Immersion or social presence? Investigating the effect of virtual reality immersive environments on sommelier learning experiences

ABSTRACT

We investigate the impact of immersive experiences on sommeliers’ learning in the wine industry, specifically examining the role of immersion and social presence. With the growing prevalence of digitally enhanced wine experiences, such as virtual reality (VR), understanding the effects of immersion and social presence on sommeliers’ learning outcomes becomes crucial. Drawing upon research on immersive technologies like VR headsets and cave automatic virtual environments (CAVEs), the study explores their potential in creating immersive wine tasting experiences for sommelier learning. It addresses the limited research on the impact of VR on sommeliers’ learning and training. An experimental study is conducted with sommelier training students, yielding results that are discussed in relation to the wine industry's workforce training and customer engagement strategies. The paper concludes by acknowledging limitations and suggesting future research directions.

KEYWORDS:

• Virtual reality
• immersive experiences
• perceived learning
• wine tasting
• sommeliers

1. Introduction

Experiencing wine has been traditionally a social experience. Wine has shaped cultures and has a long history of being present in social events such as celebrations and thus has traditionally been consumed in social settings (Lam et al., 2020). Similarly, studying about wines has similarly been performed in social gatherings, with sommeliers often studying in groups to conduct tastings to evaluate the quality of a wine (Atkin et al., 2007; Ben Dewald, 2008). Sommeliers in many of today's restaurants concentrate on suggesting higher end selections of the finest vintages available to bring a better restaurant experience to customers and more profit to their employers. Concurrently, they also need to be skilled in finding appropriate less-acclaimed vintages for the house pours to make customers happy who do not select from the range of higher-priced wines. As such, sommeliers play an important role in influencing the sale of wine in restaurants, in particular, in smaller restaurants and in fine dining establishments (Ben Dewald, 2008).

Since physical restrictions to gather in food service establishments caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, digitally enhanced wine experience settings have been on the rise, and consumers and sommeliers in training have shifted to exploring digital wine tastings, either physically and digitally alone, or in digitally enhanced social settings such as video conferences or even in Virtual Reality (VR) (Paluch & Wittkop, 2021). While video conferencing provides benefits, including enabling participation in wine tastings from the comfort of the consumers’, or in the context of sommeliers’, the students’ home – especially VR is a promising tool to generate immersive experiences that improve the wine tasting and learning experience and go beyond two-dimensional wine tasting experiences. According to recent research, ‘[…] to stay relevant to today’s and, perhaps more importantly, tomorrow’s, wine consumers, the marketers of wine really need to ride the experiential multisensory wave that is currently sweeping through the (alcoholic) drinks industry’ (Spence, 2019, p. 106).

While digital experiences such as online wine tastings or wine tastings in VR have been heralded to strengthen the visual immersion that is part of the multisensory wine experience, immersion has not been shown to always promote the social presence of others in the experience, as social presence in online video wine tastings and VR experiences has been reported to be low (Oh et al., 2019). Although online wine tastings are a useful tool to establish some social interaction between customers, especially when no other social connection is possible (e.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic), the communal consumption experiences that wine tastings inherit often falls short of expectations compared to physical wine tastings due to the absence of social presence of others (Paluch & Wittkop, 2021). Immersion, as a main driver of these online experiences, has been shown to positively affect the experience, however it does not compensate for the lack of social presence (Grinberg et al., 2014). To date, no research in the context assessing wine tasting as learning experiences for sommeliers has assessed whether novel immersion methods, such as VR, need immersion or social presence to maximize the learning outcome, or whether a trade-off between either must be made when designing these immersive wine experiences.

