2019 IJTMKT Researchgateupdated

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330506079
Wearable XR-Technology: Literature Review, Conceptual Framework and Future

Research Directions
Article in International Journal of Technology Marketing · January 2020

DOI: 10.1504/IJTMKT.2019.104586
CITATIONS READS
31 4,461
1 author:
Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah

Taylor's University
38 PUBLICATIONS 1,074 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Dedication-Constraint-Temptation Model of Customer Loyalty View project
Well-being Marketing View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah on 22 January 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Wearable XR-technology: literature review,
conceptual framework and future research directions
Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah

Institute of Innovation and Circular Economy,
Asia University,
Taichung, Taiwan
Email: hw.chuah@gmail.com
Please cite as: Chuah, S.H-W. (2019). Wearable XR-technology: literature

review, conceptual framework and future research directions. International
Journal of Technology Marketing, 13(3/4), 205-259
2
Wearable XR-technology: literature review,

conceptual framework and future research directions
Abstract: Extended reality (XR) has revamped the way people experience
the physical and the virtual environments, from observation to immersion.
XR is an umbrella term that encompasses both augmented reality (AR) and
virtual reality (VR), among others. Despite the promising outlook, this
nascent technology has been shrouded by uncertain possibilities, making
the adoption of XR technology much slower than expected. Moreover, the
interdisciplinary applications of XR technology have led to scattered
scholarly works and fragmentary insights to be translated into practice.
Thus, there is a pressing need for a critical review and synthesis of prior XR
research in order to strengthen this emerging field in IS. To accomplish this,
the current study identifies and analyses a total of 45 articles through an
extensive literature search. As a result, this study identifies the major
drivers, barriers, and boundary conditions to XR adoption, classifies and
map them into a holistic conceptual model.
Keywords: extended reality; XR; augmented reality; virtual reality;

wearable; literature review; future research; technology adoption.
3
Since we cannot change reality, let us change the eyes which see reality.
– Nikos Kazantzakis
1 Introduction
Extended reality (hereafter referred to as XR) – the next generation computing platform –
has changed the way we work, learn, connect, and play by bridging the physical world to
a digital one (Rauschnabel et al., 2017). It also transforms how enterprises train workforce,
serve customers, design products, and manage their value chain (Chmielewski, 2017;
Porter and Heppelmann, 2017). XR is an umbrella term encapsulating augmented reality
(AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR). While AR integrates virtual and real
objects in a real-time display, VR allows users to control and navigate their movements in
a stimulated real or imagined world (Ro et al., 2018; Suh and Prophet, 2018). Both
technologies are often melded together (i.e., MR) to induce more immersive experience.
Whether watching 360° movies, playing games, walking through 3D models of the
buildings, travelling through the universe, or any other immersive experiences, XR devices
create the illusion to make people feel as if they are in an entirely new digital world
(O’Donnell, 2018). Such technologies have been praised for its ability to create virtual
tours in the stores and destinations, rehabilitate brain injury, and virtually inspect the
interior and exterior design of a car which no existing technology could do (Sheikh, 2016).
Given its enormous potential, XR technology has been increasingly applied and studied
in a plethora of fields, ranging from tourism (Jung et al., 2015), education (Kerawalla et
al., 2006), retailing (Yim et al., 2017), gaming (Rauschnabel et al., 2017) and healthcare
(Glegg et al., 2017) to manufacturing (Choi et al., 2015).
Recent forecasts by International Data Corporation (IDC) anticipate the global
shipments of AR/VR headsets to soar from 4.2 million units in 2018 to 53.1 million units
by 2022, achieving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 88% (IDC, 2018a). By
2020, the sales of AR/VR devices are expected to generate a staggering $150 billion in
revenue (Gaudiosi, 2015). Given its rise, Google, Alibaba, Warner Bros, and other firms
have invested approximately $800 million of venture capital into an AR startup called
Magic Leap. Likewise, large brands like Coca Cola, McDonald’s and Disney have rolled
out AR/VR applications to create an enchanting experience for customers. Total spending
on AR/VR is estimated to increase by 92% to hit 17.8 billion in 2018 and to reach as high
as $215 billion by 2021 (IDC, 2018b). Seeing the rising hype in the marketplace, Jabil’s
recent survey documents that “AR/VR will become mainstream within five years” (Jabil,
2018) and Goldman Sachs (2016, p.4) concludes that “VR/AR has the potential to spawn
a multibillion-dollar industry, and possibly be as game changing as the advent of PC”.
Yet, despite the strong growth potential for XR, such technologies still struggle to gain
traction among consumers and enterprises (Herz and Rauschnabel, 2018). Market research
reports have indicated that cost, technical limitation and performance issues, bulky
hardware, among others, are the barriers that hold back XR from becoming mainstream
(Jabil, 2018; Perkins Coie, 2018). For XR technology to be successfully adopted, these
obstacles need to be overcome, and at the same time, further strengthen the benefits
(Adapa et al., 2018). While an increasing number of studies have investigated the factors
leading to XR market success, these studies so far seem fragmented and a thorough review
of existing works remains scarce, thus impeding the progress of this field. The exception
is a study by Suh and Prophet (2018) who have consolidated and mapped the factors
associated with XR use onto the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework. The
conceptual framework illustrates how technological (e.g., sensory and perceptual stimuli)
and content features of XR lead to positive (e.g., learning effectiveness) and negative
outcomes (e.g., cognitive overload) through the mediation of users’ cognitive (e.g.,
4
immersion) and affective (e.g., pleasure) responses. However, the list of factors is not
exhaustive and they focus mainly on the technology and media aspects of XR, thus
disregarding the fact that XR device is also a fashion accessory (Herz and Rauschnabel,
2018). Having identified these gaps, the present study systematically reviews the relevant
XR studies that have been conducted, summarises previous findings, discusses the relevant
theories, as well as classifies various factors that impact XR adoption. To facilitate the
analysis of the literature, this study develops reference models that explain why individuals
and firms adopt XR technology. A customer types matrix is also proposed to explain who
will buy XR devices from the lens of technology, fashion, and media. By analysing prior
XR research, this study is able to identify gaps in the extant literature and to outline a
research agenda for further study of this new phenomenon.
This study contributes in several ways to the body of knowledge on technology
acceptance. First, this study adopts a holistic approach and analyses user acceptance of
XR technology from multiple disciplines, theories, and perspectives. A synthesis of
existing studies can avoid repetition of similar works and unveil important gaps that could
otherwise be overlooked. Second, the two reference models of XR adoption proposed here
offer a guidance structure that allows future researchers to accumulate knowledge and to
interpret the existing research findings. Managerially, this study provides a comprehensive
pool of the drivers of XR adoption, which managers can use as a checklist to access the
performance of their XR devices or apps. Also, managers can use the customer types
(fashion-media-technology) matrix proposed in this study to determine the most effective
strategy to promote their XR devices to each customer segment.
2 XR: augmented reality vs. virtual reality
Recent years have witnessed rapid evolution of smart mobile technologies from ‘always
online’ to ‘always be there’. The breakthrough of smart devices was the smartphones (e.g.,
Apple’s iPhone) in 2007, followed by tablets (e.g., iPad), smartwatches (e.g., Pebble) in
2013, and smart glasses (e.g., Google Glass) in 2014. This diffusion is not caused by the
need of seamless multimedia data communication but also by the need for escape from
real-life. Nowadays, consumers are not just ‘always and everywhere’ connected to the
internet through their smartphones and tablets. The arrival of XR technology has allowed
users to experience a sense of presence in the virtual environments as though they were
real. By blurring the lines between the physical and digitally stimulated worlds, XR
technology creates a sense of immersion while enhancing the realism of virtual experience
(Soliman et al., 2017; Suh and Prophet, 2018).
2.1 Definition of XR
XR – an umbrella term including AR and VR – has revolutionised the way people

experience their environment (tom Dieck and Jung, 2018). Rauschnabel et al. (2018b)
argued that AR and VR are different approaches, whereas – contradictory to the Milgram
et al.’s (1995) continuum – AR can range from unrealistic and functional ‘assisted reality’
to realistic ‘MR’. As the mid-point of reality-virtuality continuum, AR can be defined as
“the digital overlay of information (or image) into users’ direct surrounding using devices
such as smartphones or wearable smart glasses” [tom Dieck et al., (2018b), p.45]. For
example, smartphone users can download civilization AR app from BBC to explore
various historical artefacts ‘out of the display’ and view them in 3D mode. Wearable smart
glasses, on the other hand, are wearable devices with installed AR apps.
5
As a type of ‘fashnology’ (a combination of fashion and technology), ARSGs are worn

like regular glasses and superimpose virtual information into the user’s perception of
physical world in real time through the embedded cameras, accelerometers, GPS, and
other sensors (Rauschnabel, 2018b; Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Compared to Google Glass,
one of the first commercially launched ARSGs, Microsoft HoloLens does not have one
prism to display information but rather realistically incorporates 3D hologram images into
a user’s field of vision. As such, AR enhances the user’s experience in the real world rather
than substituting it.
In contrast to AR, VR blocks out the real world and electronically set-up the objects
(e.g., sound, videos, graphics, and texts) in the entire real life setting – in other words, in
a fully artificial environment (Bonetti et al., 2018; Yim et al., 2017). VR’s capability to
simulate intricate, real-life situations provides new possibilities for users to
psychologically immerse themselves in the virtual, 3D world, and experience the feeling
of ‘being there’ (van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017; Tussyadiah et al., 2018b). Therefore, VR
has been touted as an immersive digital media that creates a three-dimensional, virtual
imaginary, and interactive media environment that a user conceives much as he/she was
in the real world (Herz and Rauschnabel, 2018). Similar to AR devices, VR devices are
mobile by nature, either portable (e.g., smartphones) or wearable (e.g., glasses, headsets,
and head-mounted displays). Compared to wearable devices, Google Cardboard which
places a smartphone into a cardboard viewer is to promote affordable VR experience.
Using Google Cardboard or Google Daydream VR, users can swim with sharks in the
ocean or being transported to the stage of the Broadway hit, Hamilton. VR devices can
also give users ‘out-of-body experiences’ by allowing them to experience ‘death’ without
dying. This can help assuage the fear of death.
2.2 Fashnology and fashmedianology
As Adapa et at. (2018) pointed out, consumers based their adoption decision of wearable
technologies not only on technological functions, but also on design aesthetics In support,
Rauschnabel et al. (2016) found that the majority of the users (75%) regard ARSGs as
fashion and technology, and they termed these users as ‘fashnologists’. Compared to
ARSGs, VR headsets allow users to escape into different bodies and environments,
providing a much more immersive experience (Herz and Rauschnabel, 2018). Thus, we
term XR as a type of ‘fashmedianology’ – a unique blend of fashion accessory, immersive
media, and technology gadget. We argue that users who view XR solely as a technology
focus on the ‘usability’ aspect of the device in making their adoption decisions, whereas
those who view XR from a fashion perspective value the ‘wearability’ aspect. For users
who perceive XR as a media, the ‘sensibility’ aspect the device plays a crucial role in their
adoption decision. To facilitate a better understanding of this tripartite perspective, this
study develops a customer types matrix with media optimism along the horizontal axis
and technology optimism along the vertical axis. Figure 1 shows the four quadrants of the
customer types matrix with low or high media optimism linked to low or high technology
optimism. Each quadrant is further divided into low or high fashion consciousness.
The upper right quadrant represents individuals with high levels of technology and
media optimism. Such individuals can be described as pragmatic but unrealistic.
Individuals here are optimistic about futuristic technology and they believe that XR
6
technology can make their lives more efficient and enjoyable as well as improve their
social relationships. Therefore, they use XR technology for practical reasons. At the same
time, this group of individuals are also unrealistic in the sense that they want to detach
from reality and immerse themselves in the non-physical environment. In particular,
individuals who score high in fashion consciousness might want to achieve ‘use-wear-
sense integration’. They prefer wearing XR device that is visually appealing while not
losing its sophisticated features and a sense of realism.
Figure 1 Customer types (fashion-media-technology) matrix
The upper left area is the area that delineates pragmatic and realistic individuals who have
comparatively low levels of media optimism. Instead of achieving a sense of escapism in
the virtual world, individuals in this area prefer using XR technology for professional
development (e.g., corporate training). While the technology features remain important,
high fashion-conscious individuals might purchase aesthetically designed devices only for
the sake of achieving ‘use-wear balance’.
The lower right quadrant in the model is the area that depicts fantastic but
technological pessimist. Individuals in the area do not appreciate or even see the typical
benefits technology can bring. Rather, these individuals use XR technology to do
something they unable to do in real-life or beyond their imagination – e.g., being present
and explored the fantasy land. It is also worth noting that individuals who score high in
fashion consciousness might choose well-designed devices only in order to achieve a
balance between a sense of aesthetic and realism or ‘wear-sense balance’.
The lower left area represents individuals who are neither technology nor media
optimism, and hence, we term them as technology and media pessimist. Nonetheless, some
‘fashionistas’ who score high in fashion conscious might still purchase the XR devices
because of their virtual appearance.
6
Table 1
No. Study Research objective and context Main theory Research methodology and design Key findings
1 Rauschnabel  To investigate the role of personality in Big five model  Study 1 (N = 146) Open and emotionally stable consumers tend to be more aware
et al. (2015) predicting smart glasses adoption of human  Study 2 (N = 201) of Google Glass. Consumers who perceive the potential for
Prior research on wearable-XR adoption

 ARSG (individuals) personality high functional benefits and social conformity of smart glasses
 Germany are more likely to adopt such wearables. The strength of these
 Survey effects is moderated by consumers’ levels of openness to
 SEM experience, extraversion and neuroticism
2 Rauschnabel and  To understand the drivers and barriers TAM  N = 201 Functional benefits, ease of use, individual difference variables,
Ro (2016) of smart glasses from the view of  Germany brand attitudes, and social norms are the key drivers of smart
potential users glasses adoption, whereas self-presentation benefits and
 Survey
 ARSG (individuals) potential privacy concerns are not
 Regression/mediation
analyses/descriptive statistics
3 Hein and  To discuss the opportunities of smart  TAM Conceptual A conceptual model is proposed to illustrate the underlying
Rauschnabel glasses for firms  TOE mechanisms that drive smart glasses ESN adoption on a firm
(2016)  ARSG (enterprise social networks, framework level. On the individual employee level, the antecedents to
ESN) active and passive use are proposed
4 Rauschnabel  To understand consumer perceptions TAM  Study 1 (N = 266) The perception of smart glasses as technology, fashion, or
et al. (2016) toward smart glasses (as a type of  Study 2 (N=1,682) fashnology is influenced by the characteristics of the product
technology, a fashion accessory, or and the consumers’ product familiarity
 USA
both?)
 Survey
 ARSG (individuals)
 SEM
5 Rauschnabel  To examine people’s expected U&GT  N = 228 Utilitarian, hedonic, sensual, social, and symbolic needs drive
(2018b) gratifications from ARSG usage in  USA ARSG usage intention. Wearable comfort and socialising have
different contexts no significant effects for ARSG use in private, whereas life
 Survey efficiency has no significant effects for ARSG use in public
 SEM
6 Ro et al. (2018)  To provide relevant definitions and - Conceptual Internal value creation factors (e.g., R&D, collaboration, and
discuss potential success factors of process efficiency) are distinguished from external value
ARGS adoption creation (e.g., new apps and customer interactions)
 To explain how ARGS can increase
firm value
 ARSG (firms)
Notes: ANOVA = analysis of variance; ARIT = augmented-reality interactive technology; SEM = structural equation modeling; TAM = technology acceptance model;
TOE = technology-organisation-environment; TPB = theory of planned behavior; TRA = theory of reasoned action; TTF = task-technology fit;
U&GT = uses and gratification theory; UTAUT = unified theory of acceptance and use of technology.
Table 1
Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

7 Cranmer et al.  To understand the internal - N=9 Respondents generally support the AR implementation. A
(2016) stakeholders’ perceptions toward the -  UK variety of ways in which AR can be implemented to provide
implementation of at a museum added benefits to both visitors and staffs are identified
 Semi-structured interviews
 AR (firms)
 Content analysis
8 Hein et al. (2018)  To understand how do consumers Exploratory  N = 364  Consumers rate the societal risks higher than the societal
evaluate the potential opportunities and  Germany benefits. They also rate the anticipated success higher than
threats of smart glasses for society. the desired success. Consumer perceptions of smart glasses
 Computer-assisted personal
 To understand how these potential interviews
differed by gender, familiarity level, and their attitudes
opportunities and threats related to toward the manufacturer brand.
 Exploratory
consumers’ desired and anticipated  For potential benefits, consumers’ beliefs in general
success of smart glasses  SPSS and SEM usefulness and safety improvements enabled by smart
 ARSG (societies) glasses increase their expected success. On the other hand,
societal progress and perceived usefulness enhance
consumers’ desire for Google Glass’s success
9 Kalantari and  To understand how people to react to TAM  N = 116 Consumers’ adoption decision is driven by various expected
Rauschnabel AGSGs  USA benefits, including usefulness, ease of use, and image. Hedonic
(2018)  ARSG (individuals) benefit has no significant effect on adoption intention. The
 Survey
influence of the descriptive norms on the adoption intention
 Descriptive statistics/ multiple outperforms the influence of the injunctive norms
regression analyses
10 Rauschnabel  To conceptualise how ARSGs can U&GT Conceptual Five categories of need (cognitive, tension-release, social
(2018a) address fundamental human needs, and integrative, affective, and personalintegrative) are each
which factors need to be incorporated conceptually linked to a broader category of gratifications
in understanding the psychological (utilitarian, hedonic, social, sensual, and symbolic) consisting
mechanisms that explain consumers’ of several specific factors. The strengths for the effects of
reactions to them gratifications on consumer reactions to ARGSs might differ
 ARSG (individuals) based on the usage context, device, and consumer. Physical,
social, psychological, and financial are identified as potential
risk factors
7
8
Table 1
11 Akçayır et al.  To investigate whether there is a -  N = 38 The use of AR technology not only enhance the students’
(2016) significant difference between the lab  Turkey laboratory skills but also improve their attitudes toward physics
skills and attitudes of students who use labs
 Quasi-experiment

