Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

ISSN: 1094-1665 (Print) 1741-6507 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

The influences of innovative technological

introduction on interpretive experiences of
exhibition:a discussion on the intention to use
augmented reality

Shou-Tsung Wu, Ching-Hsing Chiu & Yeong-Shyang Chen

To cite this article: Shou-Tsung Wu, Ching-Hsing Chiu & Yeong-Shyang Chen (2020) The
influences of innovative technological introduction on interpretive experiences of exhibition:a
discussion on the intention to use augmented reality, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
25:6, 652-667, DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2020.1752754

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1752754

Published online: 05 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapt20
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
2020, VOL. 25, NO. 6, 652–667
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1752754

The influences of innovative technological introduction on interpretive

experiences of exhibition:a discussion on the intention to use augmented
reality
Shou-Tsung Wu , Ching-Hsing Chiu and Yeong-Shyang Chen

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study considers a tourism-related exhibition associated with the themes of Technology readiness;
augmented reality technology to explore the relations among external variances, technology acceptance
technology perceptions, users’ attitudes, behavioral intentions, and experiential model; experiential value;
smart tourism; augmented
valuations. This study verifies the results of designed hypotheses via the combined
reality; exhibition
analysis of a structural equation modeland related statistical analysis. The results
show that most hypotheses are verified with supportive effects. The increase in
visual effects, the ease of use, the diversity and amusement of technological
content, the friendly atmosphere of the exhibiting field, and the assistance of on-
site staff are all vital factors to facilitate users’ behavioral intentions.

Introduction multimedia kiosk systems but also self-guided trails,

Through the blessing of digital technology, the infor-
mation innovations of ubiquitous computing, natural
interfaces, and context awareness are continuously
involved in everyday life and facilitate the coming of
an era in which every place can become a learning
field. At the same time, thinking about how to stimu-
late learners to formulate new experiences from
knowledge contexts has become a new research
agenda (Abowd & Mynatt, 2000). In the context of
this trend, devices for technological learning have
gradually become valued, and their five main attri-
butes (portability, social interactivity, context sensi-
tivity, connectivity, and individuality) have become
the basis for the introduction of mobile technology
into innovative learning modes (Klopfer et al., 2002).
Recently, in addition to traditional exhibition
spaces (e.g. museums, art and culture centers, and
art galleries), many innovative exhibition spaces (e.g.
Songshan Cultural and Creative Park in Taipei; Pier-2
Art Center in Kaohsiung) that satisfy diverse
demands have been developed in Taiwan and have
become attractive places for visitors. In general, the
guidance and interpretation modes within traditional
exhibition spaces utilize not only interpretive
signage, guidebooks, website construction, and
interpreters, audio tours, stamping collections, and
interactive games. However, with technological pro-
gress, the application of digital technology to exhibi-
tion activities to facilitate information absorption and
learning outcomes has become a new trend
(Dinhopl & Gretzel, 2016; Lyu, 2016). An exhibition
whose purpose and strategy can connect with daily
life experiences provokes more resonance with partici-
pants. Such an exhibition can increase participants’
appreciation and recognition and achieve better com-
municative effects, experiential value, and educational
meaning. Through different approaches to under-
standing the developments of new scientific technol-
ogy and their practical applicability, innovative
exhibition methods can increase their educational
functions and provide participants with novel experi-
ences of exhibitions.
Introduced in the 1960s, augmented reality (AR) is
an interactive technology that creates an overlap
betweenthe real world and virtual information. It pro-
vides visual effects of sensory composites to
strengthen users’ interactive experiences between
the real world and displayed information (Azuma,
1997). The commercialized development of AR in the
early stage was very slow. Until the 1990s, the techno-
logical application of AR was limited to individualized

