---
title: "Immersive virtual reality produces comparable willingness-to-pay estimates for ready-to-eat cereals"
id: "plos-one-7-can-immersive-virtual-reality-be-an-alternative-world-for-eliciting-consumer"
canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-7-can-immersive-virtual-reality-be-an-alternative-world-for-eliciting-consumer"
content_type: "clinical_feed_article"
specialty: "General"
source_name: "PLOS ONE (Medicine)"
source_url: "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361063"
published_at: "2026-10-22T14:00:00.000Z"
evidence_level: "Journal Feed"
license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use"
---
# Immersive virtual reality produces comparable willingness-to-pay estimates for ready-to-eat cereals
## Provenance & Clinical Metadata
- **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-7-can-immersive-virtual-reality-be-an-alternative-world-for-eliciting-consumer
- **Specialty:** [General](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- **Primary Source:** PLOS ONE (Medicine)
- **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361063)
- **Published At:** 2026-10-22T14:00:00.000Z
- **Evidence Rating:** Journal Feed
## Executive GIST (TL;DR)
- The study compared consumers’ **willingness to pay** (WTP) for ready-to-eat cereals across immersive virtual reality (IVR) and real-world (RW) choice settings. - Investigators conducted an incentive-compatible real choice experiment with 227 university student participants at Toyo University between November 25–28, 2024. - Participants reserved experiment times blind to whether the session would be IVR or RW; the authors treated the resulting assignment as effectively random. - The experiment paid participants JPY 1,100 in vouchers; the actual product purchase price was deducted and the remainder given in cash. - WTP was estimated primarily with random parameter logit models specified in **WTP space**; preference-space models served as robustness checks. - Data indicated no significant differences in WTP for any cereal products tested between the IVR and RW environments. - The authors concluded that, when combined with real economic incentives, IVR choice experiments may yield monetary WTP estimates similar to conventional real choice experiments. - The paper states this is the first incentive-compatible comparison of **IVR** and **RW** WTP for food; the source did not report further subgroup-specific WTP estimates or p-values in the provided excerpt. - The research focused on **ready-to-eat cereals** because their attributes (packaging, price, nutrition labels) can be consistently presented in both environments and products are easy to distribute in an incentive-compatible design.
## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points
Can immersive virtual reality be an alternative world for eliciting consumer willingness to pay for food? | PLOS One Browse Subject Areas ? Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field. For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here . Article Authors Metrics Comments Media Coverage Reader Comments Figures Figures Abstract This study examines whether consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for ready-to-eat cereals differs between immersive virtual reality (IVR) and real-world (RW) environments. Real choice experiments were conducted with 227 respondents who selected reservation dates without knowing whether they corresponded to the IVR or RW setting. To derive consumers’ WTP, random parameter logit models were estimated primarily in WTP space, while preference-space models were used as a robustness check. The results show no significant differences in WTP between IVR and RW for any of the cereal products tested. This suggests that consumers’ product choices in IVR environments are based on monetary valuations, similar to those in real environments. When combined with real economic incentives, IVR-based choice experiments may therefore yield WTP estimates comparable to those obtained from conventional real choice experiments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare WTP between IVR and RW environments using an incentive-compatible experimental design. Citation: Nakajima T, Mukai M (2026) Can immersive virtual reality be an alternative world for eliciting consumer willingness to pay for food? PLoS One 21(10): e0361063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361063 Editor: Zhifeng Gao, University of Florida, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Received: December 10, 2025; Accepted: October 5, 2026; Published: October 22, 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Nakajima, Mukai. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: All data and R script files (including the revised main script “main2.R”) are available from the OSF database ( https://osf.io/ch7vg/overview?view_only=f2f175e211504034bed2be6c83d20358 ). Funding: TN 25K09299 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/ The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Introduction Consumers’ food choices are influenced by various factors. To clarify the determinants of food choices, researchers have created substitute environments that mimic real-life settings in multiple ways and conducted experiments and surveys [ 1 ]. Recently, research using virtual reality (VR) technology has advanced in different fields, and its applications are expanding in the food industry. According to Xi & Hamari [ 2 ], approximately 30% of studies use VR to clarify consumer behavior in food-focused shopping. VR is an effective tool for eliciting consumer behavior toward food [ 3 ]. Experiments on food-choice behavior using VR enable virtual recreation of food retail environments, enabling a variety of inexpensive and quick experimental interventions in a confidential setting, without the need for cooperation from retail stores or being affected by external factors [ 4 ]. Earlier studies using