Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

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

Augmented reality is human-like: How the humanizing experience inspires

destination brand love
Tseng-Lung Huang a, Ben S.C. Liu b, *
a
Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Zhongli Dist., Taoyuan City 32003, Taiwan
b
Professor of Marketing, Lender School of Business Center, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT 06518, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on humanizing experience theory, we examined the antecedents and consequences of humanizing the
Disruptive technology digital experience in a virtual tourism context. Using a scenario survey approach, we designed dynamic 360◦
Humanizing digital experience augmented reality (AR) panorama and 360◦ spin-of-the-mouse environments to examine the research model and
Augmented reality
hypotheses. Data from 263 subjects were collected and analyzed with AMOS 20. The empirical results elucidate
Green destination brand love
Technology readiness
the psychological mechanism behind the formation of humanizing digital experiences, showing that a 360◦ AR
COVID-19 panorama shapes three features of a humanizing experience—anthropomorphism, self-representation, and
intimacy—significantly better than a spin of the mouse, resulting in a stronger effect on green destination brand
love. Furthermore, the technology readiness of online tourists significantly moderates the effects of a humanizing
digital experience on green destination brand love. This study demonstrates how an emerging disruptive tech­
nology, AR, may help meet the need for contactless services in unique situations, such as the unexpected COVID-
19 pandemic. The study helps researchers of green destination brand love and AR better understand what a
humanizing digital experience in contactless service journeys can offer, paving the way for further research and
practical development in this area. Because AR can be used to process big data, ethical compliance is also
addressed.

1. Introduction psychology (Buonincontri et al., 2017; Ramkissoon and Mavondo,

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a variety of disrup­
tive technologies were identified and used to meet the urgent need to
analyze the virus accurately and cost-effectively. These disruptive
technologies include artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), big
data, robots, the Internet of Things (IoT), Industry 4.0, 5 G, and so on
(Abdel-Basset et al., 2020). Among them, 5 G can significantly enhance
immersive augmented reality (AR)/VR experiences by making AR/VR
applications more responsive and interactive (INTELLIAS, 2020). In
this kind of new environment, AR not only effectively supports con­
tactless service delivery but also is an effective tool for marketing digital
experiences (Lee et al., 2021; Rygol, 2020). In particular, AR enables
online consumers to co-create never-before-seen online green tourism
experiences (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). This can result in them becoming
emotionally attached to a green destination brand (Oleksy and Wnuk,
2017). Emotional attachment to a green destination brand among online
consumers is the definition of green destination brand love (Aro et al.,
2018). According to reviews of research in contemporary environmental
2017), green destination brand love is a key factor that motivates con­
sumers to visit a destination, and this kind of love can have sustainable
benefits on tourism. However, empirical research has yet to thoroughly
examine the potential of AR to shape green destination brand love. Most
previous research on marketing AR tourism has explored the consumer
experience from an adoption and payment intention perspective by
examining consumers’ motivations for and reactions to using AR (e.g.,
Chung et al., 2015; He et al., 2018).
Three recent streams of brand research highlight humanization in
particular as the key to shaping consumers’ emotional attachment to a
brand (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017). More important, contemporary
research on the digital marketing has found that a humanizing AR
experience not only can successfully persuade online consumers to
purchase a product but also is the main means of establishing a close
relationship between consumers and brands (van Esch et al., 2019).
Although humanizing consumer experiences appear to be promising for
designing AR to enhance green destination brand love, this has been
done primarily for brand advertisements (e.g., Mazda; Waytz et al.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: long728@mail2000.com.tw, blessing@saturn.yzu.edu.tw (T.-L. Huang), bsliu@QU.edu (B.S.C. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120853
Received 14 January 2021; Received in revised form 27 April 2021; Accepted 28 April 2021
Available online 4 June 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
2010) and products (e.g., Victoria’s bag; MacInnis and Folkes, 2017). In
the past, experts were not quick enough to humanize the digital expe­
rience in terms of using AR in the online marketing of destination
brands. The biggest dilemma facing digital tourism is how to success­
fully enhance green destination brand love using advanced digital
technology in contactless service journeys while also satisfying online
consumers’ desire to maintain a humanizing feeling. More research is
needed to understand what the features of a humanizing digital expe­
rience are, how to induce these features, and how to use them to enhance
green destination brand love (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017).
Consumers are said to have a humanizing interactive experience
when they perceive the interaction between themselves and an agent (e.
g., AR or a mouse) as feeling like human interaction (MacInnis and
Folkes, 2017). For example, consumers may perceive the agent as being
able to think or monitor their behavior and response, perceive a
connection between themselves and the agent, or perceive themselves as
having an intimate interactive relationship with the agent (van Pinx­
tereren et al., 2019). For that matter, a 360◦ AR panorama (see Fig. 1)
can monitor online tourists’ movements more quickly and better un­
derstand their needs compared to a 360◦ spin of the mouse (Dacko,
2017; Huang, 2019; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Because it uses
virtual-physical integration to shape first-person product usage simula­
tions, a 360◦ AR panorama can create a more intimate interactive
relationship with online tourists than a 360◦ spin of the mouse (Hilken
et al., 2017; Scholz and Duffy, 2018). Therefore, we examined whether a
360◦ AR panorama is better at humanizing the digital experience than a
360◦ spin of the mouse. Our results provide guidance and policy for the
future design and creation of humanizing digital experiences.
According to contemporary consumer marketing research, technol­
ogy readiness (TR) is consumers’ ability to effectively use new tech­
nology to complete tasks (Lin et al., 2007). Recent research on AR
tourism has found that online tourists with high TR are better able to use
AR to effectively shape virtual tourism destination experiences that meet
their individual needs than those with low TR (Chung et al., 2015).
Therefore, we expected that TR would moderate the relationship be­
tween a humanizing digital experience and green destination brand
love. We asked the following questions: What are the features of a hu­
manizing digital experience? Can a humanizing digital experience suc­
cessfully shape green destination brand love? Compared to a 360◦ spin
of the mouse, is a 360◦ AR panorama better at evoking a humanizing
digital experience? Does TR moderate the relationship between a hu­
manizing digital experience and green destination brand love? By
Fig. 1. AR somatosensory manipulation.
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
answering these questions, this research can improve understanding of
the role of AR in humanizing the digital experience and green destina­
tion brand love.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Disruptive technology
Disruptive technology was defined by Smith and Scott (2020) as an
innovative technology whose superior attributes enable it to change the
way consumers, industries, or businesses operate. More recently, Chang
et al. (2021) asserted that disruptive technology refers to a set of inno­
vative technologies behind Industry 4.0 that can change the way people
work.
For example, disruptive technology—AR/VR—in the smart tourism
industry not only overcomes the traditional limitation of only being able
to browse tourism destinations with a mouse online but also can effec­
tively create a reality tourism destination experience that meets human
needs (Lee et al., 2021). Currently AR/VR allows online tourists to use
hand gestures to rotate a travel scene to create the effect of direct
interaction between themselves and a tourism destination (Huang,
2019). With the help of environmental embedding technology, AR can
synchronize the movement of virtual objects or travel scenes to tourists’
physical movements (Hilken et al., 2017). Because of virtual-physical
integration, AR/VR can fully recognize every online tourist’s physical
movements and features (Scholz and Duffy, 2018). These smart up­
grades and innovative functions of disruptive technology cannot be
realized by traditional travel websites.
