The avatar-driven metaverse represents the convergence of the physical and digital realms using real-time 3D software. We leverage the uses, gratifications, and customer engagement (CE) theories to study factors impacting Generation Z’s (Gen Z) engagement with the multisensory immersive metaverse environment. Our research on 204 Gen Z participants from the USA (46% female) indicates that Gen Z’s hedonic needs for engaging with the metaverse are higher than their cognitive needs. Self-expression (symbolic gratification) and the desired enhancement of reality mediate the relationship between hedonic needs and CE. Using a moderated serial mediation model, we show that the effects of serial mediation are moderated by gender. This research enhances the behavioural science research on new-age technology usage amongst Gen Z.
ChristensenCM. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press; 2013.
2.
ShenB, TanW, GuoJ, ZhaoL, QinP. How to promote user purchase in metaverse? A systematic literature review on consumer behavior research and virtual commerce application design. Appl Sci. 2021; 11:11087.
3.
ButtAH, AhmadH, GorayaMAS, AkramMS, ShafiqueMN. Let’s play: Me and my AI-powered avatar as one team. Psychol Market. 2021; 38:1014–1025.
WarrenT. Microsoft Teams Enters the Metaverse Race with 3D Avatars and Immersive Meetings. 2021. https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/2/22758974/microsoft-teams-metaverse-mesh-3d-avatars-meetings-features
6.
StankiewiczK. Nvidia CEO says the metaverse could save companies billions of dollars in the real world. 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/nvidia-ceo-says-the-metaverse-could-save-companies-billions.html
ChuahSHW, RauschnabelPA, KreyN, NguyenB, RamayahT, LadeS. Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Comput Hum Behav. 2016; 65:276–284.
9.
RauschnabelPA, HeJ, RoYK. Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look at privacy risks. J Bus Res. 2018; 92:374–384.
10.
MishraA, ShuklaA, RanaNP, DwivediYK. From “touch” to a “multisensory” experience: The impact of technology interface and product type on consumer responses. Psychol Mark. 2021; 38:385–396.
11.
ChamberlainL. Gen-Z Will Account for 40 Percent of All Consumers by 2020. 2018. https://geomarketing.com/gen-z-will-account-for-40-percent-of-all-consumers-by-2020
12.
DavisD. Gen Zers have a Spending Power of Over $140 Billion, Driving the Frenzy of Retailers and Brands Trying to Win Their Dollars. 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/retail-courts-gen-z-spending-power-over-140-billion-2020-1
13.
SzymkowiakA, MelovicB, DabicM, JeganathanK, SinghG. Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technol Soc. 2021; 65:101565.
14.
LabrecqueLI. Stimulating the senses: An introduction to part two of the special issue on sensory marketing. Psychol Market. 2020; 37(8):1013–1018.
15.
GrewalD, NobleSM, RoggeveenAL, NordfaltJ. The future of in-store technology. J Acad Market Sci. 2020; 48(1):96–113.
16.
KumarV, RajanB, GuptaS, Dalla PozzaI. Customer engagement in service. J Acad Market Sci. 2019; 47(1):138–160.
17.
HollebeekLD, SrivastavaRK, ChenT. S-D logic-informed customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. J Acad Market Sci. 2019; 47:161–185.
18.
PansariA, KumarV. Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. J Acad Market Sci. 2017; 45:294–311.
19.
ReadW, RobertsonN, McQuilkenL, FerdousA. Consumer engagement on Twitter: Perceptions of the brand matter. Eur J Market. 2019; 53(9):1905–1933.
20.
LetherenK, Russell-BennettR, MulcahyR, McAndrewR. Rules of (household) engagement: Technology as manager, assistant, and intern. Eur J Market. 2019; 53(9): 1934–1961.
21.
KatzE, BlumlerJG, GurevitchM. The Uses and Gratifications Approach to Mass Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1974.
22.
RauschnabelPA. Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: An exploration of expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses. Psychol Market. 2018; 35:557–572.
23.
Osei-FrimpongK, McLeanG. Examining online social brand engagement: A social presence theory perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018; 128:10–21.
24.
KesharwaniA. Do (how) digital natives adopt a new technology differently than digital immigrants? A longitudinal study. Inf Manage. 2020; 57(2):103170.
25.
DimockM. Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins. 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins
26.
AmeenN, HosanyS, TarhiniA. Consumer interaction with cutting-edge technologies: Implications for future research. Comput Hum Behav. 2021; 120:106761.
27.
ChiccaJ, ShellenbargerT. Connecting with generation Z: Approaches in nursing education. Teach Learn Nurs. 2018; 13(3):180–184.
28.
Bridgeworks. Connecting with three generational segments in the workforce: A survey comparing early millennials, late millennials, and Generation Z. 2017. https://www.generations.com/gen-edge-report
29.
