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

net/publication/364178850

Avatar personalisation vs. privacy in a virtual try-on app for apparel shopping

Article in International Journal of Fashion Design Technology and Education · October 2022
DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2022.2125589

CITATIONS READS

2 557

3 authors:

Alex Ivanov Yi Mou

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Shanghai Jiao Tong University
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,833 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 1,150 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Letwin Tawira
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
2 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Ivanov on 11 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20

Avatar personalisation vs. privacy in a virtual try-

on app for apparel shopping

Alex Ivanov, Yi Mou & Letwin Tawira

To cite this article: Alex Ivanov, Yi Mou & Letwin Tawira (2022): Avatar personalisation vs. privacy
in a virtual try-on app for apparel shopping, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology
and Education, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2022.2125589

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2022.2125589

Published online: 04 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2022.2125589

Avatar personalisation vs. privacy in a virtual try-on app for apparel shopping
Alex Ivanov , Yi Mou and Letwin Tawira
School of Media and Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Virtual try-on (VTO) apps are now used by many fashion consumers, but VTOs for the apparel Received 22 February 2022
category have met with resistance. This study examines privacy concern, body image and social Accepted 6 September 2022
value as antecedents to adoption intention towards an apparel VTO with two types of
KEYWORDS
photorealistic avatars. Twenty users first tried out the app in lab sessions, then 301 completed Virtual try-on; apparel retail;
an online survey with a video of the VTO. A majority of participants were concerned about privacy concern; fashion
potential misuse of their uploaded picture and preferred to use a pre-loaded avatar of a model consumer experience; body
with a similar body. This option explains why privacy concern had a weak negative impact on image
adoption intention in our model, albeit at the expense of self-presentation benefits. The trait of
privacy disposition best predicted consumer responses overall, yet other motives were also
revealed. Discussed are the implications of this study’s results and limitations to privacy calculus
research.

1. Introduction
Billions of selfies (or ‘snaps’) are taken every day using
augmented reality (AR) filters in the Snapchat multime-
dia messaging app (Accenture, 2022; Pierce, 2022). The
fashion industry has been particularly eager to adopt AR
technologies, and three-dimensional and hyper-realistic
clothing can now be ‘worn’ by your digital twin (Butler,
2022; Valmeo-Ogilvie, 2022). At the same time, one
more basic type of AR interface that has been researched
for 20 years is still struggling to get acceptance by
fashion consumers: the virtual try-on (VTO) app for
apparel shopping on mobile devices.
VTOs enable us to see how a fashion product would
look on our real selves without physically trying it on
(Kim & Forsythe, 2008). Many such apps have been
well adopted for virtually trying-out beauty items or
for in-store apparel shopping. Apparel VTOs for mobile
devices, however, have experienced lower user accep-
tance (Riar, Korbel, Xi, Zarnekow, & Hamari, 2021).
One reason is technological, as early prototypes disap-
pointed users with crude avatars (Li & Xu, 2020; Plot-
kina & Saurel, 2019). Yet, since the pandemic a new
generation of VTOs has been launched that offers a
much more accurate fit visualisation (Bhattarai, 2020;
Lee, Xu, & Porterfield, 2020). The Zeekit and Forma
apps available on the iOS store, for example, allow
users to mix and match thousands of tops and bottoms
on their photorealistic avatar, created in minutes based
on a picture taken with their smartphone (Forma
Technologies Inc., 2021; Zeekit, 2021). Users may then
proceed to purchase, save outfits on a wish-list, or
share their new ‘look’ on social media.
Another reason for the lukewarm responses towards
apparel VTOs is related to body image. Some shoppers
prefer to see garments displayed on professional models
rather than on their own ‘unflattering’ selves (Yang &
Xiong, 2019), and many others are concerned about
the privacy risk inherent in using AR mobile apps (Har-
borth & Pape, 2021). But the Zeekit VTO may have
solved this problem, as well, as it offers two avatar
options. In addition to the high-personalisation option
mentioned above, a semi-personalised yet fully anon-
ymous option lets users choose from almost 200 pre-
loaded avatars of non-professional models with various
body types and sizes.
Avatar personalisation in online apparel shopping
has already been researched with a theoretical perspec-
tive (e.g. Suh, Kim, & Suh, 2011) and a technological one
(e.g. Liu et al., 2020). Yet very few scholars have exam-
ined photorealistic visualisation of the tried-on clothing
in terms of privacy concern. Those who did so have
focused either on cosmetics or accessories VTOs, or
on hedonic use of AR in social media (Cowan, Javornik,
& Jiang, 2021; Smink, van Reijmersdal, van Noort, &
Neijens, 2020). Several studies (Merle, Senecal, & St-
Onge, 2012; Zhang, Wang, Cao, & Wang, 2019) tested
a research model for online apparel retailing, but not
in mobile or highly personalised contexts. Ours is the