More important, of the 10 most disruptive technologies of the next
decade recommended by INTELLIAS (2020), 5 G and connectivity can
significantly enhance immersive AR/VR experiences by making AR/VR
applications more responsive and interactive. To become a successful
and effective disruptive technology in the smart tourism industry,
AR/VR requires synchronous connectivity and a large number of
transmission capabilities (such as 5 G). Then online tourists’ body
movements can be smoothly and synchronously presented without any
delay in the experience, building a deep connection between the tourists
and the destination. Furthermore, Liu (2020) found that companies need
to use sophisticated mathematical models and analysis programs to
enable AR/VR to accurately represent online tourists’ every physical
movement and feature in real time. Therefore, advanced cloud
computing is another key factor that makes AR/VR a disruptive
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
technology. In a comprehensive and systematic review of research on
health care, business, climate change, natural disasters, and other fields,
only high-quality cloud computing enabled AR/VR to become the most
effective disruptive technology under the umbrella of digital trans­
formation (Chang, 2018). In sum, to create a highly immersive and
smooth experience, AR/VR must instantly achieve the embedding of
attractions, virtual-physical integration, somatosensory manipulation,
and active monitoring of online tourists’ dynamic behavior. However, to
do this, it needs the strong support of advanced cloud computing, image
processing, big data, AI, and IoT (Larson and Chang, 2016). Therefore,
integrating AR/VR and emerging services and analytics (such as big
data, AI, and IoT) is indispensable to enabling it to become a disruptive
technology (Abdel-Basset et al., 2020).
Although AR/VR is an important emerging disruptive technology in
the traditional tourism industry, researchers of digital technology have
rarely explored how to humanize AR digital experiences. Therefore,
contemporary enterprises cannot accomplish smart upgrades and digital
transformation tasks. Next, we draw on humanizing experience theory
(MacInnis and Folkes, 2017; van Pinxteren et al., 2019; Waytz et al.,
2014) to further explore the features of humanizing digital experiences
induced by an emerging disruptive technology (i.e., AR) to provide
guidelines for future design.
2.2. Humanizing the digital experience
The early research on humanizing experiences focused on human­
izing brands, which is successful when consumers perceive their inter­
action with a brand as an interpersonal interaction (Waytz et al., 2010).
According to humanizing experience theory, three streams of brand
research focus on different characteristics of humanizing experiences
(MacInnis and Folkes, 2017). The first focuses on consumers’ perception
of a brand as anthropomorphic, or an inanimate agent with human
characteristics (such as a human-like face or body; Waytz et al., 2010).
Research on humanizing experiences has generally been restricted to the
creation of anthropomorphized brands rather than anthropomorphized
technology capable of thinking or monitoring consumer behavior and
response (Waytz et al., 2014). By contrast, contemporary research on
smart technology has found that anthropomorphism is not limited to a
human-like appearance but includes thinking and interactivity (van
Pinxteren et al., 2019). Likewise, the ability to monitor and respond to
consumer behavior can also become anthropomorphized (Bartneck
et al., 2009).
For example, AR in a 360◦ panorama can automatically monitor
every physical movement of an online consumer and respond appro­
priately, following the mapping of the user’s hand gestures to control
virtual objects (Huang, 2019; Liu, 2020; see Fig. 1). Such a 360◦ AR
panorama can rotate a travel scene in the same direction as the physical
movement of the online consumer (Tussyadiah et al., 2018), shaping the
anthropomorphic effects of AR into a more human-like body of thought
and responses. This anthropomorphism also ensures that online con­
sumers are aware that their needs can be instantly understood and met
(Scholz and Duffy, 2018; van Esch et al., 2019).
The second research stream emphasizes the connection between the
brand and the consumer rather than the use of anthropomorphism to
shape the humanizing experience (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017). This
research stream centers on consumers’ self-representation through the
brand as a key factor shaping the humanizing experience (Park et al.,
2013). However, consumers mainly use technology rather than a brand
to shape self-representation in virtual situations (Liu, 2020; Scholz and
Duffy, 2018). For example, online consumers can represent their phys­
ical movements, expressions, and body images in virtual tourism desti­
nations with 360◦ panorama control and somatosensory manipulation of
AR (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). In this way, they not only perceive that
digital technology can fully reflect or construct their actual or ideal
identity but also have a sense of extending themselves to digital tech­
nology (Huang, 2019). Self-representation via digital technology like
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
this not only makes the interactive experience between online con­
sumers and digital technology similar to interpersonal interaction (van
Pinxteren et al., 2019) but also successfully enables consumers to view
the digital technology as part of themselves (Scholz and Duffy, 2018).
The third research stream emphasizes the more intimate relationship
that consumers can have with a brand when they feel that the brand
experience expresses humanity (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017). Contem­
porary research on smart technology has found that friendly and inti­
mate digital technology is key to making users feel human (Bartneck
et al., 2009). For example, thanks to AR environmental embedding
technology, online consumers can see their own facial expressions and
body movements in any virtual tourism destination (Petit et al., 2019;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Because they see themselves, not unfamiliar
others, this environmental embedding can enhance their intimacy and
familiarity with AR, in turn shaping a sense of humanizing technology
(Hilken et al., 2017; Huang, 2019).
These three features of a humanizing digital experience are also fully
applicable to other emerging disruptive technology, such as smart toys.
For example, Furby, an AI plush toy, can actively monitor consumer
behavior and respond promptly: Furby and children can touch, talk to,
and listen to music with each other. It can even sense the presence of
other Furby Booms, communicating with them and singing or dancing
together. The technology’s ability to think or monitor consumer
behavior and the mutual recognition of a connection will effectively
enhance consumers’ intimate relationship with smart toys, thereby
enhancing their learning behavior and effect (Zhang et al., 2020). Thus,
according to MacInnis and Folkes’s (2017) humanizing experience
theory, a humanizing digital experience includes three main elements:
anthropomorphism, self-representation, and intimacy.
2.3. Green destination brand love
Contemporary tourism research (Aro et al., 2018; Lee and Hyun,
2016; Tsai, 2014) using Lovemark theory (Batra et al., 2012) has
extended the concept of brand love to destination love. Green destina­
tions are different from general destinations in that they involve various
mechanisms for protecting the natural or cultural environment (such as
a journey with a high sense of sustainable tourism) or tools (such as
smart technology) for supporting and encouraging tourists to engage in
sustainable tourism. For example, in Japan, Kamaishi is an example of a
green destination. Kamaishi provides various promotional incentives to
drive tourists to engage in sustainable tourism. It received the Green
Destinations—Bronze Award in 2019 (https://greendestinations.org
/programs-and-services/top-100-destinations/).
