Augmented reality (AR) technology is increasingly implemented in the retail sector. Successful and continuant use of AR technology depends on how realistic the augmented depiction is, especially for digital try-on applications. However, little is known about what makes an AR experience realistic.
Objective
The study addresses a previously under investigated yet cornerstone functionality of AR technology, namely, perceived realism. The paper proposes a conceptualization of AR realism and validates it with a quantitative study.
Methods
A quantitative study of 296 undergraduate students using and evaluating two different AR apps is carried out to test the research model. The data are analyzed with structural equations.
Results
The results of a quantitative study confirm that the dimensions of perceived diagnosticity, perceived control, and perceived personalization contribute to perceived realism, which, in turn, influences users’ behavioral intentions toward AR-based apps. Furthermore, the effect of perceived realism is stronger for experience than search products.
Conclusions
The findings confirm the crucial role of perceived realism in encouraging continuance use of AR-based apps. The results of this study provide useful insights for managers and app developers.
ChenCXiNPohjonenV, et al.Paying attention in metaverse: an experiment on spatial attention allocation in extended reality shopping. Inf Technol People2023; 36: 255–283.
2.
AzumaRBaillotYBehringerR, et al.Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graph Appl2001; 21: 34–47.
3.
WangWCaoDAmeenN. Understanding customer satisfaction of augmented reality in retail: a human value orientation and consumption value perspective. Inf Technol People2023; 36: 2211–2233.
4.
ArghashiV. Shopping with augmented reality: how wow-effect changes the equation. Electron Commer Res Appl2022; 54: 101166.
5.
DaassiMDebbabiS. Intention to reuse AR-based apps: the combined role of the sense of immersion, product presence and perceived realism. Inf Manag2021; 58: 103453.
6.
SminkARFrowijnSReijmersdalEA, et al.Try online before you buy: how does shopping with augmented reality affect brand responses and personal data disclosure. Electron Commer Res Appl2019; 35: 100854.
7.
DackoSG. Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technol Forecast Soc Change2017; 124: 243–256.
8.
HilkenTde RuyterKChylinskyM, et al.Augmenting the eye of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. J Acad Market Sci2017; 45: 884–905.
9.
SongHKBaekEChooHJ. Try-on experience with augmented reality comforts your decision: focusing on the roles of immersion and psychological ownership. Inf Technol People2020; 33: 1214–1234.
10.
GilbertSB. Perceived realism of virtual environments depends on authenticity. Presence2016; 25: 322–324.
11.
NikhashemiSRKnightHHNusairK, et al.Augmented reality in smart retailing: a (n)(A) Symmetric Approach to continuous intention to use retail brands’ mobile AR apps. J Retailing Consum Serv2021; 60: 102464.
12.
JangSLiuY. Continuance use intention with mobile augmented reality games: overall and multigroup analyses on Pokémon Go. Inf Technol People2019; 33: 37–55.
13.
HilkenTHellerJChylinskiM, et al.Making omnichannel an augmented reality: the current and future state of the art. J Res Indian Med2018; 12: 509–523.
14.
BlascovichJLoomisJBeallAC, et al.Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol Inq2002; 13: 103–124.
15.
PrinceS. True lies: perceptual realism, digital images, and film theory. Film Q1996; 49: 27–37.
GeorgiouYKyzaEA. Bridging narrative and locality in mobile-based augmented reality educational activities: effects of semantic coupling on students’ immersion and learning gains. Int J Hum Comput Stud2021; 145: 102546.
18.
YeeNBailensonJNRickertsenK. A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. April 28 – May 3. New York: ACM, 2007, California, USA, pp. 1–10.
19.
GarauMSlaterMVinayagamoorthyV, et al.The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. April 5–10. New York: ACM, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp. 529–536.
20.
KullmannK. Hyper-realism and loose-reality: the limitations of digital realism and alternative principles in landscape design visualization. Journal of Landscape Architecture2014; 9: 20–31.
21.
JavornikA. ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real’ Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. J Market Manag2016; 32: 987–1011.
22.
RauschnabelPAFelixRHinschC. Augmented reality marketing: how mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. J Retailing Consum Serv2019; 49: 43–53.
23.
NashEBEdwardsGWThompsonJA, et al.A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Interact2000; 12: 1–41.
24.
HallA. Reading realism: audiences’ evaluations of the reality of media texts. J Commun2003; 53: 624–641.
25.
ChoHShenLWilsonK. Perceived realism: dimensions and roles in narrative persuasion. Commun Res2014; 41: 828–851.
26.
AnimeshAPinsonneaultAYandSB, et al.An odyssey into virtual worlds: exploring the impacts of technological and spatial environments on intentions to purchase virtual products. MIS Q2011; 35: 789–810.
27.
SminkARvan ReijmersdalEAvan NoortG, et al.Shopping in augmented reality: the effects of spatial presence, personalization and intrusiveness on app and brand responses. J Bus Res2020; 118: 474–485.
28.
SuhKSChangS. User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: the role of telepresence. Behav Inf Technol2006; 25: 99–113.
29.
MollenAWilsonH. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. J Bus Res2010; 63: 919–925.
30.
