The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-0552.htm

Exploring the role of augmented impulseAR and

buying
reality in online impulse behaviour
Harish Kumar and Ritu Srivastava
Department of Marketing, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
1281
Abstract
Received 3 November 2021
Purpose – This study aims to examine the role of augmented reality (AR) in online impulse behaviour for Revised 12 November 2021
highbody-involvement products. This study further explores whether flow and spatial presence mediate the 23 November 2021
link between AR and online impulse behaviour. 12 February 2022
Design/methodology/approach – The authors collected 255 responses from shopping mall visitors and 9 April 2022
used SPSS (21.0) (PROCESS macro) and AMOS 21.0 to test the hypothesised model. Accepted 10 April 2022
Findings – The findings reveal that AR virtual try-on significantly influences online impulse behaviour by
providing hedonic value and reducing product risk prior to purchase. Second, flow and spatial presence partially
and complementarily mediate the relationship between AR characteristics, hedonic value, and product risk.
Originality/value – Theoretically, this study extends the literature on AR and online impulse behaviour from
a psychological perspective, and it broadens managers’ understanding of how they can use AR as a tool to
increase sales.
Keywords Augmented reality, Online impulse behaviour, Spatial presence, Flow experience, Virtual
try-on, AR
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Technological innovations and the pandemic have fuelled the growth of e-commerce. While the
total e-commerce market is valued at 9.09 trillion USD (Statista, 2021b), a whopping 40–50% of
the total expenditure on e-commerce accounts for impulse buying (Zheng et al., 2019). Notably,
high-body-involvement products, for which users rely heavily on body-related information (i.e.
apparel, accessories, sunglasses, shoes), are the primary commodities in online shopping
(Statista, 2021a) and, interestingly, the most impulsive product category too (Khan et al., 2016;
Muruganantham and Bhakat, 2013). Although online platforms provide convenience, reviews,
and third-party assurance, consumers often face challenges regarding the quality of the
product, which is even more crucial in the case of high-body-involvement products (Park and
Yoo, 2020). Augmented reality (AR) fills the gap between consumers and products.
Many leading retailers (i.e. Ikea, Amazon, and Nike) have started using AR for online
consumers. AR anticipates reaching an $85 billion market by 2025, of which $11.4 billion
accounts for the retail sector (Singh and Thirumoorthi, 2019). Shopify recently announced
that their products with AR visualisation had 94% higher conversion rates than those
without AR content (Ipsos, 2020). AR is an exceptional tool for product presentation that
satisfies consumers’ need for touch and feel (Gatter et al., 2021). In addition, owing to its highly
realistic experience and interactivity (vs traditional), AR has been proven to be highly
influential in the decision-making process for consumers (Rauschnabel et al., 2022a; Kumar,
2022) and sales for retailers (Tan et al., 2021).
However, in addition to investigating the influence of AR on online consumer behaviour in
terms of their planned behaviour (Smink et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2018; McLean and Wilson,
2019; Rauschnabel et al., 2019), the knowledge about consumers’ impulse buying behaviour
impacted by AR remains scarce, except for a few studies (Chen et al., 2021; Do et al., 2020).
While these studies made significant contributions, Do et al. (2020) explore impulse buying in International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management
Vol. 50 No. 10, 2022
pp. 1281-1301
The authors would like to thank Professor Vibhava Srivastava for the help in the initial idea © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-0552
development and Editage for the copy-editing. DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-11-2021-0535
IJRDM the tourism sector using the technology acceptance model (TAM), which is a very different
50,10 context. Chen et al. (2021) considered vividness and spatial accuracy as AR characteristics
but ignored interactivity and augmentation, which are two of the most important features of
AR. Next, the authors used an experimental design and urge to buy as a proxy to map online
impulse buying; thus, the results could be risky for practitioners.
Second, perceived risk is an important factor in online shopping, which has not been
sufficiently researched in the impulse buying context (Chen et al., 2019). In the traditional
1282 online shopping context, Wu et al. (2020) found perceived risk to be a significant factor for
adoption and satisfaction with e-stores, which also influences online impulse behaviour.
However, they considered product quality as a measure of product risk. In the case of high-
body-involvement products, try-on, size/fit confirmation, and sense to touch or feel the
product becomes critical, which is not available in traditional online shopping. Since AR
differs from other types of media for retailing (web and social media) in terms of the first-
person perspective, concreteness, accuracy, and immediacy (Huang et al., 2021), the findings
of these studies cannot be generalised to the AR context.
Furthermore, flow experience and spatial presence are considered important experiential
outcomes of AR that influence purchase intention (Hilken et al., 2017; Javornic, 2016), but their
influence on online impulse buying remains unclear.
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to investigate the following research questions:
RQ1. What is the impact of AR on online impulse buying behaviour in high-body-
involvement products?
RQ2. What is the mediating role of customer experience (flow and spatial presence) in
this process?
We used flow and spatial presence theory as the psychological mechanism in the virtual try-
on facilitated by AR technology, resulting in online impulse behaviour. First, we argue that
the AR characteristics, interactivity and perceived augmentation create a multi-sensory flow
experience, which switches off cognition and provides hedonic value to users. Second, the
virtual try-on by AR, which is superior to web-based presentation in terms of the first-person
perspective, concreteness, accuracy, and immediacy (Huang et al., 2021), generates a spatial
presence experience (sense of being at the physical store), leading to a reduction in perceived
product risk. Theoretically, this study adds to the ill-researched area of AR and impulse
buying by uncovering the role of AR interactivity and augmentation in online impulse buying
through the mediating process of flow and spatial presence. Practically, this study will aid
managers in better strategic formulation of AR marketing and broaden the understanding of
the psychological mechanism through which AR generates impulse buying.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 1 elucidates scholarly
research on AR in online retailing. Next, we develop and test a conceptual framework. The
last section discusses the findings and limitations of this study.

2. Literature review
2.1 AR in online retailing
AR is a “medium that realistically integrates virtual content into a user’s field of view,
ranging from very functional uses (assisted reality) to highly realistic experiences (mixed
reality) where virtual elements are almost indistinguishable from real ones” (Rauschnabel
et al., 2022a). AR differs from virtual reality (VR), based on “level of presence”. The AR
continuum ranges from assisted reality to mixed reality based on the level of local presence.
VR ranges from atomistic to holistic, based on the level of telepresence (Rauschnabel et al.,
2022b). Interactivity, augmentation, and vividness are the main characteristics of AR
(McLean and Wilson, 2019; Javornic, 2016). AR is currently used in several industries, such as
gaming, retail, logistics, manufacturing, social media, tourism, and education. Retail is a AR and
promising area where AR is widely used (Kumar, 2022). impulse buying
The existing literature on the use of AR in the online retail context suggests several
dimensions, such as the impact of AR characteristics on customer experience and buying
behaviour (Rauschnabel et al., 2019); adoption of AR by customers (McLean and Wilson, 2019;
Rauschnabel et al., 2018); and utilitarian, hedonic, and experiential values and privacy risk
associated with AR (Rauschnabel, 2018). Theoretically, researchers have used TAM, uses
and gratifications theory, the theory of interactive media effects, situated cognition theory, 1283
and stimuli-organism-response theory (SOR) to understand consumer behaviour towards AR
(Kumar, 2022).
While most studies focus on planned behaviour (Kumar, 2022), exploring the impact of AR
on impulse buying behaviour is similarly important. First, we argue that due to the pandemic
and the metaverse boom, an increasing number of firms/brands are opening their online
stores. Second, 40–50% of the total online purchase is impulse purchase in nature (Zheng
et al., 2019). Additionally, AR allows users to experience a sense of touch while shopping
online, resulting in a positive brand attitude (Gatter et al., 2021). Hilken et al. (2017) also
concluded that AR enhances individuals’ visualisation and impacts the way they see reality.
Finally, AR leads to higher conversion rates and sales (Tan et al., 2021; Ipsos, 2020).
Therefore, exploring the role of AR in online impulse buying could be a worthwhile goal (see
Table 1).

