Immersive Interactive Technologies and Virtual Shopping Experiences

Telematics and Informatics 77 (2023) 101936
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Telematics and Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele
Immersive interactive technologies and virtual shopping

experiences: Differences in consumer perceptions between
augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)
Jung-Hwan Kim a, *, Minjeong Kim b, Minjung Park c, Jungmin Yoo d
a
Department of Retailing, College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, United States
b
School of Art + Design, Indiana University, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States
c
Department of Fashion Industry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea
d
Department of Business Administration, Duksung Women’s University, Seoul, South Korea
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Based on the concepts of the Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum and the stimulus-organism-
Augmented reality response (S–O–R) framework, this study investigated differences between AR and VR in their
Virtual reality effects on vividness/interactivity, a sense of presence, users’ sensory brand app experience,
Presence
attitude, and behavioral intention. For AR, participants downloaded an app to mobile phones. For
Sensory brand experience
VR, participants downloaded a VR app to smartphones attached to a Google Cardboard VR
Behavioral intention
headset. Vividness and interactivity directly (or indirectly) impacted a sense of presence, sensory
brand app experience, attitude towards technology, and behavioral intention. However, AR and
VR differed in how vividness and interactivity influenced sensory brand app experience and
attitude towards technology. Overall, a sense of presence was a significant mediator for 1) the
relationship between vividness and sensory brand app experience and 2) the relationship between
interactivity and attitude towards technology for VR but no such relationship was observed with
AR. The relationships among sensory brand app experience, attitude, and behavioral intention
were significant in both AR and VR settings. Employing real AR/VR shopping situations, the study
provides for practitioners deep understandings of consumers’ actual perceptions of applications of
AR/VR and offers practical insights as to the efficiency of AR and VR in improving consumer
virtual shopping experiences.
1. Introduction
Online shopping is evolving. With the fast-paced advancements in interactive technologies such as augmented reality (AR) and
virtual reality (VR), a growing number of retailers are turning to these emerging technologies to provide a fun, effective, and enjoyable
virtual shopping experience (Grewal et al., 2017; Wedel et al., 2020). Large brands such as Macy’s, Volvo, and IKEA have adopted VR
to improve consumer virtual shopping (Meiβner et al., 2020). Other brands such as Timberland, Sephora, and Topshop have utilized
AR in their mobile apps (Watson et al., 2020) to help consumers virtually try on products. According to a recent report (Allied Market
Research, 2021), the global AR and VR market valued at $14.84 billion in 2020 is expected to reach $454.73 billion by 2030.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jhkim@mailbox.sc.edu (J.-H. Kim), kim2017@indiana.edu (M. Kim), minjungpark@ewha.ac.kr (M. Park), jungminyoo@
duksung.ac.kr (J. Yoo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101936
Received 27 June 2022; Received in revised form 5 December 2022; Accepted 30 December 2022
Available online 31 December 2022
0736-5853/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-H. Kim et al. Telematics and Informatics 77 (2023) 101936
Metaverse leveraging AR and VR is looming as the new virtual mall, especially among digital-first young generations (Obsessar.com, n.
d.).
The COVID-19 pandemic greatly propelled the shift in consumers’ shopping behaviors (Kannan and Kulkarni, 2021). With the
pandemic regulations, an unprecedented number of consumers switched to online shopping (McKinsey & Company, 2021). These
shifts in consumer habits demanded retailers to quickly figure out how to provide effective and efficient shopping experiences in their
virtual environments. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the urgency of implementing advanced interactive technologies that enhance
virtual shopping experiences (Cohen, 2020; Luna-Nevarez and McGovern, 2021). Many retailers now prioritize the implementation of
advanced interactive technologies including AR and VR as one of the key post-pandemic business strategies to stay competitive. Nearly
two out of three marketers and executives worldwide consider the adoption of AR and VR to be quite or very important (Williamson,
2020). Nonetheless, the actual implementation rates for AR and VR remain low (e.g., Ball et al., 2021). It is often challenging for brands
to adopt advanced technologies without knowing the efficacy of emerging interactive technologies.
Despite much hype in news media, empirical research comparing various interactive technologies is largely lacking. In particular,
the functional mechanisms of AR and VR remain underexplored, and AR and VR technologies are often mistakenly used inter
changeably in the sense that both AR and VR provide enriched or enhanced shopping experiences by processing 3D images (William,
2022). Also, when people wear a VR goggle, they generally understand they are interacting with VR. When people use their mobile
phone or tablet to overlay the digital world to their reality, they generally know that they are not in VR but in AR. However, when
wearable devices such as Google Glass or other smart AR glasses are involved, the distinction between AR and VR becomes less clear to
the general public, resulting in common mixed uses of terms.
Both AR and VR are expected to improve visualization of products and shopping scenery and make the shopping process more
interactive (Hilken et al., 2021). However, considering that the two technologies have different interfaces and functionalities, little is
known about how AR and VR may be similar/different in how they influence user experiences. Hilken et al. (2021) pointed out that
none of the extant research examined both AR and VR in their individual or combined effects on consumer attitudes and intentions. To
address this gap, the current study aims to investigate and compare the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in impacting user
perceptions and behaviors. A better understanding of consumer behavior with AR vs VR will offer practical insights for brands to make
strategic technology implementations.
Milgram et al. (1994)’s Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum offers a way to conceptualize the relative relationship of AR and VR. It
describes the distinct span between AR and VR in connection with consumer experiences in the real and virtual worlds. From a
technical perspective, AR and VR differ in their systems. AR overlays digital world elements onto the physical real world, whereas VR
provides completely immersive virtual experiences. With AR, consumers experience virtual products in the actual physical world (Tan
et al., 2021). On the other hand, with VR, consumers experience virtual products in a simulated virtual environment (Watson et al.,
2020). Both AR and VR have been implemented to enhance consumers’ sensory experiences in a virtual setting (Hilken et al., 2021).
The technical differences between AR and VR may contribute to sensory experiences differently, and the present study aims to explore
similarities/differences in user experiences with AR and VR.
To understand users’ internal processes resulting from AR and VR experiences, respectively, the present study draws on the
concepts of presence and telepresence in a virtual world (Steuer, 1992) and the stimulus-organism-response (S–O–R) framework
(Eroglu et al., 2003; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Research on interactive technologies emphasizes the importance of a sense of
presence in affecting consumer adoption intention (Meiβner et al., 2020; Wedel et al., 2020). According to Steuer (1992), vividness and
interactivity of experiences evoke a sense of presence. Building on the literature on a sense of presence, the present study examines the
functional mechanisms of how user perceptions of vividness and interactivity of AR and VR contribute to a sense of presence and
further examines how a sense of presence influences consumer responses including sensory brand app experience, attitude, and
behavioral intentions. The empirical findings of the study will not only bring new theoretical insights that enhance the knowledge of
the mechanisms of AR and VR, but also practical insights that help retail businesses to make an informed strategic decision regarding
technology adoption.
The outline of this paper is as follows. First, a conceptual framework and background knowledge of the current literature in relation
to the topics covered are provided. Then, two experimental studies to test proposed hypotheses are described. Next, results and a
discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications for future research are presented.
Fig. 1. Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum ().