CONTACT Yeong-Shyang Chen ysc18@g2.usc.edu.tw

© 2020 Asia Pacific Tourism Association

usage and toolkit development, and most of the appli-
cations focused on product development and design,
educational and teaching demonstrations, medical
training, military aviation simulation, and training
operations. However, with the rapid development of
technology, AR has recently been applied in commer-
cial, industrial, and educational fields and is expected
to extend into wider applications in the future with the
popularization of mobile devices (Barsom et al., 2016;
Koutromanos et al., 2015).
Technological advancement has created a diver-
sified interactive model of exhibitions. It enables par-
ticipants to obtain information in a more intuitive
way, improves their memories and strengthens their
learning through different sensory stimuli, which can
enhance the depth and breadth of their learned
knowledge (e.g. Lee & Park, 2007). Nevertheless,
because of the scarcity of related academic studies
verifying the effectiveness of AR technology, it is
difficult to clearly understand participants’ attitudes
and usage intentions toward the introduction of AR
technology into exhibition systems and the level of
experiential value they obtain. Therefore, this study
aims to examine whether the introduction of AR tech-
nology influences participants’ attitudes, usage inten-
tions, and experiential value and to investigate the
influential factors.
Previous studies have indicated that the factors
that influence the usage of AR include technology
readiness (TR), visual factors, and situational factors
(Chung et al., 2015). Based on this conceptual
premise combined with the concept of the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and selecting as the investi-
gation site an exhibition field whose theme is associ-
ated with AR technology, this study aims to examine
the following research questions:
(1) Do external variances (personal attributes, stimu-
lating factors, and situational factors) impact the
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of AR?
(2) Does the perceived ease of AR influence the per-
ceived usefulness of AR?
(3) Do the perceived ease and the perceived useful-
ness of AR influence users’ attitudes?
(4) Do the attitudes of AR users influence their use
intentions for AR?
(5) Does the experiential value of AR users impact
these users’ attitudes and intentions?
The answers of these research questions may
serve as a useful reference for the application of
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 653
innovative technologies (i.e. AR technology) to the
guidance and interpretation activities of diverse
exhibitions.
Literature review
AR application within tourism fields
So-called augmented reality is the product created
by the connection between the real world and the
virtualized technology of multimedia information
(Kounavis et al., 2012). Most augmented reality
systems enhance the continuous effects of spatial
and temporal perception by superimposing related
“virtual information” associated with physical
spaces (Azuma et al., 2001, 2011). Thus, AR utilizes
object-superimposed technology to reinforce indi-
vidual viewpoints of the real world. In other words,
the application of augmented reality in the real
world aims to enhance people’s perceptional capa-
bility of visual sense toward external environments.
Therefore, for users of AR technology, the existence
of virtual objects is similar to part of real environ-
ments (Butchart, 2011). In today’s living environ-
ments, AR technology is used in many different
fields, such as practical activities of reproducing
history: AR can help archaeologists, historians, and
curators reproduce possible scenes of historical
events (Fritz et al., 2005).
With conceptual innovations, tourism activities and
the trends of tourism development are at the forefront
of embracing relevant technological innovations
(Gretzel, 2011). Zhang et al. (2012) define smart
tourism as a tourism platform that integrates infor-
mation dissemination systems with a focus on incor-
porating artificial intelligence, cloud computing and
the internet of things (IoT) into a complete platform
of information service to provide and satisfy custo-
mers’ demands and improve the convenience of
understanding and visiting tourist destinations via
the development of mobile communication technol-
ogy. In addition, self-service technologies (SSTs) in
the smart tourism field have been introduced by
many tourism institutions (Kim & Qu, 2014). As indi-
cated by Pantano and Corvello (2014), the use of vir-
tualized 3D information technology in tourism
services can not only attract tourists’ attention but
also enhance their motivation to participate in
tourism activities. Verhagen et al. (2011) also note
that the experiential value of technological service in
a virtual world is beneficial to enhance users’
654 S.-T. WU ET AL.
participatory satisfaction. Therefore, in the develop-
ment of smart tourism, the application of AR to
tourism activities is particularly significant because it
can enhance tourists’ convenience through sensory
experiences and increase tourists’ knowledge of
tourism environments (Fritz et al., 2005; Jung et al.,
2015).
The major advantage of AR is that it can help tour-
ists obtain more direct and integrated information on
tourist destinations and the experiential value of
tourism activities in the dynamic information era (Kou-
navis et al., 2012). This advantage has also been intro-
duced into the guidance practices of tourism
interpretation to improve the insufficient effects of tra-
ditionally static interpretive signage for interactive
experiences or to address the difficulty of attracting
visitors to stop during their visit. That is, through its
visual appeal and its interactive effects, AR can
promote the functional achievement of interpretation
education. Nevertheless, the application of AR tech-
nology in tourism-related fields requires further
exploration (Chung et al., 2015). This consideration is
an important motivation for this study.
AR is a type of visualized technology that can syn-
thesize real landscapes into various multimedia infor-
mation systems, and the attractiveness of
visualization is an important influential factor for
people to choose whether to use AR. Therefore, this
study recognizes that visual appeal has an impact
on tourists’ beliefs and attitudes toward the use of
AR. Previous studies have found that when tourists
carry communication technology devices, they often
utilize these devices to operate AR-related software
to assist or enhance their sensory experiential value
during their visits (Chen & Chan, 2014; Gu et al.,
2009; Teo, 2009; Venkatesh, 2000; Wu et al., 2011).
Thus, this study considers the external “facilitating
condition” to be an important factor that influences
the use of AR technology.
Technology acceptance model
The concept of the technology acceptance model
(TAM) comes from the theory of reasoned action
(TRA). The TRA examines the mutual relationship
among individual behavior, behavioral intention, atti-
tude, and subjective norms. Davis (1989) applied the
core concept of TRA to explain users’ acceptance of
new technological knowledge. Since the concept of
behavioral intention is derived from attitude theory,
which suggests that attitude reflects a person’s
overall assessment of an investigated object (e.g.
product, event, brand, or other persons) and that
this assessment plays an important role in influencing
follow-up behaviors, attitude and behavioral intention
are correlated. In practical terms, attitude is the result
of three components: affective, cognitive, and cona-
tive factors. The affective factor comes from an indi-
vidual’s affective or emotional reaction to a stimulus
in relation to a targeted object. The cognitive factor
relates to individual knowledge and perception
derived from obtained information about the target
object via individual direct experiences or other com-
munication channels after a process of reasonable
thinking. The conative factor represents the action or
behavioral possibility of an individual toward an atti-
tude-targeted object (Engel et al., 1993; Schiffman &
Kanuk, 2000).
Davis (1989) subsequently showed that TRA could
not reasonably interpret people’s behavioral predic-
tions in the use of information technology. Davis
thus removed “subjective norms” and developed
two variables, “perceived usefulness of technology”
and “perceived ease of technological use,” to shape
the “technology acceptance model.” Perceived useful-
ness indicates that users subjectively believe that the
use of a technology will be beneficial to their job per-
formance and life. Perceived ease means that users
recognize the degree of ease of using the technology.
The TAM mainly aims to understand the impact of
external factors on users’ internal beliefs, attitudes,
and behavioral intentions to explain the decisive
factors of individual acceptance of new technologies.
Because the perceived ease and perceived usefulness
of technology affect users’ attitudes toward technol-
ogy collectively and users’ attitudes influence the
intentional orientation of technology use, the
concept of the TAM has been widely used in research
relating to innovative technology in an attempt to
understand and predict consumers’ intentions and
behavioral orientation toward technological products
(Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Burton-Jones &
Hubona, 2006; Teo, 2009).
In many research fields, the TAM has been evalu-
ated as an excellent reference model due to its simpli-
city and predictability. In particular, many TAM studies
have considered various external variables (e.g. sys-
tematic, personal, situational, and social character-
istics) as related factors that influence the perceived
ease and perceived usefulness of technology
(Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2006; Lin & Hsieh, 2007; Oh
et al., 2014; Teo, 2009). Therefore, this study utilizes