2.2 Impulse buying behaviour

The phenomenon of impulse buying was first evidenced in the marketing literature in 1930
(McDermott, 1936). Impulse buying is defined as “a purchase that is unplanned, the result of
an exposure to a stimulus, and decided on the spot” (Piron, 1991, p. 512). Iyer (1989) divided it
into four categories: pure impulse (completely unplanned), reminded impulse (when
customers remind of the product when it comes to face to face), suggestion impulse (when
customers come across the product for the first time and sense a need for it), and planned
impulse purchase (when customers have a broad idea of the product to be bought). Rook
(1987) viewed it as a situation of pleasantness, which may lead to emotional conflict, but it
may happen without considering the consequences.
It is common to buy on impulse when stimulated by external cues as they generate a
feeling of pleasantness or arouse desire within an individual. Furthermore, utilitarian and
hedonic factors are the most significant factors that trigger impulse behaviour (Yang et al.,
2021; Kumar et al., 2020). Most studies use the SOR framework to explain impulse buying
behaviour (Zheng et al., 2019). AR has been proven to generate a greater multi-sensory
experience than other forms of technology, leading to hedonic value (Huang and Liao, 2017).
Moreover, dynamic contextualisation using AR incites impulse behaviour (Zhu et al., 2004).
Second, perceived product risk is a significant factor in online shopping. To reduce this
risk, consumers rely on product ratings, feedback, and comments about the product
(Aladwani, 2018). Wu et al. (2020) considered product quality to be a measure of product risk
in a traditional online shopping context. However, confirmation of the size/fit and first-party
perspective on the quality and sense of feel and touch cannot be obtained using traditional
shopping platforms. By allowing such an experience, AR has the ability to generate even
more impulse behaviour. Despite the rich literature on online impulse buying, the impact of
psychological factors and perceived risk on impulse buying in the context of AR awaits
future research. We argue that characteristics such as interactivity and augmentation
embrace customer experience, leading to reduced perceived risk in buying decisions.
We found a few studies on impulse buying in the AR context (Chen et al., 2021; Do et al.,
2020 ), but they did not provide insight into the role of interactivity, augmentation, and flow
IJRDM Study Objective Methodology Mediation Theory Focus
50,10
Barhorst et al. Unique capabilities of Experiment, Flow Flow Planned
(2021) AR to facilitate an PLS-SEM experience behaviour
enhanced state of flow
and its positive
influence across
1284 several consumer
outcomes
Heller et al. Impact of AR-based Experiment N/A Mental Planned
(2019) mental imagery imagery behaviour
affordances on WOM theory
intentions and verify
their impact on
customers’ product
choices
Huang and Examine factors that Experiment, Flow Virtual Planned
Liao (2017) induce a multisensory SEM liminoid behaviour
flow experience in an theory
e-shopping context
through the use of
augmented-reality
interactive technology
(ARIT)
Poushneh and Impact of augmented Experiment User N/A Planned
Vasquez- reality (AR) on retail experience behaviour
Parraga (2017) user experience (UX)
and its subsequent
influence on user
satisfaction and user’s
willingness to buy
Qin et al. (2021) How does a MAR app SEM N/A Stimuli- Planned
affect the decision- organism- behaviour
making process in a response
real-life shopping
experience?
Rauschnabel How consumers SEM Inspiration Inspiration Planned
et al. (2019) perceive and evaluate behaviour
the benefits and
augmentation quality
of AR apps, and how
this evaluation drives
subsequent changes in
brand attitude
Roy et al. (2017) Outcomes of smart SEM N/A N/A Planned
customer experience behaviour
at the smart
technology, customer,
and retailer levels
Table 1.
AR in online retailing (continued )
Study Objective Methodology Mediation Theory Focus
AR and
impulse buying
Smink et al. Examine three Experiment N/A N/A Planned
(2020) underlying processes behaviour
(spatial presence,
perceived
personalisation, and
perceived 1285
intrusiveness) that
could explain the
persuasiveness of AR
apps
Fan et al. (2020) Impact of AR adoption Experiment Mental Cognitive load Planned
on the user experience imagery theory, behaviour
in online retailing situated
cognition
theory
Javornik (2016) Impact of AR Experiment Flow Theory of Planned
characteristics on interactive behaviour
customer response media effect
Lee et al. (2020) Consumers’ adoption SEM Telepresence Theory of Planned
of AR-based virtual interactive behaviour
fitting rooms media effects
Hilken et al. AR and decision Regression Spatial Situation Planned
(2017) comfort, mediating analysis presence cognition behaviour
role of spatial presence theory
Chen et al. AR and impulse Experiment N/A Spatial Unplanned
(2021) buying behaviour presence, consumer
Elaboration behaviour
likelihood
model
This study Impact of AR on online SEM, Process Flow. Spatial Flow and Unplanned
impulse buying Macro presence Spatial consumer
behaviour presence behaviour Table 1.

experience in impulse behaviour, which are considered important elements of AR in

influencing consumer behaviour (Kumar, 2022). For example, Chen et al. (2021) use spatial
presence as a theoretical background to explore the role of AR in impulse buying. However, in
addition to presence, rich and personalised experiences are also important for a satisfactory
consumer response (Dacko, 2017).

2.3 Flow experience

Csikszentmihalyi (1975) introduced the concept of flow; defining it as “the state in which people
are so intensely involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is
so enjoyable that people will do it even at a great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it”. In the state
of flow, customers experience more playfulness and enjoyment. The concept of flow has been
widely explored in the online context to understand consumer behaviour and human-computer
interaction (Tyrvainen et al., 2020; Koufaris, 2002; Hoffman and Novak, 1996). The literature
considers flow a multidimensional phenomenon. Several aspects of flow have been studied,
such as skill and challenge, concentration, enjoyment, telepresence, curiosity, and time
distortion (Ozkara et al., 2017). In the AR context, flow has also proved to influence behavioural
outcomes (Huang and Liao, 2017; Javornic, 2016). However, does the AR-generated flow
experience influence online impulse behaviour? This remains ill explored. The limited
IJRDM exploration of online impulse behaviour considers the TAM (Do et al., 2020) and spatial
50,10 presence theory (Chen et al., 2021). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has explored
the role of flow in this process. Research has been conducted on the role of flow in impulse
buying in the context of traditional online shopping. For example, Shahpasandi et al. (2020)
explored the influence of hedonic browsing orientation on flow, but they did not touch upon the
media characteristics that generated flow experience. AR is a novel way of producing products
with different media characteristics (higher interactivity and augmentation); however, these
1286 findings might not work in the AR context. Additionally, AR has the power to augment, modify,
or interact at one’s place with virtual products (Scholz and Smith, 2016). This enables a sensory-
rich, immersive, and enjoyable experience (Hilken et al., 2017). Therefore, AR could significantly
influence online impulse purchase through the flow experience.

