Consumer behavior in an augmented reality environment: Exploring the effects of flow via augmented realism and technology fluidity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101833Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Perceived augmented realism and technology fluidity of augmented reality (AR) applications positively influenced consumers’ flow experience during a product evaluation task.

  • Perceived flow experience facilitated by perceived augmented realism and technology fluidity led to cognitive, affective and behavioral responses toward the brand.

  • Selective flow subdimensions positively predicted cognitive responses toward the brand, in addition to affective responses toward the brand and the AR program platform.

Abstract

Advances in information technologies today have created rich forms of reality to engage consumers. This study examines the effects of augmented realism and technology fluidity of augmented reality (AR) applications on consumer decision-making. A posttest-only between-group experiment was conducted in a laboratory setting to enable the completion of a simulated product-evaluation task via a web-based AR system, a mobile-app based AR system and a non-AR marketing device. Findings demonstrated that augmented realism and technology fluidity strongly influenced consumers’ flow experience, which led to cognitive and affective responses toward the brand and/or the AR-interface medium, in addition to increased purchase intention. The four sub-dimensions of flow also helped explicate the relationships between immersive shopping experience and cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes. The study contributes to theory building in AR-based immersive and online marketing research.

Introduction

Breakthrough technologies such as virtual and augmented technologies are increasingly significant driving forces for engaging today’s tech-savvy Gen Z consumers (Lee and Leonas, 2018, Priporas et al., 2017). Specifically, different types of augmented reality (AR, hereafter) applications accessible via QR codes, smart devices, large interactive screens or through projectors have been widely adopted for advertising and marketing purposes (e.g., McLean and Wilson, 2019, Rauschnabel et al., 2015, Rese et al., 2017). These AR applications embed digital content such as product information, virtual images, and animations into the real physical environment for user interface via intermediary devices interactively in real time (Azuma et al., 2001). Examples of commonly adopted AR systems enable consumers to interact with virtual make-up or clothing try-on sessions, in addition to enjoying a virtual tour in a museum, hotel, opera house, and more.

An AR system is distinct from that of a mixed reality (MR) or virtual reality (VR) system. While AR overlays digital elements over a real-world environment in which users interact with the digital items (Flavián et al., 2019), MR merges the digital elements with the real world (Farshid et al, 2018) where users interact with both the physical and virtual environments. Virtual reality (VR) presents digital elements and users interact exclusively with a virtual environment (Dwivedi et al., 2020), in contrast to AR which is “not closed off from reality but melds the real and virtual worlds together” (Rauschnabel et al., 2017). Extended reality (or XR) is an umbrella term that covers AR, MR, VR and any other emerging immersive technologies (Alcañiz et al., 2019, Çöltekin et al., 2020, Wendt, 2020). In particular, Rauschnabel et al. (2022b) defined XR by specifying X as a placeholder for “any” form of these realities to avoid the misleading term “extended” which per definition, excludes VR where reality is not extended but rather replaced (Dwivedi et al., 2020).

Extant research has studied AR applications from the perspective of technology acceptance (Huang and Liao, 2015, Olsson and Salo, 2011, Rese et al., 2014), user perception (Sung and Cho, 2012, Yaoyuneyong et al., 2016, Yim et al., 2017), user experience (Kim & Forsythe, 2008), AR-experience design (Scholz & Smith, 2016), and beauty and apparel shopping purchase intention (e.g., Wang et al., 2021, Watson et al., 2018). Yet, little theory-based research has assessed how AR-system engagement may allow consumers to assess a product-use experience leading to purchase decision-making. A relevant theory applicable to examine this cognitive process in the AR environment is the flow theory, which reflects an individual’s cognitive absorption when undertaking a task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1977). The construct of flow has been shown to mediate the effects of website design features such as interactivity, telepresence, attractiveness and vividness on attitude, purchase intentions and other consumer responses (e.g., knowledge acquisition) in an online marketing context (e.g., Skadberg and Kimmel, 2004, Van Noort et al., 2012). Rauschnabel et al. (2017) demonstrated flow as one of the important drivers that contributed to a positive association between the level of enjoyment and consumers’ attitude toward playing mobile AR games (e.g., Pokémon Go).

In the same vein, empirical research that investigates how consumer interaction with the affordances on a technology platform may influence their shopping experience is also limited. Such interaction is particularly relevant in an AR environment, as interaction fluidity experienced in the user-AR interface will help determine their perceived produce-use outcomes. An applicable theory to assess this user-technology interaction experience is the technology fluidity theory (Lin, 2004), which measures how fluidly an individual can make use of a technology platform to maximize the utilities of its affordances. The concept of technology fluidity is a key principle in designing effective interactivity mechanisms and user-technology interfaces (e.g., Elmqvist et al., 2011, Lin, 2008).

To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of AR technology as a marketing tool, the current study explored how product-use experience resulting from interacting with an AR system may influence consumers’ purchase intention. A lab experiment was conducted to test the effects of AR technology affordances on users’ immersive experience via technology fluidity and flow theories. Two AR technology platforms (web-based and mobile app-based) that marketed the same product were utilized to elicit study participants’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses, through completing a product evaluation task in these two different AR-system settings. A conventional non-AR in-store product marketing device was also utilized to enable participants to complete the same set of evaluation task for comparison purposes.

