Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality

(AR) application for a heritage site
Namho Chung a,1, Heejeong Han b,⇑, Youhee Joun c,2
a
College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Tourism, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Convention & Exhibition Management, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Augmented reality (AR) is being developed as a part of smart tourism to provide information about
Available online 26 March 2015 destinations and attractions. Its usage will maximize tourist satisfaction, based on tourists’ active usage.
Three aspects have been found to be factors encouraging tourists to actively utilize AR. The first aspect is
Keywords: technology readiness (TR) meaning that a tourist has an overall state of mind such that they are ready to
Augmented reality use a technology. The second aspect is the visual factor of AR. The third aspect is the situational factor.
Technology readiness Thus, this study conceptualizes these crucial factors of AR usage as well as how these influence visitors’
Technology acceptance model
AR usage intention and destination visit intention through their beliefs and AR attitude. We collected
Technology readiness and acceptance model
Destination visit
sample from 145 people using an AR application in Deoksugung Palace, South Korea. This study analyzed
Smart tourism hypotheses with structural equation model. The result shows that TR was a predictor of perceived use-
fulness. In addition, visual appeal and facilitating conditions affected perceived ease of use. Perceived
ease of use affected perceived usefulness. Finally, perceived usefulness and ease of use affected intention
to use AR and to visit a destination via AR attitude. This study presented theoretical and practical
implications.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Takahashi, Nakatsu, Ishibashi, & Aira, 2012). Utilizing AR in the

