Immersive interactive technologies and virtual shopping experiences: Differences in consumer perceptions between augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101936Get rights and content

Highlights

  • This study investigated the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in impacting user perceptions and behaviors in virtual shopping environments.

  • This study utilized actual AR/VR commercial shopping environments.

  • To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research that examined both AR and VR technologies to understand their effects on consumer perception and behavioral responses of the experiences.

  • Discovering the differences between AR and VR in their effects on consumer behavioral responses clearly provides valuable implications.

Abstract

Based on the concepts of the Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum and the stimulus-organism-response (Ssingle bondOsingle bondR) framework, this study investigated differences between AR and VR in their effects on vividness/interactivity, a sense of presence, users’ sensory brand app experience, attitude, and behavioral intention. For AR, participants downloaded an app to mobile phones. For VR, participants downloaded a VR app to smartphones attached to a Google Cardboard VR headset. Vividness and interactivity directly (or indirectly) impacted a sense of presence, sensory brand app experience, attitude towards technology, and behavioral intention. However, AR and VR differed in how vividness and interactivity influenced sensory brand app experience and attitude towards technology. Overall, a sense of presence was a significant mediator for 1) the relationship between vividness and sensory brand app experience and 2) the relationship between interactivity and attitude towards technology for VR but no such relationship was observed with AR. The relationships among sensory brand app experience, attitude, and behavioral intention were significant in both AR and VR settings. Employing real AR/VR shopping situations, the study provides for practitioners deep understandings of consumers’ actual perceptions of applications of AR/VR and offers practical insights as to the efficiency of AR and VR in improving consumer virtual shopping experiences.

Introduction

Online shopping is evolving. With the fast-paced advancements in interactive technologies such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), a growing number of retailers are turning to these emerging technologies to provide a fun, effective, and enjoyable virtual shopping experience (Grewal et al., 2017, Wedel et al., 2020). Large brands such as Macy’s, Volvo, and IKEA have adopted VR to improve consumer virtual shopping (Meiβner et al., 2020). Other brands such as Timberland, Sephora, and Topshop have utilized AR in their mobile apps (Watson et al., 2020) to help consumers virtually try on products. According to a recent report (Allied Market Research, 2021), the global AR and VR market valued at $14.84 billion in 2020 is expected to reach $454.73 billion by 2030. Metaverse leveraging AR and VR is looming as the new virtual mall, especially among digital-first young generations (Obsessar.com, n.d.).

The COVID-19 pandemic greatly propelled the shift in consumers’ shopping behaviors (Kannan and Kulkarni, 2021). With the pandemic regulations, an unprecedented number of consumers switched to online shopping (McKinsey & Company, 2021). These shifts in consumer habits demanded retailers to quickly figure out how to provide effective and efficient shopping experiences in their virtual environments. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the urgency of implementing advanced interactive technologies that enhance virtual shopping experiences (Cohen, 2020, Luna-Nevarez and McGovern, 2021). Many retailers now prioritize the implementation of advanced interactive technologies including AR and VR as one of the key post-pandemic business strategies to stay competitive. Nearly two out of three marketers and executives worldwide consider the adoption of AR and VR to be quite or very important (Williamson, 2020). Nonetheless, the actual implementation rates for AR and VR remain low (e.g., Ball et al., 2021). It is often challenging for brands to adopt advanced technologies without knowing the efficacy of emerging interactive technologies.

Despite much hype in news media, empirical research comparing various interactive technologies is largely lacking. In particular, the functional mechanisms of AR and VR remain underexplored, and AR and VR technologies are often mistakenly used interchangeably in the sense that both AR and VR provide enriched or enhanced shopping experiences by processing 3D images (William, 2022). Also, when people wear a VR goggle, they generally understand they are interacting with VR. When people use their mobile phone or tablet to overlay the digital world to their reality, they generally know that they are not in VR but in AR. However, when wearable devices such as Google Glass or other smart AR glasses are involved, the distinction between AR and VR becomes less clear to the general public, resulting in common mixed uses of terms.

Both AR and VR are expected to improve visualization of products and shopping scenery and make the shopping process more interactive (Hilken et al., 2021). However, considering that the two technologies have different interfaces and functionalities, little is known about how AR and VR may be similar/different in how they influence user experiences. Hilken et al. (2021) pointed out that none of the extant research examined both AR and VR in their individual or combined effects on consumer attitudes and intentions. To address this gap, the current study aims to investigate and compare the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in impacting user perceptions and behaviors. A better understanding of consumer behavior with AR vs VR will offer practical insights for brands to make strategic technology implementations.