When assessing immersive experiences such as VR, research has developed from focusing on 360 videos on two-dimensional screens to more immersive technologies like head-worn VR headsets. Some research has also compared VR to related technologies such as AR and established the positive effects on the customer experience (Hilken et al., 2022) or simulation of satiation in consumers (Pala et al., 2022). However, less researched immersive techniques, such as a cave automatic virtual environment (CAVE) have been much overlooked, as these are less frequently found for end-consumer experiences due to high acquisition costs (Muhanna, 2015). CAVE systems however offer the possibility to virtually transport entire groups of people into immersive environments, and offer promising solutions that allow for social presence in the experience. Regarding immersive experiences in the wine industry, particularly in relation to sommeliers, research is particularly limited. Although prior studies have demonstrated the positive impact of VR on purchase intentions and consumer behaviour (Wen & Leung, 2021), little is known about how sommeliers would experience immersive environments in learning contexts. While VR has been found to enhance learning and training methods due to its immersiveness (Checa & Bustillo, 2020), this research is unrelated to the wine industry. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether the immersiveness of VR has a positive effect on sommeliers’ learning and training, given their need to acquire extensive knowledge of wine for their profession. This is of particular significance in the increasingly competitive wine industry, where new methods to attract customers are being explored, including the use of VR, as suggested in a recent study (Maumon & Bédé, 2023). Thus, exploring the potential benefits of immersive experiences for sommeliers could have significant implications for the wine industry's workforce training and customer engagement strategies. Our research question therefore is as follows:

How do immersive experiences impact sommeliers’ learning and which role do immersion and social presence play in this context?

The manuscript is structured as follows, first we outline our conceptual framework while describing the role of the sommelier in wine tasting and consumption experiences. Then we review the literature on the difference between head-worn VR headsets and CAVEs and outline the research findings regarding immersion and social presence, formulating hypotheses for our conceptual model. We then test the conceptual model in an experimental study in a quasi-field environment, namely with students that had completed a sommelier training at a Dutch university prior to participating in our 2-group experiment. The paper discusses the results and concludes with implications and limitations.

2. Literature review

2.1. Sommelier definition and training

The position of a sommelier or wine steward has evolved over time, with varying definitions provided by different experts in the field. MacNeil (2015) describes the modern sommelier or wine steward as responsible for wine selection, inventory management, staff training on selling techniques, and recommending wines to diners. Koplan et al. (2001) consider the sommelier or wine steward as the sole person responsible for assisting customers with wine selection and service at the table. Aspler (1991) expands the definition to include creating wine lists, purchasing wine, inventory management, keeping up with consumer trends, promoting wines, and helping with food and wine pairing at the table. Historically, wine education has focused on product knowledge and somewhat on staff training, selling techniques, or wine service. In the 1970s, the Court of Master Sommeliers was established in Britain to improve beverage knowledge and service in hotels and restaurants. The Academy of Wine Service followed in the late 1980s, seeking to enhance the standard of wine education and service skills in the United Kingdom's hospitality industry (Bennett, 1993). Today, various organizations are dedicated to improving beverage knowledge and service education. However, there is no specific certificate or diploma required to hold the position of sommelier or wine steward in American hotels or restaurants.

While it is often noted that waiters, including sommeliers, are underrepresented as participants in academic research, there are some studies that point at the outcomes that sommeliers have on the customer experience or the retailer’s bottom line (Scander & Jakobsson, 2022). Hochstein (1994) proposes that the presence of a sommelier or wine steward can lead to increased beverage sales. Manske and Cordua (2005) support this notion, suggesting that sommeliers or wine stewards establish credibility and use sales techniques to close a wine sale, thereby influencing wine sales. Market research indicates that product knowledge plays a crucial role in wine purchasing, and the suggestions of knowledgeable service staff are often the first experience many wine consumers have with wine (Johnson & Bruwer, 2004). Thus, service staff and their knowledge about wine play a vital role in the potential for increased wine revenues in restaurants. Organized wine training in groups has shown to benefit some sommeliers in training, while the overall learning process is defined as hedonic learning that requires narrative transportation and visual imagery (Latour & Deighton, 2018).

Next to individual trait characteristics related to learning and memory, sommelier training benefits from two aspects: First, the immersion into or with the learning material which, next to tasting the wines from certain regions, also involves studying visual and other sensory information around the wine, namely the shapes and textures of the vineyards, the grapes, and the soils. Previous research has shown that individuals who possess a high mental imagery ability and the capacity to engage in narrative transportation are performing better in the holistic processing that is required in sommelier education (Latour & Deighton, 2018). In one of their experiments, Latour and Deighton (2018) identified that participants who engaged in visual (rather than verbal) processing performed better on memory performance tasks related to sommelier education. Second, the social aspect of learning with others, exchanging thoughts and ideas in discussion which is deeply rooted in social constructivism (Kim, 2001). Social constructivism builds upon the principles of constructivism and evolves into a theoretical framework that posits knowledge acquisition to be not solely contingent upon the individual's interaction with their environment, but also underscores the indispensable role played by the social environment as an influential factor within this equation (Luhrs & McAnally-Salas, 2016). Social presence, or the presence of others while learning, also referred to as social learning, has also been shown as one of the key drivers for learning about wine (Dalitz, 2009). Further, in all forms of distance learning, social presence has been identified as the degree to which a learner feels personally connected with other students or instructors, despite not sharing the same physical location. In light of the paramount significance attributed to the pedagogical framework of social constructivism (Kim, 2001), it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal role of social presence as a potent mechanism facilitating an in-depth understanding of the processes through which students forge and nurture interpersonal bonds, fostering a cohesive and thriving group dynamic that culminates in the formation of a vibrant and harmonious learning community.

