Received: 21 September 2022 Revised: 19 June 2023 Accepted: 3 July 2023

DOI: 10.1002/cb.2226

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Understanding consumers' purchase intention in virtual reality

commerce environment

Kuo-Lun Hsiao | Kuan-Yu Lin

Department of Information Management,

National Taichung University of Science and
Technology, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
Correspondence
Kuan-Yu Lin, Department of Information
Management, National Taichung University of
Science and Technology, No. 129, Sec. 3, San-
Min Road, Taichung, 404, Taiwan, ROC.
Email: ntustmislab@gmail.com
Funding information
Ministry of Science and Technology: project
number MOST-109-2410-H-275-005.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) has developed rapidly and drawn the attention of businesses. E-
commerce practitioners have used VR to improve business performance and satisfy
consumers' needs by enhancing the shopping experience and increasing purchase
intention. To explore the effects of VR shopping platforms on purchase intention, this
study developed a theoretical framework on the basis of task–technology fit. The
framework comprises technological characteristics and user needs (intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation) and can be used to investigate perceived needs–technology fit
and identify factors affecting intention to purchase on VR platforms. This study dis-
tributed an online questionnaire and received 336 responses. Analysis was per-
formed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. The results
suggested that purchase intention is stronger when perceived needs–technology fit
is closer. Hedonic needs play a vital role in perceived needs–technology fit. In terms
of technological characteristics, relative advantage, and service compatibility strongly
affect perceived needs–technology fit. In addition, feelings of spatial presence, a key
component of VR, positively affect relative advantage, service compatibility, and trial-
ability and negatively affect complexity. The implications of the findings are also
discussed.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N immersiveness, facilitated by VR, can help drive customer engagement

As information technology and the infrastructure for network commu-
nications have developed, technology such as computers and mobile
phones have become pervasive. In addition to esthetics and function-
ality, consumers desire their technology to offer immersiveness (e.
g., virtual reality [VR]; Preface, 2023; Scalefast, 2022). Consequently,
businesses have begun to offer VR experiences (Wei et al., 2019) to
attract customers (Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019). A survey conducted
by Omdia (2021) estimated that the VR market would increase from
US$6.4 billion in 2021 to US$16 billion by 2026, a 148% increase,
which indicates the potential of VR applications.
Amid this evolution, retail businesses are introducing new tech-
nologies to their operational models. For example, physical stores
have transitioned to online stores (offline to online) to increase pur-
chase intention and revenue (Lin et al., 2022; MIC, 2022a; Trivedi
et al., 2022). Brand owners and retail businesses have realized that
and affect purchase behaviors; thus, they have embraced VR-based
commerce and shopping (Lim et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2023; Martínez-
Navarro et al., 2019; Preface, 2023; Scalefast, 2022). VR has provided
new online shopping experiences (Ecommerceguide, 2022; Scalefast,
2022), particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and closed the
gap between conventional stores and online shopping by offering
immersiveness, which has increased customer engagement and
benefitted corporations (Lim, 2023; Lim et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2023).
Retail businesses such as Walmart, Macy's, eBay, Ikea, and Nike are
increasingly adopting VR (MIC, 2022b; Preface, 2023; Scalefast,
2022). VR has also affected industrial development; commercial ser-
vice providers have employed VR to increase operational effective-
ness and meet consumers' needs (Preface, 2023; Scalefast, 2022;
Synoptek, 2018). In addition, VR has led to innovative business and
consumption models in which online and offline resources are com-
bined (Ecommerceguide, 2022; MIC, 2022b; Preface, 2023). VR will