Recently, self-service technologies (SSTs) have been introduced
as a part of smart tourism by a variety of tourism organizations
(Kim & Qu, 2014). Among SSTs, augmented reality (AR) has been
developed to provide information about destinations and attrac-
tions. Because of the development of AR, tourists using AR can gain
valuable experience without a tourist guide. Because of this, a vari-
ety of AR utilization examples can be found in the field of tourism
(Fritz, Susperregui, & Linaza, 2005; Han, Jung, & Gibson, 2013;
Hunter, Chung, Gretzel, & Koo, 2015; Jung, Chung, & Leue, 2015;
Yovcheva, Buhalis, & Gatzidis, 2013). In particular, diverse applica-
tion tools for mobile phones with AR features have been devel-
oped. For example, Condé Nast Traveler, a travel magazine,
developed AR guides for some popular cities, and a smartphone
made by Nokia has AR features allowing a user to see the names
of buildings in its display (Computerworld, 2014). These AR tour
guides will be efficient in providing helpful information (Furata,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 961 2353; fax: +82 2 964 2537.
E-mail addresses: nhchung@khu.ac.kr (N. Chung), hhj0922@khu.ac.kr (H. Han),
jyh7744@khu.ac.kr (Y. Joun).
1
Tel.: +82 2 961 2353; fax: +82 2 964 2537.
2
Tel.: +82 2 961 2349; fax: +82 2 964 2537.
tourism context will maximize tourist satisfaction based on the
assumption that tourists will actively accept and use AR
(Yovcheva et al., 2013).
However, contrary to expectations, AR is not being actively
used, and, as a new phenomenon, it is appearing more slowly than
expected (Computerworld, 2014). In addition, studies related to AR
in a tourism context have dealt only with the importance of AR uti-
lization, AR characteristics, technological understanding, and AR
development strategies (e.g., Fritz et al., 2005; Han et al., 2013;
Yovcheva et al., 2013). In tourism studies, empirical studies have
not yet sufficiently researched why people use AR or how its use
will affect visits to tourist destinations. With respect to this phe-
nomenon, the reasons for users trying to avoid using AR can be
seen in three aspects based on studies considering information
technology (IT) acceptance (e.g., Gelderman, Ghijsen, & van
Diemen, 2011; Gu, Lee, & Suh, 2009; Lee, Park, Chung, &
Blakeney, 2012). In other words, depending on whether the per-
sonal aspect of AR is ready for use, whether use of the technology
is sensational and whether the environment is available to use AR,
users may develop a positive attitude toward AR at a heritage
destination or try to visit the destination again because they
enjoyed it. These three aspects are as follows.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.068
0747-5632/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599
The first aspect is personal propensity toward AR. This
propensity refers to ‘technology readiness (TR)’, meaning that
people have an overall state of mind in terms of readiness to
use technology. In studies reported to date, TR is of growing
interest to researchers as one of the most important measures
of technology acceptance (e.g., Gelderman et al., 2011;
Liljander, Gillberg, Gummerus, & van Riel, 2006; Lin & Chang,
2011; Lin & Hsieh, 2007; Lin, Shih, & Sher, 2007; Oh, Yoon, &
Chung, 2014). In addition, TR influences the user’s beliefs (i.e.,
perceived usefulness and ease of use) about the technology (Lin
& Chang, 2011; Lin et al., 2007). Thus, the personal factor affect-
ing beliefs about AR is considered in the context of using AR in
tourism.
The second aspect is the visual appeal associated with AR.
Finding valuable information can be a goal of travelers wishing
to gratify functional and esthetic information needs (Oh, Fiore, &
Jeoung, 2007; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Wang & Fesenmaier,
2004). According to Oh et al. (2007), esthetic experience is likely
to be a major determinant of the overall tourism experience. We
assume that esthetics plays a role in the decision to use an IT
and a particularly important role in the decision to use AR. This
presumption is based on empirical results found in the psychology,
marketing and IT literature (Van der Heijden, 2003). Based on this
previous research, it is reasonable to suggest that people will
associate the visual appeal of an AR with the positive beliefs that
are typical in Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) research: per-
ceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Tractinsky, Katz, and
Ikar (2000) investigated users’ assumption that an IT that is more
attractive will be easier to use. Therefore, visual appeal is an
important factor in the context of AR usage.
The third aspect to using AR in tourism is the situational factor;
this is related to facilitating conditions. Facilitating conditions
refers to external environments that help users in using a new IT
(Lu, Liu, Yu, & Wang, 2008). In other words, when users recognize
that conditions in an environment are good for using the technol-
ogy, behaviors can occur. Facilitating conditions have been consid-
ered crucial factors in using new technology in studies (e.g.,
Venkatesh, 2000; Wu, Li, & Fu, 2011). In particular, because AR is
cutting-edge technology in tourism (Jung et al., 2015), facilitating
conditions are needed, such as whether visitors have devices to
use the AR application, whether visitors have knowledge about
the AR application, and whether an assistant is available to help
with using AR applications. When these environmental conditions
are satisfied, visitors more easily use AR at the heritage destination.
Related studies suggested that facilitating conditions enhance the
ease-of-use of the technology (e.g., Chen & Chan, 2014; Gu et al.,
2009; Teo, 2009). This study also considered facilitating conditions
as situational factors.
In line with the above considerations, this study conceptualizes
crucial factors of AR in terms of personal (TR), stimulus (visual
appeal), and situational factors (facilitating conditions), and how
these concepts influence visitors’ AR usage intention and destina-
tion visit intention through AR beliefs (perceived usefulness and
ease of use) and AR attitude. To this end, the current study adopts
the following purposes.
First, this study identifies important factors for using AR at her-
itage destinations.
Second, our study investigates how those factors influence visi-
tors’ beliefs, attitudes, AR usage intention and destination visit
intention.
The current study introduces AR utilization to the field of tour-
ism and explores the extent to which factors regarding AR affect
visitors’ actual usage intention and visit intention at heritage sites.
This research will improve the understanding of the role of AR in
tourism. It is expected that the research will have theoretical and
practical implications.
589
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Augmented reality
Augmented reality (AR) is a visualization technique that synthe-
sizes various multimedia information with the real view (Kounavis,
Kasimati, Zamani, & Giaglis, 2012). Most AR systems strengthen
contiguity of space and time by superimposing virtual information
pertinent to physical objects and spaces (Azuma, 1997; Azuma,
Billinghurst, & Klinker, 2011; Azuma et al., 2001). Consequently,
AR reinforces our sight of the world by overlaying virtual objects
on the real world such that it appears to the user that the virtual
object is part of the real environment (Butchart, 2011). Recent
developments in mobile computing, wireless, and computer graph-
ics technologies have allowed for rapid growth of AR applications
on smartphones (Azuma et al., 2001).
Based on these capabilities, AR applications of spatiotemporal
contiguity can appear in areas such as education (e.g., Chen, Su,
Lee, & Wu, 2007), medical science (e.g., Botden & Jakimowicz,
2009), and architecture (e.g., Chi, Kang, & Wang, 2013). AR use is par-
ticularly related to the tourism sector because it is a tool for enhanc-
ing users’ experiences (Fritz et al., 2005; Jung et al., 2015; Yovcheva
et al., 2013). For example, AR technologies are gaining great impor-
tance in the virtual rebuilding of historical monuments, helping
curators, archaeologists or historians reproduce on-site historical
experiences (Fritz et al., 2005). The Google Map application can
specify the name and location of a particular place. In addition, AR
technology has been applied in diverse mobile devices for use in
self-guided tours, such as a campus navigation system (Chou &
ChanLin, 2012). Such use of AR in the tourism industry is practical
because AR is used to help tourists better understand their current
environment. The essential advantage is that tourists are able to
view unstable information about an object of interest that is placed
directly in context (Yovcheva, Buhalis, & Gatzidis, 2012).
Based on these applications, some studies have started to inves-
tigate AR in a tourism context as well (e.g., Casella & Coelho, 2013;
Fritz et al., 2005; Han et al., 2013; Kounavis et al., 2012; Yovcheva
et al., 2012, 2013). For instance, Fritz et al. (2005) explained an
interactive visualization system based on AR technology in the
context of tourism and insisted that AR visually strengthens the
real world. Yovcheva et al. (2012) presented an overview of smart-
phone AR for tourism and focused on design aspects such as the
interface, displays, and visualizations. Kounavis et al. (2012) also
focused on the technical aspects, introducing many mobile AR
applications in tourism and discussed the role of AR in enhancing