The definition and characteristics of green destinations are different
from those of general destinations. When tourists approbate that a green
destination encourages them to engage in environmentally sustainable
tourism and love these experiences, they are experiencing green desti­
nation brand love (Aro et al., 2018). Creating green destination brand
love, which involves protecting the natural and human environments
and promoting the benefits of sustainable tourism, is very important and
necessary in the current COVID-19 crisis, which may be caused by
people destroying the environment (https://www.theguardian.com/env
ironment/2020/mar/18/tip-of-the-iceberg-is-our-destruction-of-nat
ure-responsible-for-covid-19-aoe). Here we use “green destination brand
love” to reflect brand love and destination love as they relate specifically
to green destinations.
Researchers note that tourist destination love consists of three di­
mensions: place attachment, place identity, and place compatibility.
Place attachment signals the deep emotional and psychological bonds
tourists can develop with a green destination brand (Aro et al., 2018). It
derives from emotional attachment through brand love (Lee and Hyun,
2016). Such emotional attachment prompts tourists to wish to maintain
a deep connection with a green destination, caring for and respecting it
more and having a greater intention to revisit (Aro et al., 2018; Lee and
Hyun, 2016).
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
Place identity measures the degree to which tourists not only are
attached to a green destination but connect their own cognitions, beliefs,
perceptions, and thoughts to specific environments in the green desti­
nation (Proshansky et al., 1983). This increases their sense of belonging
and their consideration of the green destination brand as having an
important role in their lives (Hallak et al., 2012). Ultimately, the sense of
belonging and identity provided by the green destination brand also
promotes the development of passion and caring for the destination and
sustainable consumption (Lee et al., 2015).
Place compatibility refers to the extent to which tourists perceive
themselves as fully compatible with the green destination (Lee and
Hyun, 2016). Any person, incident, or object in the green destination
can, in this context, fully satisfy the individual’s inner self-concept
(Tsai, 2014). Thus, place compatibility derives from the self–brand
connection in brand love (Lee and Hyun, 2016). Contemporary research
on green destination brand love (Aro et al., 2018) has also demonstrated
that many tourists find themselves compatible with green destinations,
which inspires them to protect these destinations and induces a sense of
destination brand love.
However, contemporary tourism research and research on environ­
mental psychology (Ramkissoon and Mavondo, 2017), as well as the
majority of studies on tourism sustainability (Buonincontri et al., 2017),
ignore the potential of advanced digital technology to effectively shape
the mentality of sustainable tourism consumption of green destination
brand love (Cranmer et al., 2016). Recent research on the digital con­
sumer experience has indicated that although technology effectively
stimulates the benefits of brand love, it does so most effectively by hu­
manizing the digital experience (Huang, 2019; Scholz and Duffy, 2018;
van Esch et al., 2019). In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
biggest dilemma for digital tourism is how to use advanced digital
technology to successfully market green destinations and shape green
destination brand love while providing contactless service journeys and
satisfying online consumers’ desire for a humanizing digital experience.
Thus, it is important to determine which digital technology devices can
best shape humanizing experiences with interactive technology and
then stimulate green destination brand love.
3. Research hypotheses
3.1. Using a 360◦ AR panorama to humanize the digital experience
According to MacInnis and Folkes’s (2017) research on humanizing
experiences and the study of smart technology (van Esch et al., 2019;
van Pinxteren et al., 2019; Waytz et al., 2014), thought, monitoring, and
instant response are indispensable elements of anthropomorphism in
digital technology. In a virtual tourism destination experience, because
of its somatosensory monitoring characteristics, a 360◦ AR panorama
can actively monitor online consumers’ movements and give instant
synchronized feedback far better than a 360◦ spin of the mouse (Dacko,
2017; Lee et al., 2021; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). For example, an AR
travel scene can be rotated in the same direction in which an online
consumer moves his or her body. Thus, the anthropomorphism of a 360◦
AR panorama can make online consumers aware that their needs can be
instantly understood and met by travel agencies. Therefore, the first
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): A 360◦ AR panorama generates higher anthropo­
morphism than does a 360◦ spin of the mouse.
360◦ AR panorama control simultaneously links each simulated
interaction (such as free movement, manipulation, or the flipping of
various virtual products online in the form of bodily gestures) to each of
a consumer’s physical body movements (Hilken et al., 2017; Huang,
2019; Liu, 2020; Scholz and Duffy, 2018). For example, in virtual
tourism destinations, online consumers can instantly display their
physical movements, expressions, and images through 360◦ panorama
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
control and somatosensory manipulation to achieve a highly
self-representative experience (He et al., 2018; Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
More important, a 360◦ AR panorama not only is very different from
other interactive devices (such as a mouse) but also generates a higher
degree of self-representation (Hilken et al., 2017; Huang, 2019). This
leads to the second hypothesis:
H2: A 360◦ AR panorama generates a higher degree of self-representation
than does a 360◦ spin of the mouse.
Using environmental embedding technologies, a 360◦ AR panorama
can effectively embed a green destination behind online consumers’ own
images, creating the effect of visiting the destination in person (He et al.,
2018; Liu, 2020; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Contemporary empirical
research on AR has found that 360◦ AR panoramas enable online con­
sumers to rely on their own eyes to a greater extent than traditional web
browsing with a mouse, in which unfamiliar models appear experi­
encing the product, shaping first-person product usage simulations
(Huang, 2019; Liu, 2020). Therefore, 360◦ AR panoramas not only
reduce online consumers’ uncertainty and unfamiliarity but also create a
familiar, intimate interactive relationship (Hilken et al., 2017; Scholz
and Duffy, 2018). Humanizing experience theory indicates that this fa­
miliarity and this close interaction are two key elements of intimacy
(MacInnis and Folkes, 2017). Therefore, we propose our third
hypothesis:
H3: The 360◦ AR panorama generates greater intimacy than does a 360◦
spin of the mouse.
3.2. The humanizing digital experience and green destination brand love
Humanizing experience theory (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017; Waytz
et al., 2010) advocates using anthropomorphized technology capable of
thinking or monitoring consumer behavior and response to convince
consumers that their needs can be instantly understood and met. In this
way, consumers will become more attached to and care more about the
brand. Recent research on smart technology has also found that expe­
riences with highly anthropomorphic digital technology can effectively
shape consumers’ brand attitudes, prompting them to expend more re­
sources and energy on a brand (van Esch et al., 2019). Empirical studies
of contemporary tourism have also found that anthropomorphism en­
hances destination brand love (Aro et al., 2018). Through the highly
anthropomorphic shaping of digital technology experiences in virtual
tourism destinations, online consumers are positively inspired to believe
that a green destination brand can meet their travel needs, which in turn
motivates them to become more attached to the brand and produces
green destination brand love. Based on such evidence and reasoning, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Anthropomorphism positively affects green destination brand love.