Milgram et al. (1994)’s Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum offers a way to conceptualize the relative relationship of AR and VR. It describes the distinct span between AR and VR in connection with consumer experiences in the real and virtual worlds. From a technical perspective, AR and VR differ in their systems. AR overlays digital world elements onto the physical real world, whereas VR provides completely immersive virtual experiences. With AR, consumers experience virtual products in the actual physical world (Tan et al., 2021). On the other hand, with VR, consumers experience virtual products in a simulated virtual environment (Watson et al., 2020). Both AR and VR have been implemented to enhance consumers’ sensory experiences in a virtual setting (Hilken et al., 2021). The technical differences between AR and VR may contribute to sensory experiences differently, and the present study aims to explore similarities/differences in user experiences with AR and VR.

To understand users’ internal processes resulting from AR and VR experiences, respectively, the present study draws on the concepts of presence and telepresence in a virtual world (Steuer, 1992) and the stimulus-organism-response (Ssingle bondOsingle bondR) framework (Eroglu et al., 2003, Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Research on interactive technologies emphasizes the importance of a sense of presence in affecting consumer adoption intention (Meißner et al., 2020, Wedel et al., 2020). According to Steuer (1992), vividness and interactivity of experiences evoke a sense of presence. Building on the literature on a sense of presence, the present study examines the functional mechanisms of how user perceptions of vividness and interactivity of AR and VR contribute to a sense of presence and further examines how a sense of presence influences consumer responses including sensory brand app experience, attitude, and behavioral intentions. The empirical findings of the study will not only bring new theoretical insights that enhance the knowledge of the mechanisms of AR and VR, but also practical insights that help retail businesses to make an informed strategic decision regarding technology adoption.

The outline of this paper is as follows. First, a conceptual framework and background knowledge of the current literature in relation to the topics covered are provided. Then, two experimental studies to test proposed hypotheses are described. Next, results and a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications for future research are presented.

Section snippets

Conceptual framework

The current study proposes an integrative model to understand the functional mechanism by which AR and VR influence consumer behavior and similarities/differences between AR and VR.

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)

Augmented reality (AR) is defined as “a technology that superimposes virtual objects onto a live view of physical environments, helping users visualize how these objects would fit into their physical world” (Tan et al., 2021, p. 1). The real-time interaction between virtual objects and real environment with 3D images is a unique feature of AR (Kumar, 2022). By integrating real world and virtual information (Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga, 2017), AR is widely applied across online websites,

Method

This study was conducted in actual AR and VR commercial shopping environments. IKEA launched both AR and VR shopping applications to enrich consumer shopping experiences. The IKEA mobile applications were utilized for both AR and VR experiments. IKEA’s AR app (i.e., IKEA Place) allows consumers to overlay its products onto a real-world environment to help consumers more accurately estimate the product fit in the physical environment. The IKEA VR app (i.e., Matterport IKEA VR store) shows a

Respondents

For the AR experiment, a total of 153 respondents participated in the study. Before taking the survey participants were asked to submit a screenshot that showed their interaction and uses of the AR tools on the IKEA AR app. Submissions that did not include acceptable screenshots showing adequate participation and interaction with the AR app or had incomplete survey questionnaires were deleted. Thus, the total number of usable respondents was 116 (54.3 % female, 45.7 % male). Approximately 60 %

Conclusions and implications

Building on the integrative framework of Milgram et al. (1994)’s Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum, the concept of a sense of presence (Steuer, 1992), and the Ssingle bondOsingle bondR framework (Eroglu et al., 2003, Mehrabian and Russell, 1974), the current research examined the functional mechanisms of AR and VR in influencing user perceptions and responses in virtual shopping environments. In particular, the effects of AR/VR application features (i.e., vividness and interactivity) on a sense of presence and other

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (Project No. NRF-2016S1A5A2A03927809).

References (108)

  • O. Iglesias et al.

    How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee empathy

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2019)
  • Y. Jang et al.

    An adoption model for virtual reality games: The roles of presence and enjoyment

    Telematics Inform.

    (2019)
  • H.J. Kang et al.

