It is adequate when applying to a tourist intention to use virtual reality within

theme parks because close individuals around them can influence these consumers. They

will more likely be motivated to use virtual reality technologies during their visit at a

theme park. For example, if the perceived behavior of using virtual reality is favorable

from the viewpoint of an individual who is close to the consumer, it will positively affect

the consumer’s intention to use virtual reality when visiting a theme park.

The perceived subjective norm can affect a person’s intention to behave in a

certain way and may influence a person’s intention to use VR. Subjective norm has been

used by researchers to explain the purchase intentions and behaviors of VR users. Wu, Li

& Rao (2008) found that subjective norms had a significant impact on behavioral

intention and played a crucial role in the context of virtual worlds. Gabisch (2011)

examined virtual world brand experience and the effect it may have on real-world

purchasing intentions and behaviors. He found that subjective norm was a significant

predictor of purchase intentions (Gabisch, 2011). Subjective norm has yet to explore

virtual reality consumers and their intention to use it during their visit to a theme park.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:

H3: Perceived subjective norm on virtual reality will have a positive relationship

on tourists’ intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster during their visit to a

theme park.

10
Compatibility with Lifestyle

Rogers (1995) found that compatibility with existing values and beliefs is a

significant factor that explains the involvement with innovative technology.

Compatibility is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being

consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An

idea that is incompatible with the values and norms of a social system will not be adopted

as rapidly as a compatible innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 15). Chandra, Srivastava, &

Theng (2012) explain that users will have a greater interest in virtual worlds if the users

feel it will be compatible with their needs, ideas, and objectives. Consumers will have a

deeper connection if they have higher compatibility with virtual reality. However, if these

consumers have a perceived low compatibility with their needs and beliefs, it will result

in not wanting to use virtual reality during a tourists’ visit to a theme park. The major

reason for an individual to be actively involved in using VR is when the compatibility of

the individual’s objectives being attained by the advanced technology (Chandra,

Srivastava, & Theng, 2012).

Past studies found that compatibility with virtual world environments was a

significant determinant with the consumer’s overall ideas and beliefs as a pre-requisite

for a cognitive involvement of the user with this technology (Chandra, Srivastava, &

Theng, 2012). Wu & Wang (2005) found that consumer’s behavioral intention to use was

directly affected by compatibility. Consumers will likely use VR during their visit to a

theme park if they feel this technology is compatible with their objectives in using this

type of innovative technology. There has not been any research that examines

11
compatibility with lifestyle for virtual reality attractions in a theme park setting. Thus, the

following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: The perceived compatibility of virtual reality with the user’s lifestyle will

have a positive effect on tourists’ intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster

during their visit to a theme park.

Enjoyment

Huang et al. (2013) used the Technology Acceptance Model and incorporated

hedonic elements, such as enjoyment, to capture the entertainment nature of virtual

worlds to reflect the notion that people in these worlds are technology users as well as

potential consumers. Their results indicated that consumer’s enjoyable experience during

the 3D virtual tourism site was contributed to the perceptions of the effectiveness of using

this type of technology and the beliefs about usefulness for trip planning (Huang et al.,

2013). The construct of enjoyment is defined as “the extent to which the activity of using

a specific system is perceived to be enjoyed in its own right aside from any performance

consequence resulting from system use” (Venkatesh, 2000, p. 351). Enjoyment has been

viewed as a significant motivating factor for consumers participating in virtual worlds

because it is the influential factor of consumption experience in virtual environments

(Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Venkatesh, 2000).

Previous research has shown that enjoyment can have a direct influence on

behavioral intention. For example, a recent study examined the effectiveness of VR

experience in inducing a favorable attitude toward tourism destinations and shaping

visitation intention found that users had a significant sense of presence that leads to

12
consumer’s enjoyment (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). There was an empirical study that

assessed purchase behavior in virtual worlds and found that perceived enjoyment

positively affects the user’s purchase behavior intentions (Guo & Barnes, 2011). Another

study also highlighted the role of enjoyment in behavioral intention in an online virtual

gaming environment (Wu, Li, & Rao, 2008).