J Consumer Behav. 2023;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cb © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1
2 HSIAO and LIN
continue to change how consumers interact with platforms and create
opportunities for e-commercial retailers to embrace change.
Businesses have launched services that incorporate VR to attract
consumers and remain competitive. However, consumers' intention to
shop using VR remains underexplored. For this reason, the present
study explores how VR affects purchase intention. Researchers have
used the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) and theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to measure behavioral intention in
relation to technology. Goodhue and Thompson (1995) proposed the
concept of task–technology fit (TTF), a measure of similarity between
consumers' needs and technology's abilities, and indicated that TTF
affects behavioral intention. Studies have since employed the TTF
to explore behavioral intention in relation to emerging technology
(Baabdullah et al., 2019; Cheng, 2021; Ip & Wagner, 2008;
Lin, 2016).
Ip and Wagner (2008) proposed a needs–technology fit model
based on TTF and used it to explore the influence of the aforemen-
tioned fit on use of information technology; this effect was positive
when the technology matched users' needs. Lin (2016) combined the
model with uses and gratifications (U&G) theory to explore intention
to use mobile technology; motivational needs and a technology's char-
acteristics were found to directly affect perceived needs–technology
fit, which affected intention to continue using the technology. Thus,
purchase behavior is determined by whether a technology can satisfy
a consumer's needs (Ip & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016).
Some studies on emerging technologies (such as VR, augmented
reality, mobile technology, and social networks) have used the diffu-
sion of innovation theory. Individuals can either accept, hesitate to
use, or reject a new technology, and each of these reactions is associ-
ated with certain factors (Kaur et al., 2020; Magsamen-Conrad & Dil-
lon, 2020), such as the perceived benefits of the technology, its
complexity, and whether consumers can test the technology out. Con-
sumers engage with technology more quickly and frequently when
the technology meets their needs (Ali et al., 2021; Kaur et al., 2020;
Rogers, 1995). In the case of VR, the primary innovative characteristic
is its immersiveness (Rodríguez-Ardura & Meseguer-Artola, 2016;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018)—its ability to create the experience of being
in a real environment complete with sound (Lim et al., 2022).
Most research on the use of emerging technology has been based
on TTF, which does not account for users' perspectives and needs
(Ip & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016), which are key factors affecting pur-
chase intention. For this reason, the present study used TTF (utilitar-
ian value), perceived needs–technology fit (hedonic value), U&G
theory, and diffusion of innovation theory to explore how VR affects
purchase intention. The research questions (RQs) were as follows:
RQ1. What are consumers' needs and the technological
characteristics of VR shopping platforms, and what is
the fit between them?
RQ2. How does the degree of immersiveness in VR
affect this fit?
RQ3. What factors affect consumers' intention to make
purchases on VR shopping platforms?
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 | TTF theory
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) suggested that technology is only
used when its function satisfies task needs. Thus, users employ infor-
mation technology when its function satisfies and supports their
needs for task activities. TTF is related to this process of technology
facilitating tasks and can determine whether a technology will be
adopted (Ip & Wagner, 2008; Tam & Oliveira, 2019; Yuce et al., 2019;
Zhang et al., 2017). Research on online shopping, e-commerce, blogs,
VR, and smart technology has revealed that TTF directly, positively,
and significantly affects usage intention. Numerous studies have been
based on TTF as theory, with their research constructs being modified
to suit the specific context (Baabdullah et al., 2019; Bere, 2018;
Cheng, 2021; Huang et al., 2017; Ip & Wagner, 2008; Rahi et al.,
2021; Rai & Selnes, 2019; Zhang et al., 2017). Scholars have indicated
that TTF is part of a goal-oriented perspective and conveys how indi-
viduals use technology to increase efficiency or achieve goals.
Researchers (IP & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016) further stated that
users used a technological service or product, as they are driven to do
so by their own motivational needs and the factors of technological
characteristics, where if there was a use needs-technology fit
between the two that could effectively help satisfy the users, positive
use experience would be generated, which in turn affected the users'
behaviors of using technology. That makes it clear that for users to
use an emerging information technology, they often are subject
to whether there is a balance between technological characteristics
and the factors of their needs, which in turn gives rise to their behav-
ioral intention (IP & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016). VR provides users with
the feeling of presence in a way that high-quality images, smoothly-
flowing system and abundant contents rendered in 3-D space allow
the users to be immersed in virtual world (Hsiao et al., 2023; Kim &
Ko, 2019; Tussyadiah et al., 2018) while satisfied with both utilitarian
feeling and hedonic feeling (Alzayat & Lee, 2021), whereby to increase
their purchase intention (Lim et al., 2022). that tells us that by means
of unique technological characteristics, while VR provides users with a
shopping environment where they feel as if in it, VR also helps
increase their utilitarian and hedonic needs, and in turn arouses their
purchase intention (Kim & Ko, 2019; Manis & Choi, 2018; Wei et al.,
2019; Xi & Hamari, 2021; Yang & Han, 2021). However, in exploring
consumers' purchase intention within VR environment, little research
has cross-examined technological characteristics and user's motiva-
tional needs to understand whether a balance between them would
form needs-technology fit and further affect purchase intention.
From all the above stated, this study explores what consumers in
VR shopping environment would be subject to that affect their shop-
ping intention when using the VR, on the theoretical basis of the
HSIAO and LIN
task–technology fit theory, with references made to the perspectives
of technological characteristics and user needs proposed by
researchers (IP & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016), as well as a underlying
framework for development of the perceived need-technology fit
model and combining other related factors.
2.2 | U&G theory
U&G theory was first introduced by Katz et al. (1974) in The Uses of
Mass Communications, in which Katz et al. indicated that research on
communications has focused on the effects of media on audiences.
U&G theory focuses on how media are used and the psychological
motivations to use certain media. U&G theory assumes that individ-
uals actively select media for specific purposes and that individuals
know their own needs. Ko et al. (2005) reported that
individuals understand their needs and select media to satisfy these
needs. Therefore, the satisfaction of needs is a critical factor affecting
a person's attitude toward media. U&G theory can be employed to
investigate motivations and the decision to use any form of mass
communication media (Ko et al., 2005; Lin, 2016; Ray et al., 2019).
Thus, U&G theory can also be used to explore the relationship of VR
with purchase intention (Xi & Hamari, 2021). For this reason, this
study used U&G theory to identify factors that affect intention to use
VR shopping platforms in relation to needs.
2.3 | Diffusion of innovation theory
Rogers (1995) proposed diffusion of innovation theory, which purports
that the intention to use an emerging service or product is affected by
its relative advantages, service compatibility, complexity, trialability, and
observability. These characteristics have been widely used to examine
newly developed services and products. For instance, Sabi et al. (2016)
explored intention to use cloud technology by determining its relative
advantages, service compatibility, complexity, observability, and trial-
ability; all characteristics were found to positively affect intention to
use cloud technology except for complexity, which had a negative
effect. Alsaad et al. (2017) explored business-to-business e-commerce
and revealed that relative advantages, service compatibility, and com-
plexity affect usage intention. Johnson et al. (2018) explored how rela-
tive advantages, observability, trialability, ease of use (complexity),
perceived risk, perceived safety, and perceived popularity affect inten-
tion to use mobile payment systems; ease of use (complexity), relative
advantages, and observability had direct affects. Magsamen-Conrad
and Dillon (2020) explored how relative advantages, service compatibil-
ity, complexity, observability, and trialability affect intention to use
mobile technology. Studies have employed diffusion of innovation the-
ory to explore various topics, such as mobile payment, mobile apps, e-
commerce, social networking sites, and social media (Fang et al., 2017;
Johnson et al., 2018; Kaur et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019; Sarmah et al.,
2018). Relative advantages, service compatibility, complexity,
3
observability, and trialability are key factors affecting intention to use
emerging technologies.
The key characteristic of VR is the feeling of spatial presence it
creates (Hsiao et al., 2023; Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Vettehen et al.,
2019; Wei et al., 2019); a user can view merchandize in a 360 pano-
ramic environment, which generates immersiveness (Tussyadiah et al.,
2018; Vettehen et al., 2019). Spatial presence may also satisfy users'
needs (Alzayat & Lee, 2021; Ecommerceguide, 2022). For this reason,
in addition to the five key characteristics used within diffusion of
innovation theory, this study explored the immersiveness of VR shop-
ping platforms.
3 | RE S E A R C H M O D E L A N D H Y P O T H E S E S
Figure 1 presents the study's research model, which was based on
TTF, U&G theory, and diffusion of innovation theory. Perceived
needs–technology fit is a key factor affecting intention to purchase
on VR shopping platforms. Motivational needs comprise extrinsic
motivation (utilitarian needs) and intrinsic motivation (hedonic needs).
3.1 | Perceived needs–technology fit
Ip and Wagner (2008) indicated that needs–technology fit determines
whether individuals adopt a technology. When a technological service
or product helps users achieve their goals, their usage intention is
stronger. Ip and Wagner (2008) replaced task characteristic with blog-
gers' social needs in the context of social media; a balance between
bloggers' needs and the technological characteristics of blogs was
found to lead to greater usage intention. Lu and Yang (2014) discov-
ered that high needs–technology fit increases intention to use infor-
mation technology. Lin (2016) indicated that in addition to satisfying
the needs associated with a task, mobile technology should satisfy
users' needs; this satisfaction increases the users' intention to con-
tinue using the mobile technology. Thus, closer needs–technology
leads to stronger usage intention (Ip & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016; Lu &
Yang, 2014; Xi & Hamari, 2021). This study defines perceived needs–
technology fit as the extent to which users perceive that a technology
can satisfy their needs. VR, a unique technology, is likely to satisfy
users' needs and thus increase purchase intention (Martínez-Navarro
et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2019; Yang & Han, 2021). On this basis, the
following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 1. Perceived needs–technology fit positively
affects purchase intention.
3.2 | Utilitarian and hedonic needs
According to cognitive evaluation theory, motivation can be intrinsic
or extrinsic (Deci, 1975; Kim et al., 2007). Extrinsic motivation is
4 HSIAO and LIN
FIGURE 1 Research model
based on rewards outside the individual (Kim et al., 2007), whereas
intrinsic motivation comes factors from within the individual, such as
psychological factors and emotions (Davis et al., 1992). Researchers
(Kim et al., 2007; Lin, 2016; Wei et al., 2015) have indicated that
hedonism can induce intrinsic motivation and that utility can cause
extrinsic motivation.
Extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation strongly affect a per-
son's attitude toward information technology (Carlson et al., 2021;