the TAM proposed by Davis (1989) as the core concept
and considers personal factors (personal technology
readiness), stimulating factors (i.e. visual appeal), and
situational factors (as facilitating conditions) to
examine their relational influences on the perceived
ease and perceived usefulness of technology.
The correlation between technology readiness
and the TAM
So-called technology readiness (TR) indicates the ten-
dency of people to accept or use new technology to
achieve goals of daily life or work. In general, TR is
composed of four factors: optimism, innovativeness,
discomfort, and insecurity. The optimistic factor
denotes people’s positive perception of technology.
The innovative factor specifies the tendency of
people who become the pioneers of technology or
leaders of thought to be the first people to use new
technology. The discomfort factor refers to people’s
cognitive difficulty in understanding a new technol-
ogy and the uneasy feeling caused by this cognitive
difficulty. The insecure factor indicates the degree of
distrust that people have while using a technology
and, at the same time, the degree of uncertainty
about whether the technology works properly (Para-
suraman, 2000).
According to this conceptual principle, many
studies have investigated related factors that affect
TR. For instance, Walczuch et al. (2007) note that
people who love to use new technologies or favor
innovation have a more open attitude toward new
technological products and are probably better
able to accept or adapt to new technological pro-
ducts. When people feel that the use of new techno-
logical products is overly complicated, they develop
uncomfortable feelings and reduce their frequency
and intention of using these products. Similarly,
people who feel discomfort or fear about using
new technological products will try to avoid using
them (Kwon & Chidambaram, 2000). Therefore, the
optimistic and innovative factors of TR are the posi-
tive influences that drive people to use new techno-
logical products. Discomfort and insecurity are
negative factors that inhibit use (Lin & Hsieh, 2007;
Parasuraman, 2000). For the abovementioned
reasons, this study explores whether respondents’
acceptance (technological perception) of new AR-
related technological products is affected by their
technological readiness and further analyzes
whether the degree of acceptance (technological
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 655
perception) affects subsequent attitudes, intentions
and experiential value.
Experiential value
“Experience” refers to a personal experience
obtained from an individual’s activities of exploring
and experimenting in his/her external world. This
experiential process includes the essence of one’s
entire life (Schmitt, 2000). In other words, an experi-
ence is the result of an individual’s body, cognition
and affect interacting with his/her situational
environment. Therefore, the medium introduced
into any experiential process will have a certain
degree of influence on an individual’s bodily, cogni-
tive, and affective interactions (Arnould et al., 2002).
The concept of “value” is related to economic behav-
ior and refers to the relative and preferred experi-
ences obtained by interactions between an
individual and the social environment and involves
the process of comparing the ranking orders of
societies (or evaluated objects) (Holbrook, 1994).
Because value itself has functional, conditional,
social, affective and intellectual meanings, it can
stimulate or influence individual consumption
behavior (Sheth et al., 1991). Therefore, previous
research on the topic of value often divides the
value obtained by consumers into (1) the monetary
value of the market based on the transacted prices
and (2) the value derived from the transaction
(also known as affective value, enjoyable shopping
value, or experiential value) (Babin et al., 1994; Para-
suraman & Grewal, 2000; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
Previous research suggest that what people want
in their minds may not be the actual benefits of the
product itself; instead, the decision-making process
of the purchase may be used to measure the experien-
tial value that the product may provide for the purcha-
ser’s inner demands. The degree of this experiential
value will also impact the final decision-making inten-
tion of follow-up consumer behavior (Abbott, 1955).
For this study, the introduction of AR technology
allows users to experience so-called “telepresence”
(Klein, 2003), making users feel that they are situated
within a unique virtual world that is actually created
by a virtual environment (Azuma, 1997). This type of
created experience will further influence the entire
experience and users’ perceived of the actual object
or environment (Mollen & Wilson, 2010) and will
affect users’ attitudes and usage intentions toward
the AR technology.
656 S.-T. WU ET AL.
Mathwick et al. (2001) note that experiential value
is mainly shaped by the interaction between consu-
mers and products (services) and forms the basis for
the preference for products (services). Thus, they
divide experiential value into four categories based
on the framework proposed by Holbrook (1994): cus-
tomer return on investment (CROI), service excellence,
aesthetics, and playfulness. CROI is the feedback value
of the economic utility and transactional efficiency of
products (services) that consumers obtain after invest-
ing their resources. Service excellence indicates consu-
mers’ inner feelings and evaluation toward the
performance and professional capability of the suppli-
ers that provide products (services). Aesthetics
denotes the visual appeal or aesthetic feeling of con-
sumers toward products (services) within experiential
environments. Playfulness indicates that the transac-
tional activity of the product (service) itself provides
consumers with the maximum possibility of tempor-
arily escaping real-life experiences (Mathwick et al.,
2001). Synthesizing the abovementioned concepts,
this study defines experiential value as the overall
evaluation produced by tourists who come to visit
an exhibition and their experience of guided interpret-
ation through the introduction of AR technology.
Thus, this study uses the four categories mentioned
above as the measuring framework to further
discuss the influences of attitudes and usage inten-
tions on AR.
Development of hypotheses
Based on the research motivation, purpose, and
related literature review, this study proposes the con-
ceptual model shown in Figure 1. In short, this study
follows the concept of the TAM and utilizes the per-
sonal factor (technological readiness), the stimulating
factor (visual appeal), and the situational factor (pro-
motional condition) as its external variables to
examine the mutual correlations among these vari-
ables, technological perceptions of AR (perceived use-
fulness and perceived ease), attitude, usage intention,
and experiential value. The hypotheses of this study
are discussed below.
Lin et al. (2007) proposed the concept of the tech-
nology readiness and acceptance model (TRAM),
synthesizing the theoretical concepts of the TAM
and TR, to explain users’ adoption behaviors and
usage intentions for technological products. Many
studies subsequently used this model to discuss
related research issues. For example, Lin and Chang
(2011) suggested that technology readiness in the
application of self-service technologies (SSTs) will
strengthen perceived usefulness and perceived ease.
Oh et al. (2014) found that among users of mobile net-
works in South Korea and Mainland China, perceptions
of technology readiness have significant influences on
perceived usefulness and ease. Thus, this study
suggests that participants’ use of AR equipment will
influence their perceived usefulness and ease. The fol-
lowing are the related research hypotheses.
H1a: Technology readiness has a positive influence on
AR’s perceived usefulness.
H1b: Technology readiness has a positive influence on
AR’s perceived ease.
One of the important characteristics of information
technology (IT) is that it creates visual attractiveness
and makes it easier for people to enjoy the use of IT
(Parboteeah et al., 2009). Relevant studies note that
the visual attractiveness created by IT affects users’
perceived usefulness and perceived ease (e.g. van
der Heijden, 2003; Verhagen & van Dolen, 2011;
Wells et al., 2011). In addition, some studies suggest
that an AR system strengthens users’ perspectives
on the real world and that its systematic application
influences perceived usefulness and ease (Olsson
et al., 2013). Therefore, this study proposes the follow-
ing hypotheses:
H2a: Visual attractiveness has a positive influence on AR’s
perceived usefulness.
H2b: Visual attractiveness has a positive influence on AR’s
perceived ease.
When considering whether an advanced technology
will be favored by users, “whether it is easy to use”
(facilitating conditions) is often one of the key
factors to consider (Lu et al., 2008). Because a facilitat-
ing condition can increase people’s willingness to
complete their missions, some studies suggest that
there is a correlation among the facilitating condition,
technological belief, technological use, and perceived
ease (Chen & Chan, 2014; Teo, 2009). Other studies
suggest that a facilitating condition could also
reinforce users’ support for AR technology (Venkatesh,
2000; Wu et al., 2011). Thus, this study proposes the
following hypothesis:
H3: The facilitating condition has a positive impact on
AR’s perceived ease.
Within the theoretical framework of the TAM, some
studies have verified that there is a significant