UhmJPKimSDoC, et al.How augmented reality (AR) experience affects purchase intention in sport E-commerce: roles of perceived diagnosticity, psychological distance, and perceived risks. J Retailing Consum Serv2022; 67: 103027.
31.
HsuSHYTsouHTChenJS. “Yes, we do. Why not use augmented reality?” customer responses to experiential presentations of AR-based applications. J Retailing Consum Serv2021; 62: 102649.
32.
BillinghurstMBelcherDGuptaA, et al.Communication behaviors in colocated collaborative AR interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Interact2003; 16: 395–423.
33.
JiangZBenbasatI. Virtual product experience: effects of visual and functional control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping. J Manag Inf Syst2004; 21: 111–147.
34.
KempfDSAttitude formation from product trial: distinct roles of cognition and affect for hedonic and functional products. Psychol Market1999; 16: 35–50.
35.
ChildersTLCarrCLPeckJ, et al.Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J Retailing2001; 77: 511–535.
36.
FeldmanJMLynchJG. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. J Appl Psychol1988; 73: 421–435.
37.
AlbaJLynchJWeitzB, et al.Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. J Market1997; 61: 38–53.
38.
BurkeRR. Technology and the customer interface: what consumers want in the physical and virtual store. J Acad Market Sci2002; 30: 411–432.
39.
PavlouPAFygensonM. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q2006; 30: 115–143.
40.
YooJ. The effects of perceived quality of augmented reality in mobile commerce—an application of the information systems success model. Informatics2020; 7: 14.
41.
HerreraFOhSYBailensonJN. Effect of behavioral realism on social interactions inside collaborative virtual environments. Presence2020; 27: 163–182.
42.
GuadagnoREBlascovichJBailensonJN, et al.Virtual humans and persuasion: the effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychol2007; 10: 1–22.
43.
BakerEAbu BakarJZulkifliA. Elements of engagement in promoting social acceptance of mobile augmented reality application. Int Assoc Online Eng. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/218304/
44.
FanXChaiZDengN, et al.Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and consumers’ product attitude: a cognitive perspective. J Retailing Consum Serv2020; 53: 101986.
45.
ParkMYooJ. Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer responses: a mental imagery perspective. J Retailing Consum Serv2020; 52: 101912.
46.
ChellappaRKSinRG. Personalization versus privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Inf Technol Manag2005; 6: 181–202.
47.
WuJFDongJWuY, et al.Shopping through mobile augmented reality: the impact of AR embedding and embodiment attributes on consumer-based brand equity. Inf Manag2024; 61: 103999.
48.
TamKYHoSY. Understanding the impact of web personalization on user information processing and decision outcomes. MIS Q2006; 30: 865–890.
49.
VesanenJ. What is personalization? A conceptual framework. Eur J Market2007; 41: 409–418.
50.
AwECXTanGWHOoiKB, et al.Tap here to power up! Mobile augmented reality for consumer empowerment. Internet Res2024; 34: 960–993.
51.
JavornikAPizzettiM. Mirror mirror on The Wall, who Is Real of them all? - the role of augmented self, expertise and personalisation in the experience with augmented reality mirror. In: GneezyAGriskeviciusVWilliamsP (eds). NA - Advances in Consumer Research. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 2017, vol 45, pp. 423–427.
52.
DavisF. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q1989; 13: 319–340.
53.
DehnDMVan MulkenS. The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. Int J Hum Comput Stud2000; 52: 1–22.
54.
ZakiM. Digital transformation: harnessing digital technologies for the next generation of services. J Serv Market2019; 33: 429–435.
55.
ChenYLinCA. Consumer decision-making in an augmented reality environment: exploring the effects of flow via augmented realism and technology fluidity. Telematics Inf2022; 71: 101833.
56.
AlimamySNadeemW. Is this real? Cocreation of value through authentic experiential augmented reality: the mediating effect of perceived ethics and customer engagement. Inf Technol People2022; 35: 577–599.
57.
ArghashiVYukselCA. Interactivity, Inspiration, and Perceived Usefulness! How retailers’ AR-apps improve consumer engagement through flow. J Retailing Consum Serv2022; 64: 102756.
58.
ButtAAhmadHMuzaffarA, et al.WOW, the make-up AR app is impressive: a comparative study between China and South Korea. J Serv Market2021; 36: 73–88.
59.
AjzenI. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process1991; 50: 179–211.
60.
LiaoCPalviaPChenJL. Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT). Int J Inf Manag2009; 29: 309–320.
61.
AmorosoDLimR. The mediating effects of habit on continuance intention. Int J Inf Manag2017; 37: 693–702.
62.
RauschnabelPARossmannAtom DieckMC. An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: the case of Pokémon Go. Comput Hum Behav2017; 76: 276–286.
63.
HungSWChangCWMaYC. A new reality: exploring continuance intention to use mobile augmented reality for entertainment purposes. Technol Soc2021; 67: 101757.
64.
NizarNNMZulnaidiHBasarA, et al.A structural model of pre-service teachers’ attitude, acceptance, and continuance intention towards mobile augmented reality. Contemp Educ Technol2024; 16: ep531.