2.4 Spatial presence

Spatial presence refers to the subjective experience of being physically located in a mediated
space (Steuer, 1992). Researchers have argued that media characteristics are the building
blocks of the experience of customer experience (Biocca, 1997). For example, Steuer (1992)
posited that vividness and interactivity are important media inputs for spatial presence.
Wirth et al. (2007) proposed a process model to explain the spatial presence theory. In stage
one, users seek spatial information to form a mental model of the environment or situation.
Once they develop the “spatial situation model” (SSM), in the second stage, they form the
spatial presence upon the confirmation of the specific perceptual hypothesis, also called
“primary egocentric reference frames”. Importantly, spatial presence strengthens the belief
about product characteristics and thereby reduces the perceived risk of the product (Suh and
Cheng, 2006). In the context of AR, the literature suggests that spatial presence mediates
between AR and customer response (Kumar, 2022; Smink et al., 2020). AR characteristics
provide vivid information stimulating the touch and sense of the customer and interactive
experience, which provides control over the experience and induces a sense of spatial
presence among consumers (Javornik, 2016). Haptic imagery (sense of touch) and self-location
(perception of being at the location virtually) are critical aspects that make AR different from
other media (Huang and Liao, 2017).

3. Hypothesis development
3.1 AR and hedonic value
The extant literature supports the argument that the shopping environment generates several
utilitarian and hedonic values for users, ultimately influencing their buying behaviour (Childers
et al., 2001; Hoffman and Novak, 1996). AR is a primary hedonic experience rather than a
utilitarian experience (Javornic, 2016). Interactivity and augmentation are two important
characteristics of AR reported in the literature. Interactivity can be understood from two
viewpoints: the first is a technological feature and the second is customer perception.
Technically, interactivity may be referred to as a “technological system’s capacity to allow
individuals to interact with and be involved with content more easily” (Yim et al., 2017). In this
study, we refer to interactivity as a technoliogiacl feature and define it as the degree to which
users can rotate, have a 360-degree view, and position and align the product in their
environment. Such an ability to interact with a product generates an immersive, enjoyable, and
fun experience for users. In high-body-involvement products, AR interactivity allows real-time
customisation while the users try on the product. It generates an enjoyable and exciting
experience (Kowalczuk et al., 2021), leading to satisfaction with customer experience (Barhorst
et al., 2021).
Augmentation is the ability to overlay the physical world with the virtual environment
(Javornik, 2016a). This is the most relevant and distinguishing feature of AR. Three types of
augmentation were explored: product/object, self/body, and environmental. Augmentation AR and
significantly influences customers’ hedonic values and affective responses (Watson et al., impulse buying
2018). We argue that interactivity and augmentation allow users a feeling of pleasantness and
emotional connection in the virtual try-on, particularly in the category of high-body-
involvement products. While users can augment a product on their body and interact with it,
it becomes an enjoyable experience.
Therefore, we posit the following:
1287
H1. Interactivity will positively influence the hedonic value.
H2. Augmentation will positively influence the hedonic value.
The extant literature suggests the mediating role of flow between media characteristics and
hedonic value (Ozkara et al., 2017). Interactivity allows personalised information (Tsikriktsis,
2002), while making the experience enjoyable and fun (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). In the AR
context, Barhorst et al. (2021) explored the role of flow experience in user experience. In the
theorising process, the author examined the impact of AR characteristics (vividness,
interactivity, and novelty) on flow experience. In the second phase, the impact of flow
experience on satisfaction with the AR experience was tested, where information utility,
learning, and enjoyment were considered prerequisites for satisfaction.
Similarly, Zanger et al. (2022) found that flow is an affective response to AR
characteristics, leading to behavioural intentions. Perannagari and Chakrabarti (2019)
found that the flow experience provides hedonic value to customers. Kumar (2022), in a
systematic review study, conceptualised flow experience as a mediating variable between AR
media characteristics (augmentation and interactivity) and perceived values (hedonic and
utilitarian).
Therefore, we posit the following:
H3. Flow experience will mediate the process between interactivity and hedonic value.
H4. Flow experience will mediate the process between augmentation and hedonic value.

3.2 AR and perceived product risk

Perceived risk is defined as a “consumer’s perceptions of uncertainty and the adverse
consequences of buying a product (or service)”. It comprises two elements: uncertainty about
the outcome and uncertainty about the consequences of loss (Dowling, 1986). According to
Sheth’s (1969) theory, an individual seeks more information and exploration to reduce
perceived risk. The online shopping context consists of three dimensions: financial risk,
product risk, and information risk (Wu et al., 2020). In this study, we examine product risk
only. Product risk associated with quality, fit, and colour is relatively high in an online
environment. However, while AR displays the product in a simulated 3D environment, it
provides much more information and exploration. Thus, AR reduces product risk for
customers and builds choice confidence, decision comfort, and satisfaction (Smink et al.,
2020). Furthermore, the AR experience positively influences decision making and reduces
cognitive dissonance in the post–purchase stage. AR by enhanced informativeness results in
behavioural manifestation in terms of intention to purchase and willingness to share personal
data, along with a positive attitude towards the brand (Rauschnabel et al., 2019). Thus, when
users can virtually try on the product and interact in real time, the risk of online buying is
reduced.
Therefore, we posit the following:
H5. Interactivity will reduce the perceived product risk.
H6. Augmentation will reduce the perceived product risk.
IJRDM The sense of “being there” requires the ability to “do there” (Schultze, 2010). Vividness and
50,10 interactivity are important media characteristics for spatial presence, reducing the perceived
risk of a product (Suh and Cheng, 2006; Steuer, 1992). AR interactivity and augmentation
allow users to control the experience and collect vivid information about a product online.
Such facilitation makes them feel being at the store, touching or sensing the product, resulting
in a spatial presence experience (Huang and Liao, 2017; Hilken et al., 2017). Such experience is
important for users because it is one of the biggest limitations in online shopping. Scholz and
1288 Smith (2016) posited that AR allows users to interact, add, and modify products in their
personal environment as if they are part of the real world. Therefore, it provides a more direct
product experience and reduces the psychological difference. Javornic (2016) also found that
AR is more influential in generating a spatial presence experience than non-AR platforms. A
study on a makeup app revealed that augmentation creates spatial presence, leading to a
positive attitude towards the brand (Smink et al., 2020).
In all, AR makes users feel “being at the store” and allows them to collect information (i.e.
fit, shape, design, and quality) about the product as if they are in a physical store. Thus, this
reduces the risk associated with purchasing the product.
Therefore, we posit the following:
H7. Spatial presence will mediate the process between augmentation and perceived
product risk.
H8. Spatial presence will mediate the process between interaction and perceived
product risk.

