Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The role of perceived enjoyment and perceived informativeness in assessing

the acceptance of AR wearables
Eric Holdack a, *, Katja Lurie-Stoyanov a, Harro Fabian Fromme b
a
Deutsche Post Chair of Marketing, Esp. E-Commerce and Cross-Media Management, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Jahnallee 59, 04109, Leipzig,
Germany
b
Kühne Logistics University – KLU, Großer Grasbrook 17, 20457, Hamburg, Germany

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

Keywords: Augmented reality smart glasses are a major trend in retailing. However, little is known about the factors that
TAM drive customers’ acceptance of these wearables as a channel in stores. Especially, the roles of perceived enjoy­
Technology acceptance model ment and perceived informativeness for usage intentions of such novel and immersive technologies are unclear.
AR
Thus, the authors propose an extended technology acceptance model as an instrument to predict future adoption.
Augmented reality
Smart glasses
The results indicate that perceived enjoyment largely mediates the influence of perceived informativeness and
Retailing other variables on attitude and usage intention. Further, perceived enjoyment functions as a direct predictor for
Wearables attitude and in strength even exceeds perceived usefulness. Hence, retailers should consider focusing on joy-
related aspects when aiming at the introduction of broadly accepted AR applications in stores.

1. Introduction
The fast progress in application development, as well as the
decreasing costs for hardware, development, and implementation,
increasingly shift augmented reality (AR) into the retailing industry
(Rese et al., 2017; Spreer and Kallweit, 2014). A closer look at the
leading technology companies, e.g., Google, Microsoft, Facebook, shows
that particularly head-mounted displays – especially AR smart glasses –
have been in the focus of current developments. AR smart glasses are
wearable devices that expand the real environment with virtual ele­
ments, such as objects, texts, or images, in the user’s periphery. They
constitute a new form of information transmission and content delivery
(Javornik, 2016b; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016; Rese et al., 2017; Spreer
and Kallweit, 2014). As such, AR wearables have the potential to change
certain customer activities, e.g., information seeking, product exami­
nation as well as trials, and, hence, to influence buying and decision
making processes (Dacko, 2017; Pantano, 2014; Rese et al., 2017).
Retailers progressively implement such technologies to store envi­
ronments to create a new, “smart” retail environment (Rauschnabel and
Ro, 2016; Spreer and Kallweit, 2014). By providing customers with AR
glasses as an additional channel within a store, they aim to create
exciting and pleasant customer experiences in providing advanced
product visualization and interaction possibilities during the shopping
process (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Pantano and Naccarato, 2010; Rese
et al., 2017). In particular, highly accepted augmentations lead to a flow
experience, which, in turn, drives customer reactions (Jung et al., 2015).
‘Consumers’ acceptance of new technologies, in terms of attitude,
behavioural intention and effective usage of the systems is a critical
variable for technology selection and adoption’ (Pantano, 2014, p.346),
which can significantly increase conversions and, thus, maximize reve­
nues (Rese et al., 2017).
The knowledge about what drives consumers to use or to reuse AR
wearables is particularly significant in the early diffusion stage and
needs to increase in order to support or speed up the technology adop­
tion (Poushneh, 2018; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016; Spreer and Kallweit,
2014). Even though the ascending relevance of AR is broadly recog­
nized, research on smart glasses in the retailing context is rather scarce.
Most existing studies mainly focus on technological or design-related
aspects, whereas they often disregard the perception and evaluation of
retail store customers (Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Pantano and Vias­
sone, 2014; Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga, 2017). Existent research on
AR to a large extent concerns online shopping and relies on student
samples in experimental designs, instead of store customers in authentic
settings (Rese et al., 2017). The formation of technology acceptance
involves processes that are sensitive to the influence of context, which
makes results less likely to generalize across diverse populations in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eric.holdack@hhl.de (E. Holdack), katja.lurie@hhl.de (K. Lurie-Stoyanov), Fabian.Fromme@the-klu.org (H.F. Fromme).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102259
Received 14 November 2019; Received in revised form 24 July 2020; Accepted 27 July 2020
Available online 3 September 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Holdack et al.
different settings (Bello et al., 2009). Moreover, previous research
hardly considers wearables as a future AR technology but focusses on
mobile or web-based AR applications. However, since smart glasses
fundamentally differ in information transmission, the results are not
necessarily transferable. Compared to mobile applications, both hands
are set free from holding a visualization media, and there is no need to
control smart glasses proactively. Augmenting the natural field of view,
from a users’ perspective, couples virtual elements more tightly to the
physical world (Oh et al., 2016). The psychological impact of these
characteristics on technology acceptance in retailing to date remains
untested.