Figure 1. The purposed conceptual model of this study.
correlation between perceived usefulness and per-
ceived ease (e.g. Elkaseh et al., 2016; Srite, 2006).
Other studies further suggest that perceived useful-
ness and ease have a direct influence on users’ atti-
tudes (Porter & Donthu, 2006; Seif et al., 2012; Teo,
2011). Therefore, this study proposes the following
hypotheses:
H4: AR’s perceived ease has a positive influence on AR’s
perceived usefulness.
H5: AR’s perceived usefulness has a positive impact on
users’ attitudes toward AR technology.
H6: AR’s perceived ease has a positive influence on users’
attitudes toward AR technology.
In addition, a person’s attitude usually influences his/
her behavioral intention to use IT. For instance, Ayeh
et al. (2013) note that there is a positive influential
relation between consumers’ attitudes and consu-
mers’ intentions to use a self-service medium within
the tourism environment. While examining innovative
products, Im et al. (2015) found that the experiential
value perceived by consumers affects their attitudes
toward the use of innovative products. Lee et al.
(2017) showed that tourists’ experiential value and
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 657
satisfaction with event tourism are important factors
that influence their behavioral intentions. As a result,
this study suggests the following hypotheses:
H7: Tourists’ attitudes toward using AR have a positive
impact on their intention to use AR.
H8: Participants’ experiential value has a positive
influence on their attitudes toward using AR.
H9: Participants’ experiential value has a positive
influence on their intention to use AR.
Methods
Measurement
In terms of investigative tools, a self-administered
questionnaire was designed for this research topic.
Its content included personal social background
(gender, age, education level, marital status, occu-
pational category, and place of residence), technology
readiness, visual appeal, facilitating conditions, tech-
nology perception, usage attitude, usage intention,
and experiential value.
The questions on the scale of technology readiness
were mainly based on the study of Lin and Hsieh
658 S.-T. WU ET AL.
(2007). The scale was divided into two subfacets of
“innovation” and “optimism,” with five questions in
each. For example, the innovative subfacet included
the item “I can keep up with the latest technological
developments in which I am interested,” and the
optimistic subfacet included the item “The product
service of the latest technology products is very
convenient.”
The five questions on the scale of visual appeal
were mainly based on the study of Oh et al. (2007).
An example item is “The scenes seen through the aug-
mented reality and the exhibition environment can be
harmoniously matched with each other.” The five
questions on the scale of facilitating conditions were
mainly based on the study of Venkatesh et al. (2003).
An example item is “I have to use smart phones or
pads if I want to operate AR.”
The questions on the scale of technological percep-
tion were mainly based on the study of van der
Heijden (2004) and divided into two subfacets: per-
ceived usefulness and perceived ease. There were
four questions for perceived usefulness; an example
item is “It is useful for AR to assist in guidance/
interpretation.” There were four questions for per-
ceived ease; an example item is “When using AR, I
feel it is easy to understand.”
The questions on the scales of attitude and inten-
tion to use AR were mainly grounded in the study of
Venkatesh et al. (2003). There were four questions
for the scale of attitude, including the example item
“I will feel more interested in an exhibition associated
with AR.” There were also four questions for the scale
of usage intention, including the representative item “I
think about using AR in the future.”
Finally, the questions on the scale of experiential
value were mainly based on the study of Mathwick
et al. (2001) and divided into four subfacets: customer
return on investment, service excellence, aesthetics,
and playfulness, each of which included four ques-
tions. An example item for aesthetics is “I feel that
the AR design layout on a tablet or smart phone is
beautiful.” An example item for customer return on
investment is “This exhibition makes me feel it is
worth the price.” An example item for service excel-
lence is “When using this AR system, I will think
about the excellent quality of this exhibition.” An
example item for playfulness is “This exhibition is full
of amusement and playfulness.” With the exception
of personal social background, the questions on the
abovementioned questionnaire all adopted a 7-point
Likert scale to process the measurement. The scales
were scored from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly
agree” (7).
Data collection
With regard to data collection, to avoid bias, this study
first conducted interviewer training and informed the
interviewers of the sampling procedure and the
matters to be explained. During July and September
2017, teams of two persons (three teams in total)
went to the investigation site (the Avenger League
World Tour Exhibition – Taiwan Station, Marvel Aven-
gers S.T.A.T.I.O.N). Through the convenience sampling
method, the questionnaires of this study were distrib-
uted to the surveyed subjects. In terms of quantity,
after considering the number of questions and
reliability and validity (Chin et al., 2008), a total of
450 questionnaires were distributed, and question-
naires identified as insufficient responses were
removed. The total number of effective questionnaires
was 343 copies (76.2%).
Data analytical methods
The data obtained from the questionnaires were ana-
lyzed using the statistical software SPSS 22.0 and
AMOS 22.0. First, the data of the respondents’ social
background attributes were sorted by descriptive stat-
istical analysis. Second, after examinations of scale
reliability, content validity, convergent validity, and
discrimination validity were performed and it was
confirmed that there was no violation of the estimated
phenomenon, this study utilized the absolute fit
measure, incremental fit measure, and parsimonious
fit measure of the structural equation model (SEM)
to test the goodness-of-fit. Finally, this study used
path-mapping analysis to conduct the verification of
the research hypotheses.
Results and discussion
The social background attributes of
respondents
In this study, the social background attributes of the
respondents were collected by the table of times allo-
cation; the results are shown in Table 1. The data in
Table 1 show that females (54.81%) were more preva-
lent than males (45.19%). Most respondents were
younger (92.07% of respondents were under age
30), while those over 51 were completely absent. It
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 659

Table 1. Statistical table of respondents’ social background attributes.

Items Choices Persons % Items Choices Persons %
Gender Male 155 45.19 Occupation Student 218 63.56
Female 188 54.81 Public official 10 2.92
Age Under 20 years old 134 39.07 Service industry 66 19.24
21∼30 years old 182 53.06 Freelance 11 3.21
31∼40 years old 23 6.71 Business 13 3.79
41∼50 years old 4 1.17 Household 2 0.58
Educational background Under senior high school 58 16.91 Worker 10 2.92
College 33 9.62 Others 13 3.79
University 233 67.93 Place of Residence North 213 62.10
Graduate school 19 5.54 Central 43 12.54
Marital Status Married 20 5.83 South 59 17.20
Unmarried 323 94.17 Eastern 6 1.75
- Outlying island 1 0.29
Abroad 21 6.12