CONTACT Yi Mou yimou@sjtu.edu.cn

© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2022
2 A. IVANOV ET AL.
first study to examine how privacy concern and body
image factors influence user acceptance of an interface
with two modes of personalisation and/or privacy. We
also contribute to the field by adding a social value con-
struct that can be instantiated with these new apparel
VTOs.
The specific focus on apparel can be conceptually and
socially justified. Context-specific privacy studies are
scarce (Xu, Dinev, Smith, & Hart, 2011) yet necessary
for engineering domain-tailored solutions (Cheah,
Lim, Ting, Liu, & Quach, 2020). Apparel is also the lar-
gest retail category worldwide, and better adoption of
VTOs could curb the economically and environmen-
tally-wasteful process of returned clothing (Cullinane,
Browne, Karlsson, & Wang, 2019). Improved accep-
tance of VTOs could also inspire less fashion conscious
consumers to experiment more with their appearance
and thus enhance their self-esteem.
For this research we adopted a lens for investigating
partially known-phenomena (Stebbins, 2001), starting
with an exploratory phase to inform our hypotheses
development and research design. This pilot study is
described in the next section, after a brief review of
VTO literature. We then present the theoretical frame-
work and hypotheses, followed by the methods used for
the online survey with a video stimulus. The section
after that presents the quantitative results from the
structural equation model as well as descriptive statistics
and qualitative data. The paper ends with theoretical
and practical implications, limitations, and
recommendations.
2. Related work
2.1. Virtual try-on
The VTO stream of research began more than twenty
years ago; early prototypes were desktop interfaces
with computer-generated avatars offering limited perso-
nalisation. In Merle et al. (2012), for example, users
could modify the avatar’s body shape and skin colour
and upload an image of their head. In other studies ava-
tars could be also rotated 360° to display fit from differ-
ent angles (Fiore & Jin, 2003), yet it is debatable whether
the VTOs in that generation offered AR. AR is different
from virtual reality (VR), of course, in that the environ-
ment in VR is computer-generated, whereas AR super-
imposes digital content onto consumers’ real-world
(Javornik, 2016). Researchers have leaned towards
studying apps that work like a virtual mirror, such as
the Sephora VTO (Scholz & Duffy, 2018), as the ‘live
AR’ experience that these VTOs offer, is still unavailable
in Zeekit and Forma. This is a serious limitation but has
less bearing on the purpose of our investigation. A per-
sonalised still picture can be good enough to assess fit,
and it provides all the identifiability associated with
privacy concern.
2.2. Pilot study
20 female undergraduates from a major university in
China were recruited for the pilot study, consisting of
45-minute individual lab sessions. Participants first
changed into tight-fitting clothing and took their
photo using an iPad Mini. The researchers then
uploaded the photos to the Zeekit VTO installed on
the tablet for avatar processing, and instructed partici-
pants how to use the app. Participants were given 15
min to browse, virtually try-on and select an outfit for
a hypothetical date. The VTOs option of using the
pre-loaded avatar was demonstrated next. (From hereon
we shall refer to the two avatar options as SelfAvt and
OtherAvt.) The final phase was a semi-structured inter-
view lasting ten to 15 min. Based on a thematic analysis
of the transcripts (Peterson, 2017), we reached the fol-
lowing conclusions about VTO use, with representative
quotes:
. Of the 20, 11 participants had no privacy issues and
would definitely use SelfAvt. ‘Of course I prefer my
own photo. I am buying the clothes for me so I
have to try them on my body’. ‘I like using my
photo. It will be more real and accurate. If the
photo is private, why not?’
. Of the 20, 5 participants did have privacy concerns
and would therefore use OtherAvt. ‘I would use my
own photo because even though body measure-
ments may be the same, details like hair style and
skin colour may not be. But because of privacy, I
would use a model’. ‘I’m not worried about the
body. I am worried about my face because it is
exposed’.
. Of the 20, 4 participants would also choose OtherAvt
but for non-privacy reasons. ‘Looking at my photo on
the app I look fat. Maybe I will use a model’. ‘Her
photo is better than mine so I will use the model
for better output choices’. ‘It takes less time than to
take my picture. I can find a model with similar
body size’.
All participants reported the app to be useful and
easy to use, but most expressed doubts of actually adopt-
ing it. Some disliked the clothing Zeekit offered and
others were already satisfied with Chinese mobile shop-
ping apps, such as Taobao. Most participants expressed
having enjoyed the VTO’s Zeekit’s mix & match feature.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION
2.3. Conceptual background
The research model for the main study draws on the-
ories of technology acceptance (Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003) and behaviour calculus (Laufer
& Wolfe, 1977). Both frameworks posit consumer
decision-making as a calculus, or a trade-off between
two higher-order constructs: Perceived Benefits and
Perceived Costs. Benefits and costs in using a VTO
were recently examined by Lee and Xu (2022); ours
focuses on costs relating to privacy and benefits from
perceived social value.
Note, as well, that behavioural intention in studies of
technology acceptance typically measures system adop-
tion or purchase intention, while in privacy calculus
studies (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999) intention is the
willingness to disclose personal information, also called
self-disclosure. Users weigh perceived benefits (e.g. cus-
tomised products, discounts, etc.) from such self-dis-
closure against perceived costs (e.g. spam email,
identify theft, etc.). If they arrive at an estimate that
costs outweigh the benefits, users are more likely to
maintain the status quo rather than adopt an innovation
(Dinev & Hart, 2006).
Figure 1 presents the key relationships and constructs
(with greyed-out ovals showing constructs in our model).
Omitted are Perceived Ease of Use and Enjoyment, as
these constructs capture process perceptions and ought
to be measured from actual use of a technology.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Usefulness and social value
The functional value provided to consumers is the key
determinant of technology adoption in general, and
VTOs in particular are no exception (Lee & Xu, 2022).
VTOs allow consumers to virtually try out a large num-
ber of fashion items in a short time and at any place for
the purpose of assessing apparel size and fit.
Such utilitarian value is traditionally measured by
perceived usefulness (USE), or the degree to which a
user believes a technology will help them with reaching
goals (Venkatesh et al., 2003). USE has already posi-
tively impacted adoption intention of VTOs in several
studies (Huang & Qin, 2011; Lee et al., 2020); confi-
rming this relationship will serve as a benchmark for
the strength of our hypotheses to follow. Hence we
hypothesise:
H1. Perceived usefulness will have a strong positive
influence on adoption intention.
Fashion consumer journeys are not only about fulfil-
ment of pre-planned shopping goals; they include
3
spontaneous exploration to see new products and inno-
vations (J. Kang & Park-Poaps, 2011). Apparel VTOs
may not be in a position to approximate the shared
