1 s2.0 S0378720623001581 Main

Information & Management 61 (2024) 103910
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im
Towards a theoretical framework for augmented reality marketing: A

means-end chain perspective on retailing
Harish Kumar a, Philipp A. Rauschnabel *, b, c, d, Madhushree Nanda Agarwal e,
Rajesh Kumar Singh e, Ritu Srivastava e
a
Great Lakes Institute of Management Gurgaon, India
b
Universität der Bundeswehr München, College of Business Administration, Department of Digital Marketing and Media Innovation, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85577
Neubiberg, Germany
c
MCI Innsbruck, Austria
d
Otto-Friedrich Universität Bamberg, Germany
e
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Augmented reality (AR) merges virtual elements with our physical context. Although there is evidence in
Augmented reality marketing that AR may be superior to alternative formats, there is a lack of work explaining from the ground up
Means-end chain why this is the case. Consequently, we applied means-end chain theory to identify specific AR-features (e.g.,
Theoretical framework
contextualization, interactivity, portability) that drive benefits (e.g., inspiration, better decision-making, time
Consumer behavior
Metaverse
savings, risk reduction). These benefits contribute to consumers’ goal achievement (e.g., self-confidence, self-
Spatial computing expression, reduced purchase regret). A subsequent study organized these factors into a practical framework
(SEAD and SALES). This study contributes to a better understanding of AR.
1. Introduction managers indicate a high interest in AR, despite a lack of knowledge in

