Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Augmented reality versus conventional interface: Is there any difference in effectiveness?

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The moment immediately before the “add to cart” decision is very critical in online shopping. Drawing on theories of transfer, spreading activation and human-computer interaction, the superiority of markerless Augmented Reality (AR) and Marker-based augmented reality (M) over Conventional Interactive (CI) is hypothesized. Although those multimedia tools are not part of the product/brand motivating the consumer interest they interfere in the interactive performance of the ecommerce. 150 consumers in a lab experiment showed higher emotional response, interactive response and brand evaluation in M and AR than CI. Contrary to what was expected the usability results were the inverse. That is, usability of CI outperforms M and AR. Considering only AR and M interfaces their effect on psychological variables was not statistically significant. A sophisticated or a simple interface had no impact on intention to buy the target brand, but the brand recommendation improved from M to AR. The differing effect of those three interface systems was mediated by brand familiarity, perceived risk, opinion leadership and positive emotional traits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aaker JL (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. J Mark Res 34(3):347–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JR (1983) A spreading activation theory of memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 22(3):261–295

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Arafsha F, Alam KM, El Saddik A (2015) Design and development of a user centric affective haptic jacket. Multimedia Tools and Applications 74(9):3035–3052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rolland JP, Holloway RL Fuchs H (1995) Comparison of optical and video see-through, head-mounted displays. In Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering 2351, 293-307.

  5. Azoulay A, Kapferer J-N (2003) Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand Manag 11(2):143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6(4):355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bachorowski JA, Braaten EB (1994) Emotional intensity: measurement and theoretical implications. Personal Individ Differ 17:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baöos RM, Etchemendy E, Castilla D, Garcia-Palacios A, Quero S, Botella C (2012) Positive mood induction procedures for virtual environments designed for elderly people. Interact Comput 24(3):131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bartels J, Reinders MJ (2011) Consumer innovativeness and its correlates: a propositional inventory for future research. J Bus Res 64(6):601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Batra RP, Home M (2004) The situational impact of brand image beliefs. J Consum Psychol 14(3):318–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Belleau BD, Summers TA, Xu Y, Pinel R (2007) Theory of reasoned action purchase intention of young consumers. Cloth Text Res 25(3):244–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beukeboom CJ, Kerkhof P, de Vries M (2015) Does a virtual like cause actual liking? How following a Brand's Facebook updates enhances brand evaluations and purchase intention. J Interact Mark 32:26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bosse T, Jonker CM, Treur J (2008) Formalization of Damasio’s theory of emotion, feeling and core consciousness. Conscious Cogn 17(1):94–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Botella C, Breton-López J, Quero S, Baños RM, García-Palacios A, Zaragoza I, Alcaniz M (2011) Treating cockroach phobia using a serious game on a mobile phone and augmented reality exposure: a single case study. Comput Hum Behav 27(1):217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boughrara H, Chtourou M, Amar CB, Chen L (2016) Facial expression recognition based on a mlp neural network using constructive training algorithm. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(2):709–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bryman A (2015) Social research methods. Oxford University Press

  17. Carmigniani J, Furht B, Anisetti M, Ceravolo P, Damiani E, Ivkovic M (2011) Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51(1):341–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cattell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1:245–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen LS-L, Yung-Hsin L, Wang ST (2012) Impact of intangibility on perceived risk associated with online games. Behav Inform Technol 31(10):1021–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Choi, HH, Lim, SA Jeong, CS (2014) New promotional video technique utilizing augmented reality and popcode. Multimedia Tools and Applications 1–16. doi:10.1007/s11042-014-2272-z

  21. Chung N, Han H, Joun Y (2015) Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: the role of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Comput Hum Behav 50:588–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82(6):407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Coovert MD, Lee T, Shindev I, Sun Y (2014) Spatial augmented reality as a method for a mobile robot to communicate intended movement. Comput Hum Behav 34:241–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cox DF, Rich SU (1964) Perceived risk and consumer decision-making: the case of telephone shopping. J Mark Res 1:4,32–4,39

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cox DF, Rich SU (1964) Perceived risk and consumer decision-making: the case of telephone shopping. J Mark Res 1:4,32–4,39

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cozby PC (2009) Methods of behavioral research, 10th edn. McGraw-Hill, NY

    Google Scholar 

  27. Deng L, Poole MS (2012) Aesthetic design of e-commerce web pages: webpage complexity, order and preference. Electron Commer Res Appl 11(4):420–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ding CG, Lin CH (2012) How does background music tempo work for online shopping? Electron Commer Res Appl 11(3):299–307