AR technology in their science labs
and those who do not  Semi-structured interviews
 To elicit the students’ and instructors’  SPSS
opinions about and suggestions for the
use of AR technology in science labs
 AR (science laboratory)
12 Yilmaz (2016)  To elicit teachers’ and children’s TAM  N = 63 (30 teachers and 33 children) All teachers and children like EMT. When teachers perceive the
opinions on educational magic toys  Turkey-mixed-method (survey, EMT as useful and ease to use, their attitudes will be positive.
(EMT) observation, and interview) Children prefer mostly pointing, responding, inspecting and
 To determine children’s behavioural turning behaviors when playing with the EMT. They tend to
 Descriptive, content, and have low levels of cognitive attainment and there is a
patterns and their cognitive attainment, correlational analyses
and the relationship between them relationship between their behaviors and cognitive attainment.
while playing with EMT While appearance description is related to the behaviors of
pointing, responding and turning, extensive description is
 AR (early childhood education)
related to the behaviors of commenting and questioning. When
the children are more active in EMT, they display more
cognitive attainment in terms of both descriptions
13 Jung et al. (2015)  To examine the relationship between  Modified  N = 241 Content, system, and personalised service quality significantly
the perceived quality (content, system, DeLone &  South Korea affect users’ satisfaction and their intention to recommend the
and personalised service) of AR apps McLean’s AR apps, with personal innovativeness moderates some of the
 Survey
and tourist satisfaction to predict their Model relationships. AR system quality matters when personal
 SEM innovativeness is high, whereas AR content quality matters
recommendation intention  Process
 To explore how personal theory when personal innovativeness is low
innovativeness moderates the
relationship between perceived quality
and AR satisfaction
 AR (theme park)
14 Chung et al.  To conceptualise crucial factors of AR  TAM  N = 145 Personal (technology readiness), stimulus (visual appeal), and
(2015) in terms of personal, stimulus, and  Technology  South Korea situational factors (facilitating conditions) prompt visitors use
situational factors AR and visit a heritage site through the belief andattitude
readiness  Survey toward AR
 AR (heritage site)
 SEM
Table 1
15 tom Dieck and  To qualitatively investigate and TAM  Five focus groups Seven external dimensions that influence young British tourists’
Jung (2018) propose an AR acceptance model  N = 44 acceptance of mobile AR apps were identified: information

applicable to the urban heritage quality, system quality, costs of use, recommendations,
 Ireland personal innovativeness and risk as well as facilitating
tourism context
 Thematic analysis conditions
 AR (urban heritage tourism)
16 tom Dieck et  To investigate how visitor experience Pine and  N = 220 Esthetics is a strong predictor of escapism, education, and
al. (2018b) using AR affect visitors’ satisfaction, Gilmore’s  UK entertainment, suggesting that experience economy in the AR
memory, and eventually their experience science festival context does not consist of four independent
economy  Survey dimensions. These three realms of experience economy
engagement with science experience
 SEM influence visitors’ satisfaction and memories and, ultimately,
 AR (science festival)
their engagement with science experiences
17 tom Dieck and  To explore stakeholders’ perceived -  N = 24 AR has economic, experiential, social, epistemic, cultural and
Jung (2017) value regarding the implementation of  UK historical, and educational value from both internal and external
AR to enhance the museum experience stakeholders’ perspectives
 Focus groups/interviews
 AR (cultural heritage tourism)
18 Paulo et al.  To understand the factors that  UTAUT  N = 335 The proposed model explains 72 per cent of the variance in
(2018) influence users to adopt mobile AR in  TTF  Portugal behavioural intention to use mobile AR in tourism and 45 per
tourism cent of the variance in use behavior
 Survey
 Mobile AR (tourism)
 SEM
19 Tussyadiah  To provide a theoretical reflection on Technological  N = 211 Technology embodiment is a multidimensional construct
et al. (2018a) the phenomenon of embodiment mediation  UK consisting of ownership, location and agency, thus supporting
relation in technological mediation and theories the notion of technology withdrawal. Technology embodiment,
 Survey
then assess the embodiment of in turn, enhances visitors’ enjoyment and overall experiences
wearable AR technology in a tourism  SEM interacting with exhibits in the art gallery
attraction
 AR (art gallery)
20 Olsson et al.  To understand potential users’ -  N = 28 User expectations of mobile AR is multifaceted and affected by
(2013) expectations and requirements of  16 semi-structured interviews various elements of the service, (e.g., functionalities and
mobile AR services software features, information content, interaction,and
 Observation presentation). A set of design requirements (e.g., privacy and
 AR (shopping centers)
 Finland control, reactivity, relevance, and reliability, easy and flexible
9
 Physical affinity program access, and distinct affordances) is identified
Table 1
21 Kerawalla  To identify the potential of AR Socio-cultural  N = 133 Children using AR were less engaged than those using
et al. (2006) technology to support teaching and theory  UK traditional resources. Four design requirements necessary for
learning with young children in the successfully adopting AR into classroom practice: flexible
 Video-recorded lessons of AR-

classroom content, guided exploration, and attention to the needs of
trained teachers
 AR (education) instituitional and curricular requirements
 Video footage of traditional teaching
sessions
 Audio-recorded interviews with
teachers
22 Kourouthanassis  To present a mobile AR travel guide,  UTAUT  N = 105 The functional properties of CorfuAR evoke feelings of
et al. (2015) namely Corfu AR, which supports  Pleasure-  Greece pleasure and arousal, which, in turn, influence the behavioral
personalised recommendations intention of using it. There are no differences between users of
arousal-  Survey
 AR (tourism) dominance the personalised version and ones using the non-personalised
 SEM one
theory
 Stimulus-
organism-
response
model
23 Rauschnabel  To investigate which factors drive U&GT Study 1: quantitative (online survey) Expected utilitarian, hedonic, and symbolic benefits drive
et al. (2018a) ARSG adoption and whether people  N = 285 consumers’ reactions to ARSGs. ARSGs threaten other
care about their ownvs.other people’s people’s, but not one’s own, privacy can strongly influence
 USA
privacy users’ decision making.
 SEM
Study 2:qualitative (unstructured
interviews)
 N = 21
24 tom Dieck et al.  To explore factors that drive tourists’ -  N = 35 Factors that influence tourists’ VR adoption can be divided into
(2018a) VR adoption and their behavioral  UK four main groups: usability (perceived ease of use, comfort,
intentions toward the national park personalisation, perceived control), hedonic benefits
 Exploratory, semi-structured
 VR (national park) interviews
(enjoyment, experienced, realism), personal benefits (perceived
usefulness), and emotional benefits (place attachment)
 Thematic analysis
25 Nunes and Filho  To analyse consumer behavior in Consumption  N = 8 discussions Three categories (socially satisfied, socially constrained, and
(2018) relation to Google Glass theory  Netnography early adopters) and two categories (enthusiasts and visionaries)
 ARSGs (individuals) of consumers are found
Table 1
26 He et al. (2018)  To examine the impact of information -  N = 225 Compared with dynamic visual cues, dynamic verbal cues lead
type (dynamic verbal vs. dynamic  Experiment and survey to heightened willingness to pay more, such effectsare more

visual cues) and augmenting immersive salient under the condition of high virtual presence. Such
 ANOVA and PROCESS
scenes (high vs. low virtual presence) effects can be explained by the psychological mechanism of
on visitors’ museum experience and mental imagery
their subsequent purchase intentions
 AR (museum)
27 Yim et al. (2017)  To evaluate the effectiveness of AR as - Study 1: Online experiment AR-based product presentations are superior to traditional web-
an e-commerce tool using two products  N = 258 based product presentation in the effect on media novelty,
– sunglasses and watches  USA
immersion, enjoyment, usefulness, attitude toward medium, and
 AR (online retailing) purchase intention. The impact of interactivity/vividness on
 ANCOVA usefulness and enjoyment is mediated by immersion
Study 2: online survey
 N = 801
 SEM, sentiment analysis, and text
analytics
28 Huang and Liao  To investigate which factors may elicit  TAM  N = 220 Presence has a positive effect on consumers’ perceived
(2015) positive sustainable relationship  Holbrook’s  Taiwan usefulness, aesthetics, service excellence, and playfulness, and
behaviour among consumers with ultimately their sustainable behavior. Consumers with high
typology of  Survey cognitive innovativeness place more emphasis on usefulness,
different levels of cognitive experiential
innovativeness  SEM aesthetics, and service excellence. In contrast, those with low
value
 ARIT (online clothing retailers) cognitive innovativeness focus on playfulness and ease of use
29 Baek et al. (2018)  To examine the influence of AR Self-attention  Study 1 (N = 174) Consumers tend to form higher self-brand connections and
viewing on consumers’ purchase theory  Study 2 (N = 209) purchase intention when viewing themselves trying a product
intentions by considering the mediating via a virtual mirror, rather than when viewing professional
 Experiment and survey models wearing the product. Narcissistic people show
role of self-brand connection and the
moderating role of narcissim  USA pronounced positive self-viewing effects, but non-narcissistic
 AR virtual mirrors  Regression people show attenuated effects
30 Pantano et al.  To investigate the influence of AR TAM  N = 318 Cross-market similarities and dissimilarities were identified in
(2017) technology on the usage decision  Experiment and survey relation to consumers’ motivation to employ AR systems for
within e-commerce among consumers supporting their online purchase decision across two countries
 Italy vs. Germany
in two different cultural settings
11
 SEM
 AR (online retailing)
12
Table 1

31 Hilken et al.  To assess whether the AR-enabled Situated  Experiment and survey Spatial presence mediates the interaction effect of simulated
(2017) service augmentation enhances cognition  Study 1 (N = 156) physical control and environmental embedding on customers’
customer value perceptions through the theory Study 2 (N = 173) utilitarian and hedonic value perceptions. The effect of spatial
mediating role of spatial presence and Study 3 (N = 321) presence on utilitarian value is greater for customers who are
the boundary the condition for Study 4 (N = 100) disposed to verbal and its effect on decision comfort is
consumer traits attenuated by customers privacy concerns
 Regression and Process
 AR (online service)
32 Jetter et al. (2018)  To investigate the key performance TAM N =9 Significant enhancements of all KPIs (reduction in time and
indicators (KPIs) for AR in automotive  Semi-structured expert interviews errors, spatial representation, cognitive workload) are observed
maintenance and novice users are identified as a potential target group
 Content analysis
 AR (automotive)
 Survey
 SEM
33 Shin (2018)  To test a VR experience model that Theory of  N = 200 High immersive devices affect the users’ perceived presence
integrates presence, flow, empathy, and empathy  Experiment and survey and and make them feel flow. The users own traits determine
embodiment. their levels of empathy and embodiment and arouse
 South Korea engagement
 VR (storytelling)
 SEM
34 Herz and  To develop a comprehensive A combination  N = 661 A set of potential benefits and risks associated with VR glasses
Rauschnabel framework to study consumer reactions of media,  Germany are identified. VR-adoption intention is highest when
(2018) to wearable VR glasses fashion, and consumers experience a strong sense of virtual embodiment and
 Survey
 VR glasses (individuals) technology virtual presence. Health and privacy risks diminish adoption
theories  SEM rates, whereas psychological and physical risks do not
35 Wei et al. (2019)  To explore how VR technology can Process theory  N = 396 Users’ sense of presence is predominantly driven by their
help enhance theme park visitors’  USA feeling of control, followed by participation, effectiveness,
experience and behaviors curiosity, vividness, temporary association, and enjoyment.
 Survey Consumers’ familiarity with VR and personal innovativeness
 VR (theme park)
 Regression, sensitivity test,and moderate some of these effects
PROCESS
Table 1
36 Rauschnabel  To examine the factors that drive U&GT  N = 642 Hedonic, emotional, and social benefits drive consumer
et al. (2017) gamers’ intention to play AR games  Germany reactions, while physical risks hinder consumer reactions. The
and invest money in in-app purchases importance of these drivers differs depending on the form of
 Survey user behavior
 AR gaming
 SEM