When considering the unique information display of smart glasses, it
is crucial to understand how customers perceive the informativeness of
these devices and which impact it has on the intended technology
adoption (Childers et al., 2001). Furthermore, high immersive technol­
ogies like AR smart glasses aim to introduce enjoyment to create holistic
shopping experiences. Even though not only utilitarian but also hedonic
benefits are considered as influencing factors for behavioral intention,
empirical evidence for the role of enjoyment are conflicted and ambig­
uous (Peukert et al., 2019; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016). Studies on AR
apps in the area of online retailing consider perceived enjoyment (PE)
together with perceived informativeness (PI) as an antecedent of
perceived usefulness (PU) (Rese et al., 2017). While there seems to be no
direct effect of PE on attitudes and usage intentions for AR apps in online
retailing, studies on AR wearables indicate that hedonic benefits have a
direct effect on the intention to purchase AR glasses (Rauschnabel et al.,
2018). It is not clear which of these results are transferable to usage
intentions of AR glasses as a channel in a store environment. For a
successful application in retail stores, however, it is crucial to under­
stand the role of both PI and PE in driving customer acceptance of AR
wearables in retail.
Therefore, the following study adds these variables to the original
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Respondents in previous studies
were not able to assess the enjoyment and informativeness of actual AR
smart glasses since most participants did neither have access to smart
glasses nor experience with such devices for evaluating these criteria
(Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016; Rese et al., 2017). Thus, this study attempts
to examine the following research questions:
RQ1: What drives customers to accept wearable AR technologies in
the retail context?
RQ2: How do perceived enjoyment and perceived informativeness
impact the acceptance of AR smart glasses in retailing compared to
other elements of the TAM?
On a theoretical level, the study contributes to the existing stream of
technology acceptance research by providing insights for smart glasses
as an essential trend in retail. By doing so, it reconsiders the role of
enjoyment and informativeness for technologies that are particularly
immersive and more novel in general. From a practical perspective, the
study provides valuable insights for a fast and successful implementa­
tion of AR smart glasses in the retailing environment.
We organized the paper as follows: The first section presents current
literature on AR technologies as well as the concept, which the study is
based on, and the derived hypotheses. The subsequent part describes the
applied statistical procedure and its results. Finally, we provide a dis­
cussion, followed by managerial implications and suggestions for future
research.
2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses development
2.1. Augmented reality
While VR entirely immerses users in a virtual world by blocking out
the visual perception of the real world, AR integrates virtual content into
the users’ physical environment (Bonneti et al., 2018). As such, the
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259
technology offers new ways to present product offers and to display
product information at the Point of Sale (PoS) (Spreer and Kallweit,
2014). More specifically, AR technologies enhance the sensory percep­
tion of the user in real-time (Martínez et al., 2014). The interactive
character of the technology allows instant reacting to changes in phys­
ical and virtual elements (Azuma, 1997; Javornik, 2016a).
In stores, retailers apply AR to attract customers’ attention during
the shopping process and to enrichen the customer experience by dis­
playing visual elements, which complement or replace regular product
displays (Dacko, 2017; Rese et al., 2017). One practical use-case, which
the present study focuses on, is the augmentation of the users’ sur­
roundings with virtual products. This augmentation, for instance, allows
customers to evaluate a computer-generated reflection of furniture
(Javornik, 2016b). Initial research shows that the visualization provided
by AR improves the assessment of the product itself and the information
displayed in both online and offline retailing (Spreer and Kallweit,
2014). Moreover, the three-dimensional display of virtual content
compensates for incomplete product information in an online environ­
ment and expands the range of products in brick-and-mortar stores
(Dacko, 2017; Poushneh, 2018). Hence, augmented reality enhances the
offered services, enriches the entire shopping experience, and fosters a
higher product and purchase certainty. AR, directly and indirectly, in­
fluences the buying decision process through these aspects (Dacko,
2017; Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012; Rese et al., 2017).