tourists’ experiences. In addition, Yovcheva et al. (2013) identified
AR as the medium of the tourist experience and made theoretical
contributions in identifying features of augmented tourism experi-
ences in the context of AR usage. According to Casella and Coelho
(2013), AR mobile applications are useful technologies for under-
standing cultural heritage tourism. Han et al. (2013) tried to under-
stand urban heritage tourism AR user requirements such as
accessing destination information, other users’ reviews, design
interfaces, multi-lingual aspects, and maps.
Nonetheless, new applications involving AR are appearing more
slowly than expected (Computerworld, 2014). Han et al. (2013)
also insisted that utilization of AR is still a new issue in a tourism
context because AR has not been perfected. In addition, empirical
studies that have examined AR in the tourism sector rarely consid-
ered why people use AR or the effects of its use at tourist destina-
tions. Studies related to the acceptance of IT considered individual
(personal), technology-specific (stimulus), and situational factors
that are important in accepting technology (e.g., Gelderman
et al., 2011; Gu et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2012). AR acceptance at tour-
ist destinations can be understood based on these factors. First, in
590 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599
terms of individuals who use the latest technology such as AR, one
reason that individuals might avoid the latest technology is that
they are not prepared to use it (e.g., Gelderman et al., 2011;
Liljander et al., 2006; Lin & Chang, 2011; Lin & Hsieh, 2007; Lin
et al., 2007; Oh et al., 2014). Furthermore, as AR is a technology
with robust visual stimuli characteristics (Yovcheva et al., 2013;
Yu, Jin, Luo, Lai, & Huang, 2010), people would not use it if they
were not attracted by its visual appeal (e.g., Tractinsky et al.,
2000; Van der Heijden, 2003). In addition, Oh et al. (2007) investi-
gated esthetic dimension of experience accounted for the most
variance in the model predicting. In other words, the result show
that the esthetic experience influences the tourist’s arousal, mem-
ory, overall quality, and satisfaction about the tourism experience.
Thus, visual appeal of a technology is an important precursor of use
of technology. Perceived visual appeal is a new construct defined in
previous research as the degree to which a user thinks that the
website is esthetically pleasing to the eye (Van der Heijden,
2003). Because the AR is a visualization technique that synthesizes
various multimedia information with the real view, visual appeal is
likely to increase influence on use of AR. Therefore, we expect that
a visual appeal is a crucial determinant of visitors’ beliefs and atti-
tudes. Finally, if tourists have devices to use technology such as AR,
they can utilize AR applications with their mobiles, or they can be
assisted in using AR, thus reinforcing its use (e.g., Chen & Chan,
2014; Gu et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2008; Teo, 2009; Venkatesh,
2000; Wu et al., 2011). Therefore, to facilitate full use of AR in a
tourism context, this study aims to consider the use of AR and its
effects on intention to visit the destination.
2.2. Technology acceptance model
Traditionally, various studies have been extensively conducted
by applying a TAM related to users’ acceptance of IT (e.g.,
Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2006;
Cheng & Cho, 2011; Kim, Lee, & Law, 2008; Lim, 2009; Teo, 2009).
The TAM explains people’s acceptance of technology rooted in the-
ory of reasoned action (TRA) (Davis, 1989). The TAM suggests two
major beliefs—perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use—
and enables these beliefs to form individual attitudes including
the attitude to construct intention to use the technology and cause
behavior (i.e., the chain of beliefs–attitude–intention–behavior)
(Davis, 1989). The TAM is evaluated as a superior model in terms
of conciseness and predictability in many fields. In particular, the
TAM identifies various external variables (e.g., systemic, individual,
situational, social characteristics, etc.) as a factors affecting the two
beliefs in many existing studies (e.g., Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2006;
Kim et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2007; Oh et al., 2014; Teo, 2009).
The purpose of this research is to describe acceptance of a new
technology such as AR and visiting intention for visitors who use
AR at a heritage destination. Therefore, this research aims to
explain visitors’ acceptance of AR based on the TAM.
Furthermore, as stated above, the research identifies the personal
(TR), stimulus (visual appeal), and situational (facilitating condi-
tions) aspects affecting AR acceptance as exterior variables.
Thus, this study considers TR, visual appeal, and facilitating con-
ditions as key factors influencing visitors’ beliefs, attitudes, usage
intention with AR and a destination visit intention based on the
TAM.
2.3. Technology readiness and acceptance model
New technologies such as AR affect not only consumers’ behav-
iors but also society as a whole. Because new technology is very
radical (Garcia & Calantone, 2002), those unable to catch up with
new technology are uncomfortable and are not prepared to
actively use it. Ultimately, they try to avoid new technology (Lin
& Hsieh, 2007). In connection with the vitality of new technology,
consumers’ attitude, i.e., whether they accept new technologies, is
of growing interest to tourism organizations and destination mar-
keting organizations (DMOs) utilizing new technologies. Therefore,
various studies attempted to understand consumers’ technology
readiness (TR) and effectively predict consumers’ behaviors
(Parasuraman, 2000).
TR is ‘‘people’s propensity to embrace and use new technologies
for accomplishing goals in home life and at work’’ (Parasuraman,
2000, p.308). This construct also refers to an overall state of mind
caused by mental enablers and inhibitors as determinants of a
technology user’s predisposition (Parasuraman, 2000).
Parasuraman (2000) developed optimism, innovativeness, discom-
fort, and insecurity as dimensions in measuring people’s general
beliefs about technology (i.e., TR). These sub-dimensions of the
TR construct are defined as shown in Table 1.
These dimensions affect usage of a new technology. Individuals
with high levels of optimism have an open mind to the technology
and are more likely to accept it (Walczuch, Lemmink, & Streukens,
2007). People who favor innovation show a tendency to be early
adopters and just to think about a new technology (Karahanna,
Straub, & Chervany, 1999). However, people who are uncomfort-
able with regard to technology have a tendency to feel it is too
complicated, leading to lower level of usage (Walczuch et al.,
2007). In addition, people with a high score on insecurity have
an innate fear about technology and avoid using a technology
(Kwon & Chidambaram, 2000). In short, optimism and innovative-
ness are enablers of new technology use, whereas discomfort and
insecurity are inhibitors (Parasuraman, 2000). That is, people have
both positive and negative perceptions about technology; the gen-
eral belief continuum for a technology ranged from a strongly posi-
tive to a strongly negative attitude toward the technology (Lin
et al., 2007). Several academic studies have examined this belief
continuum based on the dimensions of TR suggested by
Parasuraman (2000) (See Table 2).
Meanwhile, TR combined with the TAM, or the Technology
Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM), was integrated to better
explain a consumer’s usage intention in the context of e-services.
As mentioned earlier, early-stage studies about TR have been per-
formed on service quality and online behaviors; however, empiri-
cal studies were insufficient and confounding (Lin et al., 2007).
Meanwhile, the TAM was designed to explain technology accep-
tance behavior in an involuntary environment. Thus, the TAM is
difficult to use to explain consumers’ technology acceptance when
they act as co-producers or high-involvement users (Lin et al.,
2007). At this point, Lin et al. (2007) attempted to extend the
TAM to consider individual differences and introduce the concept
of TR regarding personal differences. They developed an extensive
framework, TRAM, which is the combination of TAM and TR to
understand consumer adoption of e-services. Based on a con-
sumer’s prior experience and knowledge about general technology,
they affect the consumer’s perception about another new technol-
ogy and the consumer’s behavior (Lin et al., 2007). In short, TR is
the opinion toward general technology, while TAM is the belief
for a particular system (Lin et al., 2007). For this reason, previous
studies have employed TRAM (e.g., Lin & Chang, 2011; Lin et al.,
2007; Oh et al., 2014). For instance, Lin et al. (2007) built TRAM
and empirically tested it in online stock trading systems in
Taiwan. Lin and Chang (2011) conducted their study related to
the adoption of self-service technologies. In addition, Oh et al.
(2014) investigated the intention of Internet service use using
the TRAM in South Korea and China.
Other research point out that the four dimensions of TR sug-
gested by Parasuraman (2000) failed to be confirmed as indepen-
dent dimensions (e.g., Berger, 2009; Liljander et al., 2006; Taylor,
Celuch, & Goodwin, 2002). More specifically, similar problem has
 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599 591