Source: Milgram et al. (1994)
2
2. Conceptual framework
The current study proposes an integrative model to understand the functional mechanism by which AR and VR influence consumer
behavior and similarities/differences between AR and VR.
2.1. Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum
Milgram et al. (1994)’s Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum divides the space between the physical and virtual environments and
explains the continuum using four types of classifications: actual reality, augmented reality, augmented virtuality, and virtual reality
(Blissing et al., 2013). As displayed in Fig. 1, the left side of the RV continuum explains actual environment in which a physical real-
world scene is observed, while the right side defines virtual environment generated by computer simulations in which all information
the user perceives is computer generated (often labeled virtual reality) (Yuen et al., 2011).
AR and VR are positioned far apart on the RV continuum. AR is placed beside actual reality on the continuum (Yuen et al., 2011).
Since AR superimposes computer-generated graphics directly onto the real world (Milgram et al., 1994), it enhances users’ under
standing of the real world (Bekele and Champion, 2019) and users’ perceptions are still involved within the real world (Yuen et al.,
2011). On the other hand, VR is at the opposite end from actual reality and is fully situated in a virtual world (Yuen et al., 2011). With
VR, users are transported into a computer-generated immersive world, resulting in a high sense of presence (Bekele and Champion,
2019). Researchers noted that both AR and VR are interactive and immersive (Yuen et al., 2011) and further enhance the environment
they are applied to (Bekele and Champion, 2019). Yet AR and VR may differ in the level of interactivity and a sense of presence evoked
by the respective technologies. For example, AR is considered as evoking limited visual and spatial immersion compared to VR (Bekele
and Champion, 2019; Leach et al., 2018). By extending Milgram et al. (1994)’s RV continuum, researchers explored the difference
between AR and VR in user interaction. Bekele and Champion (2019) argued that the interaction between users and virtual elements in
AR is superior to VR since AR supplements the real world with virtual elements but VR occludes the real world by restricting users’
interaction within the virtual environment. Also the virtual environment in VR is wholly computer-generated (Bekele and Champion,
2019). Likewise, it is reasonable to postulate differences between AR and VR in how they influence users’ sensory experiences, but
empirical research has been lacking.
2.2. Stimulus-organism-response (S–O–R) framework
The stimulus-organism-response (S–O–R) model offers an overarching framework to understand how environments influence
human responses (Eroglu et al., 2003; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Environment cues (S) impact consumers’ internal states (O) such
as presence and perceptions and the internal states (O) eventually influence approach-avoidance behaviors (R) (e.g., Kim, 2015; Kühn
and Petzer, 2018; Morone et al., 2018). The approach-avoidance behaviors include desire or intention to purchase (Kim, 2015).
Following the S–O–R framework, the present study conceptualizes the relationships among vividness and interactivity in AR and VR
(S), consumers’ internal responses including a sense of presence, sensory brand app experience, and attitude towards the technology
(O), and behavioral intention (R). The S–O–R framework has been widely applied and supported in consumer studies in a virtual
environment (e.g., Chopdar and Balakrishnan, 2020; Mollen and Wilson, 2010; Mosteller et al., 2014). For instance, in an online
retailing context, Kim (2015) examined the effects of interactivity and vividness (S) on a sense of presence (O) and participation
intention (R) in a social commerce site. In a similar vein, Sheng and Joginapelly (2012) examined how an e-commerce website’s
vividness and interactivity influence consumers’ behavioral intentions using the S–O–R paradigm. According to Loureiro et al.
(2019)’s comprehensive analysis of VR research, various VR studies applied the S–O–R framework to understand the effect of stimuli
in VR settings on consumer behavior. In an AR context, several studies applied the S–O–R framework to examine the effect of AR on
consumers’ psychological, perceptual, and behavioral responses (e.g., Do et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2020).
3. Literature review
3.1. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)
Augmented reality (AR) is defined as “a technology that superimposes virtual objects onto a live view of physical environments,
helping users visualize how these objects would fit into their physical world” (Tan et al., 2021, p. 1). The real-time interaction between
virtual objects and real environment with 3D images is a unique feature of AR (Kumar, 2022). By integrating real world and virtual
information (Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga, 2017), AR is widely applied across online websites, physical stores, and mobile apps
(Lavoye et al., 2021). Also, its augmentation types are diverse, from the augmentation of the product to augmentation of body and the
environment (see Kumar, 2022 for a comprehensive review of AR). Some retailers, especially in the fashion sector, have employed AR
apps in physical stores to bring virtual experiences to their in-store shoppers. For instance, to enhance in-store shopping experiences,
ZARA released its AR app that allows consumers to simply download the app, point their camera at a ZARA store window or a
mannequin in the store, and see the clothing appear on a model for several seconds. Subsequently, consumers can click on the screen to
purchase the presented clothing (TeenVogue, 2018). For online and mobile apps, AR enables consumers to have a sensory-enriched
shopping experience without visiting physical stores by using the app to virtually try products at home (Wedel et al., 2020). This
type of AR experience improves online/mobile shoppers’ virtual product evaluation experience (Tan et al., 2021).
The present study focuses on AR application in a virtual shopping environment. AR in virtual shopping makes product experiences
3
more engaging and experiential than conventional virtual shopping without AR capabilities (Tan et al., 2021) and thus enriches the
virtual shopping experience (Chen and Liu, 2020; Lavoye et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2020). Amazon and IKEA have shown successful
implementations of AR in product categories like furniture. Using AR, their shoppers are able to more accurately examine and visualize
the size and the balance of the product in relation to the customer’s home setting. Also, beauty brands like Maybelline and Ulta Beauty
offer a virtual try-on feature on their websites. Using the AR feature, shoppers can either upload their photos or use a live camera to
virtually apply makeup onto their face and thus make more accurate decisions as to how the makeup actually looks and how it fits with
their appearance. Shopper data from a cosmetic brand showed that compared to non-users, users of their mobile AR app spent more
time browsing, browsed more products, and purchased more items (Tan et al., 2021).
VR is defined as “the environment created by a computer or other media, an environment in which the user feels present” (Biocca,
1992, p. 23). Compared to other interactive technologies, VR provides the most lifelike enhanced shopping experience using its
simulated environment. Steuer (1992) conceptualized VR as the simulation of an environment where users feel as if they are in a
mediated environment. In simulated VR shopping environments, consumers expect similar sensory experiences as when shopping in a
physical store (Alzayat and Lee, 2021; Lombart et al., 2020). For example, Tommy Hilfiger formed a VR store during the 2020 holiday
season amid the COVID-19 crisis to provide a realistic virtual shopping experience to its customers. The immersive VR store was
accentuated with festive music and a wintery atmosphere to make consumers feel like they were at the actual physical Tommy Hilfiger
store (McDowell, 2020).
Until recently, VR in virtual shopping involved a non-immersive desktop-based 3D display of objects on websites and a keyboard
and mouse as the main medium for user interactions (Xi and Hamari, 2021). With today’s technological advances, VR in virtual
shopping involves an immersive sensory experience in a 3D virtual environment generated through head-mounted display devices. In
the present study, VR shopping is operationalized as an immersive three-dimensional shopping experience via the use of head-mounted
displays. The word immersive is defined as “the extent to which the computer displays are capable of delivering an inclusive, extensive,
surrounding and vivid illusion of reality to the senses of a human participation” (Meiβner et al., 2020, p. 220). The global market size
for VR was estimated to be US$9.2 billion in the year 2020 and it is anticipated to reach US$89.1 billion by 2027 (Businesswire, 2021).
The immersive capability of VR technology has already been widely utilized in various fields such as medicine, travel, education, and
entertainment (Wedel et al., 2020).
One of the greatest benefits of physical stores is that consumers can have an immersive and engaging sensory brand experience
(Pezzini, 2021). Among various interactive technologies, VR is best positioned to simulate sensory-rich in-store experiences. Through
VR, consumers can have a 360-degree view of the products and have more detailed visual-spatial product information (e.g., Kang et al.,
2020; Kim et al., 2021). Furthermore, their shopping experience and interactions will be immersive in a 3D simulated environment.
Despite its potential benefits, the adoption of VR by retailers to date has been limited (e.g., Han et al., 2020; Xi and Hamari, 2021).
3.2. Vividness/interactivity and a sense of presence
Steuer’s (1992) concepts of presence and telepresence help explain how interactive technologies like AR and VR influence user
responses. When a person’s perception is mediated by interactive technology, the person perceives two separate environments
concurrently: the real environment in which the person is present and the virtual environment presented through the technology. The
word ‘telepresence’ is related to the latter experience. Similarly other researchers defined a sense of presence as the feeling of being
present in a mediated environment rather than in a real physical environment (Han et al., 2020; Hollebeek et al., 2020; Kim and Biocca,
1997). Some researchers argued that all media provide a sense of presence but the degree to which the media generate a sense of
presence differs (Kim, 2015; Rice, 1992). According to Steuer (1992), vividness and interactivity are key antecedents that generate a
sense of presence. Kumar (2022) also indicated that these two factors are prominent antecedents in AR for driving customers towards
using AR.
Vividness refers to the extent to which a user perceives the representational richness of an object displayed in a mediated envi
ronment (David et al., 2021). It is influenced by the resolution of the visual display (Wedel et al., 2020) and further determines how
realistically the app produces a product image. The importance of the realism of the product (i.e., vividness) has been supported in the
AR context (David et al., 2021; Yim et al., 2017). For example, Yim et al. (2017) suggested that providing vivid product images in AR
results in positive consumer responses. VR research supported the importance of the vividness of the virtual content in creating positive
shopping experiences (Tan et al., 2021) and in improving the efficiency of VR shopping (Xi and Hamari, 2021). In a similar vein, Kumar
(2022) indicated that vividness generates immersive experiences and impacts various affective and cognitive actions.
Interactivity is defined as “the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment
in real time” (Steuer, 1992, p. 84). With AR, users can manipulate the 3D image of a product by rotating, moving, and zooming in and
out (Fan et al., 2020), thus enhancing interactivity with the products. This interactivity is one of the most critical intentions for
adopting AR technology (Kumar, 2022). Tan et al. (2021) showed that users’ interactivity with the presentation of the products
provides positive shopping responses. Interactivity also increases users’ experience of VR shopping (Xi and Hamari, 2021). According
to Kim et al. (2021), VR offers real life images of products in a 3D naturalistic environment; thus users can more efficiently interact with
products and gain richer shopping experiences.
Overall, the representational quality of product and content (i.e., vividness) and users’ interactivity with products in AR and VR are
expected to generate a natural and rich shopping experience to users and subsequently a sense of presence (Kim, 2015). Various
devices differed in their ability to generate a sense of presence. But overall, the more vivid and interactive experiences a medium
makes, the higher sense of presence the medium generates (Loureiro et al., 2019). Steuer (1992) demonstrated how perceptions of
vividness and interactivity contribute to a sense of presence varied across users.
4
In the present study, a sense of presence is operationalized as a consumer’s perception regarding the experience of presence in a
mediated environment through AR and VR. As Steuer (1992) argued, a sense of presence is human experience influenced by tech
nology and not about the technology system itself. Extant research supports vividness and interactivity as two essential antecedents of
consumer sense of presence in online (e.g., Debbabi et al., 2010; Kim, 2015; Lim and Ayyagari, 2018), AR (e.g., Yim et al., 2017) and
VR (e.g., Jang and Park, 2019; Kim et al., 2021; Roberts-Smith et al., 2020) settings. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed.
H1. Vividness will have a positive influence on a sense of presence (a: AR, b: VR).
H2. Interactivity will have a positive influence on a sense of presence (a: AR, b: VR).
3.3. Factors influencing sensory brand app experience
Considering the potential of AR and VR in enhancing sensory experiences in virtual shopping, this study examines sensory brand
app experience as one of the consumer responses to AR/VR experiences. Brand experience is defined as subjective, internal consumer
responses (e.g., sensations and feelings) evoked by brand related stimuli such as environments (Brakus et al., 2009). According to
Brakus et al. (2009), brand experience is distinct from consumers’ emotional, affective relationships with a brand. Brand experience is
the strict evaluation of the experience itself. Brakus et al. (2009) proposed five brand experiences: sensory, affective, intellectual,
behavioral, and social. In particular, sensory experience is related to aesthetics and sensory qualities and whether the experience is
visually exciting. Similarly, AR and VR rely heavily on amplifying visual sensory experiences to enhance virtual shopping experiences
(Hilken et al., 2021). Thus, the current study focuses on sensory brand experience. Previous brand experience studies examined
sensory brand experience as an independent construct which influences consumer perception and overall relationships with a brand (e.
g., Hepola et al., 2017; Iglesias et al., 2019; Zha et al., 2021). In this study, sensory brand app experience is operationalized as con
sumers’ sensory experience with vivid and realistic visual images of products on a brand’s AR/VR app.
Compared to online shopping, virtual shopping through AR and VR changes the way consumers perceive and evaluate products (Xi
and Hamari, 2021). AR and VR applications boost sensory perceptions and interactions through enhanced visual representations and
product experiences (e.g., Grewal et al., 2017; Poncin and Mimoun, 2014; Xi and Hamari, 2021). For instance, seeing products through
a 360-degree lens in a 3D realistic environment in VR expands users’ sensory experiences far beyond static images on a website
(Alzayat and Lee, 2021). An overlay of virtual objects onto the real-world environment using AR enhances visual processing of
products and thus enriches product visualization (Hilken et al., 2021). Extant research supports a positive relationship between the
vividness of websites and enhanced sensory experiences (e.g., Coyle and Thorson, 2001; Kim, 2015). For example, Pantano et al.
(2017) showed that the vividness and realism of a virtual image stimulate user’s sensory perception. Thus the following hypothesis is
proposed.
H3. Vividness will have a positive influence on sensory brand app experience (a: AR, b: VR).
The current study further posits that a sense of presence generated from vividness and interactivity positively influences consumer
sensory brand app experience. The impact of a sense of presence on consumer positive shopping experience has been supported in