Humanizing experience theory states that self-representation allows
consumers not only to see the brand (e.g., the destination brand) as part
of themselves but also to invest in the future strength and resources of
the brand, which is equivalent to strengthening their own self-identity
and self-image. As a result, consumers will become more attached to
and care more about the brand (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017; Park et al.,
2013). Contemporary studies on smart technology have also found that
the more online consumers use digital technology to represent their own
self-image and self-concept in the experiential shopping context, the
more deeply brand love will be inspired in their minds (Huang, 2019;
Scholz and Duffy, 2018). For example, online consumers can use a 360◦
AR panorama not only to fully represent their own body images in the
virtual destination context but also to fully see their integration and
connection with the destination brand (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). For this
reason, increasing one’s self-representation through digital technology
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
is equivalent to strengthening one’s own self-identity and self-image in
the virtual destination context. Online consumers will become more
attached to the destination brand and love it. Recent empirical research
on tourism has also found that the more consumers can make full use of
digital technology to express their own self-concept in the destination
context, the more deeply they will love the destination brand (Aro et al.,
2018; Wong et al., 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H5: Self-representation positively affects green destination brand love.
Finally, humanizing experience theory purports that consumers are
more attached to and care more about specific brands when they have
had intimate and familiar interactions with those brands (MacInnis and
Folkes, 2017). In other words, intimacy and familiarity, shaped by
digital technology, can be effectively converted into a love effect that
allows online consumers to continue to care for and support a particular
brand (Hanus and Fox, 2015; Scholz and Duffy, 2018). Contemporary
research on interactive marketing has also found that digital technology,
especially AR, can give consumers a sense of intimacy and familiarity
like that in interpersonal interaction (Esmaeilzadeh, 2020; Huang,
2019). More important, Lovemark theory advocates that intimacy and
familiarity in the consumer experience are the main antecedents of
brand love (Albert et al., 2009). Based on this evidence and reasoning,
online consumers can be expected to be able to extend the intimacy of
digital technology to green destination brands, creating green destina­
tion brand love. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6: Intimacy positively affects green destination brand love.
3.3. The moderating effects of technology readiness (TR)
Researchers of humanizing experiences (Waytz et al., 2010, 2014)
have argued that differences in individuals’ experience, education,
abilities, and tendencies (including TR) lead to different effects of these
experiences. For example, some people are eager to use interactive
technology to express themselves (Waytz et al., 2010). As more and
more experiences of anthropomorphism and intimacy are shaped by
interactive technology, people are increasingly eager to represent
themselves and have virtual experiences with such highly humanizing
interactive technology (Epley et al., 2007; Waytz et al., 2010; van Esch
et al., 2019).
TR, which includes the two stable dimensions of optimism and
innovativeness, refers to the degree to which online tourists actively use
innovative interactive technology to experience virtual tourism desti­
nations (Chung et al., 2015). Focusing on optimism and innovativeness
specifically, work in consumer psychology (Lin et al., 2007) has found
that consumers with high TR are better able to make good use of novel
technology features to create a humanizing experience than consumers
with low TR. Recent research on AR tourism has also found that online
tourists with high TR are better able to use AR features to create an
attractive virtual tourism destination than those with low TR and are
more willing to spend time and money actually visiting tourism desti­
nations (Chung et al., 2015). Thus, it can be concluded that online
tourists with high TR can use AR features and functions to create a
highly humanizing experience, with greater benefits for green destina­
tions in terms of attachment and care. Therefore, we propose the
following hypotheses:
H7: TR positively moderates the relationship between anthropomorphism
and green destination brand love.
H8: TR positively moderates the relationship between self-representation
and green destination brand love.
H9: TR positively moderates the relationship between intimacy and green
destination brand love.
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
H1–H9 are represented visually in Fig. 2.
4. Methodology
4.1. Scenario survey design: 360◦ AR panorama versus 360◦ spin-of-the-
mouse environments
Given the principles behind the design of contemporary AR tourism
(e.g., Liu, 2020; Tussyadiah et al., 2018), we used three features of a
360◦ AR panorama, namely, somatosensory manipulation, active
monitoring of online tourists’ dynamic behavior, and environmental
embedding, to shape the online green tourism experience. Using Kinect,
a Microsoft Xbox 360◦ motion sensor bar, AR tourism technology can
empower online tourists to use hand gestures to operate buttons, grab
virtual objects, and simulate a wide-angle panorama, further shaping
somatosensory manipulation (see Fig. 1).
In this way, virtual objects or travel scenes move synchronously in
the same direction as online tourists’ physical movements, shaping the
effects of active monitoring of online tourists’ dynamic behavior.
Finally, Kinect allows AR tourism technology to directly embed various
travel scenes alongside online tourists’ body images or integrate virtual
objects with their body images to create the benefits of environmental
embedding. Online tourists cannot experience these features of a 360◦
AR panorama with a 360◦ spin of the mouse. Therefore, two 360◦ spin
environments were used in this study: the 360◦ AR panorama and the
360◦ spin of the mouse. In both virtual tourism environments, travel
scenes were mainly 17 kinds of Japanese natural tourism scenery.
4.2. Sample and data collection
According to contemporary AR research (Yim et al., 2017), young
people ages 20 to 30 are the main partakers in AR shopping. Statista
Project (2016) also pointed out that young people ages 20 to 30 are the
target consumers of digital technology (such as AR) for searching for
travel products and information. Therefore, we considered young people
ages 20 to 30 as an appropriate sample to better understand the virtual
green tourism experience.
We recruited subjects who were willing to participate in a virtual
tourism scenario survey on an online forum platform. To avoid
distraction, the subjects experienced the 360◦ AR panorama or 360◦
spin-of-the-mouse virtual environment in a private research room
without any interference (see Fig. 3). Each subject was invited to plan a
future trip to Japan. They were told that the tourism technology had
been designed by a real travel agency.
Previous research on interactive technology has advocated giving
online consumers a study questionnaire to fill out immediately after
participating in the interactive technology experience, as the results will
be more reliable and valid than if participants fill out the questionnaire
afterward based on memory (Novak et al., 2000). Therefore, each sub­
ject in this study filled out all items on the questionnaire immediately
after experiencing the virtual tourism destination.
We spent 3 weeks testing and collecting data. There were 263 sub­
jects: 139 in the 360◦ AR panorama environment and 124 in the 360◦
spin-of-the-mouse environment. Overall, 83% were ages 20 to 30. Of the
subjects, 24.3% browsed tourism websites once every 3 days, 17.9%
once every 2 weeks, 18.3% once per month, 17.1% once every 2 months,
and the remaining 22.4% less than once every 2 months.
5. Results
5.1. The measurement model
All measures were developed from the literature review and used a 5-
point Likert scale (see Table 1). The four items on anthropomorphism (e.
g., “human-like”) and the four items on intimacy (e.g., “friendly”) were
from Bartneck et al. (2009). The three self-representation items (e.g.,
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
Fig. 2. The research model. (H=hypothesis).
Fig. 3. AR environmental embedding.
“This [information technology] can show my body concretely”) were
from Tang et al. (2013). The three items on place identity (e.g., “Visiting
the green destination brand is part of my life”) and the four items on
affective attachment (e.g., “The green destination brand means a lot to
me”) were from Xu and Zhang (2016). The five items on compatibility
(e.g., “Being in this green destination brand suits my personality”) were
from Rosenbaum (2009).