is obvious that different types of exhibitions attract
visitors with different attributes, and the Avengers
World Tour is mainly for young people. In terms of
education level, the level below high school
accounted for 16.91% of the sample, 9.62% of respon-
dents had a junior college degree, 67.93% were edu-
cated at the university level, and 5.54% had
graduate-level education. These results indicate that
a higher educational background is a common
phenomenon in Taiwan. With regard to marital
status, unmarried respondents accounted for the
majority (94.17%), which is associated with the large
number of young people. Regarding occupation,
most of the respondents were students (63.56%), fol-
lowed by the service industry (19.24%) and business
(3.79%). Because the exhibition period was during
summer vacation, most of the respondents were
young people. With regard to place of residence,
most of the respondents were from the north
(62.10%). This was because the exhibition venue was
in Taipei City, so the number of respondents from
other regions was relatively small. Obviously, publicity
can be further strengthened.
The analysis of reliability and validity
Based on the abovementioned literature review, this
study developed a preliminary draft of the question-
naire design and then invited three experts/scholars
to examine the content of the designed questionnaire.
According to their feedback on modifications to the
draft, a pretest questionnaire was conducted. After
the pretest questionnaire was distributed and then
collected, the item analysis was processed. Three
items were deleted and semantic ambiguity was
modified prior to the establishment of the formal
questionnaire. Content validity was achieved at this
point.
With regard to reliability, the Cronbach’s α of tech-
nology readiness was 0.941; the Cronbach’s α of visual
appeal was 0.982; the Cronbach’s α of facilitating con-
ditions was 0.901; the Cronbach’s α of technology per-
ception was 0.980; the Cronbach’s α of usage attitude
was 0.982; the Cronbach’s α of usage intention was
0.947; the Cronbach’s α of experiential value was
0.985; and the Cronbach’s α of the overall scale was
0.992. Since the reliability of the formal questionnaire
was greater than 0.8, an acceptable range was
reached. The reliability of the overall scale was also
over 0.9, so the reliability of the scale was acceptable
(Hair et al., 2006).
The major function of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) is to address the covariation relationship
between the observed variables and the potential
variables with the purpose of testing the factor struc-
ture, convergence validity, and differential validity of
each construct.
Convergence validity means the observational vari-
ables used to measure the same construct, which
should be highly correlated with each other. At the
time of examination, if the factor load of each item
is greater than 0.45 and has a significant level and
the value of squared multiple correlation (SMC) is
greater than 0.20, it represents convergent validity
(Bentler & Wu, 1993; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). The
results of this study show that the normalized factor
load of all observational variables was higher than
the judgment criterion at 0.45 and reached a signifi-
cant level (t > 1.96, p < 0.05). The value of SMC was
between 0.56 and 0.93 (both more than the judgment
value: 0.20), so the measurement model of this study
should have convergence validity.
660 S.-T. WU ET AL.
Table 2. The table measuring the goodness-of-fit of the model.
Test statistic Threshold for a good fit
Absolute fit index χ2 The smaller, the better
χ2/df <3
GFI >0.9
AGFI >0.9
SRMR <0.1
RMSEA <0.08
Incremental fit index NFI >0.9
NNFI >0.9
CFI >0.9
RFI >0.9
IFI >0.9
Parsimonious fit index PNFI >0.5
PGFI >0.5
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggest that the composite
reliability (CR) value of each construct should be
higher than 0.60 and the average variance extracted
(AVE) value should be higher than 0.50. The analytical
results show that the CR value of the study ranged
between 0.89 and 0.98 and the AVE value ranged
between 0.67 and 0.93. These results indicate that
the internal consistency of the research model is gen-
erally acceptable.
Differential validity refers to the measurement of
two different constructs. If the degree of correlation
of two different constructs is very low after their corre-
lated analysis, this outcome means that they have
differential validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In
this examination, the judgment criterion is that “the
square root of AVE of each construct is greater than
the number of correlated coefficients of each con-
struct, at least occupying over 75% of the total
number of comparisons” (Hair et al., 2006). The analyti-
cal results of this study indicate that the square root of
AVE of each construct was larger than the correlated
coefficient of each construct. This outcome indicates
that each construct satisfied the judgment criterion,
so the scale of this study has differential validity.
The test of goodness-of-fit for the overall
model
After confirming that there was no violation of the
estimated phenomenon, the goodness-of-fit test for
the overall model was conducted, and the results
are shown in Table 2. In terms of the absolute fit
measure index, χ 2 = 2377.77 (p = 0.00, less than the
recommended value of 0.05). Although the p value
is less than 0.05, the chi-square test itself is easily
influenced by the size of the sample. Therefore,
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggest that with regard to
Values Judgment of goodness-of-fit
2377.77 –
2.154 Yes
0.800 Close to
0.746 Close to
0.039 Yes
0.058 Yes
0.919 Yes
0.952 Yes
0.955 Yes
0.914 Yes
0.955 Yes
0.863 Yes
0.695 Yes
the sample size, the ratio of the value of the chi-
square test and the degree of freedom (i.e. normed
chi-square) can replace the value of the chi-square
test examining the goodness-of-fit for the overall
model (the ratio should be less than 5). In this study,
the ratio of the value of the chi-square test and the
degree of freedom was 2.154, which is less than the
acceptable value (Kline, 2004). GFI = 0.800 and AGFI
= 0.746, which are both close to the acceptable
value of 0.90. The value of SRMR is 0.039, which is
less than the acceptable value of 0.10. The value of
RMSEA is 0.058, which is less than the acceptable
value of 0.08. In terms of the incremental fit index,
NFI = 0.919, NNFI = 0.952, CFI = 0.955, RFI = 0.914, IFI
= 0.955; all are greater than the acceptable value of
0.90. In terms of the parsimonious goodness-fit-
index, PNFI = 0.863, PCFI = 0.695; both are greater
than the acceptable value of 0.50.
Marsh et al. (2004) and Iacobucci (2010) discussed
the goodness-of-fit judgment of a model. They
suggested that if the obtained value is close to the
threshold of the standard value, the result is also
acceptable. Therefore, the goodness-of-fit of the
entire model of this study is acceptable.
Verification of the research hypotheses
Finally, path mapping was used to analyze the signifi-
cance and explanatory power of the variation of the
hypotheses, and the path coefficients among the
potential constructs. The results are shown in
Figure 2. The verified results of the hypotheses are
summarized in Table 3.
The analytic results show that technology readiness
positively affects perceived usefulness (β = 0.603, p <
0.01) and perceived ease of use (β = 0.990, p < 0.001).
Therefore, “H1a: Technology readiness has a positive
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 661

Figure 2. The analytical results of the research model.

Table 3. The analytical results of the hypotheses verification.

Research hypotheses Standardized coefficients T Values Verified results
H1a: Technology readiness → Perceived usefulness 0.603 4.319** Support
H1b: Technology readiness → Perceived ease 0.990 4.987** Support
H2a: Visual appeal →Perceived usefulness 0.233 2.156* Support
H2b: Visual appeal →Perceived ease −0.060 −0.365 Denial
H3: Facilitating condition →Perceived ease −0.008 −0.078 Denial
H4: Perceived ease →Perceived usefulness 0.146 2.211* Support
H5: Perceived usefulness → Attitude of using AR 0.373 5.735** Support
H6: Perceived ease →Attitude of using AR 0.110 2.184* Support
H7: Attitude of using AR → Intention of using AR 0.435 4.637** Support
H8: Experiential value →Attitude of using AR 0.498 7.801** Support
H9: Experiential value →Intention of using AR 0.492 5.208** Support
Ps.−*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01.