37 Yim and Park  To examine the role of consumers’ -  N = 406 Consumers who perceive their body image as unfavorable
(2018) perceived body image in their reactions  USA evaluate AR more favorably than traditional Web-based
to AR-based vs. Web-based product product presentations. For those who perceive their body image
 Survey
presentations as favourable record no differences in their responses to the two
 ANOVA
 AR (e-commerce) presentations. Body image moderates the impacts of
interactivity and media irritation on the AR adoption intention
38 Tussyadiah et al.  To investigate the sense of presence -  N = 926 The sense of presence during a VR experience is associated
(2018b) during a virtual walkthrough of a  Hong Kong andUK with higher enjoyment, preference and liking, ultimately
tourism destination and how presence prompting tourists to visit the destination
 Survey
influences post-VR attitude change
toward the destination  SEM
 VR (tourism)
39 Shin and Biocca  To explicate the user experience to Modified  Experiment (N = 50) The users’ cognitive processes of experiencing quality, value,
(2018) determine what is likely to experience expectation  Survey (N = 250) and satisfaction determine how they empathise with and
news stories in VR and how immersion confirmation embody VR stories. Users decide future intentions based on
 ANOVA
improves viewing experiences in theory their confirmed satisfaction
journalism
 AR/VR (journalism)
40 Chung et al.  To identify whether satisfaction with  Balance  N = 145 Perceived advantage and aesthetics influence tourists’
(2018) AR influences the attitude toward and theory  South Korea behavioural intentions toward the heritage destination indirectly
intention to visit tourism sites  TRA via AR satisfaction and attitude toward the destination through
 Survey
 To empirically identify the impact of AR
 Motivational  SEM
expectation-confirmation on positive theory
beliefs and aesthetic experience, which
 Experience
are predictors of AR satisfaction
economy
 AR (heritage sites)
41 Tabacchi et al.  To explain the influence of personality -  N = 561 The profile of early Pokémon Go players are more introverted,
(2017) traits on Pokémon Go early adoption  Italy close persons with high agreeability and consciousness.
 AR gaming Extraversion and stability are positively correlated with the
 Survey connection part of the game, while agreeableness is a negative
13
 SEM predictor thereof. Openness is correlated to the level of
proficiency
14
Table 1
42 Glegg et al.  To evaluate the impact of knowledge TPB  N = 37 Increases in perceived ease of use and self-efficacy, but not
(2017) translation on factors influencing VR  Canada behavioural intention to use VR, are found following
adoption and to identify support needs knowledge translation, along with decreases in the frequency of
 Mixed-methods pre-test-post-test perceived barriers. Post-test changes in the frequency and
of therapists AR (healthcare)
 Descriptive, content analysis and nature of perceived facilitators and barriers are evident, with
McNemar’s test increased emphasis on peer influence, organisational-level
supports and client factors.
43 Stockinger (2016)  To investigate the current state and TAM  N = 12 AR is yet to be accepted by general consumers. This is due to a
future path of AR from an expert  Open Dephi lack of consumer understanding, knowledge, and awareness of
perspective AR (individuals) AR as well as low benefit and usefulness perceptions toward
 Friedman test and
such technology
 Wilcoxon Signed
 Rank test
44 Huang and Liu  To examine the extent to which  Narrative  N = 344 Compared to features such as presence and media richness,
(2014) presence, media richness, and narrative theory  Survey using the narrative perspective to design ARIT creates
experiences yield the highest  Media  SEM
experiential value for online consumers
experiential value. richness
 ARIT (online clothing retailers) theory
45 Martínez-Navarro  To analyse the relationship between Affect-  N = 178 A dual route of influence of VR on consumers’ purchase
et al. (2018) sense of presence, brand recall and cognition-  Europe intention in virtual stores was identified: one though emotions
purchase intention, as well as their conation model and sense of presence and the other through the affect evoked
 Experiment and survey by the virtual environment and brand recall
antecedents
 SEM
 VR (e-commerce)
15
3 Literature search
This study follows a systematic procedure of retrieving data from reliable source. For the
search, keywords such as ‘AR’, ‘ARSGs’ and ‘VR’ were used in searching and retrieving
the literature from ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases, as well as Google Scholar.
The search covers the studies published between 2006 to 2019. The initial search results
retrieve conference papers, book chapters, literature review papers, and journal articles.
However, literature review papers were discarded. After a careful screening and selection
process, a total of 45 studies were found to be relevant to this study. Table 1 summarises
these studies. As this table shows, this research stream started with the seminal work by
Rauschnabel et al. (2015) on Google Glass, followed by multiple additional studies from
different disciplines.
As Table 1 shows, diverse theoretical and methodological approaches have been used
in prior research. Among them, technology acceptance model (TAM) (n = 11) is the most
popular framework used to understand users’ acceptance of XR technology. With regard
to research methods, 28 studies employed a quantitative approach (e.g., surveys and
experiments), eight studies employed a qualitative approach (e.g., interviews, focus
groups, and netnography), and six studies employed a mixed-method approach combining
both qualitative and quantitative designs. In addition, most prior empirical studies
collected the data from potential users of AR/VR devices/apps or non-users who exposed
to experimental stimuli.
4 Relevant theories and prior research
Prior research has incorporated theories from various domains such as computer science,
management information system, and consumer psychology in the quest to understand
emergent technologies While the established theories; for instance, TAM (Davis, 1989),
provide initial insights into why people use computers and other information technology
(IT) (King and He, 2006; Schepers and Wetzels, 2007), rapid technological innovation
disrupts the existing IT products and acceptance theories. Therefore, an overarching
framework which combines multiple theories or extends with novel constructs is needed.
For example, ARSGs or VR headsets are arguably one of the most groundbreaking
inventions in recent years; they are more conspicuous, realistic, and immersive than do
other mobile or stationary devices (Rauschnabel et al., 2018a). Due to its distinctive
characteristics, established technology acceptance theories might be inadequate in
explaining users’ reactions to XR technology and thus research findings from fashion and
media literatures might be beneficial. In the next paragraphs, the applied theories and their
relevance to the adoption of XR technology are briefly reviewed.
4.1 Technology acceptance model
Technology acceptance model (TAM) is one the most influential and vastly applied
frameworks to explicate the individuals’ acceptance and use of new technologies since its
inception by Davis in 1986 (King and He, 2006). Originated from the theory of reasoned
action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) – a well-grounded theory in the behavioural
psychology domain, TAM is initially designed to explain users’ adoption behaviour of
16
computer and information systems in the workplace (Davis, 1989). TAM postulates that
an individual’s adoption decision is influenced by the degree to which his/her believes that
using a particular system would enhance his/her job performance (i.e., perceived
usefulness) and be effortless (i.e., perceived ease of use). In a related context, ease of use
which reflects the simplicity and user-friendliness of AR apps is driven by the quality of
system (e.g., high levels of accuracy and multi-language support). On the other hand,
perceived usefulness which represents the performance outcome of AR is determined by
the quality of information in terms of relevance and attractiveness (tom Dieck and Jung,
2018).
While TAM’s superiority lies in its parsimony, it has been criticised for being too
generic; in other words, neglecting the contingent and contextual factors that are crucial
for decision-making across different technologies (Bagozzi, 2007). Another inherent
limitation of TAM lies in the quantitative-based technique which provides superficial
insights into the users’ perceptions (Baron et al., 2006). Therefore, tom Dieck and Jung
(2018) suggested the need for TAM modification and called for qualitative investigations
to uncover XR technology-specific external variables. Several scholars have applied the
revised TAM-models on XR technology. For example, Rauschnabel (2018a) argued that
scholars should identify relevant utilitarian factors specific to the context or the specific
technology rather than focusing on a broad usefulness measure. Jung et al. (2018) studied
the adoption of mobile at cultural heritage tourism sites using a modified TAM. They have
included perceived aesthetics, perceived enjoyment, and social influence as additional
factors. In addition, Chung et al. (2015) have extended the original TAM with personal
(technology readiness), stimulus (visual appeal), and situational factors (facilitating
conditions) to better understand the visitor’s behavioural intentions toward AR apps.
4.2 Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
As an extension to TAM, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
model was proposed by Venkatesh et al. (2003) to explain technology acceptance among
the employees. The development of UTAUT is based on a synthesis of eight notable
theories: the TRA, TAM, the motivational model (MM), the theory of planned behaviour
(TPB), the model of PC utilisation model (MPCU), the innovation diffusion theory (IDT),
the social cognitive theory (SCT), and the combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB).
UTAUT posits that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence drive
behavioural intention, which along with facilitating conditions, determine technology use.
Conceptually, performance expectancy is tantamount to perceived usefulness (TAM),
extrinsic motivation (MM), relative advantage (IDT), job-fit (MPCU), and outcome
expectation (SCT). Effort expectancy is tantamount to perceived ease of use (TAM/IDT)
and complexity (MPCU). Moreover, UTAUT hypothesises that the effects of these four
core constructs on behavioural outcomes are moderated by individual differences (gender,
age, and experience) and situational factors (voluntariness to use). Later, Venkatesh et al.
(2012) extended the UTAUT model to the consumer context by incorporating three new
constructs: hedonic motivation, price value, and habit. The proposed UTAUT2 model has
been found to outperform the UTAUT in explaining the variance of behavioural outcome
variables. Kourouthanassis et al. (2015) have integrated UTAUT with S-O-R in the
context of mobile AR travel guides. They
17
have specified performance expectancy and effort expectancy as stimuli that evoke
tourists’ emotional states and, in turn, their behaviours of using the apps. Likewise, Paulo
et al. (2018) have studied the behavioural intentions of mobile AR from the lens of
UTAUT2 and task technology fit (TTF) and showed their applicability in the tourism
context.
4.3 Uses and gratification theory

Rooted in communication science, uses and gratification theory (U&GT) was initially
applied to understand how and why people use particular media has gained traction in the
IS field (e.g., Ku et al., 2013; Smock et al., 2011). In essence, U&GT is a theoretical
motivational paradigm (Katz, 1959), assuming that audiences are goal-directed and they
are actively choosing the media to satisfy their psychological and social needs (Rubin,
2002). Although individuals’ needs may vary, Rauschnabel (2018a) identified five broad
categories of gratifications for ARSG use: utilitarian (life efficiency; usefulness); hedonic
(enjoyment; entertainment); social (socialising; maintaining existing relationships);
sensual (enhancement of reality; wearable comfort); and symbolic (self-expressiveness;
status). In a subsequent study, Rauschnabel (2018b) related ARSG gratifications to usage
context (private vs. public). They found that the existence of other people matters not only
to the socialising and self-expression goal achievements, but also to make ARSGs more
comfortable to wear. However, it is important to note that, practically speaking, U&GT
and TAM/UTAUT models are not very different. For example, what U&GT research calls
‘utilitarian benefit’ represents ‘perceived usefulness’ in TAM and ‘performance
expectancies’ in UTAUT research.
4.4 Media richness theory
Media richness theory, proposed by Daft et al. (1987), assumes that communication media
varies in their ‘richness’ – the ability to reproduce and disseminate information to users
for communication and comprehension purposes. The richness of media is organised in a
hierarchy consisting of four criteria:
1 the availability of instant feedback
2 the ability to transmit multiple cues (e.g., social presence, body language, and voice
tone)
3 the use of natural language
4 the personal focus.
According to Newberry (2001), people perceive richer media (e.g., XR technology)
containing more modalities, sensory stimulations, and social cues and less rich media (e.g.,
print newspaper) as having less cues in delivering messages. One of the most common
features of rich media is 3D view. Li et al. (2002) demonstrated that 3D advertising
increases the level of vividness and audiences’ feelings of presence in a scene depicted by
the media, thereby driving more favourable brand attitude and purchase intention. Huang
and Liu (2014) found that the media richness presented by augmented-reality interactive
technology (ARIT) enhances customers’ perceptions aesthetics and service excellence
toward online retailers.
18
4.5 Social presence theory
Social presence theory, developed by Short et al. (1976), suggests that communication
media differs in their amount of social presence – which is determined by social cues such
as sociable, warm, and personal. In other words, social presence, “the extent to which other
beings (living or synthetic) also exist in the virtual environment” [Schuemie et al., (2001),
p.184]. Jung et al. (2016b) applied AR and VR in the context of museum and found that
the social presence enabled by XR technology enhances visitors’ experience (educational,
aesthetic, entertainment, and escape) and, ultimately their revisit intention.
4.6 Technology-organisation-environment framework
Technology-organisation-environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990)

provides a useful analytical framework that can be used to studying the adoption of
technological innovation at the firm level. It identifies three facets of a firm’s context that
influence the innovation process:
1 technological context describes both the existing technologies in use and emerging
technologies applicable to the firm
2 organisational context refers to the characteristics of an organisation, including the
scope and size of a firm, degree of centralisation, formalisation, the complexity of its
managerial structure, the quality of its human resource and the availability of internal
resources
3 environmental context is the platform in which an organisation conducts the business
– its industry, business partners, competitors, and dealings with government (Wang
et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2006).
Hein and Rauschnabel (2016) extended the applicability of TOE framework to the
adoption of ARSGs in the context of enterprise social networks (ESNs). They featured
‘environment and external pressure’ (i.e., competitive pressure and industry pressure) as
external factors, whereas ‘expected cost-benefits ratio’ and ‘corporate climate’ (i.e.,
innovation-friendliness and knowledge sharing) as internal forces driving ARSG adoption.
5 Reference models for the adoption of XR technology
This study analyses and organises the factors impacting the adoption of XR technology
into a set of themes according to their similarity. Figure 2 is a multi-level, categorisation
framework since it includes both individual and firm-level factors, with six main
categories in each. Figure 3 shows the relationships among the antecedents of the
determinants of XR technology. The details of classification and research findings are
summarised in Tables 2–3.
19
Figure 2 Reference model summarising the factors related to user reactions to wearable-XR
technology
20
Figure 3 Relationships among antecedents of the determinants of wearable-XR technology

Antecedents Determinants Reactions
Ease of use/ Effort expectancy (4) +ve Boundary conditions
Immersion (1) +ve Usage context
Presence (1) +ve Technology-specific (public vs. private)
Response time (1) +ve Device (e.g.,
Information quality (1) +ve, Utilitarian benefit perception as fashion
System quality (1) © (e.g., functional benefit, gadget and/or technology)
Cognitive workload (1) # perceived usefulness, Consumer (e.g., big
Spatial representation (1) # and performance five personality, empathy,
Reduction of time and errors (1) +ve expectancy) innovativeness,
Costs of use (1) © immersion tendency,
(Expectation) confirmation (1) +ve and self-expressiveness)
Task technology fit (1) +ve Cultural traits
Aesthetic experience (1) +ve
Visual appeal (1) +ve
Technology readiness (1) +ve
- Recommendation (1) ©
- Personal innovativeness (1) ©
- Risk (1) ©
- Facilitating conditions (1) ©
- Immersion (1) +ve

Presence (3) * Hedonic benefit User reactions toward
Media richness (1) # (e.g., enjoyment, wearable -XR technology
Interactivity 1(#) entertainment, and
Embodiment (1) +ve perceived playfulness)
Narrative (1) +ve
Esthetics (1) +ve
Ease of use/ Effort expectancy (3) *
(2) +ve Control variables

Aesthetic quality/experience(2) +ve Age
Expectation confirmation (1) +ve Gender
Familiarity
Fashion-specific Knowledge
Ease of use
Impression Brand attitude
- Presence (2) +ve Device types
- Narrative (1) +ve (e.g., symbolic benefit,
- Media richness (1) +ve self-presentation
benefit, and
fashionability)
Media-specific
Functional quality Sensual benefit
-Effectiveness (1) +ve
-Vividness (1) +ve Virtual presence
Experiential quality
- Temporal dissociation (1) +ve
- Heightened enjoyment (1) +ve
- Emotions (1) +ve 1 (*)
- Control (1) +ve
- Curiosity (1) +ve
- Participation (1) +ve
Discomfort (1) #
Confirmation (1) +ve Virtual embodiment

21
Table 2 Summary of the factors affecting user reactions to wearable-XR technology
Variables Studies including this

Summary of findings
variable*
Individual-level variables
Perceived benefits
Technology-specific
Utilitarian benefits 4, 18, 23, 34 A significant positive effect was found
in all studies
 Functional benefit 1, 2 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
 Perceived 9, 14,24, 27, 28, 30, A significant positive effect was found
usefulness/performance 32 in all studies
expectancy
 Relative advantage 40 A significant positive effect was found

 Life efficiency 5 A mixed result was found
Hedonic benefit 9, 16, 24, 34 A significant positive effect was found
in all studies
 Enjoyment 5, 24, 27, 30, 36, 38, Six studies found a significant positive
40 effect, while the other one did not
 Entertainment 16 A significant positive effect was found

 Perceived playfulness 28 A significant positive effect was found
 Pleasure and arousal 22 A significant positive effect was found
 Flow 33, 36 One found a significant positive effect,
while the other one found a mixed
effect
Social benefit 4 A significant positive effect was found
 Socialising 5, 36 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
Fashion-specific
Impression management
 Symbolic benefit 23 A significant positive effect was found
 Self-presentation benefit 2 No significant effect was found
 Fashionability 34 A significant positive effect was found
 (Design) aesthetics 28, 40 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
 Self-expression 5 A significant positive effect was found
 Image 9, 36 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
 Wearable comfort 5, 24, 34 A significant positive effect was found
in all studies
Note: *Cross-reference with Table 1.

22

(continued)
Studies including this

Variables Summary of findings
variable*
Media-specific
Sensual benefit 10 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
 Immersion 10 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
 Desired enhancement of 5, 24 Both studies found a significant
reality/experienced positive effect
realism
 Virtual presence 34, 35, 38, 45 Three studies found a significant

positive effect, while the other one did
not
 Virtual embodiment 33, 34, 39 Two studies found a significant
positive/negative effect, while the
other one found a mixed result
Perceived risks
Technology risk 9 A significant negative effect was
found
 Health risk 34 A significant negative effect was
found
 Physical risk 34, 36 One found a significant negative
effect, while the one did not
 Psychological risk 34 No significant effect was found
 Loss of autonomy 23 No significant effect was found
Privacy risk
 Personal privacy 9, 23, 34, 36 One found significant negative effect,
while the other three did not
 Perceived risk to other 23 A significant negative effect was
people’s privacy found
 Privacy brand image 2 No significant effect was found

Individual differences
Consumer personality traits
 Openness to 1, 2, 22, 41 A significant positive effect was found
experience/technology or in all studies
personal innovativeness
 Extraversion 1, 41 Both studies found a significant

positive effect
 Neuroticism 1, 41 Both studies found a significant
negative effect
 Agreeableness 41 A significant positive effect was found
 Consciousness 41 A significant positive effect was found
23