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Eisenbeiss M, Blechschmidt B, Backhaus K, Freund PA (2012) The (real) world is not enough: motivational drivers and user behavior in virtual worlds. J Interact Mark 26(1):4–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ewoldsen DR, Rhodes N, Fazio RH (2015) The MODE model and its implications for studying the media. Media Psychology 18(3):312–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fang H, Zhang J, Şensoy M, M-Thalmann N (2014) Reputation mechanism for e-commerce in virtual reality environments. Electron Commer Res Appl 13(6):409–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fonseca D, Martí N, Redondo E, Navarro I, Sánchez A (2014) Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of augmented reality technology for visualized architecture models. Comput Hum Behav 31:434–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Forsythe S, Liu C, Shannon D, Gardener L (2006) Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risk of online shopping. J Interact Mark 20(14):55–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gamboa H, Silva H, Fred A (2014) HiMotion: a new research resource for the study of behavior, cognition, and emotion. Multimedia Tools and Applications 73(1):345–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goldsmith RE, Foxall GR (2003) The measurement of innovativeness. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The International Handbook on Innovation. Oxford, Pergamon, pp 321–330

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF (1991) Measuring consumer innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 19:1004–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goto K, Cotler E (2002) Web redesign: workflow that works. NR Publ, IN

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Gritz A (2010) Needs, affect, and interactive products facets of user experience. Interact Comput 22(5):353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. He Y, Chen Q, Tam L, Lee RP (2016) Managing sub-branding affect transfer: the role of consideration set size and brand loyalty. Mark Lett 27(1):103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hsu JSC, Lin TC, Fu TW, Hung YW (2015) The effect of unexpected features on app users continuance intention. Electron Commer Res Appl 14(6):418–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Humphreys MS, Revelle W (1984) Personality, motivation, and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychol Rev 91(2):153–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hurtienne J, Blessing L (2007) Metaphors as tools for intuitive interaction with technology. metaphorik.de. 12:21–52

    Google Scholar 

  44. Iyengar R, van den Bulte C, Valente TW (2011) Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Mark Sci 30(2):195–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Janiszewski C, Stijn M, van Osselaer J (2000) A connectionist model of brand–quality associations. J Mark Res 37(3):331–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jarrier E, B-Renault D (2012) Impact of mediation devices on the museum visit experience and on Visitors' Behavioural intentions. Int J Arts Manag 15(1):18–29

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jung T, Chung N, Leue MC (2015) The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: the case of a Korean theme park. Tour Manag 49:75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim J, Lee H, Kim H (2004) Factors affecting online search intention and online purchase intention. Seoul Journal of Business 10

  49. Kim DJ, Ferrin DL, Rao HR (2009) Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful E-commerce relationships: a longitudinal exploration. Inf Syst Res 20(2):237–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim KK, Shin HK, Kim B (2011) The role of psychological traits and social factors in using new mobile communication services. Electron Commer Res Appl 10(4):408–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim H-J, Park SB, Geun-Sik J (2014) Affective social network-happiness inducing social media platform. Multimedia Tools and Applications 68(2):355–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim SYS, Prestopnik N, Biocca FA (2014) Body in the interactive game: how interface embodiment affects physical activity and health behavior change. Comput Hum Behav 36:376–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kock N, Jardón RC (2016) Surprise-enhanced and technology-mediated learning: a two-country study. Cogn Tech Work 18(1):105–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kourouthanassis P, Boletsis C, Bardaki C, Chasanidou D (2015) Tourists responses to mobile augmented reality travel guides: the role of emotions on adoption behavior. Pervasive Mob Comput 18:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. van Krevelen RDWF, Poelman R (2010) A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality 9:2,1–220

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kwon SJ, Chung N (2010) The moderating effects of psychological reactance and product involvement on online shopping recommendation mechanisms based on a causal map. Electron Commer Res Appl 9(6):522–536

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  57. Landau MJ, Meier BP, Keefer LA (2010) A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychol Bull 136(6):1045–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Larsen RJ, Diener E (1987) Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: a review. J Res Pers 21:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lavie T, Tractinsky N (2004) Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int J Hum Comput Stud 60(3):269–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee KC, Chung N (2008) Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the virtual reality shopping mall. Comput Hum Behav 24(1):88–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee Y, Kozar KA (2012) Understanding of website usability: specifying and measuring constructs and their relationships. Decis Support Syst 52(2):450–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee S, Ha S, Widdows R (2011) Consumer responses to high-technology products: product attributes, cognition, and emotions. J Bus Res 64(11):1195–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Li T, Meshkova Z (2013) Examining the impact of rich media on consumer willingness to pay in online stores. Electron Commer Res Appl 12(6):449–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Li H, Daugherty T, Biocca F (2002) Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. J Advert 31(3):43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Liikkanen LA, Åman P (2015) Shuffling services: current trends in interacting with digital music. Interacting with computers, iwv004