3.3 Hedonic value and online impulse behaviour

Impulse buying is essentially hedonically driven. Therefore, the flow theory is relevant for
investigating the drivers of online impulse behaviour (Koufaris, 2002). Furthermore, online
impulse behaviour is influenced by customers’ emotional and spontaneous behaviour, which
is characterised by a lack of control due to remorse feelings (Djafarova and Bowes, 2021).
De Canio and Fuentes-Blasco (2021) demonstrated that interactive touch-enabling
technologies provide hedonic shopping motivations to users, ultimately resulting in impulse
buying behaviour. Such experience leads to affective impulse buying, which refers to
“unplanned purchases that are associated with feelings of excitement and overpowering
urges to buy” (Gwee and Chang, 2013). Using the regulatory focus theory, Parsad et al. (2021)
posited that utilitarian and hedonic values lead to impulse purchase, and telepresence induces
pleasure, leading to impulse buying. Many studies demonstrate that hedonic factors
(enjoyment, curiosity, and immersion) positively influence impulse buying (Yang et al., 2021).
Therefore, we posit the following:
H9. Hedonic value derived from AR will positively influence online impulse buying
behaviour.

3.4 Perceived product risk and impulse buying

The extant literature posits a negative relationship between perceived risk and impulse
buying behaviour (Wu et al., 2020). While intangibility is one of the prominent aspects of
product risk, the inability to comprehend the quality and fit of a product online can lead to
product risk (Dastane et al., 2018). AR can anticipate such product risk as it improves product
informativeness, tangibility, and 3D view (Kowalczuk et al., 2021). In addition, the inability to
touch or feel the product in the online shopping context can be countered by AR, as it provides
enhanced haptics and self-location (Huang and Liao, 2017).
Many companies have opened their virtual stores (e.g. Dior, Ralph Lauren, and Tommy
Hilfiger) where users can visit the stores customised to their requirements. If users can try the
product of their choice and interact with it in real time, there is a high chance of impulse AR and
buying (see Figure 1). Please refer to Table 2 for the definitions of the construct used in impulse buying
the model.
Therefore, we posit the following:
H10. Perceived risk reduced by AR will positively influence online impulse buying
behaviour.
1289
4. Methodology
Since the research questions seek to investigate the impact of AR on online impulse behaviour
and test the hypothesised model, we used AMOS (Version 21) for the confirmatory factor
analysis and SPSS (Version 21) (PROCESS macro) proposed by Hayes (2018) for hypothesis
testing. We preferred Amos to PLS-SEM because it is more reliable and accurate in estimating
parameters (Wu et al., 2020). Next, we used PROCESS Macro over CB-SEM, because the main
focus was to predict crucial constructs (Arya et al., 2021). Several researchers used the
PROCESS Macro for mediation analysis in the AR context (Heller et al., 2019).

4.1 Instrument design

This study used a survey method that included two sections. The first section included
respondents’ basic information, including age, gender, and income. The second section
included 23 items for seven constructs on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. The literature was thoroughly explored for scale adaptation.

4.2 Sample design

As this study was carried out on online impulse behaviour, we chose respondents who had at
least made an impulse buy through AR-based shopping apps (i.e. Lenskart, Zara, Ikea, Nike,
and Lacoste) in the last three months. Since the intention was to capture their shopping
experience with the AR apps, we chose the three-month criteria so that they could recall the
experience well. This process facilitated the removal of potential bias in data collection
(Pizzutti and Fernandes, 2010).

4.3 Data collection

The authors identified two shopping malls in Gurgaon. Gurgaon is one of the largest metro
cities in India, where people across the country are employed. We chose shopping mall
visitors as the respondents because they shop more often and are more likely to buy
impulsively. The authors randomly selected the visitors and asked them to fill out the survey

Flow

Augmentation Hedonic Value

Online
Impulse
Behaviour
Interactivity Perceived Risk

Spatial Figure 1.
Presence Proposed model
IJRDM for the research, where one lucky winner would get INR 2,000 as a gift prize. Incentivisation is
50,10 a common practice (McLean and Wilson, 2019) and is used to obtain genuine responses. We
asked interested visitors if they had any prior experience of online impulse behaviour using
AR in the last three months. Only visitors who made previous online impulse purchases
through AR-based apps filled the survey. Before asking the respondents to fill the form, the
meanings of all the constructs with definitions were explained to them. We collected 262
responses, out of which 255 were useable, in a six-day campaign, and 58% of the respondents
1290 were male and 42% were female.
Please refer to Table 3 for more details on the demographics.

5. Data analysis and results

5.1 Sampling adequacy and common method bias
We referred to the KMO Bartlet test to check the sampling adequacy, which was 0.884 and
was above the minimum limit of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). The maximum likelihood method
requires a sample size of five times the total number of items (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, a
sample size of 255 was adequate. Since all data were collected from a single source, there was
a possibility for common method bias. To address this concern, we performed Harman’s
single-factor test using SPSS for the exploratory factor analysis. It was found that the single
factor only explained 36% of the variance, which is below the threshold limit of 50%. Hence,

Construct Definition

AR interactivity The degree to which users can rotate, have a 360-degree view, position and align the
product in their environment
Augmentation Augmentation is the ability to overlay the physical world with the virtual environment
(Javornik, 2016a)
Flow “The complete engagement with and immersion in an activity” (Hoffman and Novak,
1996, p. 24)
Spatial presence Spatial presence refers to subjective experience to be physically located in a mediated
space (Steuer, 1992)
Perceived product Consumer’s perceptions of uncertainty about the quality, fit, colour and inability to
risk touch or feel the product
Hedonic value “Those facets of consumer behaviour that relate to the multisensory, fantasy and
emotive aspects of one’s experience with products” (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982,
Table 2. p. 92)
Definition of the Online impulse “A purchase that is unplanned, the result of an exposure to a stimulus, and decided on
constructs buying the spot” (Piron, 1991, p. 512)

Attribute Distribution Frequency %

Gender Male 148 58

Female 107 42
Age 18–25 81 31.8
26–35 80 31.4
36–45 71 27.8
46 and above 23 9
Income 0–50,000 113 44.3
Table 3. 500,001–100,000 98 38.4
Demographics profile 100,001 and above 44 17.3
this study excluded the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We also checked for AR and
variance inflation factor (VIF) value from a full collinearity test, which ranged from 1.23 to impulse buying
1.80 for all independent/dependent variables, which is below 3.33 (Kock, 2015).

5.2 Evaluation of the measurement model

The reliability of each construct was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha for
all constructs was above 0.827, which was above the minimum standard of 0.70. For 1291
composite reliability, we determined the CR values, which were all greater than 0.826. Next,
we checked for convergent validity, discriminant validity, and model fit. All the values
exceeded the minimum threshold. The degree of freedom (x2/df) was 1.825, which was well
below five, and the GFI value was 0.886, which was very close to the required value of 0.900.
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.57, which was below the
maximum limit of 0.8. Next, TLI (0.949), CFI (0.958), and IFI (0.959) were well above the
minimum 0.90 limit (Hair et al., 2014). We followed the rule CR > 0.7, CR > AVE, AVE > 0.5 for
convergent validity. We followed two rules for discriminant validity: MSV < AVE and
AVE > ASV (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see Tables 4–6). To further establish discriminant
validity, we referred to the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation. We found all
reflective constructs to be below the threshold criteria of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015) (see
Table 7).