65.
JiangQSunJYangC, et al.The impact of perceived interactivity and intrinsic value on users’ continuance intention in using mobile augmented reality virtual shoe-try-on function. Systems2022; 10: 3.
66.
IranmaneshMSenaliMGForoughiB, et al.Effect of augmented reality applications on attitude and behaviours of customers: cognitive and affective perspectives. Asia-Pac J Bus Adm2024; 16: 1–26.
67.
JiangZBenbasatI. The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Q2007; 31: 475–500.
68.
VerhagenTVonkemanCFeldbergF, et al.Present it like it is here: creating local presence to improve online product experiences. Comput Hum Behav2014; 39: 270–280.
69.
ChiangKDholakiaR. Factors driving consumer intention to shop online: an empirical investigation. J Consum Psychol2003; 13: 177–183.
70.
NelsonP. Information and consumer behavior. J Polit Econ1970; 78: 311–329.
71.
MoonJChadeeDTikooS. Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer purchase intention to buy personalized products online. J Bus Res2008; 61: 31–39.
72.
KleinLR. Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a new lens: search versus experience goods. J Bus Res1998; 41: 195–203.
73.
TanYCChandukalaSRReddySK. Augmented reality in retail and its impact on sales. J Market2022; 86: 48–66.
74.
HuangPLurieNHMitraS. Searching for experience on the web: an empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. J Market2009; 73: 55–69.
75.
LimJSAl-AaliAHeinrichsJ. Impact of satisfaction with e-retailers’ touch points on purchase behavior: the moderating effect of search and experience product type. Mark (Lond)2015; 26: 225–235.
76.
LiuDYuJ. Impact of perceived diagnosticity on live streams and consumer purchase intention: streamer type, product type, and brand awareness as moderators. Inf Technol Manag2024; 25: 219–232.
77.
ChoiUChoiB. The effect of augmented reality on consumer learning for search and experience products in mobile commerce. Cyberpsychol, Behav Soc Netw2020; 23: 800–805.
78.
VelascoFYangZJanakiramanN. A meta-analytic investigation of consumer response to anthropomorphic appeals: the role of product type and uncertainty avoidance. J Bus Res2021; 131: 735–746.
79.
KimTHChooHJ. Augmented reality as a product presentation tool: focusing on the role of product information and presence in AR. Fash Text2021; 8: 1–23.
80.
GuoYMPooleMS. Antecedents of flow in online shopping: a test of alternative models. Inf Syst J2009; 19: 369–390.
81.
WangSBeattySEMothersbaughDL. Congruity’s role in website attitude formation. J Bus Res2009; 62: 609–615.
82.
BrislinRW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: LonnerWJBerryJW (eds). Field methods in cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1986, pp. 137–164.
83.
HayesAF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 3rd ed.New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2022.
84.
XiaYYangY. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: the story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behav Res Methods2019; 51: 409–428.
85.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
86.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al.Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009.
87.
PreacherKJHayesAF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods, Instrum Comput2004; 36: 717–731.
88.
ByrneBM. Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: a walk through the process. Psicothema2008; 20: 872–882.
89.
ByrneBMShavelsonRJMuthénB. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull1989; 105: 456–466.
90.
JavornikA. Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behavior. J Retailing Consum Serv2016; 30: 252–261.
ReseABaierDGeyer-SchulzA, et al.How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: A comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technol Forecast Soc Change2017; 124: 306–319.
93.
PerannagariKTChakrabartiS. Factors influencing acceptance of augmented reality in retail: insights from thematic analysis. Int J Retail Distrib Manag2019; 48: 18–34.
94.
PeukertCPfeifferJMeißnerM, et al.Shopping in virtual reality stores: the influence of immersion on system adoption. J Manag Inf Syst2019; 36: 755–788.
95.
HsuCCLinJCC. Understanding continuance intention to use online to offline (O2O) apps. Electron Mark2020; 30: 883–897.
96.
StraßmannCKrämerNCBuschmeierH, et al.Age-related differences in the evaluation of a virtual health agent’s appearance and embodiment in a health-related interaction: experimental lab study. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e13726.
97.
Van GelderJLDe VriesREDemetriouA, et al.The virtual reality scenario method: moving from imagination to immersion in criminal decision-making research. J Res Crime Delinquen2019; 56: 451–480.
98.
RacatMCapelliSLichyJ. New insights into ‘technologies of touch’: information processing in product evaluation and purchase intention. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 170, 120900.
99.
YangTHKimJRJinH, et al.Recent advances and opportunities of active materials for haptic technologies in virtual and augmented reality. Adv Funct Mater2021; 31: 2008831.
100.
YimMYCParkSY. “I am not satisfied with my body, so I like augmented reality (AR)” Consumer responses to AR-based product presentations. J Bus Res2019; 100: 581–589.
101.
KowalczukPSiepmannCAdlerJ. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral consumer responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: a comparative study. J Bus Res2021; 124: 357–373.
102.
ZangerVMeißnerMRauschnabelPA. Beyond the gimmick: how affective responses drive brand attitudes and intentions in augmented reality marketing. Psychol Market2022; 39: 1285–1301.