VR on consumer food-choice behaviors include Waterlander et al. [ 5 ], Waterlander et al. [ 6 ], Herpen et al. [ 7 ], and Bach et al. [ 8 ]. Waterlander et al. [ 5 ] used randomized controlled trials to analyze how price increases in sugar-sweetened beverages affect the purchase of drinks and snacks in 3D virtual supermarkets. Waterlander et al. [ 6 ] examined the effects of a 25% discount on fruits and vegetables on food purchases using web-based 3D virtual supermarkets. Herpen et al. [ 7 ] showed that consumer behavior in a 3D environment resembles real in-store behavior more closely than it does in a 2D environment. Bach et al. [ 8 ] analyzed whether emphasizing conditions in livestock barns would increase sales of meat products meeting higher animal welfare standards. However, in these studies, VR refers to desktop VR (DVR), in which participants view a PC monitor and use a keyboard or mouse to navigate the 3D space and select products. This type of VR has low immersion [ 2 , 3 ]. Recently, the development and sale of head-mounted displays (HMDs) have enabled immersive VR (IVR) environments, in which the entire 360-degree field of view becomes a virtual space. Recent studies have used IVR environments to elucidate consumer food-choice behaviors. Xu et al. [ 9 ] observed behaviors in virtual supermarkets and analyzed the impact of information about animal welfare on meat choice. Melendrez-Ruiz et al. [ 10 ] explored the relationship between eye movements and food choice. In all these studies, researchers constructed a virtual supermarket space, replicated it in an IVR environment, and conducted experiments in which participants selected products from shelves within that virtual environment. Research on food-choice behavior using such IVR environments may help observe behaviors that are closer to those in the real world (RW) and the benefits of conventional VR, given the high level of immersion. Conversely, there are issues such as discomfort caused by wearing an HMD, need to become accustomed to operating the controllers, and possibility of VR sickness [ 2 ]. Flash et al. [ 11 ] examined the feasibility of experimentally understanding consumer behavior in a virtual supermarket using IVR and found that participants could use the controllers effectively to act within the VR space, mistakes in operating the controllers decreased with training, VR sickness was minimized, and a moderate sense of presence was achieved. These results suggest that interventions in IVR environments safely and effectively clarify consumers’ everyday consumption behavior and can provide a controlled and reliable environment. Lately, studies comparing consumers’ food-choice behaviors in different environments have been actively conducted, and investigations into the comparability of these environments are progressing. Peukert et al. [ 12 ] compared IVR and DVR environments, stating that when selecting muesli products, whether participants wanted to use the same selection environment again did not differ between the two environments. Meißner et al. [ 13 ] conducted a real choice experiment (RCE) in DVR and IVR environments, in which RCE is a choice experiment with real payments (details provided in a later section), finding that more muesli products were chosen in the IVR setting and price sensitivity was lower (resulting in higher purchase prices). However, there were no significant differences in satisfaction with product selection between the environments. Yang et al. [ 14 ] compared IVR with an online shopping environment and showed that participants experienced significantly more positive emotions after choosing cookies in the IVR environment. This is explained by the higher level of immersion and realism in the IVR environment, which enhances emotional responses, and by the fact that hedonic foods, such as cookies, more easily evoke positive emotions. Studies comparing IVR environments with RW environments include Pizzi et al. [ 15 ], who compared choice behaviors for bakery products. Although they found no significant difference in the quantity of products purchased, participants took longer to select products in the IVR environment, and their satisfaction with the store was lower. This difference in satisfaction narrowed when participants perceived a store’s product assortment as good. Similarly, Siegrist et al. [ 16 ] found that when choosing cereals for children, the time spent selecting products was longer in an IVR environment; however, there was no significant difference in the time spent viewing product shelves or in the number of people looking at product information. Furthermore, when participants selected cereals for a friend on a diet, there were no significant differences in the time required for product selection, shelf-viewing time, or the number of people viewing product information. Additionally, Branca et al. [ 17 ], who analyzed consumer evaluations of milk packaging, indicated no significant differences in environments, evaluating perceived sustainability or WTP for eco-friendly products. Similarly, Jacobsen et al. [ 18 ], who examined consumers’ price memory for pizza sauce, pasta, and dark chocolate, found no significant differences between environments in which consumers could accurately recall sales prices. These studies suggest that IVR environments provide an efficient setting for testing sensory and nonphysical elements and serve as a reliable research tool that reflects realistic consumer behavior. Moreover, Schnack et al. [ 19 ] revealed consumer selection behaviors across multiple product categories within IVR environments and compared their findings with those of previous research, indicating that impulse purchasing and information acquisition behaviors in IVR align with reality. Based on these results, consumers also exhibit realistic purchasing behavior in IVR settings; therefore, IVR is a cost-effective alternative method for measuring consumer behavior. Lombart