several AR (e.g., Smink et al., 2020; Tsai et al., 2020; Wedel et al., 2020) and VR (e.g., Alzayat and Lee, 2021; Cowan and Ketron, 2019;
Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019) studies. These studies demonstrated that a sense of presence is vital to creating a simulated sensory-rich
experience (Han et al., 2020), and that a sense of telepresence plays a critical role (Alzayat and Lee, 2021). That is, the more that
attention is devoted to the simulated environment, the more sensory perception is generated (Wedel et al., 2020). With regards to AR,
Smink et al. (2020) indicated that consumers interact with virtual objects in a physical world through AR as if the objects exist in the
real world. This experience evokes a sense of presence and ultimately aids consumers to have a sensory-rich experience. Thus, the
following hypothesis is formulated.
H4. Sense of presence will have a positive influence on sensory brand app experience (a: AR, b: VR).
3.4. Factors influencing attitude towards technology
Attitude towards technology is an important component to gauge consumers’ intention to adopt new technologies (Han et al.,
2020). Consumers form attitudes toward technology based on their perceptions and experiences. The present study posits that con
sumer perceptions such as interactivity and a sense of presence and experiences such as sensory brand app experience contribute to the
formation of attitude towards AR/VR technology. Park and Yoo (2020) showed that the interactivity of technology influences user
perception of technology and their shopping experience using technology. They further noted individual differences in perceived
interactivity with the technology.
In an AR context, Cheng (2019) found a positive relationship between users’ interaction with the virtual elements (e.g., using
gestures to manipulate the augmented 3D objects) and a positive attitude and willingness to use the technology. In a similar vein, Park
and Yoo (2020) showed the positive effect of perceived interactivity on users’ attitudes in an AR mobile shopping environment. In a VR
education and training context, Yan et al. (2022) found that the degree of interaction with a device (i.e., interactivity) in a simulated
VR environment positively influenced users’ attitude towards the technology.
The positive relationship between a sense of presence and attitudes is well addressed in several studies (e.g., Alyahya and McLean,
2021; Klein, 2003). For instance, Allmamy and Al-Imamy (2022) found a positive relationship between consumers’ perceived presence
and attitude towards technology in an AR retail condition. Du Vignaux et al. (2021)’s research also showed a positive relationship
between a sense of presence and attitude towards technology in an immersive 3D learning environment. Klein (2003) explained a
higher level of sense of presence in connection with a more real experience of the environment and added that a more real experience
leads to positive attitudes. Likewise, Suh and Chang (2006) found a positive relationship between a high level of sense of presence and
5
attitudes in virtual commerce. They suggested that in a VR setting consumers experience products in a similar way as in a physical store
through telepresence which creates a sense of presence that positively influences consumer attitudes.
Related research also supports a positive relationship between sensory brand app experiences and attitudes. Luna-Nevarez and
McGovern (2021) indicated that the full sensory experience in VR positively impacts consumers’ attitude towards the device. In a
mobile data service context, Qi et al. (2009) also found a positive relationship between consumers’ positive brand app experience and a
positive attitude towards the service. Based on the review of relevant literature, the following hypotheses are proposed.
H5. Interactivity will have a positive influence on attitude towards technology (a: AR, b: VR).
H6. Sense of presence will have a positive influence on attitude towards technology (a: AR, b: VR).
H7. Sensory brand app experience will have a positive influence on attitude towards technology (a: AR, b: VR).
3.5. Factors influencing behavioral intention
In the current study, behavioral intentions are operationalized as consumers’ willingness to shop on the app, revisit the app
frequently, and recommend the app to others. According to Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga (2017), consumer tendency to purchase
products is a good indicator of predicting actual behavior. Kim and Lennon (2011) also indicated that behavioral intent has a vital
impact on consumers’ future interactions with a company.
Previous research addressed positive relations between sensory brand experience and positive customer outcomes (e.g., Iglesias
et al., 2019; Moreira et al., 2017; Zha et al., 2020). According to Barnes et al. (2014), sensory brand experience is more important than
any other brand experience. Consumers’ positive behavioral outcomes are largely driven by sensory experience. Gentile et al. (2007)
similarly addressed the positive effect of sensory brand experience on consumer positive behavior including loyalty. Likewise, Moreira
et al. (2017) pointed out that consumer sensory experiences through aesthetics have consequential impacts on consumption behaviors.
The positive relationship between attitude and behavioral intention is widely supported. Research in AR or VR contexts found a
positive relationship between attitude towards devices and behavioral intention (Kim et al., 2021; Luna-Nevarez and McGovern, 2021;
Yim et al., 2017). For instance, Yim et al. (2017) showed a positive relationship between attitude towards AR and purchase intention.
In a similar fashion, Wojciechowski and Cellary (2013) demonstrated a positive relationship between attitude towards using AR and
behavioral intention. In a VR context, Luna-Nevarez and McGovern (2021) found a significant relationship among positive attitude
towards the medium and purchase and behavioral intentions.
In an online shopping context, Song et al. (2007) revealed that the feeling of being present in the virtual environment impacts
consumers’ willingness to purchase and willingness to patronize a retail website. AR and VR provides immersive experiences that
influence positive consumer responses. AR helps consumers try virtual products in their real world by melting the boundary between
the real and virtual worlds, and the feeling of being present during the shopping experience influences positive purchase intentions
(Hilken et al., 2018; Lavoye et al., 2021). Previous AR research indicated that through a sense of presence users in AR feel more
confident about the reliability of the product information and that the positive experience ultimately influences their purchase and
recommendation intentions (Lavoye et al., 2021; Verhagen et al., 2014). With regards to VR, Nah et al. (2011) demonstrated that
consumers’ telepresence experience in a computer-generated 3D virtual world positively affects their behaviors and intentions.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented.
H8. Sensory brand app experience will have a positive influence on behavioral intention (a: AR, b: VR).
H9. Attitude towards technology will have a positive influence on behavioral intention (a: AR, b: VR).
H10. Sense of presence will have a positive influence on behavioral intention (a: AR, b: VR).
Fig. 2. Proposed conceptual model.
6
3.6. AR/VR moderating effects
Both AR and VR are immersive interactive technologies (Verhulst et al., 2021) that enrich sensory shopping experiences (Hilken
et al., 2021); however, they perform in distinctive ways (Greenwald, 2021). For AR, the technology maintains the users’ physical world
and adds interactive information; for VR, the technology makes users perceive that they are in a totally different world than the
physical real world they are currently in and displays interactive information in that virtual world. This technological distinction
between AR and VR might affect consumers’ perceptions and reactions differently. To date no empirical research has compared the
functional mechanisms of AR and VR in user experiences in retail contexts. However, previous literature in other fields suggests
noticeable differences between the two technologies. For instance, in an AR and VR study in a virtual museum, Verhulst et al. (2021)
found that consumers’ overall sense of presence is higher with VR than with AR. In a restaurant setting, Hilken et al. (2021) discovered
that AR is more effective in influencing consumers’ purchase intention than VR, since AR provides improved product visualization (e.
g., product holograms on-screen) compared to VR; on the other hand, VR is more beneficial in improving positive attitudes since it
allows consumers to explore an actual retailscape in an interactive virtual environment (e.g., virtual tour of the café). In an immersion
(i.e., sense of presence) level test, Georgiou and Kyza (2017) further showed that AR produces higher immersion than simple online
presentation but significantly lower immersion than VR. Existing empirical findings about AR and VR remain inconsistent across
different research contexts. To better understand similarities and differences in how AR and VR influence user experiences, the current
study aims to empirically test the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in influencing consumer responses. Due to a lack of empirical
research examining both consumer experiences in AR and VR in a comparable context, a research question is developed.
RQ: How similar/different are the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in virtual shopping? (Fig. 2)
4. Method
This study was conducted in actual AR and VR commercial shopping environments. IKEA launched both AR and VR shopping
applications to enrich consumer shopping experiences. The IKEA mobile applications were utilized for both AR and VR experiments.
IKEA’s AR app (i.e., IKEA Place) allows consumers to overlay its products onto a real-world environment to help consumers more
accurately estimate the product fit in the physical environment. The IKEA VR app (i.e., Matterport IKEA VR store) shows a naturalistic
environment of an IKEA store in a 3D 360◦ format, allowing consumers to explore products as if they were in a physical IKEA retail
store.
4.1. AR experiment participants and procedure
For the AR experiment, participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to take part in the online survey. First,
participants were asked to imagine that they needed to redecorate their current home, so they would need to purchase new furniture or
houseware items available at the IKEA virtual store. Then they were instructed to download the IKEA Place app into their mobile phone
and browse the furniture section using the app to discover items suitable for their home. After that, they were asked to interact with the
items by placing them within a room in their homes and deploy the virtual image of the furniture by moving it around to gauge how the
selected items would look in the space. They were then asked to take a screenshot of the mobile screen portraying the AR engagement
(virtual objects in physical space). Upon submission of a screenshot, participants were allowed to proceed to the survey questionnaire
page. Screenshots were used to assess adequacy of participants’ interaction with the IKEA AR app and filter out survey responses that
did not sufficiently interact with the IKEA AR app.
4.2. VR experiment participants and procedure
The VR experiment was conducted as a lab experiment because the availability and consistent quality of the VR goggles was pivotal
to the reliability of the experiment. College students at a large U.S. university were recruited as convenience sampling. A Google
Cardboard VR headset was provided to participants as they entered the lab. The experiment sessions were carefully managed to block
out noise and possible distraction and to give ample space for participants to move around and freely explore the VR environment.
The IKEA VR mobile application which displays a 3D real view of an IKEA store was chosen for the VR experiment. Participants
were asked to download the app to their smartphone then insert their smartphone into the Google Cardboard VR headset. Basic
training on how to use the VR equipment was then given. Once all the participants mastered the training, they were instructed to fully
browse the VR IKEA store to discover items they would need within a specified scenario in which they moved to a new home and
needed to purchase some furniture or houseware items to furnish it. Once participants indicated that they had abundantly browsed the
store, they were asked to complete an online survey using a computer available in the laboratory.
4.3. Instruments
All items were adopted from existing studies with adequate reliability and validity. Vividness was assessed using seven items
(Cronbach’s alphas = 0.87 - 0.89) developed by Miller et al. (2000). Interactivity was measured with four-item scale (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.87) proposed by Yim et al. (2017). A sense of presence scale was adapted from Huang and Liao (2015). Their scale has three
items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83). Sensory brand app experience was measured using three items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77) developed
by Brakus et al. (2009). To measure consumer attitude towards technology, four items were taken from Kumar et al. (2015) and Porter
7
and Donthu (2006). The two studies reported adequate Cronbach’s alpha values, 0.92 and 0.90 respectively. Behavioral intention was
measured using Wang et al. (2007)’s three-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92). All of the utilized items for the current study used a 7-
point rating scale.
Demographic questions were also included in the survey including participants’ prior experience with shopping using AR (VR)
technology in general, experience with the IKEA AR (VR) technology, experience in using AR (VR) technology, and experience in using
AR (VR) technology on the IKEA app.
5. Results and discussions
5.1. Respondents
For the AR experiment, a total of 153 respondents participated in the study. Before taking the survey participants were asked to
submit a screenshot that showed their interaction and uses of the AR tools on the IKEA AR app. Submissions that did not include
acceptable screenshots showing adequate participation and interaction with the AR app or had incomplete survey questionnaires were
deleted. Thus, the total number of usable respondents was 116 (54.3 % female, 45.7 % male). Approximately 60 % of the respondents
were aged between 18 and 23 years. For VR, a total of 146 college students (61.6 % female, 38.4 % male) participated in the study and
thoroughly completed the online survey. Considering the fact that most of the previous AR and VR studies employed samples between
100 and 200 due to the difficulty of collecting data (Loureiro et al., 2019) and the dominant users of AR and VR are aged between 18
and 34 years (Statista, 2021), the sample sizes employed for both the AR and VR experiments seem to be suitable, and the sample is
representative of the general users of AR and VR.
Both AR and VR participants were asked their prior experience with AR/VR in general as well as with IKEA’s AR and VR tech
nology. ANOVAs showed that AR participants and VR participants did not differ in their prior experience with AR/VR in general and
with IKEA’s AR and VR technology (all ps > 0.19). Thus, based on no difference finding, the data were combined for multi-group path
analyses.
5.2. Preliminary analysis
Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) conducted on multi-item measures confirmed the dimensionality of the original scales and found
that all had adequate reliabilities for AR (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.86 to 0.96) and VR (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.68 to
0.96) after eliminating four items that were cross-loaded. Composite scores were used for further analyses. See Table 1.
5.3. Hypothesis testing
To test hypotheses, three steps of path analysis were performed. First a single path analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized
relationships (χ 2 = 42.34, df = 4; NFI = 0.98; IFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.98). Second, a multi-group path analysis with types of immersive
technology (AR vs VR) as a grouping variable, a base model with no constraints was tested, yielding an acceptable fit (χ 2 = 14.50, df =
8; NFI = 0.98; IFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.056). This unconstrained model was compared to the fully constrained model
imposing equalities on all path coefficients and tested for the moderating effect of different interactive technologies using the Chi-
square difference test. There was a significant difference between AR and VR (Δdf = 18, Δχ2 = 26.271, p <.001) indicating the
way participants perceived and responded to AR and VR differed. See Table 2.
Table 1
Measurements.
Variable Measured items AR VR
Vividness Vivid-vague 0.86 0.78