5.3 Mediation analysis of flow (H1, H2, H3, and H4)

We followed the guidelines for mediation posited by Hayes (2018) and Zhao et al. (2010) for
mediation analysis instead of the guidelines suggested by Baron and Kenney (1986). As
bootstrapping is more reliable than Sobel’s test, the lack of a direct effect does not necessarily
warrant meditation. Rather, the strength of the indirect effect should be the criterion (Zhao

CR AVE MSV ASV AUG FLO SP IMP HED RIS INT

AUG 0.826 0.613 0.288 0.204 0.783

FLO 0.925 0.756 0.215 0.161 0.391 0.870
SP 0.885 0.658 0.288 0.265 0.537 0.464 0.811
IMP 0.923 0.800 0.256 0.177 0.405 0.346 0.506 0.895
HED 0.887 0.726 0.259 0.184 0.394 0.383 0.509 0.396 0.852
RIS 0.842 0.640 0.286 0.229 0.482 0.408 0.535 0.472 0.435 0.800
INT 0.845 0.650 0.286 0.217 0.479 0.409 0.535 0.380 0.446 0.527 0.806
Note(s): Aug, Augmentation; FLO, Flow; SP, Spatial presence, IMP, Urge to buy impulse, HED, Hedonic; RIS, Table 4.
Risk; INT, Interactivity; CR, Composite reliability; AVE; Average variance extracted; ASV, Average shared Correlations between
variance; MSV, Maximum shared variance research constructs

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Table 5.

Model fit analysis
Default model 69 377.746 207 0.000 1.825 CMIN/DF

Model CFI GFI NFI TLI RMESA Table 6.

Model fit (CFI, GFI,
Default model 0.958 0.886 0.913 0.949 0.057 NFI, TLI, RMESA)
IJRDM Item Cronbach
50,10 Construct loadings alpha CR AVE

Flow (Yim et al., 2017) 0.919 0.92 0.75

I was deeply engrossed in the try-on experience 0.898
My attention was focused on the experience 0.889
I was absorbed in the experience 0.882
1292 Interactivity (Yim et al., 2017) 0.827 0.92 0.65
I appeared in control of the augmented reality technology 0.844
I appeared to have some control over what I wanted to see 0.766
The technology appeared to respond to my specific actions 0.746
quickly and efficiently
Hedonic value (Childers et al., 2001) 0.879 0.88 0.72
The online shopping experience with the App makes me feel 0.883
good
The online shopping experience with the App is exciting 0.800
The online shopping experience with the App is enjoyable 0.726
Product risk (Vonkeman et al., 2017) 0.840 0.83 0.64
Being not able to try the product before making a purchase is 0.800
risky
Being not able to touch or feel the product before making a 0.838
purchase, is risky
Being not able to estimate the size/fitment of the product 0.726
before purchase, is risky
Augmentation (Javornic, 2016) 0.825 0.82 0.61
The AR app can add products to my body virtually 0.777
The level of reality seemed high on the App 0.823
The products seemed to exist in real time 0.789
Spatial presence (Hilken et al., 2017; Verhagen et al., 2014) 0.896 0.88 0.65
The AR try-on experience is similar to experiencing the 0.730
products in reality
The AR try-on experience felt like it was in reality 0.768
The AR try-on experience seemed real rather than virtual 0.821
The AR try-on experience was as realistic to me as in the real 0.835
world
Online impulse buying (Parboteeah et al., 2009; Rook and 0.921 0.92 0.80
Fisher, 1995)
When shopping via AR aps, I often have the idea “buy now and 0.809
think about it later”
When shopping via AR apps, I often buy things according to 0.888
how I feel at the moment
Table 7. When shopping via AR apps, I often buy things without 0.869
Reliability and validity thinking

et al., 2010). We used Model 4 in the Hayes process macro with 5,000 bootstrapping and 95%
confidence interval. For H1, the direct effect (augmentation → hedonic value), we found
significant result with (β 5 0.21, R square 5 0.19), while the flow experience is constant. The
relationship between augmentation and hedonic value was tested using regression and was
found to be significant. Additionally, the impact of augmentation on flow was found to be
significant (β 5 0.40, R square 5 0.10), and the impact of flow on the hedonic value was also
significant (β 5 0.22, R square 5 0.19).
Next, to test the mediation of flow between augmentation and the hedonic value (H3), we
checked the indirect effect, which was also found to be significant (β 5 0.09). Since the direct
effect (H1) and mediated effect (H3) are significant and both have positive values for LLCI and
ULCI, this is a case of partial and complementary mediation.
 Next, we tested H2, the direct effect of interactivity on the hedonic value AR and
(interactivity → hedonic value), and it was found to be significant (β 5 0.31, impulse buying
R square 5 0.24), while the flow experience was constant. Additionally, the impact of
interactivity on the flow experience (β 5 0.46, R square 5 0.14) and the impact of flow on the
hedonic value (β 5 0.18, R square 5 0.24) were found to be significant. The mediating role of
flow between interactivity and hedonic value (H4) was also found to be significant (β 5 0.08)
(see Figures 2 and 3). Since both the direct effect (H2) and indirect effect (H4) are significant
and have positive values for LLCI and ULCI, this is a case of partial and complementary 1293
mediation (see Tables 8 and 9).

5.4 Mediation analysis for spatial presence (H5, H6, H7, and H8)
We followed the same process outlined for the flow experience mediation. First, we tested H5
(augmentation → risk), which was found to be significant (β 5 0.28, R square 5 0.26), while
spatial presence was constant. Additionally, augmentation had an impact on spatial presence
(β 5 0.46, R square 0.21), and the impact of spatial presence on perceived risk was also found
to be significant (β 5 0.37, R square 5 0.26).

Flow
0.40*** 0.22***
Figure 2.
Flow mediation for
augmentation and
Augmentaon Hedonic Value hedonic value
0.21**

Flow
0.46*** 0.18***
Figure 3.
Flow mediation for
Interacvity Hedonic Value interactivity and
0.31** hedonic value

FLO SP IMP HD RIS INT AUG

FLO

SP 0.424

IMP 0.361 0.547

HD 0.435 0.492 0.428

RIS 0.437 0.506 0.528 0.441

INT 0.445 0.597 0.458 0.572 0.570

AUG 0.380 0.520 0.418 0.417 0.475 0.509 Table 8.