et al. [ 20 ] compared fruit and vegetable selection behaviors across three environments: DVR, IVR, and RW. They found that the quantity purchased was higher in DVR and IVR stores than in real stores; however, price appropriateness did not differ significantly between IVR and reality. Further, there were no significant differences among the environments regarding the appearance, quality, and perception of fruits and vegetables as healthy, as well as favorable attitudes toward the products and purchase intentions. Hence, previous research comparing food-choice behaviors in IVR and other environments suggests that behavior in the IVR environment can reproduce actual behavior to a considerable extent, indicating that the IVR environment is an effective method for virtually observing real consumer behavior. No difference was noted between the IVR and RW environments regarding the time spent viewing product shelves and number of people looking at product information [ 16 ], product information acquisition behavior [ 19 ], or price recall [ 18 ], as well as the perception of appearance and quality [ 20 ]. These observations suggest that consumers act according to similar choice mechanisms in similar food selection environments in both settings. This implies that consumers have similar food demands in IVR environments as those in RW. WTP [ 17 ] and purchase intentions [ 20 ] are also similar in both environments. However, extremely limited studies reveal consumers’ WTP for food products in IVR environments or compare the WTP between IVR and RW settings. Branca et al. [ 17 ] examined the WTP for eco-friendly milk packaging compared with conventional milk packaging in an IVR environment and found no significant difference in WTP between the IVR and RW settings. However, in this case, the WTP was based on a seven-point Likert scale and was not derived as a monetary value. Moreover, although the same study conducted a choice-based conjoint analysis in an IVR environment, the monetary value of the WTP was not clarified. Conversely, Meißner et al. [ 13 ], who conducted a choice-based conjoint analysis for muesli in an IVR environment, compared the actual payment amount to that in a DVR environment but did not clarify the WTP. Thus, although research on food-choice behavior in IVR environments is progressing, studies that clarify WTP remain in their developmental stages. This study aims to contribute to the literature by deriving monetary values of consumers’ WTP based on food choices in an IVR environment and clarifying whether there is a difference compared to the WTP derived in an RW environment. Considering the above-mentioned sufficient evidence indicating that consumer behavior is similar in IVR and RW environments, we hypothesize that there is no significant difference between consumer WTP on food elicited under both IVR and RW environments. In doing so, we focus on ready-to-eat cereals (RTEC). RTEC products are widely consumed globally and have been frequently examined in previous consumer-choice and virtual-shopping studies. RTEC is also suitable for comparing choices between IVR and RW environments because consumers can evaluate the products primarily from visually available information, including packaging, price, nutritional information, and product composition. Unlike foods whose evaluation strongly depends on temperature, aroma, freshness, or immediate tasting, the principal information used in choosing packaged RTEC can be presented in a relatively consistent manner across the two environments. Furthermore, RTEC products are shelf-stable, relatively affordable, and easy to distribute to participants, making them suitable for an incentive-compatible experiment involving actual purchases. The availability of products with distinct characteristics, such as the presence of dried fruit and reduced carbohydrate content, also enables meaningful variation in consumer preferences within a single product category. Materials and methods Consumer demand for RTEC Recent food trends focus on health and convenience preferences [ 21 ]. Convenience is as important as taste, health, and price in determining consumer preferences for food [ 22 ]. RTEC is highly convenient, affordable, easy to purchase, and is sometimes even adopted in nutritional support programs due to its generally high nutritional value [ 23 ]. Children and adolescents who frequently consume RTECs tend to consume more sugar [ 24 ]. However, RTEC made with whole grains, which are rich in dietary fiber, can slow sugar absorption and are less likely to lead to weight gain [ 25 ]. In addition, RTEC containing low-GI carbohydrates is less likely to contribute to weight gain [ 25 ]. Consumer demand research has been conducted against the background of RTEC characteristics. Studies that have estimated demand system models for foods, including RTEC, include those that have calculated the price elasticity of demand for RTECs with different nutritional values using the Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS) model [ 26 ], as well as those that have used the Rotterdam model for estimation [ 27 ]. In addition, research that has estimated brand-level demand for RTEC using the BLP model [ 28 ] has clarified consumer demand for product attributes such as dietary fiber and sugar content, and derived the market dominance of high-concentration industries [ 29 , 30 ]. Conversely, many studies have recently clarified the demand for RTEC through discrete choice experiments and purchasing experiments targeting consumers. The WTP for RTEC increases as the content of sugar, protein, dietary fiber, and saturated fatty acids increases [ 31 ]. Further, nutritional information does not significantly influence WTP. Zizzo et al. [ 32 ] conducted a purchasing experiment with actual payments in an online supermarket, revealing that although both 20% and 40% tax rates reduced the demand for RTEC, the amount of reduction was not significantly