Section snippets

Augmented realism

The concept of realism lies in the notion of presence, which has been conceptualized and operationalized in variegated approaches in the literature (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). In the AR research context, Daassi and Debbabi (2021) identified the notion of “location” in AR-based interaction experience, emphasizing presence that brings “virtual products to the consumer’s real surroundings” or creates “an intense illusion that the product moves into the consumer’s immediate physical environment”

Research design and participants

This study adopted a posttest-only between-group experiment, which randomly assigned participants to one of three study conditions that promoted the same product of a major paint brand. Each study condition had the participants utilize a different tool to choose a paint color to “paint” a wall in a “room.” These tools included a mobile app-based AR interface, a web-based AR interface, and a paint color-pallet booklet (as used by consumers in a physical store). This research design enabled the

Descriptive statistics

Zero-order correlations among all variables tested in the research hypotheses were presented in Table 3. All the variables are significantly correlated to one another, except for cognitive responses toward interface medium (consistent with the corresponding research hypotheses) and prior experience of using an AR system.

Measurement model

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the measurement of each construct. Results revealed that factor loadings for the measurement items of each

Discussion

The current study investigated the effects of AR technology affordances experienced through two different AR platforms in the context of marketing a brand. A laboratory experiment with three conditions compared the effects of two types of AR applications (web-based vs. mobile- app based) versus a non-AR traditional marketing device on the potential psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with consumer decision-making. The study has advanced noteworthy theoretical contributions to

Conclusion

The current study is among the first to test how the AR affordances of augmented realism and technology fluidity may influence consumers’ flow experience during computer–human interaction to generate a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses in an online marketing environment. Findings from this research provide important design implications to marketers who wish to develop an effective AR-based marketing strategy. They also benefit future research that aims to further explore the

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.

References (93)

  • S. Heitz-Spahn

    Cross-channel free-riding consumer behavior in a multichannel environment: An investigation of shopping motives, sociodemographics and product categories

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2013)
  • C. Hinsch et al.

    Nostalgia beats the wow-effect: Inspiration, awe and meaningful associations in augmented reality marketing

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2020)
  • D.L. Hoffman et al.

    Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects

    J. Interactive Mark.

    (2009)
  • J. Kim et al.

    Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel shopping

    J. Interactive Mark.

    (2008)
  • C.A. Lin

    Technology fluidity and on-demand webcasting adoption

    Telematics Inform.

    (2008)
  • H. Liu et al.

    Enhancing the flow experience of consumers in China through interpersonal interaction in social commerce

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2016)
  • J. Martins et al.

    How smartphone advertising influences consumers' purchase intention

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2019)
  • G. McLean et al.

    Shopping in the digital world: examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile applications

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2019)
  • B.Y. Ozkara et al.

    Examining the effect of flow experience on online purchase: A novel approach to the flow theory based on hedonic and utilitarian value

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2017)
  • J.É. Pelet et al.

    Optimal experience of flow enhanced by telepresence: evidence from social media use

    Inf. Manage.

    (2017)
  • A. Poushneh

    Augmented reality in retail: A trade-off between user's control of access to personal information and augmentation quality

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2018)
  • A. Poushneh et al.

    Discernible Impact of Augmented Reality on Retail Customer’s experience, Satisfaction and Willingness to Buy

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2017)
  • C.V. Priporas et al.

    Generation Z consumers' expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2017)
  • P.A. Rauschnabel et al.

    Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2015)
  • P.A. Rauschnabel et al.

    An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2017)
  • P.A. Rauschnabel et al.

    Augmented reality marketing: How mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2019)
  • P.A. Rauschnabel et al.

    What is augmented reality marketing? Its definition, complexity, and future

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2022)
  • P.A. Rauschnabel et al.

    What is XR? Towards a framework for Augmented and Virtual Reality

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2022)
  • A. Rese et al.

    Technology acceptance modeling of augmented reality at the point of sale: can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews?

    J. Retail. Consumer Serv.

    (2014)
  • A. Rese et al.

    How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: A comparative analysis using scales and opinions

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

    (2017)
  • J. Scholz et al.

    Augmented reality: Designing immersive experiences that maximize consumer engagement

    Bus. Horiz.

    (2016)
  • Y.X. Skadberg et al.

    Visitors’ flow experience while browsing a Web site: its measurement, contributing factors and consequences

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2004)
  • 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)
  • G. Van Noort et al.

    Interactivity in brand web sites: cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers' online flow experience

    J. Interactive Mark.

    (2012)
  • T. Verhagen et al.

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

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (2014)
  • J. Webster et al.

    The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (1993)
  • W. Wei et al.

    Effects of virtual reality on theme park visitors' experience and behaviors: A presence perspective

    Tour. Manage.

    (2019)
  • M.Y.C. Yim et al.

    Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective

    J. Interactive Mark.

    (2017)
  • R. Agarwal et al.

    Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage

    MIS Q.

    (2000)
  • M. Alcañiz et al.

    Virtual reality in marketing: A framework, review, and research agenda

    Front. Psychol.

    (2019)
  • F. Ali

    Hotel website quality, perceived flow, customer satisfaction and purchase intention

    JHTT

    (2016)
  • R. Azuma et al.

    Recent advances in augmented reality

    IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl.

    (2001)
  • R.M. Baños et al.

    Presence and reality judgment in virtual environments: a unitary construct?

    CyberPsychol. Behav.

    (2000)
  • J.B. Barhorst et al.

    Blending the real world and the virtual world: exploring the role of flow in augmented reality experiences

    J. Bus. Res.

    (2021)
  • S. Barnes

    Understanding virtual reality in marketing: nature, implications and potential

    Implications Potential

    (2016)
  • K.A. Bollen et al.

    Direct and indirect effects: classical and bootstrap estimates of variability

    Sociol. Methodol.

    (1990)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text