Discriminant validity
using HTMT
IJRDM Next, to test the mediating role of spatial presence between augmentation and perceived risk
50,10 (H7), we found the indirect effect to be significant (β 5 0.17). Since both the (H5) and (H7) are
significant and have positive values for LLCI and ULCI, this is a case of partial and
complementary mediation.
In the next phase, we first checked the direct effect of interactivity on perceived risk (H6) and
it was found to be significant (β 5 0.48), while spatial presence was constant. Additionally, we
tested the impact of interactivity on spatial presence (β 5 0.47, R square 5 0.21) and the impact
1294 of spatial presence on perceived risk (β 5 0.36, R square 5 0.26).
To check the mediating role of spatial presence between interactivity and perceived risk
(H8), we referred to the indirect effect (β 5 0.17). Since the direct effect (H6) and indirect
effect (H8) are significant and both have positive values for LLCI and ULCI, this is a case of
partial and complementary mediation (see Figures 4 and 5).
Hypotheses H9 and H10 were tested using regression. H9 (hedonic value → impulse
buying) was found to be significant, with a beta coefficient of 0.26, t-value of 4.533, and
p-value of 0.000. Next, H10 (perceived risk → impulse buying) was also found to be significant
with a beta value of 0.45, t-value of 8.122, and p-value of 0.000. The R2 value of online
impulse buying was 0.25.
In terms of the size effect, the impact of interactivity on perceived risk was the greatest
(β 5 0.48). The second greatest effect was the impact of interactivity on spatial presence
(β 5 0.47), followed by the impact of interactivity on flow experience (β 5 0.46), perceived risk
of impulse buying behaviour (β 5 0.45), and augmentation to flow (β 5 0.40).

Hypothesis T-value Beta coefficient P-value LLCI ULCI Result

H1 INT → HED 6.33 0.324 0.002 0.207 0.441 Accepted

H2 AUG → HED 3.46 0.175 0.002 0.094 0.270 Accepted
H3 INT → FLOW → HED 5.06 0.060 0.001 0.029 0.111 Accepted
H4 AUG → FLOW → HED 2.61 0.043 0.003 0.017 0.081 Accepted
H5 AUG → RISK 5.20 0.317 0.002 0.188 0.440 Accepted
H6 INT → RISK 5.68 0.351 0.002 0.196 0.491 Accepted
H7 AUG → SP → RISK 3.51 0.095 0.001 0.047 0.169 Accepted
H8 INT → SP → RISK 3.93 0.098 0.001 0.053 0.182 Accepted
Table 9. H9 HED → IMP 4.53 0.26 0.00 – – Accepted
Hypothesis results H10 RISK → IMP 8.12 0.45 0.00 – – Accepted

Spaal Presence
0.46*** –0.37***
Figure 4.
Spatial meditation for
augmentation and Augmentaon Perceived Risk
perceived risk
–0.28**

Figure 5. Spaal Presence

0.47*** –0.36***
Spatial presence
meditation for
interactivity and
perceived risk Interacvity Perceived Risk
–0.48**
Although the R square value for online impulse buying is 0.255, this is not surprising. A low R AR and
square value is common in social science studies, particularly in consumer behaviour with impulse buying
technology, as it involves many factors which influence consumer behaviour. For example,
impulse buying is influenced by several external factors, such as price, discounts, offers,
moods, situational factors, advertising, and personal characteristics. Since we focused on the
psychological aspect, that could be the reason (Shahpasandi et al., 2020). Second, since AR is a
recent phenomenon in India and marketers have not developed effective strategies for
potential customers, this reduces the predictive ability of the impulse buying episode. 1295

6. Discussion
AR is disrupting the retail landscape, this study provides vital insights for both researchers
and managers. Following the call for research by Kumar (2022) and Huang et al. (2021), we
develop and test a model to investigate the role of AR in online impulse behaviour through the
mediating role of customer experience. This study uses flow and spatial presence theory for
exploring the AR’s role in impulse buying.
We found that the AR characteristics of interactivity and augmentation provide hedonic
value to users in the virtual try-on and reduce the perceived product risk associated with
online purchase, leading to online impulse behaviour. Next, we tested the mediation
mechanism of flow and spatial presence between AR, hedonic value, and perceived risk. We
found that flow partially mediates the relationship between AR characteristics and the
hedonic value. In addition, spatial presence partially mediates the relationship between AR
characteristics and product risk.
Additionally, we found that reduced product risk is a more significant factor for online
impulse buying than the hedonic value in the virtual try-on of high-body-involvement
products. This is important because decision certainty and choice confidence are
fundamental values derived by using virtual try-on, but this has been tested on planned
behaviour in the literature, although it also triggers impulse behaviour. Next, interactivity
has a more significant influence than augmentation on generating flow and spatial presence
experience in online shopping of high-body-involvement products.
Therefore, to examine the role of AR in unplanned consumer behaviour, we established
that AR immerses users and provides enhanced customer experience (in particular, flow and
spatial presence), which switches off the cognition of users and makes them emotionally
connected with the product. Second, interactivity and augmentation make users feel being at
the store (spatial presence), which reduces the perceived risk associated with buying online,
triggering online impulse behaviour. Therefore, our study contributes to the literature on AR
by investigating its role in unplanned behaviour and to the literature on online impulse
buying by identifying the hedonic value and perceived risk as values generated through AR
as important triggers for impulse buying.

6.1 Theoretical implications

Despite a plethora of studies on the role of flow and spatial presence in impulse buying
behaviour, there are few studies in the context of AR. Using the flow theory, we identify
interactivity and augmentation as important media characteristics that generate flow
experience, ultimately resulting in online impulse behaviour. While there are studies
examining the role of flow in planned purchase behaviour in the AR context (Javornic, 2016),
to the best of our knowledge, we do not find any evidence exploring the role of flow in online
impulse buying in the AR context for high body involvement products. Such exploration is
important because AR, as an immersive technology, has a significant impact on the cognitive
and affective states of users (Zanger et al., 2022; Kowalczuk et al., 2021). Next, involvement
IJRDM with the product significantly influences purchase intention (Hilken et al., 2017; Rosa et al.,
50,10 2006). We also established the mediating role of flow in the impulse buying context.
Second, extending the work of Chen et al. (2021), using the spatial presence theory, we add
interactivity and augmentation as important media characteristics other than vividness and
spatial cues, generating spatial presence for users. We also posit that interactivity has a more
significant influence on the spatial presence experience than augmentation. Furthermore, we
found that spatial presence plays a mediating role between AR and reduced product risk.
1296 Third, we introduced perceived risk (product) as a significant factor for impulse behaviour
in the AR context. The literature has overlooked this factor, even after its strong presence in
the online shopping literature (Chen et al., 2019). Even though the perceived risk associated
with a product has been postulated to be important in impulse buying on traditional
platforms (Wu et al., 2020), they fail to capture the risks associated with the fit and size of the
product. In addition, quality assurance cannot be perceived from a first-party perspective.
These factors are important when shopping for products with high body involvement. We
further conclude that the product risk reduced by AR is a more significant factor for online
impulse buying than the hedonic value.
Finally, we found two different routes through which AR enables impulse buying. First,
AR augments a virtual product in a real environment and allows real-time interaction. This
makes users feel being at the store and more confident about the size, fit, and qufality of the
product. This significantly influences impulse buying decisions. Second, the flow experience
generated by the unique AR characteristics of augmentation and interactivity provides
hedonic value to users, ultimately resulting in online impulse behaviour.