(continued)
Variables Studies including this

Summary of findings
variable*
Individual differences
Consumer demographics
 Age 1, 2, 23, 34 One found a significant negative
effect, while the other three did not
 Gender 1, 2, 23, 34 One found a significant positive effect,
while the other three did not
Experience and habit
 Familiarity 1, 23, 36 One found significant positive effect,
while the other two did not
 Knowledge 2 No significant effect was found
 Habit 16, 24 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
Manufacturer-related variables
Brand attitude 1, 2 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
Price value 22 No significant effect was found
Psychological variables
Social norm/influence 2, 36 Both studies found a significant
positive effect
 Social conformity 1 A significant positive effect was found
 Descriptive norms 9 A significant positive effect was found
 Injunctive norm 9 No significant effect was found
Situational variables
Facilitating conditions 16 A significant positive effect was found
Firm-level variables
Expected cost-benefit ratio
 Perceived benefits 3 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
 Costs of technology 3 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
Technology readiness
 Internal infrastructure 3 One proposed this relationship
readiness conceptually
 Internal infrastructure 3 One proposed this relationship
integration conceptually
 Innovation readiness 3 One proposed this relationship

conceptually
24

(continued)
Studies including this

Variables Summary of findings
variable*
Firm-level variables
Organisational readiness
 Top management support 3 One proposed this relationship
 conceptually
 Employee support 3 One proposed this relationship
 conceptually
Safety
 Technology safety 3 One proposed this relationship
 conceptually
 Informational safety 3 One proposed this relationship
 conceptually
Environment and external
pressure
 Competitive pressure 3 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
 Industry pressure 3 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
Competitive climate
 Innovation-friendliness 3 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
 Knowledge sharing 3 One proposed this relationship
conceptually
The integer beside the variables is the total number of studies that include these
antecedents/determinants in the investigation. The symbols beside the parentheses have
the following meaning:
+ve positive relationship is found in all studies
–ve negative relationship is found in all studies
# there is no significant relationships found in all studies
* the findings are mixed among the studies
© the relationship is proposed conceptually with no empirical findings.
The contributions of these reference models are twofold. First, they provide researchers
with an overview of previous research findings, disclose areas where a copious amount of
studies already exists, and pinpoint those areas where research is needed. Second, the
reference models can facilitate the identification of inconsistent findings, which requires
more empirical studies to reconcile them.
25
Table 3 Summary of the relationships among antecedents of the determinants of wearable-XR

technology
Independent variables Studies including this variable*

Utilitarian benefit
 Ease of use/effort expectancy 14(+ve), 18(+ve), 28(+ve), 32(+ve)
 Immersion 27(+ve)
 Presence 28(+ve)
 Response time 30(+ve)
 Information quality 30(+ve)
 System quality 15©
 Cognitive workload 32(#)
 Spatial representation 32(#)
 Reduction of time and errors 32(+ve)
 Costs of use 15©
 (Expectation) confirmation 40(+ve)
 Task technology fit 18(+ve)
 Aesthetic experience 40(+ve)
 Visual appeal 14(+ve)
 Technology readiness 14(+ve)
 Recommendation 15©
 Personal innovativeness 15©
 Risk 15©
 Facilitating conditions 15©
Hedonic benefit
 Immersion 27(+ve)
 Presence 28(+ve), 38(+ve), 44(#)
 Media richness 44(#)
 Interactivity 30(#)
 Embodiment 19(+ve)
 Narrative 44(+ve)
 Aesthetics 16(+ve)
 Ease of use/effort expectancy 18(#), 22(+ve), 30(*)
 Usefulness/performance expectancy 22(+ve), 30(+ve)
 Aesthetic quality/experience 30(+ve), 40(+ve)
 Expectation confirmation 40(+ve)
26
Table 3 Summary of the relationships among antecedents of the determinants of wearable-XR

technology (continued)
Independent variables Studies including this variable*

 Presence 28(+ve), 44(+ve)
 Narrative 44(+ve)
 Media richness 44(+ve)
Sensual benefit
Virtual presence
Functional quality
 Effectiveness 35(+ve)
 Vividness 35(+ve)
Experiential quality
 Temporal dissociation 35(+ve)
 Heightened enjoyment 35(+ve)
 Emotions 45(+ve)
 Control 35(+ve)
 Curiosity 35(+ve)
 Participation 35(+ve)
Discomfort 45(#)
Virtual embodiment
 Presence 33(*)
 Confirmation 39(+ve)
5.1 Individual-level factors
Six main categories of factors that drive individuals to adopt XR technology were
identified. These categories are:
1 perceived benefits of XR technology
2 perceived risks of XR technology
3 individual differences
4 manufacturer-related variables
5 psychological variables
6 situational variables.
27
5.1.1 Perceived benefits of XR technology

5.1.1.1 Technology-specific
Utilitarian benefit
Utilitarian benefit reflects the degree to which people believe that the use of new
technologies can optimise the task-related outcomes, e.g., by improving the life/work
efficiency, simplifying complex tasks, and expediting task completion (Dehghani, 2018).
In the matters of XR technology, task-oriented outcomes include searching for
information, organising functions, using navigation, to name a few; and such outcomes
might vary across usage contexts (personal vs. organisation) (Rauschnabel et al., 2018b).
In the technology acceptance literature and consumption value theory, ‘perceived
usefulness’, ‘relative advantage’, ‘performance expectancy’, and ‘functional value’ are
common examples of utilitarian benefit (Davis, 1989; Rogers, 2010; Sheth et al., 1991;
Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Rauschnabel and Ro (2016) conducted a study in a pre-market entry stage and found
that expected functional benefits are a dominant motivator or a salient intrinsic motivator
driving an individual to adopt ARSGs. Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) observed that people
have favourable attitudes toward VR if they perceive the technology is beneficial in
helping accomplish certain tasks easier, faster, or better. Interestingly, Rauschnabel
(2018b) showed that life efficiency is the main reason as to why people use ARSGs in
private (e.g., information gathering) but not in public (e.g., navigation systems) contexts.
Akçayır et al. (2016) demonstrated that the use of AR in science laboratories enhances the
learning capabilities of students. While the impact of utilitarian benefits on the adoption
of XR technology has been well established in the literature, empirical evidence also shows
that the strengths of these effects are moderated by consumers’ personality traits (e.g.,
openness and neuroticism) (Rauschnabel et al., 2015) and device perceptions (technology,
fashion, or both) (Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Specifically, consumers who perceive high
functional benefits are more likely to adopt the ARSGs if they score high on openness to
experience, low on neuroticism, and see smart glasses as technology.
Hedonic benefit
Hedonic benefit represents an intrinsic motivational factor and can be defined as the extent
to an individual perceive performing an activity (e.g., leisure and playing) as fun and
pleasurable for its own sake (Davis et al., 1992). Such rewards are conceptually linked to
the construct of ‘enjoyment’ in the technology acceptance domain (Venkatesh et al.,
2012). To fulfil tension-related needs, people tend to choose highly entertaining
technologies and media (Katz et al., 1974; McGuire, 1974; Rubin, 2009; Sundar and
Limperors, 2013). Particularly in the online games context, people often play adventure
games to escape unpleasant situations, release stress, and break the tedium of daily life,
making them a strong determinant of gamers’ continuance intention (e.g., Li et al., 2015;
Merhi, 2016). Similarly, Zsila et al. (2018) found that people play AR games (e.g.,
Pokémon Go) to reduce boredom and Yang and Liu (2017) showed that gamers expect to
have fun and distract themselves from daily routines. In playing Pokémon Go, people can
do activities they are unable to do in reality, such as catching virtual creatures hidden in
real-world locations. Besides, walking down to the real streets and seeing Pokémon
through the lens of phone camera is a fun experience. While Ghazali et al. (2018)
28
identified enjoyment as a key hedonic motivation to continue playing Pokémon Go,

Rauschnabel et al. (2017) confirmed that players who experience the flow are willing to
spend money in in-app purchases (e.g., buy Pokéballs).
From a psychological stance, hedonic consumption is associated with multisensory,
fantasy, and emotive aspects of one’s experience with products or services (Hirschman
and Holbrook, 1982). In a related context, tourism scholars (e.g., Jung et al., 2016b;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018a) revealed that visitors’ overall experience could be enhanced by
escapist, entertainment, and enjoyable experience of using XR technology. Likewise, tom
Dieck et al. (2018b) pointed out that three spheres of the experience economy (escapism,
education, and entertainment) significantly influence visitors’ satisfaction and memories
of the AR science festivals, which in turn influence their engagement with science
experience. In a professional setting, Hein and Rauschnabel (2016) proposed that
employees who enjoy learning ARSGs in ESNs will actively contribute to the networks –
e.g., by posting own content on ESNs.
Social benefit
A widely replicated findings in the U&GT research is that people tend to choose certain
technologies and media to improve their social relationships (Ruggiero, 2000). Similar to
social networks, XR technology provides a means to meeting new people in addition to
staying in touch people they already know (Rauschnabel, 2018a; Ro et al., 2018). This
may offer significant hope for those who find it difficult to build a connection due to their
introverted personality. For example, Flirtar, the world’s first AR dating app using
geolocation, is essentially designed to help users identify nearby daters and encourage
them to meet in person. Another possible way to expand interpersonal networks is by
engaging individuals with shared enthusiasms in similar activities (e.g., catching Pokémon
in the hotspots) or discussions about topics related to XR technology in the online
communities (e.g., Microsoft Hololens group on Facebook). Recent evidence suggests that
social benefit significantly affects both the intended and continued use of various AR-
related technologies, including glasses (e.g., Rauschnabel, 2018b) and games (e.g.,
Ghazali et al., 2018). At a brand level, AR provides enormous opportunities for interacting
with customers in a more meaningful way (Javornik, 2016). A prominent example of AR
customer-brand interaction campaign is Kate Spade’s AR-guided tour of Paris, where
consumers can explore Paris with the influencers as virtual guides and share their ‘Joy
Walks’ on social media via the hashtag #KateSpadeJoy.
5.1.1.2 Fashion-specific
In today’s appearance- and status-oriented society, fashion components, including
cosmetics, hairstyles, clothes, and trinkets, play an important role in managing and
portraying one’s impression (Browne and Kaldenberg, 1997; Chuah et al., 2016; O’Cass,
2004). In particular, people prefer carrying fashion accessories that are visible to others
(e.g., luxury handbags) because such possessions signify their wealth and differences from
others. Thus, people exploiting the visible aspect of luxury fashion brands to achieve their
self-presentation goals and consequently enhance their status in their social systems
(Hwang and Kandampully, 2012). As Belk (1978, p.39) succinctly put in, “In
29
virtually all cultures, visible products and services are bases for inferences about the status,
personality, and disposition of the owner or consumer of these goods”.
Visibility reflects the extent to which a technology is apparent in the sense of sight of
observable to others (Moore and Benbasat, 1996). Comparable to regular spectacles,
ARSGs are more eye-catching and self-defining, and hence are generally linked to positive
images, such as ‘cool’, ‘trendy’, ‘unique’, and ‘innovative’ (Rauschnabel, 2018a).
Therefore, individuals who are tech-literate and fashion-affine might wear ARSGs in
public as a means of communicating these traits to others (Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016).
Not surprisingly, research on wearables and luxury branding echoes the idea that
consumers who buy conspicuous products are driven by the reasons other than utilitarian;
they buy conspicuous products to impress others or to gain symbolic rewards, such as
being acknowledged by others and elevating their self-image within a society (Bian and
Forsythe, 2012; Kalantari and Rauschnabel, 2018; Rauschnabel, 2018b). For example,
Krey et al. (2019) found that consumers respond more favourably to smartwatches if they
believe that the visibility of the smartwatch itself can help them present themselves in a
desirable manner.
In addition to perceived visibility, the aesthetic aspect of an ARSG is vital for
impression management and visual communication (Chattaraman and Rudd, 2006;
Rauschnabel, 2018a). Design aesthetics satisfy human desire for beauty and consumers
evaluate the design aesthetics of a wearable in terms of the balance, emotional appeal, or
visual appeal as manifested in its colour, style, shape, and screen layout (Hsiao, 2018;
Hwang et al., 2016). These aesthetic criteria, in turn, determines wearable acceptance and
market success (e.g., Dehghani et al., 2018; Hsiao, 2018; Jeong et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
2016). For example, Apple Watch – which has similar features like other smartwatches –
achieved much success because of its aesthetic design. Apple Watch has lots of physical
customisation option, curated into different collections featuring different materials and
different colours and styles of straps (Hayes, 2014). Especially in the mature stage of
diffusion, rolling out smartwatches with diverse designs are needed to meet consumers’
demands for aesthetic (Jung et al, 2016a). With respect to ARSGs, Jeong et al. (2017)
argued that consumers prefer wearing them without losing their fashion sense. It is highly
likely that a consumer will adopt an ARSG if it matches with his/her regular clothing style
(Rauschnabel et al., 2018a). For example, Kopin’s SOLOS AR sports glasses maybe
favoured by a person with a sporty clothing style. Within a tourism sector, AR is
increasingly used for the enhancement of the tourist aesthetic experience (Di Serio et al.,
2013). A well-designed AR app not only aid in the delivery of clear and accurate
information, but also in the arousal of positive emotions such as fun and pleasure. In
support, Chung et al. (2015) and Jung et al. (2018) demonstrated that visually appealing
AR apps (e.g., in harmony with the tourism destinations and showing the design details),
in contrast with visually unappealing ones, can positively impact users’ impressions of the
AR apps in terms of ease of use, usefulness, and enjoyment.
Wearable comfort
Wearable comfort is described as a mental state of physical well-being expressive of
satisfaction with the design of a wearable such as weight, bulk, fit, temperature, and
pressure (Rauschnabel, 2018b; Sontag, 1985). Being anxious about the physical harm
caused by a device is a significant impediment to acceptance (Buenaflor and Kim, 2013).
For example, wearing fitness trackers may cause skin rash and that the radiation emitted
30
may cause cancer and other health problems. The same might hold for ARSGs.
Oftentimes, ARSGS are perceived as clunky, and people would not be receptive of such
technologies if they experience eye strain, dizziness, and headaches after wearing them
(tom Dieck et al., 2016). Therefore, it is not surprising that research on wearable and
related technologies concludes that wearable comfort is a deciding factor for use (e.g.,
Hwang et al., 2016; Coorevits and Coenen, 2016; Kalantari, 2017; Rauschnabel, 2018b).
5.1.1.3 Media-specific
Sensual benefit
Sensual benefit is related to sensual pleasures that users experience from the stimulation
of various human senses – e.g., senses of touch, sight, and hearing (Rauschnabel, 2018a).
As wearable technology is a form of ‘fashmedinology’, it should fulfil the sense of touch,
at the same time, the accompanying apps should be capable of eliciting visual and acoustic
senses (Rauschnabel, 2018a, 2018b). Similar technologies like haptic wearables use force
on the skin to deliver real-time tactile feedbacks. By bringing the feeling of realness into
perspective, haptic wearables help enhance our sense of sight, taste, hearing, touch, and
smell – regardless of distance and disability. Notable examples include Apple
Smartwatch’s ‘taptic engine’ that produces haptic feedbacks to alert users whenever
notifications come in. Other wearable technologies like VR have allowed users to touch
and taste the virtual objects of which will add to the sense of experienced realism
(Hoffman et al., 1998).
Immersion
Engaging with immersive media such as VR has been described as giving rise to
experiences of deep absorption, involvement, and engrossment enabled by virtual stimuli
(Palmer, 1995). In a technology-mediated VR environment, achieving an immersive
experience is an important goal (Shin and Biocca, 2018). To feel immersed, consumers
must be able to interact freely with vividly and realistically produced virtual objects from
diverse dimensional perspectives (Yim et al., 2017). The vividness and interactivity of VR
technology increase the real sense of being present in the computer-stimulated
environment, namely telepresence, by touching users’ senses of visual, aural, olfactory,
tactile, and proprioceptive (Pierce and Aguinis, 1997). However, there is a lack of
consensus surrounding the conceptualisation of immersion. While some studies view
immersion as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Shin and Biocca, 2018; Yim et al., 2017),
others view it to be multi-dimensional. For example, Georgiou and Kyza (2017) elucidated
the concept of immersion based on a hierarchical structure comprises:
1 engagement, which refers to users’ interest, time investment, and perceptions about
the VR’s usability
2 engrossment, which refers to users’ emotional attachment and their focus of attention
3 total immersion, which refers to a sense of presence and flow experienced in the use
of VR technology.
31
Zhang et al. (2017) classified immersion into four themes:

1 spatial immersion is induced by the spatial compositions of the virtual scene, such as
swift zoom-in and zoom-out or the whirling sensation of on-the-fly sky-diving shots
2 emotional immersion occurs when the user is emotionally aroused and absorbed by
the narrative content of the story
3 cognitive (strategic) immersion is related to the mental challenge encountered when
choosing the best-of-breed solution
4 sensory-motoric (tactical) immersion results from the repetition of rhythm-based
actions and sensory feedback (e.g., background music and visual demonstration of
games).
Desired enhancement of reality/experienced realism

VR has the ability to enhance users’ perceptions of their world by helping them visualise
imaginary objects realistically; thus, corresponding to the sense of sight. Apart from
immersing themselves into a dream world, consumers can now compare their real-world
view or their ideal-world view and vice versa (Rauschnabel, 2018b). For example, through
IKEA Place app, consumers can preview how the furniture would look and fit in their
homes before actually buying it. Another newly released AR app is TaDa Time, a social
messenger app that mimics users’ real life movements and expressions. TaDa Time app
allows users to create and personalise their own 3D avatars with video recording feature
in the real world to interact with their friends’ avatars in the virtual world. In other words,
users’ imagination is seamlessly merged with the reality to create 3D avatars. Empirically,
Rauschnabel (2018b) showed the relevance of users’ desire for reality enhancement in
driving their ARSG usage in private sphere. In addition, desired enhancement of reality
could allow consumers to create their own worlds with their favourite brands, and by doing
so, improve customer engagement (e.g., Alvarez-Milán et al., 2018).
Virtual presence
VR is computer-mediated technology that allows for the manipulation of real environment
in which the users can interact with and feel a sense of presence (Diemer et al., 2015;
Serrano et al., 2016). The illusion of ‘being there’ is a psychological state that occurs when
a user feeling lost or immersed in the virtual world, which enables him/her to temporarily
‘escape’ from the real world (Schubert et al., 2001; Slater and Steed, 2000). Prior studies
have identified involvement, immersion, and realness as the fundamental psychological
states required for experiencing presence (Schuemie et al., 2001; Witmer and Singer,
1998). Schuemie et al. (2001) regarded presence as transportation, that is – the sensation
being conveyed to the virtual world. The transportation metaphor of presence has been
operationalised with two measures: arrival and departure. The former describes a feeling
of being attached to the virtual environment, whereas the latter describes a feeling of
detachment from the physical environment (Kim and Biocca, 1997).
After reviewing the early works in the field, Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) redefined
virtual presence as “the subjective sense of being in a particular virtual environment even
32
when one is physically situated in another” (p.230). For example, when wearing VR
headsets at homes, one could fly through the Artic or feel that he/she is in a fantasy land.
Whether or not the immersive experience would translate into positive emotions would
depend on the level of presence (Riva et al., 2007). Empirical evidence from numerous
domains, including education, retailing, tourism, healthcare, and so forth, demonstrated
that VR experience generates positive attitudinal and behavioural outcomes, such as
consumer learning of products (Suh and Lee, 2005), brand recognition and persuasion
(Kim and Biocca, 1997), destination preference (Tussyadiah et al., 2018a), and mall
loyalty (van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017). These reactions are proposed as the results of
presence (Schuemie et al., 2001).
Virtual embodiment
Experiencing the self in the virtual world can occur when VR creates perceptual illusion
that external objects are part of users’ bodies (Botvinick and Cohen, 1998), they are out
of their bodies (Ehrsson, 2007), or they are embodied with a virtual body different from
their own (Banakou et al., 2016). This virtual embodiment describes the phenomenon
whereby a person’s body is replaced by a life-sized artificial one (i.e., avatar) that he/she
can feel a strong sense of belonging (Banakou et al., 2016). For example, when using VR
headsets, one feels that he/she is a different person/character, such as a Neanderthal man,
a knight, or Michael Jackson (Herz and Rauschnabel, 2018). In their study of embodiment
in social interactions in VR, Bailenson et al. (2008) introduced the concept of transformed
social interaction (TSI) which suggests that virtual representation of the self can
distinguish from a physical ones by self-representation, sensory abilities, and situational
contexts. For example, to address the issue of racial bias, previous studies have conducted
experiments where participants were visually owned different coloured rubber hands (light
vs. dark-skinned) and bodies (white vs. black) (Banakou et al., 2016; Maister et al., 2013).
The findings of these studies suggest that implicit bias decreased more for white
participants with dark-skinned rubber hands and black virtual bodies. Being able to
experience a digital self-representation not only alter the participants’ attitudes toward
other races, but also motivate them to use VR (Yee et al., 2009). This motivation has
become even more prominent after interacting with virtual presence (Herz and
Rauschnabel, 2018).
5.1.2 Perceived risks of XR technology