Huang & Kuo, 2020; Lin, 2016; Wei et al., 2015; Yang & Han, 2021).
Yang and Han (2021) reported that both extrinsic (utilitarian) motiva-
tion and intrinsic (hedonic) motivation are required for individuals to
use VR. Exploratory research on the sharing economy (e.g., Airbnb
and Uber) conducted by Huang and Kuo (2020) indicated that users'
motivations to share assets can be utilitarian or hedonic. Lin (2016)
noted that extrinsic motivations to use mobile communication soft-
ware are utilitarian and that intrinsic motivations are hedonic. In addi-
tion, utilitarian and hedonic needs positively affect perceived needs–
technology fit.
VR can help users preview and obtain information regarding mer-
chandize, which can increase purchase intention (Martínez-Navarro
et al., 2019; Xi & Hamari, 2021), help satisfy users' needs, and posi-
tively affect their attitude toward VR (Pizz et al., 2019; Schnack et al.,
2019). Shopping through VR can provide a new, pleasurable experi-
ence for consumers and can thus result in positive feelings (Farah
et al., 2019; Hollebeek et al., 2020). Therefore, VR can satisfy both
utilitarian and hedonic needs in consumers. On this basis, this study
proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2. Utilitarian needs positively affect perceived
needs–technology fit.
Hypothesis 3. Hedonic needs positively affect perceived
needs–technology fit.
3.3 | Technological characteristics
3.3.1 | Relative advantages
Relative advantages are the benefits that users can derive from switching
from one technology to another (Rogers, 1995), such as an increase in
convenience (Kaur et al., 2020; Lee & Chow, 2020). VR can be used to
simulate real-world shopping experiences; 3D experience and recommen-
dation systems can help consumers determine their preferences (Fraustino
et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2019). Therefore, VR may have relative advantages
(e.g., immersiveness) and thus result in close perceived needs–technology
fit. On this basis, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 4. Relative advantages positively affect
perceived needs–technology fit.
HSIAO and LIN
3.3.2 | Service compatibility
Rogers (1995) defined compatibility as the consistency between innova-
tion and potential users' values, experiences, and needs. Research
extended this concept to service compatibility theory, which emphasizes
the consistency between the service provided by information technology
and the user's service need (Lee & Chow, 2020; Lin, 2016).
VR technology in shopping platforms would provide users with
more functional applications through the integration of virtual and real
worlds (Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019). VR alters how customers interact
with shopping platforms or environments. Customers can receive com-
mercial services they need by using VR (Pizz et al., 2019). Customers can
engage in a commercial context similar to the real world and interact
with characters and merchandize in real-time by using a VR service.
Technological characteristics enable them to virtually use services in the
same manner as conventional commerce, which may increase the per-
ceived need–technology fit and thus increase their purchase intention.
On this basis, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 5. Service compatibility positively affects
perceived needs–technology fit.
3.3.3 | Complexity
Complexity is the amount of time or effort required to learn to use a tech-
nology (Kaur et al., 2020; Lee & Chow, 2020) or the difficulty associated
with understanding or using a product or service. Complexity has been
used to explore services and products based on emerging technology.
When aspects of emerging products or services such as system interfaces
are difficult to use or understand, user satisfaction can be low, which neg-
atively affects the users' attitudes toward the product or service (Kaur
et al., 2020). Therefore, complexity negatively affects willingness to use
emerging technology (Lee & Chow, 2020) and perceived needs–technol-
ogy fit. On this basis, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 6. Complexity negatively affects perceived
needs–technology fit.
3.3.4 | Trialability
Trialability is the degree to which individuals can test an emerging
technology (Kaur et al., 2020; Rogers, 1995). Studies have indicated
that trialability affects usage intention through trust (Alkhater et al.,
2018; Shiau & Chau, 2016). For emerging technologies under devel-
opment, the degree to which users intend to try the technologies out
is crucial (Alkhater et al., 2018; Kaur et al., 2020; Shiau & Chau, 2016).
Before being able to experience VR, users must learn how to use it
(MIC, 2022c). Commercial businesses have begun to offer VR sessions
for trying out information technology to encourage purchase behav-
ior; computers, mobile phones, and headsets can be used to access
these trials (Hollebeek et al., 2020). Assistance with the technology
5
and online and offline resources will help enhance the shopping expe-
rience for consumers (Farah et al., 2019; MIC, 2022c). The ability to
engage in a trial VR session can satisfy consumers' needs and thus
improve perceived needs–technology fit. On this basis, the following
hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 7. Trialability positively affects perceived
needs–technology fit.
3.3.5 | Observability
Observability is the degree to which the innovativeness of a technol-
ogy and the technology's effects can be seen by individuals who are
deciding whether to adopt the technology (Dong & Wang, 2018; John-
son et al., 2018; Kaur et al., 2020; Rogers, 1995). Dong and Wang (2018)
defined observability as the degree to which individuals can acquire
information regarding technological products or services. Their study
revealed that higher observability correlates with lower perceived risk
and stronger intention to purchase items through e-commerce on social
media. Johnson et al. (2018) reported that when an individual observes
others using an emerging technology that would meet their needs, the
individual's usage intention is positively affected.
VR has already affected various aspects of people's lives. How-
ever, as technology as matured and its costs decreased, VR's commer-
cial potential has grown (Parisi, 2015). Commercial businesses have
created new opportunities by using VR and altered their operational
models (Farah et al., 2019; Hollebeek et al., 2020; Schnack et al.,
2021). For example, businesses have created realistic 3D environ-
ments to display merchandize with links to their websites to increase
the ease of purchasing for consumers (Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019).
VR can enable users to experience shopping, travel, and other activi-
ties on mobile devices, computers, headsets, or all-in-one devices
(Hsiao et al., 2023; Kim & Hall, 2019). VR has helped consumers
understand that they can experience shopping through technological
means (Alzayat & Lee, 2021; Farah et al., 2019). Therefore, the
observability of VR can increase the degree of needs–technology fit.
On this basis, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 8. Observability positively affects per-
ceived needs–technology fit.
3.3.6 | Spatial presence
Spatial presence is the feeling of being in the real world while being in
a virtual environment (Hsiao et al., 2023; Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Wei
et al., 2019). Oh and Yoon (2014) reported that spatial presence
affects users' perceptions of VR. Several studies have reported that
spatial presence in VR positively affects users' trust, which affects
their usage intention (Hsiao et al., 2023; Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Vet-
tehen et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2019). Spatial presence in VR enables
consumers to experience new means of presenting information, which
6 HSIAO and LIN
constitutes a relative advantage and results in high observability (MIC,
2022c). Greater spatial presence can also increase intention to try out
new technology. In addition, because spatial presence in VR creates
shopping experiences that are similar to the real world, spatial pres-
ence positively affects service compatibility. Although the complexity
of VR may discourage consumers from using it, spatial presence can
negatively affect perceived complexity (Hsiao et al., 2023). On this
basis, the following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 9a. Spatial presence positively affects rela-
tive advantage.
Hypothesis 9b. Spatial presence positively affects ser-
vice compatibility.
Hypothesis 9c. Spatial presence negatively affects
complexity.
Hypothesis 9d. Spatial presence positively affects
trialability.
Hypothesis 9e. Spatial presence positively affects
observability.
As stated in past VR research (Ecommerceguide, 2022; Kim & Ko,
2019; Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019; Preface, 2023; Scalefast, 2022),
spatial presence affects consumers' experience in perceived needs. In
VR shopping environment, as the research discovered, spatial pres-
ence positively affected consumers' feeling of utilitarian need and
hedonic need (Alzayat & Lee, 2021). That is to say, users' utilitarian
need can be satisfied, too, when the VR technology effectively helps
consumers solve their needs for shopping, for example, actual size of
item, item information, and less time spent on searching for products
(Alzayat & Lee, 2021; Ecommerceguide, 2022; Preface, 2023). Also, if
consumers can see the setting for the items and their actual size when
viewing them with the VR panorama technology, they will have
unprecedented shopping experience, which will increase the pleasure
of shopping for them and in turn reinforce the users' feeling of
hedonic need (Alzayat & Lee, 2021; Ecommerceguide, 2022). On this
basis, this study proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 9f. Spatial presence positively affects utili-
tarian needs.
Hypothesis 9g. Spatial presence positively affects
hedonic needs.
3.4 | Control variables
Studies have reported that factors related to consumers (e.g., gender and
experience) affect intention to use information technology. Ameen et al.
(2018) revealed that gender significantly affects the use of smartphones.
Pascual-Miguel et al. (2015) demonstrated that purchase intention differs
by product type for women but not for men. Therefore, gender may affect
consumers' purchase intention. Huang et al. (2017) revealed that experi-
ence with online games affected intention to spread word of mouth
online. Manis and Choi (2018) demonstrated that experience with VR
affected VR usage intention. On this basis, the following hypotheses were
developed:
Hypothesis 10. Gender affects purchase intention.
Hypothesis 11. Experience with online shopping posi-
tively affects purchase intention.
Hypothesis 12. Experience with VR shopping positively
affects purchase intention.
4 | METHODOLOGY
4.1 | Data collection
This study recruited Taiwanese consumers by using Walmart's 3D vir-
tual shopping website, which provides a 360 view of a virtual store
with product labels and accompanying information. Potential partici-
pants were asked whether they had used the website; those who had
not were excluded. Data were collected using an online questionnaire.
First, the participants accessed the website and viewed products for
8–15 minutes. The participants then completed the questionnaire,
which required approximately 15 minutes. Invitations to complete the
questionnaire were posted on popular VR forums for 8 weeks. To
encourage participation, individuals who completed the questionnaire
were entered into a lottery to win one of 80 gift certificates worth US
$5. The unique identity of each participant was verified using their e-
mail and Internet Protocol addresses to prevent duplication.
A total of 336 individuals completed the questionnaire, and
44 responses were invalid, leaving 292 valid responses. The majority
of the participants were men (63.7%). The most common age was 19–
25 years (35.6%). The majority had a college education (58.9%), and
the most common occupation was office worker (45.8%; Table 1).
The sample size was sufficient for three reasons. First, Anderson
and Gerbing (1988) indicated that a sample larger than 150 is sufficient
to perform confirmatory factor analysis. Second, Roscoe (1975) noted
that a sample should be at least 10 times the number of the constructs
in the model. With 15 constructs in the model of this study, the size of
the sample was sufficient (336 > 10  10). Third, the sample size was
within the range of those used in other studies: 120 to 201 (Dehghani
et al., 2022; Han et al., 2020; Kim & Ko, 2019; Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
4.2 | Research instruments
Most items used to measure each construct were adapted from
other studies to ensure content validity and slightly modified to
HSIAO and LIN 7