hedonism in offline retail, but they do offer social
value (SV) defined by Sweeney and Soutar (2001,
p. 211) as ‘the utility derived from the product’s ability
to enhance social self-concept’.
Similar value from using in-store or desktop VTOs
has already been shown by J.-Y. M. Kang (2014) and
Zhang et al. (2019) to positively impact perceived use-
fulness. To operationalise SV for our mobile context,
we turn to the self-presentation and impression man-
agement benefits derived by social media users, as
they regulate their personal image in the eyes of others
via selfies, videos, and likes (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011).
We suggest that the ability to easily generate share-able
previews of oneself wearing trendy clothing will be per-
ceived as useful by mobile shoppers of apparel, and thus
hypothesise:
H2. Social value will positively influence perceived
usefulness.
3.2. Privacy concern
Perceived Costs come in several varieties, as shown in
Figure 1. Primary in technology acceptance studies is
the effort users expect to exert in using the IT artefact
(i.e. perceived ease of use), but e-commerce also intro-
duces the risk of making a wrong assessment of product
fit. Our scope here is limited to privacy risk or the risk of
opportunistic behaviour of a third party with access to
the disclosed personal information (Xu et al., 2011). If
negative consequences of privacy loss matter to users,
perceived risk becomes privacy concern (PC), which is
defined as ‘the degree to which an Internet user is con-
cerned about web site practices related to the collection
and use of his or her personal information’ (Hong &
Thong, 2013, p. 276).
Users are especially concerned when a technology
requires access to their highly identifiable personal
information, which includes their own photo (Mar-
kos, Labrecque, & Milne, 2018). For the most part,
however, it is the context that determines PC. Partici-
pants in Feng and Xie (2019) were concerned about
usage of their photos, but offering them more control
over the app’s privacy settings lowered their perceived
intrusiveness. Also perceived as intrusive was the
requesting of camera access in Smink et al. (2020)
yet this had no negative effect on their willingness
to allow it.
No study has been conducted on VTOs requesting
access to a camera for capturing a full-body image of
4 A. IVANOV ET AL.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
the user, much less one wearing tight-fitting clothing.
Yet for users that bypass such self-disclosure we
expect reports of privacy concern to have only a
weak negative influence on adoption. Overall, we
hypothesise:
H3. Privacy concern will have a weak negative influence
on adoption intention.
With respect to PC’s effect on SV, however, we expect
a stronger negative effect. Not only would more private
users be less inclined to share their avatars, they would
be more likely to opt for OtherAvt, which would neu-
tralise the potential for such value. Hence the
hypothesis:
H4. Privacy concern will negatively influence social value.
3.3. Disposition to privacy and body esteem
Several studies examined the effects of individual traits
on VTO use. For instance, according to (Li & Xu,
2020), adoption intention is facilitated by higher levels
of fashion leadership and hedonic orientation. Given
the body-centric lens of our investigation, we focus
on disposition to value privacy (DP) and body esteem
(BE).
DP is defined as ‘the individual’s need to shelter one’s
personal space or prohibit the disclosure of one’s private
information to others (Xu et al., 2011). Consumers with
higher DP believe companies collect too much of their
personal data for unspecified purposes (Liu, Wang, &
Liu, 2019). Keith, Babb, Furner, Abdullat, and Lowry
(2016) found that general online privacy concerns
(akin to DP) influenced the ad-hoc, context-specific
assessment of privacy risk from a mobile shopping
task (akin to PC). No such study has been conducted
on apparel VTOs, which leads to the following
hypothesis:
H5. Disposition to value privacy will positively influ-
ence privacy concern.
Finally, we examine the effects of body esteem (BE)
on two of the mediators to adoption. Fashion consu-
mers often assess their appearance relative to other
consumers, or to other models (Rosa, Garbarino, &
Malter, 2006), yet only one study examined BE in
apparel VTO use. This was Merle et al. (2012), who
found BE positively influenced confidence with apparel
fit. We also refer to Fan, Jiang, Deng, Dong, and Lin
(2021), who found higher BE users to be more comfor-
table with uploading their selfies to social media than
lower BE counterparts, and state our final two
hypotheses:
H6. Body esteem will negatively influence privacy
concern.
H7. Body esteem will positively influence social value.
The seven hypotheses, summarised in Figure 2, were
tested with a structural equation model of responses
from an online survey. The survey also yielded descrip-
tive statistics and qualitative data that allowed us to
determine which constructs predicted preferences for
avatar personalisation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION
Figure 2. Proposed research model.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
Our population consisted of consumers from the Gen-
eration Z demographic cohort, the most active mobile
shoppers of apparel (Shahbandeh, 2021). Participants
were recruited via the WJX.cn platform in China and
compensated the equivalent of six US dollars for com-
pleting our survey. They had to be between 18 and 25
years of age, not to have used a VTO before, and to
have bought clothes online in the past year. We received
301 valid responses for analysis.
4.2. Stimulus
The video stimulus embedded in the survey was
produced with content from the Zeekit website
(http://zeekit.me) and screenshots generated in our
pilot sessions (with permission from participants).
As shown in Figure 3, emphasised were the mix &
match feature, avatar-creation process, social value
based on posting outfits on social media, and the two
avatar personalisation/privacy options. The 40-second
Figure 3. Summary of the video stimulus.
5
video is described in Figure 3 and can also be viewed
at: https://youtu.be/MeXVQiBQ3xM.
4.3. Measures
As shown in Table 1, scales were adapted from prior lit-
erature for all constructs except privacy concern, which
was developed for this study. Based on several com-
ments from the pilot, we included an indicator referring
to privacy concern with respect to one’s face. All indi-
cators were measured on a seven-point Likert scale.
Participants first rated their body esteem and disposi-
tion to value privacy, then proceeded to the video stimu-
lus. Only after it played in its entirety did they continue
with the survey, rating adoption intention, perceived use-
fulness, privacy concern, and social value, before being
required to state their preference for either the SelfAvt
or OtherAvt option. The final question was open-
ended, asking for the reasons behind their choice.
5. Results
5.1. The measurement model
Cronbach’s alphas (α) shown in Table 1 are all above
.75, confirming reliability standards (Nunnally, 1978).
Table 2 shows that the average variance extracted
(AVE) of all constructs is above .50, confirming discri-
minant validity (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). The
fit indices of the measurement model are satisfactory,
based on Hu and Bentler (1999): χ2/df = 2.832, p
< .001; TLI = .920 (>.90); IFI = .936 (>.90); CFI = .936
(>.90); and RMSEA = .061 (<.08).
5.2. Structural model results
The structural model’s fit was tested with AMOS and
is also satisfactory (Hu & Bentler, 1999): χ2/df = 1.43,
6 A. IVANOV ET AL.