Technology risk
Technology risk is frequently thought of as felt anxious and uncertainty regarding possible
adverse consequences of using a technology (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003). Kalantari
and Rauschnabel (2018) typified the risks associated with XR technology as having three
facets: psychological, uncertainty, and physical. Psychological risk is defined as the
possibility of the poorly performing product to disturb the consumer’s peace of mind and
the potential loss of self-esteem from the disappointment over the unaccomplished buying
goal (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003; Mitchell, 1992). For example, while VR is used by
therapists to treat post-traumatic stress disorder among the victims of war or terrorism,
misusing this technology could harm one’s psychological well-being (Herz and
Rauschnabel, 2018; Rizzo et al., 2015). Risk arising from the
33
uncertainties in purchase decision includes financial risk, time loss risk, and performance
risk. Consumers might feel that purchasing a technology that could possibly fall short of
their expectations is not worth the time and money they have invested in (e.g., maintenance
costs, evaluation costs, and learning costs) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003; Kalantari and
Rauschnabel, 2018). Physical risk refers to the personal injury caused by the technology
(Kalantari and Rauschnabel, 2018). Being immersed in VR makes people ignore the
reality around them, which increases the possibility of hitting furniture or walking into
wall (Herz and Rauschnabel, 2018). High degree of perceived technology risk dilutes the
potential usefulness and ease of use of a technology, thereby discouraging the adoption of
XR technology (Kalantari and Rauschnabel, 2018; tom Dieck and Jung, 2018). However,
Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) found that consumers care very little about the physical and
psychological risks associated with the use of VR glasses. Rather, perceived health hazards
(e.g., eye strain, fatigue, dizziness, and motion stickness) appear to be a salient risk factor
that decreases the favourability of consumers’ evaluations of VR glasses.
Privacy risk
The growing ubiquity, pervasion, and personalisation of IT and media has posed serious
threats to individual privacy (Junglas et al., 2008; Malhotra et al., 2004). Privacy risk refers
to a person’s intrinsic fear about the potential loss of control over their personal
information – e.g., personal information is being used without knowledge and consent –
due to the use of a given technology (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003). AR/VR systems are
often criticised for collecting far more personal information than conventional systems.
For example, VR headsets with live microphones can record our private conversation;
tracking systems/HMD with always-on cameras can record videos of our private spaces;
and eye-tracking technology can track our eye movements (Fineman and Lewis, 2018).
While used properly, the collected biometric data can enhance customer experience
through personalisation; however, while misused, its abuse can lead to the intrusion of
personal privacy (Culnan, 2000). For example, hackers can compromise an application
and falsify information and vital signs on a patient’s AR display or glasses so as to mislead
the doctor (Dickson, 2018). The concern about privacy threats may thwart the cultivation
of the technology’s trust. Lack of trust is accompanied by the feelings of vulnerable and
uncertain, which constitute the psychological barriers of risk inhibiting adoption (Barney
and Hansen, 1994; Connolly and Bannister, 2007; Lewis and Weigert, 1985). However,
with the exception of Herz and Rauschnabel (2018), most studies did not find that privacy
and data security risks have a negative impact on consumers’ attitude toward using XR
technology (see e.g., Kalantari and Rauschnabel, 2018; Rauschnabel et al., 2017, 2018a).
As Rauschnabel et al. (2018a) observed, most people are generally care more about other
people’s privacy than their own because ARSGs can automatically screen and process a
user’s surrounding, and hence social desirable matters.
34
5.1.3 Individual differences

Consumer personality traits
A consensus prevails among personality psychologists that the human personality can best
represented by the big five framework that contains five trait factors: openness to
experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Devaraj et
al., 2008). The five personality traits are bipolar and perform well in predicting various
media and technology use (e.g., Correa et al., 2010; Guadagno et al., 2008; Kim et al.,
2017; Rauschnabel et al, 2015).
Openness to experience is a personality trait that describes the imagination and
originality of a person (Moore and McElroy, 2012). People who score high on this trait
were found to be more curious, open-minded, creative, and willingness to explore new
ideas than low scorers (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Digman and Takemoto-Chock, 1981).
Rauschnabel et al. (2015) showed that open individuals generally have a greater
knowledge and awareness of Google Glass because of their higher levels of curiosity.
Furthermore, open individuals value the functional benefit of Google Glass more than
their narrow-minded counterparts, and it influences their adoption decision. tom Dieck
and Jung (2018) discovered through focus group interviews that personal innovativeness
– a similar construct – significantly increases perceived usefulness and perceive ease of
use of AR apps. Likewise, Jung et al. (2015) compared the differences in quality attributes
between high- and low-innovativeness groups visiting a theme park. They found that high-
innovativeness group recognises AR’s system and service quality better than low-
innovativeness group because they dare to take risks, enjoy using and spreading new
technologies. Therefore, high innovators were found to have more favourable attitudes
toward ARSG adoption (Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016).
Conscientiousness refers the extent to which an individual is organised, self-
disciplined, persist in their goal-oriented behaviours (Costa and McCrae, 1992). This
intrinsic motivation drives individuals to achieve their goal – e.g., improve job
performance (Moore and McElroy, 2012). Tabacchi et al. (2017) found that highly
conscientious people spend less time on training and collecting their Pokémon, probably
because they want to stay focused on their goals and avoid distraction.
Extraversion is “a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external
events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown” [Ewen, (1998), p.289].
Individuals who are high in extraversion are sociable, optimistic, fun-loving, affectionate,
and assertive, whereas those who are low in extraversion are introverts: quiet, reserved,
and retiring (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Guadagno et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2017). Generally,
extraverts exhibit a strong desire for self-presentation and are interested in forming new
interpersonal relationships. Consequently, extraverts are more inclined to adopt ARSGs
as its ‘fashmedianology’ nature provides them a way to present themselves to others and
to assimilate with their peers (Rauschnabel et al., 2015).
Agreeableness represents an individual’s sympathy, courtesy, flexibility, kindness,
trustiness, and forgiveness. Individuals high in agreeableness have been known to be more
cooperative and are less inclined to reject invitations from their friends (Wehrli, 2008).
Probably this explains why agreeable individuals tend to accept Pokémon Go in the early
stage. However, they are less likely to capture and collect the Pokémon in the later stage,
presumably because playing such games might engage them with
35
disrespectful behaviour – e.g., catching Pokémon at the Holocaust Memorial Museum,

which is in conflict with their courteous nature (Tabacchi et al., 2017).
Neuroticism, also referred to as emotional stability, measures one’s predisposition or
vulnerability to confront negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, or depression (Kim et
al., 2017). High neuroticism is reflected in nervous, insecurity, and self-pitying; low levels
are evident in calmness, security, and self-satisfied (Guadagno et al., 2008). Hence,
neurotic individuals tend to be particularly averse of ARSGs when they believe that such
technologies will control their lives due to its functionality. Furthermore, neurotics are
also less interested in adopting ARSGs when they assume its usage is common among
their peers (Rauschnabel et al., 2015).
Consumer demographics
Age and gender are the most commonly studied demographic variables in the XR
adoption. However, the findings on these demographic variables are somewhat mixed. For
examples, Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) included age and gender as control variables in
their model. They found that gender but not age has a significant effect on purchase
intention. However, neither age nor gender was found to be significantly related to
adoption intention in the studies by Rauschnabel et al. (2015), Rauschnabel et al. (2018a),
and Rauschnabel and Ro (2016).
Experience and habit

Experience reflects an individual’s familiarity with and knowledge about XR technology.
Rauschnabel et al. (2016) discovered that consumers’ existing knowledge about or
familiarity with ARSGs influences the categorisation process. When consumers look at a
pair of ARSGs, their design and technical features are likely to trigger strong associations
with this core concept and thereby infer a particular categorical representation (e.g.,
fashion vs. technology). Habit describes a person’s nature tendency to behave in a
particular way because of learning (Limayem et al., 2007). Paulo et al. (2018) found that
habit is a strong predictor of continued use of mobile AR in tourism.
5.1.4 Manufacturer-related variables

Brand attitude
People often susceptible to the potential risks and uncertainties associated with new
technologies. To a certain extent, such vulnerability could be counteracted by people
attitude toward a brand, which is consumers’ overall evaluation of a brand – whether good
or bad (Mitchell and Olseon, 1981). Rauschnabel and Ro (2016) contended that consumers
who evaluate a brand positively will extend the likeability to other product categories that
the same company offers. For example, enthusiastic Apple fans that possess an intense
emotional attachment to Apple might camp for days on end in order to be first in line for
the latest Apple products, such as iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. These ‘irrational loyal’
customers would ‘love Apple no matter what’ – even if all of its devices are at risk of
being hacked (Titcomb, 2018). Prior XR research has confirmed empirically that brand
attitude is closely tied to consumers’ intention to adopt ARSGs (see e.g., Rauschnabel et
al., 2015; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016).
36
Price value is a key construct in the UTAUT2 model. By definition, price value
represents the consumers’ perceptions of the worth of the product or service results from
their cognitive trade-off between the monetary benefits and costs of using it (Dodds et al.,
1991; Kalantari, 2017). The price value is positive when the technology’s benefits has
surpassed the associated costs (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Price value has long been
recognised as a key factor determining consumers’ adoption of diverse technology-based
products or service, which include wearable technologies (Hsiao, 2018; Jung et al., 2016a;
Kim and Shin, 2015). However, price value was shown to be insignificant to the adoption
of mobile AR travel guide (e.g., Kourouthanassis et al., 2015).
5.1.5 Psychological variables

Social norms/influence
Human need for companionship and association with others is mirrored in their
compliance with social norms – that is, unwritten rule about how to behave (Cialdini and
Goldstein, 2004; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016). Conceptually, social norm is similar to
social influence in the UTAUT, which reflects the degree to which a person’s decision on
certain behavioural performance is being stressed out by significant others (e.g., friends
and family) (White et al., 2009). According to Chan et al. (2018), people are under pressure
to follow other people for the purpose of maintaining positive expectations with them.
Social norm can be injunctive or descriptive in nature (Schultz et al., 2007). Injunctive
norms reflect perceptions of whether a behaviour will be approved or rejected by a given
group – in other words, what others think one ought to do. In contrast, descriptive norms
are concerned with social conformity, referring to the observation of whether other group
members perform the behaviour. To put it simply, it highlights what others are doing
(Hardeman et al., 2017; White et al., 2009). Social norm is particularly matter in situations
where a technology is used visibly around other people (Hein and Rauschnabel, 2016). In
the case of ARSGs, Rauschnabel and Ro (2016) reported that the adoption intention of
German consumers is strongly influenced by injunctive norm – i.e., expectations of
important referents. More recently, Kalantari and Rauschnabel (2018) compared two types
of norms and found that the US consumers would not simply purchase ARSGs just to fulfil
others’ expectations, but rather when they perceive its usage is common among their peers
(descriptive norms).
5.1.6 Situational variables

Facilitating conditions have been discussed as situational factors related to XR use.
Facilitating conditions are defined as consumers’ perceptions of the resources and support
available to perform a behaviour (Brown and Venkatesh, 2005; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
This UTAUT construct is analogous to perceived behavioural control of TPB – a belief
related to one’s control over the use of new technologies (Venkatesh et al., 2011).
Dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) posits that consumers’ pre-usage belief associated
with facilitating conditions is positively disconfirmed when they are given adequate
resources (e.g., relevant knowledge and assistance) to access the technology. In contrast,
a lack of resources may act as a barrier since people are less likely to form positive
attitudes toward the technology and do not see compelling reason to own it (Venkatesh et
al., 2011). As XR is a cutting-edge technology, people are more willing to use it under
37
better facilitating conditions (e.g., better availability of operating systems and compatible
devices) (Paulo et al., 2018). tom Dieck and Jung (2018) have discussed the role of
facilitating conditions in enhancing perceived usefulness and ease of use of AR
conceptually. Chung et al. (2015) have analysed the impact of facilitating conditions on
perceived ease of use and found evidence to confirm this empirically.
5.2 Firm-level factors
Six main categories of factors that drive firms to adopt XR technology were identified.
These categories are
1 expected benefit-cost of XR technology
2 technology readiness
3 organisational readiness
4 safety
5 environment and external pressure
6 corporate climate.
5.2.1 Expected benefit-cost ratio

Making a good IT investment decision requires a careful consideration of the expected
benefits and costs associated with the implementation and maintenance of a new
technology and their trade-off (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000). Similar to other IT contexts,
perceived benefits of XR technology are the overall expected favourable consequence to
a firm for adopting such technologies. This includes improved internal process efficiency,
reduced errors, and subsequent costs (Hein and Rauschnabel, 2016). For example,
construction workers can experience a safer, more productive hands-free workflow by
using ARSGs. Moreover, more accurate structural inspections and error corrections are
possible with the remote solutions offered in real-time. Perceived costs of XR technology
are the overall expected unfavourable consequence to a firm for implementation, possibly
arise from hardware and software purchase, external consulting services for planning,
training of personnel, and communication efforts. Apart from these foreseeable costs of
implementation, non-monetary costs can stem from drawbacks of using or wearing
ARSGs, which include data security breach, distraction, line-of-sight obstruction,
explosion to electro smog, among others (Bretschneider-Hagemes and Gross, 2017; Hein
and Rauschnabel, 2016).
5.2.2 Technology readiness

Technology readiness reflects to the extent to which firms prepare themselves for IT
system change in terms of technology infrastructure and IT human resources (Zhu et al.,
2006). In other words, whether firms have sufficient resources to support the
implementation of a new system. While technology infrastructure is the foundation
facilities (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that enables the
system change, IT human resources refer to IT specialists possessing the knowledge and
skills to implement a new system (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). With respect to ARSGs,
38
technology readiness consists of three components: Internal infrastructure readiness (any

internal auxiliary IS to can support the technology); Internal technology integration (the
possibilities of information linkage and transfer across system borders); and Innovation
readiness (the ability of a technology to fulfil various needs of potential users as
disseminated through purchasing department) (Hein and Rauschnabel, 2016). If a firm
lack technological resources and innovative mindset, its ability to adopt ARSGs is limited.
5.2.3 Organisational readiness

Organisational readiness – the staffs’ readiness to embrace the technological innovation –
has been recognised as a critical prerequisite for IT system change (Hein and Rauschnabel,
2016; Motwani et al., 2005). As the implementation of XR system requires adequate
resources, process reengineering, and user coordination, top management with a greater
commitment are more likely to initiate and adopt such technologies (Zhu et al., 2016).
Also, they are more willing to pay for installation costs, integration costs, maintenance
costs, and even training fees to increase the technology competence and readiness among
their employees.
5.2.4 Safety
For any innovation to be eligible for commercialisation, it must fulfil the safety and ethical
criteria. The safety of XR devices can be assessed in two ways: technological safety and
informational safety (Hein and Rauschnabel, 2016). Technological safety can be
interpreted as people’s fear regarding the injury possibilities of XR devices. For example,
wearing ARSGs or VR headsets can impair people’s eyesight, cause cancer as a result of
being exposed to electromagnetic radiation, and eventually lead to physical injuries
because of the loss of spatial awareness. In addition, seeing and engaging with virtual
objects that do not exist can affect user’ psychological well-being (Rauschnabel, 2018a).
With regard to informational safety, XR system can cause users to lose their autonomy
over personal data and system administrators (Dwyer et al., 2007). Because many AR/VR
system rely on third-party apps or integrations with dubious security, it is possible that
hackers will find ways to steal personal data and other types of sensitive data. Later on,
they may hijack and take control of XR remotely to impersonate someone in a workplace
social collaboration. They may also sabotage the XR ecosystem to interrupt important
workplace meetings (Ritesh, 2017).
5.2.5 Environment and external pressure