influence on AR’s perceived usefulness” and “H1b:
Technology readiness has a positive influence on
AR’s perceived ease” are supported. Some studies
have shown that independent personality traits, exter-
nal stimuli of specific technologies, and the situational
atmosphere of the in situ scene are important factors
for people when considering whether to accept tech-
nology (Gelderman et al., 2011; Gu et al., 2009). The
independent personality traits of individuals can be
regarded as “technology readiness” in this study to
represent the individual’s readiness, mental state
and belief orientation in the use of technology (Lin &
Chang, 2011; Lin & Hsieh, 2007). The analytical
results of this study reveal that the higher the respon-
dents’acceptance and willingness to use AR technol-
ogy, the more useful and easier it was for them to
use of this technology for the exhibition. Chung
et al. (2015) discussed the influences of the application
of AR technology and found that technology readi-
ness has a positive influence on perceived usefulness.
Roy et al. (2018) examined consumers’ acceptance of
smart technology in the retail sector and found that
technology readiness has a positive impact upon per-
ceived ease. Based on the abovementioned analytical
662 S.-T. WU ET AL.
results, this study suggests that H1a and H1b are
supported.
The external stimuli of specific technologies in this
study are about visual appeal, which means that the
more visually attractive IT products are, the more
easily people accept these products (Tractinsky et al.,
2000). The analytical outcomes of this study show
that visual appeal has a positive effect on perceived
usefulness (β = 0.233, p < 0.05) but has no positive
influence on perceived ease (β = −0.060, p > 0.05).
Therefore, “H2a: Visual appeal has a positive
influence on AR’s perceived usefulness,” is supported,
but “H2b: Visual appeal has a positive influence on
AR’s perceived ease,” is not supported. He et al.
(2018) note that if the connection between hardware
equipment and the exhibition environment can
provide visual stimuli and audio prompts for visitors,
their information acceptance and intention to use
this equipment will increase. These research findings
are consistent with the analytical results of this study
(therefore, H2a is supported). In addition, Campbell-
Grossman et al. (2018) found that respondents had
different reactions to the Enhanced New Mothers
Network (ENMN) smartphone app; some respondents
appreciated the visual effects of some functions of the
app, but other respondents thought that the ENMN
app should have more interesting visual effects. It is
obvious that visual appeal is a matter of debate.
According to the on-site observation, the fact that
H2b is not supported may be due to the imperfection
of the operational interfaces or the exhibition space
(e.g. the visual effect of the guiding tour, the size
and traffic flow of the exhibition space, and cognitive
dissonance when comparing reality to the movie
scene). These issues are worth further discussion.
The in situ situational atmosphere refers to
“whether the felt situation has the utility to facilitate
users’ acceptance of the technology products when
they use these products” (Venkatesh, 2000; Wu et al.,
2011), so it can be regarded as a facilitating condition.
The analysis of this study shows that the facilitating
condition does not positively affect perceived ease
(β = −0.008, p > 0.05); therefore, “H3: The facilitating
condition has a positive impact upon the AR’s per-
ceived ease” is not supported. Although this
outcome is different from previous studies (Lu et al.,
2003; Teo, 2010) that show that “facilitating conditions
will affect perceived ease,” tom Dieck and Jung (2018)
indicate that their surveyed respondents, who visited
Dublin for a tour of the city’s heritage, thought that
the application of AR programs was affected by
hardware equipment, battery capacity, storage
space, and other related factors. Therefore, this study
infers that the reasons for the lack of support for H3
could be associated with the applied ranges of AR
within the exhibition, the quality of the hardware
equipment, and the assistance of staff members (not
making visitors feel the facilitating condition).
However, further discussion is needed to determine
the actual reasons.
Second, perceived ease positively affects perceived
usefulness (β = 0.146, p < 0.05), so “H4: AR’s perceived
ease has a positive influence on AR’s perceived useful-
ness” is supported. Perceived usefulness has a positive
significant influence upon the attitude toward use (β
= 0.373, p < 0.01), so “H5: AR’s perceived usefulness
has a positive impact on users’ attitudes toward AR
technology” is supported. Perceived ease has a posi-
tive significant impact on attitude toward use (β =
0.110, p < 0.05); thus, “H6: AR’s perceived ease has a
positive influence on users’ attitudes toward AR tech-
nology” is supported. Taherdoost’s (2018) review of
theories related to the TAM indicates that there are
many models and frameworks available to explain
the factors that influence users to adopt new technol-
ogies. Pascoal et al. (2019) confirm that perceived ease
influences perceived usefulness, and they further
specify that both may impact behavioral intention,
satisfaction, and even new technology acceptance.
Pradhan et al.’s (2018) discussion of consumers’ inten-
tion to use self-service technologies in the hospitality
and tourism industry suggested that the perceived
usefulness of technological equipment has a signifi-
cant influence on the intention to use smart equip-
ment. Based on the abovementioned research
findings, this study is consistent with the research
findings of previous studies.
From the observations and understanding of the
actual exhibition, the surveyed respondents indicated
that if the use of AR technological equipment did not
require too much time and effort to learn and under-
stand (that is, if it is easy to use), then such equipment
is useful. At the same time, ease of use and usefulness
increase users’ interest in the AR technological equip-
ment and improve their attitudes toward using the
equipment. Based on the aforementioned related lit-
erature and the analytical results of this study, R&D
personnel should pay attention to making technologi-
cal equipment easy to use.
Finally, the analytical result shows that the attitude
toward using AR positively affects the intention of use
(β = 0.435, p < 0.01); therefore, “H7: Tourists’ attitudes