The main difference of AR wearables in comparison to other AR
technologies is that smart glasses do not create the mixed reality on a
pixel-display. Instead, they project images for each eye onto a partial
mirror, which combine themselves to virtual elements in the user’s
physical field of view. Thereby, these wearables are worn like regular
glasses and work autonomously with no need for active operation
through additional devices. The information display reacts to voice
commands or gestures (Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016). The usage of such
head-mounted wearables creates ‘a highly immersive and holistic
experience of the AR view’ (Olsson et al., 2013, p. 288). It is, therefore,
of particular interest in the retailing industry. While other interactive
technologies have a vibrant research history, the analysis of AR wear­
ables is rather scarce. However, since smart glasses are increasingly
accessible for retailers and consumers (Javornik, 2016a), an analysis of
their acceptance drivers becomes relevant.
In this context, previous studies identified three main influencing
factors of acceptance. Firstly, AR users are considered as rather prag­
matic and goal-oriented. Thus, they value especially functional benefits
of applications, whose utilitarian value has a positive impact on the
usage intention of such technologies (Olsson et al., 2012, 2013; Spreer
and Kallweit, 2014). Secondly, easy and intuitive handling plays an
essential role in accepting technologies. Concerning AR, this means that
the beneficial usage should not require a high cognitive effort (Spreer
and Kallweit, 2014). Finally, AR applications need to create emotional
experiences through enjoyable interaction potential (Olsson et al., 2012;
Spreer and Kallweit, 2014). These three components are also the main
drivers for use intention in Davis’ (1989) Technology acceptance model.
Since prior research used this model and proved the general appropri­
ateness of TAM for AR in the retailing context (Olsson et al., 2012;
Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016; Spreer and Kallweit, 2014), the authors also
apply it in the present study.
2.2. Technology acceptance model
The technology acceptance model has its roots in information sys­
tems research and is widely used to explain and predict what drives
organizations and individual users to adopt a specific technology
(Huang and Liao, 2015; Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Rauschnabel and Ro,
2016). Customers’ acceptance of an innovation is understood as a sig­
nificant criterion for its market success (Rese et al., 2017). According to
the model, the success depends on the user’s attitude (AT) towards and
behavioral intention (BI) to use the innovation in the future (Martínez
E. Holdack et al.
et al., 2014; Pantano, 2014). AT implies the user’s evaluation of a
technology, whereas BI describes the willingness to perform a particular
action (Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012). AT depends on the users’ belief
that the usage offers additional value and is advantageous. Therefore,
the initial TAM builds on four pillars: perceived usefulness (PU) and
perceived ease of use (PEOU), which influence AT towards the tech­
nology, which, in turn, impacts BI (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Lee et al.,
2006; Pantano, 2014; Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012). These four de­
terminants support the adaption of technology as well as its success
(Huang and Liao, 2015).
In the context of this study, PU describes the benefits and the
improvement of the purchasing process, which the user expects from the
usage of new technologies (Huang and Liao, 2015; Pantano, 2014;
Spreer and Kallweit, 2014). Hence, PU represents the utility value of
innovations (Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012). In contrast, PEOU is, ac­
cording to Davis (1989), the user-friendliness of a device. It refers to the
anticipated intuitivism, implying that using a specific technology will
not require cognitive effort from the user (Pantano, 2014; Spreer and
Kallweit, 2014). Previous studies (Olsson et al., 2012; Pantano and Di
Pietro, 2012; Rese et al., 2017; Spreer and Kallweit, 2014) show the
general applicability of TAM in the context of retailing and AR. Conse­
quently, the model is also eligible for our study.
However, several researchers extended the TAM with additional
constructs in order to better describe and predict the adoption behavior
of users (Rese et al., 2017). Due to the variety of different additional
variables, the models used in technology acceptance research became
very incoherent and disconnected from each other. It is, therefore,
reasonable to build an adjusted TAM based on fragments from previous
studies, which will consider the specific features of smart glasses
(Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016). Following the literature, we include
perceived informativeness (PI) as well as perceived enjoyment (PE),
which are expected to affect the technology acceptance (Rauschnabel
and Ro, 2016; Rese et al., 2017).