A recent study showed that VR had a positive impact on theme park visitors’

overall experience with the intention to revisit and recommend to others (Wei, Qi, &

Zhang, 2018). Wei, Qi, & Zhang (2018) highlighted enjoyment having a significant

impact on presence among people who were more familiar with VR technology (Wei, Qi,

& Zhang, 2018). The essential role of enjoyment has been a crucial factor in purchase

behavior intentions, making it a reliable influence for the behavioral intention to use

virtual reality during a tourist visit at a theme park. Thus, the suggested hypothesis

proposed is:

H5: The perceived enjoyment of virtual reality will have a positive effect on

tourists’ intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster during their visit at a

theme park.

13
The conceptual model reflecting all variables in the study and all hypotheses is presented

in Figure 1.

Usefulness H1

Ease of Use H2

H3 Intention to Use
Subjective Norm
VR at Theme
Parks
H4
Compatibility

Enjoyment H5

Figure 1. Key predictors of consumer intention to use VR at a theme park

14
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

An online questionnaire was developed to test the five hypotheses and the

questionnaire was distributed on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) within a week

period. MTurk is an online labor system that uses Internet crowd sourcing to connect

with potential workers in which these workers are compensated (Goodman, Cryder, &

Cheema, 2012). Participants gained through MTurk have shown to be of equal or better

quality than both of student samples and better quality than professional panel samples

(Kees, Berry, Burton, & Sheehan, 2017). Goodman, Cryder and Cheema (2012) highly

recommends MTurk because of its reliability, low cost, speed of data collection, and

heterogeneity of participants, implicating MTurk as a reliable and valid data source.

Qualified participants met the requirements of giving their consent to participate

in this survey, were eighteen years of age or older and have visited a theme park within

the last twelve months. The participants who answered “no” for any of the three

requirements were automatically transferred to an “End of Survey” page in which those

participants would not be able to proceed with the survey questionnaire.

Questionnaire and Measurements

For the respondents’ better understanding of VR rollercoaster, a video example

was available in the online survey. The video helps participants gain an understanding of

what a virtual reality rollercoaster would be like and the type of experience that these

participants would endure while using this type of attraction inside a theme park. The VR

15
video example was originally obtained from YouTube website. The original video was

appropriately edited to fit the design of the survey questionnaire (TheVerge, 2016). In the

video example, a definition of VR, described by Guttentag (2010), is provided to the

respondents. The participants were then asked to imagine that a VR rollercoaster was a

provided attraction when they were visiting a theme park.

After watching the short VR video example, the participants were given the

questionnaire including a series of questions relating to the five key determinants (e.g.,

perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived subjective norm, perceived

compatibility with lifestyle and perceived enjoyment). All the variables were measured

using a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree at 1 to strongly agree at 5). Perceived

usefulness (PU) was measured by four items which, were adapted from Davis (1989) and

Kim et al. (2010) (e.g., It would be beneficial to use virtual reality in theme parks when I

am visiting). Perceived ease of use (PEOU) was measured by four items that were

adopted from Davis (1989) and Kim et al. (2016) (e.g., Using virtual reality at a theme

park would be easy). Due to a reliability issue, however, one of the items measuring the

perceived ease of use was removed. The reason the item was unreliable could have

resulted from the reverse coding of the question causing confusion to the participants.

Next, subjective norm (SN) was calculated by three items that were adopted from

Vankatesh & Davis (2000) (e.g., People who influence my behavior would think using

virtual reality during my visit to a theme park is beneficial). Compatibility (COM) with

lifestyle was measured by three items that were adopted from Moore & Benbasat (1991)

and Poufee et al. (2001) (e.g., Using virtual reality during my visit at a theme park fits

well with the way I would like to experience theme parks). Enjoyment was measured by

16
three items that were adopted from Koufaris (2002) (e.g., I think using virtual reality

during a visit to a theme park would be quite enjoyable).