When Chang et al. (2020) explored older adults’ adoption of
disruptive technology (such as hearing aids), there were only 103 sub­
jects. Therefore, they used SPSS 21 to run the multiple regression
analysis. Zhang et al. (2020) recommended using Mplus 6.0 to analyze a
moderated mediation effect in structural equation modeling (SEM). Sun
et al. (2021) explored consumers’ adoption of disruptive technology
(such as mobile payment) with a sample size of less than 250. Chin
(1998) suggested that researchers use PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling) to run SEM. However, to ensure the
reliability and validity of the analysis, Thompson (2000) suggested that
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
researchers use AMOS 20 to run SEM when the sample size is greater
than 250. In our case, because we had a total of 263 subjects, we used
AMOS 20 to run SEM, including the measurement and structural models,
to meet reliability and validity standards. The results in Tables 1 and 2
demonstrate that the reliability (including Cronbach’s alpha and com­
posite reliability) and validity (including convergent validity and
discriminant validity) of the measurement model were satisfactory.
Thus, these results show that the measurements were reliable and the
variables valid.
5.2. Test of the structural model
SEM revealed the good fit of the model, with χ2/df = 2.54, CFI =
0.91, TLI = 0.90, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07 (Hoyle, 1995). Anthropo­
morphism, self-representation, and intimacy all significantly influenced
green destination brand love (βanthropomorphism = 0.29, p < 0.001;
βself-representation = 0.54, p < 0.001; βintimacy = 0.25, p < 0.001),
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853

Table 1 for H1–H6 and the results of the T tests, we conclude that a 360◦ AR
Results of measurement properties. panorama truly generates a higher degree of anthropomorphism, self-
Factor representation, and intimacy than does a 360◦ spin of the mouse.
loadinga

Anthropomorphism (Bartneck et al., 2009) Composite 5.3. The moderating effects of TR

A1 .79 reliability (ρc) =
A2 .81 0.85 To test moderating effects, we created three interaction variables for
A3 .72 AVE = 0.58 each model (i.e., anthropomorphism × TR, self-representation × TR,
A4 .73
Intimacy (Bartneck et al., 2009) ρc = 0.91
intimacy × TR). The moderating effects of TR on the relationships be­
I1 .79 AVE = 0.72 tween each of anthropomorphism, self-representation, and intimacy and
I2 .89 green destination brand love were positive and significant: anthropo­
I3 .89 morphism (β = 0.23, p < 0.05), self-representation (β = 0.19, p < 0.001),
I4 .82
intimacy (β = 0.26, p < 0.001). Hence, H7, H8, and H9 were supported.
Self-representation (Tang et al., 2013) ρc = 0.79
SR1 .76 AVE = 0.56 All these results are represented visually in Fig. 4.
SR2 .80
SR3 .68 6. Implications
Green destination Place identity (Xu & ρc = 0.87
brand love Zhang, 2016) AVE = 0.69
PI1 .79
6.1. Developing humanizing digital experiences with disruptive technology
PI2 .82
PI3 .88 During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital tourism operators need to
Affective attachment ρc = 0.91 learn how to use an emerging disruptive technology, AR, to successfully
(Xu & Zhang, 2016) AVE = 0.71
market green destinations and establish green destination brand love
AA1 .84
AA2 .91 while ensuring contactless service journeys and satisfying online con­
AA3 .87 sumers’ desire for a humanizing digital experience. Humanizing the
AA4 .74 digital experience is key to gaining competitive brand marketing in the
Compatibility ρc = 0.89 industry during the pandemic (Abdel-Basset et al., 2020). The results of
(Rosenbaum, 2009) AVE = 0.62
CO1 .74
this empirical research point to solutions to this difficult problem. Using
CO2 .69 three features of a humanizing digital experience—anthropomorphism,
CO3 .83 self-representation, and intimacy—digital tourism operators can suc­
CO4 .84 cessfully use an emerging disruptive technology to break through the
CO5 .83
constraints of contactless service journeys and satisfy online consumers
Note 1. aAll item loadings were significant at p< 0.01. eager to have a humanizing experience. Furthermore, they can use these
three humanizing elements shaped by emerging disruptive technology
to successfully create green destination brand love. These results do
Table 2 more than just extend the three streams of research on humanizing
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and the square root of the AVE.
brands (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017) to humanizing digital experiences.
Construct Name Mean SD IN SR AN GL More important, they clarify the features of humanizing digital experi­
Intimacy (IN) 3.86 0.75 0.85 ences to serve as a guide for using emerging disruptive technology to
Self-representation (SR) 3.64 0.77 0.19 0.75 create such experiences in the future. For example, anthropomorphism,
Anthropomorphism (AN) 2.92 0.82 0.14 0.19 0.76 self-representation, and intimacy should be at the core of service systems
Green destination brand love 3.43 0.73 0.40 0.64 0.43 0.89
that integrate AR with various disruptive technologies (such as cloud
(GL)
computing, image processing, big data, AI, and IoT). In the smart
Note: Bold values along the diagonal are the square root of AVE for each of the tourism industry, for example, accurately representing AR tourists’
constructs. physical movements in real time to provide smooth,
self-representational dynamic images requires a large amount of cloud
supporting H1, H2, and H3 (see Fig. 4). computing and precise image processing (Chang, 2018; Liu, 2020).
Following the recommendations of He et al. (2018), we used medi­ In other words, a humanizing disruptive technology experience can
ation analysis to test H4, H5, and H6. The dynamic 360◦ panorama positively shape consumers’ brand love. This important implication has
(coded as 1 = 360◦ AR panorama, 0 = 360◦ spin of the mouse) had rarely been explored in the research on disruptive technology, which is
positive and significant effects on anthropomorphism (β = 0.38, p < limited to medical issues (e.g., Abdel-Basset et al., 2020). It would be
0.001), self-representation (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), and intimacy (β = worthwhile for future scholars of disruptive technology to integrate the
0.38, p < 0.001). The results of bootstrap testing confirmed the existence current research framework and variables into their own research to
of positive and significant mediating effects of anthropomorphism, extend the discussion further. This research integrates humanizing
self-representation, and intimacy on the dynamic 360◦ panorama and experience theory (MacInnis and Folkes, 2017; van Pinxteren et al.,
green destination brand love: anthropomorphism (b = 0.29, 2019; Waytz et al., 2014) and brand love theory (Aro et al., 2018; Batra
bias-corrected 95% confidence interval: 0.19, 0.45), self-representation et al., 2012) to clarify the role of humanizing disruptive technology
(b = 0.50, bias-corrected 95% confidence interval: 0.34, 0.71), intimacy experiences in the smart upgrading of the tourism industry. It not only
(b = 0.28, bias-corrected 95% confidence interval: 0.18, 0.43). Hence, extends the research on brand love and humanizing brands to green
H4, H5, and H6 were supported. destination brand love but also provides important new empirical in­
In addition, we found that participants who experienced the 360◦ AR sights into disruptive technology.