T A B L E 1 Demographic
Measure Item Frequency Percentage (%)
characteristics of respondents
Gender Female 186 63.7
Male 106 36.3
Age (years) Under 18 15 5.1
19–25 104 35.6
26–30 64 21.9
31–35 60 20.5
36–40 14 4.8
> 41 35 12
Education High school or under 42 14.4
College/university 172 58.9
Graduate degree 78 26.7
Occupation Office workers 134 45.8
Student 90 30.8
Home makers 24 8.2
others 44 15
Monthly income (TWD) <20,000 102 34.9
20,001-30,000 57 19.5
30,001-40,000 83 28.4
40,001-50,000 24 8.2
> 50,001 26 8.9
Online purchasing Under 1 3 1
experience (years)
1–5 32 11
6–15 51 17.5
Over 16 206 70.5
VR purchasing experience (years) Under 1 116 39.7
1–5 117 40.1
6–15 55 18.8
Over 16 4 1.4
Device VR's device (ex: Cardboard) 8 2.7
Mobile phone 53 18.2
PC or laptop 231 79.1

the context of VR. The items used to measure purchase intention
were adapted from Alalwan (2018). The items used to measure
perceived needs–technology fit, utilitarian needs, and hedonic
needs were adapted from Lin (2016). The items employed to mea-
sure spatial presence were adapted from Rodríguez-Ardura and
Meseguer-Artola (2016). The items used to measure relative
advantage, service compatibility, and complexity were adapted
from Fang et al. (2017), Kim and Ammeter (2014), and Lin and Lu
(2015). The items used to measure trialability and observability
were based on the items proposed by Johnson et al. (2018). All
items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items are presented
in Appendix A.
5 | DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The two-step approach proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988)
was used to analyze the data. The convergent validity and discrimi-
nant validity of the measurement model were assessed, and the
research hypotheses and framework were then tested.
5.1 | Measurement model
The measurement model was tested using SmartPLS 3.2. Henseler
et al. (2014) reported that the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) can be used to determine goodness of fit (GoF).
8 HSIAO and LIN

T A B L E 2 FLs, AVE, CR, and

Construct Items Factor loading CR AVE
Cronbach's alpha values
Utilitarian needs UN1 0.86 0.89 0.73
UN2 0.86
UN3 0.83
Hedonic needs HN1 0.92 0.95 0.86
HN2 0.94
HN3 0.92
Relative advantage RA1 0.86 0.92 0.70
RA2 0.82
RA3 0.81
RA4 0.86
RA5 0.83
Service compatibility SC1 0.89 0.94 0.83
SC2 0.93
SC3 0.91
Complexity CO1 0.92 0.94 0.79
CO2 0.87
CO3 0.91
CO4 0.86
Trialability TR1 0.86 0.92 0.74
TR2 0.85
TR3 0.89
TR4 0.85
Observability OB1 0.60 0.90 0.69
OB2 0.89
OB3 0.91
OB4 0.89
Spatial presence SP1 0.69 0.89 0.62
SP2 0.73
SP3 0.86
SP4 0.84
SP5 0.81
Perceived need-technology fit PNTF1 0.92 0.95 0.83
PNTF2 0.88
PNTF3 0.92
PNTF4 0.92
Purchase intention PI1 0.89 0.95 0.84
PI2 0.93
PI3 0.92
PI4 0.93

Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; FL, factor loading.

Hu and Bentler (1998) suggested that an SRMR value of <0.01 or
<0.08 indicates high GoF. The SRMR in this study was 0.068, which
indicates suitable GoF. The GoF of the entire model was examined
using partial least squares regression (Henseler & Sarstedt, 2013);
indices for the measurement model and structural model were
assessed to determine the utility of the entire model. Wetzels et al.
(2009) reported that GoF values of 0.25 to 0.36 indicate medium fit
and that values of >0.36 indicate high fit. The GoF value in this study
was 0.66, which indicates high fit.
The measurement model was assessed in terms of construct reli-
ability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The internal con-
sistency of the model was assessed using composite reliability (CR);
HSIAO and LIN 9

TABLE 3 Discriminant validity

Construct UN HN RA SC CO TR OB SP PNTF PI
UN 0.85
HN 0.79 0.93
RA 0.78 0.75 0.84
SC 0.77 0.75 0.82 0.91
CO 0.63 0.59 0.67 0.69 0.89
TR 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.76 0.59 0.86
OB 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.36 0.41 0.45 0.83
SP 0.60 0.64 0.51 0.56 0.46 0.51 0.39 0.79
PNTF 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.64 0.75 0.32 0.59 0.91
PI 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.61 0.69 0.30 0.50 0.85 0.92