To conclude, sommelier education, next to individual participants’ characteristics like learning ability or motivation to learn, is depending on these two external dimensions. Immersive experiences offer a potential improvement on both dimensions, however paradoxically providers of immersive technologies often must choose between either of these dimensions. We call this the immersion-social presence paradox. Immersive experiences like VR have been heralded as new ways of communicating and interacting together and being more immersive than traditional communication methods like phone calls, emails, or video conferencing technology. Arguing that 2D video conferencing often results in negative outcomes like Zoom Fatigue (Peper et al., 2021), three-dimensional virtual environments have been shown to benefit from immersion, flow, and mental imagery (Cowan & Ketron, 2019; Oh et al., 2019). However, VR experiences often isolate a participant alone in a virtual environment. While the interaction with other avatars is possible, the technological limitations for these avatars, such as the absence of facial features, the absence of limbs, and the often cartoon-like visualization of such avatars, as well as the absence of other senses than the visual or auditory, often results in negative social experiences when interacting in VR. So-called CAVEs do promise a solution to such dilemma, allowing multiple users to experience the same immersive environment in the same physical location, being able to interact with all senses, while being immersed in a visually different environment. Yet, referring back to the immersion-social presence paradox, while the CAVEs do offer high levels of social presence, the immersive environment can be limited in visual range depending on limitations in the physical spaces (e.g. confined to a size of a room and the range of projectors).

To conclude, while VR headsets provide high levels of immersion but low levels of social presence, CAVEs provide the opposite. We seek to investigate which of the two types of immersive technologies has the stronger impact on sommeliers’’ learning. In Table 1, we summarize recent relevant literature on immersive experiences (VR headsets or CAVEs) and immersion or social presence, highlight relevant research themes regarding learning experiences, and reveal gaps. Specifically, we show that existing research usually focuses on only one of the two relevant constructs of immersion or social presence, paradoxically as both are relevant for the learning experience of sommeliers in digital learning environments.

Table 1. Selected immersive environment literature regarding immersion and social presence.

Study	Context and method	Theory base	Immersive variable(s)	Process variables	Boundary conditions	Dependent variables	Key findings
Theme: Immersive experiences and immersion
Kang, H. J., Shin, J. H., & Ponto, K. (2020).	VR in shopping experiences; mixed methods experiment	Intrinsic enjoyment, escapism, decision control	Interactivity, Visual-spatial cues	Perceived playfulness and informative-ness	Graphics quality	Purchase intention, hedonic attributes	Interactivity and Visual-spatial cues positively affect playfulness and informativeness. Playfulness enhances hedonic products preference and informativeness increases purchase intent.
Kim, G., Jin, B., & Shin, D. C. (2022).	VR as a promotion tool for small independent stores; mixed methods experiment	Flow theory	360-degree based VR videos vs web based	Flow state	–	Interest, intention to visit	VR compared to website enhanced the flow state, which increases interest and intention to visit.
Ying, T., Tang, J., Ye, S., Tan, X., & Wei, W. (2022).	VR in destination marketing; lab experiment	Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Model	Telepresence, social presence	Cognition; affection	Social presence	(Re)visit intentions	Higher telepresence increases visit intentions, where social presence does not.
Theme: Immersive experiences and social presence
de Back, T. T., Tinga, A. M., Nguyen, P., & Louwerse, M. M. (2020).	Immersive collaborative learning in CAVE-based virtual reality; lab experiment	Social constructivism and experiential learning theory	CAVE conditions vs textbook learning	–	Spatial ability	Learning gains	Improved learning gains with immersive learning utilizing CAVE benefits compared to textbook study.
Huang, Z., Zhu, Y., Hao, A., & Deng, J. (2022).	Social presence and consumer purchase intention in livestreaming commerce; lab experiment	Social presence theory	Social Presence	Immersive experience	Positive emotions	Consumer purchase intention	Social presence’s effect on purchase intentions is mediated via immersion; positive emotions moderate the ‘social presence–immersion experience–consumer purchase intentions’ path.
Grinberg, A. M., Careaga, J. S., Mehl, M. R., & O’Connor, M. F. (2014).	Social engagement and user immersion in a socially based virtual world; lab experiment	Sense of immersion	Social engagement and spatial exploration	–	–	Immersion	High social engagement leads to high immersion, while high spatial exploration to low immersion.
This study	Investigates which immersive environment impacts learning experiences for sommeliers	Immersion and social presence	VR headsets vs. CAVE	Immersion and social presence	Ambient sound	Learning experience

