*3.3. Engagement, Effort, Distraction and Purchase Intent for Beef Steaks and Chocolate*

The mean scores and standard deviations for beef and chocolate are shown in Figure 3a,b, respectively. There were no significant differences in the effort required to perform the sensory test in the respective environments for beef (*p* = 0.865) or chocolate (*p* = 0.153). For beef, a significant difference (Z = −2.262, *p* = 0.013) was found in terms of distraction between the two environments, with participants recording higher levels of distraction when immersed in the VR restaurant setting than the sensory booths. This effect was not observed in the chocolate study, although the effect was approaching significance (*p* = 0.055), with scores indicating that the VR busy city environment was more distracting than the sensory booth. Two separate studies by the same research group found contrasting results with respect to the impact of immersion on levels of distraction [2,5]. However, in these studies, the immersive context was presented to participants by means of a purpose-

*Foods* **2021**, *10*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 11

built physical environment, as opposed to a VR headset as used in ours. Nonetheless, efforts to minimise potential distractions contained within an immersive VR environment is required to improve the value and reliability of data generated using this method. the three environmental conditions for chocolate (*p* = 0.124). For beef, participants were more willing to purchase the beef when consumed in the VR restaurant than in the sensory booth (*p* < 0.05).

*p* < 0.0001). In terms of purchase intent, no significant differences were observed between

ceived as more memorable compared to the traditional sensory booth (χ<sup>2</sup>

In our study, participants found the VR restaurant experience to be a significantly more memorable testing environment in comparison to evaluating the beef steaks in the traditional sensory booth set-up (Z = −4.323, *p* < 0.0001). A similar trend was observed for the chocolate samples tested in the three different environments, with the VR settings per-

(2) = 46.444,

Mixed reality was recently utilised to understand consumer response to tea-break snacks and was shown to evoke ecologically valid data comparable to a real-life context [14].

The mean scores and standard deviations for beef and chocolate are shown in Figure 3a,b, respectively. There were no significant differences in the effort required to perform the sensory test in the respective environments for beef (*p* = 0.865) or chocolate (*p* = 0.153). For beef, a significant difference (Z = −2.262, *p* = 0.013) was found in terms of distraction between the two environments, with participants recording higher levels of distraction when immersed in the VR restaurant setting than the sensory booths. This effect was not observed in the chocolate study, although the effect was approaching significance (*p* = 0.055), with scores indicating that the VR busy city environment was more distracting than the sensory booth. Two separate studies by the same research group found contrasting results with respect to the impact of immersion on levels of distraction [2,5]. However, in these studies, the immersive context was presented to participants by means of a purposebuilt physical environment, as opposed to a VR headset as used in ours. Nonetheless, efforts to minimise potential distractions contained within an immersive VR environment is required to improve the value and reliability of data generated using this method.

*3.3. Engagement, Effort, Distraction and Purchase Intent for Beef Steaks and Chocolate*

**Figure 3.** Participants mean scores and standard deviations for beef (**a**) and chocolate (**b**) in each testing condition. The questions asked were: Do you think testing the product in the surrounding environment requires much effort? Do you think the surrounding environment distracted you from performing the task? Was the sensory testing experience memorable? Responses recorded on a 7-point scale where 1 = not at all and 7 = very much. **Figure 3.** Participants mean scores and standard deviations for beef (**a**) and chocolate (**b**) in each testing condition. The questions asked were: Do you think testing the product in the surrounding environment requires much effort? Do you think the surrounding environment distracted you from performing the task? Was the sensory testing experience memorable? Responses recorded on a 7-point scale where 1 = not at all and 7 = very much.

*3.4. Limitations* While our data yielded some interesting findings with respect to how different VR environments impact hedonic response to beef and chocolate, our study has some limitations that offer avenues for further research. An obvious limitation is the relatively small In our study, participants found the VR restaurant experience to be a significantly more memorable testing environment in comparison to evaluating the beef steaks in the traditional sensory booth set-up (Z = −4.323, *p* < 0.0001). A similar trend was observed for the chocolate samples tested in the three different environments, with the VR settings perceived as more memorable compared to the traditional sensory booth (χ 2 (2) = 46.444, *p* < 0.0001). In terms of purchase intent, no significant differences were observed between the three environmental conditions for chocolate (*p* = 0.124). For beef, participants were more willing to purchase the beef when consumed in the VR restaurant than in the sensory booth (*p* < 0.05).