  66. Lin A, Gregor S, Ewing M (2008) Developing a scale to measure the enjoyment of web experiences. J Interact Mark 22(4):40–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. López I, Ruiz S (2011) Explaining website effectiveness: the hedonic and utilitarian dual mediation hypothesis. Electron Commer Res Appl 10(1):49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lv Z, Chirivella J, Gagliardo P (2016) Bigdata oriented multimedia mobile health applications. J Med Syst 40(5):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lv Z, Penades V, Blasco S, Chirivella J, Gagliardo P (2016) Evaluation of Kinect2 based balance measurement. Neurocomputing. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2015.12.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mandler JM, Cánovas CP (2014) On defining image schemas. Lang Cogn 6(4):510–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Mehrabian A, Russell JA (1974) An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  72. Meyers-Levy J (1989) The influence of a brand name's association set size and word frequency on brand memory. J Consum Res 16(2):197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Microsoft Kinect http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/kinectforwindows/Retrieved November 18, 2016

  74. Moreland RL, Zajonc RB (1982) Exposure effects in person perception: familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J Exp Soc Psychol 18:5,395–5,415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Nepomuceno MV, Laroche M, Richard MO (2014) How to reduce perceived risk when buying online: the interactions between intangibility, product knowledge, brand familiarity, privacy and security concerns. J Retail Consum Serv 21(4):619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ng S, Houston MJ (2009) Field dependency and brand cognitive structures. J Market Res 46(2):279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Nickerson R, Landauer T (1997) Human-computer interaction: background and issues. Handbook of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  78. Nielsen J (1994) Heuristic evaluation. Usability inspection methods 17(1):25–62

    Google Scholar 

  79. Nielsen J (2010) Mental models. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox

  80. van Noort G, Voorveld HAM, van Reijmersdal EA (2012) Interactivity in brand web sites: cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers' online flow experience. J Interact Mark 26(4):223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Norman DA (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic books

  82. Olsson T, Kärkkäinen T, Lagerstam E, Ventä-Olkkonen L (2012) User evaluation of mobile augmented reality scenarios. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 41:29–47

    Google Scholar 

  83. Open CV http://opencv.org/ Retrieved November 20, 2016

  84. Pantin-Sohier G (2009) The influence of the product package on functional and symbolic associations of brand image. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Ed) 24(2):53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Partala T, Kallinen A (2012) Understanding the most satisfying and unsatisfying user experiences: emotions, psychological needs, and context. Interact Comput 24(1):25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Prochazka, D, Koubek, T (2011) Augmented reality implementation methods in mainstream applications. Acta univ agric et silvic Mendel Brun, 2011, LIX(4), 257–266.

  87. Raney AA, Arpan LM, Pashupati K, Brill DA (2003) At the movies, on the web: an investigation of the effects of entertaining and interactive web content on site and brand evaluations. J Interact Mark 17(4):38–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Reynolds FD, Darden WR (1971) Mutually adaptive effects of interpersonal communication. J Mark Res 8(4):449–454

  89. Ryu HS, Park H (2016) A system for supporting paper-based augmented reality. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(6):3375–3390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Scheaffer RL, Mendenhall W III, Ott L (1996) Elementary survey sampling, 5th edn. Duxbury Press, Belmont

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  91. Seminar, Minnesota Consumer Behavior (1987) Affect generalization to similar and dissimilar brand extensions. Psychol Mark 4(3):225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Shneiderman B (1998) Relate–create–donate: a teaching/learning philosophy for the cyber-generation. Comput Educ 31(1):25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Siltanen S (2012) Theory and applications of marker-based augmented reality.VTT

  94. Song P, Xu H, Techatassanasoontorn A, Zhang C (2011) The influence of product integration on online advertising effectiveness. Electron Commer Res Appl 10(3):288–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Stefanucci JK, Storbeck J (2009) Don't look down: emotional arousal elevates height perception. J Exp Psychol Gen 138(1):131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Stevens J (1999) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  97. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Osterlind SJ (2001) Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed., Pearson

