Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Influences of ‘appscape’ on mobile app adoption and m-loyalty T

a,⁎ b c
Deepak S. Kumar , Keyoor Purani , Shyam A. Viswanathan
a
Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (deemed to be University), Coimbatore 641112, India
b
Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kozhikode 673570, India
c
Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (deemed to be University), Coimbatore 641112, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Influence of visual aesthetics in product design, service environments and websites are well explored but in-
Visual aesthetics creasing usage of mobile interfaces and the different use context demand investigation of influence of visual
Appscapes aesthetics of mobile app interfaces – ‘appscapes’ on mobile app adoption and m-loyalty. In this study, the
m-loyalty conceptual model is developed by applying Kaplan's information processing model from environmental psy-
Kaplan's information processing model
chology and integrating it into the Technology Acceptance Model, thereby linking visual aesthetics of mobile
m-commerce
apps to m-loyalty. The responses (n = 308) are collected using field experiments using four existing apps as
stimuli. Results of PLS structural equation modelling reveal positive linkages between holistic visual aesthetic
dimensions and outcomes of m-loyalty. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

1. Introduction mobile app is yet to be explored.

Mobile applications (‘apps’) are software programs that are installed
in a mobile device, and which often display an identity of the brand
(Bellman et al., 2011; Zhao and Balagué, 2015). They have become
important marketing stimuli in shaping customers’ brand experience in
m-commerce. As the number of users is increasing continually, the m-
commerce industry is growing at a rate of 17% and is projected to grow
at a rate of 30–35% by 2019 (Chou et al., 2016). This high level of
mobile usage has resulted in a plethora of mobile applications used
increasingly by businesses for multiple marketing purposes that help
manage customer relationships including precision targeting, acquisi-
tion, loyalty and retention management (Pentina et al., 2016). Re-
portedly, the number of mobile apps available in Google Play stores in
December 2017 was 3,500,0001and in Apple app store in January 2017
is 2,200,000.2 As more and more apps storm the market, a significant
challenge for marketers is in making the customers use and continue to
use their apps. Thus, identifying those key factors that influence app
selection and adoption behavior is crucial for marketers, and surpris-
ingly, very few researchers have focused on such studies (Kim et al.,
2016). Although the significance of visual design aesthetics in the
context of websites and e-commerce has been established (Varnali and
Toker, 2010), the effect of design aesthetics on adoption and usage of a
In scholarly literature, studies attempting to understand the various
marketing aspects related to apps are on the rise. Researchers have
explored issues such as simplicity of interface and satisfaction (Choi and
Lee, 2012); type of mobile platform and user experience (Taylor and
Levin, 2014); consumption behavior related to news apps (Xu et al.,
2014); source's influence on app users' attitude (Shen, 2015); factors
influencing affective involvement with apps (Kang et al., 2015); and
customer engagement initiatives (Gill, Sridhar, and Grewal, 2017).
Barring a few studies (e.g., Carter and Yeo, 2016; Li et al., 2012; Zhou,
2011), crucial factors influencing the adoption, use and repeated use of
mobile apps remain mostly unexplored in the marketing literature
(Taylor and Levin, 2014). One factor, which influences adoption of
mobile apps, involves the visual, aesthetics of interfaces (e.g., Cyr et al.,
2006; Hoehle and Venkatesh, 2015; Li and Yeh, 2010). Studies have
shown that visual aesthetics can increase customer engagement (Kim
et al., 2013), affect user experience (Hou and Ho, 2013) and influence
revisit rates and loyalty intentions of app users (Cyr et al., 2006).
Though both mobile websites and computer websites are accessed
through browsers, mobile websites are specifically designed to fit with
smaller screens of smartphones with easy-to-read fonts and graphics
which can easily load over cellular networks.3 Though, as noted, design
aesthetics have been well explored in the context of computer websites

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sk_deepak@cb.amrita.edu (D.S. Kumar), kpurani@iimk.ac.in (K. Purani), av_shyam@cb.amrita.edu (S.A. Viswanathan).
1
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266210/number-of-available-applications-in-the-google-play-store/ accessed on February 22nd, 2018.
2
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-available-apps-in-the-apple-app-store/ accessed on February 22nd, 2018.
3
https://www.affordablewebdesign.com/mobile-website-vs-desktop-website/ accessed on 22nd August 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.012
Received 28 February 2018; Received in revised form 23 August 2018; Accepted 27 August 2018
0969-6989/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.S. Kumar et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141

or on e-commerce (Varnali and Toker, 2010), when it comes to mobile
devices - particularly app designs - this factor has primarily been un-
derappreciated. It is important to recognize that ‘mobile app interfaces’
function differently concerning many aspects compared to a ‘mobile
website’ and thus app designs and their effects constitute a separate
area of research. Though app interfaces share some common properties
with mobile websites, user interactions differ. 1) There is a considerable
difference in the time spent by consumers on apps versus mobile
websites. For instance, studies show, that users spend a considerable
amount of time on a mobile app (84%) as opposed to a mobile website
(14%). 2) Second, unlike mobile websites, apps are installed in the
mobile/ smart devices and can be used even without an active internet
connection, thus allowing service providers to move e-commerce off the
Web and into an environment that they design and self-maintain
(Newman et al., 2017). 3) Next, from a designer perspective, apps are
designed to be more user-friendly and less content-rich, with more
personalized contents, and easier navigation than mobile websites
(Taylor and Levin, 2014). 4) Apps allow the publishers to take full
advantage of mobile operating systems, thus providing the option to
design interfaces suitably, whereas mobile websites interfaces are ren-
dered in a more generic environment (Xu et al., 2014). 5) From the
perspective of interface aesthetics, apps and mobile websites have a
major difference. In the case of mobile apps, the presence or absence of
aesthetics, particularly when providing personalized content, can
strongly influence users' initial impressions regarding whether or not to
use the app (Bhandari et al., 2017). On the other hand, mobile websites
allow for easy and frequent interface modifications, a function that is
significantly more difficult for apps, unless the user updates regularly.
6) Regarding expenses incurred in the design process, studies have
shown that modifying apps is typically more costly than modifying
mobile websites (Xu et al., 2014). 7) From a user experience perspec-
tive, there are two key differences to be noted. Apps can provide alerts
to consumers at a quicker pace, than mobile websites (van Heerde et al.,
2018). Also, unlike mobile websites, app user contexts can be dis-
tracting and noisy, and hence the interface must be able to capture user
attention (Zhao and Balagué, 2015).
Table 1 presents a summary of studies related to mobile interfaces in
marketing literature.
As can be seen from the analysis of the studies related to mobile
interfaces done in marketing literature above, barring Bhandari et al.
(2017) there are hardly any studies that explore effects of mobile app
aesthetics. Bhandari et al. (2017) focused only on two design factors,
such as balance and originality on users’ emotional responses. A similar
observation about mobile app atmospherics is noted by Lee and Kim
(2018). While researchers have started paying attention to the visual
aspects of app design, the aesthetic design factors are not considered
holistically but have been limited to specific, objective elements of
design (e.g., layout, colour, menu etc.). When it comes to visual aes-
thetics, however, consumers quite often evaluate aesthetic features
holistically and subjectively rather than as separate entities (Tveit et al.,
2006), be it servicescapes, websites or mobile apps (Brunner-Sperdin
et al., 2014; Verhoeven et al., 2009). Recognizing the fact that in-
dividual elements are more of personal preference, apps generally focus
on coherent, integrated themes that combine various elements of a
design to provide superior aesthetic experience. Hence capturing the
holistic evaluation of aesthetics is quite crucial. Design characteristics
of apps can result in user satisfaction and the likelihood of revisits,
thereby resulting in loyalty. Thus, in line with Cyr et al. (2006), we
define m-loyalty as consumer intention to re-visit the app again and/or
to re-use it for any transaction. So there exists a need to conceptualize
holistic visual aesthetic variables, which could help in understanding
customers’ loyalty intentions.
This study focuses on holistic visual aesthetic dimensions by bor-
rowing theory from environmental psychology. In line with Bitner
(1992)'s conceptualisation of servicescape, we define ‘appscape’ as the
view of the scene in a mobile app as designed by the developer to en-
gage the users. In other words, ‘appscape’ may be understood as the
visual aesthetics of a mobile app user interface. Our conceptualisation
of appscapes in similar to that of servicescapes (Bitner, 1992), mu-
sicscapes (Oakes, 2000), social-servicescapes (Tombs and McColl-
Kennedy, 2003), cyberscapes (Williams and Dargel, 2004) and e-ser-
vicescapes (Hopkins et al., 2009), where we consider appscapes as the
visible physical features that are present and available on the mobile
interfaces at the point of service delivery. Environmental psychology,
which focuses on the environment's effects on human behavior, has
developed various models, which may be useful in evaluating visual
aesthetic factors holistically (Stamps, 2004a). One such holistic ap-
proach, which has been well established in landscape studies (e.g.,
Hagerhall, 2001; Stamps, 2004b) and has been extended to website
designs, is Kaplan's information processing theory (Yehand Li, 2014;
Brunner-Sperdin et al., 2014). This study investigates users’ ‘appscape’
evaluation by applying Kaplan's (1987) information processing model
from environmental psychology and integrating it into the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, 1989),
thereby linking visual aesthetics of mobile apps to re-visit intentions or
m-loyalty.
2. Literature review
2.1. Visual aesthetic evaluation and information processing theory
Aesthetics often referred to as “the philosophy of beauty” in art

