Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact

of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour
Ana Javornik 1
University College London Interaction Centre, 66
72 Gower Street, WC1E 6EA London, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Augmented reality has emerged as a new interactive technology and its unprecedented way of com-
Received 16 November 2015 plementing the physical environment with virtual annotations offers innovative modes for accessing com-
Accepted 9 February 2016 mercially-relevant content. However, little is known about how consumers respond to its features. This paper
Available online 23 February 2016
approaches augmented reality (AR) by studying media characteristics of interactive technologies and shows to
Keywords: which extent they are indicative of current AR commercial apps. Based on a literature review about consumer
Augmented reality responses to these characteristics, potential media effects of AR on consumer behaviour are discussed. Finally,
Interactive technologies the article proposes a research agenda for further study of this new phenomenon in marketing.
Media effects & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Consumer behaviour
Human–computer interaction
Literature review

1. Introduction more established interactive technologies led the way to a rich

body of research (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000; Childers et al.,
Augmented reality (AR) has emerged as a relevant interactive 2001; Liu and Shrum, 2002; Novak et al., 2003; Pagani and Mir-
technology in the marketing environment, increasingly used in abello, 2011; Sheth and Solomon, 2014), the possible impact of
retail contexts and often developed in formats of smart device emerging AR technology on consumers has only been discussed in
applications. Its ability to overlay the physical environment with very few cases (Huang and Hsu Liu, 2014) and, furthermore, no
virtual elements such as information or images, which can interact systematic research agenda has been proposed.
with the physical environment in real time, provides new possi- The AR industry is estimated to reach $56.8 billion by 2020
bilities for content delivery to consumers. It consequently holds (MarketsandMarkets, 2015), while Fortune expects it to generate
the potential to alter a large number of consumer activities, among $120 billion in revenue by 2020 (Gaudiosi, 2015). Given its rise, it is
which information search and product trials. As its use increases, progressively more important to investigate how AR affects con-
there is an ever-growing need to better understand its impact on sumer responses. With such knowledge, marketers can acquire a
consumer behaviour and on the experience that it delivers. better understanding of how AR can be used as a tool in various
This paper proposes a research agenda for investigating con- shopping channels for specific purposes.
sumer behaviour related to the use of AR in marketing channels, This article starts by discussing how AR functions and its current
building on previous knowledge about interactive technologies commercial applications by drawing parallels with earlier inter-
and their impact on consumer behaviour. Interactive technologies active technologies and their media characteristics: interactivity,
have considerably transformed the way consumers engage in hypertextuality, modality, connectivity, location-specificity, mobility
shopping and brand activities (Hoffman and Novak, 1996; Yadav and virtuality. By studying the impact of these characteristics on
and Pavlou, 2014). Some of the most influential changes since the consumer behaviour, we are able to propose a research agenda for
evolution of web 2.0 and web 3.0 are participation in online future studies of AR in marketing. The agenda outlines specific di-
communities (Kozinets et al., 2010), B2C and C2C interactions rections for how research could study the specificity of these
through social media (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010), increased use characteristics in AR – or the lack thereof – their impact on con-
of mobile phones and smartphone applications (Shankar and Ba- sumer responses and the type of consumer experience they deliver
lasubramanian, 2009; Ström et al., 2014), digital signage (Dennis in different marketing channels, such as in retail and online.
et al., 2010) and engagement with immersive virtual reality (Nah
et al., 2011). While challenges related to consumer responses to
2. Theoretical background
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
1
Permanent address: Institute of Marketing and Communication Management AR is an interactive technology that modifies physical sur-
Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Giuseppe Buffi 13, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland. roundings with superimposed virtual elements. This virtual layer,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.02.004
0969-6989/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261 253

placed between the physical environments and the user, can add Krevelen and Poelman, 2010; Preece et al., 2015). The technology
textual information, images, videos or other virtual items to the has also been applied in medicine, industry, gaming, military, art,
person’s viewing of physical environment. The devices that enable navigation, education, tourism and architecture.
such superimposition can be smartphones or tablets, wearables Initial forms of AR were not robust enough, cost-effective or
(head-mounted displays), fixed interactive screens or projectors sufficiently intuitive enough to be launched broadly and to have
(Carmigniani et al., 2011). the potential of being adopted by average consumers by offering
AR technology has been largely investigated in the areas of intuitiveness and ease-of-use, which are some of the crucial fac-
computer technology and human–computer interaction, where tors for engagement with technology (Davis et al., 1989; Pavlou,
also the most relevant definitions have been developed (presented 2003). However, the conditions have changed in comparison to the
in the Table 1). 1990s when AR was still in its infancy. Technological advancement,
The formulation of AR by Azuma et al. (2001), recognised as the decrease of related costs, increased mobility and portability of AR
most accepted one, emphasises not only the co-existence of virtual and its embeddedness in the existing digital landscape together
and real in the same space, but also interactive alignment and with geolocation applications, global positioning system (GPS) and
mutual registration of computer generated sources with physical near-field communication (NFC) have increased both the utility
reality. It underlines the embeddedness of AR in real time (thus and consequently the relevance of AR. The current digital en-
deviating from virtual reality) and its interactive character. Re- vironment allows deployment of AR technology for marketing
itmayr and Drummond (2006) added that an important element of purposes at various touchpoints of consumer journey, especially in
an AR device is also its ability to be portable or wearable, thus retail, mobile and online. The following section presents the most
mobile in some way. However, that applies only to some groups of common AR applications in marketing at the moment, with re-
AR technologies (Carmigniani et al., 2011) – fixed interactive dis- gards to the channels where they are used and the type of aug-
plays for instance do not allow mobility. Overall, the focus of all mented content they provide.
the revised definitions is the augmentation of the real with the
virtual layer (Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010; Preece et al., 2015), 2.1. Current uses of augmented reality in retail and mobile
computer-generated information (Carmigniani et al., 2011) in marketing
combination with interactivity (Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010;
Carmigniani et al., 2011; Azuma et al. 2001; Zhou et al., 2008; In recent years, brands have been using and testing various AR
Reitmayr and Drummond, 2006). apps in different contexts to examine the most suitable settings for
The most relevant media characteristics of augmented reality their use. So far, AR used on smart devices and large interactive
as stated in these definitions are the following: interactivity, vir- screens, either privately or publicly in retail are among the most
tuality (presence of elements of virtual reality), geolocation fea- common ones (Javornik, 2014). AR apps on smart devices allow a
ture/location specificity, mobility (in terms of portability and consumer for example to see a virtual product situated in the
wearability) and synchronisation of virtual and physical/real environment (such as a virtual furniture in a physical room) or to
(augmentation). access additional digital content by scanning a product's logo or a
The first forms of AR were developed in the 1950s in cinema- related image (such as a scanned magazine's ad that transforms
tography by Morton Heilig, who named the special cinema fea- into a video on a tablet's screen). Large interactive screens on the
tures “Sensorama” (Carmigniani et al., 2011). In the 1960s, Ivan other hand can present a greater part of the physical surrounding
Sutherland developed the first prototype of AR at Harvard that on the screen, to which the virtual elements are added (as for
enabled viewing of 3-D graphics using a holographic projection. In instance an AR campaign in a shopping mall with a purpose of
the 70s and 80s, research institutes, NASA, the aviation industry raising consciousness about endangered species, that showed on a
and other industry centres continued to develop wearable devices, large screen the threatened animals that seemed to be walking
digital displays and 3-D graphics with AR. Scientists Caudell and around the mall).
Mizell coined the term in the 1990s in the area of aviation, de- Besides the context of use, the AR apps also differ with regard
veloping an AR assistance system for workers who were wiring to the entities they augment (Carmigniani et al., 2011). In that
harnesses (Azuma et al., 2001; Carmigniani et al., 2011). Since the sense, AR capability of enhancing the physical reality-also referred
1990s, wearable computers and mobile AR were developed and to as augmentation (Preece et al., 2015) – can overlay virtual ele-
put to use for the first time and AR has gained increased attention ments on: person, products or surrounding space.
in computer science, linked with the areas of virtual reality, 3-D The augmentation of a person can refer either to an enhanced
technology and mobile technology (Azuma et al., 2001; Van view of someone else or of a self. An enhanced view of another

Table 1
Definitions of augmented reality from computer science literature.