Table 1. Items and measurement model assessment.

Construct Source Items Loading α CR AVE
Body esteem (BE) Heatherton and Polivy (1991); Merle et al. (2012) Right now I feel satisfied with my body size and .89 .86 .92 .78
shape.
I am pleased with my appearance right now. .84
I feel satisfied with the way my body looks right .93
now.
Disposition to value Xu et al. (2011) It is most important for me to keep my online .87 .71 .87 .77
privacy (DP) privacy.
I am very cautious about posting selfies to social .86
media.
Compared to others, I tend to be more concerned .88
about threats to my privacy.
Adoption intention Lee et al. (2020); Venkatesh et al. (2003) When it is available I will download this app. .85 .76 .86 .67
(INT)
I intend to try this app for my clothes shopping. .80
I would recommend such an app to my friends and .82
family.
Perceived usefulness Plotkina and Saurel (2019); Venkatesh et al. The app is useful for trying-out clothes online. .83 .73 .85 .65
(USE) (2003)
The app would help me decide what clothes to .77
buy.
It would make my shopping for clothes more .82
effective.
Privacy concern (PC) Modified from Hong and Thong (2013) for the I’d worry that my personal information provided to .85 .85 .85 .68
photorealistic VTO context this app might be misused.
I’d be concerned about how private my uploaded .81
picture would be.
I will not feel comfortable uploading a picture of .84
my body to such an app.
I will not feel comfortable uploading a picture of .81
my face to such an app.
Social value (SV) J.-Y. M. Kang (2014) and Sweeney and Soutar Using the app would make a good impression on .86 .86 .91 .78
(2001) other people.
Using the app would improve my personal .90
relationships.
Using such an app would bring me social approval. .88