their current practice [2,8]. Academic research has tended to address
In augmented reality (AR) marketing, branded virtual content is these knowledge gaps by building theories aiming to describe, explain,
realistically integrated into a user’s perception of the real world [1,2]. predict, and control AR marketing conduct. Following contemporary
Marketing practitioners have realized AR’s potential, as is reflected by marketing conceptualizations [2,9], we position a profound under
numerous use cases, such as when displaying products (IKEA Place), standing of user behavior at the core of AR marketing activities that
entertaining consumers (Toy ‘R’ Us), supplementing products (19 stimulate and manage transactions.
Crimes wine), or offering new forms of customer service (Toyota). AR Extant research in this and other leading journals has made impor
apps that visualize products are now an “almost standard” feature across tant contributions to this field [10–13]. Typical studies apply traditional
platforms. For example, Amazon has made it possible to visualize many theoretical lenses rooted in technology acceptance research, marketing,
of the products it offers using AR [3], Google recently integrated an AR or psychology to explain user behavior in AR systems, generally by
feature into its shopping search [4], and Meta offers AR tryouts for comparing AR content against alternative presentation formats (e.g.,
makeup and sunglasses [5], not to mention the many other AR apps that traditional mobile apps and websites). These studies have shown that AR
brands launch to display their products or how advancements in WebAR content is typically perceived as more enjoyable [14], inspirational [15],
allow businesses to integrate AR into existing websites [6]. Moreover, interactive [16], engaging [17], and immersive [18,19] than traditional
Apple recently launched the “spatial computing” AR device Vision Pro, a presentation formats and link these evaluations to marketing variables
mass market device that, in the long run, will enable all-day AR such as customer satisfaction [20,21], loyalty [22], willingness to pay
experiences. [23,24], brand perceptions [15,25], or sales [26].
The AR market is expected to reach US$85 billion by 2025, of which However, three notable gaps remain in the literature. First, little is
US$11.4 billion will belong to the retailing sector [7]. Marketing will known about why AR should be perceived as different or even better
likely benefit most from this growth, and surveys among marketing than alternative presentation formats. Systematic assessments and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.A. Rauschnabel).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103910
Received 19 August 2022; Received in revised form 16 December 2023; Accepted 19 December 2023
Available online 22 December 2023
0378-7206/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. Kumar et al. Information & Management 61 (2024) 103910
theory-building work remain scarce, and exceptions, such as those highly realistic representations of products in devices similar to a large
proposed by Javornik [27] and Rauschnabel et al. [2], remain concep pair of sunglasses that may soon enter mass markets. Apple’s Vision Pro
tual. Such knowledge would enhance our theoretical and practical un is an example of one such promising device.
derstanding of how users interact with AR environments and guide AR
system design. Second, extant research has focused on relatively “broad” 2.2. Augmented reality attributes
categories of benefits, such as hedonic or utilitarian [28,29], without
clarifying what exactly is useful. For instance, as discussed intensely in Several attributes (characteristics) of AR are either unique to this
the management information system (MIS) literature, “the knowledge technology (e.g., contextual embedding) or are often more prevalent
that ‘usefulness is useful’ has, in fact, provided little in terms of compared to other presentation formats (e.g., interactivity). Some of
actionable research […] and hence a paucity of recommendations to these frequently discussed criteria are reviewed below.
direct design and practice” (Bensbasat & Barki, p. 213). In sum, there is a
need for a nuanced understanding of AR-specific consumer benefits 2.2.1. Contextual embedding
beyond established constructs. Finally, while studying Contextual embedding is probably the most unique AR character
marketing-related KPIs, such as transactions [26], can have an imme istic, and it describes how virtual content is integrated into the real
diate impact on adoption decisions, MIS and marketing practices world [1,44]. Compared to other digital presentation formats (e.g., so
incorporate psychological perspectives. For instance, many companies cial media), content is not presented on a two-dimensional (2D) screen
develop buyer personas, which include detailed assessments of con of limited size but is integrated into a consumer’s perception of their
sumers’ abstract goals and values [30]. Ultimately, people purchase three-dimensional (3D) environment. This is distinct from traditional
products and services to obtain certain benefits that help them achieve location-based services, which are based only on a user’s approximate
their underlying values [31]. Thus, values constitute purchase motiva position (e.g., a push notification with a voucher when close to a store).
tion [31–33]. Understanding the consumer goal structure allows firms to The literature uses various terms and constructs to measure and describe
develop strategies—mostly conceptually—regarding how their offers the quality or degree of embedding [45], including augmentation [27],
might contribute to these goals and values; however, empirical insights augmentation quality [25,46], reality congruence [47], spatial presence
into how specific features of AR systems relate to abstract values are [18], and local presence [1,2,40,48]; . Generally speaking, the better the
currently unavailable. Therefore, we address these gaps with the marketing content is embedded in the real world, the better consumers
following research questions: rate their overall AR experience [25,46,47].
RQ1: What are the unique attributes of AR technology from the Contextual embedding offers numerous opportunities for online re
consumer’s perspective? tailers. In traditional online marketing, for example, a consumer might
RQ2: What are the unique benefits that consumers derive from these research a new couch by looking at photos in a brand’s online store.
AR attributes? When doing so, the customer must be able to imagine what the couch
RQ3: What abstract motivational values are satisfied by these will look like in their living room, which can be difficult. However, when
benefits? an AR function is available in an online store, the couch can be displayed
The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. First, we offer an realistically (i.e., in real size and colors) in the physical context in which
overview of AR and consumer behavior and summarize related work. it will be placed after it is purchased [1].
Next, we present a qualitative study using a laddering technique
grounded in means-end chain theory, which is an established approach 2.2.2. Content stability
in Information Systems (IS) [34–36] and marketing [37] literature. The Content stability describes how content is combined. Except for
study yielded a comprehensive list of AR characteristics, benefits, and head-stable content (cf. [40]), AR content is typically attached to a
values that illustrate the consumer goal structure, which we summarize specific object in the real world. This object might be a static surface (e.
in a hierarchical value map (HVM). In a follow-up study with 411 re g., the floor on which a virtual couch is placed using the IKEA Place app)
spondents, we grouped 12 benefits into four benefit types and nine or a dynamic element (e.g., the foot on which one places a virtual shoe
values into five categories and presented a parsimonious taxonomy. This using the Wannakicks app). This stability allows consumers to experi
is followed by a discussion of theoretical contributions and how these ence their environment “phygitally” (i.e., in a hybrid virtual and phys
findings may stimulate further IS and marketing research, as well as ical form) from different positions and angles. Moreover, several
business practices. consumers can experience a virtual product (e.g., a couch in one’s living
room) together at the same position using multiuser AR. In contrast, a
2. Theoretical background 2D or 3D picture of a product in traditional marketing materials, such as
a catalog or an online shop, is not attached to a physical location and is
2.1. Augmented reality therefore independent from a customer’s actual location. Content can
also be attached to specific geolocations, as in “persistent” or “spatial
AR is inconsistently defined in the literature as a technology [38], AR.” This feature is often discussed as a crucial part of the metaverse
medium [39], or hybrid experience [40]. However, there is a general concept but is not too relevant for most currently available AR apps
consensus that AR integrates virtual content into a user’s perception of [12].
the real world through a specific device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, or
smart glasses). AR is often discussed alongside virtual reality (VR) under 2.2.3. Augmentation targets
the umbrella of XR, an abbreviation of “extended reality” [41] or Augmentation targets are specific to AR and can be broadly char
“xreality” [2]. However, as opposed to AR, when using VR, consumers acterized as on-body or in-room AR. For example, some makeup and
are completely closed off from the real world [40,42]. fashion brands use on-body AR to allow consumers to try products on
AR experiences can be described based on their level of local pres their actual bodies, whereas products that are typically not associated
ence, ranging from very low to high [1,40]. When local presence is low, with the body (e.g., furniture) are typically projected onto one’s
virtual content is functional and clearly perceived as artificial (“assisted environment.
reality”). In contrast, when local presence is high, which typically re
quires specific hardware devices, consumers may have difficulty dis 2.2.4. Other characteristics
tinguishing real from virtual objects (“mixed reality”; [43]). Most There are several characteristics of AR that are also known from
existing AR marketing use cases run on mobile devices; however, ad other forms of electronic (mobile) marketing formats. However, often
vancements in sensor and display technology are capable of creating these characteristics have particularly high magnitudes in AR.. For
2
instance, many AR apps are highly interactive and allow users to engage numerous use cases for AR, for example, in a metaverse future where
in creative processes to explore products [16,17]. AR interactivity fa consumers can alter real public spaces with persistent AR content.
cilitates hedonic and utilitarian values [49], satisfaction with the AR
experience [20], engagement, and a positive attitude towards the brand 2.3. Augmented reality and consumer behavior
[50,51].
In addition, AR content can be associated with socializing charac Understanding user behavior is central to effective AR marketing [2].
teristics. For instance, some apps allow multiple users to experience the As an example, among the most promising applications of AR is the
same content together (e.g., the Membit app) in so-called social AR or ability to try products virtually before making a purchase. Such use cases
multiuser AR, while other AR apps allow users to share content on social are deployed through existing shopping platforms (e.g., Amazon), native
media. AR socialization decreases mental workload (Fan et al., 2019), apps (e.g., IKEA Place), or website integrations using WebAR. Customers
enhances mutual comprehension and makes decision-making and generally evaluate these virtual try-on use cases more positively than
recommendation comfort easier for users [52]. Combined with the they do traditional shopping environments, and consumers tend to value
aforementioned content stability, such shared experiences enable the AR try-on feature because it leads to higher levels of choice
Table 1
Selected augmented reality (AR) and consumer behavior publications.
Paper Study focus Method Theory used Findings
Hilken et al. Role of AR attributes (spatial, physical Experiment Situated cognition Customers’ feelings of spatial presence as an outcome of AR-
[18] control, environmental embedding) on theory enabled interactions lead to enhanced value perceptions.
customer experience (spatial presence)
Brito et al. [55] Impact of interface properties on Experiment Transfer theory AR induced emotional responses and positive attitude towards
emotional response (AR vs. traditional) the brand and influence on online response.
McLean & Impact of AR attributes (interactivity, Structure Technology acceptance AR significantly influences brand engagement, ultimately
Wilson [50] vividness and novelty) on users’ equation model (TAM) leading to brand usage intention and satiation.
engagement and satisfaction modeling (SEM)
Rauschnabel Impact of AR on brand attitude SEM Inspiration theory Utilitarian, hedonic, and augmented quality benefits lead to a
et al. [25] positive attitude towards the app but not the brand. Still, when
mediated by inspiration, it leads to a change in attitude
towards the app and brand.
Fan et al. [56] Impact of AR on customer experience Experiment Cognitive load theory AR attributes (environmental embedding and spatial physical
control) reduce the mental effort of the customers and increase
their cognitive fluency, ultimately leading to a positive
attitude towards the brand.
Huang et al. Role of AR in online rapport SEM Self-determination AR modalities, sense of ownership control, and re-
[57] theory, self-evaluation processability positively influence rapport experience.
theory
Hilken et al. How social AR supports shared decision- Experiment Socially situated AR, allowing point of view and communicative acts, enables
[52] making cognition theory the recommender to support the decision made. AR also
empowers the recommender by facilitating recommendation
comfort.
Hinsch et al. How AR can inspire users SEM Inspiration theory Nostalgia plays a mediating role in AR triggered inspiration
[46] process.
Barhorst et al. Role of AR attributes (interactivity, Experiment Flow theory AR generates a flow experience, ultimately leading to
[20] vividness, and novelty) on customer satisfaction with the AR experience.
experience
Qin et al. [58] Impact of AR (interactivity and virtuality) SEM SOR AR characteristics (Interactivity and virtuality) positively
on consumer decision-making influence the cognitive and affective response, ultimately
leading to behavioral intentions.
Mishra et al. How do consumers’ responses vary Experiment TAM, vividness theory AR is easier to use, and the user will prefer AR for hedonic over
[14] between different interfaces (multisensory utilitarian products when products and services are presented
and haptic) and the product types in visually appealing and vivid formats in online stores.
Nikhashemi Impact of AR attributes (interactivity, SEM Uses and gratification AR characteristics influence the utilitarian and hedonic
et al. [59] vividness and augmentation quality) on (UGT), SOR benefits of the consumers, leading to engagement and
continued intention to use psychological inspiration.
Sun et al. (2022) Impact of AR product display on product Experiment Theory of uncertainty AR can decrease product quality and fit uncertainty by
attitude reduction enhancing perceived informativeness, sensation of presence,
and mental imagery.
Gatter et al. [54] AR and need for touch Experiment UGT AR satisfies the need for touch; however, when customers with
a high need for touch actually use AR, hedonistic rewards
outweigh utilitarian ones.
Pozharliev et al. Impact of AR on advertising Experiment Processing fluency AR advertising generates higher physiological response than
[60] traditional media.
von der Au et al. Understanding of the physical context in Experiment Processing fluency, A matching usage context leads to increased plausibility
[1] which AR is used plausibility, presence perceptions yet lower levels of local presence.
Rauschnabel Understanding how AR can create brand Experiment and Metaphor theory, AR creates a sort of “physical closeness” between a consumer
et al. (2024) love through closeness survey information processing, and a brand. This spatial proximity in turn influences
brand love consumer–brand relationships, particularly brand love. AR is
more effective at creating closeness (and thus brand love)
when consumers are already familiar with a brand.
This study Developing a theoretical framework for AR Qualitative Means-end chain (MEC) We provide comprehensive list of AR attributes, benefits,
marketing (laddering) theory values, their interrelationship and relative importance. We
also provide the sensory, efficiency, assessment, and discovery
benefits (SEAD) framework for AR benefits and status,
achievement, lifestyle, economy, and safety (SALES) for
values.
3
confidence [53], decision comfort [18], inspiration [15,25], and fun the context of AR game (Pokémon Go) use among gamers (N = 34)
[20] while reducing the perceived level of risk [49]. Thus, AR marketing within a healthcare setting. Although their study provided interesting
offers the opportunity to combine the benefits of physical and virtual insights into the social nature of this game, the findings may not be
shopping by blending realistic versions of product displays into con applicable to the marketing context, particularly retailing. Similarly,
sumers’ personal environments [54]. However, these benefits have been Teh et al. [75] used the MEC lens to assess AR in an offline retail setting
studied only in a somewhat haphazard and fragmented manner (see with 15 respondents. Consumers visited a physical store and received
Table 1). additional information about products through AR features, such as
Moreover, few studies have explored the interrelationships between virtual mirrors, which are essentially large screens on which consumers
the unique technical characteristics of AR and consumer benefits [27]. can see themselves wearing different clothes. However, their implica
In addition, technical characteristics alone do not explain why users do tions are unique to the brick-and-mortar context and the value of an
what they do. Instead, the answer lies in the user benefits and personal improved customer experience in a physical store, and the insights
values that they satisfy [32]. For instance, while consumers tend to might not be fully applicable to AR shopping apps that consumers can
prefer AR over non-AR because it is more enjoyable, it remains unclear use anywhere, not just in a specific store. Overall, these studies indicate
which AR characteristics contribute to this increased enjoyment, or why that MEC is a promising theoretical lens for understanding consumer
enjoyment itself is important to certain consumers. Therefore, investi goal structure in relation to AR use.
gating consumer benefits and motivational values might provide a more
comprehensive understanding of why people use AR and what cus 2.5. Summary and relevance to this research
tomers want from their AR experiences.
Regarding theory, the literature has generally applied existing the To summarize MEC logic as it pertains to AR in marketing in a
ories from IS and marketing. For example, to explain specific user re retailing context specifically, we offer the following example: Con
actions, various studies have used, among others, the technology sumers may benefit from AR because they can experience a product (e.
acceptance model [50,61], cognitive load theory (Fan et al., 2019), g., a couch) in its anticipated location (e.g., a living room). This benefit
situated cognition theory [18], spillover theory [13], theory of inter is the result of the technology’s ability to embed virtual content into a
active media effects [62], self-determination theory [57], physical context—a characteristic specific to AR (see Section 2.2.1). By
stimuli-organism-response (SOR) theory [11], and mental imagery [17]. knowing how a product will appear in its target location, consumers can
Table 1 summarizes the key papers in these areas. Our research takes a make better purchasing decisions and ensure that the product satisfies
more consolidated approach towards building an understanding of their goal (i.e., value) of self-expression. Constructing such complex
consumer behavior in the domain of AR marketing from the ground up relationships with other theoretical and methodological approaches
by focusing on the linkages and interrelationships between the charac requires a priori and in-depth knowledge of potential variables in all
teristics of AR, perceived user benefits, and the achieved end-goal values three categories, including their existence, definitions, relationships,
of consumers. and measurement models, which do not currently exist. MEC theory—in
combination with the laddering technique discussed in Section 3.1—is
2.4. Means-end chain (MEC) theory suitable for this type of research, and its usefulness has been demon
strated in the media and technology literature [34–36,69,70,73,76]. The
Rooted in the expectancy-value literature, means-ends chain (MEC) results of this study are intended to serve as a starting point from which
theory is an influential approach to studying marketing and media future studies can launch additional theory-testing investigations using
phenomena (e.g., [33,63–66]). At its core, MEC theory postulates that a variety of methods.
consumers’ goal-oriented purchase decisions reflect specific individual
goals (i.e., achieving expected benefits and values from the purchase). 3. Main study: MEC analysis
MEC theory argues for three interrelated cognitive categories of matter:
concrete attributes (of the product), abstract consequences (i.e., benefits 3.1. Laddering technique
derived), and even more abstract motivational values (i.e., personal
goals; cf. [31–33,67]). As Pieters et al. [37] observed, “the consumption Although MEC theory is not restricted methodologically [64], the
of products is ultimately a means to achieving important values to the qualitative in-depth laddering technique remains the most prominent
domain of goal-oriented consumer behavior” (p. 228); therefore, un methodological approach associated with it [31]. Following the litera
derstanding these underlying higher-order values is essential to the ture [31,33], we first asked participants, “What attributes make AR
formation of a detailed theory of consumer behavior. Values represent preferable for shopping?” We then probed them repeatedly with the
the “ends” and “constitute an explicit or implicit conception of ideals, question, “Why is that important to you?” The why question moves
characteristic of the individual concerned, which controls the choice of a participants “up the ladder” from the tangible attribute to the benefits
particular mode, instrument (means), and goal (end) of conduct” ([68], and, finally, to the abstract value level [33]. Thus, laddering interviews
p. 98), while product attributes, such as color, shape, or size, represent support eliciting the mental maps of users and their decision-making
the means. According to MEC theory, when making a purchase decision, processes [31]. Furthermore, rather than forcing interviewees to
consumers evaluate how the characteristics or attributes of a con respond to prespecified categories, laddering allows participants to
sumption object (e.g., product) will result in certain benefits (e.g., effi define attributes, benefits, and values in their own words [77]. Finally,
ciency improvements) that eventually help them achieve their personal laddering facilitates the conversion of qualitative data (verbatim quotes
values (e.g., economic values). According to Choi [67], “These three from participants) into quantitative data (frequencies and associations).
levels of the MEC—attributes, benefits, and values—are hierarchically This process enables the aggregation of participants’ cognitive struc
structured in that product’s attributes gain personal relevance and tures, often termed the “dominant way of thinking” [32].
meaning for consumers” (p. 404). Laddering approaches may be hard or soft: hard laddering involves a
Using MEC theory is a powerful approach to building theoretical structured questionnaire that includes open-ended questions to be filled
knowledge about contemporary marketing topics and human–computer out by participants (e.g., in large-scale surveys; [78]), while soft lad
interaction, such as online shopping [36,69], mobile payment [70], dering uses one-on-one interviews that promote in-depth conversation
sustainable consumption [71], social media [72], electronic word of and enable concept clarification [31]. Given that AR is new to many
mouth [69], and VR for training [73]. Thus, it shows promise for consumers, participants might have difficulty articulating abstract ex
building theory related to AR, although only a few AR studies have used periences because relevant terminologies (e.g., contextual embedding)
it. Among the few exceptions are Ku et al. [74], who used MEC theory in might not yet be established in consumer language. This consideration
4
Fig. 1. Laddering process.
was the core reason for choosing soft laddering in this study. Fig. 1 perception clearly, we employed techniques suggested by Reynolds and
summarizes our laddering approach. Gutman [31], such as prompting the participants to think of a situation
when there was no AR, offering a third-party perspective, or remaining
silent to induce participants to think about a clear answer.
3.2. Sampling and data collection
One strength of laddering is the production of rich data from rela 3.3. Data analysis and findings
tively small sample of informants [72]. Therefore, rather than specifying
a minimum number of respondents, as is typical of quantitative meth We followed Grunert and Grunert [83] and performed three stages of
odologies, the laddering literature recommends that sample size be analysis: (1) content analysis of interviews to identify themes, (2) the
determined by the criterion of theoretical saturation, which is achieved creation of an implication matrix to observe associations between
once additional interviews do not produce any new insights [79]. The themes, and (3) visualization of the findings in an HVM to complete the
laddering methodology literature typically suggests 20 as a rule of laddering analysis (see Fig. 1).
thumb for the minimum sample size (e.g., N = 30 in [80]; N = 24 in [72];
N = 30 in [81]; N = 14 in [82]). We achieved theoretical saturation after 3.3.1. Content analysis
approximately 25 interviews, and conducted 11 additional interviews to The first author transcribed and coded the interviews, and the
ensure that other demographic groups or specific apps did not generate transcripts were then shared with two other coders, who also developed
new insights, and then stopped data collection. Thus, the final sample codes and value (association) chains individually. All three versions of
included 36 interviews. the codes and chains were compared and discussed until agreement was
In early 2022, using purposive sampling, 17 female and 19 male AR reached. In total, we identified 38 codes, including nine attributes (e.g.,
users (N = 36) from online communities participated in online in contextualization and visualization), 16 consequences, i.e., benefits (e.
terviews lasting between 25 and 90 min (M = 40 min). Our sample g., perceived tangibility and sense of feel and touch), and 13 values (e.g.,
comprised consumers who had used AR product visualizers while self-expression and sense of achievement). We adopted existing termi
shopping on at least three occasions in the preceding three months. To nology from the AR marketing literature and, in cases where this was not
validate their qualifications, we asked them various questions about the possible, we adopted terms from other fields or developed new ones
apps they used (e.g., the app name and product bought). To reduce the based on the interview materials. The details of the codes are listed in
threat of systematic biases through homogeneous consumer groups or Appendix C.
investigated product categories, our sample included respondents from As noted above, two additional coders independently coded a sub
different regions (North America, Europe, and Asia) and products from sample of the transcripts [84], which ensured the validity of the coding
different categories (e.g., food, clothing, accessories, electronics, and results. Here, we obtained a Cohen’s kappa of 0.86, which is considered
home decor). Appendix A provides detailed sample characteristics. “excellent” [85]. Furthermore, we asked three participants to check
We began the interviews by briefing the participants about AR and their transcripts and chains. The participants confirmed that the analysis
the purpose of the study. We also explained that we intended to probe reflected their perspectives fairly.
them repeatedly with the question, “Why is that important to you?” We
first asked participants to recall their most recent AR shopping experi 3.3.2. Laddering and implication matrix
ence and whether they preferred AR shopping versus traditional online To develop the implication matrix and HVM, we used LadderUX
or off-line modes [32,34,35,69,80,81]. Based on whether they answered (ladderux.org; [70]), which considers the frequency of the association
yes or no, we probed them further about the reason for their preference. between one code and another (i.e., a linkage and its frequency). Across
Next, we asked them to mention the AR attributes that make AR shop ladders and respondents, these frequencies were used to construct an
ping preferable. We then probed the importance of each attribute until implication matrix. We developed 162 ladders with 732 links (direct =
the participants disclosed the underlying core values that were satisfied. 398; indirect = 334). A ladder refers to a single value chain that connects
By following this protocol, we elicited participants’ perceptions of AR the attributes to the values stated by a participant, whereas a direct link
use for shopping. When participants found it difficult to describe a refers to the connection between two codes without any additional
5
element between them, and an indirect link refers to connections be higher sense of perceived aesthetics and inspiration, respectively, which
tween codes that have an intervening element. The average number of were important for users to achieve better choice-making, value for
ladders per respondent was 4.50, while the average number of elements money, and perceived product fit. These benefits are critical for satis
per ladder was 3.44. Appendix D shows the implication matrix. fying the underlying values of lifestyle, status and social influence, and
We set the cutoff values of five direct relationships at the attribute security and safety. Third, shareability also facilitated inspiration,
and consequence levels and four at the value level. That is, we consid thereby reducing “fear of missing out” (colloquially abbreviated as
ered only those links that were repeated across the interviews at least FOMO) and adding to the sense of safety. The fourth important route
five times at the attribute and consequence levels and four times at the originated from portability and led to saving time and increasing pro
value level. Consequently, nine of the 38 codes were removed. The ductivity, thus satisfying economic values. Finally, the fifth theme
cutoff level reduced complexity while avoiding information loss, and we emerged from reality congruence: consumers experiencing better value
selected the cutoff level that led to the most informative and interpret for money and a sense of accomplishment.
able solution [31]. As a rule of thumb, the selected linkages should
correspond to two-thirds of all the linkages in an implication matrix [31, 4. Discussion: the attributes, benefits, and values of augmented
37]. These results are in close agreement with the rule and closely follow reality
influential studies in the domain [63,72,80,81,86,87].
Next, we referred to the in and out degrees of the codes (see In this section, we present and discuss the various attributes, con
Appendix D) to better understand the position of attributes, conse sequences, and values reported by AR users and the dominant pathways
quences, and values in the hierarchical structure. The in degree is the between them. Appendix C summarizes all identified nodes with
column sum depicting the number of times a specific code is the desti exemplary verbatim quotes, frequencies of occurrence, and related work
nation for other codes (Appendix D, last row). The out degree is the row (if any).
sum, which depicts the number of times the code is the origin of other
codes (Appendix D, last column). Using sum-in and sum-out, we calcu
lated the index of abstractness (see Appendix B), and the abstractness 4.1. Augmented reality attributes
values confirmed that the revealed attributes, consequences, and values
were consistent with the hierarchical structure proposed by MEC theory. Attributes refer to the specific characteristics of an app that explain
We also computed an index of centrality that measured the frequency of why respondents prefer using AR-based shopping over traditional online
the occurrence of each element in linkages with other elements (see shopping. Conceptually, these attributes reflect and extend the attri
Appendix B). For example, better choice-making (0.114), perceived butes discussed in Section 2. In total, we identified eight unique AR
tangibility (0.07), and value for money (0.062) emerged as the most attributes, four of which are fairly new in the AR literature—custom
central concepts. Finally, we computed an index of prestige (see ization [50], reality congruence [47], interactivity [16], and informa
Appendix B), which indicated the extent to which a particular concept tiveness [50]. Notably, we found other important AR attributes, such as
was the destination of connections with other concepts (for details, see assortment contextualization and portability, which were relevant to the
[37]). respondents. They have been studied in other retail contexts (Zimmer
man & Opperman, 2007; [88]) but not in relation to AR.
3.3.3. Hierarchical value map (HVM) Assortment refers to the depth and breadth of the products/services
Based on the implication matrix, we developed an HVM that offered ([89]; Borle et al., 2005; [90]). The participants reported that
graphically represents the most dominant MECs (Fig. 2). The HVM is they could try many more products using AR compared to traditional
displayed as a tree diagram with the hierarchical level of the elements online and off-line shopping, which was a key reason for selecting a
(from left to right), their relationships (arrows), and the strength of the retailer. The significance of breadth and depth (i.e., variety) for con
links (arrow thickness). We found five dominant pathways in the HVM: sumer behavior has been widely discussed ([89]; Borle et al., 2005;
the first and second—assortment and contextualization—facilitated a [91]); for instance, Simonson [92] suggested that a larger assortment
supports better choice-making, which aligns with our findings. In
Fig. 2. Hierarchical value map (HVM): AR attributes, benefits, and values.