2.2. VR headsets vs. CAVEs

Immersive experiences exist in numerous ways. In relationship to VR however, we are interested in VR headsets which are head-worn devices that allow a participant to view and interact with virtual content in a 360-degree environment, completely immersing the user in a digital world. Contrary, immersive ‘caves’, ‘tents’ or ‘rooms’ are rooms or environments that offer immersive experiences for multiple users using advanced computer graphics and visualization technologies to create highly realistic and immersive experiences. We refer to the term CAVE (cave automatic virtual environment).

2.3. VR headsets

VR headsets are wearable devices that users utilize to put themselves in a simulated digital environment. The headset uses screens, lenses, and sensors to create an immersive visual experience. This kind of VR tool is typically used in the games context but has also received more attention in fields such as education, training, and therapy. VR headsets ensure full immersion into the virtual world, where users have a 360-degree view of their surroundings, can move within this world, and are able to hear their surroundings (Doerner et al., 2022). This highly immersive VR tool allows individuals to experience as if they are physically present in this virtual world. Partly due to COVID-19 the interest in such immersive technologies and experiences has increased, as well as their research. Marketers have been using VR for several purposes such as customer acquisition, relationship building and creating excitement (Li & Buchthal, 2012). VR provides several advantages over alternative marketing options including increased vividness, interactivity, and immersion to improve customer experiences (Kim et al., 2021; Nah et al., 2011). The theory underpinning this phenomenon is flow theory, which suggests that a person can experience a state of heightened focus and immersion, characterized by increased attentiveness, engagement, sense of control, and innate satisfaction (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009), where the degree of immersion is a fundamental determinant of the level of flow. VR headsets allow for complete visual immersion into virtual environments which could additionally be accompanied by other sensory aspects such as scent or sound. In addition, VR technology provides opportunities for personalization and customization, which are essential aspects of modern marketing strategies that can significantly enhance customer engagement and loyalty (Chaudhary et al., 2022). Other reasoning behind the beneficial aspect of VR headsets is the concept of telepresence, the feeling of being present in a different world (Berg & Vance, 2017) which is influenced by several factors such as sensory stimuli like music or ambient sounds (Cuny et al., 2015; Sheridan, 1992). Such feelings of telepresence have shown to improve immersion (Faiola et al., 2013) consequently leading to better customer experiences (Cummings & Bailenson, 2016). However, VR headsets also come with certain limitations. User discomfort such as motion sickness can be triggered due to the lag between movements and visual display, as well as visual fatigue after longer periods of immersion (Balasubramanian & Soundararajan, 2019; LaViola, 2000). Additionally, VR using a head-mounted display is often seen as solo experience without a social aspect, unless it has some multiplayer aspect online or in-game. Thus, although VR headsets offer several key advantages such as complete immersion, there are also certain constraints that can potentially hinder the effectiveness of the technology.