p = .22; TLI = .988 (>.90), IFI = .997 (>.90), CFI = .997 concern (PC) (β = .36, p < .001). H6, however, was
(>.90); RMSEA = .029 (<.08). rejected, as the path from body esteem (BE) to PC was
As shown in Figure 4, all hypotheses except H6 were non-significant. BE did have a significant positive influ-
supported. Not surprisingly the strongest correlation ence on SV, confirming H7 (β = 18, p < .001).
was that of perceived usefulness (USE) to adoption
intention (INT) (β = .68, p < .001). Also confirmed was
the hypotheses that USE would be significantly
influenced by social value (SV) (β = .36, p < .001). As 5.3. Descriptive statistics
for the effects of privacy concern, these were both nega- Of all 301 respondents, 75 (25%) chose SelfAvt vs. 226
tive towards INT and SV as hypothesised (β = –.09, p (75%) choosing OtherAvt. This three-to-one split indi-
< .05 and β = –.18, p < .001, respectively). PC negatively cates that the majority of our population prefer
influences INT indirectly via social value and perceived OtherAvt.
usefulness. These results differ from Huang and Qin We also compared construct means between SelfAvt
(2011) where perceived risk from a VTO neutralised and OtherAvt groups, as shown in Table 3. Participants
perceived benefits. Also confirmed was H5: disposition who chose OtherAvt had significantly higher DP and PC
to value privacy (DP) significantly influenced privacy scores than the SelfAvt group; the inverse was the case
for USE, SV, and INT. The groups did not significantly
Table 2. AVE values and squared correlations. differ in terms of BE.
BE DP INT PC SV USE Figure 5 also shows the variance of these means for
BE 0.88 the whole sample. The lower PC relative to USE and
DP −0.01 0.88 INT, alongside PC’s small effect sizes in the structural
INT 0.06 0.17 0.82
PC −0.04 0.34 −0.11 0.82
model, suggests that the privacy calculus of participants
SV 0.18 0.12 0.32 −0.13 0.88 favours perceived benefits over perceived costs from
USE 0.05 0.25 0.70 −0.03 0.35 0.81 privacy risk.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 7

Figure 4. Structural model results (**p < .05, ***p < .001).