Note: Diagonal elements (bold) are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) between the constructs and their measures. Off-diagonal elements
are correlations between constructs. For discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be larger than off-diagonal elements. All correlations are
significant at p < .01.
Abbreviations: CO, complexity; HN, hedonic needs; OB, observability; PI, purchase intention; PNTF, perceived needs–technology fit; RA, relative
advantage; SC, service compatibility; SP, spatial presence; TR, trialability; UN, utilitarian needs.

the results are displayed in Table 2. The CR of every construct was
>0.8, which is higher than the threshold of 0.7 suggested by Fornell
and Larcker (1981). Therefore, the measurement items of each con-
struct had suitable reliability and stability.
Three standard measurement models recommended by Bagozzi
and Yi (1988) were used to assess convergent validity. The criteria
were as follows: (1) indicator factor loadings should exceed 0.5 (Hair
et al., 1998); (2) CR should be above 0.7; and (3) the average variance
extracted (AVE) of each construct should exceed 0.5. The items in the
measurement model all had factor loadings of >0.6, CR values in
the range 0.86 to 0.94, and AVE values in the range 0.63 to 0.86
(Table 2). Therefore, all conditions for convergent validity were
satisfied.
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity is
acceptable if the AVE for a construct is greater than the coefficient of
its correlation with other constructs. The AVE values for all constructs
were greater than the square of the interconstruct correlation coeffi-
cients (Table 3). Therefore, discriminant validity was achieved.
5.2 | Structural model
Figure 2 displays the standardized path coefficients, path significance,
and variance explained (R2) for each path. The path analysis revealed
that all hypotheses except H6, H8, H10, H11, and H12 were sup-
ported. Perceived needs–technology fit positively affected purchase
intention (β = 0.83, t = 27.66, p < .001); thus, H1 was supported.
Users' perceived needs–technology fit for VR shopping systems was
affected by utilitarian needs (β = 0.16, t = 2.78, p < .01), hedonic
needs (β = 0.31, t = 4.69, p < .001), relative advantage (β = 0.21,
t = 3.45, p < .001), service compatibility (β = 0.20, t = 3.27, p < .01),
and trialability (β = 0.15, t = 2.75, p < .01); therefore, H2, H3, H4, H5,
and H7 were supported. However, neither complexity (β = 0.02,
t= 0.36, p > .05) nor observability (β = 0.02, t = 0.69, p > .05)
directly affected perceived needs–technology fit; therefore, H6 and
H8 were not supported. Spatial presence had significant effects on
relative advantage (β = 0.51, t = 9.96, p < .001), service compatibility
(β = 0.56, t = 11.17, p < .001), complexity (β = 0.46, t = 8.85,
p < .001), trialability (β = 0.51, t = 9.79, p < .001), and observability
(β = 0.39, t = 7.08, p < .001); therefore, H9a, H9b, H9c, H9d, and
H9e were supported. Spatial presence significantly affected both utili-
tarian needs (β = 0.60, t = 12.71, p < .001) and hedonic needs
(β = 0.64, t = 15.72, p < .001), supporting H9f and H9g. The coeffi-
cient for the path from gender to purchase intention was 0.03
(t = 0.44, p > .05), that for the path from experience with online shop-
ping to purchase intention was 0.003 (t = 0.07, p > .05), and that for
the path from experience with VR shopping to purchase intention was
0.04 (t = 1.48, p > .05). Thus, none of these factors had a significant
relationship with purchase intention. Therefore, H10, H11, and H12
were not supported.
The R2 value for purchase intention was 0.72, that for perceived
needs–technology fit was 0.83; those for relative advantage, service
compatibility, complexity, and trialability were 0.27, 0.32, 0.21, and
0.26, respectively; and those for utilitarian needs and hedonic needs
were 0.36 and 0.41, respectively.
6 | DI SCU SSION
The results indicate that perceived needs–technology fit, intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, and the characteristics of a technology all play
key roles in intention to make purchases through VR. Figure 2 displays
the results of this study. Perceived needs–technology fit positively
and directly affects purchase intention, which is consistent with the
results of other studies (Ip & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016). When cus-
tomers feel that a technology satisfies their needs, their usage
10
FIGURE 2 Structural model results
intention is stronger. Thus, the balance between consumers' needs
and the characteristics of a technology is crucial, and VR can increase
purchase intention by satisfying users' needs.
Utilitarian needs and hedonic needs both directly and positively
affect perceived needs–technology fit. The effect of hedonic needs
on perceived needs–technology fit is significantly stronger than that
of utilitarian needs. These results are consistent with those of studies
indicating that hedonism is a crucial factor affecting the use of infor-
mation systems (Kim & Hall, 2019; Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019; Pizz
et al., 2019). VR shopping platforms can fulfill users' utilitarian needs
by enabling them to acquire information regarding products that they
need, and it can also satisfy hedonic needs by creating a novel shop-
ping experience (Farah et al., 2019; Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019).
Relative advantage, service compatibility, and trialability have
direct and positive effects on perceived needs–technology fit. Our
findings regarding relative advantage are consistent with those of
other studies (Johnson et al., 2018; Kaur et al., 2020; Lee & Chow,
2020). Users who perceive an emerging technology to be preferable
to an existing technology have stronger intention to use the emerging
technology. VR can simulate shopping on the basis of consumers'
preferences and thus create positive experiences, leading to close
needs–technology fit. Our results also indicate that trial sessions with
HSIAO and LIN
VR on computers, phones, or headsets can enhance consumers' expe-
rience and needs–technology fit.
Spatial presence positively affects relative advantage, service
compatibility, and trialability. Spatial presence in VR enables cus-
tomers to experience a new type of shopping, which constitutes a rel-
ative advantage. Similarly, spatial presence creates a realistic shopping
experience. When customers have stronger feelings regarding spatial
presence, their intention to try out a technology is higher. This study
also determined that spatial presence negatively affects complexity,
which means that it can assuage consumers' perceptions of VR being
too difficult to understand.
Spatial presence is directly, positively, and significantly associated
with utilitarian needs and hedonic needs. As in other studies, this
study discovered that spatial presence in VR results in a stimulating
and immersive virtual environment (Han et al., 2020; Hsiao et al.,
2023), which can help satisfy consumers' utilitarian and hedonic needs
(Ecommerceguide, 2022; Preface, 2023).Studies have demonstrated
that individual differences and experience affect online behavior. The
present study explored whether control variables—gender, experience
with online shopping, and experience with VR shopping—affect con-
sumers' purchase intention. Our results indicate that none of these
factors significantly affect purchase intention.
HSIAO and LIN
7 | IMPLICATIONS
7.1 | Implications for research
The results of this study have crucial academic implications. First,
most studies on the use of emerging technology have been based on
TTF (Baabdullah et al., 2019; Bere, 2018; Cheng, 2021; Huang et al.,
2017; Rai & Selnes, 2019; Rahi et al., 2021; Tam & Oliveira, 2019;
Zhang et al., 2017), which does not account for users' needs (Ip &
Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016). To explore consumers' intention to make
purchases within VR, consumers' intrinsic (hedonic) needs must also
be considered. For this reason, we used perceived needs–technology
fit as our theoretical basis (Ip & Wagner, 2008; Lin, 2016) and applied
U&G theory and diffusion of innovation theory to explore how moti-
vational needs and the characteristics of technology affect perceived
needs–technology fit. Our results indicate that the perceived needs–
technology fit of VR strongly affects consumers' usage intention. Sec-
ond, this study explored the feeling of spatial presence created by VR,
and the findings are consistent with those of other studies indicating
that spatial presence can cause result in realistic VR experiences (Pref-