Authors Definitions

Azuma et al. (2001) An AR system supplements the real world with virtual (computer-generated) objects that appear to coexist in the same space as the real
world. While many researchers broaden the definition of AR beyond this vision, we define an AR system to have the following properties:
combines real and virtual objects in a real environment; runs interactively, and in real time and registers (aligns) real and virtual objects
with each other.
Zhou et al. (2008) Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology which allows computer generated virtual imagery to exactly overlay physical objects in real time.
Unlike virtual reality (VR), where the user is completely immersed in a virtual environment, AR allows the user to interact with the virtual
images using real objects in a seamless way.
Reitmayr and Drummond (2006) Augmented reality (AR) is a promising user interface technique for mobile, wearable computing and location-based systems.
Van Krevelen and Poelman (2010) Augmented reality (AR) is this technology to create a “next generation, reality-based interface” and is moving from laboratories around the
world into various industries and consumer markets. AR supplements the real world with virtual (computer-generated) objects that
appear to coexist in the same space as the real world.
Carmigniani et al. (2011) Augmented Reality (AR) is a real-time direct or indirect view of a physical real-world environment that has been enhanced/augmented by
adding virtual computer-generated information to it. AR is both interactive and registered in 3D as well as combines real and virtual
objects.
254 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261

person can be for instance provided through augmented reality Sundar, 2009; Lister et al., 2008) and as such offer solid conceptual
glasses (e.g. Google Glass or Hololens), however such applications and methodological tools that allow understanding consumer re-
have so far been rare in marketing due to the limited access to the sponses to specific parts of experience with technology (Sundar,
head-mounted displays or goggles. On the other hand, apps for 2009; Pagani and Mirabello, 2011). For instance, a media char-
enhanced view of a self or “self-augmentation” have been more acteristic telepresence represents a crucial driver for the user
widely disseminated in the form of virtual mirrors or virtual try- immersion in virtual reality (Steuer, 1992), while interactivity
ons. While digital try-ons existed in earlier versions (websites al- leads to higher involvement of a user in a computer-mediated
lowed uploading a piece of apparel on one's photo or a persona- environment (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). This approach differs
lised avatar), the AR virtual mirrors deliver a more realistic and from the stream that focuses on media characteristics based on
interactive experience. The screen conveys a reflection of your subjective criteria such as social presence (Kaplan and Haenlein,
body or of its part (for instance face, head or hand) with virtual 2010), media synchronicity (Dennis et al., 2008) and uses and
add-ons, such as glasses, make-up and clothes. Virtual try-ons gratifications approach (Calder et al., 2009).
represent one of the more popular AR cases and have been The most representative media characteristics of interactive
adopted by several apparel and cosmetics brands. technologies are assembled in Fig. 1. Only characteristics or fea-
Furthermore, AR apps allow also augmentation of a product, tures that can be manipulated are included, among others also to
usually by scanning an item with a smart device that can then avoid proxies for interactive technologies.
visualise an enhanced view. Some examples of such apps are for Interactivity (Steuer, 1992; Lister et al., 2008) has been ex-
instance those that provide additional nutritional information tensively investigated and remains one of the core concepts for
about food products on a shelf, show reviews as if directly linked assessing digital and virtual media. Although no final consensus
to the products, change the colours of an item on a screen or add about its meaning has been reached, it is most often referred to as
gaming elements. “…the degree to which two or more communication parties can act
Finally, some apps allow an augmentation of a surrounding on each other, on the communication medium, and on the messages
space with virtual elements. That is used for seeing how a product and the degree to which such influences are synchronized” (Liu and
would look like in a certain space (for instance a piece of furniture Shrum, 2002). Similarly, Sundar (2009) define it as “the choices
in the room) or for getting additional content about surrounding provided to users and the ability to go back and forth with the in-
space (for instance the screen shows on the camera view of the terface”. While interactivity is an objective feature, its link to re-
street where a nearby coffee place is and which stores have a sale). lated consumer responses is established for instance through
But in what way does AR act as an interactive technology? consumer perception of how much control they view to have over
Answering that question will allow better understanding what a medium, to which extent it allows them to lead two-way com-
consumer experience can AR offer. munication and how responsive the see the medium to be (Song
and Zinkhan, 2008; Sundar, 2009; van Noort et al., 2012). By de-
2.2. Augmented reality as the next interactive technology? finition, AR tools are also interactive as they allow communication
both with other people and with the medium (Billinghurst and
Interactive technology is an umbrella term for diverse forms of Kato, 2002). However, current commercial AR apps offer more
computer-mediated and digital environments. Varadarajan et al. features in terms of machine interactivity (i.e. allowing to access
(2010) defined it as tools and devices that enable entities to en- different content and interact with interface) and less so in terms
gage in mediated communication and are based on digital tech- of allowing augmented communication between different human
nology, such as: e-mail, hyper-text technologies, web browsers, parties.
instant messaging, access technologies (i.e. wi-fi and GPS), mobile Hypertextuality is a synonym and a proxy for the number of
phones, social networking, search engines and others. Further- linked sources (Hoffman and Novak, 1996) and refers to the non-
more, interactive technologies share media characteristics, which sequential connections among different data or navigability
are communication variables that are connected to the aspects of (Sundar, 2009) and is associated with the actions of users moving
communication that represent an exchange and transmission of through a mediated environment and the interface that offers a
messages with various entities (Stewart and Pavlou, 2009; Lit- large number of linked sources and different paths of how they are
tlejohn and Foss, 2008). In communication and marketing theory related together. In comparison to a standard website, current
the term describes functional traits of technologies that permit interfaces of AR view modes often do not have as many linked
objective, error-free measurement (Hoffman and Novak, 1996; sources as the technology does not offer switching across so many

Media characteristics of Definition (author)

interactive technologies
Interactivity Machine and personal interactivity, feature-based or perceived,
composed of control, responsiveness and two-way communication
(Song and Zinkhan, 2008)
Hypertextuality Potentially high number of linked sources
(Hoffman and Novak, 1996)
Modality Diversity of content representation (Sundar et al., 2012)
Connectivity Technological capability of expanding and sustaining a model of
network, where many users can be connected among themselves
(Lister et al., 2008; Varadarajan et al., 2010)
Location-specificity Specificity with which a technology and its user can be targeted
based on the precise geolocation
(Shankar and Balasubramanian, 2009; Varadarajan et al. 2010)
Mobility Portability and wearability that allow a mobile use (Shankar and
Balasubramanian, 2009; Varadarajan et al., 2010)
Virtuality Combination of virtual elements that causes immersion in an
environment constructed with computer graphics and digital video
(Lister et al., 2008; Blascovich and Bailenson, 2011)

Fig. 1. Framework of interactive technologies' media characteristics.