The following part of the questionnaire includes questions based upon the

dependent variable of intention to use virtual reality rollercoasters during a visit to a

theme park which was adopted from Cobanoglu et al. (2015) (i.e., intention to use virtual

reality during the participants visit to a theme park). There were four items (e.g., I would

like to consider using virtual reality during a visit to a theme park) that measured the

dependent variable using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree at 1

to strongly agree at 5. The final part of the survey questionnaire contains questions that

asked the participants’ profile information such as gender, age, educational level, ethnic

background, annual household income, and marital status.

17
Table 1

Reliability Scale Results

Item M SD Cronbach’s Alpha

Usefulness PU_1 3.95 0.86 0.81
PU_2 4.00 0.99
PU_3 3.82 0.98
PU_4 4.09 0.93
Ease of Use PEOU_1 4.09 0.70 0.78
PEOU_2 4.20 0.77
PEOU_3 4.02 0.73
Subjective SN_1 3.83 0.80 0.79
Norm SN_2 3.80 0.82
SN_3 3.94 0.91
Compatibility Compat_1 3.95 0.80 0.78
Compat_2 3.93 1.01
Compat_3 3.92 0.94
Enjoyment Enjoyment_1 4.08 0.89 0.79
Enoyment_2 3.97 1.03
Enjoyment_3 4.03 0.93
Intention to Intention_1 4.01 0.90 0.84
Use Intention_2 3.91 1.07
Intention_3 4.08 0.91
Intention_4 4.17 0.95

18
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Sample profile

A total of 197 responses were included in the data analysis. Of the 197

respondents, 128 were male (64.97 %) and 69 were female (35.03%). Most participants

had a bachelor’s degree (65.59%), were mostly either never married (53. 81%) or married

(41.62%), with fairly diverse incomes and ages and whom mostly identified as Asian

(47.32%) or Caucasian (39.51%).

19
Table 2

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics Frequency Percent

Sex
Male 128 65.0%
Female 69 35.0%
Age
18-25 32 16.2%
26-35 140 71.3%
36-45 18 9.0%
46-55 3 1.5%
Over 55 4 2.0%
Education
Less than high school 1 0.5%
High school graduate 15 7.6%
Some college 35 12.7%
Bachelor’s degree 132 67.0%
Master’s degree 23 11.7%
Doctorate or higher 1 0.5%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 78 39.6%
African American 7 3.6%
Asian 95 48.2%
Hispanic 7 3.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native 3 1.5%
Other 1 0.5%
Two or More Races 3 3.0%
Income
Under $10,000 18 9.1%
$10,001-$39,999 78 39.6%
$40,000-$69,999 56 28.5%
$70,000-$99,999 27 13.7%
$100,000 or more 18 9.1%
Marital Status
Married 82 41.6%
Widowed 0 0.0%
Divorced 6 3.1%
Separated 3 1.5%
Never Married 106 53.8%

20
Hypothesis Testing

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the five hypotheses. The

intention to use virtual reality in theme parks was regressed on perceived usefulness,

perceived ease of use, perceived subjective norm, perceived compatibility with lifestyle,

and perceived enjoyment. An Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) was first evaluated. Each

of the VIF statistics on the five determinants are below 10 indicating there is no

multicollinearity issue. The results of the model testing indicated that the five key

determinants were able to explain 79.5% of the intention to use VR in theme parks’

variance (R2= 0.795, Adjusted R2 = 0.790, F (5, 191) = 148.38, p < 0.05), representing a

clear explanatory power of the current regression model.

The results showed that perceived usefulness (H1) (β= 0.363, p= 0.000) is a

statistically significant predictor for the intention to use virtual reality during a visit to a

theme park. This indicates that perceived usefulness (H1) was supported and is a

statistically significant predictor. Perceived ease of use (H2) (β= - 0.066, p= 0.875) was

shown to be not significant as a predictor for the model and H2 was not supported.

Subjective norm (H3) (β= - 0.070, p= 0.159) was also not a statistically significant

predictor of the intention to use virtual reality during a visit to a theme park. The

predicted model did not support H3. Perceived compatibility with lifestyle (H4) (β=

0.202, p= 0.007) is shown to be statistically significant in the model and supports H4.