ace, 2023; Rodríguez-Ardura & Meseguer-Artola, 2016; Scalefast,
2022; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Our results suggest that spatial pres-
ence plays a key role on VR shopping platforms. Third, studies have
demonstrated that VR in e-commerce can strengthen relationships
between consumers and brands and encourage engagement and pur-
chase behavior (Kumar et al., 2021; Lim, 2023; Lim et al., 2022). Our
results demonstrate how VR in e-commerce plays a crucial role in con-
sumers' behavioral intentions. Finally, our results suggest that per-
ceived needs–technology fit significantly affects consumers' intention
to purchase on VR shopping platforms, with the explanatory power
being as high as 0.83 and 0.72; this provides a new direction for
future research.
7.2 | Practical implications
This study has several implications for e-commerce practitioners. First,
our results indicate that perceived needs–technology fit is a crucial
factor affecting intention to purchase on VR shopping platforms. Busi-
nesses should understand that VR adds a new dimension to e-com-
merce that can help users satisfy their needs and thus increase
purchase intention. Second, the effects of users' hedonic needs on
perceived needs–technology fit are stronger than those of their utili-
tarian needs. Studies have reported that joy is the most common state
of users experiencing VR (Farah et al., 2019; Kim & Hall, 2019; Kim &
Ko, 2019), which indicates that e-commerce businesses should create
pleasurable interactive environments rather than focusing on utilitar-
ian needs. Businesses should develop pleasurable VR environments to
create positive shopping experiences and increase purchase intention
(Hollebeek et al., 2020). Third, the technological characteristics of VR
shopping platforms (i.e., relative advantage, service compatibility, and
trialability) can increase perceived needs–technology fit. Relative
advantage and service compatibility had the most significant effects
11
on perceived needs–technology fit in the present study. These results
provide valuable information for e-commerce service providers—that
customers using e-commerce services incorporating VR prioritize rela-
tive advantages (e.g., 3D modeling technology and accurate recom-
mendations). VR experiences with high service compatibility should
also be developed to ensure close needs–technology fit. We also
determined that spatial presence is a critical technological characteristic
of VR that positively affects relative advantage, service compatibility, and
trialability but negatively affects perceived complexity. In addition, spatial
presence positively affects consumers' extrinsic and intrinsic motivational
needs, that is, their utilitarian and hedonic needs. These results are con-
sistent with reports from researchers (Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Vettehen
et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2019) indicating that spatial presence affects
users' trust and thus their behavioral intention in the context of
VR. Interactive VR shopping experiences can simulate real experiences
and help consumers learn about products, thereby increasing purchase
intention (Ecommerceguide, 2022; Han et al., 2020; Preface, 2023). Busi-
nesses should ensure that VR environments are stimulating and flow
smoothly to arouse positive feelings regarding VR and thus ensure close
perceived needs–technology fit.
8 | LI M I T A T I O N S A N D D I R E C T I O N S F O R
FU T U R E R E S E A R C H
This study has several limitations that must be considered. First, the
results are based on a single sample from Taiwan. For this reason,
the results should be generalized with caution. Research should be
conducted on other cultures and markets to determine whether the
antecedents of purchase intention differ. Second, this study devel-
oped a research model by using quantitative data. Data were collected
using online questionnaires, but self-selection bias could not be
avoided. Studies should include qualitative interviews to collect data
and prevent individuals from answering untruthfully solely to receive
compensation for their time. Third, we considered the sample of
336 to be sufficient because it enabled us to examine our hypotheses
and yield reliable results. However, a larger sample would be desirable
in subsequent studies. Fourth, this study used TTF and users' needs
(intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) to develop model of intention to
purchase on VR shopping platforms, which means that the intention–
behavior gap remains. Because of the focus on intention in this study,
scholars should explore covert and overt behavioral controls to miti-
gate the aforementioned gap in accordance with the theory of
planned behavior (Lim & Weissmann, 2023).
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their com-
ments and suggestions.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article/supplementary files, further inquiries can be directed to
the corresponding author.
12
ORCID
Kuan-Yu Lin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3902-4785
RE FE R ENC E S
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 179–211.
Alalwan, A. A. (2018). Investigating the impact of social media advertising
features on customer purchase intention. International Journal of Infor-
mation Management, 42, 65–77.
Ali, O., Shrestha, A., Osmanaj, V., & Muhammed, S. (2021). Cloud comput-
ing technology adoption: An evaluation of key factors in local govern-
ments. Information Technology & People, 34, 666–703.
Alkhater, N., Walters, R., & Wills, G. (2018). An empirical study of factors
influencing cloud adoption among private sector organizations. Tele-
matics and Informatics, 35, 38–54.
Alsaad, A., Mohamad, R., & Ismail, N. A. (2017). The moderating role of
trust in business to business electronic commerce (B2B EC) adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 157–169.
Alzayat, A., & Lee, S. H. (2021). Virtual products as an extension of my
body: Exploring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value in a virtual real-
ity retail environment. Journal of Business Research, 130, 348–363.
Ameen, N., Willis, R., & Shah, M. (2018). An examination of the gender gap
in smartphone adoption and use in Arab countries: A cross-national
study. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 148–162.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Baabdullah, A. M., Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., & Dwivedi, Y. K.
(2019). An integrated model for m-banking adoption in Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(2), 452–478.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation
models. The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16,
74–94.
Bere, A. (2018). Applying an extended task-technology fit for establishing
determinants of mobile learning: An instant messaging initiative. Jour-
nal of Information Systems Education, 29(4), 239–252.
Carlson, J. R., Hanson, S., Pancras, J., Ross, W. T., & Rousseau-Anderson, J.
(2021). Social media advertising: How online motivations and congru-
ency influence perceptions of trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2,
197–213.
Cheng, Y. M. (2021). Investigating medical professionals' continuance
intention of the cloud-based e-learning system: An extension of
expectation–confirmation model with flow theory. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 34(4), 1169–1202.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and end
user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3),
319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22, 1111–1132.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. Plenum Press.
Dehghani, M., Acikgoz, F., Mashatan, A., & Lee, S. H. (2022). A holistic
analysis towards understanding consumer perceptions of virtual reality
devices in the post-adoption phase. Behaviour & Information Technol-
ogy, 41(7), 1453–1471.
Dong, X., & Wang, T. (2018). Social tie formation in Chinese online social
commerce: The role of IT affordances. International Journal of Informa-
tion Management, 42, 49–64.
Ecommerceguides. (2022). Ecommerce and virtual reality: A practical guide
to implementing VR in your business. https://ecommerceguide.com/
guides/ecommerce-vr/
Fang, J., Zhao, Z., Wen, C., & Wang, R. (2017). Design and performance
attributes driving mobile travel application engagement. International
Journal of Information Management, 37, 269–283.
HSIAO and LIN
Farah, M. F., Ramadan, Z. B., & Harb, D. H. (2019). The examination of vir-
tual reality at the intersection of consumer experience, shopping jour-