In the open-ended question, we managed to extract

meaning from answers of 192 respondents. About
10% of responses included more than one motive, in
which case we counted the first one expressed. Motives Figure 5. Boxplot of construct means (n = 301).
behind SelfAvt preferences naturally revolved around
the realism of using one’s own picture, in line with the . OtherAvt Convenience: Just under 10 per cent pre-
pilot study. OtherAvt motives were less homogenous, fer to use a pre-loaded avatar due to the hassle in
yet also corroborated the sentiment of pilot participants, taking their own picture, worries if they are doing
with privacy being the main reasons to choose a pre- it correctly, etc.
loaded avatar. Seventeen per cent of participants cited
non-privacy reasons: more convenience or better
6. Discussion
image quality with the pre-loaded avatar. Exact figures
are given in Table 4. 6.1. Privacy vs. personalisation in apparel VTO
In sum, the preference split as and the motives in the use
larger sample echo those in the pilot sample, and the
The current study’s primary objective was to examine
findings can be summarised as follows:pt
the effects of privacy concern among Chinese females
.
between the ages of 18 and 25 towards using an apparel
SelfAvt Realism: about one-quarter of consumers
VTO with photorealistic avatars. In-depth interviews
prefer to use their own image as avatar; they find
were first conducted based on actual usage of such a
this more realistic and have no privacy concern.
.
VTO (the Zeekit app on iOS) by 20 participants, who
OtherAvt Privacy: Just over half of consumers would
took their own picture wearing tight-fitting clothing in
ideally use their own avatar, but choose not to due to
our lab prior to the task. We then produced a short
privacy concern.
.
video describing the key functionality of the VTO and
OtherAvt Body image: Just under 10% prefer to use
showed it to 301 participants with a similar demo-
a pre-loaded avatar as they expect better visualisation
graphic in an online survey. A structural equation
from the studio photography images or because they
model was used to test several hypotheses, and we also
believe the models’ bodies look better than their own.
looked at the descriptive statistics and qualitative data.
Concluded was that a marked majority of our popu-
Table 3. Construct means based on avatar preference. lation is concerned about potential misuse of an
Means for groups uploaded full-body picture of themselves, to the point
SelfAvt OtherAvt t- p-
Constructs (n = 75) (n = 226) Value Value
Privacy concern (PC) 4.43 5.40 −6.53 <.001 Table 4. Results from the open-ended question.
Privacy disposition (DP) 5.40 5.90 −4.30 <.001 Avatar choice & motive # of 192 %
Adoption intention 6.08 5.73 3.27 .001
(INT) SelfAvt Realism 49 26
Usefulness (USE) 6.10 5.79 2.86 .004 OtherAvt Privacy 110 57
Social value (SV) 4.33 3.87 2.85 .005 OtherAvt Body image 15 8
Body esteem (BE) 4.64 4.31 2.00 .047 OtherAvt Convenience 18 9
8 A. IVANOV ET AL.
that they prefer to use one of the VTO’s pre-loaded ava-
tars. A minority of consumers would make the same
choice for reasons other than privacy, discussed in the
next section.
We further conclude that privacy concern has a weak
direct negative impact on adoption intention towards a
VTO, as long as an anonymous option providing some
personalisation is available. In other words, Zeekit’s
OtherAvt feature appears to have neutralised the con-
cern of individuals particularly predisposed to value
privacy. It is less clear, however, to what extent their
choice to use a semi-personalised avatar diminishes
the benefits they would derive from a highly personal-
ised avatar, had privacy not been an issue. Social value
would certainly be sacrificed, since self-presentation is
obviously tied to one’s own picture. We found that for
a sizeable portion of consumers the VTOs basic useful-
ness is not compromised by the OtherAvt feature, as
long as they can use avatars of similar body type and
size. It is up to a future study, however, to accurately
determine adoption intention towards VTO with only
one level of personalisation.
6.2. Social value and body image in VTO
acceptance
Our research model confirmed the strong influence of
perceived usefulness (USE) on adoption intention and
a medium effect from social value (SV) to USE. We
had conceptualised SV as self-presentation benefits
that consumers derive from using an apparel VTO.
We urge fashion scholars to include such a construct
in their models. Our SV findings also have practical
implications in that VTO adoption could be increased
if consumers are made aware of how easy it is to impress
friends on social media with apps like Zeekit and Forma.
Based on the hypotheses testing and descriptive stat-
istics we conclude that body esteem (BE) does not play a
key role in determining privacy concern or avatar pre-
ference in apparel VTO use. These findings are odds
with studies like Merle et al. (2012), but not all research
reported positive effects from BE. Yim and Park (2019),
for instance, found users with lower BE had stronger
preferences for an eyewear AR feature than higher BE
users. Perhaps lower body esteem allows consumers to
be impressed with their ‘augmented new body’, unlike
users higher on BE that may be habituated to favourable
social comparison.
Body esteem did have a significant positive influence
on social value, however, and body image as a general
notion does play a role in avatar preference. Many people
confident with their bodies may at the same time be self-
conscious as to how they come out in pictures. Such
concern was mentioned by several participants, although
not reflected in any of the BE indicators in the model. We
therefore recommend future research to test a formative
version of BE including this dimension, which appears
relevant for AR contexts.
We also recommend VTO technology acceptance
scholars to include effort expectancy with respect to ava-
tar creation. As for AR developers, we urge them to pay
more attention to the image-capture phase in apparel
VTOs, and to make sure the selection of pre-loaded ava-
tars represents most body types of target users.
Finally, as Li and Xu (2020) have pointed out, it may
be a long-term journey for VTOs to be accepted as an
alternative solution to the physical fitting room. But
even now apps like Zeekit could revolutionise the
mobile shopping experience for socially-connected
and avid apparel shoppers who are glued to their smart-
phone. As for consumers with a high disposition to
value privacy, even using a VTO without an anonymous
avatar option (like the Forma VTO) is not impossible, if
the app was part of a retail or fashion brand that these
consumers already trust. As a matter of fact, while we
were conducting this research, the Zeekit company
was acquired by the retailing giant Walmart, and