Note: Icons indicate the broader category.
6
traditional online shopping, participants cannot try a product, while in 4.2. Augmented reality consequences (benefits)
physical stores, they can try only a few samples due to limited time,
energy, or availability; however, AR makes it much easier to try a large Our interviews generated a list of 12 AR benefits that interviewees
variety of options with minimal effort. Thus, AR allows participants to reported as being associated with one or more of the attributes listed
check the perceived aesthetics of multiple options while trying out above (Appendix C). The analysis revealed that better choice-making was
products in new and more efficient ways. This attribute emerged as the most important benefit of AR, followed by value for money,
extremely important (see Appendix B). perceived aesthetics, inspiration, and perceived product fit (Fig. 2).
Contextualization is the “process of putting the information into the We categorized perceived tangibility and perceived aesthetics as
context (situation/location)” [93]. Users felt that merely looking at a 2D important sensory benefits. Participants noted that AR satisfied their
picture was not sufficient to make an informed decision [94], but AR need to feel and touch; this helped them sense quality and fit, thereby
superimposes a virtual object onto the body (on-body AR) or sur enabling easier decision-making. Intangibility often creates difficulty
rounding environment (in-room AR) to provide real-time contextual during consumer decision-making [105], which is remedied by AR at
information [1,2,44]. Participants reported that this level of contextu tributes such as interactivity and contextualization. These findings also
alization was not possible in traditional online shopping and aided the align with the literature, which posits that AR fulfills the need for touch
hedonistic side of buying (Zimmermann & Oppermann, 2007). during the shopping experience [54]. Similarly, AR allowed participants
Furthermore, when shopping in a physical store, contextualization is to perceive the aesthetics of products through AR. Users were able to
possible only for a few product categories, such as makeup and wrist evaluate the fit and appearance of virtual objects through contextuali
watches, but not for products such as furniture, carpets, or LED TVs. zation and assortment, thereby enabling better choice-making and
Together with assortment, contextualization helps users obtain the assessment of fit. The extant literature validates our findings [106], and
benefits of perceived aesthetics and inspiration. Contextualization is a authors such as Wagner [107] have concluded that the sense of the
key component of IS technologies [95] and can influence consumer stimulus (in this case, a virtual product augmented using AR) results in
behavior significanlty [96]. higher satisfaction with the service experience. Overall, AR offers the
Portability refers to the measure of ease associated with transferring benefits of perceived tangibility and perceived aesthetics, which were
an object virtually from one location to another [97]. Several partici mentioned in the interviews 10 and 30 times, respectively (see
pants reported that IKEA’s AR try-on made them feel like the furniture Appendix C).
had been ported into their room in reality. They were able to augment Respondents mentioned several other benefits of AR-based shopping,
the furniture and home decor products onto their surrounding envi including time saving, cost saving, increased productivity, value for money,
ronment to check their appearance in multiple settings, thus allowing and perceived product worth. These benefits are related to the core mar
portability. Such portability is an important attribute of IS [88] that keting utilities of time, place, and form and are central to the concept of
saves time and increases productivity [97], and it serves as a precursor perceived value that consumers use in their choice decisions [108,109].
to contextualization. Portability was perceived to be useful for saving In line with prior research, AR seems to outperform traditional e-com
time and improving productivity, whereas contextualization provided merce in terms of allowing users to get a better idea of measurements,
consumers with new ideas (inspiration) and perceived tangibility visualize options, estimate their worth, and minimize cost, time, and
(Fig. 2). effort, which can potentially reduce product returns (see illustrative
We identified shareability as another important AR attribute. Studies quotes in Appendix C), thus further minimizing cost, time, and effort.
in retailing find that social factors and grouping significantly influence These findings corroborate studies whose authors posit that time,
buying decisions [98,99], and novel AR technology allows users to share money, productivity, and worth are important efficiency indicators for
their try-on experiences with others in real time for the purpose of consumers [109–112].
receiving product recommendations and engaging in shared Respondents also mentioned that they benefited from reduced risk,
decision-making. Although such experiences occur in traditional online better choice-making, decision comfort, and perceived product fit,
shopping, users can only view 2D pictures of a product. By putting a which reassured them about their decisions [18,113]. Users felt that the
product into the desired context [1], AR creates a better and easier social perceived aesthetics offered by AR helped them choose the product that
shopping experience by, for example, allowing an individual to ask for best fit their needs, as AR allowed them to move the virtual product to a
recommendations by sharing pictures of sunglasses and trying different real environment where they could compare various options and better
styles using AR. sense perceived product fit for better choice-making and choice brack
The following attributes, discussed previously in the AR literature, eting [114]. This result is consistent with Higgins’s [115] finding that
were also reported by our participants. First, participants considered perceived product fit and the feeling of better choice-making heightens
reality congruence (the extent to which a virtual object matches a real the value of a goal’s pursuit. The informativeness attribute of AR reduces
object) an important attribute [47]. Some said that the realistic pre the risk associated with products before purchase, which aligns with
sentation of food informed perceived product worth and, ultimately, its previous work on perceived risk [29,49,116]. Next, we identified deci
value for money. This finding aligns with studies on atmospheric stimuli sion comfort; participants reported that AR enhanced their shopping
that discuss the impact that sensory congruent cues have on shoppers experience by making it easier to choose the right product and reducing
[100]. Second, participants recognized interactivity as an important the cognitive burden incurred when identifying the best product against
attribute that is built through the technology’s communication capa a choice of alternatives to sacrifice. These findings corroborate those of
bility to enable users to interact more easily with and be involved with Parker et al. [117] and Song et al. [94] regarding decision comfort.
content in one-to-one and many-to-many formats, which enables Finally, many respondents used AR-based shopping for inspiration to
perceived tangibility and thereby enhances decision comfort [50,101]. experiment with more ideas for using products, such as evaluating
Informativeness was another important AR attribute related to the different themes, color combinations, and suitability for their person
amount of relevant information provided about the product, corrobo alities (cf. [118,119]). The respondents mentioned that such inspiration
rating previous work [102,103]. Informativeness allows users to reduce also reduced FOMO, which is discussed frequently in the social media
risk before purchasing, thus providing additional decision comfort. context [120,121]. AR also allowed participants to explore options
Finally, customization (i.e., the process and degree of adaptation ac before making decisions, thereby enabling better choice-making and
cording to the individual user’s specifications or preferences; [104] decision comfort. Other research has also discussed these discovery
enabled participants to better assess product worth. benefits (e.g., inspiration; see [46,25,15]).
7
4.3. Values achievend through augmented reality personal efficacy” [129,130]. Our respondents reported that shopping
without depending on salespersons satisfied their need for autonomy,
According to Pieters et al. [37], the objective of MEC theory is to independence or self-direction [131].
understand what makes a product specifically relevant to a consumer by Finally, participants mentioned economic value, which they linked to
“modelling the perceived relationships between a product (defined as a increased portability, subsequent time savings, and productivity gains
collection of attributes) and a consumer (regarded as a holder of values)” afforded by AR. The participants’ efficiency values were met because
(p. 230). MEC analysis revealed several values that motivate AR users to visualizing several products in one’s environment reduced shopping and
seek specific benefits. The categorization of codes as attributes, benefits, decision-making time while increasing decision quality [132]. As a
and values was conducted based on the sum-in and sum-out scores in the desired value, economic value reflects the need for economic prosperity
implication matrix. Appendix B presents the abstractness scores of all [133] or a preference for “economy over convenience” [132]. Theoret
items. Attributes report near-zero abstractness scores, while values ically, it is similar to definitions used for power in terms of a need for
report near-one scores; the middle range comprises benefits. control over material and resources [134] or an individual’s need to live
First, status and social influence emerged as important consumer a better life or be better off financially [80]. Notably, the sense of
values. Multiple researchers have recognized the need for social status, achievement value is driven more by emotional gratification; in
prestige, and power as core human values [82,122]. Our respondents contrast, economic value is focused more on monetary considerations
reported that AR’s greater assortment and contextualization allowed and practicality.
them to better understand a product’s aesthetics and product choices,
which satisfied their need for social status and prestige (see Appendix C 5. Follow-up study: towards a practical taxonomy of benefits
for an illustrative quote). and values
Another emergent end-state value is security [80,122]. Respondents
reported reduced product risk and a higher perception of tangibility as 5.1. Objectives
benefits of using AR while shopping. These benefits led to higher deci
sion comfort, which made them feel more secure and less vulnerable The MEC literature typically reports HVM findings using a concept
[123]. Through interactivity and informativeness, AR reduces purchase map (see Fig. 2), which offers valuable insights into how attributes
risk, and users feel more secure in their choices [53]. Our respondents translate into values (through benefits); however, as constructs and
also reported feeling more secure and experiencing reduced post ladders increase, so does the complexity of the concept map. Managers
purchase regret when using AR. For instance, assortment and contex and scholars interested in AR might benefit from a simpler taxonomy of
tualization triggered inspiration, which reduced the FOMO associated benefits and values that can answer the questions “How can consumers
with an abundance of available options and increased choice content benefit from AR?” and “To which consumer goals can AR contribute?”
ment (i.e., it reduced postpurchase regret; Fig. 2). This finding suggests Thus, grouping multiple benefits into larger categories increases the
that shoppers experience reservations and uncertainties about making a practical and theoretical implications of the research. For group values,
“wrong” purchase in the case of internet purchases. For example, Xu this is accomplished in one of two ways. The first approach is correla
et al. [124] reported that cross-border e-commerce customers identified tional, such as by grouping variables based on similarities in their re
security as the most important value in that context. lationships within the HVM. This procedure, however, would be
Respondents also reported that a better sense of aesthetics and predominantly a more condensed form of HVM. A second approach is to
inspiration to try different looks and configurations led to the perception classify the nodes more “generically,” based on their meanings, inde
that they were buying a product that better fit their personalities. This pendent from the HVM, and we chose this second approach because it
perception enhanced their self-confidence about their identities [125], complements the HVM. HVM ladders exclusively link attributes to
their need for self-expression [126], and their desire to express their values; however, scholars and managers might also be interested in
preference for certain lifestyle choices. These self-expression values generic categories of benefits and values that they can use in their work.
[127] were the third type of end-state value that emerged from the Therefore, this follow-up study aims to develop such a taxonomy.
participant narratives.
The next set of underlying values was related to a sense of achieve 5.2. Methodology
ment, defined as “demonstrated competence according to social stan
dards” (Schwarz & Cieciuch, 2022, p. 1007). According to the We started by grouping the benefits and values based on conceptual
participants, the attributes of portability, customization, and reality similarities independent of the identified chains [135]. That is, rather
congruence provided the real benefits of saving time and increasing than grouping by correlation (e.g., grouping two factors that appear
productivity. These attributes enhanced the perception that the product together frequently), we grouped them based on conceptual character
purchased was “worth it” in terms of value for money. All of this created istics. Per discussions in the group and going back and forth between
a sense of obtaining a “good deal” and satisfied our respondents’ interview materials, prior research, and our interpretations [136], we
achievement motives [80]. Interestingly, our respondents reported that identified four groups of benefits (SEAD) and five groups of values
while saving time and increasing productivity satisfied their economic (SALES), as discussed later.
value, perceived product worth and value for money satisfied their sense To validate the assignment of benefits and values into broader cat
of achievement (Fig. 2). Respondents reported that obtaining the benefit egories, we applied an established procedure from the qualitative
of “value for money,” in turn, satisfied a sense of accomplishment in literature: a sorting task.1 Card sorting is a qualitative research method
terms of “getting a good deal.” In other words, using AR helped the used to group, label, and describe information based on feedback from
respondents obtain a “bargain” or “value for money” for their purchase, customers or users. Through an international research agency, we sur
which satisfied their need for a sense of competence or achievement. veyed 411 adults (male = 292, female = 119 average age of 37 years)
Similarly, in their study of the end-state values of customers in different who had bought something using AR apps within the last three months
types of restaurants, Ha and Jang [128] distinguished “economy,” as a and who were familiar with AR technology. Since sorting tasks require
value satisfied by low prices, from “success,” as a value that is satisfied high cognitive effort among respondents, respondents sorted either
by saving time, which can then be used in studying or working, leading benefits (n = 208) or values (n = 203). We asked about the benefit of
to increased success. using a “typical” AR shopping app, such as IKEA or Sephora (which were
Feelings of decision comfort [18] and reduced risk also led to feelings
of empowerment. Self-empowerment has been defined as the “process
by which people gain control over their lives with a strong sense of 1
We thank the associate editor for this suggestion.
8
mentioned frequently in the main study). The question provided four as inspiration (e.g., [15]), and integrating them into a broader con
options representing broader categories to which the benefits belonged, text—the link between AR characteristics and values.
and respondents were asked to select the most appropriate category for The comprehensive model also extends prior work from a value
each benefit. We applied the same procedure for status, achievement, perspective, specifically extant research grounded in uses and gratifi
lifestyle, economy, and safety (SALES). Since respondents assigned the cations or technology acceptance research, which has revealed the
constructs to the proposed categories (see Appendixes E and F for de importance of utilitarian benefits—a construct that covers how “useful”
tails), the results validated our classification (See Appendixes E & F). or “practical” consumers consider an AR app (e.g., [47,137]). Our study
Fig. 3 summarizes the taxonomies into sensory, efficiency, assessment, extends these findings through the additional explanation of why some
and discovery benefits (SEAD) and the values into SALES. apps are more or less useful than others, for example, by proposing time
savings as a specific benefit, thereby contributing significantly to the IS
6. General discussion literature. The same appears for hedonic benefits, such as aesthetics and
inspiration [15]. From a broader perspective, the authors deduce two
Although AR marketing has received significant attention in recent subframeworks, SEAD (benefits) and SALES (values), which group
years [28,40,52] the literature is dominated by work that applies certain variables into broader categories. As shown in Fig. 4, the
existing theories to AR rather than developing theoretical frameworks framework can be used in a parsimonious way to explain how AR
for the unique context of AR. The current research aims to address this marketing impacts value. These benefit and value categories may serve
gap in the literature using a theory-building approach. More specifically, as generic sets of variables for researchers to include in their theories.
by building on MEC theory and applying the laddering technique, we Overall, this research enhances existing understandings of AR technol
propose a theoretical framework that shows how specific AR charac ogy use behavior and provides a framework to guide future research in
teristics trigger benefits that subsequently contribute to consumers’ this area.
values. Specifically, we have identified contextualization, assortment Second, the current study complements prior research by examining
and portability as new constructs while replicating existing AR charac values. Most prior studies in AR marketing assess how AR drives specific
teristics, including interactivity, socialization, customization, informa marketing outcomes [25,49,54,55,58,138,139], such as purchase in
tiveness, and reality congruence. We have also demonstrated which tentions [1,18], word of mouth [140], willingness to pay a premium
benefits consumers receive through these characteristics, which we price [59], brand love [141], or changes in brand attitudes [25,15]. We
classify as SEAD. These benefits, in turn, contribute to consumers’ complement the extant research landscape by considering the general
values, particularly the nine different values that we clustered as SALES. values that consumers pursue during the AR shopping process. Such
These findings reveal how AR and its unique characteristics contribute values are of high theoretical interest since they are considered the
to the creation of consumer value; moreover, they contribute to AR prime determinants of users’ actions and behavior [31,142], and might
marketing theory and generate implications for managerial practice, as be potentially crucial in building long-term relationships.
discussed below. Third, this study contributes most prominently to the online retailing
discipline by identifying the benefits and values relevant to retailing. For
6.1. Theoretical contributions years, retailing scholars have recognized the potential of AR [113] and
its relevance to the retailing discipline’s aim to develop solutions for
This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by pre practical problems, such as high product returns or store loyalty. By
senting a comprehensive framework that elucidates how newly identi showing how AR features may increase assessment benefits (e.g., better
fied and established AR characteristics impact consumer values through product assessments might reduce product returns) or certain other
specific benefits. This framework is underpinned in the MEC literature benefits, this study benefits retail theory. This is particularly relevant
and is established through a rich qualitative study that uses information since WebAR and established AR features in existing shopping apps (e.
from a heterogeneous sample of consumers and product categories. The g., Amazon) might make AR a standard feature, alongside consumer
proposed framework offers a novel theoretical understanding of the reviews and detailed product descriptions, of tomorrow’s retailing
mechanisms by which AR can influence consumer behavior. In partic landscape.
ular, the HVM (Fig. 2) outlines the detailed relationships between spe Finally, our research contributes to the existing body of MEC theory
cific AR characteristics that trigger benefits that contribute to literature, especially in the field of XR. A few prior studies have
consumers’ values. Such a detailed assessment complements prior employed MEC theory and laddering techniques solely to address
research, for example, by replicating certain well-known benefits, such research inquiries, and our investigation provides further evidence of
Fig. 3. The SEAD and SALES frameworks for augmented reality consumer benefits and values.
9
Fig. 4. Theoretical framework for augmented reality marketing (simplified).
this approach’s efficacy in the context of AR technology. Notably, AR large compared to other studies, AR users might be more innovative and
applications are not limited to retailing, and numerous opportunities tech-savvy than average consumers. On the one hand, this is a strength
remain for further advancements in MEC theory within AR and AR since this “bias” might represent common AR users quite well.
marketing. Additionally, although our study uses a soft laddering Furthermore, innovative, and enthusiastic consumers might share richer
approach, which aligns with MEC literature recommendations regarding information in surveys, making it likelier that relevant aspects are
early-stage research [31,142], hard laddering remains a viable alterna covered. However, on the other hand, and as is common in qualitative
tive method that involves generating open-ended surveys that require research, the frequency with which certain aspects were mentioned
coding or checking predefined codes obtained from a priori laddering might not be representative (for a summary of strengths and weaknesses
[78,143,144]. Our findings support this process and should assist other of laddering techniques, see [64,78] Replications and extensions of this
scholars in enhancing their research endeavors. Finally, we contribute to study with other methodologies, such as traditional surveys, or experi
the MEC literature by proposing a means of simplifying complex HVMs mental designs, can help overcome these limitations. For instance,
using categories and sorting tasks, which offer more validity and augmenting large scale MEC-approaches with observational data (e.g.,
simplicity to the HVM and thus facilitate higher adoption. sales, consumer complaints etc.) could generate insights into “profit
able” chains.
6.2. Managerial implications The identified and proposed constructs and their interplay can serve
as a starting point for future studies in validation and extension. In
While AR and consumer behavior are poorly understood among addition, hard laddering can generate further data across large samples
managers [2], the less informed manager can use our findings in the [78], and allow combinations with further variables (e.g., about the
following ways. First, we provide an exhaustive list of AR attributes, user, such as personality, or the usage context, e.g., where the AR
benefits, values, and their interconnections and significance. Thus, application is used) or methodologies (e.g., clustering). Such approaches
managers can design appropriate AR strategies by using these identified can also compare different types of AR use cases, such as in-room vs.
characteristics and benefits as “checklists.” Additionally, strategy and on-body AR. Lastly. It would be worth exploring other foundational
marketing managers can use the identified values and associated bene marketing theories such as service – dominant logic to the new AR
fits as tools for segmentation, targeting, and positioning (STP) strategy projects in conjunction with means end chain theory.
planning. For instance, firms may incorporate the degree to which
certain values are desired by consumers as segmentation variables and 7. Conclusion
deduce the requirements for apps (i.e., specific benefits). Especially
since more and more companies work with “buyer personas” (i.e., spe While there is considerable evidence that AR can create value for
cific, prototypical, yet fictitious consumers), information about values is consumers and businesses, there have been few "AR-specific" theories as
a core interest in many firms. to why this is the case. This research applies MEC theory to provide
Second, high cart abandonment and product return rates are core insights into the unique characteristics of AR and its contribution to
challenges for many online retailers. As an example, globally, half of helping consumers achieve their goals. We hope that this research will
garments purchased online are returned [145], and AR, particularly the inspire future research now and in a "phygital" metaverse and/or spatial
associated assessment benefits, presents a potential solution to this issue computing future where virtual elements can be an integral part of our
through its sensory, assessment, discovery, and efficiency benefits. understanding of reality.
Overall, the consumer goal structures that inform AR use are highly
relevant to IS scientists interested in designing and implanting better AR Funding
technology into internet business marketplaces.
The study was funded by Management Development Institute, Gur
6.3. Limitations and future research directions gaon (India). The Universität der Bundeswehr München (UniBw M) is
kindly covering the Open Access fees.
As any study, this study has some limitations. First, the MEC theory,
in particular when analyzed using laddering techniques, relies on sub Contribution statement
jective, self-reported, and verbalized data as the most common quali
tative approaches. Although our sample of AR users is quite broad and We declare the work is original. All contributions and funding’s have
10
been duly acknowledged. Declaration of competing interest
CRediT authorship contribution statement We declare no conflict of interest.
Harish Kumar: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Acknowledgments

Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Philipp A. Rauschnabel: Conceptualization, Writing – review The authors thank the editorial and review team, as well as the
& editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Visualization. Mad participants, track chairs and reviewers of the 8th international XR/
hushree Nanda Agarwal: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Metaverse conference 2023 in Las Vegas. The authors would also like to
Validation, Data curation. Rajesh Kumar Singh: Supervision, Funding thank Nikhita Tuli, Saurabh Upadhyay, and Dominik Hirschberg for
acquisition, Resources. Ritu Srivastava: Supervision, Funding acquisi valuable comments, support and suggestions. We would like to thank the
tion, Writing – review & editing. Universität der Bundeswehr München for funding the open access fees.
Appendixes
Appendix A Demographic details
ID Age Gender Country Products
1 19 Female USA Furniture

2 20 Female India Cosmetics
4 23 Male India Shoes
5 24 Female India Sunglass
7 24 Female India Paint
8 24 Male Germany Furniture
9 25 Male India Sunglass
13 26 Male India Paint
15 27 Male India Jewelry
18 29 Male Germany Furniture
19 29 Male India Floorings
20 30 Male Denmark Furniture
21 31 Female Iraq Floorings
22 32 Male India Furniture
23 32 Female India Sunglasses
24 32 Male Pakistan Cosmetics
25 34 Female Ireland Sunglasses
27 35 Male Portugal Shoes
28 35 Female India TV
28 36 Male India Interior decor
30 38 Male USA Curtains
33 42 Male USA Food
34 46 Female USA Jewelry
36 49 Female USA Jewelry
Appendix B Relative importance of codes
Code In degree Out degree Sum-in/out degree Centrality Abstractness Prestige
1. Assortment 0 38 38 0.048 0.000 0.000

2. Contextualization 0 35 35 0.044 0.000 0.000
3. Portability 0 13 13 0.016 0.000 0.000
4. Interactivity 0 9 9 0.011 0.000 0.000
5. Realistic visualization 0 23 23 0.029 0.000 0.000
6. Customization 1 10 11 0.014 0.091 0.001
7. Informativeness 4 13 17 0.021 0.235 0.005
8. Easy process 0 2 2 0.003 0.000 0.000
9. Shareability 0 8 8 0.010 0.000 0.000
10. Perceived tangibility 8 10 18 0.023 0.444 0.010
11. Amplifying options 7 9 16 0.020 0.438 0.009
(continued on next page)
11
(continued )
Code In degree Out degree Sum-in/out degree Centrality Abstractness Prestige
12. Reduced obligation to buy 2 0 2 0.003 1.000 0.003

13. Perceived aesthetics 17 39 56 0.070 0.304 0.021
14. Time savings 18 23 41 0.052 0.439 0.023
15. Reduced risk 9 9 18 0.023 0.500 0.011
16. Cost-effective 3 6 9 0.011 0.333 0.004
17. Inspiration 26 18 44 0.055 0.591 0.033
18. Collective decision-making 2 2 4 0.005 0.500 0.003
19. Increased productivity 9 15 24 0.030 0.375 0.011
20. Reduced FOMO 8 8 16 0.020 0.500 0.010
21. Perceived product fit 27 21 48 0.060 0.563 0.034
22. Better choice-making 51 40 91 0.114 0.560 0.064
23. Perceived product worth 10 7 17 0.021 0.588 0.013
24. Decision comfort 23 10 33 0.041 0.697 0.029
25. Value for money 33 16 49 0.062 0.673 0.041
26. Economic value 12 1 13 0.016 0.923 0.015
27. Self-expression 20 7 27 0.034 0.741 0.025
28. Thriftiness 6 0 6 0.008 1.000 0.008
29. Reduced postpurchase regret 14 0 14 0.018 1.000 0.018
30. Better lifestyle 12 3 15 0.019 0.800 0.015
31. Safety 7 0 7 0.009 1.000 0.009
32. Work–life balance 4 0 4 0.005 1.000 0.005
33. Social recognition 5 0 5 0.006 1.000 0.006
34. Happiness 7 2 9 0.011 0.778 0.009
35. Social influence 11 1 12 0.015 0.917 0.014
36. Self-confidence 18 0 18 0.023 1.000 0.023
37. Sense of achievement 16 0 16 0.020 1.000 0.020
38. Self-empowerment 8 0 8 0.010 1.000 0.010
398 398 796
Appendix C Identified attributes, benefits, and values (content codes)
Constructs Frequency Definition Verbatim Relevant Relevant literature

literature (AR (general)
marketing)
Attributes
A1. Assortment 38 Depth and breadth of the product/ “I just swipe right or left and see another N/A Oppewal & Koelemeijer [89];
service offered or variety model overlaid. That allowed me to have Borle et al. [146]; Kangas &
more options that are available to me.” Bergeman [90], Simonson
[92]; Ross & Creyer [91].
A2. 35 Process of putting the information into “I get to see with my own eyes how the N/A Jeandrain [93]; Zimmermann
Contextualization the context (situation/location) shoes fit in my feet that were for me very & Oppermann [147];
important and made a huge difference.” Henricksen [95]
A3. Portability 13 Ability to transfer/carry the object from “I had this problem with my furniture and N/A Poole & Waite (1975); Di
one place to another carpets, but you know AR brings them to Martino et al. [88]
your home for your decision comfort.”
A4. Interactivity 9 Technology’s system capability to “Lenskart app allowed me to see the left Yim et al. [16]; Kiousis [101]; Hoffman &
enable users to more easily interact and right side view of my sunglass, which McLean & Wilson Novak [148]
with and be involved with content is a problem while buying off-line.” [50]
A5. Reality 23 Extent to which the augmented product “I ordered my food using ‘KabaQ,’ and its Kowalczuk et al. Helmefalk & Hultén [100]
congruence matches the real product augmentation was too realistic, so I think it [47]
is a much more powerful way than a
photograph would produce.”
A6. Customization 11 Process of tailoring or adapting “Once I scanned my face, it suggested to Mclean & Wilson Lampel & Mintzberg [149];
according to the user’s specifications or me some sunglasses that suits best on me.” [50] Hvam et al. [104]
preferences
A7. Informativeness 13 Amount of relevant information “Best part for me was getting information Kang et al. [103] Goldsmith & Koriat [102]
provided about the product on the options, fitments, quality, and
suitability.”
A8. Easy process/ 2 Being able to try the product with less “It is like fingers play; you swipe right/left McLean & Wilson Kempf & Smith [150]
trial effort/time and change your shoes.” [50]
A9. Shareability 8 Being able to share the experience/ “The deluxe app allowed me to share the Carrozzi et al. Crowston [152]
resources with others simultaneously design with my family member.” [151]
Benefits
C1. Perceived 10 Sense of taste, feel, touch, or smell good “Trying on with AR is very similar to off- Gatter et al. [54] Laroche et al. [105].
tangibility or service’s attributes line shopping for me; you can actually feel
the product.”
C2. Amplifying 9 Screening of different possible “So much variety allowed me to see N/A Renn [153]
options alternatives different permutations and combinations.”
C3. Reduced 2 Consumers’ decision-making under “It’s not just my effort, but it is more the N/A Amirpur & Benlian [154]
obligation to buy pressure situations through persuasion salesperson’s effort. I feel bad if I don’t buy
and influence from the environment after I see them, but with AR try-on, I feel
less obligated.”
12
(continued )
marketing)
C4. Perceived 30 Evaluation/judgment about the fit or “It’s not like medicine; whatever the N/A Goldman [106]; Wagner
aesthetics appearance of the objects in the doctor prescribes, you buy it; I want to be [107]
environment sure before buying how it looks on me.”
C5. Time savings 2 Ability to complete the purchase in less “I don’t have to carry an inch tape to N/A Alreck & Settle [110];
time than the alternative options measure the dimensions for the furniture, Morganosky & Cude [155];
so that saves a lot of time.” Voropanova [109]
C6. Reduced 9 Consumer’s concern about quality and “It has happened to me many times that I Kumar & Jacoby & Kaplan [29];
product risk suitability (e.g., size, fit) of the product ordered something and returned. That’s Srivastava [49] Vonkeman et al. [116]
why I now use AR to confirm the design
and quality.”
C7. Cost savings 5 Ability to complete the purchase at a “Probably, I will first use AR. and then, like N/A Kohli et al. [112]; Wu et al.
lower cost than the alternative options visualize everything and see what would [156]
be my cost estimate basis. I think that saves
a lot of costs.”
C8. Inspiration 25 Mental stimulation of new ideas about “Thanks to the Dulux app, it helped me Rauschnabel et al. Böttger et al. [118]; Thrash
consumption possibilities think about the new way to paint my [25] et al. [119]
room.”
C9. Collective 2 Involvement of two or more people in “So, I shared my makeup pictures with my Hilken et al. [52] Aikenhead [157]
decision-making the decision-making process friends to seek their opinions and what
could be changed.”
C10.Increased 13 Consumers seeking to minimize the “From my experience, I can say that these N/A Voropanova [109]; Atkins &
productivity time/effort/money to gain hedonic or AR apps allow you to see so much variety Kim [111]; Ingene [108]
utilitarian value from the experience at home in a much shorter time. I believe
somehow it increases my productivity.”
C11. Reduced 8 Feeling of being left out or believing “Now I can try more than 50 shoes for me, N/A Przybylski et al. [121]; Abel
FOMO that others have superior experiences, so I am sure I did not miss one made for et al. [120]
knowledge, or possessions me.”
C12. Perceived 25 Degree of congruence between the “Because, of course, in online shopping, it Tan et al. [26] Smith & Andrews [158]; Shen
product fit product and the consumer’s is difficult to find a product that works for [159]
requirements you personally, so I prefer AR.”
C13. Better choice- 48 Most positive consumer evaluation of “I thought the red couch would look fine, Hilken et al. [52] Higgins [115]; Amason [160]
making the goal pursuit among alternatives but I tried it on and found that it looks
horrible with my blue curtains, so I need
another idea, and I think AR can help you.”
C14. Perceived 9 The perceived value of a product “I see one design and then compare Shapiro et al. Dodds [162]
product worth between multiple designs, and then I see; Is [161]
it worth spending that additional four, five
lakhs for this kind of design?”
C15. Decision 19 The degree of psychological (and “Let us say you shopped for cosmetics Song et al. [94] Parker et al. [117]
comfort physiological) ease, contentment, and through Sephora; somehow, you do not
well-being one feels about a specific have to imagine how it would look on me.
decision So, for me, AR certainly makes it easier to
decide among the alternatives.”
C16. Value for 31 The utility that a customer derives from “The more try-on allows me to choose the N/A Pigou [163]; Glendinning
money the product/service in return for the best for me. So I feel that, yeah, I have [164]
economy (money) spent on it spent my money on something
worthwhile.”
Values
V1. Economic value 12 Intrinsic value a customer places on a “You know the schedule is very tight in N/A Lee et al. [165]; Bednar &
good or service, including factors like such jobs; thus, optimum utilization of my Spiekermann [166]
quality, price, brand reputation, 24 h is important for me. I can’t spend 3–4
personal preference, and perceived h on shopping.”
utility
V2. Self-expression 20 Expression of one’s unique identity and “The curtains should match the theme of Yim & Park [21]; Aaker [168]
personal characteristics my bedroom. I mean, it should be in sync Javornik et al.
because your personal space tells a lot [167]
about yourself.”
V3. Thriftiness 6 Using money and other resources “When I say I get to see more option, it N/A Gatersleben et al. [169];
carefully and not wastefully helps me choose the best that fits my Evans [170]
budget.”
V4. Reduced 14 Regret due to foregone alternatives, “I would have selected one or two colors N/A Lee & Cotte [171]; Park & Hill
postpurchase lack of consideration, or not choosing and would have applied that paint on the [172]
regret the right product wall, but there would always be that doubt
in my mind that this color might look
different. Or, there is always a possibility
that there is a scope of improvement. But
with this feature, I’m satisfied that I have
chosen the best out of it.”
V5. Lifestyle value 15 Specific patterns of behavior, activities, “It allows to create much better aesthetic N/A Sobel [173]; Jensen [174]
and consumption choices that align appeal and it’s important for me to show
with one’s preferred way of living other how professional I am.”
V6. Security 7 Keeping oneself free from financial “Being financially safe by saving money N/A Kahle [175]
harm and time is important for me to navigate
the life uncertainties with confidence.”
13
(continued )
marketing)
V7. Work–life 4 Striking a balance between one’s job “The hassle-free shopping experience N/A Guest [176]; Lockwood [177]
balance and personal life saves much time, which makes my life
easier as I have two kids too.”
V8. Social 5 Public acknowledgment of one’s status “Everybody wants the best for them N/A Friedkin [178]
recognition or merits because you know that is when people will
notice you.”
V9. Happiness 9 State of contentment, pleasure, and “I feel happy if I get the right product for N/A Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller
satisfying experience in one’s life as a me.” [179]; Veenhoven, [180]
whole
V10. Social 11 Change in behavior that one person “To see how they look on me is important N/A Cialdini & Goldstein [181]
influence causes in another, intentionally or for me to choose best for me; that’s the way
unintentionally I can create a wow factor in my friend
circle.”
V11. Self- 14 Belief in one’s ability to achieve desired “If I find a good outfit that suits my Yaoyuneyong Bearden et al. [183]
confidence outcomes or positive assessment of personality, then I am confident about et al. [182]
one’s worth/value myself and feel more motivated to go to
the party.”
V12. Sense of 15 The feeling of having done something “By saving money and time in shopping N/A Schwarz & Cieciuch [184]
achievement worthwhile gives me inner satisfaction and a proud
shopper.”
V13. Self- 8 A process by which one gains control “I do not want to shop under the pressure N/A Rappaport [130]; Perkins &
empowerment over their life with a strong sense of of the salesperson, so now AR is the new Zimmerman [129]
personal efficacy salesman for me.”
Appendix D Implication matrix
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Sum-
Out
1. Assortment 4| 3/6 0|2 7/ 0| 7/0 7/2 8/6 0|1 0|1 0/7 0|1 0/7 0|2 0|4 0|2 0|1 0|3 0|4 0|4 0|5 38|59
0 0 1
2. Contextualization 3| 1|0 8|4 1|0 1| 7| 0| 6|2 6|5 1|1 1|4 0|9 0|4 0|2 0|3 0|3 0|3 0|4 0| 35|46
0 0 0 1 1
3. Portability 1|0 11| 0| 0|6 0|1 0| 1|1 0|2 13|19
0 7 2
4. Real-time interactivity 5| 1| 0|1 1|0 0|1 0|6 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 0| 9|17
0 0 5
5. Realistic visualization 4|1 1|2 3| 2|0 1| 2|0 3|2 1|0 4|0 0|7 0|4 0|2 0|2 0|1 0|1 0| 0|1 0|2 0|2 1|2 0| 23|31
0 0 1 1
6. Customization 1| 2|1 0| 4|0 2|1 0|5 1|0 0|2 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|2 10|16
0 1
7. Informativeness 5| 0| 3|0 3|0 0|5 1|3 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 0| 1|0 0|2 13|20
0 1 5
8. Easy process 1| 1|1 0|1 0|2 2|4
0
9. Shareability 0|1 6| 2|0 0|8 0|5 8|14
0
10. Perceived tangibility 2|0 0| 2|1 1|0 5|0 0|2 0|2 0|2 0| 10|13
1 5
11. Amplifying options 0|2 2|0 1|0 0| 1|0 4|0 1|0 0|2 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 9|11
1
12. Reduced obligation to 0|0
buy
13. Perceived aesthetics 0| 4| 0|1 5|0 5|0 6|0 2|2 1|1 2|2 6|0 8|0 39|7
1 0
14. Time savings 9| 3|0 1|0 3|4 1|2 3| 1|1 2|3 23|11
0 1
15. Reduced risk 1|0 5|0 2|0 0|1 0| 0|1 1| 9|7
5 0
16. Cost-effective 1| 1|0 4|0 0| 6|1
0 1
17. More ideas 1|0 1|0 10| 2|0 1|0 1|5 2|1 0|1 0|2 0|5 0|1 0|1 0|1 0|1 18|19
1
18. Collective decision- 2|0 2|0
making
19. More productivity 0|1 2|1 0|1 2|0 5|0 2|0 1| 3|0 15|3
0
20. Reduced FOMO 3|0 1|1 0|1 4|1 0|1 8|4
21. Perceived product fit 1|0 1|0 5|1 6|1 0|2 2|0 0| 1|0 1|3 3|3 0|1 1| 21|12
1 0
14
(continued )
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Sum-
Out
22. Better choice-making 2|0 2|0 13|0 0|4 5|0 6|1 5|0 2|1 0|2 0|3 1|0 3|2 1| 40|13
0
23. Perceived product 5|0 0|1 1|1 0| 1|0 0| 7|4
worth 1 1
24. Decision comfort 0|1 0|1 5| 5| 10|2
0 0
25. Value for money 4|0 2|0 1|0 2|0 1| 1|0 5|0 16|1
1
26. Economic value 1| 1|0
0
27. Self-expression 2|0 1|0 3|0 1|0 7|0
28. Thriftiness 0|0
29. Reduced post purchase 0|0
regret
30. Better lifestyle 3|0 3|0
31. Security 0|0
32. Work–life balance 0|0
33. Social recognition 0|0
34. Happiness 1|0 1|0 2|0
35. Social influence 1|0 1|0
36. Self-confidence 0|0
37. Sense of achievement 0|0
38. Self-empowerment 0|0
Sum-In 7| 2| 17| 18| 9|1 3| 26| 2| 9| 8| 27| 51| 10| 23| 33| 12| 20| 6| 14| 12| 7| 4| 5| 7| 11| 18| 16| 8|
0 0 15 4 2 0 1 13 0 5 26 2 13 35 22 25 10 19 28 14 4 8 14 18 18 24 13
Note: For 4|0 against Code 1. Assortment for the vertical label 11 means that assortment led to amplifying the options 4 times directly and 0 time indirectly. Sum-out
scores of assortment 38|59 depict the number of times assortment is the origin for other variables regarding direct (38) and indirect relationships (59). The sum-in score
(7|0) for assortment depicts the number of times the variable is the destination for other variables directly or indirectly.
Appendix E Card sorting results for SEAD benefits
Benefits Sensory Efficiency Assessment Discovery
Perceived Tangibility 165 (79 %) 9 (4.3 %) 27 (13 %) 7 (3.4 %)

Perceived Aesthetics 128 (61 %) 11 (5.3 %) 58 (28 %) 11 (5.3 %)
Time saving 14 (7 %) 168 (80.8 %) 18 (8.7 %) 8 (3.8 %)
Reduced Product risk 50 (24 %) 20 (9.6) 112 (54 %) 27 (13 %)
Inspiration 46 (22 %) 9 (4.3 %) 23 (11 %) 130 (62.5 %)
Increased Productivity 9 (4.3 %) 161 (77.8 %) 25 (12 %) 12 (5.8 %)
Reduced FOMO 22 (10 %) 24 (11.5 %) 56 (27 %) 126 (50.4 %)
Perceived Product Fit 46 (22 %) 18 (8 %) 123 (59 %) 21 (10 %)
Better Choice Making 11 (5.3 %) 28 (13 %) 143 (68.7 %) 26 (12.5 %)
Perceived Product Worth 18 (8 %) 153 (73.5 %) 28 (13.4 %) 9 (4.3 %)
Decision Comfort 45 (21.6 %) 20 (9.6 %) 114 (57 %) 24 (11.5 %)
Value for Money 12 (5.8 %) 108 (51.5 %) 75 (36.1 %) 13 (6.3 %)
Appendix F Card sorting results for SALES values
Values Safety Achievement Lifestyle Economy Status
Economy value 10 (4.9 %) 8 (3.9 %) 28 (13.8 %) 156 (76.8 %) 1 (0.5 %)