6.2 Practical implications

First, while many companies are working to introduce AR-based apps, this study
demonstrates how product presentation through AR influences consumer behaviour.
Therefore, this study will allow them to frame better strategies and develop apps to generate
more impulse buying and will facilitate managers’ understanding of AR characteristics and
the psychological mechanism through which AR causes impulse buying.
Second, customer experience is the critical success factor and prime focus for retailers,
which shows how AR provides enhanced customer experience and how it creates value for
customers and influences their behaviour.
Lastly, while retailers face huge challenges in reducing the online product return rate, 50%
of the apparel purchased online is returned globally (St€ocker et al., 2021). This study
demonstrates how AR reduces product risk through spatial presence. Therefore, retailers
facing product return challenges might use AR as a tool to counter this challenge.

6.3 Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations. First, it focused only on the category of high-body-
involvement products. Future research should test the model on different product categories
facilitated by AR in an online shopping context. Second, since the data were collected from
India only and impulse buying is influenced by culture, users abroad are advised to
generalise the findings cautiously. Third, this study provides a psychological perspective by
examining customer experience as a mediator. We concluded a partial mediation for both
flow and spatial presence. This means that other variables might act as mediators. The
existing literature posits flow, spatial presence, mental imagery, immersion, and inspiration
as mediators in the planned behaviour context (Kumar, 2022; Rauschnabel et al., 2019). Future
research could explore other mediators to address this gap. Future research may also
consider the theory of interactive media effects and the consumer culture theory to
investigate this phenomenon. Qualitative exploration through ethnography, grounded AR and
theory, and phenomenology might provide interesting insights (Kumar and Tuli, 2021). impulse buying
Lastly, the study is limited to online impulse buying via mobile AR apps. Future research
may explore the role of fixed-screen AR in impulse behaviour in a physical stores.

7. Conclusion
This study explores the impact of AR on impulse buying behaviour (RQ1) and the mediating 1297
role of flow and spatial presence (RQ2). To answer RQ1, we concluded that AR significantly
influences online impulse behaviour. To answer RQ2, we concluded that flow and spatial
presence mediate in the process partially/complementary.
Overall, AR as an immersive technology can evoke emotions for products while buying
online, and allow users to try a large variety of products with more information, and reduce
perceived risk. Therefore, the phenomenon of online impulse buying can be largely disrupted
through AR. This study provides an initial understanding for both researchers and
practitioners. We hope that future research will further explore the various facets of AR to
further investigate online impulse behaviour.