Clear-unclear
Sharp-dull
Fuzzy-well defined
Interactivity I was in control of my navigation. 0.88 0.77
I had some control over the content of the technology that I wanted to see.
The available technology had the ability to respond to my specific needs quickly and efficiently.
Sense of presence I had a sense of being in the scenes displayed. 0.86 0.75
I felt I was visiting the places in the displayed environment.
I felt that the characters and/or objects could almost be touched.
Sensory brand app experience Browsing the IKEA store using the technology made a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses. 0.88 0.68
I found browsing the IKEA store using the technology interesting in a sensory way.
Attitude towards technology I am positive toward using the technology when shopping for furniture and homeware. 0.96 0.93
It makes sense to use the technology when shopping for furniture and homeware.
People should adopt the technology when shopping for furniture and homeware.
The thought of using the technology when shopping for furniture and homeware is appealing to me.
Behavioral intention I would be willing to shop on this app. 0.96 0.96
The likelihood that I would shop on this app is very high.
I would be willing to recommend this app to my friend.
8
Table 2
Multi-group analysis for the moderating effects of technology types.
Equality Constraints χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf Sig
Unconstrained model 14.498 8 - -
Fully constrained 40.769 18 26.271 10 p <.001
Path coefficients
H1 Vividness → Sense of presence 16.110 9 1.612 1 ns