Lastly, perceived enjoyment (H5) (β= 0. 438, p= 0.000) is shown to be a statistically

significant predictor of the intention to use virtual reality during a visit to a theme park

and supports H5. The regression equation for VR acceptance model can be written as

follows:

21
 VR acceptance = 0.363*Usefulness + 0.202*Compatibility + 0.438*Enjoyment

Therefore, the regression analysis indicates that the hypotheses H1, H4, and H5 were

supported, but failed to support the hypotheses of H2 and H3.

Table 3

Multiple Regression Results

B SE β t Sig. Hypothesis Testing

Constant 0.24 0.19 1.26 0.21
Usefulness 0.39 0.07 0.36 5.57 0.00 H1- supported
Ease of Use -0.01 0.05 -0.01 -0.16 0.86 H2- not supported
Subjective Norm -0.08 0.06 -0.07 -1.41 0.16 H3- not supported
Compatibility 0.21 0.08 0.20 2.72 0.01 H4- supported
Enjoyment 0.44 0.06 0.44 6.86 0.00 H5- supported

22
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

Discussion

The tourist industry is constantly pressured to explore various options to provide

different experiences for their visitors in order to grow their market. Theme parks have a

huge impact on the tourism industry because they have a significant influence on

generating tourism demand (Cheng, Guo & Ling, 2016). Theme parks are continuously

looking for new ways to stay competitive by enhancing and developing new innovative

ways to satisfy their visitors. The impact of innovating technologies has increased

satisfaction and acceptance from their users. Milman (2009) explains that theme park

guests are no longer seeking just a theme park ride, but a thrilled experience with an

emphasis on fantasy. Virtual reality provides guests an experience in which they can

escape the natural world and dive into a world of fantasy and fun. Virtual reality offers

theme parks a way to stay innovative and provide a creatively unique experience for their

visitors.

The current study aims to provide a contribution to close the addressed research

gaps by providing a theoretic framework to explain the tourist’s behavioral intention to

use virtual reality during their theme park visit. The present study used an extension of

the Technology Acceptance Model to understand the determinants in behavioral intention

of theme park visitors in the use of virtual reality rollercoasters. The findings of the study

indicate that there is a strong positive relationship between perceived usefulness (H1),

compatibility with lifestyle (H4), and enjoyment (H5) with the intention to use VR during

a theme park visit. The first statistically significant predictor of the model was perceived

23
usefulness (H1) in the intention to use VR during a visit to a theme park. The results

indicate that theme park visitors found VR to be beneficial and it would improve their

experience when visiting. Compatibility with lifestyle (H4) showed to be a statistically

significant predictor in the intention to use VR during a visit to a theme park. Virtual

reality rollercoasters are compatible with the way visitors would like to experience a

theme park while they are visiting. Perceived enjoyment (H5) was shown to be a

statistically significant predictor of the intention to use a virtual reality rollercoaster

during a visit to a theme park. Prior studies have shown enjoyment to be an important

indicator of behavioral intentions in using virtual reality technologies (e.g., Tussyadiah et

al., 2018; Wei, Qi & Zhang, 2018). Tussyadiah, Wang, Jung, & tom Diek (2018) research

found that the effectiveness of VR for tourism marketing induces the sense of presence,

leading to enjoyment, which affects positive attitude change that contributes to visit

intention. Similarly, in theme parks, the current study validates the importance of

enjoyment and how it influences visitor’s intention to use VR during their visit.

In contrast, the results indicated perceived ease of use (H2) was found to be an

insignificant predictor of intention to use VR during their visit. Some theme park visitors

expressed that using VR would require a lot of mental effort and VR showed to be a

difficult type of technology to use. It is possible that these users may not have fully

understood how VR technology works or may have never used this type of technology

before. Meanwhile, some virtual reality users are familiar with and have been exposed to

this type of technological advancement, and they might not feel perceived ease of use as

being an important factor since they already know how to use this type of technology.