Table1
Review of Mobile Interface related Studies in Marketing.
App-based Other interfaces based (browser/ m-websites/other services)

Aesthetic design Bhandari et al., 2017 (effect of design balance and originality on users'
Dominated emotional responses and quality evaluations) Lee & Kim, 2018 (effect of
hedonic orientation, app atmospherics, entertainment gratification, mobile
irritation, and reuse intention of apps.)
Non-aesthetic design Bellman et al., 2011 (on effectiveness of branded mobile apps), Hoehle &
Dominated Venkatesh, 2015 (developed and validated mobile application usability
instrument), Dube & Helkkula, 2015 (phenomenological study on user
experience), Rezaei et al., 2016 (examines consumer satisfaction,
continuous intention, and behavior toward apps shopping), Pantano &
Priporas, 2016 (qualitative study on the impact of mobile technologies on
consumer behavior), Newman et al., 2017 (links perceived ease of use on
re-use), Zhao & Balagué, 2015 (suggests systematic guidelines for branded
app design), Kang et al., 2015 (on location-based services of retail apps on
consumers’ affective and cognitive involvement), Wang, Liao & Yang, 2013
(consumption values and behavioural intentions), Taylor & Levin, 2014
(linking mobile platform, interest in app and recency of store visit on app
usage)
Cyr et al., 2006 (integrates design aesthetics and m-loyalty), Li & Yeh,
2010 (links design aesthetics and m-trust), Guido et al., 2017 (effect of
lighting purchase intentions in mobile shopping), Okazaki & Mendez,
2013a (linking portability and interface design to convenience)
Wang & Li, 2012 (value proposition attributes of mobile value-added
services and brand equity), Okazaki & Mendez, 2013b (understanding
perceived ubiquity in mobile services), Persaud & Azhar, 2012
(consumers' acceptance towards smartphones based marketing), Nilashi
et al., 2015 (linking security, design and content related factors on
customer trust), Hofacker et al., 2016 (gamification elements and
mobile marketing)

133
D.S. Kumar et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141

literature (Rosen and Purinton, 2004), started gaining attention in
marketing literature in the early 1980s (Holbrook, 1980). Since then,
aesthetics has been applied in various studies in the marketing domain,
including those related to product designs (e.g., Bloch, 1995), packa-
ging designs (e.g., Raghubir and Greenleaf, 2006), servicescapes (e.g.,
Bellizzi and Hite, 1992), logo designs (e.g; Pittard et al., 2007) and
website designs (e.g., Rosen and Purinton, 2004). Vacker and Key
(1993) demonstrated that theories and studies related to visual aes-
thetics could be broadly categorized into the objective approach and
subjective approach. Studies in marketing have overwhelmingly
adopted the objective approach of aesthetics (e.g., Bloch, 2011;
Townsend and Shu, 2010; Wardono et al., 2012). However, when it
comes to appreciation of visual aesthetics atmospherics, websites, or
apps, the experience is based on the holistic evaluations and the in-
teractive experience (Kumar et al., 2013; Manganari et al., 2007; Rosen
and Purinton, 2004) and this can be best captured using a subjective
approach (Verhoeven et al., 2009). Thus far, subjective studies have
investigated questions such as effect of perceived complexity on con-
sumers’ perceptions and behavioural intentions (Sohn et al., 2017) or
correlations between overall design aesthetics and m-loyalty (Li and
Yeh, 2010), but the stimuli variables in these studies have not been
comprehensive enough to capture the subjective aesthetic attributes of
a design. Thus, we propose the use of Kaplan's information processing
model from environmental psychology with a comprehensive frame-
work of holistic, subjective aesthetic variables that has strong empirical
validation in the landscape, built environments and website studies. It
has been established that website design and landscape design are very
similar, and hence aesthetic principles applied to landscapes can be
extended to websites (Rosen and Purinton, 2004). Also, because of si-
milarities between usage and involvement levels with mobile devices
are very similar to those of websites, many design principles that have
applicability in websites can be transferred to mobile interface design
also.
A well-done study using Kaplan's (1987) model to investigate aes-
thetic attributes (Eckman and Wagner, 1994), talks about four sets of
subjective aesthetic variables, namely legibility, complexity, coherence
and mystery. Legibility is the inferential aspect of comprehension or the
ability to understand and find one's way into an environment (Singh
et al., 2005). Complexity deals with the visual richness of the environ-
ment or the information rate (Herzog and Leverich, 2003). Coherence
refers to how the various elements hang together, their unity, pat-
terning or the visual harmony (Herzog and Leverich, 2003; Tveit et al.,
2006), while mystery refers to those aspects of the environment, which
encourage one to explore with a promise of gaining more information
(Herzog and Bryce, 2007). Table 2 presents the summary of Kaplan's
variables and how they have been defined for the context of appscapes.
Kaplan (1987)'s model was developed in the context of landscapes
where humans make sense of the environment through the visual cues
present. Out of the four subjective aesthetic variables, coherence and
legibility are classified as understanding variables, whereas complexity
and mystery are classified as exploration variables. Further studies in
websites, like Rosen and Purinton (2004), Yeh and Li (2014) have ap-
plied Kaplan's variables in website contexts and determined that mys-
tery is not a relevant variable for websites. Since consumer evaluations
of app designs are very similar to those of websites (Cyr et al., 2006),
this study also excludes mystery as a variable. Also, since apps are al-
ready installed in devices and modifications do not occur frequently (Xu
et al., 2014), the mystery may not have a long-lasting effect on users.
2.2. Linking visual aesthetics evaluation to Technology Acceptance Model
Kaplan's (1987) model thus provides holistic, subjective dimensions
for evaluating visual aesthetics that can be adopted for an appscape
design, but it lacks elaborate response taxonomy (Stamps, 2004). On
the other hand, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) proposed by
Davis et al. (1989) is a technology adoption model, which is parsimo-
nious and has been well-researched, adapted and applied in different
contexts (e.g., Chen et al., 2015; Pantano and Priporas, 2016;
Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), including mobile advertising (e.g.,Martí
Parreño et al., 2013) and mobile apps (e.g., Carter and Yeo, 2017). Also,
TAM is reported to have better explanatory power for understanding
technology adoption (Hong et al., 2002). TAM also theorises two
mediating variables, namely ease of use and usefulness leading to
adoption. Later extension of TAM to the World Wide Web introduced a
new variable of playfulness (Moon and Kim, 2001), which is better
expressed as the perceived enjoyment in m-shopping experience (Cyr
et al., 2006). Drawing upon Stimulus- Organism- Response (S-O-R)
Model, Zhang and Benyoucef (2006) have proposed the use of TAM
mediating variables such as ease of use, usefulness and enjoyment as
the organism factors, which result in responses like loyalty. Mehrabian
and Russell (1974)'s S-O-R framework discusses how external stimuli
influence the consumer's responses and has been widely applied in
aesthetics related studies in marketing (e.g., Bitner, 1992; Donovan
et al., 1994; Turley & Chebat, 2002). Bitner (1992)'s model was also
developed with the theoretical basis of the S-O-R framework. So, based
on the S-O-R theoretical framework, this study integrates two major
theoretical frameworks, technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis
et al., 1989), and Kaplan's (1987) information processing model to
develop a model for investigating influences of visual aesthetics eva-
luation on the customers’ loyalty intentions towards mobile apps.
Hence, for this study, we consider ease of use, usefulness and en-
joyment as the mediating variables leading to m-loyalty. Extending
Davis et al. (1989) definition, perceived ease of use is defined as the
extent to which using a mobile app would be perceived effort-free,
whereas perceived usefulness is the degree to which one thinks that
using a particular mobile app enhances any specific task-related per-
formance. Finally, perceived enjoyment is the degree to which one
perceives the usage of the mobile app as enjoyable (Van der Heijden,
2004).