References
Aladwani, A.M. (2018), “A quality-facilitated socialization model of social commerce decisions”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 40, pp. 1-7.
Arya, V., Paul, J. and Sethi, D. (2021), “Like it or not! Brand communication on social networking sites
triggers consumer-based brand equity”, International Journal of Consumer Studies.
Barhorst, J., McLean, G., Shah, E. and Mack, R. (2021), “Blending the real world and the virtual world:
exploring the role of flow in augmented reality experiences”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 122, pp. 423-436.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.
Biocca, F. (1997), “The cyborg’s dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments”, Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 324.
Chen, J.V., Ruangsri, S., Ha, Q.A. and Widjaja, A.E. (2021), “An experimental study of consumers’
impulse buying behaviour in augmented reality mobile shopping apps”, Behaviour and
Information Technology, pp. 1-22.
Chen, Y., Lu, Y., Wang, B. and Pan, Z. (2019), “How do product recommendations affect impulse
buying? An empirical study on WeChat social commerce”, Information and Management,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 236-248.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online
retail shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-535.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.
Dacko, S.G. (2017), “Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 124, pp. 243-256.
Dastane, O., Bin Md Jalal, M.I. and Selvaraj, K. (2018), “Assessment of extended ES-Qual Model in an
M-commerce setting”, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 5
No. 12, pp. 923-954.
De Canio, F. and Fuentes-Blasco, M. (2021), “I need to touch it to buy it! How haptic information
influences consumer shopping behavior across channels”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 61, 102569.
Djafarova, E. and Bowes, T. (2021), “Instagram made me buy it: generation Z impulse purchases in
fashion industry”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 59, 102345.
IJRDM Do, H.N., Shih, W. and Ha, Q.A. (2020), “Effects of mobile augmented reality apps on impulse buying
behavior: an investigation in the tourism field”, Heliyon, Vol. 6 No. 8, 04667.
50,10
Dowling, G.R. (1986), “Perceived risk: the concept and its measurement”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 193-210.
Fan, X., Chai, Z., Deng, N. and Dong, X. (2020), “Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and
consumers’ product attitude: a cognitive perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 53, 101986.
1298
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics, pp. 382-388.
uttl-Maack, V. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2021), “Can augmented reality satisfy consumers’
Gatter, S., H€
need for touch?”, Psychology and Marketing.
Gwee, M.Y.T. and Chang, K.T.T. (2013), “Developing e-loyalty amongst impulsive buyers via social
influence on group buying websites”, Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information
Systems PACIS 2013.
Hair, J.F., Celsi, M., Ortinau, D.J. and Bush, R.P. (2010), Essentials of Marketing Research, Vol. 2,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, New York.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Gabriel, M.L. and Patel, V.K. (2014), “Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-
SEM) with AMOS: guidelines on your application as a marketing research tool”, Revista
Brasileira de Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 44-55.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Guilford,
New York, New York.
Heller, J., Chylinski, M., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D.I. (2019), “Touching the untouchable:
exploring multisensory augmented reality in the context of online retailing”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 219-234.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “Using partial least squares path modeling in
advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues”, in Okazaki, S. (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on International Advertising, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 252-276.
Hilken, T., de Ruyter, K., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D.I. (2017), “Augmenting the eye of the
beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service
experiences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 884-905.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments:
conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 50-68.
Huang, T.L. and Liao, S.L. (2017), “Creating e-shopping multisensory flow experience
through augmented-reality interactive technology”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 449-475.
Huang, T.L., Lai, G.S. and Chen, Y.M. (2021), “Enhancing experience values by reducing online
psychological distance via augmented reality”, International Journal for Applied Information
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 28-32.
Ipsos (2020), “Augmented reality in e-commerce”, available at: https://www.shopify.com/enterprise/
augmented-reality-ecommerce-shopping (accessed 10 Feberuray 2022).
Iyer, E.S. (1989), “Unplanned purchasing: knowledge of shopping environment”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 65 No. 1, p. 40.
Javornik, A. (2016a), “Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media
characteristics on consumer behaviour”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30,
pp. 252-261.
Javornik, A. (2016b), “‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’ Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural
responses to augmented reality applications”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32
Nos 9-10, pp. 987-1011.
Khan, N., Hui, L.H., Chen, T.B. and Hoe, H.Y. (2016), “Impulse buying behaviour of generation Y in AR and
fashion retail”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 144.
impulse buying
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of E-Collaboration (IJEC), Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Koufaris, M. (2002), “Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer
behaviour”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 205-223.
Kowalczuk, P., Siepmann, C. and Adler, J. (2021), “Cognitive, affective, and behavioral consumer 1299
responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: a comparative study”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 124, pp. 357-373.
Kumar, H. (2022), “Augmented reality in online retailing: a systematic review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 537-559, doi: 10.
1108/IJRDM-06-2021-0287.
Kumar, H., Garg, R., Kumar, P. and Chhikara, R. (2020), “A qualitative insight into the personal factors
impacting online impulse behavior”, in Strategies and Tools for Managing Connected
Consumers, IGI Global, pp. 279-291.
Kumar, H. and Tuli, N. (2021), “Decoding the branded app engagement process: a grounded theory
approach”, Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 582-605.
Lee, H., Xu, Y. and Porterfield, A. (2020), “Consumers’ adoption of AR-based virtual fitting rooms:
from the perspective of theory of interactive media effects”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal.
McDermott, L.M. (1936), “Why people buy at department stores”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 53-55.
McLean, G. and Wilson, A. (2019), “Shopping in the digital world: examining customer engagement
through augmented reality mobile applications”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 101,
pp. 210-224.
Muruganantham, G. and Bhakat, R.S. (2013), “A review of impulse buying behavior”, International
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 149.
Ozkara, B.Y., Ozmen, M. and Kim, J.W. (2017), “Examining the effect of flow experience on online
purchase: a novel approach to the flow theory based on hedonic and utilitarian value”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 37, pp. 119-131.
Parboteeah, D.V., Valacich, J.S. and Wells, J.D. (2009), “The influence of website characteristics on a
consumer’s urge to buy impulsively”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 60-78.
Park, M. and Yoo, J. (2020), “Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer responses:
a mental imagery perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 52, 101912.
Parsad, C., Prashar, S., Vijay, T.S. and Kumar, M. (2021), “Do promotion and prevention focus
influence impulse buying: the role of mood regulation, shopping values, and impulse buying
tendency”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 61, 102554.
Perannagari, K.T. and Chakrabarti, S. (2019), “Factors influencing acceptance of augmented reality in
retail: insights from thematic analysis”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Piron, F. (1991), “Defining impulse purchasing”, ACR North American Advances.
Pizzutti, C. and Fernandes, D. (2010), “Effect of recovery efforts on consumer trust and loyalty in e-tail:
a contingency model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 127-160.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Poushneh, A. and Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. (2017), “Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail
customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 34, pp. 229-234.
IJRDM Qin, H., Peak, D.A. and Prybutok, V. (2021), “A virtual market in your pocket: how does mobile
augmented reality (MAR) influence consumer decision making?”, Journal of Retailing and
50,10 Consumer Services, Vol. 58, 102337.
Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018), “Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: an exploration of
expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 557-572.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R. and Hinsch, C. (2019), “Augmented reality marketing: how mobile AR-
1300 apps can improve brands through inspiration”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 49, pp. 43-53.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Babin, B.J., Tom Dieck, M.C., Krey, N. and Jung, T. (2022a), “What is augmented
reality marketing? Its definition, complexity, and future”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 142,
pp. 1140-1150.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H. and Alt, F. (2022b), “What is XR? Towards a
framework for augmented and virtual reality”, Computers in Human Behavior, 107289.
Rauschnabel, P.A., He, J. and Ro, Y.K. (2018), “Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart
glasses: a closer look at privacy risks”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92, pp. 374-384.
Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-199.
Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), “Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 305-313.
Rosa, J.A., Garbarino, E.C. and Malter, A.J. (2006), “Keeping the body in mind: the influence of body
esteem and body boundary aberration on consumer beliefs and purchase intentions”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 79-91.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Sadeque, S., Nguyen, B. and Melewar, T.C. (2017), “Constituents and
consequences of smart customer experience in retailing”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 124, pp. 257-270.
Scholz, J. and Smith, A.N. (2016), “Augmented reality: designing immersive experiences that maximize
consumer engagement”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 149-161.
Schultze, U. (2010), “Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: a review”, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 434-449.
Shahpasandi, F., Zarei, A. and Nikabadi, M.S. (2020), “Consumers’ impulse buying behavior on
Instagram: examining the influence of flow experiences and hedonic browsing on impulse
buying”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 437-465.
Sheth, H. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, p. 145.
Singh, A. and Thirumoorthi, P. (2019), “The impact of digital disruption technologies on customer
preferences: the case of retail commerce”, International Journal of Recent Technology and
Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1255-1261.
Smink, A.R., van Reijmersdal, E.A., van Noort, G. and Neijens, P.C. (2020), “Shopping in augmented
reality: the effects of spatial presence, personalization and intrusiveness on app and brand
responses”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, pp. 474-485.
Statista (2021a), “Top online product categories”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/
276846/reach-of-top-online-retail-categories-worldwide/ (accessed 01 August 2021).
Statista (2021b), “E-commerce sales worldwide”, available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/871/
online-shopping/ (accessed 17 July 2021).
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
St€ocker, B., Baier, D. and Brand, B.M. (2021), “New insights in online fashion retail returns from a
customers’ perspective and their dynamics”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 91 No. 8, pp.
1149-1187.
Suh, K.S. and Chang, S. (2006), “User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: the role of AR and
telepresence”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
impulse buying
Tan, Y.C., Chandukala, S.R. and Reddy, S.K. (2021), “Augmented reality in retail and its impact on
sales”, Journal of Marketing.
Tsikriktsis, N. (2002), “Does culture influence web site quality expectations? An empirical study”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 101-112.
Tyrv€ainen, O., Karjaluoto, H. and Saarij€arvi, H. (2020), “Personalization and hedonic motivation in 1301
creating customer experiences and loyalty in omnichannel retail”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 57, 102233.
Verhagen, T., Vonkeman, C., Feldberg, F. and Verhagen, P. (2014), “Present it like it is here: creating
local presence to improve online product experiences”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 39,
pp. 270-280.
Vonkeman, C., Verhagen, T. and Van Dolen, W. (2017), “Role of local presence in online impulse
buying”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 1038-1048.
Watson, A., Alexander, B. and Salavati, L. (2018), “The impact of experiential augmented reality
applications on fashion purchase intention”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 433-451.
Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., B€ocking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Saari, T., Laarni, J.,
Ravaja, N., Gouveia, F.R. and Biocca, F. (2007), “A process model of the formation of spatial
presence experiences”, Media Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 493-525.
Wu, L., Chiu, M.L. and Chen, K.W. (2020), “Defining the determinants of online impulse buying
through a shopping process of integrating perceived risk, expectation-confirmation model, and
flow theory issues”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 52, 102099.
Yang, F., Tang, J., Men, J. and Zheng, X. (2021), “Consumer perceived value and impulse buying
behavior on mobile commerce: the moderating effect of social influence”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 63, 102683.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C. and Sauer, P.L. (2017), “Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for
e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 39, pp. 89-103.
Zanger, V., Meißner, M. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2022), “Beyond the gimmick: how affective responses
drive brand attitudes and intentions in augmented reality marketing”, Psychology and
Marketing.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. Jr and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Zheng, X., Men, J., Yang, F. and Gong, X. (2019), “Understanding impulse buying in mobile commerce:
an investigation into hedonic and utilitarian browsing”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 48, pp. 151-160.
Zhu, W., Owen, C.B., Li, H. and Lee, J.H. (2004), “Personalized in-store e-commerce with the PromoPad:
an augmented reality shopping assistant”, Electronic Journal for E-Commerce Tools and
Applications, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 1-19.

Corresponding author
Harish Kumar can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]