ney and physical retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
48, 136–143.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18, 39–50.
Fraustino, J. D., Lee, J. Y., Lee, S. Y., & Ahn, H. (2018). Effects of 360
video on attitudes toward disaster communication: Mediating and
moderating roles of spatial presence and prior disaster media involve-
ment. Public Relations Review, 44, 331–341.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individ-
ual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Han, S. L., An, M., Han, J. J., & Lee, J. (2020). Telepresence, time distortion,
and consumer traits of virtual reality shopping. Journal of Business
Research, 108, 311–320.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A.,
Straub, D. W., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality
about PLS: Comments on Ronkko and evermann (2013). Organizational
Research Methods, 17, 182–209.
Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least
squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28, 565–580.
Hollebeek, L. D., Clark, M. K., Andreassen, Y. W., Sigurdsson, V., &
Smith, D. (2020). Virtual reality through the customer journey: Frame-
work and propositions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55,
102056.
Hsiao, K. L., Chen, C. C., Lin, K. Y., & Hsu, H. Y. (2023). What drives online-
to-offline purchase intention in a VR store? An examination of affec-
tive and cognitive factors. Quality & Quantity, 57(4), 3499–3521.
Hu, L.t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure model-
ing: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psycho-
logical Methods, 3, 424–453.
Huang, L. C., Shiau, W. L., & Lin, Y. H. (2017). What factors satisfy e-book
store customers? Development of a model to evaluate e-book user
behavior and satisfaction. Internet Research, 27, 563–585.
Huang, S. L., & Kuo, S. Y. (2020). Understanding why people share in the
sharing economy. Online Information Review, 44(4), 805–825.
Ip, R. K. F., & Wagner, C. (2008). Weblogging: A study of social computing
and its impact on organizations. Decision Support Systems, 45,
242–250.
Johnson, V. L., Kiser, A., Washington, R., & Torres, R. (2018). Limitations to
the rapid adoption of M-payment services: Understanding the impact
of privacy risk on M-payment services. Computers in Human Behavior,
79, 111–122.
Katz, E. G., Jay, B., & Michael, G. (1974). Utilization of mass communica-
tion by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass
communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–
32). Stage.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Bodhi, R., Singh, T., & Almotairi, M. (2020). Why do peo-
ple use and recommend m-wallets? Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 56, 102091.
Kim, D., & Ammeter, T. (2014). Predicting personal information system
adoption using an integrated diffusion model. Information & Manage-
ment, 51, 451–464.
Kim, D., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on
sport spectators' flow experience and satisfaction. Computers in
Human Behavior, 93, 346–356.
Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of
mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems,
43(1), 111–126.
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2019). A hedonic motivation model in virtual real-
ity tourism: Comparing visitors and non-visitors. International Journal
of Information Management, 46, 236–249.
HSIAO and LIN
Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Contractor, N. S. (2019). Seniors' usage of mobile
social network sites: Applying theories of innovation diffusion and
uses and gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 60–73.
Ko, H., Cho, C. H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications:
A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 34, 57–70.
Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., Pandey, N., & Westland, J. C. (2021). 20 years of
electronic commerce research. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(1),
1–40.
Lee, S. H. N., & Chow, P. S. (2020). Investigating consumer attitudes and
intentions toward online fashion renting retailing. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 52, 101892.
Lim, W. M. (2023). Transformative marketing in the new normal: A novel
practice-scholarly integrative review of business-to-business market-
ing mix challenges, opportunities, and solutions. Journal of Business
Research, 160, 113638.
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Verma, D., & Kumar, D. (2023). Evolu-
tion and trends in consumer behaviour: Insights from journal of con-
sumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 22, 217–232.
Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2022). Past, present, and
future of customer engagement. Journal of Business Research, 140,
439–458.
Lim, W. M., & Weissmann, M. A. (2023). Toward a theory of behavioral
control. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 31(1), 185–211.
Lin, K. Y. (2016). User communication behavior in mobile communication
software. Online Information Review, 40, 1071–1089.
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2015). Predicting mobile social network acceptance
based on mobile value and social influence. Internet Research, 25(1),
107–130.
Lin, S. W., Liu, Y. H., & Huang, E. Y. (2022). A binding tie: Why do cus-
tomers stick to omnichannel retailers? Information Technology & People,
36, 1126–1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0063
Lu, H. P., & Yang, Y. W. (2014). Toward an understanding of the behavioral
intention to use a social networking site: An extension of task-technol-
ogy fit to social-technology fit. Computers in Human Behavior, 34,
323–332.
Magsamen-Conrad, K., & Dillon, J. M. (2020). Mobile technology adoption
across the lifespan: A mixed methods investigation to clarify
adoption stages, and the influence of diffusion attributes. Computers in
Human Behavior, 112, 106456.
Manis, K. T., & Choi, D. (2018). The virtual reality hardware acceptance
model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the technology accep-
tance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. Journal of Business
Research, 100, 503–513.
Martínez-Navarro, J., Bigné, E., Guixeres, J., Alcañiz, M., & Torrecilla, C.
(2019). The influence of virtual reality in e-commerce. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 100, 475–482.
MIC. (2022a). The way of hospitality with AI that integrates virtual and real.
Institute for Information Technology.
MIC. (2022b). Watch metaverse marketing strategies from international
brand cases. Institute for Information Technology.
MIC. (2022c). New experience: AR/VR consumer survey analysis. Institute for
Information Technology.
Oh, J., & Yoon, S. J. (2014). Validation of haptic enabling technology
acceptance model (HE-TAM): Integration of IDT and TAM. Telematics
and Informatics, 31, 585–596.
Omdia. (2021). Omdia research reveals 12.5m consumer VR headsets sold
in 2021 with content spend exceeding $2bn. https://omdia.tech.
informa.com/pr/2021-dec/omdia-research-reveals-12m-consumer-vr-
headsets-sold-in-2021-with-content-spend-exceeding-2bn
Parisi, T. (2015). Learning virtual reality: Developing immersive experiences
and applications for desktop, web, and mobile. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Pascual-Miguel, F. J., Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., & Chaparro-Peláez, J. (2015).
Influences of gender and product type on online purchasing. Journal of
Business Research, 68, 1550–1556.
13
Pizz, G., Scarpi, D., Pichierri, M., & Vannucci, V. (2019). Virtual reality, real
reactions? Comparing consumers' perceptions and shopping orienta-
tion across physical and virtual-reality retail stores. Computers in
Human Behavior, 96, 1–12.
Preface. (2023). Combining VR/AR! https://www.preface.ai/blog/trend/
mr-%e5%85%ac%e5%8f%b8/
Rahi, S., Khan, M. M., & Alghizzawi, M. (2021). Extension of technology
continuance theory (TCT) with task technology fit (TTF) in the context
of internet banking user continuance intention. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 38(4), 986–1004.
Rai, R. S., & Selnes, F. (2019). Conceptualizing task-technology fit and the
effect on adoption–a case study of a digital textbook service. Informa-
tion & Management, 56(8), 103161.
Ray, A., Dhit, A., Bala, P. K., & Kaur, P. (2019). Why do people use food
delivery apps (FDA)? A uses and gratification theory perspective. Jour-
nal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 221–230.
Rodríguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2016). E-learning continu-
ance: The impact of interactivity and the mediating role of imagery,
presence and flow. Information & Management, 53, 504–516.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.
Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Rinehart and Winston.
Sabi, H. M., Uzoka, F. M. E., Langmia, K., & Njeh, F. N. (2016). Conceptual-
izing a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Management, 36(2), 183–191.
Sarmah, B., Kamboj, S., & Kandampully, J. (2018). Social media and co-cre-
ative service innovation: An empirical study. Online Information Review,
22(2), 1146–1179.
Scalefast. (2022). The growing role of AR and VR in ecommerce. https://
esw.com/blog/the-growing-role-of-ar-and-vr-in-ecommerce/
Schnack, A., Wright, M. J. A., & Holdershaw, J. L. (2019). An exploratory
investigation of shopper behaviour in an immersive virtual reality
store. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19, 182–195.
Schnack, A., Wright, M. J. A., & Holdershaw, J. L. (2021). Does the locomo-
tion technique matter in an immersive virtual store environment?
Comparing motion-tracked walking and instant teleportation. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102266.
Shiau, W. L., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2016). Understanding behavioral intention
to use a cloud computing classroom: A multiple model comparison
approach. Information & Management, 53, 355–365.
Synoptek. (2018). How AR and VR are transforming e-commerce. https://
synoptek.com/insights/it-blogs/ar-vr-ecommerce/
Tam, C., & Oliveira, T. (2019). Does culture influence m-banking use and
individual performance? Information & Management, 29, 356–363.
Trivedi, J., Kasilingam, D., Arora, P., & Soni, S. (2022). The effect of aug-
mented reality in mobile applications on consumers' online impulse
purchase intention: The mediating role of perceived value. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 21, 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2047
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & Dieck, M. C. t. (2018). Virtual
reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tour-
ism. Tourism Management, 66, 140–154.
Vettehen, P. H., Wiltink, D., Huiskamp, M., Schaap, G., & Ketelaar, P.
(2019). Taking the full view: How viewers respond to 360-degree
video news. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 24–32.
Wei, H. L., Lin, K. Y., Lu, P. L., & Chang, I. H. (2015). Understanding the
intentions of users to ‘stick’ to social networking sites: A case study in
Taiwan. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34, 151–162.
Wei, W., Qi, R., & Zhang, L. (2019). Effects of virtual reality on theme park
visitors' experience and behaviors: A presence perspective. Tourism
Management, 71, 282–293.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS
path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines
and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33, 177–195.
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2021). Shopping in virtual reality: A literature review
and future agenda. Journal of Business Research, 134, 37–58.
14
Yang, H., & Han, S. Y. (2021). Understanding virtual reality continuance:
An extended perspective of perceived value. Online Information
Review, 45(2), 422–439.
Yuce, A., Abubakar, A. M., & Ilkan, M. (2019). Intelligent tutoring systems
and learning performance: Applying task-technology fit and IS success
model. Online Information Review, 43(4), 600–616.
 ñez de Pablos, P., Lytras, M. D., & Sun, Y. (2017).
Zhang, X., Jiang, S., Ordo
How virtual reality affects perceived learning effectiveness: A task–
technology fit perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36,
548–556.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Kuo-Lun Hsiao is a Professor of Information Management at
National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Tai-
chung, Taiwan. He received MBA and PhD degrees from National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan in
2003 and 2008, respectively. Dr Hsiao's articles have appeared in
Internet Research, Online Information Reviews, Information & Man-
agement, Journal of Information Science, Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, Interactive Learning Environments, and
Telematics and Informatics. His research interests include elec-
tronic commerce, internet marketing and e-learning.
APP E NDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
A.1 | Utilitarian needs (UN)
UN1 VR shopping platforms can satisfy my needs.
UN2 VR shopping platforms allow me to gather information that
can help me solve problems while shopping.
UN3 VR shopping platforms enable me to acquire information
about products in real time.
Hedonic Needs (HN)
HN1 My experience with VR shopping was as or more enjoyable
than other experiences I could have had.
HN2 The VR shopping experience was pleasurable.
HN3 I enjoyed being immersed in the VR shopping experience.
A.2 | Relative advantage (RA)
RA1 I could accomplish my tasks more quickly on the VR shopping
platform than I would have on other online shopping environment.
RA2 The VR shopping platform improved the quality of tasks com-
pared with that of tasks in previous online shopping environments.
RA3 Tasks were easier on the VR shopping platform than they
would have been on other online shopping platforms.
RA4 My performance was higher when using the VR shopping
platform than it would have been on other online shopping platforms.
RA5 My productivity was higher on the VR shopping platform
than it would have been on other online shopping platforms.
HSIAO and LIN
Kuan-Yu Lin is Associate Professor in the Department of Informa-
tion Management at National Taichung University of Science and
Technology, Taichung, Taiwan. She holds a PhD degree from
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology of Taiwan.
Her research interests include and electronic commerce, virtual
communities, and Internet marketing. Her work has been pub-
lished in Internet Research, Online Information Review, Computers in
Human Behavior, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Behav-
ior & Information Technology, and Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking. Kuan-Yu Lin is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: ntustmislab@gmail.com
How to cite this article: Hsiao, K.-L., & Lin, K.-Y. (2023).
Understanding consumers' purchase intention in virtual reality
commerce environment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2226
RA6 The VR shopping platform enhanced my shopping
experience.
A.3 | Service compatibility (SC)
SC1 The VR shopping platform satisfies my needs.
SC2 The VR shopping platform is compatible with my experience
with online shopping on the computer.
SC3 The VR shopping platform matches my preferences.
SC4 The VR shopping platform is compatible with how I shop on
the computer and on my phone.
A.4 | Complexity (CO)
CO1 The VR shopping platform is complicated.
CO2 The VR shopping platform is frustrating.
CO3 The VR shopping platform is easy to use [reverse item].
CO4 The VR shopping platform is difficult to understand.
A.5 | Trialability (TR)
TR1 Before using the VR shopping service, I was able to test it out.
TR2 I know how to test out the VR shopping service.
TR3 I can experiment with the VR shopping service.
TR4 Testing the VR shopping service before committing to using
it was easy.
HSIAO and LIN
A.6 | Observability (OB)
OB1. I have seen other VR shopping services.
OB2. It is easy to see other VR shopping services being used.
OB3. I have seen others using VR shopping services.
OB4. I have had plenty of opportunities to see others using VR
shopping services.
A.7 | Spatial presence (SP)
SP1 I forgot about my immediate surroundings when I used the
VR shopping platform.
SP2 The VR shopping platform made me forget where I was.
SP3 I felt like I came back to the real world after using the VR
shopping platform.
SP4 I felt like I was in a virtual world when I used the VR shopping
platform.
15
SP5 When I used the VR shopping platform, the environment
seemed as real than the real world.
A.8 | Perceived needs–technology fit (PNTF)
PNTF1 The VR shopping platform satisfies my needs.
PNTF2 The VR shopping platform helps me satisfy my needs.
PNTF3 The VR shopping platform's functions are useful.
PNTF4 In general, the VR shopping platform's functions satisfy my
needs.
A.9 | Purchase intention (PI)
PI1 I will buy products on the VR shopping platform.
PI2 I want to buy products on the VR shopping platform.
PI3 I am likely to buy products on the VR shopping platform.
PI4 I plan to purchase products on the VR shopping platform.