Table 2
Visual Aesthetic Dimensions for ‘Appscapes’.
Dimension Type Dimensions Definition for Landscapes Definition considered for Appscapes

Immediate - Understanding Coherence How well organised the environment is; how complementing the elements How visually organised and orderly the app is in
are to each other (Herzog & Kropscott, 2004; Herzog & Leverich, 2003). providing consistent and meaningful information to
users.
Immediate - Exploration Complexity Visual intricacies present in the environment (Herzog & Leverich, 2003); Visually perceived richness due to the presence of
count of different and variety elements present in the scene; how visually various app features (size, shape, colour, pattern,
rich and complex the scene is (Herzog & Kropscott, 2004). composition and type)
Inferred / Predicted- Legibility Any features or landmarks present that facilitate understanding of the The ease of labels/ icons/ links permitting
Understanding environment by aiding in wayfinding by generating a useful mental map interactivity in mobile apps.
(Herzog & Leverich, 2003; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004).
Inferred / Predicted- Mystery Any features of the environment that encourage the viewer to explore the This variable is not considered for the study.
Exploration environment more deeply, with an assurance that one could achieve new
insights (Herzog & Kropscott, 2004).

134
D.S. Kumar et al.
3. Conceptual model and hypotheses
Using the S-O-R model (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974), this study
integrates two major theoretical frameworks to propose a robust con-
ceptual model linking user responses to perceived visual aesthetics di-
mensions of mobile apps. Three aesthetic variables from Kaplan's model
– complexity, coherence and legibility – are used to capture the visual
aesthetics of mobile apps. These visual aesthetic variables are linked
with the mediating variables from TAM: perceived ease of use, useful-
ness, enjoyment and, eventually, on the consequence variable of m-
loyalty. The following section discusses various hypotheses.
3.1. Influence of complexity
Extending Rosen and Purinton (2004)'s definition to apps, com-
plexity can be defined as the visual richness of the graphical user in-
terfaces (GUI) of appscapes. As the diversity of information inputs in-
creases, the perceived information load also increases (Rosenholtz
et al., 2007). For websites, higher levels of complexity can increase
aesthetic appeal, which aids ease of exploration (Brunner-Sperdin et al.,
2014). According to information processing theory, increasing com-
plexity leads to uncertainty, and human beings increase their involve-
ment levels to cope up with this uncertainty (Nasar, 1987).
Furthermore, as apps become more and more complex, ease of use
decreases. Unlike in the case of websites, appscape interactions demand
higher degrees of cognitive and physical effort (Ghose et al., 2012). So
as complexity increases the perceived usefulness of the app will de-
crease. Complexity increases the perceived information load in the
environment, resulting in higher levels of affective responses (Foxall
and Yani-de-Soriano, 2005). According to Russell and Pratt (1980),
information load increases the affective responses of individuals, re-
sulting in perceived enjoyments. Also, for experiential consumption, as
the complexity increases, there will be a higher demand for cognitive
involvement, which results in higher involvement (Holbrook et al.,
1984). Higher involvement levels result in higher levels of enjoyment
(Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004). Also, the recent developments in aes-
thetics, like Pleasure-Interest Model of aesthetic liking (Graf and
Landwehr, 2015) explains that even non-fluent aesthetic stimuli like a
highly complex one can generate interest in the users.
Extending this argument to mobile apps, it can be inferred that
higher levels of app complexity can result in higher levels of enjoyment.
Hence:
H1a. The perceived level of complexity of an appscape will negatively impact
the perceived ease of use.
H1b. The perceived level of complexity of an appscape will negatively
impact the perceived usefulness.
H1c. The perceived level of complexity of an appscape will positively impact
the perceived enjoyment.
3.2. Influence of coherence
Coherence signifies those environmental features which help in
understanding the setting and hence, for appscapes, it refers to the
various design aspects of the GUI such as the harmony of colour
schemes used, redundancy of the elements and structures (Rosen and
Purinton, 2004). Coherence aids in the immediate understanding of the
GUI and thus increases the perceived visual quality (Finlay et al., 2006).
Coherence helps a user to efficiently organise, comprehend, and
structure the setting (Brunner-Sperdin et al., 2004). Thus higher levels
of coherence aid better understanding of the app, leading to higher
levels of perceived ease of use.
H2a. The perceived level of coherence of an appscape will positively impact
the perceived ease of use.
135
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141
Studies in landscapes have shown that, as the coherence of the
setting increases the more organised and harmonious the setting will
be, the more favourable will be affective responses (Nasar, 1987).
Studies related to mobile websites have established that positive af-
fective responses result in an increased level of perceived usefulness
and enjoyment (Cyr et al., 2006). Also, the concept of situational nor-
mality suggests that when coherence is high, users can take signals from
well-organised settings and develop positive attitude (Gefen,
Karahanna, and Straub, 2003) which can result in definite usefulness.
Being an understanding variable (Kaplan, 1987), when the perceived
level of appscape coherence increases, the cognitive load required to
perform a task decreases, whereby help the users to accomplish his/her
task easier and faster (Rosen and Purinton, 2004). Also, coherence helps
users to orient themselves to accomplish a task faster (Tveit et al.,
2006). Again, coherence decreases entropy (Stamps, 2006), which gives
a feeling of better control and access to the contents of the app, results
in perceived usefulness and enjoyment (Cyr et al., 2006).
Similarly, coherence adds to the vividness of the app interfaces. The
vividness of the displays in a personal digital assistant (PDA) has proven
to increase the perceived enjoyment of users (Jiang and Benbasat,
2007). Thus for mobile apps, it is hypothesised that;
H2b. The perceived level of coherence of an appscape will positively impact
the perceived usefulness.
H2c. The perceived level of coherence of an appscape will positively impact
the perceived enjoyment
3.3. Influence of legibility
Legibility alludes to the distinctiveness level present in the en-
vironment that helps the users to understand and thereby facilitate
way-finding or navigation (Lynch, 1960). Hence any features or
“landmarks” which enable wayfinding add to the legibility (Herzog and
Leverich, 2003). For appscapes, legibility can be expressed regarding
meaningful graphics, the presence of icons and other features which
facilitate exploration. Information theory suggests that legibility aids
wayfinding through the creation of “cognitive maps”, thereby reducing
confusion and related emotional discomfort (Wener and Kaminoff,
1983). Also, as legibility aids ease of understanding the setting (Herzog
and Leverich, 2003), it can aid ease of use of the app.
Further, as legibility increases, ambiguity reduces, which enhances
quicker goal attainment (Herzog and Leverich, 2003), thus positively
influencing perceived usefulness. Again, studies in natural settings have
shown that legibility positively relates to affective responses and per-
ceived enjoyment (Hanyu, 2000). Thus, appscapes which are high in
perceived legibility add to the affective responses of users, leading to
enhanced ease of use, usefulness and enjoyment. Hence it is hypothe-
sised that:
H3a. The perceived level of legibility of an appscape will positively impact
the perceived ease of use.
H3b. The perceived level of legibility of an appscape will positively impact
the perceived usefulness.
H3c. The perceived level of legibility of an appscape will positively
impact the perceived enjoyment.
3.4. Interconnection between TAM variables
Effect of Perceived ease of use on usefulness has been established by