panorama scored significantly higher on anthropomorphism (t = 6.05, p
< 0.01; MAR = 3.20, SD = 0.80, MMouse = 2.61, SD = 0.73), self- 6.2. Inspiring an intimate interactive relationship between online
representation (t = 7.70, p < 0.01; MAR = 3.95, SD = 0.70, MMouse = consumers and emerging disruptive technology
3.28, SD = 0.69), and intimacy (t = 6.21, p < 0.01; MAR = 4.12, SD =
0.67, MMouse = 3.58, SD = 0.73) than those who experienced the 360◦ The results of this study show that a 360◦ AR panorama is better able
spin-of-the-mouse tourism environment. Based on the empirical results than a traditional 360◦ spin of the mouse to create a humanizing digital

7
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
Fig. 4. Results for the structural model.
experience. In particular, three features of a 360◦ AR panorama—active
monitoring of online tourists’ dynamic behavior, somatosensory
manipulation, and environmental embedding—are superior to tradi­
tional interactive technology (e.g., a mouse). These three features can
extend familiarity and intimacy to consumers, allowing them to believe
in the experience and messages delivered by the AR and creating a
highly convincing humanizing digital experience. As an emerging
disruptive technology, AR not only moves away from traditional inter­
active consumption habits (such as a 360◦ spin of the mouse) but, with
the help of the three key features of the 360◦ AR panorama, can make
online consumers perceive more human-like characteristics in their
experience with this interactive technology. For example, somatosen­
sory monitoring of a 360◦ AR panorama allows online consumers to
perceive the emerging disruptive technology as not only having the
characteristics of human thought but also understanding their needs.
Moreover, using AR virtual-physical integration to shape first-person
product usage simulations reduces consumers’ unfamiliarity and un­
certainty with emerging disruptive technology, in turn creating an
intimate interactive relationship. However, previous research has failed
to grasp or explore the benefits of these humanizing emerging disruptive
technologies. Therefore, our research can guide the traditional tourism
industry in making full use of disruptive technology to upgrade and
achieve its digital transformation goals. Meanwhile, we clearly under­
stand how to avoid users’ resistance to unfamiliar disruptive technology
and actively transform users to build intimate relationships with such
technology.
These findings not only echo Flavián et al.’s (2019) finding that
virtual experiences shaped by AR are significantly better than those
based on traditional interactive technology but also extend the research
on AR, which is restricted to how to enhance consumers’ motivations for
and reactions to using AR (e.g., Chung et al., 2015; He et al., 2018). The
digital tourism industry should regard the 360◦ AR panorama as a main
persuasive technology for creating contactless service journeys and
should make good use of its three key features to influence consumers’
decisions to purchase tourism services during COVID-19 (Lee et al.,
2021; Liu, 2020). These suggestions supplement research on AR tourism
(Chung et al., 2018; Cranmer et al., 2016; Tussyadiah et al., 2018) that
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
has hitherto been unable to properly assess the role of certain charac­
teristics of AR in effectively shaping the black box of humanizing digital
experiences.
6.3. The moderating effects of TR on emerging disruptive technology
services
In the face of online consumers’ increased desire for humanizing
digital experiences (van Esch et al., 2019), previous studies have
explored the impact of TR on intentions to adopt digital technology (e.g.,
Chung et al., 2015). However, they have not explored deeply whether
the importance of humanizing the digital experience differs significantly
among individuals with different TR. As a result, current digital tourism
operators do not know what consumer traits could be used to design and
shape humanizing digital experiences to enhance green destination
brand love. The results of the present research give these operators clear
design guidelines.
This study found that compared to tourists with low TR, those with
high TR pay more attention to whether digital interactive technology is
anthropomorphic, whether it is capable of thinking or monitoring con­
sumer behavior and response, and whether their needs can be instantly
understood and met by a digital service system. This anthropomorphism
is key to making tourists with high TR believe in the content presented
by AR and love the green destination brand. This result expands the
research on humanizing technology, which was restricted to the impact
of anthropomorphism on the use of digital technology and failed to fully
examine the moderating effects of TR (e.g., van Esch et al., 2019; Waytz
et al., 2014).
Moreover, compared to tourists with low TR, those with high TR are
more concerned about whether digital technology allows them to fully
represent themselves in contactless service journeys. In doing so, they
hope to develop a deeper connection with the green destination brand
and in turn love the green destination brand. Thus, the digital tourism
industry should give tourists with high TR more forms and functions for
self-representation. For example, a good 360◦ AR panorama allows on­
line tourists to directly embed travel scenes around their own body
images and provides them the freedom to review, check, and correct the
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
effects of physical-virtual integration at any moment. These findings not
only echo most previous findings that self-representation empowered by
technology significantly influences avatar attractiveness (e.g., Mes­
singer et al., 2019) but also fill gaps in the AR research, which has
ignored the moderating effect of TR on the relationship between
self-representation and brand love (e.g., Huang, 2019; Scholz and Duffy,
2018).
Finally, tourists with high TR are very concerned about the intimacy
of the interactive relationship between themselves and the technology.
The more intimate the relationship, the more consumers will extend this
relationship to green destination brands, creating green destination
brand love. Understanding the impact of intimate interactive relation­
ships with technology on green destination brand love will help the
digital tourism industry better understand what it should offer to con­
sumers to shape green destination brand love in contactless service
journeys during COVID-19, thus hopefully opening up a new perspective
that has been neglected in previous TR research (e.g., Chung et al., 2015;
Lin et al., 2007).
Combining these research results and the theoretical perspective on
TR, we can offer the following important implication: As the degree of
TR increases, the effect of the humanizing digital experience shaped by
the disruptive technology on brand love will increase. In other words,
TR will not only moderate the experience and behavior of using tradi­
tional interactive technology but also continuously moderate the impact
of disruptive technology on brand love and brand marketing. Therefore,
the influence of TR can no longer be ignored in the research and
development of disruptive technology. This is why Parasuraman and
Colby (2015) updated the research needs for the development of the TR
2.0 scale and the need to further empirically explore the moderating
effect of TR 2.0. The digital tourism industry should include online
consumers’ TR in a forward-looking research framework for the devel­
opment of disruptive technology as it implements smart upgrades and
works to achieve its digital transformation goals. Because users have
different levels of TR, other disruptive technologies (including cloud
computing, image processing, big data, AI, and IoT) should be used to
provide AR functions that fit users’ capabilities. We hope that the
moderating effects of TR on emerging disruptive technology services
provide new insight that has largely been overlooked in previous
research on disruptive technology.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced tourists to engage in social
distancing, accelerating their need to rely on emerging disruptive
technology such as AR to experience green destinations. However, the
digital tourism industry is not just concerned with how tourists can
successfully experience green destinations through technology. More
important, it must use humanizing disruptive technology (such as an
360◦ AR panorama) to effectively inspire tourists to connect more
deeply and identify with the green destination, namely, feel green
destination brand love. In other words, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
humanizing disruptive technology can effectively help tourists and the
tourism industry realize the benefits of sustainable tourism that protects
the natural and cultural environments. Especially compared to tourists
with low TR, tourists with high TR rely more on humanizing disruptive
technology to shape their travel journeys and the interactive relation­
ships between themselves and the green destination. It is obvious that
humanizing disruptive technology is inseparable from the shaping of
contactless green destination journeys during COVID-19.