toward using AR have a positive impact on their inten-
tion to use AR” is supported. The experiential value
positively influences the attitude toward use (β =
0.498, p < 0.01), so “H8: The experiential value of par-
ticipants has a positive influence on their attitudes
toward using AR” is supported. Experiential value posi-
tively affects the intention to use (β = 0.492, p < 0.01);
thus, “H9: The experiential value of participants has a
positive influence on their intention to use AR” is sup-
ported. Many previous studies have discussed the
relationship among attitudes, behavioral intention,
and perceived value (e.g. Hultman et al., 2015; Jin
et al., 2015; Ozturk et al., 2016; Yeo et al., 2017).
Chung et al. (2018) empirically examined the relation-
ship among tourists’ perceived value, attitudes, behav-
ioral intentions, and AR technology, and their research
findings were similar to this study. Obviously, this
study has also obtained theoretical and empirical
verification.
In addition, this study finds that presenting infor-
mation for AR technology is crucial, so cultural heri-
tage marketers and system developers should
enhance the information content and aesthetic
quality of AR technology (Chung et al., 2018). Accord-
ing to the in situ observation, after the respondents of
this study used the AR equipment, they developed a
positive experience based on its aesthetic value,
return on investment, service excellence, and playful-
ness (i.e. experiential values) and felt that the appli-
cation of AR technology made the exhibition more
interesting. Therefore, it is important to examine
how to facilitate experiential value; this outcome is
also consistent with the abovementioned studies.
Conclusion and Suggestions
AR breaks through the limitations of virtual reality (VR)
constructed within a purely virtual environment, span-
ning the boundaries between real and virtual objects
and combining virtual objects with the real world.
Thus, AR has formed a developmental advantage.
This study uses the TAM to investigate an exhibition
site closely associated with AR technology. This
study also discusses the mutually influential relation-
ships among external variables (personal factors, sti-
mulating factors, and situational factors),
technological perception (perceived usefulness and
perceived ease), attitudes toward using AR, the inten-
tion to use AR technology, and experiential value.
From a theoretical perspective, most of the research
hypotheses in this study were supported, and these
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 663
findings are similar to the outcomes of other studies
(e.g. Chung et al., 2015; Pradhan et al., 2018). In
addition to confirming the analytical feasibility of the
TAM, this study echoes the applicability of incorporat-
ing the TAM with other theories (e.g. balance theory
and motivation theory) (Chung et al., 2018).
However, it is worth mentioning that Taherdoost
(2018) comprehensively synthesized theories related
to the TAM and found that most researchers of infor-
mation systems have no way to distinguish the differ-
entiation of emotional components among attitudes,
perceptions or beliefs. Therefore, it is worth further
considering whether the lack of support for some of
the research hypotheses in this study is related to
the difficulty of distinguishing the differentiations of
emotional components among attitudes, perceptions
and beliefs. One important reason why an individual
avoids using new technology is that he/she is not
yet ready to use it (Gelderman et al., 2011; Liljander
et al., 2006; Oh et al., 2014).
From a practical viewpoint, since AR is a technology
with strong visual effects, strengthening external sti-
mulating factors will help to improve participants’ will-
ingness to use the technology (Yu et al., 2009). If the
visual senses are not attracted by externally stimulat-
ing objects, people will not be likely to intend to use
AR (Tractinsky et al., 2000; van der Heijden, 2003). In
addition, “whether it is easy to get started” was a
crucial factor for the surveyed respondents when con-
sidering whether to use AR equipment. This finding is
not consistent with the outcomes of related studies
(Chang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2010; Park et al., 2011)
but is an issue worthy of consideration for R&D staff.
Valuable content, playfulness, considering the hard-
ware and software equipment and the on-site atmos-
phere, and the appropriate assistance of in situ staff
are the keys to facilitating users’ willingness to use
AR technology and equipment (Chung et al., 2018).
In terms of research limitations, this study was a
cross-sectional study, and the selected exhibition
seemed to appeal to more youth groups, so its appli-
cability has limitations. As many studies have indi-
cated, when the social background attributes of
surveyed respondents are different, there is a differen-
tiation in the direction of subjective concerns (e.g.
Kimbrough et al., 2013; Weiser, 2001). This one-time-
only investigation was constrained by the environ-
mental atmosphere of the exhibition venue and the
technological quality of the presentations. Therefore,
whether this study can fully reflect the actual feelings
of the respondents regarding AR technology is also a
664 S.-T. WU ET AL.
noteworthy issue. In a follow-up study, researchers
should conduct continuous (vertical dimensional)
investigations and expand their analysis to different
types of exhibition venues to examine the whole
picture. In addition, including qualitative research as
an analytical consideration should be an important
research direction in the future (Chau & Hu, 2002;
Kim et al., 2018).
Because mobile devices have gradually become an
inseparable part of people’s everyday lives and
because technological development is changing
with each passing day, the application of AR technol-
ogy is bound to become more popular and wide-
spread. Although this study is only a case study,
from theoretical and practical perspectives, its
findings maybe applicable to relevant issues in other
parts of the world. To meet the advent of the smart
tourism era, the integration of different theories for
further research is a requirement for researchers, and
the results can be used as a reference for the introduc-
tion of innovative technology into the field of smart
tourism.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology
(Taiwan) [grant number 107-2410-H-158-011].
ORCID
Shou-Tsung Wu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8534-8951
Ching-Hsing Chiu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2541-2442
Yeong-Shyang Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9269-3649
References
Abbott, L. (1955). Quality and competition: An essay in economic
theory. Columbia University Press.
Abowd, G. D., & Mynatt, E. D. (2000). Charting past, present, and
future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.
1145/344949.344988
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation mod-
eling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Zinkhan, G. L. (2002). Consumer (2nd
ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., & Law, R. (2013). “Do we believe in
TripAdvisor?” examining credibility perceptions and online
travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content.
Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0047287512475217
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
Azuma, R. T., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., &
Maclntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality.
Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. https://doi.
org/10.1109/38.963459
Azuma, R. T., Billinghurst, M., & Klinker, G. (2011). Special section
on mobile augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 35(4), vii–
viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2011.05.002
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun:
Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1086/
209376
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Barsom, E. Z., Graafland, M., & Schijven, M. P. (2016). Systematic
review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications
in medical training. Surgical Endoscopy, 30(10), 4174–4183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1993). EQS/windows user’s guide.
BMDP Statistical Software.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Barfar, A. (2011). Information technology
continuance research: Current state and future directions.
Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 1–18.
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2006). The mediation of exter-
nal variables in the technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, 43(6), 706–717. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007
Butchart, B. (2011). Architectural styles for augmented reality in
smartphones. Third International AR Standards Meeting June
12 to June 17, 2011. (pp. 1–7). Taichung, Taiwan: Open
Geospatial Consortium.
Campbell-Grossman, C., Hudson, D. B., Hanna, K. M.,
Ramamurthy, B., & Sivadasan, V. (2018). Ease of use and
acceptability of a smartphone app for young, low-income
mothers. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 3(1), 5–
11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-017-0031-5
Chang, C. C., Yan, C. F., & Tseng, J. S. (2012). Perceived conven-
ience in an extended technology acceptance model: Mobile
technology and English learning for college students.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 809–
826. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.818
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information
technology acceptance by individual professionals: An
exploratory study. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(4), 191–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.
2002.11045699
Chen, K., & Chan, A. H. S. (2014). Predictors of gerontechnology
acceptance by older Hong Kong Chinese. Technovation, 34(2),
126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.010
Chin, W. W., Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2008). Structural
equation modeling in marketing: Some practical reminders.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(4), 287–298.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679160402
Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists’ intention to visit a
destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application for

a heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 588–599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.068
Chung, N., Lee, H., Kim, J. Y., & Koo, C. (2018). The role of augmen-
ted reality for experience-influenced environments: The case
of cultural heritage tourism in Korea. Journal of Travel
Research, 57(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287517708255
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dinhopl, A., & Gretzel, U. (2016). Selfie-taking as touristic looking.
Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 126–139. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2015.12.015
Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2016). Perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in
Libyan higher education: A structural equation modeling
analysis. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 6(3), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.
V6.683
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1993). Consumer
behavior (8th ed.). Dryden Press.
Fritz, F., Susperregui, A., & Linaza, M. T. (2005). Enhancing cultural
tourism experiences with augmented reality technologies. The
6th International Symposium on virtual reality, Archaeology
and cultural heritage VAST. November 8 to November 11,
2005.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.
003
Gretzel, U. (2011). Intelligent systems in tourism: A social science
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 757–779.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.04.014
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.
024
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Pearson
International (Ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
He, Z., Wu, L., & Li, X. R. (2018). When art meets tech: The role of
augmented reality in enhancing museum experiences and
purchase intentions. Tourism Management, 68, 127–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.003
Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology
of services in the consumption experience. In R. T. Rust, & R. L.
Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and prac-
tice (pp. 21–71). Sage Publications.
Hultman, M., Kazeminia, A., & Ghasemi, V. (2015). Intention to visit
and willingness to pay premium for ecotourism: The impact of
attitude, materialism, and motivation. Journal of Business
Research, 68(9), 1854–1861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2015.01.013
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices,
sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.
09.003
Im, S., Bhat, S., & Lee, Y. (2015). Consumer perceptions of product
creativity, coolness, value and attitude. Journal of Business
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 665
Research, 68(1), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2014.03.014
Jin, N., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2015). The effect of experience quality on
perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention
of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jtr.1968
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural equation
modeling. Scientific Software International Cop.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of rec-
ommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The
case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–
86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.013
Kim, W. H., Malek, K., & Kim, S. H. J. (2018). Destination personality,
destination image, and intent to recommend: The role of
gender, age, cultural background, and prior experiences.
Sustainability, 10(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010087
Kim, M., & Qu, H. (2014). Travelers’ behavioral intention toward
hotel self-service kiosks usage. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(2), 225–245.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2012-0165
Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muuscanell, N. L., & Dill, J.
(2013). Gender differences in mediated communication:
Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(3), 896–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.
12.005
Klein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences: The role
of telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(1), 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10046
Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing.reforming data
analysis methods in behavioral research. American
Psychological Association.
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detec-
tives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world.
Proceedings of IEEE International workshop on wireless and
mobile technologies in education. August 30, 2002.
Kounavis, C. D., Kasimati, A. E., & Zamani, E. D. (2012). Enhancing
the tourism experience through mobile augmented reality:
Challenges and prospects. International Journal of
Engineering Business Management, 4, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.
5772/51644
Koutromanos, G., Sofos, A., & Avraamidou, L. (2015). The use of
augmented reality games in education: A review of the litera-
ture. Educational Media International, 52(4), 253–271. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1125988
Kwon, H. S., & Chidambaram, L. (2000). A test of the technology
acceptance model: The case of cellular telephone adoption.
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on
system Sciences. January 4 to January 7, 2000.
Lee, D. H., & Park, J. (2007). Augmented reality based museum gui-
dance system for selective viewings. Second Workshop on
Digital Media and its Application in Museum and Heritages,
379–382. December 10 to December 12, 2007.
Lee, W., Sung, H. K., Suh, E., & Zhao, J. (2017). The effects of festi-
val attendees’ experiential values and satisfaction on re-visit
intention to the destination. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(3), 1005–1027.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0559
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
666 S.-T. WU ET AL.
Services, 13(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.
2005.08.004
Lin, J. S. C., & Chang, H. C. (2011). The role of technology readiness
in self-service technology acceptance. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, 21(4), 424–444. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09604521111146289
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.006
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. https://doi.org/10.
1002/mar.20177
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of
m-learning: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(3),
1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.018
Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C. S., & Wang, K. (2008). Determinants of accept-
ing wireless mobile data services in China. Information &
Management, 45(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.
11.002
Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance
model for wireless internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206–222.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240310478222
Lyu, S. O. (2016). Travel selfies on social media as objectified self-
presentation. Tourism Management, 54, 185–195. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.001
Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., & Ayotte, V. (2004). A multidimen-
sional perspective of relations between self-concept (self
description questionnaire II) and adolescent mental health
(youth self-report). Psychological Assessment, 16(1), 27–41.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.27
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value:
Conceptualization, measurement and application in the
catalog and internet shopping environment. Journal of
Retailing, 77(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359
(00)00045-2
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and
interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scho-
lastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research, 63(9-10), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2009.05.014
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience
economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel
Research, 46(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287507304039
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. https://doi.org/10.
1504/IJMC.2014.061460
Olsson, T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T., & Väänänen-Vainio-
Mattila, K. (2013). Expected user experience of mobile aug-
mented reality services: A user study in the context of shop-
ping centres. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(2), 287–
304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0494-x
Ozturk, A. B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F., & Hua, N. (2016). The role of
utilitarian and hedonic values on users’ continued usage
intention in a mobile hotel booking environment.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 106–
115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.007
Pantano, E., & Corvello, V. (2014). Tourists’ acceptance of
advanced technology-based innovations for promoting arts
and culture. International Journal of Technology
Management, 64(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2014.
059232
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (Tri): A mul-
tiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new tech-
nologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. https://
doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology
on the quality-value-loyalty chain: A research agenda.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168–174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281015
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.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0157
Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2011). University students’
behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the
technology acceptance model. British Journal of Education
Technology, 43(4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2011.01229.x
Pascoal, R., de Almeida, A., & Sofia, R. C. (2019). Mobile pervasive
augmented reality systems: The role of user preferences in
perceived quality of experience. ACM Transactions on
Internet Technology, N/A. https://toit.acm.org/index.cfm
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology accep-
tance model to explain how attitudes determine internet
usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demo-
graphics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.003
Pradhan, M. K., Oh, J., & Lee, H. (2018). Understanding travelers’
behavior for sustainable smart tourism: A technology readi-
ness perspective. Sustainability, 10(11), 4259. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10114259
Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Quazi, A., & Quaddus, M. (2018). Predictors
of customer acceptance of and resistance to smart technol-
ogies in the retail sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 42, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.
2018.02.005
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Consumer behavior (7th ed.).
Prentice Hall.
Schmitt, B. H. (2000). Experiential marketing: How to get customers
to sense, feel, think, act, relate to your company and brands. The
Free Press.
Seif, M. H., Sarmadi, M. R., Ebrahimzadeh, I., & Zare, H. (2012). A
model for predicting intention to use e-learning based on
epistemological beliefs. Life Science Journal, 9(2), 926–929.
doi:10.7537/marslsj090212.138.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what
we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business
Research, 22(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963
(91)90050-8
Srite, M. (2006). Culture as an explanation of technology accep-
tance differences: An empirical investigation of Chinese and
US users. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 14(1),
5–26. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v14i1.4
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value:
The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing,
77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359
(01)00041-0

Taherdoost, H. (2018). A review of technology acceptance and
adoption models and theories. Procedia Manufacturing, 22,
960–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A
study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2),
302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
Teo, T. (2010). Examining the influence of subjective norm and
facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology
among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling
of an extended technology acceptance model. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 11(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12564-009-9066-4
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use tech-
nology: Model development and test. Computers & Education,
57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.
008
tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2018). A theoretical model of mobile
augmented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism.
Current Issues in Tourism, 21(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13683500.2015.1070801
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is
usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X
van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of web-
sites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands.
Information & Management, 40(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00079-4
van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic infor-
mation systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704. https://doi.
org/10.2307/25148660
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.
342.11872
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/
30036540
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 667
Verhagen, T., Feldberg, F., van den Hooff, B., Meents, S., &
Merikivi, J. (2011). Satisfaction with virtual worlds: An inte-
grated model of experiential value. Information &
Management, 48(6), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.
2011.02.004
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.08.001
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of
service employees’ technology readiness on technology
acceptance. Information & Management, 44(2), 206–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.005
Weiser, E. B. (2001). The functions of internet use and their social
and psychological consequences. Cyber Psychology &
Behavior, 4(6), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.1089/
109493101753376678
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. https://doi.org/10.
17705/1jais.00254
Wu, I. L., Li, J. Y., & Fu, C. Y. (2011). The adoption of mobile health-
care by hospital’s professionals: An integrative perspective.
Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.dss.2011.03.003
Yeo, V. C. S., Goh, S. K., & Rezaei, S. (2017). Consumer
experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward
online food delivery (OFD) services. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 35, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2016.12.013
Yu, D., Jin, J. S., Luo, S., Lai, W., & Huang, Q. (2009). A useful visu-
alization technique: A literature review for augmented reality
and its application, limitation & future direction. In M. Huang,
Q. Nguyen, & K. Zhang (Eds.), Visual information communi-
cation (pp. 311–337). Springer.
Zhang, L., Li, N., & Liu, M. (2012). On the basic concept of smarter
tourism and its theoretical system. Tourism Tribune, 27(5), 66–
73.