According to Utterback (1974), environment factor is a driving force behind a firm’s IT
innovation. Specifically, external pressures from the competitors and industry plays a
pivotal role in pushing firm toward initiating and adopting new technologies (Hein and
Rauschnabel, 2016; Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). Competitive pressure refers to “the degree
of pressure that the company feels from competitors with the industry” [Zhu and Kraemer,
(2005), p.70]. Competition often propel firms to adopt a technology or risk losing
competitive advantage or cost leadership (Mitropoulos and Tatum, 2000; Zhu et al.,
2006). By adopting XR technology, firms can increase operational efficiency, enhance
customer service and brand experience, as well as optimise collaborative efforts.
39
On the other hand, industry pressure stems from the efforts of associations to roll out new
procedures and encourage technology adoption among industry members (Hein and
Rauschnabel, 2016).
5.2.6 Corporate climate

Corporate climate refers to time-specified, contextual phenomenon tied to feelings,
thoughts, and behaviours of organisational members (Bock et al., 2005). Hein and
Rauschnabel (2016) assumed that employees working in an innovative environment as
well as well as climate that emphasises knowledge sharing are more inclined to adopt
ARSGs in the workplace.
6 Discussion
Figure 2 and 3 show that a large number of XR drivers – at both individual and firm-levels
– and their antecedents have been proposed. However, none of the firm-level drivers have
been examined empirically, and thus leave room for further investigations. On the
individual level, perceived usefulness and enjoyment – the established technology
acceptance constructs – seem to be the two most researched factors in the contemporary
XR research. While all the seven studies found that perceived usefulness has a positive
impact on to users’ reactions to XR technology, Rauschnabel (2018b) revealed that life
efficiency – another dimension of utilitarian benefit – significant only for the use of
ARSGs in a private space. This intriguing finding is attributable to usage context.
Generally, utilitarian, goal-directed people use ARSGs to help them accomplish their tasks
faster rather to gain public attention. Hence, the presence of other people does not matter.
With regard to perceived enjoyment, all the studies – except for Chung et al. (2018) –
showed its significant impact on users’ reactions to XR technology. One plausible
explanation for the insignificant effect is the nature of cultural heritage tourism, which fun
and entertainment elements are less emphasised.
Media or XR-specified constructs are another area that is worth further scrutiny since
they have been specified in a number of ways. As can be seen from Figures 2 and 3,
(virtual) presence and embodiment could be determinants in one study but antecedents in
another study. Moreover, the findings of their impact are mixed. While Tussyadiah et al.
(2018b) and Wei et al. (2019) found a positive relationship between presence and
attitude/intention, Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) found the relationship to be insignificant.
Likewise, Shin and Biocca (2018) demonstrated that embodiment is a contributing factor
for satisfaction, Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) showed that embodiment is an inhibiting
factor for adoption of VR glasses. Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) have further examined
the synergistic effect between virtual presence and embodiment and found that out-of-
body experience cannot drive user attitude with the absence of out-of-place experience. In
another study by Shin (2018), embodiment is found to be dependent upon the level of
immersion. Users with a high level of immersion experience a strong sense of embodiment
or feelings of having a virtual body as a result of being present in a non- physical world
than those with a low level of immersion. Interestingly, immersion – the extent to which
users feel absorbed in, involved with and engrossed by visual and tactile stimuli of XR –
is proposed as an antecedent to virtual presence in a study by Wei et al. (2019). Therefore,
it is difficult to compare the findings of various studies.
40
Furthermore, analysis of the literature reveals that most prior research adopts a
unidimensional conceptualisation of immersion and presence, leading to an
oversimplification of implications of various stimuli (see e.g., He et al., 2018; Herz and
Rauschnabel, 2018; Huang and Liao, 2015; Rauschnabel, 2018a; Tussyadiah et al. 2018b).
According to Zhang et al. (2017), immersion is a complex phenomenon that requires
multiple levels of neuro-psychological involvement such as attention, perception, and
emotion. Thereby it can be classified into four types: spatial immersion, emotional
immersion, cognitive (strategic) immersion, and sensory-motoric (tactical) immersion. As
a function of immersion, presence reflecting an internal psychological state of the user can
occur at three different levels: telepresence (a sense of being inside a mediated space);
copresence (in the company of others); and social presence (perception of a medium’s
ability to connect people) (Nowak and Biocca, 2003). Employing a multidimensional
conceptualisation may allow us to discern different effects of diverse sensory or perceptual
stimuli on multiple levels of immersion and presence and, therefore, help designers select
suitable technological features to stimulate the desired immersion and presence.
7 Propositions and future research agenda
7.1 Disentangling the underlying dimensions of sensual benefits, examining

their interrelationships and mechanisms, as well as validating the
multidimensional structure of immersion and presence
The literature review shows that consumers’ decisions regarding XR adoption hinges not
only on the technology- and fashion-related benefits, but also on sensual benefit – a
contextual, media-specific benefit of XR technology. However, there is much confusion
and ambiguous with respect to the dimensions that underlie sensual benefit. For instance,
Rauschnabel (2018b) suggested that users’ sensual gratification can be addressed by the
escapism, immersion, reality enhancement, and comfort aspects of XR technology.
However, escapism seems to have overlapped with ‘virtual presence’ and ‘hedonic
benefit’ (Babin et al., 1994), while wearable comfort is a fashion-related variable (Herz
and Rauschnabel, 2018). Herz and Rauschnabel (2018) noted that sensual benefit is
obtained when users experience the sensation of being in the virtual worlds (presence) and
having virtual bodies (embodiment). As defined previously, virtual presence is a
psychological state that occurs when a user fully immersed by the virtual experience, and
subsequently detached from the real world. This implies that immersion is a potential
driver to presence. However, some empirical studies show that the impact of immersion
and presence on XR adoption is not as simple as it seems. In other words, their
relationships are mediated by other variables, such as perceived usefulness (Yim et al.,
2017), enjoyment (Tussyadiah et al., 2018a), flow (Shin, 2018), and embodiment (Shin,
2018). So, do a sense of immersion and presence lead to XR adoption if users do not
perceive these sensual benefits to be useful and enjoyable? Future research should
therefore disentangle the underlying dimensions of sensual benefits, what are their
interrelationships, and detail the process by which sensual benefits contribute to adoption
intention.
In addition, different technological stimuli may elicit a sense of immersion and
presence in different manners, which cannot be captured by a unidimensional approach.
41
For example, sensory-motoric (tactical) immersion can be aroused by haptic imagery that
transmits a sense of touch but not by visual display that delivers sense of sight. With a
multidimensional conceptualisation, distinguishing the different weights of technological
stimuli on various aspects of immersion and presence is feasible. However, the
multidimensional conceptualisation of immersion and presence lacks rigorous validation
and thus provides outlet for future research.
7.2 Linking the dark side of XR technology to user resistance
While a vast majority of prior studies narrowly focusing on user acceptance, less is known
about why users resist to XR technology – a major reason for the failures of new IS
implementation (Kim and Kankanhalli, 2009). In fact, Jabil’s (2018) report indicates that
only 29% of the surveyed companies have planned for XR development projects at some
stages and only 4% of them have fully executed that plans, which implies resistance. In
the context of XR, resistance reflects a person’s intention to maintain his or her status quo
and not to use XR technology, even though he or she is encouraged to use them (Spreer
and Rauschnabel, 2016). In contrast to most acceptance theories, resistance research does
not conform to the view that new technologies are totally good for users (Markus, 1983).
Rather, it elucidates the potential downsides of new technologies that might disturb users’
psychological equilibrium (Talke and Heidenreich, 2014). So, how dare we change the PC
paradigm by replacing the desktop setup with XR system? Suh and Prophet (2018) have
linked XR to negative consequences such as motion sickness, physical discomfort,
cognitive overload, and distracted attrition, which could increase user stress levels.
Marakas and Hornik (1996) further argued that the fear associated with the intrusion of
the technology into the previously comfort zones of users might also cause resistance. By
examining the dark side of XR technology, future studies can deepen our understanding of
factors associated with user resistance, which enables actionable steps to be taken by
managers prior to the XR implementation.
7.3 Focusing on XR adoption at a firm level and comparing the motivation

underlying the adoption intention across product categories and user
groups
The majority of studies that we reviewed have examined the factors associated with XR
adoption at the individual level, fewer studies have focused on the firm level. Researchers
might make significant contributions by exploring the firms’ perceptions toward the
implementation of XR and validating it with empirical data. In addition, diverse XR
devices are designed to cater for different user segments. For example, Google Glass
Enterprise Edition and Vuzix M300 are targeted at professional- and enterprise-level
users; Eversight Raptor and Kopin SOLOS are designed for sport enthusiasts; and
Samsung SSG active glasses are best suited for movie lovers. Therefore, future research
might benefit from comparing the motivation underlying XR adoption across different
product categories and user groups and identifying the potential differences.
42
7.4 Studying XR in the context of other groundbreaking technologies
MR, also known as hybrid reality, is the most recent development in the XR technology
that combines the best parts of both AR and VR. Given the scarcity of studies on this
nascent technology, the current study limits the scope of XR analysis to AR and VR.
However, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella believes that MR coupled with artificial
intelligence (AI) will define the ‘future of computing’ (Krauth, 2018). In this regard, the
Future Technologies Team at Pearson explores the use of emergent technologies, such as
robotics, brain-computer interfaces, gesture-recognition, to name a few, for educational
purposes (Hurley, 2016). However, Asokan Ashok, the CEO of UnfoldLabs, pointed out
several issues related to MR adoption, which include the lack of real world use cases, the
need to better network and connectivity, and the optimisation of content formats
(UnfoldLabs, 2017). Future research should address these challenges and investigate how
can 5G, big data, AI, blockchain, machine learning, and other internet of things (IoT) be
incorporated into XR applications to streamline business process and enhance people’s
quality of life.
7.5 XR is predestined to inspire consumers and improve their well-being
Many retailers have been at the forefront of harnessing the power of XR and how it can
inspire customers and enhance their brand experience. For example, through Sephora’s
Virtual Artist app, consumers get inspired to try out new looks with different eyeshadows,
lip colours, and lashes on their virtual face. This app also provides consumers with step-
by-step tutorials and product recommendations to drive sales. More recently, Rauschnabel
et al. (2019) demonstrated that inspiration is the underlying psychological mechanism
between the benefits consumers acquired from AR apps and changes in their brand
attitudes. Apart of inspiring consumers, XR has a great potential to improve their health
and well-being (Frist, 2018). While the link between inspiration and well-being has
previously been established (e.g., Thrash et al., 2010), their serial mediation effects in
facilitating the translation of perceived AR benefits into desirable business outcomes
remain unexplored. Future studies could endeavour to unravel these complex pathways.
7.6 Developing relevant KPIs for measuring the effectiveness of XR
Given that XR is a relatively new technology, many companies might be limited in their
ability to properly track or formulate key performance indicators (KPIs) for their XR
campaigns (Marinina, 2017). Without set measurements in place, there are no way of
tracking whether the campaign was a success or not. By setting a set of KPIs that aligns
with their goals, companies can ensure the marketing campaigns they create will drive
them to the results they desire (Sheldon et al., 2019). For example, M&M’s kicked off the
launch of its new caramel flavour by transforming Times Square into an interactive
‘Arcade’ that people could access via their smartphones. The effort resulted in 26,000
consumer impressions from the passersby in Times Square, 2, 200 hashtag
(#UnsquareCaramel) uses, and 6 million social impressions. In this case, the number of
reach impression, app downloads, user ratings, engagement (e.g., likes, shares, retweets,
and hashtags) can serve as the indicators of XR campaign effectiveness. However, to
43
ensure that they get the best return on investment (ROI) for VR campaigns, companies
must ask themselves the questions: How many of the app users were actually interested in
making purchase? How much did the event improve consumers’ brand favourability? How
‘memorable’ is the event for individuals vs. conventional marketing campaigns vs. XR
marketing campaigns.
7.7 Employing more pragmatic and set-theoretic methodological approaches

The analysis reveals that structural equation modelling (SEM) is the most commonly
analytical tool used in AR/VR research. Although such techniques permit the
simultaneous analysis of the interrelationship between constructs, it does not reveal which
combination of antecedents can lead to higher behavioural intentions toward using XR
technology. Which antecedent is necessary (but insufficient) condition to predict the
adoption intention? Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in conjunction
with complexity theory provide a promising solution to determine how the factors such as
perceived benefits, perceived risks, and individual differences can best be combined. By
revealing a causally sufficient configuration of the adoption intention, future studies can
help marketers define adequate strategies.
8 Implications
Although recent market prognostications indicate the explosive growth of XR, consumer
acceptance is still limited and academic research on such technology and their applications
are highly fragmented (Bonetti et al., 2018). This state of affairs is arguably attributable
to the interdisciplinary nature of the subject, which requires different adoption theories
and models. However, the growing popularity of AR and VR gives rise to the need for a
critical review and synthesis of the existing studies on such technologies from diverse
fields, in order to frame a coherent basis for future research. This review provides three
major theoretical contributions to this emerging field. The first theoretical contribution is
to address XR technology as a whole. While prior analysis of AR/VR literature was
constrained by single contexts (e.g., Bonetti et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2015) and theories
(e.g., Suh and Prophet, 2018), this is – to the best of the author’s knowledge
– the first study to analyse user acceptance of XR technology from multiple disciplines,
theories, and perspectives. By doing so, this study expands the previously nuanced view
with a more comprehensive understanding of XR acceptance. Second, this study also
contributes to user acceptance literature by proposing a more comprehensive adoption
model (Figure 2) covering both individual and firm perspectives, with different categories
in each. The framework not only help to gather information about the influential factors,
but most important, it also provides an overview of XR technology phenomenon,
illustrating how multifarious perspectives and research findings can fit together to form
the big picture. Thus, it can serve as a guiding framework for future research. Also, another
reference model (Figure 3) that delineating the relationships between antecedents of the
determinants of user adoption can instigate future research to perform a meta-analysis
and/or bibliometric analysis. Another approach this study adds to technology acceptance
literature is by developing acustomer types matrix that matches the elements of
technology, fashion, and media innovatively. Finally, this study analyses
44
the findings of prior XR research and outlines roadmaps for future research in seven
specific areas, thus providing the catalyst for this development.
A number of practical implications can be derived from this literature analysis. First
of all, the categorisation framework developed in this study provides an overview of
salient factors that propel and hinder the XR adoption. These factors can serve as an audit
tool to access how individual and professional users perceive XR devices. As such, the
proposed model has the potential to guide managers’ decision-making and, most
importantly, to lay out actionable tactics to reduce consumers’ hesitation in purchasing
XR devices. Furthermore, the categorisation framework clearly shows that the factors
driving the adoption of individuals and firms toward XR technology can differ
substantially. For example, XR technology is commonly employed by firms to enhance
business operations and the costs of training, making the design aesthetic and immersion
aspects of the technology less relevant. Therefore, XR manufacturers should rather aim to
enhance organisational support for implementation by providing the staffs with trainings,
guidance, facilities to learn the new system, and also make the necessary business
ecosystem adjustments. In addition, the security of XR system also needs to be strengthen.
To attract individual users, manufacturers need to develop XR devices that are not only
functionally and visually appealing, but also can immerse and engage users in the virtual
space – considering that XR is a form of ‘fashmedianology’ device. In this vein, the
customer types matrix proposed here not only helps manufacturers to identify their
potential customers, but also to design appropriate marketing strategies in the manners that
the desired benefits can be effectively communicated to the target segments. Aside from
maximising the benefit perceptions, mitigating the risk perceptions, particularly with
respect to health and privacy concerns, is critical to ensure XR adoption.
9 General discussion
As shown in this article, XR – and in particular AR and VR technology – is an emerging