7. Limitations and suggestions for future research
This study has several limitations. First, to clarify the essence of
humanizing digital experiences, we researched Japanese green desti­
nations. Future researchers can examine the research model using green
destinations in other countries to improve the generalizability of the
results. Second, we did not compare the antecedents and consequences
of humanizing digital experiences by subject demographics. Are
different demographic profiles related to different psychological
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
mechanisms behind the formation of humanizing digital experiences?
Considering the future development of the digital tourism industry, re­
searchers can also examine whether humanizing digital experiences can
also instantly restore online tourists emotionally in addition to inducing
green destination brand love. Third, we used AR/VR for this study. In
the future, other disruptive technologies can be used in a similar kind of
study that may produce more fruitful implications for both theory and
management.
Finally, as both Chang (2021) and Chang et al. (2019) warned,
high-tech devices such as AR that collect, process, store, and transmit big
data are subject to scrutiny because of potential ethical issues around
privacy, surveillance, and security risk. When using the proposed
human-like AR in tourism businesses, it is advisable to follow the ethics
guidelines suggested by Chang and his associates during each of the data
collection, analysis, and insight stages. Given that data generated by AR
devices are collected and shared (transmitted) voluntarily by tourists
with social network contacts who receive, appreciate (interpret), and in
turn store the data, the risk is quite minimal. Meanwhile, Kinect-based
AR uses heat sensing and infrared technology to detect consumers’
movements and give a synchronized and accurate response to shape
highly secure and contactless green destination journeys (Huang et al.,
2019). This completely noninvasive technology does not result in any
bodily discomfort. Moreover, researchers cannot directly identify any
user’s profile when analyzing these data. Therefore, we are comfortable
declaring that our work in AR complies with prevailing ethical
standards.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Tech­
nology of the Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially supporting this
research under Contract No. MOST 108-2410-H-155-034-MY2
References
Abdel-Basset, M., Chang, V., Nabeeh, N.A., 2020. An intelligent framework using
disruptive technologies for COVID-19 analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120431, 163(February)#120431.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., 2009. The feeling of love toward a brand:
concept and measurement. Advances in consumer research. Assoc. Consum. Res. (U.
S.) 36, 300–307. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v36/NAACR_v36_112.pdf.
Aro, K., Suomi, K., Saraniemi, S., 2018. Antecedents and consequences of destination
brand loved-A case study from Finnish Lapland. Tourism Manag. 67, 71–81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.003.
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S., 2009. Measurement Instruments for the
anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived
safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1 (1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-
008-0001-3.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., Bagozzi, R.P., 2012. Brand love. J. Mark. 76 (2), 1–16 https://doi.
org/10.1509%2Fjm.09.0339.
Buonincontri, P., Marasco, A., Ramkissoon, H., 2017. Visitors’ experience, place
attachment and sustainable Behaviour at cultural heritage sites: a conceptual
framework. Sustainability 9 (7), 1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071112.
Chang, V., 2021. An ethical framework for big data and smart cities. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 165, 120559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120559.
Chang, V., 2018. An overview, examples, and impacts offered by emerging services and
analytics in cloud computing virtual reality. Neural Comput. Appl. 29 (5),
1243–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3000-1.
Chang, V., Wang, Y., Wills, G., 2020. Research investigations on the use or non-use of
hearing aids in the smart cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 153. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.002. April#119231.
Chang, V., Willis, G., & Baudier, P. (2021). Impacts and investigations of disruptive
technologies for Industry 4.0. A special issue of technological forecasting and social
change, https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technological-forecasting-and-socia
l-change/call-for-papers/impacts-and-investigations-of-disruptive-technologies.
Accessed on January 13, 2021.
Chang, V., Xu, X., Wong, B., Mendez, V, 2019. Ethical problems of smart wearable
devices. In: Firouzi, F., Estrada, E., Munoz, V.M., Chang, V. (Eds.), COMPLEXIS 2019
- Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Complexity, Future Information
Systems and Risk. SciTePress, pp. 121–129.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling.
In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Methodology for Business and Management. Modern
Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
pp. 295–336.
T.-L. Huang and B.S.C. Liu
Chung, N., Han, H., Joun, Y., 2015. Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: the role of
augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Comput. Human. Behav. 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 augmented reality for
experience-influenced environments: the case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea.
J. Travel Res. 57 (5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517708255.
Cranmer, E., Jung, T., tom Dieck, M.C., Miller, A., 2016. Implementing augmented
reality to increase tourist attraction sustainability. In: Augmented Reality Virtual
Reality Innovate Conference. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/610834.
Dacko, S.G., 2017. Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping
apps. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2016.09.032.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T., 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of
anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114 (4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.114.4.864.
Esmaeilzadeh, P., 2020. How Does IT Identity Affect individuals’ Use Behaviors
Associated with Personal Health Devices (PHDs)? An Empirical Study. Information
and Management. in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103313.
Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S., Orús, C., 2019. The impact of virtual, augmented and
mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. J. Bus. Res. 100, 547–560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050.
Hallak, R., Brown, G., Lindsay, N.J., 2012. The Place Identity – Performance relationship
among tourism entrepreneurs: a structural equation modelling analysis. Tourism
Manag. 33 (1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.013.
Hanus, M.D., Fox, J., 2015. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort,
and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2014.08.019.
He, Z., Wu, L., Li, X., 2018. When art meets tech: the role of augmented reality in
enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tour. Manag. 68, 127–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.003.
Hilken, T., Ruyter, K.D., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., Keeling, D.I., 2017. Augmenting the eye
of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance
online service experiences. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 45 (6), 884–905. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747-017-0541-x.
Hoyle, R.H., 1995. Structural Equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and Applications.
Sage.
Huang, T.L., 2019. Psychological mechanisms of brand love and information technology
identity in virtual retail environments. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 251–264. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.016.
Huang, T.L., Mathews, S., Chou, C.Y., 2019. Enhancing online rapport experience via
augmented reality. J. Serv. Mark. 33 (7), 851–865.
INTELLIAS, 2020. The most disruptive technologies of the next decade. Intellias Intell.
Softw. Eng. Retrieved from https://www.intellias.com/the-most-disruptive-tech
nologies-of-the-next-decade/ Accessed on January 13, 2021.
Larson, D., Chang, V., 2016. A review and future direction of agile, business intelligence,
analytics and data science. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36 (5), 700–710. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.04.013.
Lee, S.A., Lee, M., Jeong, M., 2021. The role of virtual reality on information sharing and
seeking behaviors. J. Hospital. Tour. Manag. 46 (March), 215–223. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.12.010.
Lee, C.K.C., Levy, D.S., Yap, C.S.F, 2015. How does the theory of consumption values
contribute to place identity and sustainable consumption? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39
(6), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12231.