PE relates to the hedonic value of new technology and describes how
pleasant a subject experiences its application. It aims to explain the
intrinsic motivation of a user, which further stimulates future technol­
ogy adoption (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Pantano, 2014; Pantano and Di
Pietro, 2012). Accordingly, the extended model suggests that, next to PU
and PEOU, PE is a critical determinant for technology acceptance. In
contrast, PI focuses on the functional aspect of the augmentation and,
thus, highlights the utilitarian aspect of an innovation (Rese et al.,
2017). By including PE and PI, the model allows for testing the impact of
information transmission through smart glasses compared to the
enjoyment derived from the immersive augmentation.
To sum up, TAM is a widely used and modified framework analyzing
acceptance drivers of innovative technologies such as AR. It is consid­
ered ‘as one of the most influential extensions of the theory of reasoned
action’ (Lee et al., 2006; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016, p. 126). As such, it
is a very robust and succinct model with strong empirical foundation
and measurement property. While the original TAM is simple and clear,
modified models – such as UTAUT, UTAUT2 – became increasingly
complex and fragmented, making general conclusions difficult. Further,
TAM explains a considerable quantum of the variance in the intention to
use technology (Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016; Schierz et al., 2010).
Therefore, it is reasonable to build on previous studies and to develop a
model with the most important TAM drivers complemented with
context-specific factors for AR glasses, as suggested by Rauschnabel and
Ro (2016).
2.3. Hypothesis development
To evaluate the drivers of AR acceptance and the role of perceived
enjoyment, we propose the following conceptual framework:
Following the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), AT directly predicts
BI. The authors expect PU and PEOU, in turn, to have a significant in­
fluence on the AT. Moreover, PU is considered to influence BI not only
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259
indirectly through AT but also directly, since functional benefits were
found to directly support purchase decisions (Rauschnabel and Ro,
2016; Rese et al., 2017). Further, several studies have shown that PEOU
has a positive influence on PU. From these findings, the authors deduce
the following hypotheses for the present study:
H1a. AT towards using AR smart glasses has a positive influence on BI
to use AR smart glasses.
H1b. PU has a positive influence on AT towards using AR smart
glasses.
H1c. PU has a positive influence on BI to use the AR smart glasses.
H1d. PEOU has a positive influence on AT towards using AR smart
glasses.
H1e. PEOU has a positive influence on PU of AR smart glasses.
The TRA suggests that next to social norms AT is the only antecedent
of BI. Consequently, AT is expected to mediate the impact of other
variables on BI (Hale et al., 2002). Thus, the authors assume that AT
fully mediates the impact of PEOU and PE on BI. Several studies sug­
gested that PU also has a direct effect on BI (Rauschnabel et al., 2015;
Rese et al., 2017). Thus, the authors expect AT to mediate the impact of
PU on BI partially:
H1f. AT fully mediates the impact of PE on BI.
H1g. AT fully mediates the influence of PEOU on BI.
H1h. AT partially mediates the influence of PU on BI.
High PEOU comes along with a low level of required cognitive re­
sources. Customers expect that new technologies are more convenient
and reduce information searching efforts. As a result, straightforward
technologies make the impression of being more applicable as well as
informative. However, too complex applications will increase the search
efforts (Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012). Hence, PEOU indirectly influences
AT and BI not only through PU but also through PI (Huang and Liao,
2015; Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Rese et al., 2017).
Furthermore, research has shown a positive relationship between
PEOU and PE (Davis et al., 1992). Pantano and Servidio (2012) explain
that enjoyment is stronger when technology is easy to use. Hence, the
authors propose the following hypotheses:
H2a. PEOU has a positive influence on PI.
H2b. PEOU has a positive influence on PE.
Alongside with PU and PEOU, PE was found to have a significant
impact on AT (Davis et al., 1992; Lee et al., 2006). This impact applies
especially for purchasing processes, as the entertainment value plays a
crucial role in offline shopping environments (Kim and Forsythe, 2008;
Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012). Existing studies on AR show that the
application of such technological devices is expected to create hedonic
experiences, which have a positive impact on customers’ satisfaction
(Olsson et al., 2013; Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Rese et al., 2017).
H3a. PE has a positive influence on the AT towards using AR smart
glasses.