Table 1 3. Research model and hypotheses

Sub-dimensions of TR.

Sub- Definition This study proposes a research model in Fig. 1. The model sug-
dimensions gests that personal (TR) and stimulus (visual appeal) are predictors
Optimism A positive attitude toward technology and a belief in of perceived usefulness. Moreover, TR, visual appeal, and situa-
increased control, flexibility, and efficiency in one’s life tional factors (facilitating conditions) will affect perceived ease of
Innovativeness A tendency of a person to be a technology pioneer
use. In addition, the model suggests that perceived usefulness
Discomfort A lack of control perceived by person when using a
technology, and a sense of being overwhelmed by it and perceived ease of use are predictors of attitudes toward AR.
Insecurity A distrust and skepticism toward a technology Finally, it suggests that attitude toward AR is a predictor of AR
usage intention and destination visit intention.
Note. Adapted from Parasuraman (2000).

3.1. Technology readiness and AR technology perception

been reported that inhibitors such as discomfort and insecurity
have to be proved to not be stable. This reported problem causes
that users perceived TR scales by the particular technology, not
by the general technologies (Liljander et al., 2006). For example,
Taylor et al. (2002) identified that the stronger dimensions for TR
are optimism and innovativeness. In line with this study, Berger
(2009) referred to TR dimensions as enablers (i.e., optimism and
innovativeness) to reflect the inconsistency regarding TR dimen-
sionality. Furthermore, Liljander et al. (2006) examined the influ-
ence of overall TR (four dimensions), enablers of TR (i.e.,
optimism and innovativeness), and inhibitors of TR (i.e., discomfort
and insecurity) on self-services technologies users’ attitudes, adop-
tion, and responses according to Parasuraman (2000). The results
showed that inhibitors could not be tested because they do not
form the individual dimensions.
In addition, the latest AR technologies and applications were
developed and introduced in the tourism industry. TR was consid-
ered a crucial factor for tourists to actively use new technology at
destinations (Lin & Hsieh, 2007). The tourist’s mental readiness to
accept AR, i.e., TR, is indispensable for making full use of AR.
Therefore, this study considers TR an important factor affecting
visitors’ beliefs, attitudes, usage intention using AR and destination
visit intention. Furthermore, this study considers TR dimensions as
optimism and innovativeness because these enabler dimensions
have been prove to be more stable and confirmed in the previous
studies (e.g., Berger, 2009; Liljander et al., 2006; Taylor et al.,
2002).
TR refers to the propensity for tourists to embrace and use new
technology in the context of tourism and consists of two compo-
nents: optimism and innovativeness (Parasuraman, 2000).
Although original TR dimensions are optimism, innovativeness,
discomfort, and insecurity (Parasuraman, 2000), previous studies
suggested the optimism and innovativeness because they are
stable as individual dimensions for TR (Berger, 2009; Liljander
et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2002). This study regards TR as the opti-
mism and innovativeness. Prior studies suggested that TR is a pre-
dictor of TAM beliefs (Lin et al., 2007). The TAM proposed that a
user’s beliefs (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use) affect a user’s intention to use a new system, which affects
acceptance of the system (Lin et al., 2007). However, the TAM is
not sufficient to describe individual acceptance of technology in a
voluntary environment.
For this reason, Lin et al. (2007) have attempted to extend the
TAM to consider individual differences and introduce the concept
of TR to address personal differences. That is, they proposed the
TRAM. The TRAM supposes that individuals highly evaluate the
general perception of a new technology based on a better under-
standing of it because they are already prepared to use it from
preexisting experience with other new technologies. The TRAM
was applied to diverse areas after the study of Lin et al. (2007)
(e.g., Lin & Chang, 2011; Oh et al., 2014). Lin and Chang (2011),
for instance, found that TR enhanced perceived usefulness and ease
of use in adopting SSTs. Oh et al. (2014) found that positive and

Table 2
Previous research on TR.