different. They also stated that the tax amount caused a greater decline in demand, even with the same 20% tax, and taxing unhealthy products increased demand for healthier alternatives. Gustafson [ 33 ] analyzed consumer choice behavior data from a hypothetical online food choice experiment and showed that when considering the impact on future health, consumers who selected foods with higher nutritional quality were more likely to use nutrition information and were more apt to consider the impact on future health when exposed to information emphasizing the importance of health. Similar experiments have shown that consumers are more likely to select products they believe are healthy or tasty [ 34 ]. Furthermore, regarding experiments conducted in an IVR environment elucidating consumer attitudes and selection behavior, some studies have analyzed eye-tracking data during the selection of 33 RTEC products [ 16 ], as well as those focusing on muesli [ 12 , 13 ]. Survey procedure A four-day discrete choice experiment and questionnaire survey on the aforementioned RTEC products were conducted at the Toyo University Asaka Campus from November 25–28, 2024. The participants were undergraduate and graduate students of the campus who occasionally consumed RTEC, including granola. Although a wide range of age groups consumes RTEC, the proportion of children and adolescents who eat it is higher than that of adults [ 35 ]. Additionally, many prior studies comparing IVR and RW have targeted university students [ 12 – 14 , 16 , 20 ], with approximately 70% of their participants being students [ 36 ]. In some studies, the majority of data were collected from young people up to their early 30s [ 17 ]. In the choice experiment, the first two days were conducted in the RW environment and the last two days were conducted in the IVR environment. Before the experiment, participants were informed about it via email and on-campus digital signage, and they made reservations in advance using a reservation system. The reservation system was implemented considering the experiment and survey content. Two to three participants per 20-minute time slot were appropriate, which also helped prevent more than two or three participants from attending the same time slot. The participants accessed the system themselves and made reservations about the experimental time that suited them. Participants were not informed in advance about the specific dates for the RW and IVR environments, and decided on their experiment date and time solely based on their convenience. Therefore, the assignment of participants to one of the two environments can be considered random. On the experiment day, participants checked in at the designated experimental venue at a specified place on campus. First, they read a written informed consent form and instruction sheet regarding the experimental and survey procedures. Only those who agreed to participate in the experiment were included. After participating in a choice experiment in either an RW or IVR environment, the participants used their smartphones to answer a questionnaire about their personal attributes and usual food consumption behaviors. After completing the questionnaire, participants purchased one of the products they had chosen during the choice experiment. They were given JPY 1,100 as compensation for their cooperation in the experiment, from which the product purchase price was deducted. Specifically, participants were given a voucher instead of cash after agreeing to the contents. After completing the questionnaire, the difference between JPY 1,100 and the product purchase price was paid to the participants in cash. The product to be purchased was determined by the participant’s actual choice of RTEC brands for a randomly selected choice experiment question. The choice experiment had an outside option; that is, participants can choose a no-purchase alternative for a question. If the participant chose the option to buy nothing from a randomly selected question, they were paid JPY 1,100. In the questionnaire administered after the choice experiment, participants were asked about their personal attributes, such as age, gender, and income. For income, respondents were asked about the amount they could freely spend in the most recent month, calculated as the total from allowances or earnings minus fixed expenses, such as rent. Additionally, to assess food preferences, questions were asked about whether they valued the colorful presentation of meals, whether the
## Related Clinical Research

- [CohAlign: Predicting first-order noise susceptibility of gradients in equivariant quantum neural n](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-3-cohalign-predicting-the-first-order-noise-susceptibility-of-gradients-in.md)
- [Tobacco use among Lebanese university students: prevalence, drivers, and campus policy implications](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-4-prevalence-and-determinants-of-tobacco-use-among-university-students-in-lebanon.md)
- [How to define outcomes completely in clinical trials: six-element guidance](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-medicine-1-guidance-for-defining-outcomes-in-clinical-trials.md)
- [Molina Q3 2026: Mixed Quarter as Medicaid Cost Pressures Meet Rising State Rates](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/healthcare-dive-1-molina-joins-medicaid-recovery-bandwagon-despite-mixed-q3.md)
- [Healthcare Providers Advocate for Developer Accountability in AI Medical Devices](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/healthcare-dive-2-developers-not-doctors-should-be-held-accountable-for-generative-ai-medical.md)

## Navigation
- [← Back to General Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md)
## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer

> [!CAUTION]
> MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.
> Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.