Another possible explanation for perceived ease of use not being a significant factor

24
could be due to the study sample. The participants in the current study were mostly

between 26-35 in age. This age group is typically knowledgeable and can adapt more

easily in using new technology, such as virtual reality. The younger generation is able to

adapt and embrace new technology more easily is due to the fact that they have grown up

with evolving technology and it is a normal facet in their daily lives (Nickson, 2018). A

study, conducted by Paes, Arantes, & Irizarry (2017), concluded that their participants

who were 26 years of age and older showed a significant relationship with understanding

the virtual model and their age played an important role in spatial cognition in immersive

environments. Therefore, it can be possible that this age group does not find perceived

ease of use as a significant factor in their intention to use VR rollercoasters while visiting

a theme park.

Moreover, subjective norm (H3) was also shown to be an insignificant predictor

indicating that theme park visitors were not influenced by their peers in their decisions of

using VR at theme parks. It is possible that this type of decision making regarding using

VR in a theme park may not be as complex as other decisions that would require help and

others’ opinions. Another possible factor, suggested by Venkatesh & Davis (2000), is that

the effect of social influence, such as subjective norm, pertaining to intention to use will

decrease with increasing experiences over time. Therefore, it can be interpreted as

visitors may have had previous experience using VR technologies, therefore people that

are close to them are not significantly affecting their decision-making process regarding

the use of VR during their visit to a theme park.

25
Theoretical Contribution

Virtual reality is an innovating technological advancement that can have a major

influence in developing new attractions in theme parks but there is currently fairly limited

research on the topic. The current study explored perceived determinants to induce

visitor’s intention to use VR while visiting a theme park. This study has provided

meaningful insights in understanding how a visitor might want to experience a theme

park through using an extension model of TAM. This is the first study that is known to

use an extended TAM of understanding VR to assist in explaining the attitudinal motives

of the visitor within a theme park. The extended model generated an understanding of the

benefits of using VR technologies during a tourists’ visit to a theme park. By creating this

type of study, it has contributed in closing the current gap in literature by providing

useful evidence of functional attributes of VR technology in theme parks. The key

determinants that showed a statistically significant role in the intention to use VR during

a theme park visit includes perceived enjoyment, usefulness, and compatibility with

lifestyle. To the best of the author’s knowledge, compatibility with lifestyle has not been

applied in understanding VR in theme parks which showed a positive relationship with

the intention to use VR technology. In addition, this study expands prior literature on

perceived enjoyment as being a predictor in the intention to use VR technology (e.g.,

Wei, Qi, & Zhang, 2018; Huang et al., 2013; Guo & Barnes, 2011; Wu, Li, & Rao,

2008).

By conducting this type of research, there are many possibilities for future

researchers to improve a tourist’s experience in a theme park. It is important to

continually learn about the needs and wants of the consumer to ensure their experience in

26
theme parks are going to positively impact their experience. Theme parks are an essential

contribution in generating revenue to the tourism industry and should continually be

reevaluated during the technological advancements that are currently unfolding.

Practical Implication

Some of the practical implications that this study provides would suggest that

virtual reality can be a useful type of technology to incorporate in theme park attractions.

The current study agrees with Wei, Qi, & Zhang (2018) in that the “benefits of theme

parks’ adoption of VR technology are evident in terms of visitors’ greater satisfaction

with theme park as well as their increased intentions to revisit and recommend the theme

park to others” (p. 288). Theme parks might consider incorporating this type of

technology to provide a more unique type of experience for their visitors. Theme park

operators could add VR technology to their existing rollercoasters and develop different

VR experiences for their visitors. It could be a quicker solution in updating their current

attractions without having to rebuild an entire new rollercoaster. Theme park operators

can also constantly change the scene of the virtual environment to create a different

experience every time or every so often. By do this, the visitor can have a new and

exciting experience every time they visit the theme park. Cheng et al. (2016) explains that

consumers have become more demanding of experiences rather than pure products or

object because they are looking for postmodern interactive experiences. VR rollercoasters

can potentially be the perfect opportunity that theme park operators can provide for the

type of interactive experience visitors may be looking for.