 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261 255

Table 2 generated as it does not include elements from physical surrounding

Media characteristics applied to two types of augmented reality tools. on the screen (e.g. Second life). In AR, only one part of what the user
sees is computer generated while the rest corresponds to physical
AR apps on smart AR apps on fixed interactive
devices screens reality and there is thus not a disconnect between the physical and
the virtual. According to these criteria, AR is closer to the physical
Interactivity Medium to high Medium to high reality than the virtual reality, but has elements of virtuality.
Hypertextuality Few-to-many linked Few linked sources By studying the relation of AR to the media characteristics of
sources
Modality Video, Text, Image Video, Text, Image
interactive technologies, AR can be better understood in terms of its
Connectivity One-to-few; Few-to- One-to-few, One-to-many features. Table 2 presents to which extent are these media char-
few acteristics present in the AR apps on smart devices and on fixed
Location-specificity Medium to high Low interactive screens, which are two of the most common AR appli-
Mobility Medium Low
cations in marketing. As already discussed above, AR apps posses all
Virtuality Medium Medium
media characteristics of interactive technologies to some degree,
however some – interactivity, virtuality, modality, location-specifi-
icons as with websites, however a certain level of hypertextuality city-are much more present and indicative of commercial AR apps
is present. than for example hypertextuality, connectivity, mobility.
Modality refers to the types of content provided by the medium AR commercial apps at this stage do not offer high connectivity
(Hoffman and Novak, 1996; Sundar, 2009) and can appear in audio with other parties as for instance social media and are often not
and visual formats, such as music, voice narrative, video, images, linked to a large number of other sources when in AR mode. While
text and others, all represent information in a different way which smart devices by definition allow high mobility, the AR viewing
impacts the communication process. Content in AR apps is pre- mode only permits movements to a limited extent before the AR
dominantly visual but the formats can range between 2-D or 3-D content disappears from the visual field or from the screen. On the
images, videos or animated content or purely textual information. other hand, AR apps offer rich plethora of content modality, are
The networked character or connectivity (Hoffman and Novak, often highly interactive and virtual elements are in most cases in-
1996) refers to the type of communication model that is con- dispensable to it. The relevant question for understanding the im-
sidered a revolutionary trait of social media: the transformation of pact of AR on consumer behaviour is how these characteristics
the one-to-one or one-to-many communication model into many- impact shopping experience and what responses do they elicit from
to-many models of interactions where all sides can participate in consumers. For that purpose we review the recent findings about
the exchange of messages and are simultaneously potential sen- consumer responses to these media characteristics based on which
ders and receivers. While AR is often embedded in the applications research agenda for AR and consumer responses is developed.
that contain features for such connectivity, the AR view as such
does not yet allow (at least not the current commercial applica-
tions) connectivity with as many other parties as for instance so- 3. Methodology
cial media. However, integration with social platforms and higher
connectivity is expected to be more present in the future versions. A selected literature review about the effects of interactive
Mobile devices represent a special category of interactive tech- technologies' media characteristics on consumer behaviour was
nologies because of their mobility/portability, wirelessness and location- conducted for the period between 2008 and 2014 (Table 3). 2008
specificity (Shankar and Balasubramanian, 2009; Varadarajan et al., was used as a cut off because similar reviews were done or the
2010). Location-specificity refers to the GPS system that allows track- period prior to 2008 (Dennis et al., 2009; Varadarajan et al., 2010;
ing of the user location through personal devices and delivering lo- Voorveld et al., 2009; Hoffman and Novak, 2009; Ström et al.,
cation-specific information. With AR, location is relevant in a different 2014). References to them are made throughout the study in order
way. The content delivery is not linked to the GPS position but to the to build on the previously established knowledge. The review
elements that the camera tracks in its immediate surrounding based serves as a basis for derivation of research directions relating to
on which the augmented content is delivered. Some AR content is consumer responses to AR in marketing.
delivered without spatial tracking and just appears on the screen, The search was performed on Google Scholar and ABI/Inform by
seemingly fitting in the physical environment. using the keywords: consumer behaviour and the above assembled
Portability or mobility (the characteristic of mobile devices media characteristics (interactivity, hypertextuality, virtuality etc). If
being effortless to carry around) indicates a device's affordance for keywords yielded too few results, other related keywords were
spatial dynamism (Rohm et al., 2012), which also included wear- used such as browsing in the case of hypertextuality. Only articles
ability (like with Apple's iWatch, FitBit or GoogleGlass). The extent with quantitative studies were taken into account, as the main focus
to which AR is mobile, depends on the type of device it is used on. was to survey measured consumer responses to media character-
Fixed interactive screens, situated in a retail store, do not allow istics. Such an approach towards a literature review (classification
mobility, while smart devices can be carried around and allowing based on technologies' effects on users) has been conducted in
AR to be mobile, which then also affects the type of content that previous reviews (Varadarajan et al., 2010; Voorveld et al., 2009).
can be displayed based on the location. The aim was to assemble at least 5 highly cited articles per char-
Virtuality refers to media's capability of showing virtual elements acteristic. Final number of the articles selected for the review was
or virtual worlds, as experienced by the user through immersion or 44. For each study, we classified consumer responses according to
telepresence in the environment created by computer graphics or the media characteristics. 3 articles were used for two categories,
visual elements (Lister et al., 2008; Steuer, 1992). Gaming apps, vir- the other 41 relate to only one category.
tual worlds or virtual simulation create distinctive consumer ex-
periences through virtual reality (Jennett et al., 2008, Blascovich and
Bailenson, 2011). Virtual annotations represent an important part of 4. Literature review on consumer responses to media char-
AR (Billinghurst and Kato, 2002), but with an important distinction: acteristics of interactive technologies
virtual reality is separated from physical reality while AR is em-
bedded into it. As explained in virtuality continuum (Milgram and One of the most consistently confirmed effects of interactivity is
Kishino, 1994), the reality that a user sees in virtuality, is computer flow (Chang and Wang, 2008; van Noort et al., 2012; Hoffman and
256 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261

Table 3
Literature review about effects of interactive technologies and their media characteristics on consumer behaviour for the period 2008–2014.

Media characteristic Relevant literature Consumer responses brought forward by the characteristic

Interactivity Song and Zinkhan (2008) Mediates website effects on satisfaction, loyalty, perceived quality, WOM and purchase behaviour
Chang and Wang (2008) Flow, Positive website attitude; Future use intentions
Cyr et al. (2009) E-loyalty; Enjoyment; Efficiency, Trust
Gao et al. (2009) Positive attitude towards mobile ad
Huang (2012) Affective involvement; Flow
van Noort et al. (2012) Flow, Affective (brand & website attitude) and cognitive responses (related thoughts), Behavioural intentions
Chu and Yuan (2013) Positive website attitude; E-Trust
Sundar et al. (2014) Positive website attitude; Intention for future use

Hypertextuality Su (2008) Complex search on sites or across sites leads to lower search for product information and price
Parra and Ruiz (2009) Navigation leads to smaller consideration sets, especially under higher information load
Richard et al. (2010) Exploratory behaviour and consequently to positive website attitude and involvement.
Flavián-Blanco et al. (2011) Effort and positive emotions during the online search positively impact positive attitude after the search
Park et al. (2012) Hedonic browsing correlates with impulse buying, but the utilitarian browsing correlates to it negatively

Modality Park et al. (2008) Product rotation ¼ 4 Cognitive response (perceived information), Affective response (mood, attitude), Beha-
vioural intentions.
Kim and Lennon (2008) Verbal & visual information affect brand attitude and knowledge, but verbal representations exhibit superior
effects on purchase intentions.
Jin (2009) Positive brand and product attitude; Purchase intentions (for consumers with high involvement)
Goel and Prokopec (2009) Less rich media (website) leads to higher trust, product diagnosticity and informativenes than 3D world
Lin et al. (2012) Visual information impact e-Wom perceived message quality, credibility, interest, purchase intentions
Hsieh et al. (2012) Visually and acoustically richer media lead to more positive attitude and higher eWom
Li and Meshkova (2013) Richer media increase informativeness and purchase intention for both search and experience product.
Huang and Hsu Liu (2014) Rich media with storytelling have stronger impact on consumer responses than those without narration

Connectivity Calder et al. (2009) Positive attitude towards the ad and intention to click.
Chan and Li (2010) Individual enjoyment acts as a strong predictor of community reciprocity and commitment.
Pagani and Mirabello, Social engagement leads to more active medium usage
(2011)
Huang (2012) Social identity impacts flow, involvement and commitment.
Laroche et al. (2012) Community connectivity leads to brand use, trust and loyalty
Pescher et al. (2014) Tie strength leads to higher influence, but users with weak ties are more likely recommending an ad.