The variable PE describes the user’s need for entertainment and
emotional release. As such, it influences the intrinsic motivation for
deliberate and rigorous cognitive processing and, thus, the perception of
the technology’s usefulness (Ha and Stoel, 2009; Rese et al., 2017; Sun
and Zhang, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2002). Research partly describes PU
as the conclusive variable influencing the attitude towards using tech­
nology and, thus, as a mediator for the relationship between PE and AT
(Rese et al., 2017). Several studies empirically proved this relationship
and showed that PE is preceding PU, which the authors expect to apply
in this study as well (Sun and Zhang, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2002).
H3b. PE has a direct positive influence on PU.
E. Holdack et al.
AR wearables display products and their characteristics conveniently
and entertainingly. The playful presentation of information comes along
with higher hedonic value (Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012). Consequently,
the authors propose that a higher PI will positively affect PE.
Furthermore, buying decisions are often connected to risks and
doubts (Kim and Forsythe, 2008; Poushneh, 2018). During the pur­
chasing process, uncertainties arise, since customers lack sufficient in­
formation allowing them to evaluate a product and its attributes
holistically. AR devices such as smart glasses have the potential to offer
additional information, whereby they reduce uncertainties and support
the decision-making process (Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012; Poushneh,
2018; Rese et al., 2017). Hence, the authors assume that PI influences PU
of AR-glasses.
H4a. PI has a direct positive influence on PE.
H4b. PI has a direct positive influence on PU.
Previous research describes AR users as rather utilitarian and goal-
oriented. As such, they expect AR applications to offer solution-
oriented and functional benefits (Spreer and Kallweit, 2014). Rausch­
nabel and Ro, (2016) suggests further that the usefulness of smart
glasses in the current development stage is the main reason for cus­
tomers to consider the adoption. Consequently, users who perceive AR
head-mounted devices as a beneficial tool for their shopping process will
assess the technology as more expedient and, thus, have a more positive
attitude towards its usage. Finally, purchasing furniture – as in our
experiment – is a mainly goal-oriented process. Therefore, the authors
expect that users of AR glasses will focus on the performance- and
solution-oriented attributes of the device rather than on the entertain­
ment aspects and, thus, hypothesize that perceived usefulness will have
a stronger influence on AT than PE will (Childers et al., 2001):
H5. PU has a stronger influence on AT than PE.
3. Method
3.1. Study design
To test the extended TAM shown in Fig. 1, 143 visitors of a depart­
ment store in the center of a large German city were asked to participate
in a field study in November 2018. With a focus on Germany, the pre­
sented study analyzed the acceptance of actual AR wearables in a
technologically and economically advanced state with yet nearly no
market penetration and retail experiences in the field of smart glasses.
For this purpose, the authors collaborated with one of the most
frequently visited German department stores offering a vast product
assortment. Still, the decision to participate in the study may reflect an
inherent self-selection bias. However, the data collection in this exper­
imental field study provides evidence from real customers with various
demographics, whereas in other forms of experiments, younger,
technology-oriented customers might be overrepresented (Rauschnabel
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259
and Ro, 2016). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study based
on the interaction with a real wearable AR technology conducted in a
retail environment.
More specifically, the customers evaluated the experience of looking
at an armchair augmented to a physical space. The authors used a three-
dimensional virtual model of an armchair from a widely known furni­
ture store, as it consists of diverse materials with different properties
(wood and fabric), and is relatable to as many people as possible.
In order to account for the space required, the department store’s
management provided a separate area in the store. The layout of the
room was simple in order to prevent distraction. A light green floor that
optically contrasted against the dark virtual model constituted the only
deviation in color. Fig. 2 illustrates the setup of the field study and the
virtual model, as seen by the participants next to the original armchair.
The authors aligned the design of the virtual model to Microsoft
HoloLens. With the focus on wearable consumer-centric devices, the
HoloLens was the best available projection-based option concerning
realistic immersion.
3.2. Procedure of the field study
The field study followed a standard approach to usability testing
(Cockton et al., 2008; Dumas and Fox, 2008). After the recruiting pro­
cess, an instructor informed the participants about the AR study. He
adjusted the HoloLens individually to the head shape of the participants
and made them familiar with the functionality and usage of the AR
wearable. To make them acquainted with the technology, the instructor
asked the participants to walk around the hologram and look at it from
different angles and distances. After using the wearable, the participants
answered a set of questions concerning the subjective evaluation of the
wearable AR technology.