  98. Teichert TA, Schöntag K (2010) Exploring consumer knowledge structures using associative network analysis. Psychol Mark 27(4):369–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. The Future of Augmented Reality and Online Shopping. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2016, from http://www.augment.com/blog/future-augmented-reality-online-shopping/

  100. Unity 3D http://unity3d.com/ Retrieved November 18, 2016

  101. Van Krevelen DWF, Poelman R (2010) A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality 9(2):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  102. Verhagen T, van Dolen W (2011) The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online impulse buying: a model and empirical application. Inf Manag 48(8):320–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Verhellen Y, Dens, N, De Pelsmacker P. (2015) Do I know you? How brand familiarity and perceived fit affect consumers’ attitudes towards brands placed in movies. Marketing Letters 1–11. doi:10.1007/s11002-015-9347-0

  104. Wang S, Zhu Y, Wu G, Ji Q (2014) Hybrid video emotional tagging using users’ EEG and video content. Multimedia tools and applications 72(2):1257–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Wang S, Wang Z, Ji Q (2015) Multiple emotional tagging of multimedia data by exploiting dependencies among emotions. Multimedia Tools and Applications 74(6):1863–1883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Wang Y, Min Q, Han S (2016) Understanding the effects of trust and risk on individual behavior toward social media platforms: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Comput Hum Behav 56:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Wathen CN, Burkell J (2002) Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 53(2):134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Whissell C, Fournier M, Pelland R, Weir D, Makarec K (1986) A dictionary of affect in language: IV. Reliability, validity, and applications, Perceptual and Motor Skills 62(3):875–888

    Google Scholar 

  109. Wood LE (ed) (1998) User interface design: bridging the gap from user requirements to design. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  110. Wu H, Wang J, Zhang XL (2016) User-centered gesture development in TV viewing environment. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(2):733–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Yamabe T, Nakajima T (2013) Playful training with augmented reality games: case studies towards reality-oriented system design. Multimedia Tools and Applications 62(1):259–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Yang MT, Chiu YC (2014) Note-taking for 3D curricular contents using Markerless augmented reality. Interact Comput 26(4):321–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Zhang KZK, Benyoucef M, Zhao SJ (2016) Building brand loyalty in social commerce: the case of brand microblogs. Electron Commer Res Appl 15:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Zlatanova S (2002) Augmented reality technology. GISt Report 17:1–76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Economia, LIAAD/INESC-Tec, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-464, Porto, Portugal

    Pedro Quelhas Brito

  2. Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-464, Porto, Portugal

    Jasmina Stoyanova & António Coelho

Authors
  1. Pedro Quelhas Brito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jasmina Stoyanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. António Coelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Quelhas Brito.

Appendix

Appendix

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Emotional response

(Mehrabian and Russell 1974)

Components

Responsiveness

Arousal

1 Stimulated / Relaxed

,886

 

2 Excited / Calm

,907

 

3 Frenzied / Sluggish

,665

 

4 Jittery / Dull

,408

,328

5 Wide-awake / Sleepy

 

,932

6 Unaroused / Aroused

,801

,369

7 Super active / Passive

,532

,681

8 Enthusiastic / Apathetic

,451

,734

Interactive response

(Lavie and Tractinsky 2004)

Components

Aesthetics

Usability

Organization

1. Ease of use

 

,813

 

2 Intuitive navigation

 

,559

,434

3 Response speed

 

,855

 

4 Organization

 

,306

,740

5 Ease of control

 

,854

 

6 Layout aesthetics

,678

 

,520

7 Pleasant design

,708

 

,508

8 Design “clean”

,512

 

,676

9 Use of special effects

,744

  

10 Symmetric design

,333

 

,706

11 Creative design

,874

  

12 Original design

,904

  

13 Sophisticated design

,872

  

Attitude toward the Brand

(Aaker 1997)

Components

Daring

Contemporary

1 Boldness

,694

 

2 Fashion tendency

,421

,727

3 Exciting / Thrilling

,738

 

4 Youthful

 

,861

5 Cool

 

,827

6 Unique

,826

 

7 Independent

,693

 

8 Pioneer

,656

,369

9 Spirited / Entertaining

,509

,678

10 Imaginative

,563

,531

11 Contemporary

,305

,617

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brito, P.Q., Stoyanova, J. & Coelho, A. Augmented reality versus conventional interface: Is there any difference in effectiveness?. Multimed Tools Appl 77, 7487–7516 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-4658-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-4658-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation