In this research, we tested (a) the effects of augmented reality (AR) and (b) how the effects of AR could be moderated by privacy perceptions. We used a 2 eyewear app type (AR vs. non-AR) by 2 privacy priming (prime vs. no prime) between-subject experimental design, and 114 Korean adults participated in the experiment. Results showed that AR had a main effect on perceived ease of use but not on perceived usefulness. Instead, the effect of AR on perceived usefulness was moderated by privacy priming such that the positive effect of AR on perceived usefulness was weaker when privacy concern was salient. Moreover, the results provided support for a moderated mediation model in which the indirect effect of AR on intent to use the app via perceived usefulness was moderated by privacy priming. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WiederholdBK. Purchasing in a pandemic? Virtual consumerism in 2021. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2021; 24:77–78.
2.
MilgramP, KishinoF. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 1994; E77-D:1321–1329.
3.
AzumaRT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1997; 6:355–385.
4.
KaplanAD, CruitJ, EndsleyM, et al.The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 2021; 63:706–726.
5.
ChiHL, KangSC, WangX. Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Automation in Construction, 2013; 33:116–122.
6.
Fraga-LamasP, Fernández-CaramésTM, Blanco-Novoa Ó, et al. A review on industrial augmented reality systems for the industry 4.0 shipyard. IEEE Access, 2018; 6:13358–13375.
7.
FrigoMA, da SilvaECC, BarbosaGF. Augmented reality in aerospace manufacturing: A review. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, 2016; 4:125–130.
8.
LiW, NeeAYC, OngSK. A state-of-the-art review of augmented reality in engineering analysis and simulation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2017; 1:17.
9.
WangX, OngSK, NeeAYC. A comprehensive survey of augmented reality assembly research. Advances in Manufacturing, 2016; 4:1–22.
10.
ChenP, LiuX, ChengW, et al. (2017) A review of using augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016. In PopescuE, Kinshuk, KhribiMK, et al., eds. Innovations in smart learning. Springer: Singapore, pp. 13–18.
11.
LeeSO, AhnSC, HwangJI, et al. (2011) A vision-based mobile augmented reality system for baseball games. In: ShumakerR, ed. Virtual and mixed reality—New trends. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 61–68.
12.
AlimamyS, DeansKR, GnothJ. (2017) Augmented reality: Uses and future considerations in marketing. In BenlamriR, SparerM, eds. Leadership, innovation and entrepreneurship as driving forces of the global economy. Cham: Springer, pp. 705–712.
13.
BulearcaM, TamarjanD. Augmented reality: A sustainable marketing tool?. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2010; 2:237–252.
14.
HilkenT, de RuyterK, ChylinskiM, et al.Augmenting the eye of the beholder: Exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2017; 45:884–905.
15.
PoncinI, MimounMSB. The impact of “e-atmospherics” on physical stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2014; 21:851–859.
16.
BeckM, CriéD. I virtually try it… I want it! Virtual fitting room: A tool to increase on-line and off-line exploratory behavior, patronage and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2018; 40:279–286.
17.
HuangTL, LiaoS. A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology: The moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electronic Commerce Research, 2015; 15:269–295.
18.
McLeanG, WilsonA. Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019; 101:210–224.
19.
OymanM, BalD, OzerS. Extending the technology acceptance model to explain how perceived augmented reality affects consumers' perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2022; 128:107127.
20.
PantanoE, ReseA, BaierD. Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: A two country comparison of youth markets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2017; 38:81–95.
21.
WatsonA, AlexanderB, SalavatiL. The impact of experiential augmented reality applications on fashion purchase intention. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 2018; 48:433–451.
22.
YimMYC, ChuSC, SauerPL. Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2017; 39:89–103.
23.
DavisFD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989; 13:319–340.
24.
MarangunićN, GranićA. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2015; 14:81–95.
25.
Al-QaysiN, Mohamad-NordinN, Al-EmranM. Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 2020; 25:4961–5002.
26.
WirtzBW, GöttelV. Technology acceptance in social media: Review, synthesis and directions for future empirical research. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 2016; 17:97–115.
27.
GranićA, MarangunićN. Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2019; 50:2572–2593.
28.
MustafaAS, GarciaMB. (2021) Theories integrated with technology acceptance model (TAM) in online learning acceptance and continuance intention: A systematic review. In 2021 1st Conference on Online Teaching for Mobile Education (OT4ME), pp. 68–72.
29.
SchererR, SiddiqF, TondeurJ. The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers' adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 2019; 128:13–35.
30.
RahimiB, NadriH, AfsharHL, et al.A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Applied Clinical Informatics, 2018; 9:604–634.
31.
TaoD, WangT, WangT, et al.A systematic review and meta-analysis of user acceptance of consumer-oriented health information technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020; 104:106147.
32.
JetterJ, EimeckeJ, ReseA. Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are potential key performance indicators and who benefits?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 87:18–33.
33.
ChungN, HanH, JounY. Tourists' intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 50:588–599.
34.
GoebertC, GreenhalghGP. A new reality: Fan perceptions of augmented reality readiness in sport marketing. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020; 106:106231.
35.
KimHC, HyunMY. Predicting the use of smartphone-based augmented reality (AR): Does telepresence really help?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 59:28–38.
36.
CowanK, JavornikA, JiangP. Privacy concerns when using augmented reality face filters? Explaining why and when use avoidance occurs. Psychology & Marketing, 2021; 38:1799–1813.
37.
HarborthD, PapeS. Investigating privacy concerns related to mobile augmented reality apps—A vignette based online experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 2021; 122:106833.
38.
FishbeinM, Ajzen I (eds). (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
39.
CollierG. Information privacy. Information Management & Computer Security, 1995; 3:41–45.
40.
MalhotraNK, KimSS, AgarwalJ. Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 2004; 15:336–355.
41.
de GuzmanJA, ThilakarathnaK, SeneviratneA. Security and privacy approaches in mixed reality: A literature survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 2019; 52:1–37.
42.
NorbergPA, HorneDR, HorneDA. The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2007; 41:100–126.
43.
BaruhL, SecintiE, CemalcilarZ. Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Communication, 2017; 67:26–53.
44.
RauschnabelPA, HeJ, RoYK. Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look at privacy risks. Journal of Business Research, 2018; 92:374–384.
45.
NeelyJH. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977; 106:226–254.
46.
FazioRH, SanbonmatsuDM, PowellMC, et al.On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986; 50:229–238.
47.
KidderCK, WhiteKR, HinojosMR, et al.Sequential stereotype priming: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2018; 22:199–227.
48.
BucklandNJ, ErV, RedpathI, et al.Priming food intake with weight control cues: Systematic review with a meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2018; 15:1–25.
49.
SegijnCM, VoorveldHAM. A first step in unraveling synced advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising, 2021; 40:124–143.
50.
HayesAF. (2018) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
51.
BaileyAA, PentinaI, MishraAS, et al.Mobile payments adoption by US consumers: An extended TAM. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 2017; 45:626–640.