H2 Interactivity → Sense of presence 15.227 9 0.729 1 ns
H3 Vividness → Sensory brand app experience 17.790 9 3.292 1 < 0.07
H4 Sense of presence → Sensory brand app experience 14.507 9 0.009 1 ns
H5 Interactivity → Attitude towards technology 19.419 9 4.921 1 < 0.05
H6 Sense of presence → Attitude towards technology 14.609 9 0.111 1 ns
H7 Sensory brand app experience → Attitude towards technology 14.772 9 0.274 1 ns
H8 Sensory brand app experience → Behavioral intention 14.538 9 0.04 1 ns
H9 Attitude towards technology → Behavioral intention 23.770 9 9.272 1 < 0.01
H10 Sense of presence → Behavioral intention 21.629 9 7.131 1 < 0.01
The third step of a multi-group path analysis was performed to determine specific paths that differ between AR and VR. To test the
moderating roles of the two different immersive technologies, a series of Chi-square difference tests were performed by imposing
equality constraints on each path coefficient. The Chi-square difference tests found four paths that significantly differed between AR
and VR; (1) the influence of vividness on sensory brand app experience, (2) the influence of interactivity on attitude towards tech
nology, (3) the influence of attitude towards technology on behavioral intention, and (4) the influence of sense of presence on
behavioral intention. See Table 2 and Fig. 3.
Table 3 and Fig. 3 show the results of hypotheses testing including path coefficients across AR and VR technologies. As shown in
Table 3 and Fig. 3, vividness affected a sense of presence, and a sense of presence influenced sensory brand app experience and attitude
towards technology for both AR and VR. In addition, the relationships among sensory brand app experience, attitude towards tech
nology, and behavioral intention were all significant in AR and VR contexts. However, several differences were observed between AR
and VR. Vividness enhanced sensory brand app experience for AR, but not for VR. Similarly, interactivity with AR improved attitude
towards AR technology, but interactivity with VR had no influence on attitude towards VR. Additionally, how attitude towards
technology and a sense of presence influence behavioral intention significantly differed between AR and VR. While the relationship
between attitude towards technology and behavioral intention was robust for both AR and VR, the relationship was significantly
stronger for AR than for VR. Lastly, a sense of presence increased behavioral intention only for VR. It had no influence on behavioral
intention with AR.
To further examine how AR and VR shared or differed in their respective mechanism of influencing consumers’ perceptions and
responses, decomposition of effects was conducted. As shown in Table 4, several differences were observed. First, AR and VR differed
in how vividness influenced sensory brand app experience. Specifically, the vividness of AR experience not only enhanced sensory
brand app experience directly, but also indirectly through increasing the sense of presence. Conversely, the vividness of VR experience
Fig. 3. Model comparisons.
9
Table 3
A Summary of hypotheses testing.
Path coefficients AR VR Overall result
H1 Vividness → Sense of presence 0.497*** 0.393*** Fully supported