    How 3D virtual reality stores can shape consumer purchase decisions: The roles of informativeness and playfulness

    J. Interact. Mark.

    (2020)
  • L.R. Klein

    Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence

    J. Interact. Mark.

    (2003)
  • J. Lim et al.

    Investigating the determinants of telepresence in the e-commerce setting

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2018)
  • S.M.C. Loureiro et al.

    Understanding the use of Virtual Reality in Marketing: A text mining-based review

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2019)
  • J. Martínez-Navarro et al.

    The influence of virtual reality in e-commerce

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2019)
  • M. Meißner et al.

    How virtual reality affects consumer choice

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2020)
  • A. Mollen et al.

    Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2010)
  • A. Morone et al.

    Sales impact of servicescape’s rational stimuli: A natural experiment

    J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

    (2018)
  • J. Mosteller et al.

    The fluent online shopping experience

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2014)
  • E. Pantano et al.

    Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: A two country comparison of youth markets

    J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

    (2017)
  • I. Poncin et al.

    The impact of e-atmospherics on physical stores

    J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

    (2014)
  • C.E. Porter et al.

    Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2006)
  • A. Poushneh et al.

    Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy

    J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

    (2017)
  • A.R. Smink et al.

    Shopping in augmented reality: The effects of spatial presence, personalization and intrusiveness on app and brand responses

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2020)
  • T. Verhagen et al.

    Present it like it is here: Creating local presence to improve online product experiences

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2014)
  • I. Verhulst et al.

    Do VR and AR versions of an immersive cultural experience engender different user experiences?

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2021)
  • M. Wedel et al.

    Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing

    Int. J. Res. Mark.

    (2020)
  • R. Wojciechowski et al.

    Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments

    Comput. Educ.

    (2013)
  • N. Xi et al.

    Shopping in virtual reality: A literature review and future agenda

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2021)
  • Allied Market Research

    Augmented and virtual reality market statistics: 2030

  • S. Allmamy et al.

    Customer perceived value through quality augmented reality experiences in retail: The mediating effect of customer attitudes

    J. Mark. Commun.

    (2022)
  • M. Alyahya et al.

    Examining tourism consumers’ attitudes and the role of sensory information in virtual reality experiences of a tourist destination

    J. Travel Res.

    (2021)
  • Bekele, M.K., Champion, E., 2019. Redefining Mixed Reality: User-Reality-Virtuality and Virtual Heritage Perspectives....
  • F. Biocca

    Virtual reality technology: A tutorial

    J. Commun.

    (1992)
  • Blissing, B., Bruzelius, F., & Ölvander, J., 2013. Augmented and Mixed Reality as a tool for evaluation of Vehicle...
  • J.J. Brakus et al.

    Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?

    J. Mark.

    (2009)
  • Businesswire,

    Insights on the virtual reality global market to 2027 - Featuring Intel, Jaunt and Unity Technologies among others

  • R. Carter

    How Virtual Reality enhances customer experience: The role of VR in customer experience

    Retrieved from

    (2021)
  • S.R. Chandukala et al.

    How augmented reality can-and can’t-help your brand

    Harv. Bus. Rev.

    (2022)
  • K.-H. Cheng

    Parents’ user experiences of augmented reality book reading: Perceptions, expectations, and intentions

    Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.

    (2019)
  • P.K. Chopdar et al.

    Consumers response towards mobile commerce applications: S-O-R approach

    Int. J. Inf. Manag.

    (2020)
  • Cohen, M., 2020. How the coronavirus crisis will shape the future of virtual reality. Forbes. Retrieved from...
  • David, A., Senn, W. D., Peak, D. A., Prybutok, V. R., Blankson, C., 2021. The value of visual quality and service...
  • J.R. Coyle et al.

    The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites

    J. Advert.

    (2001)
  • S. Debbabi et al.

    Effect of online 3D advertising on consumer responses: the mediating role of telepresence

    J. Mark. Manag.

    (2010)
  • Du Vignaux, M.M., Léger, P.-M.; Charland, P., Salame, Y., Durand, E., Bouillot, N., Pardoen, M., Sénécal, S., 2021. An...
  • S.A. Eroglu et al.

    Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses

    Psychol. Mark.

    (2003)
  • X. Fan et al.

    Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and consumers’ product attitude: A cognitive perspective

    J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

    (2020)
  • Cited by (29)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text