Self-expression 5 (2.5 %) 22 (10.8 %) 143 (70.4 %) 4 (2 %) 29 (4.3 %)
Post-purchase regret 55 (27.1 %) 51 (25 %) 20 (10 %) 50 (24.6 %) 27 (13.3 %)
Security 147 (72.4 %) 2 (1 %) 12 (5.9 %) 38 (18.7 %) 4 (2 %)
Sense of achievement 3 (1.5 %) 153 (75.4 %) 20 (9.9 %) 5 (2.5 %) 22 (10.8 %)
Self-empowerment 3 (1.5 %) 64 (31.5 %) 51 (25.1 %) 6 (3 %) 79 (38.9 %)
Self confidence 8 (3.9 %) 64 (31.5 %) 71 (35 %) 5 (2.5 %) 55 (27.1 %)
Better Lifestyle 5 (2.5 %) 17 (8.4 %) 152 (74.9 %) 10 (4.9 %) 19 (9.4 %)
Social influence 6 (3 %) 8 (3.9 %) 27 (13.3 %) 4 (2.2 %) 158 (77.8 %)
References [4] Google (2022), New AR beauty tools for shoppers and brands, available at: http
s://blog.google/products/shopping/ar-beauty-shopping-ads/, accessed on
January, 2023.
[1] S. von der Au, P. Rauschnabel, R. Felix, C. Hinsch, Context in augmented reality
[5] CNET. Facebook lets people “try on” clothes and makeup with AR ads, (2018),
marketing: does the place of use matter? Psychol. Mark. (2023) 2447–2463.
available at Facebook lets people ’try on’ clothes and makeup with AR ads - CNET
[2] P.A. Rauschnabel, B.J. Babin, M.C. tom Dieck, N. Krey, T. Jung, What is
(accessed May 15, 2023).
augmented reality marketing? Its definition, complexity, and future, J. Bus. Res.
[6] X. Qiao, P. Ren, S. Dustdar, L. Liu, H. Ma, J. Chen, Web AR: a promising future for
142 (2022) 1140–1150.
mobile augmented reality—State of the art, challenges, and insights, Proc. IEEE
[3] TechCrunch, Amazon launches an AR app that works with new QR codes on its
107 (4) (2019) 651–666.
boxes. TechCrunch, (2020) (accessed May 14, 2023).
15
[7] A. Singh, P. Thirumoorthi, The impact of digital disruption technologies on [40] P.A. Rauschnabel, R. Felix, C. Hinsch, H. Shahab, F. Alt, What is XR? Towards a
customer preferences: the case of retail commerce, Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng 8 framework for augmented and virtual reality, Comput. Hum. Behav. 133 (2022)
(3) (2019) 1255–1261. 107289.
[8] CMO. Augmented reality: what’s behind the marketing industry’s failure of [41] A. Çöltekin, I. Lochhead, M. Madden, S. Christophe, A. Devaux, C. Pettit,
imagination? https://www.cmo.com.au/blog/modern-creative/2019/10/03/au N. Hedley, Extended reality in spatial sciences: a review of research challenges
gmented-reality-whats-behind-the-marketing-industrys-failure-of-imagination/, and future directions, ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 9 (7) (2020) 439.
(2019) (accessed May 14, 2023). [42] C. Flavián, S. Ibáñez-Sánchez, C. Orús, The impact of virtual, augmented and
[9] P. Kotler, H. Kartajaya, I. Setiawan, M. Vandercammen. Marketing 5.0, De Boeck mixed reality technologies on the customer experience, J. Bus. Res. 100 (2019)
Supérieur, 2022. 547–560.
[10] E.E. Cranmer, C. Urquhart, M.C. tom Dieck, T. Jung, Developing augmented [43] W.D. Hoyer, M. Kroschke, B. Schmitt, K. Kraume, V. Shankar, Transforming the
reality business models for SMEs in tourism, Inf. Manag. 58 (8) (2021) 103551. customer experience through new technologies, J. Interact. Mark. 51 (1) (2020)
[11] M. Daassi, S. Debbabi, Intention to reuse AR-based apps: the combined role of the 57–71.
sense of immersion, product presence and perceived realism, Inf. Manag. 58 (4) [44] A. Pfaff, M. Spann, When reality backfires: product evaluation context and the
(2021) 103453. effectiveness of augmented reality in e-commerce, Psychol. Mark (2023).
[12] Y.K. Dwivedi, L. Hughes, A.M. Baabdullah, S. Ribeiro-Navarrete, M. Giannakis, [45] C. Orús, S. Ibánez-Sánchez, C. Flavián, Enhancing the customer experience with
M.M. Al-Debei, S.F. Wamba, Metaverse beyond the hype: multidisciplinary virtual and augmented reality: the impact of content and device type, Int. J. Hosp.
perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, Manag. 98 (2021) 103019.
practice and policy, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 66 (2022) 102542. [46] C. Hinsch, R. Felix, P.A. Rauschnabel, Nostalgia beats the wow-effect: inspiration,
[13] Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, Catch them all: impacts of location-based augmented reality awe and meaningful associations in augmented reality marketing, J. Retail.
mobile applications on local businesses, Inf. Manag. 58 (8) (2021) 103550. Consum. Serv. 53 (2020) 101987.
[14] A. Mishra, A. Shukla, N.P. Rana, Y.K. Dwivedi, From “touch” to a “multisensory” [47] P. Kowalczuk, C. Siepmann, J. Adler, Cognitive, affective, and behavioral
experience: the impact of technology interface and product type on consumer consumer responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: a comparative study,
responses, Psychol. Mark. 38 (3) (2021) 385–396. J. Bus. Res. 124 (2021) 357–373.
[15] V. Zanger, M. Meißner, P.A. Rauschnabel, Beyond the gimmick: how affective [48] V. Lavoye, Mero, A. Tarkiainen, Consumer behavior with augmented reality in
responses drive brand attitudes and intentions in augmented reality marketing, retail: a review and research agenda, Int. Rev. Retail, Distrib. Consum. Res. 31 (3)
Psychol. Mark. 39 (7) (2022) 1285–1301. (2021) 299–329.
[16] M.Y.C. Yim, S.C. Chu, P.L. Sauer, Is augmented reality technology an effective [49] H. Kumar, R. Srivastava, Exploring the role of augmented reality in online
tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective, J. Interact. impulse behaviour, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 50 (10) (2022) 1281–1301.
Mark. 39 (2017) 89–103. [50] G. McLean, A. Wilson, Shopping in the digital world: examining customer
[17] A. Jessen, T. Hilken, M. Chylinski, D. Mahr, J. Heller, D.I. Keeling, K. de Ruyter, engagement through augmented reality mobile applications, Comput. Hum.
The playground effect: how augmented reality drives creative customer Behav. 101 (2019) 210–224.
engagement, J. Bus. Res. 116 (2020) 85–98. [51] M. Park, J. Yoo, Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on
[18] T. Hilken, K. de Ruyter, M. Chylinski, D. Mahr, D.I. Keeling, Augmenting the eye consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52
of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance (2020) 101912.
online service experiences, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (6) (2017) 884–905. [52] T. Hilken, D.I. Keeling, K. de Ruyter, D. Mahr, M. Chylinski, Seeing eye to eye:
[19] M. Trunfio, T. Jung, S. Campana, Mixed reality experiences in museums: social augmented reality and shared decision making in the marketplace, J. Acad.
exploring the impact of functional elements of the devices on visitors’ immersive Mark. Sci. 48 (2) (2020) 143–164.
experiences and post-experience behaviours, Inf. Manag. 59 (8) (2022) 103698. [53] B. Romano, S. Sands, J.I. Pallant, Augmented reality and the customer journey: an
[20] J.B. Barhorst, G. McLean, E. Shah, R. Mack, Blending the real world and the exploratory study, Australas. Mark. J. 29 (4) (2021) 354–363.
virtual world: exploring the role of flow in augmented reality experiences, J. Bus. [54] S. Gatter, V. Hüttl-Maack, P.A. Rauschnabel, Can augmented reality satisfy
Res. 122 (2021) 423–436. consumers’ need for touch? Psychol. Mark 9 (3) (2021) 508–523.
[21] M.Y.C. Yim, S.Y. Park, I am not satisfied with my body, so I like augmented reality [55] P.Q. Brito, J. Stoyanova, A. Coelho, Augmented reality versus conventional
(AR)”: consumer responses to AR-based product presentations, J. Bus. Res. 100 interface: is there any difference in effectiveness? Multimed. Tools Appl. 77
(2019) 581–589. (2018) 7487–7516.
[22] F. Haumer, C. Kolo, S. Reiners, The impact of augmented reality experiential [56] X. Fan, Z. Chai, N. Deng, X. Dong, Adoption of augmented reality in online
marketing on brand equity and buying intention, J. Brand Strategy 8 (4) (2020) retailing and consumers’ product attitude: a cognitive perspective, J. Retail.
368–387. Consum. Serv. 53 (2020) 101986.
[23] Y. Feng, Q. Xie, Privacy concerns, perceived intrusiveness, and privacy controls: [57] T.L. Huang, S. Mathews, C.Y. Chou, Enhancing online rapport experience via
an analysis of virtual try-on apps, J. Interact. Advert. 19 (1) (2019) 43–57. augmented reality, J. Serv. Mark. 33 (7) (2019) 851–865.
[24] D. Plotkina, H. Saurel, Me or just like me? The role of virtual try-on and physical [58] H. Qin, D.A. Peak, V. Prybutok, A virtual market in your pocket: how does mobile
appearance in apparel M-retailing, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 51 (2019) 362–377. augmented reality (MAR) influence consumer decision making? J. Retail.
[25] P.A. Rauschnabel, R. Felix, C. Hinsch, Augmented reality marketing: how mobile Consum. Serv 58 (2021) 102337.
AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 49 [59] S.R. Nikhashemi, H.H. Knight, K. Nusair, C.B. Liat, Augmented reality in smart
(2019) 43–53. retailing: a(n) (A) Symmetric Approach to continuous intention to use retail
[26] Y.C. Tan, S.R. Chandukala, S.K. Reddy, Augmented reality in retail and its impact brands’ mobile AR apps, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 60 (2021) 102464.
on sales, J. Mark. 86 (1) (2022) 48–66. [60] R. Pozharliev, M. De Angelis, D. Rossi, The effect of augmented reality versus
[27] A. Javornik, Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its traditional advertising: a comparison between neurophysiological and self-
media characteristics on consumer behaviour, J. Retail. Consum. Serv 30 (2016) reported measures, Mark. Lett. 33 (1) (2022) 113–128.
252–261. [61] M.C. tom Dieck, T. Jung, A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality
[28] H. Kumar, P. Gupta, S. Chauhan, Meta-analysis of augmented reality marketing, acceptance in urban heritage tourism, Curr. Issues Tour. 21 (2) (2018) 154–174.
Mark. Intell. Plan. 41 (1) (2023) 110–123. [62] A. Javornik, It’s an illusion, but it looks real!” Consumer affective, cognitive and
[29] J. Jacoby, L.B. Kaplan, The Components of Perceived Risk, ACR Special Volumes, behavioural responses to augmented reality applications, J. Mark. Manag. 32
1972. (9–10) (2016) 987–1011.
[30] C. Duhigg, How companies learn your secrets, The New York Times. https [63] R.P. Bagozzi, P.A. Dabholkar, Consumer recycling goals and their effect on
://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html, (2012). decisions to recycle: a means-end chain analysis, Psychol. Mark. 11 (4) (1994)
Accessed on January, 15, 2022. 313–340.
[31] T.J. Reynolds, J. Gutman, Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation, [64] F.B. Kilwinger, Y.K. van Dam, Methodological considerations on the means-end
J. Advert. Res. 28 (1) (1988) 11–31. chain analysis revisited, Psychol. Mark. 38 (9) (2021) 1513–1524.
[32] J.C. Olson, T.J. Reynolds, Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: [65] T. Schaefers, S. Ruffer, R. Böhm, Outcome-based contracting from the customers’
implications for advertising strategy, Advert. Consum. Psychol 1 (1983) 77–90. perspective: a means-end chain analytical exploration, Ind. Mark. Manag. 93
[33] B.A. Walker, J.C. Olson, Means-end chains: connecting products with self, J. Bus. (2021) 466–481.
Res. 22 (2) (1991) 111–118. [66] V.A. Zeithaml, Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
[34] C.M. Chiu, Applying means-end chain theory to eliciting system requirements and model and synthesis of evidence, J. Mark. 52 (3) (1988) 2–22.
understanding users perceptual orientations, Inf. Manag. 42 (3) (2005) 455–468. [67] B.J. Choi, Cultural priming conditions and decision-making on food consumption:
[35] S. Matook, Conceptualizing means-end chains of user goals as networks, Inf. means-end evidence for everyday consumer goods, J. Mark. Theory Pract. 28 (4)
Manag. 50 (1) (2013) 24–32. (2020) 403–417.
[36] L. Xiao, Z. Guo, J. D’Ambra, Analyzing consumer goal structure in online group [68] F. Huber, S.C. Beckmann, A. Herrmann, Means–end analysis: does the affective
buying: a means-end chain approach, Inf. Manag. 54 (8) (2017) 1097–1119. state influence information processing style? Psychol. Mark. 21 (9) (2004)
[37] R. Pieters, H. Baumgartner, D. Allen, A means-end chain approach to consumer 715–737.
goal structures, Int. J. Res. Mark. 12 (3) (1995) 227–244. [69] Q.P.T. Phan, A.A.A. Rivas, T. Bat, Analyzing electronic word of mouth intention
[38] R.T. Azuma, A survey of augmented reality, Presence: Teleop. Virt. Environ 6 (4) for shopping websites: a means-end chain approach, J. Internet Commer. 18 (2)
(1997) 355–385. (2019) 113–140.
[39] A.B. Craig, Understanding Augmented Reality: Concepts and Applications, [70] R. Sankaran, S. Chakraborty, Why customers make mobile payments? Applying a
Newnes, 2013. means-end chain approach, Mark. Intell. Plan 9 (1) (2020) 109–124.
16
[71] A. Hüttel, F. Ziesemer, M. Peyer, I. Balderjahn, To purchase or not? Why [106] A.H. Goldman, Aesthetic qualities and aesthetic value, J. Philos. 87 (1) (1990)
consumers make economically (non-) sustainable consumption choices, J. Clean. 23–37.
Prod. 174 (2018) 827–836. [107] J. Wagner, A model of aesthetic value, in: Handbook of Services, Marketing and
[72] P. Pai, D.C. Arnott, User adoption of social networking sites: eliciting uses and Management, 69, 1999, pp. 69–85.
gratifications through a means–end approach, Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (3) [108] C.A. Ingene, Productivity and functional shifting in spatial retailing: private and
(2012) 1039–1053. social perspectives, J. Retail. 60 (3) (1984) 15–36.
[73] A.W. de Vries, J.H. van Dieën, V. van den Abeele, S.M. Verschueren, [109] E. Voropanova, Conceptualizing smart shopping with a smartphone: implications
Understanding motivations and player experiences of older adults in virtual of the use of mobile devices for shopping productivity and value, Int. Rev. Retail,
reality training, Games Health J. 7 (6) (2018) 369–376. Distrib. Consum. Res 25 (5) (2015) 529–550.
[74] G.C.M. Ku, I.W. Shang, M.F. Li, How do location-based augmented reality games [110] P.L. Alreck, R.B. Settle, The hurried consumer: time-saving perceptions of Internet
improve physical and mental health? Evaluating the meanings and values of and catalogue shopping, J. Database Mark. Cust. Strat. Manag. 10 (2002) 25–35.
Pokémon Go users’ experiences through the means-end chain theory, Healthcare [111] K.G. Atkins, Y.K. Kim, Smart shopping: conceptualization and measurement, Int.
9 (7) (2021) 794. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 40 (5) (2012) 360–375, https://doi.org/10.1108/
[75] C. Teh, C.W. Phang, A.Y.L. Chong, Z. Guo, Augmented reality in offline retail: 09590551211222349.
integrating the affordance and means-end chain perspectives, (2021). [112] R. Kohli, S. Devaraj, M.A. Mahmood, Understanding determinants of online
[76] Y. Li, H. Shang, Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use consumer satisfaction: a decision process perspective, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 21 (1)
intention regarding e-government: empirical evidence from China, Inf. Manag. 57 (2004) 115–136.
(3) (2020) 103197. [113] H. Kumar, Augmented reality in online retailing: a systematic review and research
[77] B. Wansink, Using laddering to understand and leverage a brand’s equity, Qual. agenda, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 50 (4) (2021) 537–559.
Mark. Res. (2003). [114] D. Read, G. Loewenstein, M. Rabin, G. Keren, D. Laibson, Choice bracketing.
[78] J.M. Phillips, T.J. Reynolds, A hard look at hard laddering: a comparison of Elicitation of Preferences, 2000, pp. 171–202.
studies examining the hierarchical structure of means-end theory, Qual. Mark. [115] E.T. Higgins, Making a good decision: value from fit, Am. Psychol. 55 (11) (2000)
Res. 12 (1) (2009) 83–99. 1217.
[79] B.G. Glaser, A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for [116] C. Vonkeman, T. Verhagen, W. Van Dolen, Role of local presence in online
Qualitative Research, Routledge, 2017. impulse buying, Inf. Manag. 54 (8) (2017) 1038–1048.
[80] D. Bolzani, Personal values and characteristics of remittance channels: insights [117] J.R. Parker, D.R. Lehmann, Y. Xie, Decision comfort, J. Consum. Res. 43 (1)
from a means-end-chain study, J. Consum. Behav. 17 (1) (2017) e140–e152. (2016) 113–133.
[81] F. Pezeshki, S.S. Ardekani, M. Khodadadi, S.M.A. Almodarresi, F.S. Hosseini, [118] T. Böttger, T. Rudolph, H. Evanschitzky, T. Pfrang, Customer inspiration:
Cognitive structures of Iranian senior tourists towards domestic tourism conceptualization, scale development, and validation, J. Mark. 81 (6) (2017)
destinations: a means-end chain approach, J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 39 (2019) 9–19. 116–131.
[82] T. Schaefers, Exploring carsharing usage motives: a hierarchical means-end chain [119] T.M. Thrash, E.G. Moldovan, V.C. Oleynick, L.A. Maruskin, The psychology of
analysis, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 47 (2013) 69–77. inspiration, Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 8 (9) (2014) 495–510.
[83] K.G. Grunert, S.C. Grunert, Measuring subjective meaning structures by the [120] J.P. Abel, C.L. Buff, S.A. Burr, Social media and the fear of missing out: scale
laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems, Int. development and assessment, J. Bus. Econ. Res. 14 (1) (2016) 33–44.
J. Res. Mark. 12 (3) (1995) 209–225. [121] A.K. Przybylski, K. Murayama, C.R. DeHaan, V. Gladwell, Motivational,
[84] J.L. Fleiss, B. Levin, M.C. Paik, The measurement of interrater agreement. emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out, Comput. Hum. Behav.
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed., John Wiley, 1981, 29 (4) (2013) 1841–1848.
pp. 212–236. [122] S.H. Schwartz, W. Bilsky, Toward a universal psychological structure of human
[85] B.J. Becker, Multivariate meta-analysis, in: Handbook of Applied Multivariate values, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (1987) 550–562.
Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, 2000, pp. 499–525. [123] J. Park, E. Amendah, Y. Lee, H. Hyun, M-payment service: Interplay of perceived
[86] M. Paul, T. Hennig-Thurau, D.D. Gremler, K.P. Gwinner, C. Wiertz, Toward a risk, benefit, and trust in service adoption, Human Factors and Ergonomics in
theory of repeat purchase drivers for consumer services, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 37 (2) Manufacturing & Service Industries 29 (1) (2019) 31–43.
(2009) 215–237. [124] X.Y. Xu, S.M.U. Tayyab, F.K. Chang, K. Zhao, Hierarchical value-attainment paths
[87] T. Wagner, Shopping motivation revised: a means-end chain analytical of CBEC consumers: a means-end-chain perspective, Internet Res. 31 (2) (2021)
perspective, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 35 (7) (2007) 569–582. 699–736.
[88] B. Di Martino, G. Cretella, A. Esposito, Cloud Portability and Interoperability: [125] L. Lundblad, I.A. Davies, The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion
Issues and Current Trends, Springer, 2015. consumption, J. Consum. Behav. 15 (2) (2016) 149–162.
[89] H. Oppewal, K. Koelemeijer, More choice is better: effects of assortment size and [126] H.S. Kim, D.K. Sherman, Express yourself”: culture and the effect of self-
composition on assortment evaluation, Int. J. Res. Mark. 22 (1) (2005) 45–60. expression on choice, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol 92 (1) (2007) 1.
[90] B.D. Kangas, J. Bergeman, Touchscreen technology in the study of cognition- [127] A. Chernev, R. Hamilton, D. Gal, Competing for consumer identity: limits to self-
related behavior, Behav. Pharmacol. 28 (8) (2017) 623. expression and the perils of lifestyle branding, J. Mark. 75 (3) (2011) 66–82.
[91] W.T. Ross Jr, E.H. Creyer, Making inferences about missing information: the [128] J. Ha, S. Jang, The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentions
effects of existing information, J. Consum. Res. 19 (1992) 14–25. June. through quality perception, J. Serv. Mark. 26 (3) (2012) 204–215.
[92] I. Simonson, The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences, J. Retail. 73 [129] D.D. Perkins, M.A. Zimmerman, Empowerment theory, research, and application,
(1999) 347–370. Fall. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 23 (5) (1995) 569–579.
[93] A.C. Jeandrain, Consumer reactions in a realistic virtual shop: influence on [130] J. Rappaport, Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory
buying style, J. Interact. Advert. 2 (1) (2001) 2–9. for community psychology, Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 15 (2) (1987) 121.
[94] H.K. Song, E. Baek, H.J. Choo, Try-on experience with augmented reality [131] S.H. Schwartz, An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values, Online
comforts your decision: focusing on the roles of immersion and psychological Readings Psychol. Cult. 2 (1) (2012) 11.
ownership, Inf. Technol. People 33 (4) (2020) 1214–1234. [132] T. Kuisma, T. Laukkanen T, M. Hiltunen, Mapping the reasons for resistance to
[95] K. Henricksen, A Framework for Context-Aware Pervasive Computing internet banking: a means-end approach, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 27 (2) (2007) 75–85.
Applications [Doctoral Dissertation], University of Queensland, 2003. [133] D. Skalkos, I.S. Kosma, E. Chasioti, A. Skendi, M. Papageorgiou, R.P. Guiné,
[96] A.K. Dey, Understanding and using context, Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 5 (1) Consumers’ attitude and perception toward traditional foods of Northwest Greece
(2001) 4–7. during the COVID-19 pandemic, Appl. Sci. 11 (9) (2021) 4080.
[97] P.C. Poole, W.M. Waite, Portability and adaptabilty. Software Engineering: An [134] S.H. Schwartz, J. Cieciuch, M. Vecchione, E. Davidov, R. Fischer, C. Beierlein,
Advanced Course, 1975, pp. 183–277. M. Konty, Refining the theory of basic individual values, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103
[98] X. Jing, J. Xie, Group buying: a new mechanism for selling through social (4) (2012) 663.
interactions, Manag. Sci. 57 (8) (2011) 1354–1372. [135] E. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd, Principles of categorization, 1978.
[99] W.L. Shiau, M.M. Luo, Factors affecting online group buying intention and [136] B.G. Glaser, The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis, Soc. Probl.
satisfaction: a social exchange theory perspective, Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (6) 12 (4) (1965) 436–445.
(2012) 2431–2444. [137] P.A. Rauschnabel, J. He, Y.K. Ro, Antecedents to the adoption of augmented
[100] M. Helmefalk, B. Hultén, Multi-sensory congruent cues in designing retail store reality smart glasses: a closer look at privacy risks, J. Bus. Res. 92 (2018)
atmosphere: effects on shoppers’ emotions and purchase behavior, J. Retail. 374–384.
Consum. Serv 38 (2017) 1–11. [138] H. Kumar, M.N. Agarwal, Filtering the reality: Exploring the dark and bright sides
[101] S. Kiousis, Interactivity: a concept explication, New Media Soc. 4 (3) (2002) of augmented reality–based filters on social media, Aust. J. Manag.
355–383. 03128962231199356 (2023).
[102] M. Goldsmith, A. Koriat, The strategic regulation of memory accuracy and [139] C. Sun, Y. Fang, M. Kong, X. Chen, Y. Liu, Influence of augmented reality product
informativeness, Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 48 (2007) 1–60. display on consumers’ product attitudes: A product uncertainty reduction
[103] H.J. Kang, H.J.H. Shin, K. Ponto, K. How 3D virtual reality stores can shape perspective, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 64 (2022) 102828.
consumer purchase decisions: the roles of informativeness and playfulness, [140] J. Heller, M. Chylinski, K. de Ruyter, D. Mahr, D.I. Keeling, Touching the
J. Interact. Mark. 49 (2020) 70–85. untouchable: exploring multi-sensory augmented reality in the context of online
[104] L. Hvam, N.H. Mortensen, J. Riis, Product Customization, Springer Science & retailing, J. Retail. 95 (4) (2019) 219–234.
Business Media, 2008. [141] P.A. Rauschnabel, V. Hüttl-Maack, A.C. Ahuvia, K.E. Schein, Augmented reality
[105] M. Laroche, Z. Yang, G.H. McDougall, J. Bergeron, Internet versus bricks-and- marketing and consumer‒brand relationships: How closeness drives brand love,
mortar retailers: an investigation into intangibility and its consequences, J. Retail. Psychol. Mark, forthcoming (2024).
81 (4) (2005) 251–267.
17
[142] J. Gutman, A means-end chain model based on consumer categorisation [175] L.R. Kahle, Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America,
processes, J. Mark. 46 (2) (1982) 60–72. Praeger Publishers, 1983.
[143] F. ter Hofstede, A. Audenaert, J.B.E. Steenkamp, M. Wedel, An investigation into [176] D.E. Guest, Perspectives on the study of work-life balance, Soc. Sci. Inf. 41 (2)
the association pattern technique as a quantitative approach to measuring means- (2002) 255–279.
end chains, Int. J. Res. Mark. 15 (1) (1998) 37–50. [177] N.R. Lockwood, Work/life balance: challenges and solutions, SHRM Res., USA 2
[144] J. van Rekom, B. Wierenga, On the hierarchical nature of means–end (10) (2003).
relationships in laddering data, J. Bus. Res. 60 (4) (2007) 401–410. [178] N.E. Friedkin, A Structural Theory of Social Influence, Cambridge University
[145] B. Stöcker, D. Baier, B.M. Brand, New insights in online fashion retail returns from Press, Cambridge, 1998.
a customers’ perspective and their dynamics, J. Bus. Econ. 91 (8) (2021) [179] T.A. Judge, J.D. Kammeyer-Mueller, Implications of core self-evaluations for a
1149–1187. changing organizational context, Human Resource Management Review 21
[146] S. Borle, P. Boatwright, J.B. Kadane, J.C. Nunes, S. Galit, The effect of product (2011) 331–341.
assortment changes on customer retention, Mark. Sci. 24 (2005) 616–622. [180] R. Veenhoven, Measures of happiness: which to choose?, in: Metrics of Subjective
[147] A. Zimmermann, A. Lorenz, R. Oppermann, An operational definition of context, Well-Being: Limits and Improvements, 2017, pp. 65–84.
in: Modeling and Using Context: 6th International and Interdisciplinary [181] R.B. Cialdini, N.J. Goldstein, Social influence: compliance and conformity, Annu.
Conference, CONTEXT 2007, Roskilde, Denmark, August 20–24, 2007, Rev. Psychol. 55 (2004) 591–621.
Proceedings 6, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 558–571. [182] G. Yaoyuneyong, J. Foster, L.R. Flynn, Factors impacting the efficacy of
[148] D.L. Hoffman, T.P. Novak, Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated augmented reality virtual dressing room technology as a tool for online visual
environments: Conceptual foundations, J. Mark. 60 (1996) 50–68. merchandising, J. Global Fashion Mark. 5 (4) (2014) 283–296.
[149] J. Lampel, H. Mintzberg, Customizing customization, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. [183] W.O. Bearden, D.M. Hardesty, R.L. Rose, Consumer self-confidence: refinements
(1996). in conceptualization and measurement, J. Consum. Res. 28 (1) (2001) 121–134.
[150] D.S. Kempf, P.E. Smith, Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of [184] S.H. Schwartz, J. Cieciuch, Measuring the refined theory of individual values in
prior advertising: a structural modeling approach, J. Mark. Res. 35 (3) (1998) 49 cultural groups: psychometrics of the revised portrait value questionnaire,
325–338. Assessment 29 (5) (2022) 1005–1019.
[151] A. Carrozzi, M. Chylinski, J. Heller, T. Hilken, D.I. Keeling, K. de Ruyter, What’s
mine is a hologram? How shared augmented reality augments psychological
Harish Kumar is an assistant professor (marketing) at Great Lakes Institute of Manage
ownership, J. Interact. Mark. 48 (1) (2019) 71–88.
ment, Gurgaon, India. He earned his PhD from Management Development Institute,
[152] K. Crowston, A taxonomy of organizational dependencies and coordination
Gurgaon (India). His area of research interest includes XR/Metaverse and consumer
mechanisms, 1994.
behavior. He has published sole-authored/co-authored papers in the International Journal
[153] O. Renn, The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: application to
of Retail and Distribution Management, Journal of Conusmer Behvaior, Marketing Intel
climate change, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 2 (2) (2011) 154–169.
ligence & Planning, Australian Journal of Management, Ivey case publishing, among
[154] M. Amirpur, A. Benlian, Buying under pressure: purchase pressure cues and their
others. He has won best paper awards at top marketing conferences, including 8th XR and
effects on online buying decisions, 2015.
Metaverse conference. Email: [email protected]
[155] M.A. Morganosky, B.J. Cude, Consumer response to online grocery shopping, Int.
J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 28 (1) (2000) 17–26.
[156] D. Wu, Z. Xue, J. He, iCloudAccess: cost-effective streaming of video games from Philipp A. Rauschnabel is professor of Digital Marketing and Media Innovation at the
the cloud with low latency, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 24 (8) Universit¨ at der Bundeswehr München (Munich, Germany), Associate Researcher at the
(2014) 1405–1416. Otto-Friedrich-Universitat Bamberg, and teaches XR Marketing courses at MCI Innsbruck.
[157] G.S. Aikenhead, Collective decision making in the social context of science, Sci. Philipp was the conference chair of the 5th intl. AR VR Conference (2019). His research
Edu. 69 (4) (1985) 453–475. focuses on the disruptive potentials of XR - especially AR - for consumers, businesses and
[158] D.C. Smith, J. Andrews, Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers’ society in general. He is currently founding xrealitylab.com. Philipp holds a PhD and a
evaluations of new products, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 23 (1995) 4–14. post-doctoral degree (Habilitation) in Business / Marketing and is author of the first
[159] F. Shen, Perceived fit and deal framing: the moderating effect of perceived fit on studies on consumers’ adoption of AR technologies. He has been teaching AR Marketing
sales promotions in line and brand extensions, J. Prod. Brand Manag. (2014). courses in the US, Germany, and Austria since 2017 in various levels. His AR research
[160] A.C. Amason, Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict appeared in Journals such as Journal of Business Research, Psychology & Marketing,
on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Computers in Human Behavior, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal
Acad. Manag. J. 39 (1) (1996) 123–148. of Retailing & Consumer Services, among others. Website: philipprauschnabel.com.
[161] S.L. Shapiro, L. Reams, L, K.K.F. So, Is it worth the price? The role of perceived
financial risk, identification, and perceived value in purchasing pay-per-view
Dr. Madhushree Nanda Agarwal is a professor of Organisational Behavior at Manage
broadcasts of combat sports, Sport Manag. Rev. 22 (2) (2019) 235–246.
ment Development Institute, Gurgaon (India) and an electrical engineer from VNIT,
[162] W.B. Dodds, The effects of perceived and objective market cues on consumers’
Nagpur, and an alumnus of XLRI, Jamshedpur, where she specialized in Business Man
product evaluations, Mark. Bull. 13 (2) (2002) 1–14.
agement. She has completed the Fellow Programme from IIM Calcutta with a major in
[163] A.C. Pigou, The value of money, Q. J. Econ. 32 (1) (1917) 38–65.
Organizational Behaviour and minor in Strategic Management. She has five years of in
[164] R. Glendinning, The concept of value for money, Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 1 (1)
dustry experience in the Indian IT industry, and seven years of teaching experience in areas
(1988) 42–50.
of her academic interest, which include Organizational Design, Cross-Cultural Manage
[165] A. Lee, C.U. Lambert, R. Law, Customer preferences for social value over
ment, Creativity and Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Management of Non-Profit
economic value in restaurants, Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 17 (5) (2012) 473–488.
Organizations.
[166] K. Bednar, S. Spiekermann, Eliciting values for technology design with moral
philosophy: an empirical exploration of effects and shortcomings, Sci., Technol.,
Hum. Values (2022) 01622439221122595. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh has been figured among top 2 % researchers in Business Man
[167] A. Javornik, B. Marder, M. Pizzetti, L. Warlop, Augmented self—the effects of agement area by a study conducted by Stanford scholars and others. He is the associate
virtual face augmentation on consumers’ self-concept, J. Bus. Res. 130 (2021) Editor, International Journal of Consumers Studies (Wiley) (“A” Category journal by
170–187. ABDC), International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness (Springer) and area
[168] J.L. Aaker, The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion, J. Mark. editor- Operations Management Research Journal (Springer). He has published more than
Res. 36 (1) (1999) 45–57. 50 top quality articles in reputed international journals including Journal of Business
[169] B. Gatersleben, N. Murtagh, M. Cherry, M. Watkins, Moral, wasteful, frugal, or Research, Journal of Cleaner Production, among others.
thrifty? Identifying consumer identities to understand and manage pro-
environmental behavior, Environ. Behav. 51 (1) (2019) 24–49. Dr. Ritu Srivastava is an Associate Professor, Marketing and Lead FPM & TLC@MDI
[170] D. Evans, Thrifty, green or frugal: reflections on sustainable consumption in a at Management Development Institute, Gurgaon. Dr. Srivastava holds a Ph.D. in Marketing
changing economic climate, Geoforum 42 (5) (2011) 550–557. Management from Lucknow University (2005) with a research, industry and teaching
[171] S.H. Lee, J. Cotte, Post-purchase consumer regret: conceptualization and experience of almost two decades. As a management practitioner Dr. Srivastava has been
development of the PPCR scale, ACR N. Am. Adv. (2009). working and researching closely the Indian services sector including Telecom, Banking,
[172] J. Park, W.T. Hill, Exploring the role of justification and cognitive effort exertion Education and Retailing across marketing functions including Communication Strategies.
on post-purchase regret in online shopping, Comput. Hum. Behav. 83 (2018) She has published widely in leading management journals and is an avid case writer. As a
235–242. Distinguished Faculty she has been recognised with Awards of Excellence in teaching at
[173] M.E. Sobel, Lifestyle and Social Structure: Concepts, Definitions, Analyses, MDI Gurgaon for the year 2019-20, 2021-22 and Government of India Award, 2022.
Elsevier, 2013.
[174] M. Jensen, Defining lifestyle, Environ. Sci. 4 (2) (2007) 63–73.
18