Forma sold its VTO technology to Snap, Inc.
6.3. Limitations and implications for privacy
calculus research
A number of limitations are inevitable in studies such as
this one. A noteworthy methodological limitation is our
single-factor research design: one stimulus describing
two different scenarios of personalisation/privacy. Our
initial plan was for a between-subjects experiment
with two conditions, but a pre-test of the video treat-
ments failed to induce differences in the constructs.
Hence our decision to test the model with one con-
dition. We strongly recommend, however, that future
researchers aim for maximum variation between treat-
ments of video interventions.
Also of note are the challenges with ensuring internal
validity in privacy calculus studies. When contrary
beliefs and many unknowns are involved people tend
to rely on decision-making heuristics which favour the
strength of one belief and override the other (Culnan
& Armstrong, 1999). A user might have stated that
due to privacy concerns he or she would never use an
app but would actually do so when faced with compel-
ling benefits (Kokolakis, 2017). Privacy assurances may
also backfire, as discovered by Wang, Duong, and Chen
(2016) when higher levels of privacy control activated
users’ awareness of the probability of intrusion. It is
therefore difficult to make conclusions with regards to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION
what kind of privacy calculus VTO users undergo, but
from the results and discussion so far it is clear there
is great variety in this process.
Overall, the study appears to confirm early e-com-
merce findings by Chellappa and Sin (2005) that quan-
tified value of personalised services outweighs the
quantified loss of privacy, yet consider how different
mobile shopping contexts are to those twenty years
ago. Depending on the consumer segment and culture,
it could be that concern about face-related identify theft
alone would preclude any consideration of VTO use.
Several of our pilot users stated such concerns, although
they were not corroborated by the online survey respon-
dents, nor did mean scores of the privacy concern indi-
cator referring to one’s face differ significantly from the
one referring to one’s body. We would urge VTO
researchers to investigate this further.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Alex Ivanov http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7119-4880
References
Accenture. (2022). Why the Future of Shopping is Social. Apple
Podcast. https://podcasts.apple.com/bg/podcast/built-for-
change/id1561378348?i=1000568087906
Bhattarai, A. (2020, July 9). Virtual try-ons are replacing
fitting rooms during the pandemic. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/09/
virtual-try-ons-are-replacing-fitting-rooms-during-
pandemic/
Butler, S. (2022, July 16). Buy now, try later: online clothing
sales boom raises qualms over returns. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jul/16/buy-
now-try-later-online-clothing-sales-boom-raises-qualms-
over-returns
Cheah, J.-H., Lim, X.-J., Ting, H., Liu, Y., & Quach, S. (2020).
Are privacy concerns still relevant? Revisiting consumer
behaviour in omnichannel retailing. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102242
Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus
Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online
Consumer’s Dilemma. Information Technology and
Management, 6(2–3), 181–202. doi:10.1007/s10799-005-
5879-y
Cowan, K., Javornik, A., & Jiang, P. (2021). Privacy concerns
when using augmented reality face filters? Explaining why
and when use avoidance occurs. Psychology & Marketing,
38(10). doi:10.1002/mar.21576
Cullinane, S., Browne, M., Karlsson, E., & Wang, Y. (2019).
Retail clothing returns: A review of key issues. In P.
9
Wells (Ed.), Contemporary operations and logistics (pp.
301–322). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy
concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An
empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–
115. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.104
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus
model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems
Research, 17(1), 61–80. doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0080
Fan, X., Jiang, X., Deng, N., Dong, X., & Lin, Y. (2021). Does
role conflict influence discontinuous usage intentions?
Privacy concerns, social media fatigue and self-esteem.
Information Technology & People, 34(3), 1152–1174.
doi:10.1108/ITP-08-2019-0416
Feng, Y., & Xie, Q. (2019). Privacy concerns, perceived intru-
siveness, and privacy controls: An analysis of virtual try-on
apps. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 43–57.
doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1521317
Fiore, A. M., & Jin, H. (2003). Influence of image interactivity
on approach responses towards an online retailer. Internet
Research, 13(1). doi:10.1108/10662240310458369
Forma Technologies Inc. (2021). Forma closet virtual try-on
(1.1.98). Cupertino, CA: Apple App Store. https://apps.
apple.com/ca/app/forma-closet/id1354631684
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM:
Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 139–152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Harborth, D., & Pape, S. (2021). Investigating privacy con-
cerns related to mobile augmented reality Apps – A vign-
ette based online experiment. Computers in Human
Behavior, 122. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106833
Heatherton, T., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and vali-
dation of a scale for measuring state self- esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.
Hong, W., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2013). Internet privacy concerns:
An integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies.
MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 275–298. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/
37.1.12
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Huang, N., & Qin, G. (2011). A study of online virtual fitting
room adoption based on UTAUT. 2011 International
Conference on E-Business and E-Government, ICEE2011 -
Proceedings (pp. 1002–1005). doi:10.1109/ICEBEG.2011.
5881681
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, 32
(9–10), 987–1011. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1174726
Kang, J.-Y. M. (2014). Augmented reality and motion capture
apparel e-shopping values and usage intention.
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology,
26(6). doi:10.1108/IJCST-05-2013-0055
Kang, J., & Park-Poaps, H. (2011). Motivational antecedents
of social shopping for fashion and its contribution to shop-
ping satisfaction. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29