field. Prior research has provided a fragmented view, and this study synthesised relevant
studies. The author hopes that this work could inspire future research.
References
Adapa, A., Nah, F.F.H., Hall, R.H., Siau, K. and Smith, S.N. (2018) ‘Factors influencing the adoption
of smart wearable devices’, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 34,
No. 5, pp.399–409.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G., Pektaş, H.M. and Ocak, M.A. (2016) ‘Augmented reality in science
laboratories: the effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and
attitudes toward science laboratories’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 57, pp.334–342.
Alvarez-Milán, A., Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P.A. and Hinsch, C. (2018) ‘Strategic customer
engagement marketing: a decision making framework’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92,
pp.61-70.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994) ‘Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.644–656.
45
Baek, T.H., Yoo, C.Y. and Yoon, S. (2018) ‘Augment yourself through virtual mirror: the impact of
self-viewing and narcissism on consumer responses’, International Journal of Advertising, Vol.
37, No. 3, pp.421–439.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2007) ‘The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for
a paradigm shift’, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.244–
254.
Bailenson, J.N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J. and Guadagno, R.E. (2008) ‘Transformed social interaction
in mediated interpersonal communication’, in Konijn, E., Utz, S., Tanis, M. and Barnes, S.
(Eds.): Mediated Interpersonal Communication, pp.77–99, Routledge, New York, NY.
Banakou, D., Hanumanthu, P.D. and Slater, M. (2016) ‘Virtual embodiment of white people in a
black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias’, Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, Vol. 10, p.601.
Barney, J.B. and Hansen, M.H. (1994) ‘Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage’,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. S1, pp.175–190.
Baron, S., Patterson, A. and Harris, K. (2006) ‘Beyond technology acceptance: understanding
consumer practice’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp.111–135.
Belk, R.W. (1978) ‘Assessing the effects of visible consumption on impression formation’,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.39–47.
Bian, Q. and Forsythe, S. (2012) ‘Purchase intention for luxury brands: a cross cultural comparison’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp.1443–1451.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005) ‘Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces,
and organizational climate’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.87–111.
Bonetti, F., Warnaby, G. and Quinn, L. (2018) ‘Augmented reality and virtual reality in
physical and online retailing: a review, synthesis and research agenda’, in Jung, T. and tom
Dieck, M.C. (Eds.): Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality – Empowering Human, Place and
Business, pp.119–132, Springer, Cham, CH.
Botvinick, M. and Cohen, J. (1998) ‘Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see’, Nature, Vol. 391, No.
6669, p.756.
Bretschneider-Hagemes, M. and Gross, B. (2017) ‘Smartglasses used by forklift operators: digital
accident hazard or efficient work equipment? A pilot study’, International Conference on HCI
in Business, Government, and Organizations, Springer, Cham, July, pp.299–307.
Brown, S.A. and Venkatesh, V. (2005) ‘Model of adoption of technology in the household: a
baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle’, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
29, No. 4, pp.399–426.
Browne, B.A. and Kaldenberg, D.O. (1997) ‘Conceptualizing self-monitoring: links to materialism
and product involvement’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.31–44.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. (2000) ‘Beyond computation: information technology,
organizational transformation and business performance’, Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.23–48.
Buenaflor, C. and Kim, H.C. (2013) ‘Six human factors to acceptability of wearable computers’,
International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.103–114.
Chan, K.H., Skoumpopoulou, D., and Yu, Q. (2018) ‘Firestorms on social media: effects of social
information characteristics on customer responses’, 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems Proceedings, Japan.
Chattaraman, V. and Rudd, N.A. (2006) ‘Preferences for aesthetic attributes in clothing as a function
of body image, body cathexis and body size’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 24,
No. 1, pp.46–61.
46
Chmielewski, D.C. (2017) Apple’s Tim Cook Says Augmented Reality Will ‘Change Everything’
[online] https://deadline.com/2017/11/apple-tim-cook-augmented-reality-fourth-quarter-2017-
earnings-1202200710/ (accessed 16 May 2017).
Choi, S., Jung, K. and Noh, S.D. (2015) ‘Virtual reality applications in manufacturing industries:
past research, present findings, and future directions’, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1,
pp.40–63.
Chuah, S.H.W., Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T. and Lade, S. (2016)
‘Wearable technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption’,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 65, pp.276–284.
Chung, N., Han, H. and Joun, Y. (2015) ‘Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: the role of
augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.
50, pp.588–599.
Chung, N., Lee, H., Kim, J.Y. and Koo, C. (2018) ‘The role of augmented reality for experience-
influenced environments: the case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp.627–643.
Cialdini, R.B. and Goldstein, N.J. (2004) ‘Social influence: compliance and conformity’, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.591–621.
Connolly, R. and Bannister, F. (2007) ‘Consumer trust in internet shopping in Ireland: towards the
development of a more effective trust measurement instrument’, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.102–118.
Coorevits, L. and Coenen, T. (2016) ‘The rise and fall of wearable fitness trackers’, Academy of
Management Conference.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A.W. and, De Zuniga, H.G. (2010) ‘Who interacts on the web?: The intersection
of users’ personality and social media use’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp.247–253.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) ‘Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI)’, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Cranmer, E., Jung, T., tom Dieck, M.C. and Miller, A. (2016) ‘Understanding the acceptance of
augmented reality at an organisational level: the case of Geevor Tin Mine Museum’, in
Inversini, A and Schegg, R. (Eds.): Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2016, pp.637–650, Springer, Cham, CH.
Culnan, M.J. (2000) ‘Protecting privacy online: is self-regulation working?’, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.20–26.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H. and Trevino, L.K. (1987) ‘Message equivocality, media selection, and
manager performance: implications for information systems’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3,
pp.355–366.
Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.319–340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 14, pp.1111–
1132.
Dehghani, M. (2018) ‘Exploring the motivational factors on continuous usage intention of
smartwatches among actual users’, Behaviour& Information Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2,
pp.145–158.
Dehghani, M., Kim, K.J. and Dangelico, R.M. (2018) ‘Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing
to intention to keep using smart wearable technology’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35, No.
2, pp.480–490.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R.F. and Crant, J.M. (2008) ‘Research note – how does personality matter?
Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use’, Information Systems
47
Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M.B. and Kloos, C.D. (2013) ‘Impact of an augmented reality system on
students’ motivation for a visual art course’, Computers & Education, Vol. 68, pp.586–596.
Dickson, B. (2018) Will AR and VR Create New Cybersecurity Threats? [online]
https://techfinancials.co.za/2018/03/09/will-ar-and-vr-create-new-cybersecurity-threats/
(accessed 29 June 2018).
Diemer, J., Alpers, G. W., Peperkorn, H.M., Shiban, Y. and Mühlberger, A. (2015) ‘The impact of
perception and presence on emotional reactions: a review of research in virtual reality’,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, p.26.
Digman, J.M. and Takemoto-Chock, N.K. (1981) ‘Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-
analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies’, Multivariate Behavioral
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991) ‘Effects of price, brand, and store information
on buyers’ product evaluations’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.307–319.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S.R. and Passerini, K. (2007) ‘Trust and privacy concern within social networking
sites: a comparison of Facebook and MySpace’, AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, Paper 339.
Ehrsson, H.H. (2007) ‘The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences’, Science, Vol. 317,
No. 5841, pp.1048–1048.
Ewen, R.B. (1998) Personality: A Topical Approach, Erlbaum, Mahweh, NJ.
Featherman, M.S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2003) ‘Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets
perspective’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp.451–474.
Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Fineman, B. and Lewis, N. (2018) Securing your Reality: Addressing Security and Privacy in
Virtual and Augmented Reality Applications [online] https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/5/
securing-your-reality-addressing-security-and-privacy-in-virtual-and-augmented-reality-
applications (accessed 21 August 2018).
Frist, B. (2018) Virtually Reality Isn’t Just For Gamers Anymore; It Will Change Your Health
[online] https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrist/2018/07/10/virtual-reality-isnt-just-for-gamers-
anymore-it-will-change-your-health/#48b44b354c0a (accessed 10 October 2018).
Gaudiosi, J. (2015) How Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality will Generate $150 Billion in
Revenue by 2020 [online] http://fortune.com/2015/04/25/augmented-reality-virtual-reality/
(accessed 13 July 2018).
Georgiou, Y. and Kyza, E.A. (2017) ‘The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: an
instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings’,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 98, pp.24–37.
Ghazali, E., Mutum, D.S. and Woon, M.Y. (2018) ‘Exploring player behavior and motivations to
continue playing Pokémon GO’, Information Technology & People, DOI: 10.1108/ ITP-07-
2017-0216.
Glegg, S. M., Holsti, L., Stanton, S., Hanna, S., Velikonja, D., Ansley, B. Sartor, D. and Brum, C.
(2017) ‘Evaluating change in virtual reality adoption for brain injury rehabilitation following
knowledge translation’, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp.217–226.
Goldman Sachs (2016) Virtual & Augmented Reality [online] http://goldmansachs.com/our-
thinking/pages/technology-driving-innovation-folder/virtual-andaugmented-reality/report.pdf
(accessed 31 March 2017).
Guadagno, R.E., Okdie, B.M. and Eno, C.A. (2008) ‘Who blogs? Personality predictors of blogging’,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.993–2004.
Hardeman, G., Font, X. and Nawijn, J. (2017) ‘The power of persuasive communication to influence
sustainable holiday choices: appealing to self-benefits and norms’, Tourism Management, Vol.
59, pp.484–493.
48
Hayes, T. (2014) How Does the Apple Watch Compare to other Smartwatches? [online]
https://www.fastcompany.com/3035518/how-does-the-apple-watch-compare-to-other-
smartwatches (accessed 18 August 2018).
He, Z., Wu, L. and Li, X.R. (2018) ‘When art meets tech: the role of augmented reality in enhancing
museum experiences and purchase intentions’, Tourism Management, Vol. 68, pp.127–139.
Hein, D.W. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2016) ‘Augmented reality smart glasses and knowledge
management: a conceptual framework for enterprise social networks’, in Rossmann, A., Stei,
G. and Besch, M. (Eds.): Enterprise Social Networks, pp.83–109, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Hein, D.W., Jodoin, J.L., Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ivens, B.S. (2018) ‘Are wearables good or bad for
society? An exploration of societal benefits, risks, and consequences of augmented reality smart
glasses’, in Wearable Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications,
pp.1313–1337, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Herz, M. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018) ‘Understanding the diffusion of virtual reality glasses: the
role of media, fashion and technology’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.
138, pp.228–242.
Hilken, T., de Ruyter, K., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D. I. (2017) ‘Augmenting the eye of
the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service
experiences’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp.884–905.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982) ‘Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.92–101.
Hoffman, H. G., Hollander, A., Schroder, K., Rousseau, S. and Furness, T. (1998) ‘Physically
touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences’, Virtual Reality,
Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.226–234.
Hsiao, K.L. (2018) ‘What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing Apple and non-Apple
watches’, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.186–206.
Huang, T.L. and Liao, S. (2015) ‘A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology:
the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness’, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 15, No.
2, pp.269–295.
Huang, T.L. and Liu, F.S. (2014) ‘Formation of augmented-reality interactive technology’s
persuasive effects from the perspective of experiential value’, Internet Research, Vol. 24, No.
1, pp.82–109.
Hurley, D. (2016) The Convergence of Physical & Virtual Worlds: Mixed Reality, AI, & Biosyncing
[online] https://medium.com/emergent-future/the-convergence-of-physical-virtual-worlds-
mixed-reality-ai-biosyncing-3670e595bbde (accessed 16 October 2018).
Hwang, C., Chung, T.L. and Sanders, E.A. (2016) ‘Attitudes and purchase intentions for smart
clothing: examining US consumers’ functional, expressive, and aesthetic needs for solar-
powered clothing’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.207–222.
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2012) ‘The role of emotional aspects in younger consumer-brand
relationships’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.98–108.
IDC (2018a) Worldwide Quarterly Augmented and Virtual Reality Headset Tracker [online]
https://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?prod_id=1501 (accessed 25 October 2018).
IDC (2018b) Worldwide Spending on Augmented and Virtual Reality to Achieve a Five-Year CAGR
of 71.6% by 2022, According to IDC [online] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=
prUS43860118 (accessed 14 July 2018).
Jabil (2018) ‘Augmented and virtual reality trends survey’ [online] https://www.jabil.com/insights/
blog-main/augmented-reality-virtual-reality-trends.html (accessed 4 January 2019).
Javornik, A. (2016) ‘‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’ Consumer affective, cognitive and
behavioural responses to augmented reality applications’, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 32, Nos. 9–10, pp.987–1011.
49
Jeong, S.C., Kim, S.H., Park, J.Y. and Choi, B. (2017) ‘Domain-specific innovativeness and new
product adoption: a case of wearable devices’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp.399–412.
Jetter, J., Eimecke, J. and Rese, A. (2018) ‘Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: what
are potential key performance indicators and who benefits?’, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 87, pp.18–33.
Jung, T., Chung, N. and Leue, M.C. (2015) ‘The determinants of recommendations to use augmented
reality technologies: the case of a Korean theme park’, Tourism Management, Vol. 49, pp.75–
86.
Jung, Y., Kim, S. and Choi, B. (2016a) ‘Consumer valuation of the wearables: the case of
smartwatches’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63, pp.899–905.
Jung, T., tom Dieck, M.C., Lee, H. and Chung, N. (2016b) ‘Effects of virtual reality and augmented
reality on visitor experiences in museum’, in Inversini,A and Schegg, R (Eds.): Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016, pp.621–635, Springer, Cham, CH.
Jung, T.H., Lee, H., Chung, N. and tom Dieck, M.C. (2018) ‘Cross-cultural differences in adopting
mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage tourism sites’, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.1621–1645.
Junglas, I.A., Johnson, N.A. and Spitzmüller, C. (2008) ‘Personality traits and concernfor privacy:
an empirical study in the context of location-based services’, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.387–402.
Kalantari, M. (2017) ‘Consumers’ adoption of wearable technologies: literature review, synthesis,
and future research agenda’, International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp.274–307.
Kalantari, M. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018) ‘Exploring the early adopters of augmented reality smart
glasses: the case of Microsoft Hololens’, in Jung, T. and tom Dieck, M.C. (Eds.): Augmented
Reality and Virtual Reality – Empowering Human, Place and Business, pp.229–245, Springer,
Cham, CH.
Katz, E. (1959) ‘Mass communication research and the study of popular culture: an editorial note on
a possible future for this journal’, Studies in Public Communication, Vol. 2, pp.1–6.
Katz, E., Blumler, J.G. and Gurevitch, M. (1974) The Uses and Gratifications Approach to Mass
Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Kim, H.W. and Kankanhalli, A. (2009) ‘Investigating user resistance to information systems
implementation: a status quo bias perspective’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.567–582.
Kim, K.J. and Shin, D.H. (2015) ‘An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the
adoption of future wearable technology’, Internet Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.527–541.
Kim, T. and Biocca, F. (1997) ‘Telepresence via television: two dimensions of telepresence may
have different connections to memory and persuasion’, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 3, No. 2, DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00073.x.
Kim, Y., Kim, S. and Kim, Y.M. (2017) ‘Big-five personality and motivations associated with sport
team social networking site usage: a cluster analysis approach’, Journal of Global Sport
Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.250–274.
King, W.R. and He, J. (2006) ‘A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model’, Information &
Kourouthanassis, P., Boletsis, C., Bardaki, C., and Chasanidou, D. (2015) ‘Tourists responses to
mobile augmented reality travel guides: the role of emotions on adoption behavior’, Pervasive
and Mobile Computing, Vol. 18, pp.71–87.
Krauth, O. (2018) Microsoft: Mixed Reality + Ai Will Define ‘Future of Computing [online]
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsoft-mixed-reality-ai-will-define-future-of-
computing/ (accessed 15 October 2018).
50
Krey, N., Chuah, S.H.W., Ramayah. T. and Rauschnabel, P. (2019) ‘How functional and emotional
ads drive smartwatch adoption: the moderating role of consumer innovativeness and
extraversion’, Internet Research, DOI: 10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0534.
Ku, Y.C., Chen, R. and Zhang, H. (2013) ‘Why do users continue using social networking sites? An
exploratory study of members in the United States and Taiwan’, Information & Management,
Vol. 50, No. 7, pp.571–581.
Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985) ‘Trust as a social reality’, Social Forces, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.967–
985.
Li, H., Daugherty, T. and Biocca, F. (2002) ‘Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand
attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence’, Journal of Advertising, Vo.31,
No. 3, pp.43–58.
Li, H., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Heikkilä, J. and van der Heijden, H. (2015) ‘Modeling hedonic is continuance
through the uses and gratifications theory: an empirical study in online games’, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 48, pp.261–272.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G. and Cheung, C.M. (2007) ‘How habit limits the predictive power of
intention: the case of information systems continuance’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.705–
737.
Maister, L., Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G. and Tsakiris, M. (2013) ‘Experiencing ownership over a dark-
skinned body reduces implicit racial bias’, Cognition, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp.170–178.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Agarwal, J. (2004) ‘Internet users’ information privacy concerns
(IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 15,
No. 4, pp.336–355.
Marakas, G.M. and Hornik, S. (1996) ‘Passive resistance misuse: overt support and covert
recalcitrance in IS implementation’, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 5, No. 3,
pp.208–219.
Marinina, M. (2017) How To Measure Kpis of VR Marketing Campaigns [online]
https://www.iflexion.com/blog/measure-kpis-vr-marketing-campaigns/(accessed 25 December
2018).
Markus, M.L. (1983) ‘Power, politics, and MIS implementation’, Communications of the ACM, Vol.
26, No. 6, pp.430–444.
Martínez-Navarro, J., Bigné, E., Guixeres, J., Alcañiz, M, and Torrecilla, C. (2018) ‘The influence
of virtual reality in e-commerce’ Journal of Business Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.
2018.10.054.
McGuire, W. (1974) ‘Psychological motives and communication gratification’, in Blumer, J.G. and
Katz, E. (Eds.): The uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratification
Research, pp.106–167, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Merhi, M.I. (2016) ‘Towards a framework for online game adoption’, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 60, pp.253–263.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A. and Kishino, F. (1995), ‘Augmented reality: a class of
displays on the reality-virtuality continuum’, in Das, H. (Eds.): Telemanipulator and
Telepresence Technologies, Vol. 2351, pp.282–293, International Society for Optics and
Photonics.
Mitchell, A.A. and Olson, J.C. (1981), ‘Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising
effects on brand attitude?’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.318–332.
Mitchell, V.W. (1992) ‘Understanding consumers’ behavior: can perceived risk theory help?’,
Management Decision, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.26–31.
Mitropoulos, P. and Tatum, C.B. (2000) ‘Forces driving adoption of new information technologies’,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126, No. 5, pp.340–348.
51
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1996) ‘Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned
action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users’, in Kautz, J. and
Pries-Hege, K. (Eds.): Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology, pp.132–146,
Chapman and Hall, London.
Moore, K. and McElroy, J.C. (2012) ‘The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings,
and regret’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.267–274.
Motwani, J., Subramanian, R. and Gopalakrishna, P. (2005) ‘Critical factors for successful ERP
implementation: exploratory findings from four case studies’, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56,
No. 6, pp.529–544.
Newberry, B. (2001) ‘Raising student social presence in online classes’, Proceedings of the world
Conference on the WWW and Internet, Orland, FL, pp.7.
Nowak, K.L. and Biocca, F. (2003) ‘The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense
of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments’, Presence:
Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.481–494.
Nunes, G.S. and Filho, E.J.M.A. (2018) ‘Consumer behavior regarding wearable technologies:
Google Glass’, Innovation & Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.230–246.
O’Cass, A. (2004) ‘Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing
involvement’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp.869–882.
O’Donnell, D. (2018) Driving Immersive Experiences in Virtual and Augmented Reality [online]
https://blog.westerndigital.com/driving-immersive-experience-virtual-augmented-reality/
(accessed 21 April 2018).
Olsson, T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T. and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2013) ‘Expected user
experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of shopping
centres’, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.287–304.
Palmer, M.T. (1995) ‘Interpersonal communication and virtual reality: mediating interpersonal
relationships’, in Biocca, F. and Levy, M.R. (Eds.): Communication in the Age of Virtual
Reality, pp.277–302, Hillsdale, Erlbaum, NJ.
Pantano, E., Rese, A. and Baier, D. (2017) ‘Enhancing the online decision-making process by using
augmented reality: a two country comparison of youth markets’, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp.81–95.
Paulo, M.M., Rita, P., Oliveira, T. and Moro, S. (2018) ‘Understanding mobile augmented reality
adoption in a consumer context’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 9, No.
2, pp.142–157.
Perkins Coie (2018) Augmented and Virtual Reality Survey Report [online]
https://www.perkinscoie.com/images/content/1/8/v2/187785/2018-VR-AR-Survey-Digital.pdf
(accessed 18 October 2018).
Pierce, C.A. and Aguinis, H. (1997) ‘Using virtual reality technology in organizational behavior
research’, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.407–410.
Porter, M.E. and Heppelmann, J.E. (2017) Why Every Organization Needs An Augmented Reality
Strategy [online] https://hbr.org/2017/11/a-managers-guide-to-augmented-reality (accessed 27
August 2018).
Rauschnabel, P. A., Rossmann, A. andtomDieck, M.C. (2017) ‘An adoption framework for mobile
augmented reality games: the case of Pokémon Go’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 76,
pp.276–286.
Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018a) ‘A conceptual uses & gratification framework on the use of augmented
reality smart glasses’, in Jung, T. and tom Dieck, M.C. (Eds.): Augmented Reality and Virtual
Reality – Empowering Human, Place and Business, pp.211–227, Springer, Cham, CH.
Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018b) ‘Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: an exploration of
expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses’, Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 35, No. 8, pp.557–572.
52
Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ro, Y.K. (2016) ‘Augmented reality smart glasses: an investigation of
technology acceptance drivers’, International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 11, No.
2, pp.123–148.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Brem, A. and Ivens, B.S. (2015) ‘Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results
of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended
adoption of Google Glass wearables, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 49, pp.635–647.
Rauschnabel, P.A., He, J. and Ro, Y.K. (2018) ‘Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality
smart glasses: a closer look at privacy risks’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92, pp.374–
384.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R. and Hinsch, C. (2019) ‘Augmented reality marketing: how mobile AR-
apps can improve brands through inspiration’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 49, pp.43–53.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Hein, D.W., He, J., Ro, Y.K., Rawashdeh, S. and Krulikowski, B. (2016)
‘Fashion or technology? A fashnology perspective on the perception and adoption of augmented
reality smart glasses’, i-com, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.179–194.
Ritesh, K. (2017) Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) Cybersecurity Challenges [online]
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/virtual-augmented-reality-vrar-cybersecurity-kumar-
ritesh/(accessed 26 June 2018).
Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C.S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D. Gaggioli, A.,
Botella, C. and Alcañiz, M. (2007) ‘Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between
presence and emotions’, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.45–56.
Rizzo, A., Cukor, J., Gerardi, M., Alley, S., Reist, C., Roy, M., Rothbaum, B.O. and Difede, J. (2015)
‘Virtual reality exposure for PTSD due to military combat and terrorist attacks’, Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.255–264.
Ro, Y.K., Brem, A. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018) ‘Augmented reality smart glasses: definition,
concepts and impact on firm value creation, in Jung, T. and tom Dieck, M.C. (Eds.): Augmented
Reality and Virtual Reality – Empowering Human, Place and Business, pp.169–181, Springer,
Cham, CH.
Rogers, E.M. (2010) Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.
Rubin, A.M. (2002). The Uses-and-Gratifications Perspective of Media Effects, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Rubin, A.M. (2009) ‘Uses-and-gratifications. An evolving perspective of media effects’, in Nabi,
R.L. and Oliver, M.B. (Eds.): Media Effects – Advances in Theory and Research, pp.147–159,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Ruggiero, T.E. (2000) ‘Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century’, Mass Communication and
Society, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.3–37.
Schepers, J. and Wetzels, M. (2007) ‘A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model:
investigating subjective norm and moderation effects’, Information & Management, Vol. 44,
No. 1, pp.90–103.
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F. and Regenbrecht, H. (2001) ‘The experience of presence: factor
analytic insights’, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.266–
281.
Schuemie, M.J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M. and van der Mast, C.A. (2001) ‘Research on presence
in virtual reality: a survey’, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.183–201.
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. and Griskevicius, V. (2007) ‘The
constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms’, Psychological Science,
Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.429–434.
Serrano, B., Baños, R.M. and Botella, C. (2016) ‘Virtual reality and stimulation of touch and smell
for inducing relaxation: a randomized controlled trial’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.
55, pp.1–8.
53
Sheikh, K (2016) Beyond Gaming: 10 Other Fascinating Uses for Virtual-Reality Tech [online]
https://www.livescience.com/53392-virtual-reality-tech-uses-beyond-gaming.html (accessed
13 April 2018).
Sheldon, P, Rauschnabel, P. and Honeycutt, J. (2019) The Dark Side of Social Media, Academic
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991) ‘Why we buy what we buy: a theory of
consumption values’, Journal of Business Research, Vo.22, No. 2, pp.159–170.
Shin, D. (2018) ‘Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: to what extent can virtual
reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience?’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 78,
pp.64–73.
Shin, D. and Biocca, F. (2018) ‘Exploring immersive experience in journalism’, New Media &
Society, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp.2800–2823.
Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976) ‘The Social Psychology of Telecommunications,
Wiley, London, England.
Slater, M. (1999) ‘Measuring presence: a response to the Witmer and Singer presence
Questionnaire’, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.560–566.
Slater, M. and Steed, A. (2000) ‘A virtual presence counter’, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.413–434.
Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C. and Wohn, D.Y. (2011) ‘Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and
gratification approach to unbundling feature use’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27, No.
6, pp.2322–2329.
Soliman, M., Peetz, J. and Davydenko, M. (2017) ‘The impact of immersive technology on nature
relatedness and pro-environmental behavior’, Journal of Media Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp.8–17.
Sontag, M.S. (1985) ‘Comfort dimensions of actual and ideal insulative clothing for older women’,
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.9–17.
Spreer, P. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2016) ‘Selling with technology: understanding the resistance to
mobile sales assistant use in retailing’, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol.
36, No. 3, pp.240–263.
Stockinger, H. (2016) ‘The future of augmented reality – an Open Delphi study on technology
acceptance’, International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.55–96.
Suh, A. and Prophet, J. (2018) ‘The state of immersive technology research: a literature analysis’,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 86, pp.77–90.
Suh, K.S. and Lee, Y.E. (2005) ‘The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: an empirical
investigation’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.673–697.
Sundar, S.S. and Limperos, A.M. (2013) ‘Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media’,
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp.504–525.
Tabacchi, M.E., Caci, B., Cardaci, M. and Perticone, V. (2017) ‘Early usage of Pokémon Go and its
personality correlates’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 72, pp.163–169.
Talke, K. and Heidenreich, S. (2014). ‘How to overcome pro-change bias: incorporating passive and
active innovation resistance in innovation decision models’, Journal of Product Innovation
Thrash, T.M., Elliot, A.J., Maruskin, L.A. and Cassidy, S.E. (2010) ‘Inspiration and the promotion
of well-being: tests of causality and mediation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 98, No. 3, pp.488–506.
Titcomb, J. (2018) All Iphones, Ipads And Mac Computers are Affected by Microchip Flaw that
Leaves Devices Vulnerable To Hackers, Apple Says [online] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
technology/2018/01/05/iphones-ipads-mac-computers-affected-microchip-flaw-leaves-
devices/ (accessed 10 September 2018).
54
tom Dieck, M.C. and Jung, T. (2018) ‘A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance
in urban heritage tourism’, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.154–174.
tom Dieck, M.C. and Jung, T.H. (2017) ‘Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: a
stakeholder approach’, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp.110–117.
tom Dieck, M.C., Jung, T. and Han, D. I. (2016) ‘Mapping requirements for the wearable smart
glasses augmented reality museum application’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.230–253.
tom Dieck, M.C., Jung, T. and Moorhouse, N. (2018a) ‘Tourists’ virtual reality adoption: an
exploratory study from Lake District National Park’, Leisure Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.371–
383.
tom Dieck, M.C., Jung, T.H. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018b) ‘Determining visitor engagement
through augmented reality at science festivals: an experience economy perspective’, Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 82, pp.44–53.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990) The Processes of Technological Innovation. Issues in
Organization and Management Series, Lexington Books, Lexington, KY.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Jung, T.H. and tom Dieck, M.C. (2018a) ‘Embodiment of wearable augmented
reality technology in tourism experiences’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp.597–
611.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D., Jung, T.H. and tom Dieck, M.C. (2018b) ‘Virtual reality, presence, and
attitude change: empirical evidence from tourism’, Tourism Management, Vol. 66, pp.140–154.
UnfoldLabs (2017) The Future of Reality – Augmented, Virtual or Mixed? [online]
https://medium.com/@Unfoldlabs/the-future-of-reality-augmented-virtual-or-mixed-
8687cc25ee48 (accessed 18 April 2018).
Utterback, J.M. (1974) ‘Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology’, Science, Vol. 183,
No. 4125, pp.620–626.
van Kerrebroeck, H., Brengman, M. and Willems, K. (2017) ‘Escaping the crowd: an experimental
study on the impact of a Virtual Reality experience in a shopping mall’, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 77, pp.437–450.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) ‘User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y. and Xu, X. (2012) ‘Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology’, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.157–178.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Chan, F.K., Hu, P.J.H. and Brown, S.A. (2011) ‘Extending the two-
stage information systems continuance model: incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of
context’, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.527–555.
Wang, Y.M., Wang, Y.S. and Yang, Y.F. (2010) ‘Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption
in the manufacturing industry’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 77, No.
5, pp.803–815.
Wehrli, S. (2008) Personality on Social Network Sites: An Application of the Five Factor Model, Eth
zurich sociology working papers, ETH Zurich.
Wei, W., Qi, R. and Zhang, L. (2019) ‘Effects of virtual reality on theme park visitors’ experience
and behaviors: a presence perspective’, Tourism Management, Vol. 71, pp.282–293.
White, K.M., Smith, J.R., Terry, D.J., Greenslade, J.H. and McKimmie, B.M. (2009) ‘Social
influence in the theory of planned behaviour: the role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group
norms’, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.135–158.
Witmer, B.G. and Singer, M.J. (1998) ‘Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence
questionnaire’, Presence, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.225–240.
55
Yang, C.C. and Liu, D. (2017) ‘Motives matter: motives for playing Pokémon Go and implications
for well-being’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.52–57.
Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H. and Choi, M. (2016) ‘User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended
perspective of perceived value’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.256–269.
Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N. and Ducheneaut, N. (2009) ‘The Proteus effect: implications of transformed
digital self-representation on online and offline behavior’, Communication Research, Vol. 36,
No. 2, pp.285–312.
Yilmaz, R.M. (2016) ‘Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early
childhood education’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 54, pp.240–248.
Yim, M.Y.C. and Park, S.Y. (2018) ‘I am not satisfied with my body, so I like augmented reality
(AR)’: Consumer responses to AR-based product presentations’, Journal of Business Research,
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.041.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C. and Sauer, P.L. (2017) ‘Is augmented reality technology an effective tool
for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective’, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 39, pp.89–103.
Zhang, C., Perkis, A. and Arndt, S. (2017) ‘Spatial immersion versus emotional immersion, which
is more immersive?’, Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Ninth International
Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Erfurt, Germany, IEEE, pp.1–6.
Zhu, K. and Kraemer, K.L. (2005) ‘Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by
organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry’, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.61–84.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K.L. and Xu, S. (2006) ‘The process of innovation assimilation by firms in
different countries: a technology diffusion perspective on e-business’, Management Science,
Vol. 52, No. 10, pp.1557–1576.
Zsila, Á., Orosz, G., Bőthe, B., Tóth-Király, I., Király, O., Griffiths, M. and Demetrovics, Z. (2018)
‘An empirical study on the motivations underlying augmented reality games: the case of
Pokémon Go during and after Pokémon fever’, Personality and individual differences, Vol.
133, pp.56–66.
View publication stats