2.4. CAVEs

CAVEs are immersive VR environments within a room or space where individuals can explore and interact with the digital environment (Matsentidou & Poullis, 2014). These rooms consist of multiple projectors or screens displaying images on the walls, ceiling, and floor, to make users feel as if they are physically present in that world. Muhanna (2015) believe that the CAVE is one of the most promising and important systems in the evolution of immersive experiences for all kinds of industries, and will have great potential when implemented correctly. The use of immersive caves is becoming increasingly popular in a range of fields, including scientific research, education, and entertainment. Researchers, for example, use immersive caves to study geology, palaeontology, and other earth sciences by simulating underground environments and conducting virtual experiments. Similarly, educators use immersive caves to create engaging and interactive educational experiences that enable students to explore complex subjects in new and innovative ways. In the entertainment industry, immersive caves are used to create highly immersive and interactive gaming experiences that blur the lines between reality and virtual reality. Moreover, a big advantage of using an immersive cave is that it can be used by multiple people at the same time, indicating that several users are in a virtual world together at a similar moment (Manjrekar et al., 2014). Immersive caves are often used for scientific research, design, and training simulations in multiple industries (Muhanna, 2015). CAVE systems offer several benefits, particularly when the goal is to create a shared immersive experience. These systems enable collaborative exploration, allowing multiple users to interact with the same virtual environment simultaneously (Ni et al., 2006). This is a feature not typically found with individual VR headsets, where each user's experience tends to be isolated and potentially even addictive (Merkx & Nawijn, 2021). This group interaction can lead to enhanced learning outcomes, increased engagement, and improved problem-solving capabilities (Coban et al., 2022). Furthermore, CAVE systems present a unique advantage over VR headsets in terms of immersion. As users are not required to wear disconnecting equipment, they maintain a greater sense of their real-world body position and movement, reducing motion sickness and other disadvantages of its head-mounted counterpart. Additionally, the display in CAVE systems heightens the sense of presence in the virtual environment compared to VR headsets due to a larger field of vision (Juan & Pérez, 2009). However, implementing CAVE systems has its own challenges and considerations. The size and setup of CAVEs require substantial physical space and a controlled environment, making them unfeasible in certain contexts. Additionally, the cost of setting up and maintaining these systems can be prohibitive, particularly for smaller organizations or institutions (Vergara et al., 2017). Nonetheless, there is a noticeable scarcity in comparative research between VR headsets and CAVE systems that could analyse the relative benefits and limitations of the two technologies.

3. Hypotheses development

The learning experience of sommeliers is critical for sommeliers with passing rates for the Master Sommelier exam around 3–8% (Lavelle, 2015) and also retailers in the hospitality industry to ensure high levels of customer satisfaction and experiences. We present our conceptual framework in Figure 1, followed by our hypotheses development section.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

VR technology has gained significant attention in recent years as a promising tool for immersive experiences. We aim to explore the differential effects of VR headsets and CAVEs on immersion and subsequent learning outcomes in the context of wine tasting as learning experience for sommeliers. Immersion refers to the subjective feeling of being fully engrossed in a virtual environment, which has been linked to enhanced learning experiences (Checa & Bustillo, 2020). Several studies have shown that VR headsets, which provide a fully enclosed visual and auditory experience, can significantly enhance the feeling of immersion compared to CAVE technology, which typically involves a large projection screen (Matsentidou & Poullis, 2014). A study by Cummings and Bailenson (2016) compared the immersion levels between VR headsets and CAVE technology and found that participants reported significantly higher levels of immersion in the VR headset condition. Further research suggests that enhanced immersion in VR can positively impact learning outcomes. A study by Calvert and Abadia (2020) investigated the effects of immersion in VR on learning and found that participants who experienced higher immersion levels demonstrated better knowledge retention and recall compared to those in to 360° video conditions. In the context of sommelier training, a highly immersive wine tasting experience facilitated by VR headsets may create a more realistic and engaging learning environment compared to a CAVE. The enhanced immersion experienced through VR headsets may enable sommeliers to better focus on sensory cues, leading to improved wine analysis, identification, and evaluation skills. We thus hypothesize:

H1: The effect of VR headsets (vs. CAVEs) on perceived learning is positive and mediated through immersion.