27
 In addition, the current study indicates that theme park visitors express a positive

relationship to their perceived enjoyment with the intention to use VR rollercoasters. It is

not surprising that this current study found virtual reality rollercoasters to be quite

enjoyable because it is a unique and different experience that can bring heightened

enjoyment to the tourist. Milman (2006) emphasizes that theme park operators and

marketing executives should consider consumer needs when developing entertainment

products for their consumers. The empirical evidence from the current study gives the

tourism industry a better understanding how they could develop and explore new ways to

innovate their theme parks in order to fit the needs for their consumers. Theme park

operators may consider bringing an experience, like virtual reality rollercoasters, into

their parks to attract more visitors.

It is important to understand the type of attraction that is compatible with the

lifestyle of the tourists because it will determine their choice in deciding which theme

park they will be visiting or revisiting. Tourists showed a statistically significant

indication that their lives are compatible with virtual reality rollercoasters because it fits

the needs of their experience during a visit to a theme park. By creating this type of

memorable experience visitors will likely have a positive perception of the theme park

and can potentially become loyal customers.

The study acknowledges that tourists would most likely ride a virtual reality

rollercoaster if it was a given attraction inside a theme park. The tourism industry could

benefit in providing more of these types of attractions in theme parks for their guests to

experience. There are fairly limited VR attractions in theme parks within United States.

The expansion of this type of technology could be a competitive advantage and help grow

28
the tourism market. Leaders in the tourism industry should continue to find ways to

innovate theme parks because it is an essential market that contributes to the financial

growth of the industry. The findings of this study suggest that theme parks could benefit

in taking advantage of the technological advances of VR and the implications of

enjoyment that could potentially be provided to their visitors by using this sort of

technology.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study has some limitations that should be recognized. First, the

participants of this study were only captured using Mturk which has shown to be reliable,

but it needs to be recognized that the sample was not as diverse as it could be. The

current study also used a smaller sample size with a limited period collection. Thus,

future research may want to use more than one outlet to distribute their study with a

longer data collection period and a larger sample size in order to obtain a more

representative sample of the population.

Secondly, the study only validated if visitors have been to a theme park in the last

twelve months but did not ensure if they have ever used this type of technology in a

theme park before. It would be beneficial for future studies to compare individuals whom

have used a virtual reality rollercoaster before to those who have never experienced one.

This will enable a better and deeper understanding on how these users perceive virtual

reality rollercoasters in theme parks. It would also be beneficial to recognize the

perspective of the users who have actually used this technology versus the users that have

never used VR before. This could help indicate and describe the reasons why perceived

29
ease of use and subjective norm may not be necessary predictors in the intention to use

VR in theme parks.

Future researchers could incorporate an experimental design element to examine

visitors after they have experienced a virtual reality rollercoaster in a theme park to assess

their experience. This will give theme park operators a better understanding on how

visitors rate their experience using VR rollercoasters. A positive type of experience from

visitors could validate the use of using this technology in theme parks and this technology

could be further developed in order to continue to create unique experiences for theme

park guests.

30
 REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Chandra, S., Srivastava, S.C., Theng, Y. (2012). Cognitive absorption and trust for

workplace collaboration in virtual worlds: an information processing decision

making perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 797-

835.

Cobanoglu, C., Yang, W., Shatskih, A., & Agarwal, A. (2015). Are consumers ready for

mobile payment? An examination of consumer acceptance of mobile payment

technology in restaurant industry. FIU Hospitality Review, 31.

Costello, H. (2017). Global virtual reality market forecast 2020 by major players such as

sony, microsoft, facebook, htc, google, samsung electronics, gopro, etc. Retrieved

from https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=4975

Cheng, Q., Guo, J., & Ling, S. (2016). Fuzzy importance-performance analysis of visitor

satisfaction for theme park: the case of fantawild adventure in Taiwan, China.

Current Issues in Tourism, 19, 895-912. doi:

http:dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.777399.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation

to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,

1111-1132.

31
Gabisch, J. A. (2011). Virtual world brand experience and its impact on real world

purchasing behavior. Journal of Brand Management, 19, 18-

32. doi:10.1057/bm.2011.29.

Goodman, J, K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data collection in a flat world: the

strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral

Decision Making, 26, 213-224. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1753.