Author(s) Domain Independent Dependent variable Findings

studied variable
Liljander SSTs TR Attitude, adoption, Overall TR positively affects customer attitude and response (service quality, satisfaction,
et al. response loyalty) to SST. However, overall TR has no effect on customer adoption. Furthermore,
(2006) discomfort and insecurity could not be examined because they did not form independent
dimensions
Lin and SSTs TR Behavioral intentions TR has a positive and significant impact on SST satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Hsieh toward SSTs Additionally, SST satisfaction was a driver of behavioral intentions
(2007)
Lin et al. Online stock TR Use intention Based on the integrating model of TR and TAM (TRAM), the online community users’
(2007) trading perception of TR affects their beliefs such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
systems use, which in turn influence intention to use online trading systems
Walczuch Software TR Perceived ease of use, Positive and negative TR dimensions respectively influenced perceived ease of use
et al. application perceived usefulness positively and negatively. Additionally, optimism and insecurity respectively influenced
(2007) perceived usefulness positively and negatively. The results confirmed a strong positive
relationship between perceived ease of use and usefulness
Gelderman SSTs TR factors, Usage of SSTs Need for interaction, role clarity and perceived crowdedness had an effect on the usage of
et al. situational SSTs. However, TR factors had no effect on the use of SSTs
(2011) factors
Lin and SSTs TR Behavioral intentions TR affects perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward technology, and
Chang behavioral intention. Additionally, the study found a negative moderating effect of TR on
(2011) the relationship between perceived ease of use and attitude
Oh et al. Mobile Positive TR, Intention Positive and negative TR affected intention toward using mobile Internet through
(2014) Internet negative TR perceived usefulness and ease of use in South Korea. However, in the China group, positive
service TR had a positive effect on the perceived ease of use, and negative TR had a negative effect
on perceived usefulness
592 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599
Optimism Innovativeness
Personal factor Technology Stimulus factor
Readiness
H1a H1b
Perceived
AR technology Usefulness
perception
H5
H7
AR
Usage Intention
Fig. 1. Research model.
negative TR have a significant effect on the perceived usefulness
and the perceived ease of use of mobile Internet in South Korea.
By applying TRAM in this study, we anticipate that visitors with
a high level of TR are more likely to perceive usefulness and ease
of use toward AR because they are ready to embrace a new tech-
nology. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. TR has a positive effect on AR perceived usefulness.
H1b. TR has a positive effect on AR perceived ease of use.
3.2. Visual appeal and AR technology perception
Visual appeal relates to the exhibition of fonts and other visual
elements such as graphics; it acts to enhance the overall pre-
sentation of information systems (Liu, Li, & Hu, 2013). Visual
attractiveness appeared to be a dominant factor of the tourism
experiential outcomes. That is, the visual appeal influences most
important of the overall tourism experience (Oh et al., 2007). In
addition, if the IT is visually appealing, more enjoyment will be
derived when interacting with it (Parboteeah, Valacich, & Wells,
2009). Therefore, visual appeal is an esthetic response that can
be a main element of any IT use. A few studies also introduce a
new construct, perceived visual appeal of the IT, and demonstrate
that it influences usefulness and ease of use (e.g., Parboteeah et al.,
2009; Van der Heijden, 2003; Verhagen & van Dolen, 2011; Wells,
Parboteeah, & Valacich, 2011).
AR technology has recently been used in a numerous fields (Yu
et al., 2010). It is also used within the tourism sector to enhance
the tourist experience. Previous research ascertained that AR sys-
tems reinforce the user’s view of the real world and that a user’s
familiarity with AR applications affect perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use of AR applications (Chou & ChanLin, 2012;
Damala, Cubaud, Bationo, Houlier, & Marchal, 2008; Furata et al.,
Visual Situational factor Facilitating
Appeal Conditions
H2a H2b H3
Perceived
H4
Ease of Use
H6
AR
Attitude
H8
Destination
Visit Intention
2012; Olsson, Lagerstam, Kärkkäinen, & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,
2013; Yovcheva et al., 2013). Therefore, we expect that a visually
appealing interface would enhance perceived usefulness and per-
ceived ease of use of AR applications. Hence, this work proposes
the next hypotheses:
H2a. Visual appeal has a positive effect on AR perceived usefulness.
H2b. Visual appeal has a positive effect on AR perceived ease of use.
3.3. Facilitating conditions and AR technology perception
This study considered facilitating conditions as situational fac-
tors related to the use of AR at a heritage destination. In accordance
with the definition of facilitating conditions (Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003), the present study defined facilitating condi-
tions as the degree to which a person believes that the use of AR is sup-
ported by an organizational and technical infrastructure. Facilitating
conditions are considered an external control, and ability could
occur in an appropriate situation or when facilitating conditions
are met (Lu et al., 2008). In other words, facilitating conditions
are important factors in the context of new technology usage
because they support the use of technology (Venkatesh, 2000;
Wu et al., 2011). AR is a cutting-edge technology, and people will
find it easier to use AR under better facilitating conditions. A num-
ber of recent studies also have found that facilitating conditions are
positively related to users’ perceived ease of use (e.g., Chen & Chan,
2014; Teo, 2009). Teo (2009) proposed that facilitating conditions
are related to beliefs about the technology because they enhance
a person’s desire to carry out a task. Chen and Chan (2014) also
mentioned that facilitating conditions strengthened perceived ease
of use. Consequently, those who perceived highly facilitating con-
ditions are likely to perceive AR as easier to use. Hence, this work
proposes the following hypothesis:
 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599
H3. Facilitating conditions has a positive effect on AR perceived
ease of use.
3.4. AR technology perception and AR attitude
Variables of the TAM involve perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use and attitude to decide one’s intention to use the
technological instrument (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). The
TAM presumes that people are likely to adopt a new technology
to the extent that they trust it would help them to perform their
task and to the extent that they believe using a new technology
would be free of cognitive exertion (Zhang, Zhao, & Tan, 2008).
Perceived usefulness is the degree to which a person trusts that using
a specific technology will improve his or her task performance (Davis
et al., 1989). Perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which a
person trusts that using a specific technology will be free of effort
(Davis et al., 1989). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use are basic constructs in the TAM that constitute a significant
effect on attitude toward technology use, which in turn affects
the behavioral intention to use technology (Davis et al., 1989).
Hence, this work proposes the following hypotheses:
H4. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on AR perceived
usefulness.
H5. AR perceived usefulness has a positive effect on AR attitude.
H6. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on AR attitude.
3.5. AR attitude, AR usage intention, and destination visit intention
Attitude toward new IT has been found to have an effect on a
person’s decision-making and behaviors (Davis, 1989; Davis
et al., 1989). In particular, the relationship of attitude toward a
technology and intention to use it has been confirmed by many
studies involving information systems (e.g., Chen, Gillenson, &
Sherrell, 2002; Davis et al., 1989; Hoque, Ali, & Mahfuz, 2015; Liu
& Li, 2011) and in tourism and hospitality studies (e.g., Ayeh, Au,
& Law, 2013; Cheng & Cho, 2011; Kim et al., 2008). In other words,
behavioral intention is explicitly determined by an individual’s
attitudes. For instance, Ayeh et al. (2013) found that there is a sig-
nificantly positive relationship between attitude and intention to
use consumer-generated media in tourism contexts. In this study,
attitude toward AR refers to the positive feeling about AR. If AR
users have a high level of positive feeling about AR, then they will
be more likely to re-experience AR. Thus, higher attitude toward
AR may lead AR usage intention.
In addition, IT technologies such as AR are crucial components
in tourism, and many researchers pay attention to the linking of
IT and tourism because its utilization affects on tourist’ experi-
ences and behaviors (Law, Leung, & Buhalis, 2009). While using
AR at heritage sites or destinations, visitors form positive or nega-
tive attitudes toward AR. Individuals who formed an attitude from
experiencing AR will create heritage destination images through
AR. A tourists’ image of a destination or country is a factor influenc-
ing tourism outcomes such as travel intention (Nadeau, Heslop,
O’Reilly, & Luk, 2008). In addition, Kaplanidou and Vogt (2006)
insisted that using IT such as a destination website is a motivation
for traveling to that destination. Therefore, using destination IT
such as AR is a promotion and influencing tool for a destination;
it can be a crucial factor for forming visitors’ intention to travel
there. Hence, this work proposes the following hypotheses:
593
H7. AR attitude has a positive effect on AR usage intention.
H8. AR attitude has a positive effect on destination visit intention.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Instrument development
Most measurement items were adapted from prior studies. To
measure optimism and innovativeness, we revised the measure-
ment items based on the TR dimension of users by Lin and Hsieh
(2007). Visual appeal items were adapted from Oh et al. (2007).
Facilitating conditions items were adapted from Venkatesh et al.
(2003). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were
adapted from Van der Heijden (2004). Items from Venkatesh
et al. (2003) were adapted to measure AR attitude and AR usage
intention. Our study also adopted four items from Chen and Tsai
(2007) and Assaker and Hallak (2013) for destination visit
intention.
A survey questionnaire was first developed in English and then
translated into Korean by individuals who were proficient in both
languages. Then, researchers who are fluent in English and Korean
with academic specializations in the area under study compared
the translated version with the original version and did not identify
any discrepancies. These processes in the pretest procedure
ensured that all items were valid and reliable. The English version
of all thirty-eight measurement items is summarized by construct
in Table 3: optimism (five items), innovativeness (five items),
visual appeal (five items), facilitating conditions (four items), per-
ceived usefulness (four items), perceived ease of use (four items),
AR attitude (four items), AR usage intention (three items), and
destination visit intention (four items). In this study, we opera-
tionalized TR as a second-order reflective higher-level construct
indicating the propensity for a tourist to embrace and use new
technology in the context of tourism. We model the higher-order
construct, TR, as a function of two dimensions – i.e., optimism
and innovativeness – based on Berger (2009), Liljander et al.
(2006), and Taylor et al. (2002). This study used multi-measure-
ment items for each construct to overcome the limitations of a sin-
gle item, as a single item is usually too specific to capture all the
attributes of a construct and is likely to have a high rate of mea-
surement error. All of the items were measured on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
4.2. Data collection
An on-site survey was conducted of Deoksugung Palace domes-
tic visitors who used the AR application (‘Deoksugung, in My
Hands’). This new AR mobile application has been introduced to
Korea for the first time on January 24, 2013. The mobile application
is an AR unmanned tour guide system for cultural treasures. It con-
tains 1634 items related to Deoksugung Palace including photos
and videos, as well as 3D images using AR (Korea Tourism
Organization, 2013). ‘Deoksugung, in My Hands’ is likely to be
appropriate to evaluate the utilization of AR and visitor’s percep-
tion toward AR for cultural heritages. Therefore, in this study, we
focused on the AR application of ‘Deoksugung, in my hands’ and
Deoksugung Palace was chosen as the survey site.
Four trained graduate students who majored in Tourism served
as field researchers to collect data on November 16, 2013. Each
field researcher handed out a directions flyer about using the AR
application at the entrance of the Deoksugung. After three to four
hours, they distributed the questionnaires at the main exits. Only
594 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599

Table 3
Constructs and items.