2019 IJTMKT Researchgateupdated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2019 IJTMKT Researchgateupdated

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

2019 IJTMKT Researchgateupdated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Wearable XR-Technology: Literature Review, Conceptual Framework and Future

Article in International Journal of Technology Marketing · January 2020

Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah

Dedication-Constraint-Temptation Model of Customer Loyalty View project

Well-being Marketing View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah

Please cite as: Chuah, S.H-W. (2019). Wearable XR-technology: literature

Wearable XR-technology: literature review,

Keywords: extended reality; XR; augmented reality; virtual reality;

2 XR: augmented reality vs. virtual reality

XR – an umbrella term including AR and VR – has revolutionised the way people

As a type of ‘fashnology’ (a combination of fashion and technology), ARSGs are worn

2.2 Fashnology and fashmedianology

Figure 1 Customer types (fashion-media-technology) matrix

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

Prior research on wearable-XR adoption (continued)

4 Relevant theories and prior research

4.1 Technology acceptance model

4.2 Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology

4.3 Uses and gratification theory

4.4 Media richness theory

4.5 Social presence theory

4.6 Technology-organisation-environment framework

Technology-organisation-environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990)

5 Reference models for the adoption of XR technology

Figure 3 Relationships among antecedents of the determinants of wearable-XR technology

- Immersion (1) +ve

(2) +ve Control variables

Confirmation (1) +ve Virtual embodiment

Table 2 Summary of the factors affecting user reactions to wearable-XR technology

Variables Studies including this

 Relative advantage 40 A significant positive effect was found

 Entertainment 16 A significant positive effect was found

Note: *Cross-reference with Table 1.

Table 2 Summary of the factors affecting user reactions to wearable-XR technology

Studies including this

 Virtual presence 34, 35, 38, 45 Three studies found a significant

 Privacy brand image 2 No significant effect was found

 Extraversion 1, 41 Both studies found a significant

Table 2 Summary of the factors affecting user reactions to wearable-XR technology

Variables Studies including this

 Innovation readiness 3 One proposed this relationship

Table 2 Summary of the factors affecting user reactions to wearable-XR technology

Studies including this

Table 3 Summary of the relationships among antecedents of the determinants of wearable-XR

Independent variables Studies including this variable*

Table 3 Summary of the relationships among antecedents of the determinants of wearable-XR

Independent variables Studies including this variable*

5.1 Individual-level factors

5.1.1 Perceived benefits of XR technology