Social presence, referring to the subjective sense of being together with others in a mediated environment, plays a crucial role in immersive experiences (Cobb, 2009). This hypothesis aims to investigate the differential effects of CAVE technology and VR headsets on social presence and subsequent learning outcomes for sommeliers in an immersive wine tasting context. Previous research highlights that CAVEs, which provides a shared physical space for multiple participants, can enhance the sense of social presence compared to VR headsets, which typically provide an individualized experience or limited interaction with artificial avatars (Cho et al., 2020). Grinberg et al. (2014) find that social presence precedes immersion of participants, and that social presence has positive effects on learning outcomes. Social presence has also shown to influence learning outcomes and re-visit intentions of environments (Ying et al., 2022). In the context of sommelier training, the prominent social presence of others experienced in a CAVE may promote collaborative learning and knowledge exchange. Sommeliers can engage in interactive discussions with peers, share tasting notes, and receive feedback in a more realistic and socially immersive setting. Based on the existing research on social presence and learning outcomes in immersive environments, it is hypothesized that the effect of CAVEs on social presence will be stronger compared to VR headsets.

H2: The effect of CAVEs (vs. VR headsets) on perceived learning is positive and mediated through social presence.

In addition to exploring the proposed effects of VR headset (vs. CAVE) on learning experiences through the mediating variables immersion and social presence, we acknowledge that wine tasting experiences are inherently multisensory. Spence (2019) has shown that the multisensory experience is crucial for the wine industry, and further Petit et al. (2019) highlight the role that digital sensory enabling technologies such as immersive environments can play in staging true multisensory experiences, highlighting the important role of mental imagery in the process. Further, it is noted that ‘the majority of life’s most enjoyable experiences are inherently multisensory’ (Petit et al., 2019), supporting the findings of Shams and Seitz (2008) who identified several benefits of multisensory learning for effective learning processes. In the context of wine tastings, ambient sound as an additional auditory stimulus has been found to affect the perception of wine products. North (2012) established that background music can impact the taste of wine, and Kim et al. (2008) established that congruent sounds can improve learning in multisensory environments. The presence of congruent auditory cues, such as environmental sounds, can enhance the perception of being together with others in a virtual space. We thus hypothesize:

H3a: The positive relationship of VR headsets on immersion is moderated by ambient sound, in such a way that the presence (vs. absence) of ambient sound leads to higher levels of immersion.

H3b: The positive relationship of the CAVE on social presence is moderated by ambient sound, in such a way that the presence (vs. absence) of ambient sound leads to higher levels of social presence.

We continue to test our hypotheses in an experimental study in the following section.

4. Methodology

4.1. Experimental design

This study followed a two (VR condition: VR vs. CAVE) x two (audio environment: ambient sounds on vs. ambient sounds off) between-subjects experimental design. All participants drank one tasting glass of the 2021 Tavernello Organico Sangiovese Rubicone, an Italian red wine from the Emilia-Romagna region.

4.2. Participants

This experiment took place at a Dutch University. All participants were students and retrieved based on their prior wine knowledge, due to having followed one or more wine courses in their studies. As the experiment was conducted at a university, all participants (109) were students aged between 18 and 27 years old (M_age = 21.5, SD = 1.6, range = 18–27) and 55% (60) of the respondents were female. The majority of participants are familiar with drinking wine (99.1%). Moreover, some of the participants indicated, on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not familiar at all to extremely familiar, that they were to some extent familiar with the immersive VR technology experienced during the experiment (M_familiar = 3.28, SD = 1.45). The use of a student sample for wine research has already been advocated in previous studies (Wen & Leung, 2021). In sum, retrieving participants among university students was deemed appropriate for this study, as this sample correctly represents the major segment of wine consumers.

4.3. Measures

The survey asked about the participant’s perceived learning, social presence, and level of immersion. Social presence questions were adapted from the social presence of others scale developed by Lu et al. (2016). Three items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale anchored from 1, ‘Strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘Strongly agree’ (α = 0.80). Immersion was measured using a scale adapted from Jennett et al. (2008)’s immersion scale. Seven items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1, ‘Strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘Strongly agree’ (α = 0.77). Perceived learning was measured using a 4-item measure with items such as ‘I believe that the VR experience can enhance my learning experience’ or ‘Overall using VR has helped me learn’ measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1, ‘Strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘Strongly agree’ (α = 0.71). Last, we collected information about the participant’s demographics, such as gender, age, wine consuming frequencies, familiarity with immersive technologies, and attention checks.