(4), 331–347. doi:10.1177/0887302X11422443
Keith, M., Babb, J., Furner, C., Abdullat, A., & Lowry, P.
(2016). Limited information and quick decisions:
 10 A. IVANOV ET AL.
Consumer privacy calculus for mobile applications. AIS
Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(3), 88–
130. doi:10.17705/1thci.00081
Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008). Adoption of virtual try-on tech-
nology for online apparel shopping. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 22(2), 45–59. doi:10.1002/dir.20113
Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour:
A review of current research on the privacy paradox
phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64. doi:10.1016/j.
cose.2015.07.002
Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a
social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory.
Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 22–42. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1977.tb01880.x
Lee, H., & Xu, Y. (2022). Influence of motivational orien-
tations on consumers’ adoption of virtual fitting rooms
(VFRs): Moderating effects of fashion leadership and tech-
nology visibility. International Journal of Fashion Design,
Technology and Education, 1–11. doi:10.1080/17543266.
2022.2048423
Lee, H., Xu, Y., & Porterfield, A. (2020). Consumers’ adoption
of AR-based virtual fitting rooms: From the perspective of
theory of interactive media effects. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2019-
0092
Li, A., & Xu, Y. (2020). A study of Chinese consumers’
adoption behaviour toward virtual fitting rooms.
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, 13(2), 140–149. doi:10.1080/17543266.2020.
1758798
Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Xu, S., Cheng, K., Masuko, S., & Tanaka, J.
(2020). Comparing VR- and AR-based try-on systems
using personalized avatars. Electronics, 9(11). doi:10.3390/
electronics9111814
Liu, Z., Wang, X., & Liu, J. (2019). How digital natives make
their self-disclosure decisions: a cross-cultural comparison.
Information Technology & People, 32(3), doi:10.1108/ITP-
10-2017-0339
Markos, E., Labrecque, L. I., & Milne, G. R. (2018). A new
information lens: the self-concept and exchange context
as a means to understand information sensitivity of anon-
ymous and personal identifying information. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 42, 46–62. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.
2018.01.004
Merle, A., Senecal, S., & St-Onge, A. (2012). Whether and
how virtual try-on influences consumer responses to an
apparel web site. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 16(3), 41–64. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-
4415160302
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, B. L. (2017). Thematic analysis/interpretive the-
matic analysis. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, R. F. Potter
(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication
research methods (pp. 1–9). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.
1002/9781118901731.iecrm0249
Pierce, D. (2022, April 28). Snapchat’s dress up feature turns
your phone into an AR shopping mall. The Verge. https://
www.theverge.com/2022/4/28/23046385/snap-dress-up-ar-
shopping
Plotkina, D., & Saurel, H. (2019). Me or just like me? The role
of virtual try-on and physical appearance in apparel M-
View publication stats
retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51,
362–377. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.07.002
Riar, M., Korbel, J. J., Xi, N., Zarnekow, R., & Hamari, J.
(2021). The use of augmented reality in retail: A review of
literature. doi:10.24251/HICSS.2021.078
Rosa, J. A., Garbarino, E. C., & Malter, A. J. (2006). Keeping
the body in mind: The influence of body esteem and
body boundary aberration on consumer beliefs and pur-
chase intentions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1).
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_10
Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression man-
agement: Personality traits and concerns for secondary
goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on
Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
17(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x
Scholz, J., & Duffy, K. (2018). We are at home: How augmen-
ted reality reshapes mobile marketing and consumer-brand
relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
44(June), 11–23. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.05.004
Shahbandeh, M. (2021). Global apparel market - statistics &
facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/5091/apparel-market-
worldwide/
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. Journal of Business Research, 118.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.018
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Suh, K.-S., Kim, H., & Suh, E. K. (2011). What if your avatar
looks like you? Dual-congruity perspectives for avatar use.
MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 711–729.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value:
The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing,
77(2), 203–220. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0
Valmeo-Ogilvie, N. (2022, July 9). Augmented reality:
Fashion’s newest frontier. ENVI. https://www.envimedia.
co/augmented-reality-fashions-newest-frontier/
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003).
User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified
view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. doi:10.2307/30036540
Wang, T., Duong, T. D., & Chen, C. C. (2016). Intention to
disclose personal information via mobile applications: A
privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of
Information Management, 36(4), 531–542. doi:10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2016.03.003
Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. (2011). Information
privacy concerns: Linking individual perceptions with
institutional privacy assurances. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 12(12). doi:10.17705/1jais.00281
Yang, S., & Xiong, G. (2019). Try it on! Contingency effects of
virtual fitting rooms. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 36(3), 789–822. doi:10.1080/07421222.2019.1628894
Yim, M. Y.-C., & Park, S.-Y. (2019). I am not satisfied with my
body, so I like augmented reality (AR). Journal of Business
Research, 100, 581–589. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.041
Zeekit. (2021). Zeekit Virtual try-on (No. 2). Cupertino, CA:
Apple App Store. https://zeekit.me
Zhang, T., Wang, W. Y. C., Cao, L., & Wang, Y. (2019). The
role of virtual try-on technology in online purchase
decision from consumers’ aspect. Internet Research, 29(3).
doi:10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0540