TAM (Davis et al., 1989) and reestablished in TAM2 (Venkatesh and
Davis, 2000). Further, these links are also found to be significant in
multiple contexts including Internet adoption studies (Moon and Kim,
2001), m-commerce contexts (Cyr et al., 2006), and in the consumer
technology acceptance model (c-TAM) with hedonic factors (Bruner
D.S. Kumar et al.
and Kumar, 2005). Similarly, in the contexts of appscapes also, when
the consumers’ perceive the app more easy to use, the possibility of
considering it useful is also high as with higher levels of perceived ease
of use the perceived cognitive load gets lower. Hence, this study also
hypothesises:
H4. Perceived ease of use of an appscape bears a positively linear
relationship with the level of perceived usefulness.
As is true with most technology products, when ease of use in-
creases, fun and enjoyability in the usage of appscapes will also in-
crease, as ease of use results in mastery of app thereby making usage
less cumbersome (Bruner and Kumar, 2005). Also, apps that are easy to
use make it less intimidating for users, resulting in enjoyment (Moon
and Kim, 2001). Also, studies related to mobile interfaces have shown
that perceived ease of use can positively influence perceived enjoyment
(Cyr et al., 2006). Hence we hypothesise that:
H5. Perceived ease of use of an appscape shall positively impact the
perceived enjoyment.
In line with Cyr et al. (2006) and Floh and Treiblmaier (2006), m-
loyalty can be defined as the re-use and recommendation intentions of
the app users. Higher levels of the m-loyalty result in better user en-
gagements with the appscapes. Studies in mobile commerce have
shown that perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment positively
influence loyalty (Cyr et al., 2006). A similar relationship has been
established between usefulness and loyalty in e-services context (Cyr
et al., 2007). Also, the easier to use the website is, more will be its use
and re-use (Gefen et al., 2003).
Similarly, the ease of use of websites can increase the satisfaction
levels of users, leading to e-loyalty (Ribbink et al., 2004). Hence in the
context of appscapes also the perceived levels of usefulness, ease of use
and enjoyment can result in positive re-use intentions. Thus, we hy-
pothesise for appscapes that:
H6. Perceived usefulness will positively impact m-loyalty of an appscape.
H7. Perceived ease of use will positively impact m-loyalty of an appscape.
H8. Perceived enjoyment will positively impact m-loyalty of an appscape.
As discussed above, higher levels of complexity positively influence
the perceived enjoyment, while negatively influencing the ease of use
and usefulness. Studies have shown that enjoyment positively influ-
ences m-loyalty (Cyr et al., 2006), while lower levels of ease of use and
usefulness can negatively influence m-loyalty (Gefen et al., 2003;
Ribbink et al., 2004). Similarly, positive levels of coherence (Brunner-
Sperdin et al., 2004) and legibility (Herzog and Leverich, 2003) has
shown to influence ease of use, usefulness and enjoyment positively
(Cyr et al., 2006). Studies in the context of websites have shown that
positive levels of ease of use and usefulness can generate loyalty
(Flavián, Guinalíu and Gurrea, 2006). Similar relationships were vali-
dated between ease of use and entertainment aspects with loyalty on
online retailing contexts (Kim and Niehm, 2009) and in the context of
mobile hotel booking (Ozturk et al., 2016). Further, mediated re-
lationships between aesthetic variables and loyalty through usefulness
and enjoyment have been established in the context of mobile com-
merce also (Cyr et al., 2006). Thus, three separate mediation hy-
potheses are also considered as;
H9. Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and perceived enjoyment
will mediate the effect of perceived level of complexity on m-loyalty.
H10. Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and perceived enjoyment
will mediate the effect of perceived level of coherence on m-loyalty.
H11. Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and perceived enjoyment
will mediate the effect of perceived level of legibility on m-loyalty.
136
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141
4. Research methodology
The study employed a field experiment with one-shot treatment
(Malhotra, 2008) using four travel-related mobile apps as stimuli. As
the main purpose of the study was to validate the proposed model
linking visual aesthetic variables and consumer responses, an experi-
mental design is believed to be the most appropriate approach (Li and
Yeh, 2010). An experimental method using real apps would enhance
the realism of the users and thus improve the quality of data (Yeh and
Li, 2014). Further, experimental design with real apps helps to measure
the influence of mobile apps on consumers more effectively (Lee and
Kim, 2018). Also, similar experimental approaches were adopted by
many studies (e.g., Tuch et al., 2012; Bhandari et al., 2017). Since both
leisure and business travelers are likely to use these apps, the travel
apps are likely to cater to the demands of both functional and hedonic
needs (Zhao andBalagué´, 2015). According to Google Travel Research
Report 2016,4 70% of travelers with a smartphone use mobile for travel
searches, and a typical smartphone user has on an average 2.3 travel
apps installed in his/her device.
Further, as both leisure and business travelers are likely to use travel
apps, they are expected to cater to the demands of both functional and
hedonic needs (Zhao and Balagué´, 2015). Thus, travel apps provide an
exciting context for testing proposed hypotheses. These four apps
(Trip.com, TripAdvisor, Cleartrip and Tripoto) were chosen based on their
rating in the Google play store at the time of the study. Many studies
have made use of travel apps for experimentation (e.g., Cy et al., 2009).
Many studies related to mobile apps have made use of existing apps
for generating data (e.g., Yeh and Li, 2014; Yang, 2016). Since the goal
of the study was to simulate the users' experience in appscapes, in line
with Yeh and Li (2014), this study also employed real apps. These apps
were installed in 4 android mobile phones of the series HM 2LTE-IN.
The display specifications of the devices are kept the same (Display size:
4.7 in., Resolution: 720 × 1280 pixels, Type: IPS LCD capacitive
touchscreen, 16 M colours).
The respondents were mostly working executives and a few post-
graduate students from 4 Indian cities. Like many studies related to app
usage (e.g., Cyr et al., 2006; Li and Yeh, 2010), this study also followed
the non-probabilistic approach of judgment sampling. The respondents
were chosen based on their willingness to participate in the study and
familiarity in using any mobile apps for any particular task in their day
to day life. Familiarity with the app here is understood as if the re-
spondents have seen, heard about or have used the particular app be-
fore. The respondents were contacted in their office/institute premises
and were asked to use two randomly chosen apps for 5 min for a given
task. They were instructed to perform a task as to select a destination
which they would like to visit, identify hotels which they would prefer
to stay, read the reviews about tourist destination and the hotels, check
the flight rates, and browse through the pictures and maps in the app.
On completion of the task mentioned above, the participants were
asked to fill a physical questionnaire.
Out of a total of 320 participants contacted for the study, 308 usable
responses were obtained. 52% of the respondents were slightly familiar
with the app, while 46% were moderately familiar with the app. Only
2% of the respondents were very familiar with the app. While the focus
was on a willingness to participate and familiarity with the specific
mobile app, the resultant profile of respondents had a wide age range of
18–62 years, mostly (about 87%) below 30 years with an average age of
27 years. Regarding gender, 56% of the subjects who participated in the
study were women. The sample included both students and executives
both, and 61% were working executives – 38% with bachelor's degree
and 23% with the master's degree, while the remaining 39% were
4
https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/consumer-insights/travel-research-
process-make-a-plan-moments/app-marketing-travel-consumer-journey.pdf ac-
cessed on June 1, 2018.
D.S. Kumar et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141