4.4. Study setup and technology

The experiment took place across 4 days at a research laboratory of a Dutch University. The setting offers a VR Cave environment that is generated through four ultra-short lens projectors. Together, they create an immersive projection mapping space spanning 270 degrees which can accommodate up to twenty people. For the VR Cave condition, participants experienced the wine tasting within this lab in a group setting, consisting of projections of an Italian vineyard (Figure 2). For the VR condition, participants were instructed on how to use the ‘Oculus Quest 2’ in which they could view the exact same visual experience and look around by turning their head. Both conditions of the Italian vineyard, had a function to include ambience sounds of birds, cows, wind, and other nature sounds.

Figure 2. Italian vineyard in CAVE system.

4.5. Procedure

Students at a Dutch university took part in a virtual wine tasting experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the VR conditions, CAVE in the laboratory or the VR headsets, and one of the auditory conditions, with or without ambient sounds. When arriving outside of the laboratory, participants were given a brief introduction of the study. After that, IDs were checked to ensure the minimum legal drinking age of alcohol of 18 years in the Netherlands. No participants younger than 18 years arrived, thus no participants were removed from the study. Upon entering the laboratory, participants assigned to the CAVE condition received one tasting glass of the Tavernello Organico Sangiovese Rubicone. As instructed before, participants were allowed to freely roam around the room, communicate or share information with other participants, and taste the wine as they normally would and have been taught in the wine tasting courses. Participants assigned to the VR headsets condition, however, were accompanied to a table with the already set-up VR headsets and tasting glass in the laboratory. Research assistants helped the participants with the VR goggles and gave instructions on how to drink the wine from the tasting glass while wearing VR headsets. Participants in this condition were also told to taste the wine as they normally would and have been taught in the wine courses. After a few minutes, an audio fragment, entailing information about the wine that was being tasted, was played in the room for both conditions. At the end of this step, subjects were informed to take their time drinking the wine and enjoying the environment. Subjects were instructed to return the tasting glass when finished and to collect a tablet containing the survey. Subjects were then instructed to fill in the survey and were told to be free to leave upon completion.

5. Results

5.1. Manipulation checks

First, a manipulation check was conducted to account for the manipulation of the independent variable (VR headset vs. CAVE). Here, subjects were presented with the statement ‘I could only see virtual content around me’ and asked to answer this on a 7-point Likert scale anchored from 1, ‘Strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘Strongly agree’. Secondly, a manipulation check for the auditory experience (ambient audio on vs. ambient audio off) was conducted. Again, a 7-point Likert scale was used, anchored from 1, ‘Strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘Strongly agree’. Here, subjects were presented with the following two statements: ‘I could hear ambient sounds of the vineyard, (for example leaves rustling and birds chirping)’, and ‘I could not hear any ambience sounds of the vineyard’ (reverse coded). In the VR condition, significantly more participants felt that they could only see virtual content around them compared to the CAVE condition, highlighting a successful manipulation (M_VR = 4.28 vs. M_CAVE = 3.57, t(107) = 3.069, p < .01). In addition, the manipulation for the ambient sound condition with two items was reliable (α = .86) and was also successful (M_AmbientOn = 6.21 vs. M_AmbientOff = 3.61, t(107) = 8.59, p < .001).

5.1.1. Moderated-mediation model

To investigate our conceptual model, we used the PROCESS plugin (Model 7). for SPSS (Hayes, 2017), including age and gender as control variables. We identify a direct effect positive of our independent binary variable Immersive Experience (0 = CAVE, 1 = VR) on immersion (β = 1.43, p < .001), while we find a direct negative effect on social presence (β = −3.22, p < .001). Further, we do find support for our mediating hypothesis H1 in that immersion also positively impacts perceived learning (β = 0.19, p = .024), however social presence does not have a significant effect on perceived learning (β = 0.001, p > .01). This seems to suggest that for learning in the wine tasting context, immersion is the leading driver to improve the perceived learning experience. While we do find evidence that VR headsets lead to higher immersion, and CAVEs lead to higher social presence, for the context of perceived learning, higher immersion is preferred over higher levels of social presence. We further investigated the role of ambient sound as moderating variable on both mediators. However, we find a significant yet contradictory relationship for H3, because the negative relationship of ambient sound (0 = off, 1 = on) on immersion (β = −0.73, p = .065). This indicates that the effect of VR on immersion is weaker when ambient sound is present, and that the absence of ambient sound strengthens the relationship between VR headsets and immersion. The conditional effects of the focal predictor are significant (0: β = 1.431, p < .001; 1: β = 0.692, p < .01). We further report that our control variable age does not have any significant effects, yet gender has a direct impact on the perceived learning experience (β = 0.360, p = .033), indicating that female participants overall experienced higher levels of learning experience. Both control variables do not have any effects on all other variables in the model.