Location-specificity Xu et al. (2009) Location-based advertising leads to positive attitude, intention to use and purchase, but also to irritation
Gao et al. (2009) Customization of brand communication significantly impacts the perceived interactivity and flow, attitude and
purchase intentions.
Xu et al. (2011) Benefits of personalisation can override privacy concern in some contexts
Zhou (2013) Contextual offerings lead to flow and higher trust, which impacts further usage intention.
Luo et al. (2014) Advertising at specific location significantly increases customer willingness to purchase.

Mobility Sultan et al. (2009) Increased mobile activity leads to higher willingness to provide information and access content.
Dickinger and Kleijnen Mobile advertising leads to privacy concern and lack of perceived control
(2008)
Kowatsch and Maass (2010) If mobile recommender agent is useful, consumers intend to us it in the future
Rohm et al. (2012) Mobile marketing can lead to positive attitude when perceived usefulness, personal innovativeness and at-
tachment are high
Bart et al. (2014) Impact of mobile displayed advertising on product attitude and purchase intentions depends on the type of
product and on prior product knowledge.

Virtuality Daugherty et al. (2008) Higher product knowledge, brand attitude and purchase intentions (in comparison to magazine).
Lee and Chung (2008) Stronger quality assurance and enjoyment in virtual shopping hall in comparison to ordinary mall.
Kim and Forsythe (2008) 3D view is perceived easier to use than 2D and virtual try-on, but virtual try-on is more entertaining.
Goel and Prokopec (2009) Lower informativeness, trust and product diagnosticity than on websites.
Jin and Bolebruch (2009) Increased product involvement and product attitude with spokes-avatar advertising.
Gabisch (2011) Stronger impact of virtuality on purchase when higher perceived diagnosticity and self-congruence.
Nah et al. (2011) 3D induces greater sense of enjoyment and telepresence than 2D environment.
Merle et al. (2012) Personalised virtual try-on leads to higher hedonic and utilitarian value than non-personalised try-on.
Huang and Hsu Liu (2014) Rich virtual media have a significantly higher impact on ROI, reported aesthetics, playfulness and reported
excellence when narrated.
Huang and Liao (2014) Presence, playfulness, reported aesthetics, usefulness and behavioural intentions.

Novak, 2009), which refers to immersion of consumers into the while challenge, attention and exploratory behaviour decrease
highly absorbing state when using interactive features allowing (Novak et al., 2000), which suggests that with longer use of the
communication either with machine or other people, supported web technologies, attention is placed more on skill-based, goal-
by challenge and sense of control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Flow directed activities than on the experiential ones (Novak et al.,
can improve learning, establish perceived behavioural control, 2003). Flow caused by interactivity can act as a mediator for
increase exploratory and participatory behaviour and create po- consumer responses such as brand and website attitude (Chang
sitive subjective experiences and distortion in time perception, but and Wang, 2008; Song and Zinkhan, 2008; Gao et al., 2009; van
it can also cause a distraction from the original task and physical Noort et al., 2012), cognitive responses (van Noort et al., 2012),
and mental fatigue (Hoffman and Novak, 2009). With time, the behavioural intentions to use the website again in the future
relevance of certain constructs change – user skill and perceived (Sundar et al., 2012; van Noort et al., 2012) and purchase inten-
utility become more relevant with continuous web experience, tions (van Noort et al., 2012; Chang and Wang, 2008; Huang,
 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261 257

2012). Interactivity was found to also lead to loyalty (Song and However, a study by Kim and Lennon (2008) presented con-
Zinkhan, 2008; Cyr et al., 2009) and trust (Cyr et al., 2009; Chu and trary findings, i.e. that effects of online verbal representation as
Yuan, 2013). Other factors such as the quality of the message and opposed to the visual one were found to have a stronger impact on
the type of a task (complaining vs. search) significantly impact brand knowledge, attitude and purchase intentions. Also, Goel and
consumer perception of interactivity (Song and Zinkhan, 2008). Prokopec (2009) showed that despite the fact that virtual worlds
However, while there have been solid results confirming that in- offer a richer media, websites are significantly better in estab-
teractivity leads to affective responses (van Noort et al., 2012; lishing trust, informativeness and product diagnosticity, as they
Huang, 2012; Gao et al., 2009; Chang and Wang, 2008), there is offer more information.
less evidence for it to result in more cognitive involvement for Connectivity between brands and consumers in social networks
which some studies report positive effect (van Noort et al., 2012; is high and all consumers, not just brands, are potential influen-
Cyr et al., 2009) and others lack thereof (Huang, 2012). There are cers, depending on their reach, influence and credibility (Hanna
also contradictory findings with regards to purchase intentions if et al., 2011; Pescher et al., 2014). The embeddedness of users in
they are significantly affected by perceived interactivity or not (van social networks and social identity has a strong impact on con-
Noort et al., 2012; Chu and Yuan, 2013). Finally, different types of sumers’ flow and involvement with a certain website (Huang,
interactivity (e.g. medium, modality and source interactivity), re- 2012). Social-interactive engagement, for instance, leads to a po-
late to diverse consumer responses (e.g. perceived control, re- sitive attitude towards the ad and thus a greater probability of the
sponsiveness and two-way communication) (Sundar et al., 2014). user clicking on it (Calder et al., 2009), to reciprocity behaviour to
Hypertextuality has been largely investigated in the frame of other members (Chan and Li, 2010;) and to more active con-
navigability, i.e. users' navigation and search across different tribution to the content on social media in comparison to a non-
sources of content, which can result in exploration of the myriad social engagement (Pagani and Mirabello, 2011). Also, the most
of different links and sources on their devices (Hoffman and No- influential recommendations are made through strong ties (Pe-
vak, 2009). Richard et al. (2010) found that the drivers differ across scher et al., 2014).
gender – men are more likely to explore based on their skills, The location-specificity allows for geolocation and personalisa-
while women are more motivated by the challenge, however in tion, enabling marketers to deliver a more precise and tailor-made
both cases such exploration leads to a more positive attitude to- messages to consumers, which leads to more positive attitude,
wards the site and involvement with it. Affective states and per- higher intention to purchase and higher trust (Zhou, 2013; Xu
ceptions experienced during the explorations positively impact et al., 2009; Gao et al., 2009, Luo et al., 2014). However, privacy
the post-search activities and emotional states (Flavián-Blanco represents a high concern (Xu et al., 2011; Zhou, 2013) that can act
et al., 2011) and entertaining content is a stronger predictor for site as detrimental to the advantage of the location-specific marketing
involvement and exploration than effectiveness of information messages (Xu et al., 2013). Accuracy in terms of location-specificity
content (Richard et al., 2010). Consumers are more willing to requires precise knowledge of spatial proximity in order to time
search for different types of information when search is made easy the marketing messages efficiently (Luo et al., 2014).
both within sites or across sites (Su, 2008) and higher information While mobility represents a significant advantage and can de-
load and search allows them to narrow consideration sets of liver solutions at the exact time and place where needed, accep-
products they want to consider (Parra and Ruiz, 2009). Finally, tance and effectiveness of mobile marketing communications face
Park et al. (2012) show that the purpose for browsing leads to an obstacle related to privacy concerns (Sultan et al., 2009; Dick-
different purchase behaviour – hedonic browsing can result in inger and Kleijnen, 2008; Ström et al., 2014). But once consumers
impulse buying, while the utilitarian browsing decreases the start using a mobile device for commercial purposes, they report
possibility. intentions to use it again in the future (Sultan et al., 2009; Ko-
The different types of information representation or modality – watsch and Maass, 2010) and develop positive attitudes towards it
visual, verbal, audio, video – elicit different responses from con- (Rohm et al., 2012), especially when the activity was perceived
sumers. Psychology research established paradigm about dominance useful (Kowatsch and Maass, 2010; Rohm et al., 2012). Personal
of visual cues' effects on memory and attitude in comparison to the characteristics such as innovativeness and tech-savviness play a
verbal ones (Childers et al., 1984). Marketing research shows that strong role with adopting smart phones for shopping purposes in
richer online information creates more positive responses (Lin et al., retail (Ström et al., 2014; Rohm et al., 2012). There also exist
2012; Hsieh et al., 2012) and even increased willingness to pay (Li substantial differences in responses to promotion of utilitarian and
and Meshkova, 2013). Visual cues as opposed to the verbal ones lead hedonic products, as mobile advertising works better for utilitar-
to higher credibility of eWom and its perceived quality, as well as to ian products (Bart et al., 2014), while Pescher et al. (2014) showed
higher interest in a product and purchase intentions (Lin et al., 2012). that entertainment value has reportedly a stronger impact in the
Also, richer visual and sound effects in video ad impact consumers’ decision-making process. There exists a common agreement that
positive attitudes and willingness to share such a video (Hsieh et al., the value of device mobility is perceived highest when integrated
2012). Furthermore, the product category plays an important differ- in the existing consumer journey (Ström et al., 2014).
ence. For search and hedonic product visual information delivers a Virtuality typically causes sensation of immersion or tele-
satisfying comprehension of a product, while some utilitarian pro- presence, where one feels detached from a physical reality and
ducts require additional verbal information (Lin et al., 2012). Richness absorbed by the activities on the screen and the virtual elements
in modality contributes to the formation of more positive attitudes on it (Jennett et al., 2008; Animesh et al., 2011; Nah et al., 2011,
towards a brand and related products and consequently more in- Faiola et al., 2013). Surprisingly, the level of enjoyment can be
tense purchase intentions (Jin, 2009). Such an effect is significant for higher in virtual shopping malls than in real, physical ones (Lee
consumers with lower prior involvement, while the ones with higher and Chung, 2008). A 3D environment, which is richer in compar-
prior involvement are not significantly more affected by the richer ison to the 2D one, has been proven to lead to stronger enjoyment
3D environment (Jin, 2009). While consumer responses can become (Nah et al., 2011) and, furthermore, virtual try-on technology
more intense with higher media richness, a presence of narration, provides a stronger entertainment value of the shopping experi-
cause-effect and storytelling in virtual and augmented reality ex- ence than 2D or 3D rotations and exhibits a stronger hedonic role
perience reveals even stronger impact on consumer ROI, playfulness (Kim and Forsythe, 2008). A virtual experience positively impacts
and perception of service quality in comparison to rich media consumer intentions towards the purchase (Jin 2009, Gabisch
without narrative elements (Huang and Hsu Liu, 2014). 2011) and willingness to pay for both search and experience
258 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261