Constructs Abbreviation Items

Technology readiness Optimism OPT1 Technology gives people more control of their daily lives
(TR)
OPT2 Products and services that use the newest technologies are much more convenient to use
OPT 3 I prefer to use the most advanced technology available
OPT 4 Technology makes me more efficient in my occupation
OPT 5 Technology gives me more freedom and mobility
Innovativeness INN1 In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to acquire new technology when it appears
INN2 I can usually figure out new high-tech products and services without help from others
INN3 I can keep up with the latest technological developments in my areas of interest
INN4 I enjoy the challenge of figuring out high-tech gadgets
INN5 I find I have fewer problems than other people in making technology work for me compared to others
Visual appeal VIS1 The view as seen through AR is in harmony with the environment in the Deoksugung Palace
VIS2 The tourism environment of the Deoksugung Palace as seen through AR is quite attractive
VIS3 The Deoksugung Palace as seen through the AR application is quite visually appealing
VIS4 I felt the Deoksugung Palace view as seen through the AR application shows attention to design detail
VIS5 The Deoksugung Palace view as seen through the AR application provided a way for users to easily
experience it
Facilitating conditions FAC1 I have the smartphone/tablet necessary to use the AR application
FAC2 I have the knowledge necessary to use the AR application
FAC3 I can use the AR application with my current smartphone
FAC4 An assistant is available for help with using the AR application
Perceived usefulness USF1 The AR application makes the tour at the Deoksugung Palace useful
USF2 The AR application is an effective way to tour the Deoksugung Palace
USF3 I use the AR application to get better access to information on the Deoksugung Palace
USF4 Overall, I find using the AR application useful
Perceived ease of use EOU1 The interaction with the AR application is clear and understandable
EOU2 The interaction with the AR application does not require much effort
EOU3 I find the AR application easy to use
EOU4 I find it easy to access the desired information through the AR application
AR attitude ATT1 Using the AR application while visiting the Deoksugung Palace is a good idea
ATT2 The AR application makes my tourist experience more interesting
ATT3 Using the AR application makes visiting Deoksugung Palace more fun
ATT4 I like using the AR application as part of the Deoksugung Palace visit
AR usage intention USE1 I intend to use the AR application in the future
USE2 I predict I will use the AR application in the future
USE3 I plan to use the AR application in the future
Destination visit DES1 I will visit the Deoksugung Palace again after experiencing the AR application
intention
DES2 I intend to visit the Deoksugung Palace frequently after experiencing the AR application
DES3 I will continue to visit the Deoksugung Palace in the future after experiencing the AR application
DES4 I want to recommend the Deoksugung Palace to others after experiencing the AR application

users who had experienced at least three places in Deoksugung
Palace were surveyed. A self-administered questionnaire was com-
pleted by the respondents. We surveyed 150 respondents. During
the data refinement process, five questionnaires were eliminated
due to partial or inconsistent responses. Finally, 145 question-
naires were coded for analysis.
Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of the respondents. The
respondent gender ratio was male 51 (35.2%) to female 94 (64.8%).
The 20–29-year-old age group had the largest proportion at 46.2%
(n = 67), followed by those aged under 20 years (n = 35, 24.1%) and
those aged 30–39 years (n = 23, 15.9%). Most respondents (n = 108,
74.4%) had two-year college degrees or higher. More were single
(n = 111, 76.6%) or married (n = 34, 23.4%). The typical respondent’s
monthly income level was less than 1 million won, with 91 respon-
dents in this category (62.8%), followed by a monthly income of 1
million to 1.9 million Korean won (n = 15, 10.3%); 1100 Korean
won equals US $1.
5. Data analysis and results
To test the proposed research model with reflective constructs,
we used a partial least squares (PLS) regression analysis using
SmartPLS 3.0. PLS regression analysis has several advantages,
including small sample size, and few assumptions about measure-
ment scale and normal distribution (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005). This
study has relatively small sample and an initial attempt to
empirically examine why people use AR or how it affects them in
a heritage site. Hence, the measurement model and structural
model testing were conducted using SmartPLS 3.0.
5.1. Measurement model
The TR construct was modeled as a second-order reflective con-
struct. The adequacy of the measurement model was checked by
convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity
was confirmed using three other criteria (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988;
Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). First, the standardized path
loading of each item had to be statistically significant. In addition,
the loadings should be at least greater ideally 0.7. Second, the com-
posite reliability and the Cronbach’s a for each construct had to be
greater than 0.7. Third, the average variance extracted (AVE) for
each construct had to exceed 0.5. As shown in Table 6, the stan-
dardized path loadings were all significant and greater than 0.7,
ranging in fact from 0.718 to 0.983. In addition, the CR and
Cronbach’s a for all constructs exceeded 0.7 (see Table 5). The
AVE for each construct was greater than 0.5, ranging in fact from
0.673 to 0.953. Therefore, convergent validity for the constructs
was confirmed.
The discriminant validity of the measurement model is checked
by using two criteria suggested by Gefen and Straub (2005): (1)
item loadings to construct correlations is larger than its loading
on any other constructs (Chin, 1998) and (2) the square root of
 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599 595

Table 4 facilitating conditions (b = 0.401, p < 0.001) also have a positive

Demographic information of respondents. effect on perceived ease of use. However, the TR constructs are
Characteristics Frequency % found to have a nonsignificant effect on perceived ease of use
Gender Male 51 35.2 (b = 0.034, p = nonsignificant). Therefore, H1a, H2a, H2b and H3 are
Female 94 64.8 supported, while H1b is rejected.
Age Under 20 35 24.1 H4, H5 and H6 address the relationships among perceived use-
20–29 67 46.2 fulness, perceived ease of use, and AR attitude. H4 indicates that
30–39 23 15.9
40–49 16 11.0
perceived ease of use has a positive effect on perceived usefulness
Over 50 4 2.8 (b = 0.293, p < 0.001). Furthermore, perceived usefulness
Education Middle and high school 37 25.5 (b = 0.657, p < 0.001) and perceived ease of use (b = 0.141,
2 year college 45 31.0 p < 0.10) have significant effects on AR attitude. Therefore, H4, H5
University 47 32.4
and H6 are supported.
Graduate school 16 11.0
Marital status Married 34 23.4 Finally, H7 and H8 address the relationships among AR attitude,
Single 111 76.6 AR usage intention, and destination visit intention. AR attitude has
Occupation Student 87 60.0 a positive effect on AR usage intention (b = 0.637, p < 0.001), sup-
Office worker 20 13.8 porting H7. Furthermore, AR attitude (b = 0.362, p < 0.001) has sig-
Services 3 2.1
nificant effects on destination visit intention. Therefore, H7 and H8
Technician 3 2.1
Professional 12 8.3 are supported.
Civil servant 8 5.5
Homemaker 8 5.5
Others 4 2.8
6. Discussion and implications
Monthly income Less than 1 million wona 91 62.8
1–1.9 million won 15 10.3
2–2.9 million won 17 11.7 6.1. Discussion
3–3.9 million won 8 5.5
4–4.9 million won 6 4.1 Our study found that TR and visual appeal were predictors of
More than 5 million won 8 5.5
perceived usefulness. Thus, these results are in line with the earlier
Total 145 100.0
studies related to TR (e.g., Lin & Chang, 2011; Lin et al., 2007) and
a
1$ (USD) = 1100 Won. visual appeal (e.g., Turel, 2010; Van der Heijden, 2003). A user’s
readiness to accept new technology is an important matter in
usage of state-of-the-art technology such as AR. A key element of
using AR is also the esthetic response caused by the synthesis of
the AVE is greater than the correlations between that construct and its virtual objects in the real world. Thus, people using AR have
other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Tables 6 necessarily accepted visual appeal as a stimulus factor influencing
and 7, all items exhibited substantially higher loading than on usefulness of the technology. This study confirmed the effect of TR
other factors, and the square root of the AVE for each construct and visual appeal on the perceived usefulness of AR, and it suggests
exceeded the correlations between that construct and the other that tourists’ TR and the visual appeal of AR are important issues in
constructs. Therefore, discriminant validity was established. the vitality of new technology such as AR.
In addition, visual appeal and facilitating conditions had a sig-
5.2. Structural model nificant effect on perceived ease of use. Studies related to IT have
identified visual appeal and facilitating conditions as critical fac-
The proposed model was examined for explanatory power and tors influencing the formation of technology acceptance (e.g.,
path significance using a bootstrapping technique (see Fig. 2 and Chen & Chan, 2014; Damala et al., 2008; Olsson et al., 2013; Teo,
Table 8). A bootstrapping sample of size 500 was used in the PLS 2009; Yovcheva et al., 2013). Our findings corroborate the effect
analyses. In addition, the model accounted for 13.1–56.0% of the of these factors on perceived ease of use in the context of AR. In
variance (R2; squared multiple correlations). The percentages of particular, the relationship between facilitating conditions and
explained variance for perceived usefulness, perceived ease of perceived ease of use is stronger than the relationship between
use, AR attitude, AR usage intention and destination visit intention visual appeal and perceived ease of use. Such a finding highlights
were 54.6, 44.3, 56.0, 40.5 and 13.1, respectively. the critical role of facilitating conditions in tourists’ AR usage.
H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, and H3 address the structural relationships These results indicate that perceived ease of use is not only corre-
among TR, visual appeal, perceived usefulness and perceived ease lated with the stimulus factor (i.e., visual appeal) but also with sit-
of use. The effects of TR (b = 0.334, p < 0.001) and visual appeal uational factor (i.e., facilitating conditions) when heritage visitors
(b = 0.306, p < 0.001) are statistically significant contributors to are using AR. This perceived ease of use also leads to the intention
perceived usefulness. Visual appeal (b = 0.369, p < 0.001) and through perceived usefulness to use AR and visit the site.