1 s2.0 S0378720623001581 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0378720623001581 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0378720623001581 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information & Management 61 (2024) 103910

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

Towards a theoretical framework for augmented reality marketing: A

1. Introduction managers indicate a high interest in AR, despite a lack of knowledge in

Fig. 1. Laddering process.

Fig. 2. Hierarchical value map (HVM): AR attributes, benefits, and values.

Fig. 4. Theoretical framework for augmented reality marketing (simplified).

been duly acknowledged. Declaration of competing interest

CRediT authorship contribution statement We declare no conflict of interest.

Harish Kumar: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Acknowledgments

Appendix A Demographic details

ID Age Gender Country Products

1 19 Female USA Furniture

Appendix B Relative importance of codes

Code In degree Out degree Sum-in/out degree Centrality Abstractness Prestige

1. Assortment 0 38 38 0.048 0.000 0.000

12. Reduced obligation to buy 2 0 2 0.003 1.000 0.003

Appendix C Identified attributes, benefits, and values (content codes)

Constructs Frequency Definition Verbatim Relevant Relevant literature

Appendix D Implication matrix

Appendix E Card sorting results for SEAD benefits

Benefits Sensory Efficiency Assessment Discovery

Perceived Tangibility 165 (79 %) 9 (4.3 %) 27 (13 %) 7 (3.4 %)

Appendix F Card sorting results for SALES values

Values Safety Achievement Lifestyle Economy Status

Economy value 10 (4.9 %) 8 (3.9 %) 28 (13.8 %) 156 (76.8 %) 1 (0.5 %)

You might also like