Guo, Y., & Barnes, S. (2011). Purchase behavior in virtual worlds: an empirical

investigation in second life. Information and Management, 48, 303–312.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2011.07.004.

Guttentag, D. (2010). Virtual reality: applications and implications for tourism. Tourism

Management, 31, 637-651. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003

Huang, Y., Backman, K.F., Backman, S.J., & Chang, L. (2016). Exploring the

implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: an integrated

research framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18, 116-128.

doi:10.1002/jtr.2038

Huang, Y., Backman, S.J., Backman, K.F., & Moore, D. (2013). Exploring user

acceptance of 3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism marketing. Tourism

Management, 36, 490-501. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.009

Huang, Y., Backman, S.J., Mcguire, F., Backman, K.F., & Chang, L. (2013). Second life:

the potential of 3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism. Tourism Analysis, 18,

471-477. doi:10.3727/108354213X13736372326154

32
Hwang, J., & Good, L. (2014). Intelligent sensor-based services success; the role of

consumer characteristics and information. European Journal of Marketing, 48,

406-431. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.cpp.edu/10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0689

Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use

augmented virtual reality technologies. The case of Korean theme park. Tourism

Management, 49, 75-89.

Jung, T., tom Dieck, M. C., Rauschnabel, P., Ascencao, M., Tuominen, P., & Moilanen,

T. (2018). Functional, hedonic or social? Exploring antecedents and consequences

of virtual reality rollercoaster usage. In T. Jung & M. tom Dieck (Eds.)

Augumented reality and virtual reality (p. 247-258). Cham: Springer.

Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2006). A structural analysis of destination travel intentions

as a function of web site features. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 204-216.

Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). An analysis of data quality:

professional panels, student subject pools, and amazon’s mechanical turk. Journal

of Advertising, 46, 141-155. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304.

Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors

influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior,

26, 310-322.

Kim, E., Ham, S., Yang, I.S., Choi, J.G. (2013). The roles of attitude, subjective norm,

and perceived behavioral control in the formation of consumer’s behavioral

intentions to read menu labels in the restaurant industry. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 35, 203-213.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.06.008

33
Kim, D. Y., Park, J., & Morrison, A. M. (2008). A model of traveler acceptance of

mobile technology. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 393-407.

Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to

online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13, 205-223.

Manthiou, A., Kang, J., Chiang, L., & Tang, L. (2014). Investigating the effects of

memorable experiences: an extended model of script theory. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 33, 362-379. http://doi-

org.proxy.library.cpp.edu/10.1080/10548408.2015.1064055

Milman, A. (2006). Evaluating the guest experience at theme parks: an empirical

investigation of key attributes. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11,

373-387. doi:10.1002/jtr.710

Nickson, C. (2018). How a young generation accepts technology. Retrieved from

http://www.atechnologysociety.co.uk/how-young-generation-accepts-

technology.html

Paes, D., Arantes, E., & Irizarry, J. (2017). Immersive environment for improving the

understanding of architectural 3D models: comparing user spatial perception

between immersive and traditional virtual reality systems. Automation in

Construction, 84, 292-303. doi:http://doi.org/10/1016/j.autocon.2017.09.016

Rogers, E. M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.) Free Press, New York, NY.

Singh, N., Lee, M. J. (2008). Exploring perceptions toward education in 3-D virtual

environments: an introduction to “second life”. Journal of Teaching in Travel &

Tourism, 8, 315-327. doi:10.1080/15313220903047896

34
Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993). Representations systems, perceptual position, and

presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual

Environments, 2, 221-233.

Stanney, K., & Salvendy, G. (1998). Aftereffects and sense of presence in virtual

environments: formulation of a research and development agenda. International

Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 10, 135–187.

doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1002_3

TheVerge. (2016, July 15). Riding the Superman virtual reality rollercoaster at Six Flags.

[Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2u2svMZzdw&t=194s

Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D., Jung, T.H., & Dieck, M. (2018). Virtual reality, presence,

and attitude change: empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management, 66,

140-154. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003

Wei, W., Qi, R., & Zhang, L. (2018). Effects of virtual reality on theme park visitors’

experience and behaviors: a presence perspective. Tourism Management, 71, 282-

293. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.10.024

Wu, J., Li, P., & Rao, S. (2008). Why they enjoy virtual game worlds? An empirical

investigation. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 9, 219-230.

Wu, J. & Wang, S. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? an empirical evaluation of the

revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42, 719-729.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001

35
Wyld, D. (2010). Managing in the virtual world: how second life is rewriting the rules of

“real life” business. Advanced Techniques in Computing Sciences and Software

Engineering, 123-128. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3660-5_21

Venkatesh V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic

motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information

Systems Research 11. 342–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ isre.11.4.342.11872

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology

acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-

204.

36
 APPENDIX

Survey Questions
Screening Questions: Yes-No

1. Do you give consent to participant in this research study entitles “An Extended

Technology Acceptance Model of Theme Park Visitor’s Intention to use Virtual

Reality?

2. I have visited a theme park within the last twelve months.

3. I am 18 years of age or older.

Perceived Usefulness (Davis 1989; Kim et al. 2010): Strongly Disagree – Strongly

Agree

1. It would be beneficial to use virtual reality in theme parks when I am visiting.

2. During my visit to a theme park, using virtual reality would improve my

experience.

3. Using virtual reality would make it easier for me to enjoy my experiences when

visiting a theme parks

4. Overall, I think using virtual reality would be useful for theme parks attractions.

Perceived Ease of Use (Davis 1989; Kim et al., 2016) Strongly Disagree – Strongly
Agree

1. Using virtual reality at a theme park would be easy

2. It would be easy to use virtual reality at a theme park.

3. Overall, I think virtual reality would not be difficult to use at a theme park.

4. It is difficult to use virtual reality at a theme park.

37
Subjective Norm (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000): Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree

1. People who are important to me would find using virtual reality during my visit to

a theme park beneficial.

2. Please select STRONGLY DISAGREE

3. People who influence my behavior would find using virtual reality beneficial

while visiting a theme park

4. People who are important to me would suggest that I could try and use virtual

reality during my visit to a theme park.

Compatibility (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Pouffe at al., 2001): Strongly Disagree –
Strongly Agree
1. Using virtual reality during my visit at a theme park fits well with the way I

would like to experience theme parks.

2. Using virtual reality is compatible with the way I would like to enjoy a theme

park.

3. I think using virtual reality when visiting a theme park is compatible with my

lifestyle.

Enjoyment (Koufaris, 2002): Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree

1. I think using virtual reality during a visit to a theme park would be quite

enjoyable.

2. I would enjoy using virtual reality during my visit to a theme park.

3. It would be fun to use virtual reality during a visit to a theme park.

4. Please select STRONGLY DISAGREE

38
Intention to use VR (Cobanoglu et al., 2015): Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree

1. I would consider using virtual reality during a visit to a theme park.

2. I am likely to use virtual reality during my visit to a theme park.

3. I am willing to use virtual reality during my visit to a theme park.

4. I would like to try virtual reality during a visit to a theme park.

Demographics (Wei, Qi, & Zhang, 2018)

1. Gender

a. Male

b. Female

2. Age

a. Drop Box for participant to choose age

3. Educational Level

a. Less than high school

b. High School Graduate

c. Some College

d. Bachelor’s degree (4-year)

e. Master’s degree

f. Doctoral degree or above

4. Ethnicity

a. Caucasian

b. African American

c. Asian

d. Hispanic

39
 e. American Indian or Alaska Native

f. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

g. Other

h. Two or more races

5. Annual Household Income

a. Under $10,000

b. $10,000-$19,999

c. $20,000- $29,999

d. $30,000-$39,999

e. $40,000-$49,999

f. $50,000-$59,999

g. $60,000-$69,999

h. $70,000-$79,999

i. $80,000- $89,999

j. $90,000-$99,999

k. $100,000- $149,999

l. $150,000 or more

6. Marital Status

a. Married

b. Widowed

c. Divorced

d. Separated

e. Never married

40