Table 5
Descriptive statistics of constructs.

Constructs Composite reliability AVE Cronbach’s a Mean STD

Technology readiness (TR) Optimism 0.927 0.718 0.899 5.723 0.998
Innovativeness 0.915 0.685 0.884 4.662 1.359
Visual appeal 0.943 0.768 0.924 5.508 1.183
Facilitating conditions 0.891 0.673 0.839 5.960 1.074
Perceived usefulness 0.961 0.861 0.946 5.703 1.187
Perceived ease of use 0.932 0.776 0.904 5.381 1.216
AR attitude 0.942 0.803 0.916 5.584 1.192
AR usage intention 0.984 0.953 0.975 5.655 1.293
Destination visit intention 0.915 0.731 0.883 5.859 0.986
596 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599

Table 6
Cross loadings of each construct.

Component OPT INN VIS FAC USF EOU ATT INT DES
OPT1 0.842 0.220 0.443 0.418 0.581 0.358 0.493 0.506 0.372
OPT2 0.853 0.285 0.378 0.398 0.510 0.306 0.392 0.399 0.420
OPT3 0.783 0.499 0.371 0.387 0.410 0.353 0.343 0.397 0.258
OPT4 0.897 0.331 0.463 0.391 0.545 0.315 0.461 0.480 0.325
OPT5 0.859 0.409 0.429 0.361 0.602 0.339 0.473 0.472 0.315
INN1 0.384 0.895 0.110 0.248 0.212 0.163 0.102 0.140 0.081
INN2 0.489 0.883 0.225 0.349 0.378 0.232 0.265 0.306 0.125
INN3 0.222 0.813 0.076 0.189 0.159 0.166 0.104 0.082 -0.001
INN4 0.294 0.817 0.083 0.161 0.191 0.084 0.015 0.056 0.064
INN5 0.290 0.718 0.149 0.208 0.224 0.187 0.007 0.035 0.167
VIS1 0.391 0.122 0.870 0.366 0.519 0.514 0.427 0.577 0.308
VIS2 0.459 0.132 0.909 0.361 0.591 0.442 0.475 0.549 0.429
VIS3 0.455 0.090 0.902 0.359 0.538 0.420 0.466 0.565 0.448
VIS4 0.429 0.143 0.832 0.338 0.443 0.462 0.451 0.455 0.316
VIS5 0.424 0.209 0.866 0.374 0.546 0.553 0.528 0.536 0.399
FAC1 0.494 0.166 0.305 0.746 0.503 0.325 0.506 0.379 0.341
FAC2 0.270 0.177 0.331 0.801 0.429 0.459 0.408 0.380 0.275
FAC3 0.425 0.338 0.318 0.849 0.560 0.494 0.478 0.471 0.326
FAC4 0.368 0.240 0.389 0.879 0.489 0.545 0.549 0.527 0.328
USF1 0.556 0.248 0.513 0.484 0.907 0.515 0.629 0.581 0.313
USF2 0.602 0.285 0.586 0.583 0.956 0.543 0.716 0.639 0.364
USF3 0.593 0.328 0.594 0.623 0.936 0.574 0.707 0.614 0.377
USF4 0.565 0.208 0.547 0.525 0.912 0.535 0.688 0.597 0.446
EOU1 0.475 0.236 0.504 0.519 0.579 0.836 0.455 0.506 0.318
EOU2 0.317 0.145 0.438 0.508 0.478 0.890 0.422 0.392 0.308
EOU3 0.268 0.166 0.428 0.467 0.473 0.896 0.462 0.432 0.302
EOU4 0.315 0.165 0.547 0.503 0.517 0.899 0.504 0.516 0.334
ATT1 0.506 0.073 0.505 0.555 0.687 0.457 0.886 0.614 0.338
ATT2 0.487 0.118 0.490 0.512 0.715 0.443 0.925 0.570 0.324
ATT3 0.483 0.194 0.506 0.592 0.690 0.504 0.939 0.594 0.360
ATT4 0.332 0.077 0.417 0.437 0.543 0.484 0.832 0.495 0.269
INT1 0.485 0.122 0.591 0.534 0.635 0.509 0.608 0.967 0.380
INT2 0.527 0.198 0.581 0.509 0.617 0.498 0.589 0.983 0.411
INT3 0.543 0.158 0.623 0.541 0.665 0.537 0.663 0.979 0.463
DES1 0.331 0.032 0.328 0.316 0.324 0.279 0.291 0.374 0.901
DES2 0.195 0.150 0.324 0.238 0.209 0.313 0.207 0.215 0.789
DES3 0.218 0.052 0.294 0.245 0.210 0.259 0.231 0.269 0.867
DES4 0.486 0.126 0.472 0.428 0.507 0.354 0.419 0.496 0.858

Note 1. OPT = Optimism, INN = Innovativeness, VIS = Visual appeal, FAC = Facilitating conditions, USF = Perceived usefulness, EOU = Perceived ease of use, ATT = AR Attitude,
INT = AR usage intention, DES = Destination Visit Intention.
Note 2. The letters in boldface are the cross loading of each construct.

Table 7
Correlations among constructs.

Construct OPT INN VIS FAC USF EOU ATT INT DES
OPT 0.848
INN 0.407** 0.828
VIS 0.492** 0.154 0.876
FAC 0.472** 0.274** 0.409** 0.820
USF 0.626** 0.280** 0.600** 0.600** 0.928
EOU 0.386** 0.198* 0.540** 0.553** 0.577** 0.881
ATT 0.504** 0.123 0.534** 0.586** 0.734** 0.525** 0.896
INT 0.531** 0.155 0.611** 0.535** 0.654** 0.520** 0.632** 0.976
DES 0.349** 0.100 0.406** 0.352** 0.354** 0.347** 0.325** 0.383** 0.855

Note. The diagonal elements in boldface in the ‘‘correlation of constructs’’ matrix are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). For adequate discriminant
validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than the corresponding off-diagonal elements.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

Therefore, the focus on visual appeal and facilitating conditions is
needed to enhance the ease of use of AR in tourism.
We also found that perceived usefulness has a significant effect
on AR attitude, and perceived ease of use was a predictor of both
perceived usefulness and AR attitude. In turn, AR attitude affected
AR usage intention and destination visit intention. That is, the use-
fulness and ease of use of AR are determinants of AR acceptance by
heritage visitors. These results have commonalities with studies
related to the TAM (e.g., Damala et al., 2008; Furata et al., 2012;
Olsson et al., 2013; Yovcheva et al., 2013). Law et al. (2009) and
Kaplanidou and Vogt (2006) insisted that IT utilizations are crucial
components in forming tourists’ experiences and behaviors. The
attitude toward IT at tourism destinations sets tourists’ expecta-
tions, which determines the tourist outcome (Kaplanidou & Vogt,
2006). Similarly, this study confirmed that AR was an important
tool to guide tourist behaviors and emphasized that perceived use-
fulness and ease of use are vital for use of AR.
However, the research model has an insignificant relationship.
TR has no effect on perceived ease of use. The findings of some past
studies on TR implied that TR significantly affected ease of use and
 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599 597

Fig. 2. Results of SEM analysis.