products, however excitement is higher for experience products, studies on interactivity showed that the consumer experience is in
especially for female consumers (Li and Meshkova, 2013). many cases predominantly impacted by affective drivers, to which
Types of virtuality can be different – either the entire world on extent is that true also for AR and what is the role of cognitive
the screen is represented as virtual (like Second life or virtual factors? Is consumer experience with AR principally hedonic and
games) or there are only separated virtual elements, like for in- serving as an entertainment tool or is it used for utilitarian pur-
stance avatars or virtual try-ons. While the virtual worlds create a poses? Does that change over time when consumer gets more
strong immersive experience (Animesh et al., 2011), spokesavatar used to the technology and thus focuses less on exploration and
contributes to a positive shopping experience by increasing the more on goal-oriented behaviour (Hoffman and Novak, 2009)?
product involvement and product attitude to a significantly higher High number of linked sources – hypertextuality – allows for
level than unimodal audio messages (Jin and Bolebruch, 2009). involvement in web exploration and browsing. Given that current
Virtual try-ons allow consumers to see a simulation of how a AR apps offer less links to other sources and focus more on the
certain product would look like on a person, for instance on a immediate physical points that can be digitally augmented, it is
generic avatar or a personalised model (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; important to understand if that represents a disadvantage for
Cho and Schwarz, 2012; Merle et al., 2012). They are generally consumers. Should future AR apps be embedded to a higher level
related with a high entertainment/hedonic value (Kim and For- with other social media platforms and would that display a sig-
sythe, 2008), but contrary to that Merle et al. (2012) show that nificant impact on consumer experience with AR? Would the
virtual try-on display higher utilitarian value with respect to 2D linked sources have a similar impact on decision-making as they
and 3D product simulation. Other 3-D technologies were proven to have shown to have in the web studies-for instance by narrowing
perform both a functional and hedonic role in the purchase pro- down the consideration set of products and, supported by other
cess (Kim and Forsythe, 2008). Product rotation is also a type of a linked content, encourage consumers to explore more of the re-
visual simulation that creates a sense of telepresence and impacts lated material?
both cognitive and affective responses towards a product and How do different modalities in AR – video, audio, text, image –
leads to behavioural intentions (Nah et al., 2011; Park et al., 2008). yield different consumer responses? Dominant belief in psychol-
Daugherty et al. (2008) have shown that both virtual and direct ogy has established supremacy of visual information in terms of its
experience with a product leads to the same brand attitude and impact on attitudes and knowledge in comparison to the textual
purchase intention, but the virtual experience provides better cues. Given that AR mode visually displays some part of the sur-
brand knowledge (cognitive response) than the direct experience. rounding on the screen, future studies need to investigate what
While a typical website cannot always provide a sense of direct modality combines best with the camera view of physical en-
experience with a product, the virtual product simulations have vironment for the most well received response: text that adds
the potential to overcome the shortcoming of the lack of a physical information directly to the specific elements, imagery that modi-
presence on websites. On the other hand, trust towards the virtual fies or enhances some part of the surrounding or videos that di-
store is lower in comparison to the websites, as the novelty of rectly augment the physical elements? Are there specific combi-
virtual world being utilised as a shopping channel creates a ne- nations that work better for certain types of tasks/contexts/pro-
gative impact (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Goel and Prokopec, 2009). ducts/experiences?
Finally, personal characteristics such as cognitive involvement Connectivity is less enabled in current AR apps in comparison to
(Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Huang and Liao, 2014) and self-con- social media. Given that the forms of online and offline social
gruence (Gabisch, 2011) also display impacts on the relationships engagement display a strong value and drive consumer involve-
between virtual features and consumer responses. ment, positive attitude and content contribution, relevant research
question is how does the potential lack of connectivity influence
consumer experience? Will the future AR apps develop more into
5. Research agenda for studying consumer responses to aug- that direction?
mented reality Numerous AR apps are location-specific, given that much of the
AR content is delivered when the camera tracks a certain object,
The review provided a framework within which the impact of target, location. That can make some AR apps highly relevant for
AR different characteristics on consumer behaviour can be dis- retail, as the AR content would appear on a person’s smart devices
cussed. In the continuation, we therefore examine these relations when tracking pre-defined points in the stores. Privacy concerns
in-depth and propose directions for how to advance this knowl- with AR on smart devices will likely represent less of an issue, as
edge in future research. the AR content is delivered based on pull and not push commu-
Research on interactivity has shown this feature is strongly nication and therefore perceived as less intrusive. Will the AR apps
linked to flow and that it represents a driver for numerous affec- that are linked to a location, be viewed as a tool of highly perso-
tive responses as well as some behavioural and cognitive ones. nalised customer service delivery and thus lead to more positive
Future studies should thus explore if that is the case also for in- attitude, purchase intentions and higher trust, as is the case with
teractivity in AR and if flow constitutes a core part of the experi- other location-specific interactive technologies? Will such impacts
ence with that technology. To which extent do the correlates of diminish with AR apps that are not location-specific, such as for
interactivity – such as perceived control, responsiveness and two- instance virtual try-on? Furthermore, the apps that are not linked
way communication (Sundar et al., 2015) – also represent part of to a specific location and can deliver the AR content anywhere, are
the experience with AR and does interactivity in AR exist in other likely to provide the advantages of mobility, therefore allowing a
forms given that its modus operandi goes beyond the screen and tailor-made solution at the exact time and place defined by con-
interacts with the space? As the two-way communication is not sumer. Virtual try-ons or product simulations shown on smart
yet a salient feature of current commercial AR modes and the in- devices are accessible at one’s fingertips and if consumers perceive
teraction is focused on augmenting the surrounding space, it is not them useful, they are likely to use them again and develop positive
clear how that affects consumer experience with AR. To which attitude towards the app as was the case with other technologies,
extent does the interactivity represent a driver for affective re- however future research needs to test these assumptions. Some
sponses (e.g. product and brand attitude), for cognitive responses retailers may offer their AR apps only in the store on fixed inter-
(e.g. brand knowledge and recall) and behaviour or behavioural active screens that do not allow mobility. Would that represent a
intentions (e.g. word-of-mouth, revisit and purchase)? If previous disadvantage? The success of such applications may rely heavily
 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261 259