GentinaE, RoweF. Effects of materialism on problematic smartphone dependency among adolescents: The role of gender and gratifications. Int J Inf Manage. 2020; 54:102134.
30.
PichlerS, KohliC, GranitzN. DITTO for Gen Z: A framework for leveraging the uniqueness of the new generation. Bus Horiz. 2021; 64(5):599–610.
31.
Grayscale. The Metaverse. 2021. https://grayscale.com/learn/the-metaverse/
32.
ShenB, TanW, GuoJ, ZhaoL, QinP. How to promote user purchase in metaverse? A systematic literature review on consumer behavior research and virtual commerce application design. Appl Sci. 2021; 11:11087.
33.
BélisleJF, BodurHO. Avatars as information: Perception of consumers based on their avatars in virtual worlds. Psychol Market. 2010; 27:741–765.
34.
SuhA, ProphetJ. The state of immersive technology research: A literature analysis. Comput Hum Behav. 2010; 86:77–90.
35.
ChungS, KramerT, WongE. Do touch interface users feel more engaged? The impact of input device type on online shoppers’ engagement, affect and purchase decisions. Psychol Market. 2018; 35(11):795–806.
36.
NeedlemanS. The amazing things you’ll do in the metaverse and what it will take to get there. Wall Street Journal. 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-amazing-things-youll-do-in-the-metaverse-and-what-it-will-take-to-get-there-11634396401
37.
SternJ. I spent 24 hours in the metaverse. I made friends, did work, and panicked about the future. Wall Street Journal. 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/metaverse-experience-facebook-microsoft-11636671113
38.
SheldonP. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67–75.
39.
McleanG., Osei-FrimpongK. Hey Alexa… examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Comput Hum Behav. 2019; 99:28–37.
40.
BrodieRJ, HollebeekLD, JuricB, Ilic A Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J Serv Res. 2011; 14(3):252–271.
41.
MeireM, HewettK, BallingsM, KumarV, Van den PoelDThe role of marketer-generated content in customer engagement marketing. J Market. 2019; 83(6):21–42.
42.
BrodieR, FehrerJ, JaakkolaE, ConduitJ. Actor engagement in networks: Defining the conceptual domain. J Serv Res. 2019; 22(2):173–188.
43.
HornbækK, HertzumM. Technology acceptance and user experience: A review of the experiential component in HCI. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2017; 24(5):33.
44.
StocchiL, PourazadN, MichaelidouN, TanusondjajaA, HarriganP. Marketing research on mobile apps: Past, present, and future. J Acad Market Sci. 2022; 50(2):195–225.
45.
SchuitemaG, AnableJ, SkipponS, KinnearN. The role of instrumental, hedonic, and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract. 2013; 48:39–49.
PuntoniS, ReczekRW, GieslerM, BottiS. Consumers and artificial intelligence: An experiential perspective. J Market. 2021; 85(1):131–151.
48.
SimmondsL, BogomolovaS, KennedyR, Nenycz-ThielM, BellmanS. A dual-process model of how incorporating audio-visual sensory cues in video advertising promotes active attention. Psychol Market. 2020; 37(8):1057–1067.
49.
VitezićV, PerićM. Artificial intelligence acceptance in services: Connecting with Generation Z. Serv Ind J. 2021; 41(13–14):926–946.
50.
KingWR, HeJ. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage. 2021; 43(6):740–755.
51.
HaridakisP, HansonG. Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2009; 53:317–335.
52.
ParongJ, WellsA, MayerRE. Replicated evidence towards a cognitive theory of game-based training. J Educ Psychol. 2020; 112(5):922–937.
53.
CrossSE, MadsonL. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychol Bull. 1997; 122(1):5–37.
54.
RoseGM, BoushDM, FriestadM. Self-esteem, susceptibility to interpersonal influence, and fashion attribute preference in early adolescents. Eur Adv Consum Res. 1998; 3:197–203.
55.
Lopez-FernandezO, WilliamsAJ, KussDJ. Measuring female gaming: Gamer profile, predictors, prevalence, and characteristics from psychological and gender perspectives. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:898.
56.
GentinaE, RoweF. Effects of materialism on problematic smartphone dependency among adolescents: The role of gender and gratifications. Int J Inf Manage. 2020; 54:102134.
57.
HairJF, SarstedtM, RingleCM, MenaJA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Market Sci. 2012; 40(3):414–433.
58.
HayesAF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
59.
KuY. C., ChuT. H., TsengC. H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 226–234.
60.
HollebeekL. D., GlynnM. S., & BrodieR. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165.
61.
HarriganP., EversU., MilesM.P., DalyT. (2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. Journal of Business Research, 88, 388–396.
62.
LuarnP., YangJ. C., & ChiuY. P. (2015). Why people check in to social networksites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(4), 21–46.