students in a postgraduate program. Similar sample profiles have been Larcker, 1981).
part of several studies with similar enquiries (e.g., Purani and Kumar, For assessing the measurement model, we used a bootstrapping
2018). procedure with 999 resamples, (which is higher than the sample size as
The scales on complexity, coherence, legibility were adapted from suggested by Streukens and Leroi-Werelds, 2016) to calculate the path
Rosen and Purinton (2004); perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, coefficients and its significance (p-values) for all hypothesised struc-
perceived enjoyment and m-loyalty were adapted from TAM (Cyr et al., tural links (Hair et al., 2011). The path analysis model is shown in
2006) using a 5 point Likert scale. Fig. 1. Chin (2010) suggests using 95% bias-corrected confidence in-
tervals (CI) to assess the significance of path coefficients, which is not
directly provided by Warp PLS 5.0. Hence, we calculated the CI by
5. Data analysis and findings following the procedure suggested by Kock (2016) and is provided in
table -04. According to Kock (2013), the structural model assessment is
For testing the model holistically, we employed PLS based SEM done based on various indices, such as Tanenhaus GoF and average
using WarpPLS 5.0 software. PLS based SEM is almost becoming a (path coefficients, R-squared, adjusted R-squared and full collinearity
standard procedure for establishing the cause-effect relationship and VIFs). The Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) for the structural model is estimated to
has been widely used to validate TAM in multiple contexts (Hair et al., be 0.529, which is large according to the threshold recommended by
2017). Also, it is the most suitable method for testing models that have Tenenhaus et al. (2005). Also, the model showed significant average
both formative and reflective variables (Hair et al., 2011). The 308 path coefficient = 0.239 (p < 0.001), average R-square = 0.455
responses satisfied the minimum sample size requirement for PLS based (p < 0.001), and Average adjusted R-squared= 0.448 (p < 0.001).
SEM recommended by Hair et al. (2011). The model assessment for PLS The model also has an acceptable level of collinearity average variance
based SEM is also similar to CB based SEM, which is based on mea- inflation factor of 2.023; (suggested to be < 5 by Hair et al., 2011). The
surement and structural model results. R2 values of the dependent variables viz., ease of use, usefulness, en-
For checking common method variance, we applied Kock and Lynn joyment and m-loyalty are 0.424, 0.418, 0.399 and 0.563 respectively.
(2012)’s full collinearity VIFs approach. Compared to other conven- Since all R2 values are greater than 0.1, they are at acceptable levels, as
tional approaches like Harman's single factor method (Podsakoff and per Falk and Miller (1992).
Organ, 1986), this approach is reported to be more conservative and The path coefficients with their significance levels from the struc-
arguably superior one (Kock, 2013). According to Hair et al. (2011), a tural model provide support/no support for the various direct hy-
full collinearity VIF of less than 5 suggests the absence of common potheses formulated. Table 4 provides the details of the path coeffi-
method bias. The full collinearity VIFs (reported below) suggest the cients, p –values and 95% bias-corrected CIs for all direct hypotheses
absence of common method bias related issues. In line with many H1 through H8. The path coefficients and corresponding p-values
landscape studies (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001), we also suggest that, except H1a, H1b, H3a and H5, all hypotheses are sup-
considered complexity, coherence and legibility as formative variables. ported.
The assessment of the measurement model in PLS-SEM is done differ- For the mediation effects hypothesised in H9, H10 and H11, we
ently for formative and reflective variables (Hair et al., 2011). For- made use of Preacher and Hayes (2008) multiple mediation model
mative variables – complexity, coherence and legibility are assessed for approach using the PROCESS macro plugin (http://www.processmacro.
full collinearity indices and significant loadings and are found to have org/index.html) for SPSS 20.0. Specifically, we employed Model-4 with
acceptable indices (Complexity (VIF = 2.182)), Coherence (VIF = 5000 bootstrapping resamples to test the mediation effects (Hayes,
2.833) Legibility (VIF = 1.663). The reflective constructs viz., per- 2013). Arguably multiple mediation model approach is shown to be
ceived usefulness, ease of use, enjoyment and m-loyalty are checked for more robust to Baron and Kenny's (1986) simple mediation causal steps
its composite reliability (CR), individual item reliability, discriminant approach (Hayes, 2009). Table 5 reports the results of the mediation
validity and convergent validity (Hair et al., 2011) and have found to analysis.
have acceptable values (Usefulness (CR = 0.843, α = 0.720, AVE = The significance of the total indirect effect and the indirect (med-
0.642, VIF= 1.717), ease of use (CR = 0.868, α = 0.764, AVE=0.693, iation) effect (IE) is established if the bias-corrected 95% CI does not
VIF = 1.856), enjoyment (CR = 0.915, α = 0.855, AVE = 0.786, VIF contain 0 (Zhao et al., 2010). The first model considers complexity as
= 1.651) and m-loyalty (CR = 0.922, α = 0.871, AVE = 0.799, VIF = the independent variable. Since the hypothesised relationship between
2.258)). We used Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria for assessing dis- complexity and ease of use and legibility and usefulness were not
criminant validity, which compares the square root of the average supported, we excluded them from mediation tests. However, perceived
variance extracted (AVE) values of each construct with the correlations usefulness was considered for mediation analysis since the link between
among constructs and the variables. As evident from Table 3, since each perceived usefulness and complexity has shown a positive significant
variable's square root of AVE is higher than the correlation between coefficient (as against hypothesised negative relationships). The results
constructs, they are proven to have discriminant validity (Fornell and of the mediation analysis are given in Table 5. The total effect (TE) and
direct effect (DE) of complexity on m-loyalty is 0.5680 (p < 0.001)
Table 3 and 0.1780 (p < 0.001) respectively. This suggests that usefulness and
Correlations and square root of AVE. enjoyment mediate the complexity and m-loyalty link, positively (IE =
COMP COH LEG USFUL EOU ENJ LYL 0.3900, 95% CI: 0.3059–0.4928), whereby partially supporting H9. For
coherence, the TE and DE on m-loyalty are 0.8670(p < 0.001) and
COMP 0.693 0.2925(p < 0.001) respectively. Here also, as the total indirect effect
COH 0.678 0.664
LEG 0.418 0.461 0.686
through usefulness, enjoyment and ease of use is positive (IE = 0.5745,
USFUL 0.509 0.480 0.400 0.801 95% CI: 0.4568–0.7190). Hence, it can be inferred that hypothesis H10
EOU 0.349 0.592 0.441 0.329 0.833 is supported. In the hypothesised relationship between legibility and m-
ENJ 0.495 0.479 0.512 0.464 0.316 0.887 loyalty, the TE and DE on m-loyalty are respectively
LYL 0.396 0.610 0.510 0.537 0.601 0.413 0.894
0.8441(p < 0.001), and 0.3447(p < 0.001). Ease of use is found to be
1. Diagonal elements – Square root of AVE; off-diagonal elements – correlations a significant mediator (IE = 0.4994, 95% CI: 0.3820–0.6318), whereas
between constructs. enjoyment is not found to be a significant mediator, whereby partially
2. COMP = Complexity, COH= Coherence, LEG = Legibility; EOU = Ease of supporting the hypothesis H11.
Use; USFUL = Perceived Usefulness; ENJ = Perceived Enjoyment; LOY = m-
Loyalty.

137
D.S. Kumar et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141

Fig. 1. Path analysis model.

6. Discussion and conclusion
This study investigates users’ adoption of and loyalty to mobile apps
by considering the comprehensive set of visual aesthetic variables from
Kaplan (1987)'s model in environmental psychology. Using the S-O-R
model, the antecedent variables of app aesthetics are largely integrated
with the technology acceptance model to generate an integrated model
for assessing the influence of visual aesthetic qualities of a mobile app
on m-loyalty.
From a theoretical perspective, this study identified the visual aes-
thetic factors, which influence the user's app usage leading to loyalty
intentions. While studies related to mobile apps are gaining ground in
the literature, there has been tremendous scope to explore the factors
which influence their adoption. Previous studies have underscored the
need to identify the design factors that can influence the user's adoption
and reuse intentions (Bhandari et al., 2017). One of the contributions of
the paper is the introduction of subjective design factors for aesthetic
evaluation of the mobile apps. As mentioned, just as in the case of
landscape aesthetics (e.g., Tveit, Ode, and Fry, 2006) and servicescape
aesthetics (e.g., Kumar et al., 2017), our study has established that
when it comes to evaluation of visual aesthetics of appscapes, a holistic
and subjective approach using variables like complexity, coherence and
legibility is found to be an appropriate method for appraising the same.
Also, this finding extends the inferences provided by the studies on
mobile apps (e.g., Brunner-Sperdin et al., 2014) that consumers eval-
uate the visual aesthetics subjectively and holistically. In other words,
the findings of this study suggest that consumers evaluate the design
features like colour, graphics and text of the appscapes as a composite
rather than as individual elements. So for better user experience, ap-
proaching the design holistically involving all the three variables
(complexity, coherence and legibility) is a better approach rather than
focusing on improving the designs of individual elements in isolation.
Further, the study establishes that the perceived levels of com-
plexity, coherence and legibility drive perceptions of usefulness, ease of
use and enjoyment of mobile app experience. It is shown that the hy-
pothesised inverse relationship between complexity and usefulness was
not supported and, instead, a positive relationship emerged. This may
be because increasing levels of complexity induce a sense of exploration
in users, leading to higher levels of perceived usefulness. Also, studies
related to websites have shown that an interface's visual aesthetics

Table 4
Summary statistic of hypothesised paths.
Sl. No. Cause variables Effect variables Path coefficient (β) p-value BC - 95% confidence interval Remarks