H2 Interactivity → Sense of presence 0.136 0.228** Partially supported
H3 Vividness → Sensory brand app experience 0.277*** 0.123 Partially supported
H4 Sense of presence → Sensory brand app experience 0.542*** 0.587*** Fully supported
H5 Interactivity → Attitude towards technology 0.310*** 0.074 Partially supported
H6 Sense of presence → Attitude towards technology 0.207* 0.226* Fully supported
H7 Sensory brand app experience → Attitude towards technology 0.505*** 0.357*** Fully supported
H8 Sensory brand app experience → Behavioral intention 0.241** 0.209* Fully supported
H9 Attitude towards technology → Behavioral intention 0.682*** 0.321*** Fully supported
H10 Sense of presence → Behavioral intention -0.032 0.250** Partially supported
Table 4
Decomposition of effects.
AR VR
Predictor variable Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Sense of presence
Vividness 0.497*** - 0.497*** 0.393*** - 0.393***
Interactivity 0.136 – 0.136 0.228** – 0.228**
Sensory brand app experience
Vividness 0.277*** 0.269*** 0.546*** 0.123 0.231** 0.354***
Interactivity – 0.074 0.074 – 0.134** 0.134**
Sense of presence 0.542*** – 0.542*** 0.587*** – 0.587***
Attitude towards technology
Vividness – 0.378*** 0.378*** – 0.215** 0.215**
Interactivity 0.310*** 0.065 0.375*** 0.074 0.099* 0.173*
Sense of presence 0.207** 0.273*** 0.480*** 0.226* 0.210** 0.435***
Sensory brand app experience 0.505*** – 0.505*** 0.357*** – 0.357***
Behavioral intention
Vividness – 0.374*** 0.374*** – 0.242** 0.242**
Interactivity – 0.269* 0.269* – 0.141* 0.141*
Sense of presence -0.032 0.458*** 0.426*** 0.250** 0.263** 0.513***
Sensory brand app experience 0.241** 0.344*** 0.585*** 0.209* 0.115** 0.324***
Attitude towards technology 0.682*** – 0.682*** 0.321*** – 0.321***
influenced sensory brand app experience only indirectly through increasing a sense of presence via VR. Second, a similar pattern was
observed in the relationship between interactivity and attitude towards technology. Similar to vividness, interactivity of VR experience
improved attitude towards technology only through increasing a sense of presence, but no direct influence was found. On the contrary,
AR had only a direct influence of interactivity on attitude towards technology. For VR, a sense of presence was a significant mediator
for the relationship between vividness and sensory brand app experience and the relationship between interactivity and attitude
towards technology. Additionally, for VR, interactivity indirectly influenced sensory brand app experience through its influence on a
sense of presence. No such relationship was observed with AR. These findings support the critical mediating roles of a sense of presence
for VR. Regarding what drives behavioral intention, the results showed similar patterns in indirect influences on behavioral intention.
All variables including vividness, interactivity, sensory of presence, and sensory brand app experience had significant indirect in
fluences on behavioral intention.
6. Conclusions and implications
Building on the integrative framework of Milgram et al. (1994)’s Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum, the concept of a sense of
presence (Steuer, 1992), and the S–O–R framework (Eroglu et al., 2003; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974), the current research
examined the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in influencing user perceptions and responses in virtual shopping environments. In
particular, the effects of AR/VR application features (i.e., vividness and interactivity) on a sense of presence and other consumer
responses, such as sensory brand app experience, attitude towards the technology and behavioral intention, were examined in this
study. Supporting the RV Continuum by Milgram et al. (1994), the current study demonstrated both similarities and differences in the
mechanism by which AR and VR influence user perceptions and responses. In particular, the distinctive role of a sense of presence in
VR compared to AR provides additional empirical evidence of immersive virtual experiences in VR (Bekele and Champion, 2019;
Johnson, 2016; Leach et al., 2018).
The current study further provided empirical support for the S–O–R framework (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) in both AR and VR
contexts; the influence of environmental stimuli on consumer psychological and cognitive internal states and their consequent impacts
on behavioral outcomes in both AR/VR settings. For both AR and VR, vividness and interactivity (S) influenced behavioral intentions
(R) by affecting users’ internal states (O), corroborating prior research findings (Do et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2021; Loureiro et al., 2019)
10
and thus supporting the S–O–R framework. The current study further identified varying paths by which vividness and interactivity
influence behavioral intention as a function of AR vs VR, which differ in the way they mesh the real world and virtual world.
The current study sheds new light on not only similarities but also differences in how AR and VR shape user experiences. Prior
research posited vividness and interactivity as key antecedents of a sense of presence (Jang and Park, 2019; Kim et al., 2021; Roberts-
Smith et al., 2020; Steuer, 1992; Yim et al., 2017). Consistent with prior research, both vividness and interactivity contributed to
creating a sense of presence in VR. However, the current study showed that in AR interactivity did not contribute to evoking a sense of
presence, whereas vividness was a significant antecedent to a sense of presence.
One noteworthy finding of the current study is the different ways interactivity contributes to user experiences. For AR, interactivity
had a positive influence on user experiences by improving attitude towards technology, confirming previous studies (e.g., Park and
Yoo, 2020; Xue et al., 2022). Interactivity in AR did not increase a sense of presence and sensory brand app experience either directly or
indirectly. On the contrary, interactivity in VR directly increased a sense of presence and indirectly enhanced sensory brand app
experience and attitude towards technology. In previous research, interactivity was considered superior in AR compared to VR due to
how AR and VR differ on the Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum (Milgram et al., 1994). AR brings the virtual elements to the real world,
whereas VR restricts users’ interactions within the virtual world by obstructing the real world (Bekele and Champion, 2019). These
differences may be related to different roles of interactivity in user experiences in AR vs VR.
Another notable finding of the study is the different roles of a sense of presence in AR and VR. For VR, the sense of presence was
imperative to enhancing user reactions and responses. Both vividness and interactivity in VR positively influenced user responses only
through evoking a greater sense of presence. No direct influence of vividness or interactivity on user responses were observed. In other
words, the primary value of vividness and interactivity of VR experiences was dependent on the level of sense of presence that each
evoked. Then, the sense of presence played a leading role in influencing consumer responses in terms of sensory brand app experience,
attitude towards VR technology, and behavioral intention. A sense of presence in VR influenced behavioral intention both directly and
indirectly. Sensory brand app experience in VR and attitude towards VR technology were dependent on the level of sense of presence.
This finding supports the assertion that a sense of presence in a virtual environment is vital to user experience because VR creates a
fully immersive experience in a synthetic environment (Furht, 2014; Johnson, 2016; Meiβner et al., 2020).
Conversely, AR had multiple paths for creating positive user responses, and a sense of presence was one of such paths. In the current
study, a sense of presence influenced behavioral intention but in meaningfully different ways than VR. As addressed above, only
vividness evoked a sense of presence in AR, which subsequently improved sensory brand app experience and attitude towards tech
nology. A sense of presence in AR did not have an influence on behavioral intention. Additionally, sensory brand app experience in AR
was dependent on both vividness (Pantano et al., 2017) and a sense of presence (Han et al., 2020). Attitude towards AR technology was
dependent on both interactivity (Cheng, 2019; Park and Yoo, 2020) and a sense of presence (Allmamy and Al-Imamy, 2022). The
empirical findings of the current study further showed that differences in AR and VR in affecting behavioral intention came from the
presence (absence) of a direct influence of sense of presence in VR (AR) and the relative magnitude of the influence of attitude towards
technology. Attitude towards technology had a significantly greater influence on behavioral intention in AR than VR.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
The present study provides theoretical contributions to current interactive technology literature by investigating the process of how
user interactions in AR and VR similarly and differently influence consumers’ perception, attitude, and behavioral intent. By taking the
integrative approaches based on the RV continuum, the S–O–R framework, and a sense of presence concept, this study offers new
empirical insights into why and how AR and VR influence user experiences differently. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
study that examined both AR and VR technologies to compare their functional mechanisms from the users’ perspectives. This study
showed that two key aspects of AR and VR experiences, namely vividness and interactivity, influence user experiences but in different
ways. Within the constraint of the virtual environment, a sense of presence is key to creating positive user experiences in VR.
Conversely, in AR where the real world and virtual world are enmeshed, evoking a sense of presence is one of the viable paths to
positive user experiences. Creating a positive attitude towards AR technology and enhancing sensory brand app experience by
leveraging vividness and interactivity are imperative to AR success. The current study expands the S–O–R framework in the context
of advanced interactive technology and contributes to the enhanced understanding of the dynamic role of a sense of presence and
interactivity in technology-mediated environments.
6.2. Practical implications
The COVID-19 pandemic created drastic shifts in shopping behaviors, resulting in an unparalleled increase in the number of
consumers shopping virtually. These shifts towards virtual shopping during the pandemic are not considered abnormal or short-term.
Instead, experts argue that COVID simply accelerated a current ongoing trend which will soon be the norm (Stubbs, 2020). In light of
the COVID-19 outbreak and the mass shift in consumer shopping towards virtual, the implementation of AR and VR in retail will
continue to grow. Wilson and Burgar (2020) predicted that the implementations of AR and 3D in the retail setting will be mandatory in
the next five years.
In the current digital driven retail environment, offering shopping with AR/VR to better experience products in a simulated
shopping environment is becoming indispensable. Grewal et al. (2017) noted that retail is advancing at an accelerated rate due to the
technologies utilized. As technology advances, consumers’ expectations of their shopping experience will likely go higher. In the fast-
evolving retail environment with growing consumer expectations, creating more interactive and enjoyable shopping experiences is
11
vital to business success. Both AR and VR are digital tools that can be leveraged to optimize virtual shopping experiences. The
empirical findings of the current study offer useful information that retailers can use when developing AR and/or VR tools or when
they select AR/VR companies to partner with. The findings of the current study suggest that VR is more effective in generating
immersive shopping experiences, whereas AR is more effective in improving utility by affecting consumers’ direct sensory experiences
with products. For both AR and VR, vividness was critical in not only creating a sense of presence but also enhancing sensory brand app
experience. This suggests that vividness of experience is a non-negotiable element of interactive technologies. As for interactivity,
while interactivity is important in both AR and VR, the types of interactivity that matter may differ in AR and VR. For example,
interactivity in VR needs to focus on making the experience more immersive for a greater sense of presence. Perhaps this involves a
greater emphasis on high-quality 360 views, smoother transitions and navigations while in virtual environments (Xue et al., 2020). On
the other hand, interactivity in AR can focus on other forms of interactivity rather than focusing on spatial immersions as in VR. For
example, offering various personalization tools can improve interactivity in AR, which will further enhance users’ attitudes towards
AR technology (Xue et al., 2020).
Both AR and VR applications can boost sensory experiences through enhanced visual representations and product experiences
(Grewal et al., 2017; Poncin and Mimoun, 2014; Xi and Hamari, 2021). Supporting the concept of brand experience by Brakus et al.
(2009), the current study showed that sensory brand app experience not only increased attitude towards technology but also increased
behavioral intention in AR and VR. Although the current study was conducted in the context of furniture shopping, this study’s findings
offer practical insights that can be extended to other product categories. For example, Sephora’s AR make-up tools not only provide the
utility of product experiences but also enjoyable shopping experiences. According to a recent Harvard Business Review report
(Chandukala et al., 2022), consumers who used the virtual AR makeup tool to try on different lipsticks spent approximately 50 % more
time experimenting than those who tried lipstick testers in a store. AR is well positioned to offer enhanced sensory experiences,
especially for experience products like cosmetics and clothing. Based on the research findings, retailers of experience products are
encouraged to amplify sensory experiences using interactive AR tools.
For VR, enhancing not only visual representations of products but also boosting product experiences may help optimize the ca
pabilities of VR. For example, seeing products through a 360-degree lens in a 3D realistic environment in VR can boost sensory product
experiences (Alzayat and Lee, 2021). VR technology can be used to boost other senses such as auditory and tactile senses, beyond visual