Lee, K.H., Hyun, S.S., 2016. The effects of perceived destination ability and destination
brand love on tourists’ loyalty to post-disaster tourism destinations: the case of
Korean tourists to Japan. J. Travel Tour. Market. 33 (5), 613–627. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548408.2016.1167349.
Lin, C.H., Shih, H.Y., Sher, P.J., 2007. Integrating technology readiness into technology
acceptance: the TRAM model. Psychol. Market. 24 (7), 641–657. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20177.
Liu, T., 2020. Augmented Reality on Mobile Devices Using Both Front and Rear Cameras
(Unpublished Master’s Thesis). School of Engineering, Computer, and Mathematical
Science, Auckland University of Technology.
MacInnis, D.J., Folkes, V.S., 2017. Humanizing brands: when brands seem to be like me,
part of me, and in a relationship with me. J. Consum. Psychol. 27 (3), 355–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003.
Messinger, P.R., Ge, X., Smirnovc, K., Strouliad, E., Lyonse, K., 2019. Reflections of the
extended self: visual self-representation in avatar-mediated environments. J. Bus.
Res. 100, 531–546.
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Yung, Y.F., 2000. Measuring the customer experience in
online environments: a structural modeling approach. Mark. Sci. 19 (1), 22–42.
Oleksy, T., Wnuk, A., 2017. Catch them all and increase your place attachment! The role
of location-based augmented reality games in changing people - place relations.
Comput. Human. Behav. 76, 3–8.
Parasuraman, A., Colby, C.L., 2015. An updated and streamlined technology readiness
index: TRI 2.0. J. Serv. Res. 18, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670514539730.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B., Park, J.W., 2013. From brand aversion or indifference to
brand attachment: authors’ response to commentaries to Park, Eisingerich, and
Park’s brand attachment–aversion model. J. Consum. Psychol. 23 (2), 269–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.01.006.
Petit, O., Velasco, C., Spence, C., 2019. Digital sensory marketing: integrating new
technologies into multisensory online experience. J. Interact. Mark. 45, 42–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004.
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120853
Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.K., Kaminoff, R., 1983. Place-identity: physical world
socialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 3 (1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0272-4944(83)80021-8.
Ramkissoon, H., Mavondo, F., 2017. Pro-environmental behavior: critical link between
satisfaction and place attachment in Australia and Canada. Tour. Anal. 22 (1),
59–73. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354217X14828625279735.
Rygol, M. (2020). COVID-19: How Augmented Reality is Helping Mitigate Business
Impact. https://thearea.org/covid-19-how-augmented-reality-is-helping-mitigate-
business-impact/Accessed 3 June 2020.
Scholz, J., Duffy, K., 2018. We Are at home: how augmented reality reshapes mobile
marketing and consumer-brand relationships. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 44, 11–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.05.004.
Smith, T. & Scott, G. (2020). Disruptive technology, investopedia, Retrieved from http
s://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disruptive-technology.asp#:~:text=Disruptive
%20technology%20is%20an%20innovation,attributes%20that%20are%20rec
ognizably%20superior/ Accessed on January 13, 2021.
Statista (2016). Share of Respondents Who Searched for Information About Travel or
Tourism Products Online in Germany in the 4th Quarter of 2016, By Age Group.
Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/458117/tourism-and-travel-onli
ne-research-by-age-group-germany/ Accessed on July 28, 2020.
Sun, S., Zhang, F., Liao, K., Chang, V., 2021. Determine factors of NFC mobile payment
continuous adoption in shopping malls: evidence from Indonesia. Int. J. Bus. Intell.
Res. 12 (2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijbir.20210701.oa1.
Thompson, B., 2000. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In: Grimm, L.
G., Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.), Reading and Understanding MORE Multivariate Statistics.
American Psychological Association, pp. 261–283.
Tsai, S.P., 2014. Love and satisfaction drive persistent stickiness: investigating
international tourist hotel brands. Int. J. Tour. Res. 16 (6), 565–577. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jtr.1950.
Tussyadiah, L.P., Jung, T.H., tom Dieck, M.C., 2018. Embodiment of wearable
augmented reality technology in tourism experiences. J. Travel Res. 57 (5), 597–611.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517709090.
van Esch, P., Arli, D., Gheshlaghi, M.H., Andonopoulos, V., von der Heidt, T.,
Northeye, G., 2019. Anthropomorphism and augmented reality in the retail
environment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 49, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.03.002.
van Pinxteren, M., Wetzels, R., Rüger, J., Pluymaekers, M., Wetzels, M., 2019. Trust in
humanoid robots: implications for services marketing. J. Serv. Mark. 33 (4),
507–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2018-0045.
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T., Epley, N., 2010. Who sees Human?: the stability and
importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5
(3), 219–232 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691610369336.
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., Epley, N., 2014. The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism
increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 52, 113–117. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005.
Wong, I.A., Liu, D., Li, N., Wu, S., Lu, L., Law, R, 2019. Foodstagramming in the travel
encounter. Tour. Manag. 71, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2018.08.020.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C., Sauer, P.L, 2017. Is augmented reality technology an effective
tool for E-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. J. Interact. Market.
39, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.04.001.
Zhang, F., Sun, S., Liu, C., Chang, V., 2020. Consumer innovativeness, product
innovation and smart toys. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 41, 100974 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100974. May–June.
Tseng-Lung Huang is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the College of Management
at Yuan Ze University in Taiwan. His-research interests include interactive marketing,
consumer behavior, and electronic commerce. His-publications have appeared in the
Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Internet Research,
Electronic Commerce Research, Service Business, International Journal of Service Industries
Management, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Young Consumers, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, and Journal of E-Business.
Prof. Ben Shaw-Ching Liu is Professor of Marketing at School of Business, Quinnipiac
University USA. He holds Ph.D. from State University of New York at Buffalo (1991),
Master of Art in Religion from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School at Chicago (2003), and
Bachelor of Science & Engineering from National Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan (1977).
Before coming to USA for graduate studies, he worked in the industry including running
his own business for 9 years. He was an Assistant Professor at University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, a Visiting Professor to Washington University in St. Louis, and an
Associate Professor of Marketing at Butler University. He is a Visiting Professor to various
MBA, EMBA programs in China, Denmark, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. His-major
research interest is in the areas of new product strategy, service marketing, internet
marketing, hi-tech marketing, cross-cultural, negotiation, channel, and promotion. His-
research has been recognized in the international academic community with various
awards and articles published in various journals such as Journal of Service Research,
Journal of Service Marketing, Service Industry Journal, Industrial Marketing Management,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Product and Pricing, Journal of
Marketing Theory & Practice, European Journal of Innovation Management, Internet Research,
Journal of Internet Commerce, International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising,
International Journal of Business Information Systems, International Journal of Business
Research & Systems, Library Hi Tech, Managerial and Decision Economics etc., He was on the
Editorial Boards of such journal as Journal of Service Research and has been an Elder, lay-
minister and Board member in various churches and parachurches.