Lower Upper

1 Complexity Usefulness 0.295 < 0.001 0.198 0.391 H1a is not supported(Note: since β is positive as against the
negative relationship hypothesised)
Ease of use 0.040 0.204 − 0.056 0.136 H1b is not supported
Enjoyment 0.244 < 0.001 0.148 0.340 H1c is supported
2 Coherence Usefulness 0.185 < 0.001 0.088 0.281 H2a is supported
Ease of use 0.538 < 0.001 0.441 0.631 H2b is supported
Enjoyment 0.231 < 0.001 0.135 0.327 H2c is supported
3 Legibility Usefulness 0.088 0.036 − 0.008 0.184 H3a is not supported
Ease of use 0.198 < 0.001 0.101 0.294 H3b is supported
Enjoyment 0.293 < 0.001 0.197 0.389 H3c is supported
4 Ease of use Usefulness 0.258 < 0.001 0.162 0.354 H4 is supported
5 Ease of use Enjoyment 0.039 0.214 − 0.057 0.135 H5 is not supported
6 Usefulness m-loyalty 0.400 < 0.001 0.304 0.496 H6 is supported
7 Ease of use m-loyalty 0.302 < 0.001 0.206 0.398 H7 is supported
8 Enjoyment m-loyalty 0.214 < 0.001 0.118 0.310 H8 is supported

138
D.S. Kumar et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141

Table 5
Details of the mediation test analysis.
Total effect (TE) – Cause Variable on effect Direct effect (DE) - Cause Variable on effect Indirect effect (IE)
variable variable

β T-Value β T-Value Indirect Effects PE BC - 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Upper

Model − 1: Complexity as cause variable and m-loyalty as effect variable

0.5680 8.3453 0.1780 2.3650 Indirect effect (Total) 0.3900 0.3059 0.4928
Mediators Usefulness 0.2673 0.1965 0.3515
Enjoyment 0.1227 0.0261 0.2612
Model − 2: Coherence as cause variable and m-loyalty as effect variable
0.8670 12.6272 0.2925 3.6572 Indirect effect (Total) 0.5745 0.4568 0.7190
Mediators Usefulness 0.2166 0.1587 0.2818
Enjoyment 0.0656 0.0036 0.1315
Ease of Use 0.2922 0.2147 0.3873
Model − 3: Legibility as cause variable and m-loyalty as effect variable
0.8441 11.7440 0.3447 4.6236 Indirect effect (Total) 0.4994 0.3820 0.6318
Mediators Enjoyment 0.0503 − 0.0511 0.2497
Ease of use 0.2478 0.1857 0.3225

affects user perception of usability (Tuch et al., 2012). These findings
are line with studies in landscapes (e.g., Hanyu, 2000), servicescapes
(e.g., Kumar et al., 2017) and websites (e.g., Rosen and Purinton, 2004)
that positively influences consumer responses. So, keeping in mind the
active user engagement with the mobile app, appealing visual aes-
thetics can play a significant role in user adoption and intentions to
reuse. Though studies in website contexts (e.g., Cyr et al., 2006) have
established the relationship between aesthetic design factors and TAM
variables, the extant studies on aesthetics related to mobile apps have
not attempted a subjective, holistic approach in capturing visual aes-
thetic qualities. We believe this study is the first one to establish the
relationship between two broad categories of holistic understanding
and exploration variables from information processing theory in en-
vironmental psychology and usefulness, ease of use and enjoyment in
appscapes.
Our findings show a significant influence of design aesthetics, per-
ceived usefulness, ease of use and enjoyment on m-loyalty, implying
that a complex, yet coherent and legible app aesthetics can generate a
positive sense of usefulness, ease of use and enjoyment in the users,
thereby gaining their loyalty towards the app. This further extends the
findings of the studies in the context of websites (e.g., Flavián, Guinalíu,
and Gurrea, 2006) and m-websites (Cyr et al., 2006) that antecedent
factors like usability elements and aesthetics follow a mediated path to
loyalty.
In short, our study further extends the existing aesthetic studies
related to mobile apps by providing a parsimonious set of subjective
stimuli variables and confirms the robustness of TAM in the context of
appscapes too. Finally, it is to be noted that the link between ease of use
and enjoyment was not supported in the study. This is possibly because
as ease of use increases, boredom sets in the users, resulting in lack of
enjoyment.
From a practitioner's perspective, the study provides several in-
sights. Businesses and app developers spend large amounts of resources
to promote app downloads, user engagements and channel migration to
mobiles. The findings of this study can guide the development of ap-
propriate visual aesthetics for mobile apps by adjusting complexity,
coherence and legibility in appscapes to achieve higher levels of
loyalty. Thus, the insights of this study can help managers and designers
in assessing the perceived levels of complexity, coherence and legibility
of apps in designing or redesigning the GUIs in ways that increase user
involvement and behavioural loyalty. The app developers should pri-
marily focus on making the app visually organised and orderly as co-
herence improves useful, ease of use and enjoyment making it the es-
sential aesthetic variable for m-loyalty. Findings suggest that legibility
and complexity would matter more for m-loyalty if the app focuses on
enjoyment as against usability. Hence, apps for pleasure and fun may
focus on making the app features such as size, shape, colour, pattern,
composition and type (complexity) and the features such as labels,
icons, links (legibility) richer.
This study has a few limitations. One of the limitations is that on the
restriction on the number and type of travel apps used. Further, the
existing real travel apps provide limited manipulation of aesthetic
variables, and the findings may need to keep that limitation in mind.
Collative, composite factors such as complexity, coherence and leg-
ibility (Hanyu, 2000), are perceived in combination. For example, high
complexity with high coherence may result in high involvement but
high complexity, without coherence may lead to clutter (Hanyu, 2000;
Kumar et al., 2017). Such an eventuality is a limitation of this study. It
needs further research to extend the findings to other types of service
apps. Secondly, as the respondents were mostly youngsters from India,
the findings may not be generalizable to other population. Also, the
study was conducted using only one operating system – Android OS.
Further studies need to see whether the type of OS like iOS from Apple
can moderate the strength and nature of the established relationships.
The study also shares the limitation of non-probabilistic sampling.
The study suggests important issues for future research. For ex-
ample, it maybe interesting to examine the influence of other aesthetic
variables such as novelty, visual scale, familiarity, and typicality and
how they impact overall acceptance and intentions to reuse mobile
apps. In addition, moderating effects of appscape types like utility vs
recreation, commerce vs content, etc. could be investigated. Future
research might also implement a true experimental design by manip-
ulating the independent variables, thus providing richer insights.