senses. For example, VR for Volvo can be developed to amplify multiple senses. Having a rich audio experience using VR could help
create a sense of presence during virtual test driving. Through an enjoyable and memorable immersive shopping experience using VR
technology, retailers can turn a customer into a loyal advocate and build strong emotional bonds (Carter, 2021). In addition, as the
metaverse is promised as the next generation of the internet (Ramirez, 2022), the VR immersive user experience in future retail would
be indispensable.
AR and VR technologies are complementary to each other. VR seems useful for retailers to immerse users in the virtual world and
build emotional connections, while AR seems effective in sensory experiences with products using interactive tools. Retailers might
consider whether they need to apply both technologies at different stages of the customer shopping journey. That is, via VR customers
may engage with a brand and explore products displayed on a virtual site. Then, using AR, customers may try attractive products and
have more thorough perceptions about the products and make more confident decisions. AR and VR technologies still have some
shortcomings and are not a substitute for the physical shopping experience. However, these interactive digital tools can help make
consumers’ virtual shopping more enjoyable, engaging, and informed and help consumers have confidence in their purchase decision-
making by overcoming the limits of e-commerce (Wang, 2021). There is no doubt that AR and VR will play crucial roles in the future of
retail. Overall, the findings of the study provide meaningful practical implications to practitioners, especially the retailers that are
hesitant to implement AR and VR technologies due to the lack of empirical evidence on the benefits of the technologies on consumer
shopping outcomes. This study supports that both AR and VR are effective in boosting consumer sensory brand app experience, attitude
towards the technology, and behavioral intentions.
6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
While the current study provides several useful findings, it also has some limitations. First, this study employed IKEA apps to
investigate the functional mechanisms of AR and VR. Since the experiment is conducted in the context of furniture consumption, the
findings of this study are not generalizable to other product types. More and more clothing, cosmetics, and vehicles retailers have
started to employ AR and VR technologies in their digital platforms. Therefore, additional research is needed with different types of
products to enhance generalizability of the findings. Second, in this study, the AR/VR experiments were not combined with a sense of
touch. When AR/VR shopping are paired with haptic devices, consumers can realistically feel objects in their own hands and have more
immersive engaging experiences (e.g., Yu et al., 2019). In this sense, the effects of AR/VR with haptic technology need to be future
examined. Third, in relation to consumers’ perceptions about AR and VR, this study focused on general consumer perceptions. Some
studies have addressed negative aspects such as data sharing and dizziness (e.g., Wedel et al., 2020). For instance, with regards to AR,
since consumers need to use their camera to utilize the technology, they may have privacy worries regarding the device use (Hilken
et al., 2021; Lavoye et al., 2021). With regards to VR, dizziness and discomfort have been reported as negative responses of some
consumers (e.g., Manchanda and Deb, 2021). Future research needs to discover hostile aspects of the technologies to completely
understand consumers’ perceptions about AR and VR.
12
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea
(Project No. NRF-2016S1A5A2A03927809).
References
Allied Market Research, 2021. Augmented and virtual reality market statistics: 2030. Retrieved from. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/augmented-and-
virtual-reality-market.
Allmamy, S., Al-Imamy, S., 2022. Customer perceived value through quality augmented reality experiences in retail: The mediating effect of customer attitudes.
J. Mark. Commun. 28 (4) https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.1897648.
Alyahya, M., McLean, G., 2021. Examining tourism consumers’ attitudes and the role of sensory information in virtual reality experiences of a tourist destination.
J. Travel Res. 1–16 https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211037745.
Alzayat, A., Lee, S.H., 2021. Virtual products as an extension of my body; Exploring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value in a virtual reality retail environment.
J. Bus. Res. 130, 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.017.
Ball, C., Huang, K.-T., Francis, J., 2021. Virtual reality adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic: A uses and gratifications perspective. Telematics Inform. 65, 101728.
Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101728.
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., Sørensen, F., 2014. Destination brand experience and visitor behavior: Testing a scale in the tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research
48, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.002.
Bekele, M.K., Champion, E., 2019. Redefining Mixed Reality: User-Reality-Virtuality and Virtual Heritage Perspectives. Proceedings of the 24th International
Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2019, Volume 2, 675-684.
Biocca, F., 1992. Virtual reality technology: A tutorial. J. Commun. 42 (4), 23–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00811.x.
Blissing, B., Bruzelius, F., & Ölvander, J., 2013. Augmented and Mixed Reality as a tool for evaluation of Vehicle Active Safety Systems. The 4th International
Conference on Road Safety and Simulation. Rome, Italy.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L., 2009. Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? J. Mark. 73 (3), 52–68. https://doi-org.
pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052.
Businesswire,, 2021. Insights on the virtual reality global market to 2027 - Featuring Intel, Jaunt and Unity Technologies among others. Retrieved from. https://www.
businesswire.com/news/home/20211014005532/en/Insights-on-the-Virtual-Reality-Global-Market-to-2027–-Featuring-Intel-Jaunt-and-Unity-Technologies-
Among-Others–-ResearchAndMarkets.com.
Carter, R., 2021. How Virtual Reality enhances customer experience: The role of VR in customer experience. Retrieved from. https://www.xrtoday.com/virtual-
reality/how-virtual-reality-enhances-customer-experience/.
Chandukala, S.R., Reddy, S.K., Tan, Y.-C., 2022. How augmented reality can-and can’t-help your brand. Retrieved from Harv. Bus. Rev. https://hbr.org/2022/03/
how-augmented-reality-can-and-cant-help-your-brand.
Chen, S-Y., Liu, S-Y., 2020. Using augmented reality to experiment with elements in a chemistry course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 111, 106418. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.
106418.
Cheng, K.-H., 2019. Parents’ user experiences of augmented reality book reading: Perceptions, expectations, and intentions. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 67, 303–315.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9611-0.
Chopdar, P.K., Balakrishnan, J., 2020. Consumers response towards mobile commerce applications: S-O-R approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 53, N.PAG. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102106.
Cohen, M., 2020. How the coronavirus crisis will shape the future of virtual reality. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/columbiabusinessschool/
2020/05/21/how-coronavirus-crisis-will-shape-future-of-virtual-reality/?sh=750461c75b3f.
Cowan, K., Ketron, S., 2019. A dual model of product involvement for effective virtual reality: The roles of imagination, co-creation, telepresence, and interactivity.
J. Bus. Res. 100, 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.063.
David, A., Senn, W. D., Peak, D. A., Prybutok, V. R., Blankson, C., 2021. The value of visual quality and service quality to augmented reality enabled mobile shopping
experience. Quality Management Journal. 28 (3), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1063.80/10686967.2021.1920868.
Coyle, J.R., Thorson, E., 2001. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J. Advert. 30 (3), 65–77. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646.
Debbabi, S., Daassi, M., Baile, S., 2010. Effect of online 3D advertising on consumer responses: the mediating role of telepresence. J. Mark. Manag. 26 (9–10),
967–992. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1080/02672570903498819.
Do, H.-N., Shih, W., Ha, Q.-A., 2020. Effects of mobile augmented reality apps on impulse buying behavior: An investigation in the tourism field. Heliyon. 6 (8),
e04667.
Du Vignaux, M.M., Léger, P.-M.; Charland, P., Salame, Y., Durand, E., Bouillot, N., Pardoen, M., Sénécal, S., 2021. An exploratory study on the impact of collective
immersion on learning and learning experience. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 5 (17). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5040017Academic Edi.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., Davis, L.M., 2003. Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychol. Mark. 20 (2), 139–150.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10064.
Fan, X., Chai, Z., Deng, N., Dong, X., 2020. Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and consumers’ product attitude: A cognitive perspective. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 53, N.PAG. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101986.
Furht, B., 2014. Handbook of augmented reality. Springer, New York.
Greenwald, W., 2021. Augmented reality vs. virtual reality: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://www.pcmag.com/news/augmented-reality-ar-vs-virtual-
reality-vr-whats-the-difference.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., Noci, G., 2007. How to Sustain the Customer Experience:: An Overview of Experience Components that Co-create Value With the Customer.
Eur. Manag. J. 25 (5), 395–410.
Georgiou, Y., Kyza, E.A., 2017. The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented
reality settings. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 98, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.014.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Nordfälkt, J., 2017. The future of retailing. J. Retail. 93, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.008.
13
Han, S.-L., An, M., Han, J., Lee, J., 2020. Telepresence, time distortion, and consumer traits of virtual reality shopping. J. Bus. Res. 118, 311–320. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.056.
Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H., Hintikka, A., 2017. The effect of sensory brand experience and involvement on brand equity directly and indirectly through consumer
brand engagement. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 26 (3), 282–293. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1108/JPBM-10-2016-1348.
Hilken, T., Chylinski, M., Keeling, D.I., Heller, J., Ruyter, K., Mahr, D., 2021. How to strategically choose or combine augmented and virtual reality for improved
online experiential retailing. Psychol. Mark. 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21600.
Hollebeek, L.D., Clark, M.K., Andreassen, T.W., Sigurdsson, V., 2020. Virtual reality through the customer journey: Framework and propositions. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 55, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102056.
Hsu, S.-H.-Y., Tsou, H.-T., Chen, J.-S., 2021. Yes, we do. Why not use augmented reality? customer responses to experiential presentations of AR-based applications.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 62, N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102649.
Huang, T.-L., Liao, S., 2015. A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron. Commer.
Res. 15 (2), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-014-9163-2.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Rialp, J., 2019. How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer
affective commitment, and employee empathy. J. Bus. Res. 96, 343–354. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.043.
Jang, Y., Park, E., 2019. An adoption model for virtual reality games: The roles of presence and enjoyment. Telematics Inform. 42, 101239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2019.101239.
Johnson, E., 2016. What are the differences among virtual, augmented and mixed reality? Vox.com. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2015/7/27/11615046/
whats-the-difference-between-virtual-augmented-and-mixed-reality.
Kang, H.J., Shin, J.-H., Ponto, K., 2020. How 3D virtual reality stores can shape consumer purchase decisions: The roles of informativeness and playfulness. J. Interact.
Mark. 49, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.07.002.
Kannan, P.K., Kulkarni, G., 2021. The impact of Covid-19 on customer journeys: Implications for interactive marketing. J. Res. Interact. Mark. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JRIM-03-2021-0078. Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
Kim, J.B., 2015. The Mediating Role of Presence on Consumer Intention to Participate in a Social Commerce Site. J. Internet Commer. 14 (4), 425–454. https://doi-
org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1080/15332861.2015.1092067.
Kim, T., Biocca, F., 1997. Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory and persuasion. J. Comput.-Mediat.
Commun. 3 (2). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00073.x.
Kim, J.-H., Kim, M., Park, M., Yoo, J., 2021. How interactivity and vividness influence consumer virtual reality shopping experience: The mediating role of
telepresence. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 15 (3), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-07-2020-0148.
Kim, M., Lennon, S.J., 2011. Consumer response to online apparel stockouts. Psychol. Mark. 28 (2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20383.
Klein, L.R., 2003. Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. J. Interact. Mark. 17 (1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10046.
Kühn, S.W., Petzer, D.J., 2018. Fostering purchase intentions toward online retailer websites in an emerging market: An S-O-R perspective. J. Internet Commer. 17 (3),
255–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2018.1463799.