on how they are integrated in consumer journey and the extent to what would be the alteration (if any) in consumer responses to an
which they support other marketing activities. AR app on a fixed public interactive screen in comparison to the
Immersion and telepresence are one of the most often recorded same app on his or her individual device? Would there be a change
consumer responses to virtuality. Given that AR possesses some of in response between an AR app on a wearable/portable device in
its elements, but differs from it by being much closer to the phy- comparison to the same app on a smartphone? How does the de-
sical environment, one of the most crucial future research foci vice and the size of the screen (smartphone vs. tablet vs. large
would be to determine the difference in consumer responses to screen) impact the experience?
the two environments and compare the advantage and dis- Finally, with regards to the methods, most of the studies base
advantages of the two. Research on virtual reality in consumer their findings on experimental design with students or other in-
studies also discovered that enjoyment and experiential value vited participants, which results in non-voluntary exposure to the
have a strong impact on consumer behaviour in virtual environ- manipulation check (Voorveld et al., 2009). While such research
ments (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Chan and Li, 2010; Huang and Hsu designs allow high control of user activities and high internal va-
Liu, 2014) while that is not always the case for utilitarian or pur- lidity, this does not accurately capture the effect of contextual
posive value and that the related affective commitment is a factors, of other possible moderators and the difference between
stronger predictor of behavioural intentions than cognitive com- “non-voluntary” technology exposure and intentional usage. Hu-
mitment (Huang, 2012), which is also the case for interactions on man interaction with technology is highly dependent on contexts
website (van Noort et al., 2012). Future research on AR should and on external factors that are not replicated in the lab studies,
explain if affective commitment and experiential value are of a which is why studies “in-the-wild” (Rogers, 2012) are of relevance
higher relevance and a stronger motivator for consumers to get as they offer in-depth insights into use of technology and increase
engaged with it than the rational, cognitive commitment and the external validity. Also, they reveal a larger part of consumer
pursuit of more utilitarian values. Will the difference between journey as they investigate interactions in context and thus reach
consumer cognitive and affective responses become even more beyond isolated episodes.
noticeable in using AR technologies, given the AR potential for
creating an entertaining consumer experience? To which extent do
the underlying reasons for these differences depend on the tasks 6. Conclusion
consumers pursue in their engagement with the technology, the
type of goods they are interested in (search vs. experience goods) The present study approaches the largely unexplored subject of
or personal characteristics (such as cognitive innovativeness)? AR in marketing and discusses the consumer responses that this
Furthermore, virtual models and simulations led to high product technology can potentially elicit. It does so by studying salient
involvements, which can lead to assumption that AR virtual try- media characteristics of interactive technologies, applying them to
ons will bring the same. How will that depend on the type of two prominent AR formats in marketing: smart device apps and
product and contexts of trial (retail vs. home)? Also, given that large interactive screens. By conducting a literature review on
trust was lower for virtual environments in comparison to ordin- consumer responses to media characteristics, and combining this
ary websites, will trust represent an issue also for product in- with current knowledge about AR, numerous directions for future
volvement and purchasing behaviour with AR apps? Will that research emerge.
depend on the amount and quality of supporting information that Firstly, while most AR apps have an interactive character, the
will be available to consumers in addition? AR interactivity is predominantly machine- and space-related and
Furthermore, there are other crucial issues that arose from the less associated with two-way communication, which is typical for
review and are related more to the specificities of AR. Given that web and mobile interactivity. Interactivity in AR may thus possibly
AR technology represents a recent form of interaction, what role lead to consumer responses that differ from responses to web
does a user's technological savviness and cognitive innovative- interactivity. Furthermore, connectivity is less present in AR apps,
ness/openness to novelty play in adoption of AR-based tools and which can cause an absence of responses that are associated with
with what rate are AR marketing apps actually being used and social-interactive engagement. Location-specificity and mobility
adopted for shopping activities? Because of its technological ad- on the other hand are symptomatic of AR, which typically ensures
vancement, AR often elicits a fascination, a so-called “wow” effect. customised or convenient customer service. Future studies will
How do consumer interactions with AR change when they get demonstrate whether this translates to higher willingness of fu-
used to it and the initial magic disappears? Will goal-oriented ture use and positive attitude, as it has been the case for mobile
behaviour progressively become more important than the ex- technology.
ploratory one, especially when appropriate skills are adopted, as This study suggests that AR differs from other interactive
was the case for web behaviour (Hoffman and Novak, 2009)? technologies in its so-called augmentation, arguably its defining
One of the most important emphases should be placed on in- characteristic, which refers to its ability to overlay physical en-
vestigating the uniqueness of AR technology, i.e. its ability to vironments with virtual elements. The proximity of virtual ele-
overlay the physical environment or some part of it with virtual ments with physical space, seamlessness of real and simulated and
images or information, which makes AR apps interacting with augmentation of the user’s surrounding elements are concepts
physical space and significantly distinguishes AR from virtual that have not yet been investigated in detail in marketing theory.
reality. Human–computer interaction field names this character- Further conceptualisation and operationalisation of this char-
istic as augmentation (Billinghurst and Kato, 2002; Preece et al., acteristic is required, as well as empirical testing of its relations
2015). Further research is needed to conceptualise and oper- with consumer responses.
ationalise this characteristic and to understand what type of AR-related studies should also aim to reach beyond separated
consumer experience it creates. How exactly users are drawn into consumer responses and investigate the consumer experience as a
this new form of reality and what effects it has on them has not yet whole. Previous research, for instance, shows that some of the
been exploited in consumer behaviour literature. interactive technologies can be highly immersive, as is the case for
Given that there exists a noticeable heterogeneity across AR virtual reality. Future studies need to investigate to which extent
tools and that new forms are expected to emerge, the next step is to the immersion defines AR consumer experience, given that AR
investigate if differences exist in consumer responses across AR possesses some traits of virtual technologies, but also differs from
tools, keeping other confounding variables constant. For instance, it in the sense that it does not create a disruption between the
260 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261