139
D.S. Kumar et al.
Appendix A. : Summary of Scales
Constructs Items
Complexity (F) • The app uses different types of visual images
• Images and graphics used fit with the content in the app
• The app uses many images
Coherence (F) • The app had most of the information that I was looking for
• The app has logically organised information and images
• The app is very informative, and I would rely on it for future purposes
• The app created an interest in learning more
Legibility (F) • This app has certain memorable features
• The icons in the app give clarity and make it easy to navigate through each page
• The app has distinct features unlike other apps which I have used before
Usefulness (R) • The app made the task I wanted to accomplish easier to get done
• It took fewer steps to accomplish the tasks I wanted to do
• The app helped me to be more effective in doing the task
Ease of Use (R) • Learning to use this app was easy for me
• I find this app easy to use
• It would be easy for me to become skilful at using this app
Enjoyment (R) • Using the app was exciting
• I found using this app enjoyable
• I had fun using this app
m-Loyalty (R) • I would use this app again
• I would consider using this app in the future
• I would recommend this app to my family and friends
References
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173.
Bellizzi, J.A., Hite, R.E., 1992. Environmental colour, consumer feelings, and purchase
likelihood. Psychol. Mark. 9 (5), 347–363.
Bellman, S., Potter, R.F., Treleaven-Hassard, S., Robinson, J.A., Varan, D., 2011. The
effectiveness of branded mobile phone apps. J. Interact. Mark. 25 (4), 191–200.
Bhandari, U., Neben, T., Chang, K., Chua, W.Y., 2017. Effects of interface design factors
on affective responses and quality evaluations in mobile applications. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 72, 525–534.
Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. J. Mark. 56 (2), 57–71.
Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. J.
Mark. 59 (3), 16–29.
Bloch, P.H., 2011. Product design and marketing: reflections after fifteen years. J.
Product. Innov. Manag. 28 (3), 378–380.
Bruner, G.C., Kumar, A., 2005. Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet
devices. J. Bus. Res. 58 (5), 553–558.
Brunner-Sperdin, A., Scholl-Grissemann, U.S., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., 2014. The re-
levance of holistic website perception. How sense-making and exploration cues guide
consumers' emotions and behaviours. J. Bus. Res. 67 (12), 2515–2522.
Carter, S., Yeo, A.C.M., 2016. Mobile apps usage by Malaysian business undergraduates
and postgraduates: implications for consumer behaviour theory and marketing
practice. Internet Res. 26 (3), 733–757.
Carter, S., Yeo, A.C.M., 2017. From hedonism and utilitarianism to anticipated actual
behaviour: do UK and Malaysian postgraduate students behave differently to mobile
apps. Econ. Manag. Financ. Mark. 12, 11–34.
Chen, J.V., Yen, D.C., Pornpriphet, W., Widjaja, A.E., 2015. E-commerce website loyalty:
a cross-cultural comparison. Inf. Syst. Front. 17 (6), 1283–1299.
Chin, W.W., 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin,
W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 655–690.
Choi, J.H., Lee, H.J., 2012. Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: a structural
model. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70 (2), 129–142.
Chou, Y.C., Chuang, H.H.C., Shao, B.B., 2016. The impact of e-retail characteristics on
initiating mobile retail services: a modular innovation perspective. Inf. Manag. 53
(4), 481–492.
Cyr, D., Hassanein, K., Head, M., Ivanov, A., 2007. The role of social presence in estab-
lishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interact. Comput. 19 (1), 43–56.
Cyr, D., Head, M., Ivanov, A., 2006. Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile
commerce. Inf. Manag. 43 (8), 950–963.
Cyr, D., Head, M., Ivanov, A., 2009. Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: devel-
opment of a model for cognitive-affective user responses. Int. J. Hum.Comput. Stud.
67 (10), 850–869.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., 2001. Index construction with formative
140
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141
Reference
Rosen and Puriton, 2004; Kumar et al.,
2017
Rosen and Puriton, 2004; Kumar et al.,
2017
Rosen and Puriton, 2004; Kumar et al.,
2017
Cyr et al., 2006; Li and Yeh, 2010
Cyr et al., 2006; Li and Yeh, 2010
Cyr et al., 2006; Cyr et al., 2009
Cyr et al., 2006; Floh and Treiblmaier,
2006
indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38 (2), 269–277.
Dube, A., Helkkula, A., 2015. Service experiences beyond the direct use: indirect cus-
tomer use experiences of smartphone apps. J. Serv. Manag. 26 (2), 224–248.
Eckman, M., Wagner, J., 1994. Judging the attractiveness of product design: the effect of
visual attributes and consumer characteristics. In: Allen, Chris T, John, Deborah
Roedder (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 21. Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 560–564.
Finlay, K., Kanetkar, V., Londerville, J., Marmurek, H.H., 2006. The physical and psy-
chological measurement of gambling environments. Environ. Behav. 38 (4),
570–581.
Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., Gurrea, R., 2006. The role played by perceived usability, sa-
tisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf. Manag. 43 (1), 1–14.
Floh, A., Treiblmaier, H., 2006. What keeps the e-banking customer loyal? A multigroup
analysis of the moderating role of consumer characteristics on e-loyalty in the fi-
nancial service industry. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 7 (2), 97–110.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 382–388.
Foxall, G.R., Yani-de-Soriano, M.M., 2005. Situational influences on consumers' attitudes
and behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 58 (4), 518–525.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., 2003. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model. MIS Q. 27 (1), 51–90.
Ghose, A., Goldfarb, A., Han, S.P., 2012. How is the mobile internet different? Search
costs and local activities. Inf. Syst. Res. 24 (3), 613–631.
Gill, M., Sridhar, S., Grewal, R., 2017. Return on engagement initiatives (RoEI): a study of
a business-to-business mobile app. J. Mark. 81 (4), 45–66.
Graf, L.K., Landwehr, J.R., 2015. A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics:
the pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19 (4),
395–410.
Guido, G., Piper, L., Prete, M.I., Mileti, A., Trisolini, C.M., 2017. Effects of blue lighting in
ambient and mobile settings on the intention to buy Hedonic and Utilitarian pro-
ducts. Psychol. Mark. 34 (2), 215–226.
Hagerhall, C.M., 2001. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J. Environ.
Psychol. 21 (1), 83–92.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Thiele, K.O., 2017. Mirror, mirror on
the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modelling
methods. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (5), 616–632.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–152.
Hanyu, K., 2000. Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in day-
light. J. Environ. Psychol. 20 (3), 273–284.
Hayes, A.F., 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76 (4), 408–420.
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis. A Regression-based Approach. Guilford, New York (1609182308).
Herzog, T.R., Bryce, A.G., 2007. Mystery and preference in within-forest settings.
Environ. Behav. 39 (6), 779–796.
Herzog, T.R., Kropscott, L.S., 2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of
preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environ. Behav.
36 (5), 659–677.
Herzog, T.R., Leverich, O.L., 2003. Searching for legibility. Environ. Behav. 35 (4),
D.S. Kumar et al.
459–477.
Hoehle, H., Venkatesh, V., 2015. Mobile application usability: conceptualization and
instrument development. MIS Q. 39 (2), 435–472.
Hofacker, C.F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N.H., Manchanda, P., Donaldson, J., 2016.
Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. J. Interact. Mark. 34, 25–36.
Holbrook, M.B., 1980. Some preliminary notes on research in consumer esthetics. In: In:
Olson, Jerry C. (Ed.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research 07. Association for
Consumer Research, Ann Abor, MI, pp. 104–108.
Holbrook, M.B., Chestnut, R.W., Oliva, T.A., Greenleaf, E.A., 1984. Play as a consumption
experience: The roles of emotions, performance, and personality in the enjoyment of
games. J. Consum.Res. 11 (2), 728–739.
Hong, W., Thong, J.Y., Wong, W.M., Tam, K.Y, 2002. Determinants of user acceptance of
digital libraries: an empirical examination of individual differences and system
characteristics. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18 (3), 97–124.
Hopkins, C.D., Grove, S.J., Raymond, M.A., LaForge, M.C., 2009. Designing the e-servi-
cescape: implications for online retailers. J. Internet Commer. 8 (1–2), 23–43.
Hou, K.C., Ho, C.H., 2013. August. A preliminary study on aesthetic of apps icon design.
In: Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the International Association of
Societies of Design Research.
Jiang, Z., Benbasat, I., 2007. Research note—investigating the influence of the functional
mechanisms of online product presentations. Inf. Syst. Res. 18 (4), 454–470.
Kang, J.Y.M., Mun, J.M., Johnson, K.K., 2015. In-store mobile usage: downloading and
usage intention toward mobile location-based retail apps. Comput. Hum. Behav. 46,
210–217.
Kaplan, S., 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an
evolutionary perspective. Environ. Behav. 19 (1), 3–32.
Kim, E., Lin, J.S., Sung, Y., 2013. To app or not to app: engaging consumers via branded
mobile apps. J. Interact. Advert. 13 (1), 53–65.