6. Implications for theory and practice

We provide new insights into sommeliers’ learning experiences in immersive environments, which offer several implications for both theory and practice. First, we provide a much-needed comparison between the two main types of immersive environments available to enhance wine tasting experiences. In practice, both VR and CAVEs are increasingly deployed by winemakers and restaurants, however academic research has predominantly focused on the former, mainly in consumer settings (e.g. Wen & Leung, 2021). The usefulness of these tools for training sommeliers has thus far not been considered; and an explicit comparison of their impact on training effectiveness (i.e. sommelier learning) is currently lacking. We thus identify a novel research avenue and provide first empirical insights that can help practitioners choose between the available technologies depending on their intended business or use cases.

Second, we identify immersion and social presence as the two underlying psychological mechanisms that explain the relative learning impact of VR and CAVEs for sommeliers. Specifically, we show that immersive wine tasting experiences in VR (vs. CAVEs) elicit greater immersion but lower social presence – and that immersion is the main driver of subsequent learning. Previous research has emphasized the communal experience during virtual wine tastings for consumers (Bauer & Mills, 2021), particularly when these are delivered virtually (Paluch & Wittkop, 2021). We complement these insights, showing that in the sommelier training context, immersion is the main driver of learning and should be prioritized over the communal experience, as it allows participants to engage more deeply with the content and absorb information more effectively. These findings not only advance insights into the design of virtual sommelier trainings (Carmer et al., 2020), but also research into immersive environments and improved avatars in general by highlighting the potential paradox in achieving both immersion and social presence within VR and CAVEs (Cho et al., 2020). For practitioners, these findings highlight the importance of leveraging VR for sommelier learning experiences, and to design VR experiences so that they maximize immersion, for example by using interactive elements and minimizing distractions.

Third, our study potentially offers an interesting counter-perspective to prior research on the multi-sensory nature of wine tasting (Joy et al., 2020) as well as research into multi-sensory immersive environments (Martins et al., 2017). We find some support for the notion that ambient sound in VR might decrease the positive impact on immersion and in turn learning, potentially due to distraction from the tasting experience. This finding has important implications for the design of immersive learning experiences, as it suggests that incorporating appropriate ambient sound might not be an effective way to increase the immersion into the wine tasting experience for sommeliers.

Finally, we note that these observed effects may be specific to the context of sommelier training. That is, while immersion was found to be the key driver of learning in the present study, it is possible that the opposite might be true in a consumption context (Paluch & Wittkop, 2021). For instance, in a social setting where the communal experience is valued, consumers may be more likely to prioritize this aspect of the experience over immersion. In such settings, consumers might also value ambient sound. Therefore, it is important for designers and practitioners to carefully consider the context in which their immersive experiences will be consumed and tailor the experience accordingly.

7. Limitations & future research

This study explored the impact of VR headsets versus CAVEs on sommelier perceived learning by examining the role of immersion and social presence as mediating variables. While the findings provide important insights into the potential benefits of immersive technology for wine education, there are several limitations that must be considered.

Firstly, the study used a student sample. While participants in our study represent potential future professionals that will be entering the wine business, it may not fully capture the experiences and perceptions of practicing sommeliers. Future studies should consider a more diverse and representative sample, including both novice and experienced sommeliers, to better understand the broader implications of immersive technology for wine education.

Secondly, the study only examined the effects of VR and CAVEs on learning of a single wine. This narrow focus may not be fully representative of the sommelier learning experience, which involves a diverse range of wines and regions. It is possible that different wines may yield different results in terms of immersion and social presence and the effect on perceived learning for sommeliers, and this should be explored in future research.

Finally, the assessment of learning was conducted immediately after the tasting experience. This may not provide a complete picture of the long-term impact of immersive technology on sommelier education. Future studies should consider including a delayed measure of learning experiences, to assess whether the benefits of immersion and social presence persist over time.

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of immersive technology for sommelier education. By acknowledging these limitations, future research can build upon these findings to better understand the role of immersive technology in wine education, and to develop more effective approaches to sommelier training and education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).