Table 8 6.2. Implications

Standardized structural estimates and hypotheses tests.

Hypothesis Path Estimates t- Results The findings of this study have both theoretical and practical
value implications. From a theoretical perspective, previous studies
H1a TR ? perceived usefulness 0.334 4.563 Supported associated with AR have focused on medical science and educa-
H1b TR ? perceived ease of use 0.034 0.461 Not tion; in the field of tourism, mobile devices and mapping have been
supported researched (e.g., Chou & ChanLin, 2012; Olsson et al., 2013; Wasko,
H2a Visual appeal ? perceived 0.306 3.810 Supported
usefulness
2013). However, the full potential of AR systems for travel has still
H2b Visual appeal ? perceived 0.369 5.032 Supported not been extensively investigated. Furthermore, there is still a lack
ease of use of empirical studies. This study attempted to empirically explain
H3 Facilitating 0.401 4.281 Supported the destination visit intention of AR users in tourism. The initial
conditions ? perceived ease
assumptions of this study empirically supported the idea that tour-
of use
H4 Perceived ease of 0.293 3.607 Supported ists’ attitude toward AR enhances their intention to visit a real-her-
use ? perceived usefulness itage destination. Law et al. (2009) and Kaplanidou and Vogt
H5 Perceived usefulness ? AR 0.657 9.431 Supported (2006) stated that the use of IT further forms the experience of
attitude tourists. Therefore, this study academically suggests that the use
H6 Perceived ease of use ? AR 0.141 1.650 Supported
of technology that is state-of-the-art such as AR must be intro-
attitude
H7 AR attitude ? AR usage 0.637 9.460 Supported duced and utilized in the field of tourism.
intention Additionally, the current study contributed an analysis of tour-
H8 AR attitude ? destination 0.362 4.848 Supported ists’ usage of AR and intention to visit a heritage destination con-
visit intention
sidering three aspects: personal (TR), stimulus (visual appeal),
and situational factor (facilitating conditions). In the context of
that its effect was stronger than the effect of TR on perceived use-
tourism, three aspects are critical determinants for the success of
fulness (e.g., Lin & Chang, 2011; Lin et al., 2007). Our finding sug-
AR utilization. Because AR is cutting-edge technology, visitors
gested that the effects of visual appeal and facilitating conditions
using AR at a heritage destination must be well prepared to fully
on perceived ease of use are more important than the effect of
accept new technology (e.g., Vlahakis et al., 2002). In addition,
TR. Consequently, their stronger effects would bring about such a
because the technology has strong visual elements, such visual
result. Conversely, the result of the current study indicated that
appeal must be in harmony with the actual environment of the
the mental state of preparation of visitors regarding new
heritage destination and accommodate usage conditions. Support
technologies and recognition of the convenience of AR are separate
by an organizational and technical infrastructure will enhance
issues.
598 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599
the use of new technologies (Venkatesh, 2000; Wu et al., 2011).
Therefore, in this study, by including TRAM and elements such as
facilitating conditions and the visual appeal addressed in many IT
studies, it has tried to understand usage intention and destination
visit intention. The results of this study have verified that such ele-
ments are important in usage intention of AR and destination visit
intention.
This study provided some practical guidelines for the tourism
industry. First, the results showed that TR had a positive and sig-
nificant effect on perceived usefulness. In other words, it means
that tourists who use AR must be prepared to use such a new tech-
nology to perceive its usefulness in the tourism experience.
Therefore, to increase readiness for general state-of-the-art tech-
nology such as AR, tourism operators, DMOs, tourism applications
developers, and tourism marketers should attempt to promote or
educate people in the use of state-of-the-art technology in the field
of tourism.
Second, this study confirmed the significance of the effect of
visual appeal on both perceived usefulness and ease of use. That
is, the results indicate that, for AR, visualization is important.
Therefore, the design should be developed such that the visual
appeal of AR is well suited or in harmony with tourism destina-
tions. In addition, because facilitating conditions have the stron-
gest influence on ease of use, facilitating conditions must be
strengthened. To facilitate people’s use of the new technology, it
is mandatory for those involved to establish conditions supporting
such the technology.
Third, perceived ease of use affected perceived usefulness and
both directly and indirectly affected attitude toward AR. In particu-
lar, perceived usefulness strongly influenced the formation of atti-
tude. In addition, attitude was shown to influence significantly and
positively AR usage intention and destination visit intention. To
achieve wide use of AR, forming of positive attitudes toward AR
becomes important; beliefs about AR that affect attitude should
be strengthened. Therefore, to encourage formation of positive
attitudes toward AR, tourism operators, DMOs, tourism application
developers, and tourism marketers must try to ascertain users’
desires through surveys until such technology becomes settled.
7. Conclusions and limitations
AR is being developed as a part of smart tourism to provide
information about destinations and attractions, and is showing
its potential to become a new tourism service. Nevertheless, the
trend has been slow because tourists have a difficult time keeping
up with new technology. In this regard, our study focused on
whether AR users’ personal (TR), stimulus (visual appeal), and sit-
uational factor (facilitating conditions) lead to AR usage intention
and destination visit intention toward a heritage destination via
AR beliefs (perceived usefulness and ease of use) and AR attitudes.
Consequently, the current study revealed that TR, visual appeal,
and facilitating conditions had a significant effect on intention to
use AR and intention to visit a heritage site through the beliefs,
attitude toward AR, intention to use AR, and intention to visit a
heritage site.
Despite the present study’s contributions, it has a number of
limitations. First, the study results are specific to one heritage site
(i.e., Deoksugung Palace) and cannot be generalized to other her-
itage sites or tourism destinations. In addition, our sample cannot
represent the entire population of AR tourists. Thus, future
research should focus on samples of AR users in many different
tourism destinations. Second, while the present study focused on
general understanding of AR usage and its associated intention to
visit a heritage destination, this study did not fully take into
account factors related to the heritage site or heritage site tourists’
motivations. AR usage in heritage tourism will be better under-
stood if other factors such as cultural motivation, value, visitor
knowledge, and authenticity are considered, as viewed in previous
studies (e.g., Calver & Page, 2013; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). Therefore,
future studies of AR’s effects at heritage destinations and heritage
tourists’ experiences related to AR should be examined from the
viewpoint of heritage tourism.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-
2013S1A3A2043345).
References
Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the
theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption
information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.
Assaker, G., & Hallak, R. (2013). Moderating effects of tourists’ novelty-seeking
tendencies on destination image, visitor satisfaction, and short-and long-term
revisit intentions. Journal of Travel Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0047287513478497.
Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., & Law, R. (2013). Predicting the intention to use consumer-
generated media for travel planning. Tourism Management, 35, 132–143.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6(4), 355–385.
Azuma, R. T., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001).
Recent advances in augmented reality. Computer Graphics and Applications,
21(6), 34–47.
Azuma, R., Billinghurst, M., & Klinker, G. (2011). Special section on mobile
augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 35(4), vii–viii.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Berger, S. C. (2009). Self-service technology for sales purposes in branch banking:
The impact of personality and relationship on customer adoption. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(7), 488–505.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Barfar, A. (2011). Information technology continuance research:
Current state and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems,
21(2), 1–18.
Botden, S. M., & Jakimowicz, J. J. (2009). What is going on in augmented reality
simulation in laparoscopic surgery? Surgical Endoscopy, 23(8), 1693–1700.
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the
technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 706–717.
Butchart, B. (2011). Augmented reality for smartphones: A guide for developers and
content publishers. Techwatch report, JISC observatory. <http://observatory.jisc.
ac.uk/docs/AR_Smartphones.pdf>.
Calver, S. J., & Page, S. J. (2013). Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of
service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage
attractions. Tourism Management, 39, 23–36.
Casella, G., & Coelho, M. (2013). Augmented heritage – Situating augmented reality
mobile apps in cultural heritage communication. ISDOC ‘13 proceedings of the
2013 international conference on information systems and design of
communication (pp. 138–140).
Chen, K., & Chan, A. H. (2014). Predictors of gerontechnology acceptance by older
Hong Kong Chinese. Technovation, 34(2), 126–135.
Chen, L. D., Gillenson, M. L., & Sherrell, D. L. (2002). Enticing online consumers: An
extended technology acceptance perspective. Information & Management, 39(8),
705–719.
Chen, C., Su, C. C., Lee, P., & Wu, F. (2007). Augmented interface for children Chinese
learning. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international conference on advanced
learning technologies (pp. 268–270). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer
Society Press.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115–1122.
Cheng, S., & Cho, V. (2011). An integrated model of employees’ behavioral intention
toward innovative information and communication technologies in travel
agencies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(4), 488–510.
Chi, H. L., Kang, S. C., & Wang, X. (2013). Research trends and opportunities of
augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction.
Automation in Construction, 33, 116–122.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research
(pp. 298–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chou, T. L., & ChanLin, L. J. (2012). Augmented reality smartphone environment
orientation application: A case study of the Fu-Jen University Mobile Campus
Touring System. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 410–416.
Computerworld (2014). 4 years in, augmented reality in smartphones has yet to catch
on. <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9248304/4_years_in_
augmented_reality_in_smartphones_has_yet_to_catch_on_>. Retrieved
17.06.14.
 N. Chung et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 588–599
Damala, A., Cubaud, P., Bationo, A., Houlier, P., & Marchal, I. (2008). Bridging the gap
between the digital and the physical: Design and evaluation of a mobile
augmented reality guide for the museum visit, In Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on digital interactive media in entertainment and arts (pp.
120–127). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science,
35(8), 982–1003.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
Fritz, F., Susperregui, A., & Linaza, M. T. (2005). Enhancing cultural tourism
experiences with augmented reality technologies. 6th International symposium
on virtual reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST).
Furata, H., Takahashi, K., Nakatsu, K., Ishibashi, K., & Aira, M. (2012). A mobile
application system for sightseeing guidance using augmented reality. In Soft
Computing and Intelligent Systems (SCIS) and 13th International Symposium on
Advanced Intelligent Systems (ISIS), 2012 Joint 6th International Conference on
(pp. 1903–1906). IEEE.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation
typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-
Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.
Gelderman, C. J., Ghijsen, P. W. T., & van Diemen, R. (2011). Choosing self-service
technologies or interpersonal services—The impact of situational factors and
technology-related attitudes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(5),
414–421.
Gu, J. C., Lee, S. C., & Suh, Y. H. (2009). Determinants of behavioral intention to
mobile banking. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11605–11616.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Han, D. I., Jung, T., & Gibson, A. (2013). Dublin AR: implementing augmented reality
in tourism. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014
(pp. 511–523). Springer International Publishing.
Hoque, M. R., Ali, M. A., & Mahfuz, M. A. (2015). An empirical investigation on the
adoption of E-commerce in Bangladesh. Asia Pacific Journal of Information
Systems, 25(1), 1–24.
Hunter, W. C., Chung, N., Gretzel, U., & Koo, C. (2015). Constructivist research in
smart tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 105–120.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommedations to use
augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism
management, 49, 75–86.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2006). A structural analysis of destination travel
intentions as a function of web site features. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2),
204–216.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology
adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-
adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.
Kim, T. G., Lee, J. H., & Law, R. (2008). An empirical examination of the acceptance
behaviour of hotel front office systems: An extended technology acceptance
model. Tourism Management, 29(3), 500–513.
Kim, M., & Qu, H. (2014). Travelers’ behavioral intention toward hotel self-service
kiosks usage. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
26(2), 225–245.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An
oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism
Management, 31(5), 652–664.
Korea Tourism Organization (2013). Seoul palace launches augmented reality mobile
app. Retrieved from <http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/FU/FU_EN_15.jsp?cid=
1786566>.
Kounavis, C. D., Kasimati, A. E., Zamani, E. D., & Giaglis, G. M. (2012). Enhancing the
tourism experience through mobile augmented reality: Challenges and
prospects. International Journal of Engineering Business Management,
4(10), 1–6.
Kwon, H. S., & Chidambaram, L. (2000). A test of the technology acceptance model:
The case of cellular telephone adoption. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii
international conference on systems sciences.
Law, R., Leung, R., & Buhalis, D. (2009). Information technology applications in
hospitality and tourism: A review of publications from 2005 to 2007. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(5–6), 599–623.
Lee, Y. K., Park, J. H., Chung, N., & Blakeney, A. (2012). A unified perspective on the
factors influencing usage intention toward mobile financial services. Journal of
Business Research, 65(11), 1590–1599.
Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J., & van Riel, A. (2006). Technology readiness
and the evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 13(3), 177–191.
Lim, W. M. (2009). Alternative models framing UK independent hoteliers’ adoption
of technology. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
21(5), 610–618.
599
Lin, J. S. C., & Chang, H. C. (2011). The role of technology readiness in self-service
technology acceptance. Managing Service Quality, 21(4), 424–444.
Lin, J. S. C., & Hsieh, P. L. (2007). The influence of technology readiness on
satisfaction and behavioral intentions toward self-service technologies.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1597–1615.
Lin, C. H., Shih, H. Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into
technology acceptance: The TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7),
641–657.
Liu, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Exploring the impact of use context on mobile hedonic
services adoption: An empirical study on mobile gaming in China. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(2), 890–898.
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Hu, F. (2013). Website attributes in urging online impulse purchase:
An empirical investigation on consumer perceptions. Decision Support Systems,
55(3), 829–837.
Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C. S., & Wang, K. (2008). Determinants of accepting wireless mobile
data services in China. Information & Management, 45(1), 52–64.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country image
context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 84–106.
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts:
Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132.
Oh, J. C., Yoon, S. J., & Chung, N. (2014). The role of technology readiness in
consumers’ adoption of mobile internet services between South Korea and
China. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 12(3), 229–248.
Olsson, T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T., & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2013).
Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: A user study in
the context of shopping centres. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(2),
287–304.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to
measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research,
2(4), 307–320.
Parboteeah, D. V., Valacich, J. S., & Wells, J. D. (2009). The influence of website
characteristics on a consumer’s urge to buy impulsively. Information Systems
Research, 20(1), 60–78.
Taylor, S. A., Celuch, K., & Goodwin, S. (2002). Technology readiness in the e-
insurance industry: An exploratory investigation and development of an agent
technology e-consumption model. Journal of Insurance Issues, 25(2), 142–165.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-
service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting
with Computers, 13(2), 127–145.
Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2010). User acceptance of hedonic digital
artifacts: A theory of consumption values perspective. Information &
Management, 47(1), 53–59.
Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a
generic portal in The Netherlands. Information & Management, 40(6), 541–549.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control,
intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.
Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2011). The influence of online store beliefs on
consumer online impulse buying: A model and empirical application.
Information & Management, 48(8), 320–327.
Vlahakis, V., Ioannidis, M., Karigiannis, J., Tsotros, M., Gounaris, M., Stricker, D., et al.
(2002). Archeoguide: An augmented reality guide for archaeological sites. IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications, 22(5), 52–60.
Vogt, C., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information search
model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551–578.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of service employees’
technology readiness on technology acceptance. Information & Management,
44(2), 206–215.
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). Modeling participation in an online
community. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 261–270.
Wasko, C. (2013). What teachers need to know about augmented reality enhanced
learning environments. Tech Trends, 57(4), 17–21.
Wells, J. D., Parboteeah, V., & Valacich, J. S. (2011). Online impulse buying:
Understanding the interplay between consumer impulsiveness and website
quality. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 32–56.
Wu, I. L., Li, J. Y., & Fu, C. Y. (2011). The adoption of mobile healthcare by hospital’s
professionals: An integrative perspective. Decision Support Systems, 51(3),
587–596.
Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C. (2012). Smartphone augmented reality
applications for tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), 10(2), 63–66.
Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C. (2013). Engineering augmented tourism
experiences. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer (pp. 24–35). Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer.
Yu, D., Jin, J. S., Luo, S., Lai, W., & Huang, Q. (2010). A useful visualization technique:
A literature review for augmented reality and its application, limitation & future
direction. In Visual Information Communication (pp. 311–337). US: Springer.
Zhang, S., Zhao, J., & Tan, W. (2008). Extending TAM for online learning systems: An
intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 312–317.