physical and virtual world. Furthermore, the research agenda e-consumer behaviors: the application of fuzzy linguistic scale. J. Electron.
proposes that consumer experience with AR might be more he- Commer. Res. 14, 124–137.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1997. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with ev-
donic than utilitarian, especially during the initial episodes with eryday life. Basic Books.
the technology, and that the affective component plays a stronger Cyr, D., Head, M., Ivanov, A., 2009. Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty:
role in leading to the behavioural responses than the cognitive. development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses. Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Stud. 67, 850–869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.07.004.
Such assumptions are based on the findings from previous re- Daugherty, T., Li, H., Biocca, F., 2008. Consumer learning and the effects of virtual
search and need to be tested empirically in future studies. experience relative to indirect and direct product experience. Psychol. Mark. 25,
More in-depth investigation of this new form of human–com- 568–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer tech-
puter interaction is clearly required (Yadav and Pavlou, 2014). It nology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35, 982–1003.
brings with it significant challenges for consumer studies and http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
makes the case for further investigation of the questions evoked Dennis, A.R., Fuller, R.M., Valacich, J.S., 2008. Media, tasks and communication
processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q. 32, 575–600.
above. Answers to these would expand upon our existing knowl-
Dennis, C., Merrilees, B., Jayawardhena, C., Wright, L.T., 2009. E-consumer beha-
edge about consumer responses to interactive technologies and viour. Eur. J. Mark. 43, 1121–1139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
would allow marketers to design AR campaigns more efficiently 03090560910976393.
Dennis, C., Newman, A., Michon, R., Josko Brakus, J., Tiu Wright, L., 2010. The
and avoiding gimmicky applications.
mediating effects of perception and emotion: digital signage in mall atmo-
As AR technology in marketing is currently evolving at high spherics. J. Retail. Consum. Serv 17, 205–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
speed, future developments will likely go in different directions, jretconser.2010.03.009.
also to some that have not been mentioned in this work. However, Dickinger, A., Kleijnen, M., 2008. Coupons going wireless: determinants of con-
sumer intentions to redeem mobile coupons. J. Interact. Mark. 22, 23–39. http:
hopefully this paper offers insight into some of the current ad- //dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20115.
vances of AR and the type of consumer responses this technology Faiola, A., Newlon, C., Pfaff, M., Smyslova, O., 2013. Correlating the effects of flow
will incite. and telepresence in virtual worlds: enhancing our understanding of user be-
havior in game-based learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 1113–1121. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.003.
Flavián-Blanco, C., Gurrea-Sarasa, R., Orús-Sanclemente, C., 2011. Analyzing the
Acknowledgements emotional outcomes of the online search behavior with search engines. Com-
put. Hum. Behav. 27, 540–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.002.
Gabisch, J. a, 2011. Virtual world brand experience and its impact on real world
The author would like to thank the Swiss National Science purchasing behavior. J. Brand Manag. 19, 18–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/
Foundation which supported this project through the Doc.mobility bm.2011.29.
Gao, Q., Rau, P.-L.P., Salvendy, G., 2009. Perception of interactivity: affects of four
Fellowship grant scheme P1TIP1_158595. Furthermore, the author key variables in mobile advertising. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 25, 479–505.
would also like to thank Prof. Ivan Snehota, Prof. Margherita Pa- http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447310902963936.
gani and Prof. Michael R. Solomon for their invaluable comments Gaudiosi, J., 2015. How augmented reality and virtual reality will generate $150
billion in revenue by 2020 [WWW Document]. URL 〈http://fortune.com/2015/
and feedback on the earlier versions of this article, as well as Dr. 04/25/augmented-reality-virtual-reality/〉 (accessed 11.10.15).
Morgan Harvey and Marta Pizzetti for their revision and proof Goel, L., Prokopec, S., 2009. If you build it will they come?—An empirical in-
reading. vestigation of consumer perceptions and strategy in virtual worlds. Electron.
Commer. Res. 9, 115–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660
009
9031-7.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., Crittenden, V.L., 2011. We’re all connected: the power of the
social media ecosystem. Bus. Horiz. 54, 265–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
References bushor.2011.01.007.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., 1996. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: conceptual foundations. J. Mark. 60, 50. http://dx.doi.org/
Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E., 2000. Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive 10.2307/1251841.
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 24, Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., 2009. Flow online: lessons learned and future prospects.
665–694. J. Interact. Mark. 23, 23–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.003.
Animesh, A., Pinsonneault, A., Yang, S.-B., Oh, W., 2011. An odyssey into virtual Hsieh, J.K., Hsieh, Y.C., Tang, Y.C., 2012. Exploring the disseminating behaviors of
worlds: exploring the impacts of technological and spatial environments on eWOM marketing: persuasion in online video. Electron. Commer. Res 12,
intention to purchase virtual products. MIS Q. 35, 789–810. 201–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660
012
9091-y.
Azuma, R., Behringer, R., Julier, S., Macintyre, B., 2001. Recent advances in aug- Huang, E., 2012. Online experiences and virtual goods purchase intention. Internet
mented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21, 34–47. Res. 22, 252–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10662241211235644.
Bart, Y., Stephen, A.T., Sarvary, M., 2014. Which products are best suited to mobile Huang, T.-L., Hsu Liu, F., 2014. Formation of augmented-reality interactive techno-
advertising? A field study of mobile display advertising effects on consumer logy's persuasive effects from the perspective of experiential value. Internet
attitudes and intentions. J. Mark. Res. 51, 270–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/ Res. 24, 82–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR
07
2012
0133.
jmr.13.0503. Huang, T.-L., Liao, S., 2014. A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive
Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., 2002. Collaborative augmented reality. Commun. ACM 45, technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron. Commer.
64–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/514236.514265. Res 15, 269–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660
014
9163-2.
Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J., 2011. Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New Worlds, Javornik, A., 2014. Classifications of augmented reality uses in marketing. In: Pro-
and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution. William Morrow & Co, USA. ceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C., Schaedel, U., 2009. An experimental study of the re- Realities 2014, Munich.
lationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. J. Inter- Jennett, C., Cox, A.L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., Walton, A., 2008.
act. Mark. 23, 321–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002. Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Hum.
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Ivkovic, M., 2011. Comput. Stud. 66, 641–661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004.
Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed. Tools Jin, S.-A.A., 2009. The roles of modality richness and involvement in shopping be-
Appl. 51, 341–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11042
010
0660-6. havior in 3D virtual stores. J. Interact. Mark. 23, 234–246. http://dx.doi.org/
Chan, K.W., Li, S.Y., 2010. Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in 10.1016/j.intmar.2009.04.005.
virtual communities: the salience of reciprocity. J. Bus. Res. 63, 1033–1040. Jin, S.A., Bolebruch, J., 2009. Avatar-based advertising in Second life: the role of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.009. presence and attractiveness of virtual spokespersons. J. Interact. Advert. 10,
Chang, H.H., Wang, I.C., 2008. An investigation of user communication behavior in 51–60.
computer mediated environments. Comput. Human Behav. 24, 2336–2356. Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.01.001. opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 53, 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S., 2001. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations bushor.2009.09.003.
for online retail shopping behavior. J. Retail. 77, 511–535. http://dx.doi.org/ Kim, J., Forsythe, S., 2008. Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel
10.1016/S0022
4359(01)00056-2. shopping. J. Interact. Mark. 22, 45–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20113.
Childers, T.L., Houston, M.J., Houstonw, J., 1984. Conditions effect on for a memory Kim, M., Lennon, S., 2008. The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes
consumer. J. Consum. Res. Inc. 11, 643–654. and purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychol. Mark 25, 146–178. http:
Cho, H., Schwarz, N., 2012. I like your product when i like my photo: misattribution //dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.
using interactive virtual mirrors. J. Interact. Mark. 26, 235–243. http://dx.doi. Kowatsch, T., Maass, W., 2010. In-store consumer behavior: how mobile re-
org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.03.003. commendation agents influence usage intentions, product purchases, and store
Chu, K.-M., Yuan, B.J.C., 2013. The effects of perceived interactivity on e-trust and preferences. Comput. Human Behav. 26, 697–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
 A. Javornik / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 252–261 261

chb.2010.01.006. market investigation of consumer acceptance of mobile marketing. Bus. Horiz.

Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C., Wilner, S.J., 2010. Networked narratives: 55, 485–493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.05.004.
understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. J. Mark. 74, Shankar, V., Balasubramanian, S., 2009. Mobile marketing: a synthesis and prog-
71–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.2.71. nosis. J. Interact. Mark. 23, 118–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O., Sankaranarayanan, R., 2012. The effects of intmar.2009.02.002.
social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value Sheth, J.N., Solomon, M.R., 2014. Extending the extended self in a digital world. J.
creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, Mark. Theory Pract. 22, 123–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/
1755–1767. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.016. MTP1069
6679220201.
Lee, K.C., Chung, N., 2008. Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the virtual Song, J.H., Zinkhan, G.M., 2008. Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. J.
reality shopping mall. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 88–104. http://dx.doi.org/ Mark. 72, 99–113.
10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.018. Steuer, J., 1992. Defining virtual reality : dimensions determining telepresence. J.
Li, T., Meshkova, Z., 2013. Examining the impact of rich media on consumer will- Commun. 42, 73–93.
ingness to pay in online stores. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12, 449–461. http: Stewart, D.W., Pavlou, P.A., 2009. The effects of media on marketing communica-
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.07.001. tions. In: Bryant, J., Oliver, M.B. (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and
Lin, T.M., Kuan-Yi, L., Wu, J.-J., 2012. The effects of visual information in eWOM Research. Routledge, New York, pp. 362–401.
communication. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 6, 7–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Ström, R., Vendel, M., Bredican, J., 2014. Mobile marketing: a literature review on its
s13398
014
0173
7.2. value for consumers and retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv 21, 1001–1012. http:
Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., Kelly, K., 2008. New Media: A Critical //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.12.003.
Introduction. Routledge, UK. Su, B., 2008. Characteristics of consumer search on-line: how much do we search?
Littlejohn, S.W., Foss, K.A., 2008. Theories of Human Communication. Thomson Int. J. Electron. Commer. 13, 109–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/
Corporation, Belmont. JEC1086
4415130104.
Liu, Y., Shrum, L.J., 2002. What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing ? J. Sultan, F., Rohm, A.J., Gao, T. (Tony), 2009. Factors influencing consumer acceptance
Advert 31, 53–64. of mobile marketing: a two-country study of youth markets. J. Interact. Mark.
Luo, X., Andrews, M., Fang, Z., Phang, C.W., 2014. Mobile targeting. Manag. Sci. 60, 23, 308–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.003.
1738–1756. Sundar, S.S., 2009. Media effects 2.0: social and psychological effects of commu-
MarketsandMarkets, 2015. Augmented Reality Market worth 56.8 Billion USD by nicaiton technology. In: Nabi, R.L., Oliver, M.B. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
2020 [WWW Document]. URL 〈http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Press Media Processes and Effects. Sage Publications Inc, USA, pp. 545–560.
Releases/augmented-reality.asp〉 (accessed 11.16.15). Sundar, S.S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., Kim, H.-S., 2014. Theoretical importance of
Merle, A., Senecal, S., St-Onge, A., 2012. Whether and how virtual try-on influences contingency in human–computer interaction: effects of message interactivity
consumer responses to an apparel web site. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 16, 41–64. on user engagement. Commun. Res., 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086
4415160302.
0093650214534962.
Milgram, P., Kishino, F., 1994. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE
Sundar, S.S., Jia, H., Waddell, T.F., Huang, Y., 2015. Toward a theory of interactive
Trans. Inf. Syst. 77, 1321–1329.
media effects (TIME): four models for explaining how interface features affect
Nah, F.F., Eschenbrenner, B., Dewester, D., 2011. Enhancing brand equity through
user psychology. Handb. Psychol. Commun. Technol, 47–86. http://dx.doi.org/
flow and telepresence: a comparison of 2D and 3D virtual. MIS Q. 35, 1–19.
10.1002/9781118426456.
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Duhachek, A., 2003. The influence of goal-directed and
Sundar, S.S., Xu, Q., Dou, X., 2012. Role of technology in online persuasion. In:
experiential activities on online flow experiences. J. Consum. Psychol. 13, 3–16.
Rodgers, S., Thorson, E. (Eds.), Advertising Theory. Routledge, UK, pp. 355–372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP13
1&2_01.
Van Krevelen, D.W.F., Poelman, R., 2010. A survey of augmented reality technolo-
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Yung, Y., 2000. Measuring online the customer experi-
gies, applications and limitations. Int. J. Virtual Real. 9, 1–20.
ence in a structural environments : modeling approach. Mark. Sci. 19, 22–42.
van Noort, G., Voorveld, H. a M., van Reijmersdal, E., 2012. Interactivity in brand
Pagani, M., Mirabello, A., 2011. The influence of personal and social-interactive
web sites: cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by con-
engagement in social TV web sites. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 16, 41–68. http:
sumers' online flow experience. J. Interact. Mark. 26, 223–234. http://dx.doi.
//dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086
4415160203.
org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.002.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y., Funches, V.M., Foxx, W., 2012. Apparel product attributes, web
Varadarajan, R., Srinivasan, R., Vadakkepatt, G.G., Yadav, M.S., Pavlou, P. a, Krish-
browsing, and e-impulse buying on shopping websites. J. Bus. Res. 65,
1583–1589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.043. namurthy, S., Krause, T., 2010. Interactive technologies and retailing strategy: a
Park, J., Stoel, L., Lennon, S.J., 2008. Cognitive, affective and conative responses to review, conceptual framework and future research directions. J. Interact. Mark.
visual simulation: the effects of rotation in online product presentation. J. 24, 96–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.004.
Consum. Behav. 7, 72–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.237. Voorveld, H. a M., Neijens, P.C., Smit, E.G., 2009. Consumers' responses to brand
Parra, J.F., Ruiz, S., 2009. Consideration sets in online shopping environments: the websites: an interdisciplinary review. Internet Res. 19, 535–565. http://dx.doi.
effects of search tool and information load. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 8, org/10.1108/10662240910998887.
252–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.005. Xu, H., Luo, X., (Robert), Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., 2011. The personalization privacy
Pavlou, P.A., 2003. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust paradox: an exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware
and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7, marketing. Decis. Support Syst. 51, 42–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
101–134. dss.2010.11.017.
Pescher, C., Reichhart, P., Spann, M., 2014. Consumer decision-making processes in Xu, H., Oh, L., Bin, Teo, H.H., 2009. Perceived effectiveness of text vs. multimedia
mobile viral marketing campaigns. J. Interact. Mark. 28, 43–54. http://dx.doi. location-based advertising messaging. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 7, 154. http://dx.
org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.08.001. doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2009.022440.
Preece, J., Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., 2015. Preece, Jenny, Helen Sharp, and Yvonne Rogers. Yadav, M.S., Pavlou, P. a, 2014. Marketing in computer-mediated environments:
Interaction Design-beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons, research synthesis and new directions. J. Mark. 78, 20–40. http://dx.doi.org/
UK. 10.1509/jm.12.0020.
Reitmayr, G., Drummond, T., 2006. Going out: robust model-based tracking for Zhou, F., Duh, H.B.-L., Billinghurst, M., 2008. Trends in augmented reality tracking,
outdoor augmented reality.In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ACM International interaction and display: A review of ten years of ISMAR. In: Proceedings of the
Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Realilty, pp. 109–118. doi: 10.1109/IS 2008 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Rea-
MAR.2006.297801. lity, pp. 193–202 doi: 10.1109/ISMAR.2008.4637362.
Richard, M.-O., Chebat, J.-C., Yang, Z., Putrevu, S., 2010. A proposed model of online Zhou, T., 2013. An empirical examination of user adoption of location-based ser-
consumer behavior: Assessing the role of gender. J. Bus. Res. 63, 926–934. http: vices. Electron. Commer. Res. 13, 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.027. s10660
013
9106-3.
Rogers, Y., 2012. HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synth. Lect.
Human-Centered Inform. 5, 1–129.
Rohm, A.J., Gao, T. (Tony), Sultan, F., Pagani, M., 2012. Brand in the hand: a cross-