Kim, H.W., Kankanhalli, A., Lee, H.L., 2016. Investigating decision factors in mobile
application purchase: a mixed-methods approach. Inf. Manag. 53 (6), 727–739.
Kim, H., Niehm, L.S., 2009. The impact of website quality on information quality, value,
and loyalty intentions in apparel retailing. J. Interact. Mark. 23 (3), 221–233.
Kock, N., 2013. WarpPLS 4.0, User Manual, ScriptWarp Systems, Laredo, Texas.
Kock, N., 2016. Hypothesis testing with confidence intervals and P values in PLS-SEM. Int.
J. e-Collab. 12 (3), 1–6.
Kock, N., Lynn, G., 2012. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based
SEM: an illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (7).
Kumar, D.S., Purani, K., Sahadev, S., 2013. Conceptualising visual servicescape aesthetics:
an application of environmental psychology. Mark. Rev. 13 (4), 347–376.
Kumar, D.S., Purani, K., Sahadev, S., 2017. Visual service scape aesthetics and consumer
response: a holistic model. J. Serv. Mark. 31 (6), 556–573.
Lavie, T., Tractinsk, N., 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of
websites. Int. J. Hum.-computer Stud. 60 (3), 269–298.
Lee, Y., Kim, H.Y., 2018. Consumer need for mobile app atmospherics and its relation-
ships to shopper responses. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2017.10.016.
Li, M., Dong, Z.Y., Chen, X., 2012. Factors influencing consumption experience of mobile
commerce: a study from experiential view. Internet Res. 22 (2), 120–141.
Li, Y.M., Yeh, Y.S., 2010. Increasing trust in mobile commerce through design aesthetics.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (4), 673–684.
Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City 11 MIT Press.
Malhotra, N.K., 2008. Marketing Research: an Applied Orientation. Pearson Education
India (5/e).
Manganari, E., Siomkos, G., Vrechopoulos, A., 2007. May. Atmospheric qualities in mo-
bile commerce: an initial approach. In: Proceedings of the 36th European Marketing
Academy Conference (EMAC) pp. 1–7.
Martí Parreño, J., Sanz-Blas, S., Ruiz-Mafé, C., Aldás-Manzano, J., 2013. Key factors of
teenagers' mobile advertising acceptance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 113 (5), 732–749.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Moon, J.W., Kim, Y.G., 2001. Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf.
Manag. 38 (4), 217–230.
Nasar, J.L., 1987. The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of
retail scenes. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 53 (4), 499–509.
Newman, C.L., Wachter, K., White, A., 2017. Bricks or clicks? Understanding consumer
usage of retail mobile apps. J. Serv. Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2016-
0289.
Nilashi, M., Ibrahim, O., Mirabi, V.R., Ebrahimi, L., Zare, M., 2015. The role of security,
design and content factors on customer trust in mobile commerce. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 26, 57–69.
Oakes, S., 2000. The influence of the musicscape within service environments. J. Serv.
Mark. 14 (7), 539–556.
Okazaki, S., Mendez, F., 2013a. Exploring convenience in mobile commerce: moderating
effects of gender. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (3), 1234–1242.
Okazaki, S., Mendez, F., 2013b. Perceived ubiquity in mobile services. J. Interact. Mark.
27 (2), 98–111.
Ozturk, A.B., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., Okumus, F., 2016. What keeps the mobile hotel
booking users loyal? Investigating the roles of self-efficacy, compatibility, perceived
ease of use, and perceived convenience. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36. pp. 1350–1359.
Pantano, E., Priporas, C.V., 2016. The effect of mobile retailing on consumers' purchasing
experiences: a dynamic perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 548–555.
Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Bata, H., Chen, Y., 2016. Exploring privacy paradox in information-
sensitive mobile app adoption: a cross-cultural comparison. Comput. Hum. Behav.
65, 409–419.
Persaud, A., Azhar, I., 2012. Innovative mobile marketing via smartphones: are
141
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45 (2018) 132–141
consumers ready? Mark. Intell. Plan. 30 (4), 418–443.
Pittard, N., Ewing, M., Jevons, C., 2007. Aesthetic theory and logo design: examining
consumer response to proportion across cultures. Int. Mark. Rev. 24 (4), 457–473.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organisational research: problems and
prospects. J. Manag. 12 (4), 531–544.
Purani, K., Kumar, D.S., 2018. Exploring restorative potential of biophilic servicescapes.
J. Serv. Mark. 32 (4), 414–429.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40 (3),
879–891.
Raghubir, P., Greenleaf, E.A., 2006. Ratios in proportion: what should the shape of the
package be? J. Mark. 70 (2), 95–107.
Rezaei, S., Shahijan, M.K., Amin, M., Ismail, W.K.W., 2016. Determinants of app stores
continuance behaviour: a PLS path modelling approach. J. Internet Commer. 15 (4),
408–440.
Ribbink, D., Van Riel, A.C., Liljander, V., Streukens, S., 2004. Comfort your online cus-
tomer: quality, trust and loyalty on the internet. Manag. Serv. Qual.: Int. J. 14 (6),
446–456.
Rosen, D.E., Purinton, E., 2004. Website design: viewing the web as a cognitive land-
scape. J. Bus. Res. 57 (7), 787–794.
Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Nakano, L., 2007. Measuring visual clutter. J. Vision. 7 (2) (17-17).
Russell, J.A., Pratt, G., 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to en-
vironments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 38 (2), 311–322.
Shen, G.C.C., 2015. Users' adoption of mobile applications: product type and message
framing's moderating effect. J. Bus. Res. 68 (11), 2317–2321.
Singh, S.N., Dalal, N., Spears, N., 2005. Understanding web home page perception. Eur. J.
Inf. Syst. 14 (3), 288–302.
Sohn, S., Seegebarth, B., Moritz, M., 2017. The impact of perceived visual complexity of
mobile online shops on user's satisfaction. Psychol. Mark. 34 (2), 195–214.
Stamps III, A.E., 2004a. Entropy and visual diversity in the environment. J. Archit. Plan.
Res. 239–256.
Stamps III, A.E., 2004b. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. J.
Environ. Psychol. 24 (1), 1–16.
Stamps III, A.E., 2006. Interior prospect and refuge. Percept. Mot. Skills 103 (3), 643–653.
Streukens, S., Leroi-Werelds, S., 2016. Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: a step-by-step guide
to get more out of your bootstrap results. Eur. Manag. J. 34 (6), 618–632.
Taylor, D., Levin, M., 2014. Predicting mobile app usage for purchasing and information-
sharing. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 42 (8), 759–774.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M., Lauro, C., 2005. PLS path modelling. Comput.
Stat. Data Anal. 48 (1), 159–205.
Tombs, A., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., 2003. Social-servicescape conceptual model. Mark.
Theory 3 (4), 447–475.
Townsend, C., Shu, S.B., 2010. When and how aesthetics influence financial decisions. J.
Consum. Psychol. 20 (4), 452–458.
Tuch, A.N., Roth, S.P., HornbæK, K., Opwis, K., Bargas-Avila, J.A., 2012. Is beautiful
really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and
affect in HCI. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (5), 1596–1607.
Tveit, M., Ode, Å., Fry, G., 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual
landscape character. Landsc. Res. 31 (3), 229–255.
Vacker, B., Key, W.R., 1993. Beauty and the beholder: the pursuit of beauty through
commodities. Psychol. Mark. 10 (6), 471–494.
Van der Heijden, H., 2004. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q.
695–704.
Van Heerde, H.J., Dinner, I., Neslin, S.A., 2018. Too Far to Walk: Using a Retailer Mobile
App to Engage Distant Customers.
Varnali, K., Toker, A., 2010. Mobile marketing research: the-state-of-the-art. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 30 (2), 144–151.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204.
Verhoeven, J.W., van Rompay, T.J., Pruyn, A.T., 2009. The price facade: symbolic and
behavioural price cues in service environments. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 28 (4), 604–611.
Wang, H.Y., Liao, C., Yang, L.H., 2013. What affects mobile application use? The roles of
consumption values. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 5 (2), 11–22.
Wang, W.T., Li, H.M., 2012. Factors influencing mobile services adoption: a brand-equity
perspective. Internet Res. 22 (2), 142–179.
Wardono, P., Hibino, H., Koyama, S., 2012. Effects of interior colours, lighting and decors
on perceived sociability, emotion and behaviour related to social dining. Procedia-
Social. Behav. Sci. 38, 362–372.
Wener, R.E., Kaminoff, R.D., 1983. Improving environmental information: effects of signs
on perceived crowding and behaviour. Environ. Behav. 15 (1), 3–20.
Williams, R., Dargel, M., 2004. From servicescape to “cyberscape”. Mark. Intell. Plan. 22
(3), 310–320.
Xu, J., Forman, C., Kim, J.B., Van Ittersum, K., 2014. News media channels: complements
or substitutes? Evidence from mobile phone usage. J. Mark. 78 (4), 97–112.
Yang, S., 2016. Role of transfer-based and performance-based cues on initial trust in
mobile shopping services: a cross-environment perspective. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag.
14 (1), 47–70.
Yeh, Y.S., Li, Y.M., 2014. Design-to-lure in the e-shopping environment: a landscape
preference approach. Inf. Manag. 51 (8), 995–1004.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Chen, Q., 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths
about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37 (2), 197–206.
Zhao, Z., Balagué, C., 2015. Designing branded mobile apps: fundamentals and re-
commendations. Bus. Horiz. 58 (3), 305–315.
Zhou, T., 2011. Examining the critical success factors of mobile website adoption. Online
Inf. Rev. 35 (4), 636–652.