Kumar, H., 2022. Augmented reality in online retailing: a systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 50 (4), 537–559. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJRDM-06-2021-0287.
Kumar, S., Ramachandran, T., Panboli, S., 2015. Product recommendations over Facebook: The roles of influencing factors to induce online shopping. Asian Soc. Sci.
11 (2), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n2p202.
Lavoye, V., Mero, J., Tarkiainen, A., 2021. Consumer behavior with augmented reality in retail: a review and research agenda. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res.
31 (3), 299–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2021.1901765.
Leach, M., Maddock, S.C. , Hadley, D. et al., (8 more authors) 2018. Recreating Sheffield’s medieval castle in situ using outdoor augmented reality. In: Bourdot, P.,
Cobb, S., Interrante, V., Kato, H., Stricker, D., (eds.) Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality. EuroVR 2018, 22-23 Oct 2018, London, UK. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 11162 . Springer , pp. 213-229.
Lim, J., Ayyagari, R., 2018. Investigating the determinants of telepresence in the e-commerce setting. Comput. Hum. Behav. 85, 360–371. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.
sc.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.024.
Lombart, C., Millan, E., Normand, J.M., Verhulst, A., Labre-Pinlon, B., Moreau, G., 2020. Effects of physical non-immersive virtual, and immersive virtual store
environments on consumers’ perceptions and purchase behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 110 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106374.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Guerreiro, J., Eloy, S., Langaro, D., Panchapakesan, P., 2019. Understanding the use of Virtual Reality in Marketing: A text mining-based review.
J. Bus. Res. 100, 514–530. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.055.
Luna-Nevarez, C., McGovern, E., 2021. The rise of the virtual reality (VR) marketplace: Exploring the antecedents and consequences of consumer attitudes toward V-
Commerce. J. Internet Commer. 10 (2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2021.1875766.
Manchanda, M., Deb, M., 2021. On m-Commerce Adoption and Augmented Reality: A Study on Apparel Buying Using m-Commerce in Indian Context. J. Internet
Commer. 20 (1), 84–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2020.1863023.
Martínez-Navarro, J., Bigné, E., Guixeres, J., Alcañiz, M., 2019. The influence of virtual reality in e-commerce. J. Bus. Res. 100, 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.10.054.
McDowell, M., 2020. What to know about virtual stores. Retrieved from. https://www.voguebusiness.com/technology/what-to-know-about-virtual-stores.
McKinsey & Company, 2021. The consumer demand recovery and lasting effects of COVID-19. Retrieved from. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-
packaged-goods/our-insights/the-consumer-demand-recovery-and-lasting-effects-of-covid-19.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Meißner, M., Pfeiffer, J., Peukert, C., Dietrich, H., Pfeiffer, T., 2020. How virtual reality affects consumer choice. J. Bus. Res. 117, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.06.004.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., Kishino, F., 1994. Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence
Technologies. 2351, 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.197321.
Miller, D.W., Hadjimarcou, J., Miciak, A., 2000. A scale for measuring advertisement-evoked mental imagery. J. Mark. Commun. 6 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/
10.1080/135272600345525.
Mollen, A., Wilson, H., 2010. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. J. Bus.
Res. 63 (9/10), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014.
Moreira, A.C., Fortes, N., Santiago, R., 2017. Influence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 18 (1),
68–83. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.3846/16111699.2016.1252793.
Morone, A., Nemore, F., Schirone, D.A., 2018. Sales impact of servicescape’s rational stimuli: A natural experiment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 45, 256–262. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.011.
Mosteller, J., Donthu, N., Eroglu, S., 2014. The fluent online shopping experience. J. Bus. Res. 67 (11), 2486–2493. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.03.009.
Nah, F.F.-H., Eschenbrenner, B., DeWester, D., 2011. Enhancing Brand Equity through Flow and Telepresence: A Comparison of 2D and 3D Virtual Worlds. MIS
Quarterly 35 (3), 731–747.
Obsessar.com (n.d.). Metaverse is the new mall. Retrieved from https://obsessar.com/the-metaverse-is-the-new-mall/.
Pantano, E., Rese, A., Baier, D., 2017. Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: A two country comparison of youth markets.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 38, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.011.
Park, M., Yoo, J., 2020. Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52, N.
PAG. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101912.
14
Pezzini, G., 2021. Why physical stores are still vital for retail. Retrieved from, LS Retail https://www.lsretail.com/resources/why-physical-stores-are-still-vital-for-
retail.
Poncin, I., Mimoun, M.S.B., 2014. The impact of e-atmospherics on physical stores. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (5), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2014.02.013.
Porter, C.E., Donthu, N., 2006. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and
demographics. J. Bus. Res. 59 (9), 999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.003.
Poushneh, A., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., 2017. Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 34, 229–234. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.005.
Qi, J., Li, L., Li, Y., Shu, H., 2009. An extension of technology acceptance model: Analysis of the adoption of mobile data services in China. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 25,
391–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.964.
Ramirez, A., 2022. Are virtual reality and the metaverse ready to support collaborative work? Retrieved from. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/
2022/02/15/are-virtual-reality-and-the-metaverse-ready-to-support-collaborative-work/?sh=11895f4e716c.
Rice, R.E., 1992. Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness. Organ. Sci. 3 (4), 475–500. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.3.4.475.
Roberts-Smith, J., Carpenter, J., Llewellyn, K.R., Liewellyn, J., 2020. Relational presence”: Designing VR-based virtual learning environments for oral history-based
restorative pedagogy. The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy. https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/relational-presence-designing-vr-based-virtual-
learning-environments-for-oral-history-based-restorative-pedagogy/.
Sheng, H., Joginapelly, T., 2012. Effects of Web Atmospheric Cues on Users’ Emotional Responses in E-Commerce. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction.
4 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00036.
Smink, A.R., van Reijmersdal, E.A., van Noort, G., Neijens, P.C., 2020. Shopping in augmented reality: The effects of spatial presence, personalization and
intrusiveness on app and brand responses. J. Bus. Res. 118, 474–485. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.018.
Song, K., Fiore, A.M., Park, J., 2007. Telepresence and fantasy in online apparel shopping experience. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 11 (4), 553–570. https://doi.org/
10.1108/13612020710824607.
Statista,, 2021. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) device ownership and purchase intent among consumers in the United States as of 1st quarter 2017, by
age group. Retrieved from. https://www.statista.com/statistics/740760/vr-ar-ownership-usa-age/.
Steuer, J., 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Retrieved from J. Commun. 42 (4), 73–93. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=psyh&AN=1995-97483-003&site=ehost-live.
Stubbs, A.T., 2020. What we need to know about virtual reality in retail. Retrieved from. https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/virtual-reality-retail/.
Suh, K.-S., Chang, S., 2006. User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: The role of telepresence. Behav. Inform. Technol. 25 (2), 99–113. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01449290500330398.
Tan, Y.-C., Chandukala, S.R., Reddy, S.K., 2021. Augmented Reality in Retail and Its Impact on Sales. J. Mark. 1–19 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242921995449.
TeenVogue,, 2018. Zara Introduces Augmented Reality Shopping App. Retrieved from. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/zara-augmented-reality-shopping-app.
Tsai, W.-H.-S., Tian, S.C., Chuan, C.-H., Li, C., 2020. Inspection or Play? A Study of How Augmented Reality Technology Can Be Utilized in Advertising. J. Interact.
Advert. 20 (3), 244–257. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1080/15252019.2020.1738292.
Verhagen, T., Vonkeman, C., Feldberg, F., Verhagen, P., 2014. Present it like it is here: Creating local presence to improve online product experiences. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 39, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.036.
Verhulst, I., Woods, A., Whittaker, L., Bennett, J., Dalton, P., 2021. Do VR and AR versions of an immersive cultural experience engender different user experiences?
Comput. Hum. Behav. 125, 106951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106951.
Wang, C.L., 2021. New frontiers and future directions in interactive marketing: Inaugural Editorial. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 15 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-
03-2021-270.
Wang, L.C., Baker, J., Wagner, J.A., Wakefield, K., 2007. Can a retail web site be social? J. Mark. 71, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.143.
Watson, A., Alexander, B., Salavati, L., 2020. The impact of experiential augmented reality applications on fashion purchase intention. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 48
(5), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2017-0117.
Wedel, M., Bigné, E., Zhang, J., 2020. Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing. Int. J. Res. Mark. 37 (3), 443–465. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.004.
William, L., 2022. Virtual reality vs. augmented reality-A comparison. MAP Systems. Retrieved from.
Williamson, D., 2020. Augmented reality in social media. eMarketer. Retrieved from https://www.emarketer.com/content/augmented-reality-in-social-media.
Wilson, K., Burgar, D., 2020. Despite limitations, 3D and AR are creating new realities in retail. Retrieved from. https://californianewstimes.com/despite-limitations-
3d-and-ar-are-creating-new-realities-in-retail-techcrunch/76574/.
Wojciechowski, R., Cellary, W., 2013. Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Comput. Educ. 68, 570–585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014.
Xi, N., Hamari, J., 2021. Shopping in virtual reality: A literature review and future agenda. J. Bus. Res. 134, 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.075.
Xue, L., Parker, C.J., Hart, C., 2020. How to design fashion retail’s virtual reality platforms. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 48 (10), 1057–1076.
Xue, L., Parker, C.J., Hart, C.A., 2022. How augmented reality can enhance fashion retail: a UX design perspective. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJRDM-09-2021-0435.
Yan, X., Li, T., Zhou, Y., 2022. Virtual reality’s influence on construction workers’ willing to participate in safety education and training in China. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 38 (2), 1-13. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001002.
Yim, M.-Y.-C., Chu, S.-C., Sauer, P.L., 2017. Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. J. Interact.
Mark. 39, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.04.001.
Yu, X., Xie, Z., Yu, Y., 2019. Skin-integrated wireless haptic interfaces for virtual and augmented reality. Nature 575, 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-
1687-0.
Zha, D., Melewar, T.C., Foroudi, P., Im, Z., 2020. An assessment of brand experience knowledge literature: using bibliometric data to identify future research
direction. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 22 (3), 287–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12226.
Yuen, S., Yaoyuneyong, G., Johnson, E., 2011. Augmented reality: An overview and five directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational Technology
Development and Exchange. 4 (1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0401.10.
Zha, D., Foroudi, P., Jin, Z., Melewar, T.C., 2021. Making sense of sensory brand experience: Constructing an integrative framework for future research. Int. J. Manag.
Rev. 1 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12270.
15

Immersive Interactive Technologies and Virtual Shopping Experiences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Immersive Interactive Technologies and Virtual Shopping Experiences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Telematics and Informatics 77 (2023) 101936

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics

Immersive interactive technologies and virtual shopping

Fig. 1. Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum ().

2.1. Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum

2.2. Stimulus-organism-response (S–O–R) framework

3.1. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)

3.2. Vividness/interactivity and a sense of presence

3.3. Factors influencing sensory brand app experience

3.4. Factors influencing attitude towards technology

3.5. Factors influencing behavioral intention

Fig. 2. Proposed conceptual model.

3.6. AR/VR moderating effects

4.1. AR experiment participants and procedure

4.2. VR experiment participants and procedure

5. Results and discussions

5.2. Preliminary analysis

5.3. Hypothesis testing

Vividness Vivid-vague 0.86 0.78

H1 Vividness → Sense of presence 16.110 9 1.612 1 ns

Fig. 3. Model comparisons.

H1 Vividness → Sense of presence 0.497*** 0.393*** Fully supported

6. Conclusions and implications

6.1. Theoretical contributions

6.2. Practical implications

6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Declaration of Competing Interest

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like

H1 Vividness → Sense of presence 0.497* 0.393* Fully supported