Fig. 3 displays the adjustment of the HoloLens to a participant’s head
and his actions in front of the observer screen. The onboarding and
adjustment process, as well as the technical introduction, was nearly
identical for each participant. The instructor followed a prescribed plan
of procedure and a specific dress code. By doing so, he reduced con­
founding effects that were not part of the research objective to the
maximal possible extent.
3.3. Questionnaire
The operationalization of the extended TAM model relied on the item
scales shown in Table 1. They stem from the corresponding literature for
PI, PEOU, PU, PE, AT, and BI, but also on a discussion with an expert
group with AR background.
When necessary, the researchers adjusted existing measures to the
context of AR smart glasses. The authors developed the questionnaire in
German, and three bilingual speaking persons conducted a double-blind
translation-re-translation process. Additionally, the questionnaire was
pretested with several Ph.D. students to ensure the clarity and
E. Holdack et al.
Fig. 2. Setup of the field study and virtual model next to the original product.
comprehensiveness of the item scales. Altogether, the questionnaire
consisted of three sections:
1. The item scales of the TAM model, measured on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (meaning “strongly disagree”) to 5 (meaning
“strongly agree”).
2. The demographics of the participants.
3. A free input field to add comments on the experience with the AR
technology.
3.4. Participants of the field study
An initial question during the recruiting process made sure that none
of the 143 participants had previous experiences with using smart
glasses in a retail environment. With this approach, the authors were
able to gather unbiased pre-market data. Seventeen records contained
missing values or combinations of values that appeared logically
impossible. The latter mainly occurred concerning the variable age. To
avoid sources of non-positive definite matrices, the authors conducted
Fig. 3. Adjustment of the HoloLens and participant’s actions.
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259
listwise deletion, leaving a total of n = 126 records for the analysis. Most
of the interviewees were aged between 20 and 29 (34.1%) or 30 and 39
(27.8%). Participants aged between 50 and 59 (8.7%), over 60 (6.3%),
or under 20 (6.3%) were in the minority. The sample was an approxi­
mate representation of the German department store’s customer de­
mographics, with respectively 50% of the respondents being female and
male.
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and validity of measures
Measurement validation consisted of calculating composite reli­
ability (CR), Cronbach Alpha values, average variance extracted (AVE),
and heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) to test internal consistency,
convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The six multi-item as­
pects, as described in Table 1, constituted the latent constructs. The
associated items served as measured indicator variables for jointly
testing the constructs (Appendix A).
E. Holdack et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259

Table 1 correlated variables did not substantially affect the results of the anal­
Item scales used in the experiment. ysis. In a separate model with all constructs pointing at a latent variable
Itemsa Questionsb Referencesc with a single random indicator (values varying from 0 to 1), no VIF was
equal to or greater than 3.3 (Appendix D). Although the values for BI and
Perceived informativeness (PI)
PI1 The HoloLens provides complete Adopted and revised based on the AT were close to 3.3, collinearity is not an apparent issue (Cenfetelli and
information about the furniture. scales used in Ahn et al. (2004) Basselier, 2009; Petter et al., 2007).
PI2 The HoloLens provides information Hausman and Siekpe (2009) The high inter-factor correlation between AT and BI raised the
that helps me in my buying decision. Huang and Liao (2015), Kim and concern whether participants perceived them as two different aspects of
PI3 The HoloLens provides information Forsythe (2008), Rese et al.
to compare products. (2017).
technology acceptance. However, when comparing the average
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) heterotrait-heteromethod correlations to the average monotrait-
PEOU1 Using the HoloLens is clear and Adopted from Huang and Liao heterotrait correlations between the constructs, almost none of the
understandable. (2015), Kim and Forsythe (2008), comparisons violated the threshold of 0.85 (Appendix C). The only
PEOU2 Using the HoloLens does not require Venkatesh et al. (2002).
violating comparison – that is between AT and BI – was under the 0.90
a lot of mental effort.
PEOU3 This HoloLens is easy to use. threshold (HTMT of 0.868) (Henseler et al., 2015). Additionally,
PEOU4 I would find it easy to get the comparing the AVE estimates with the squared correlation estimates
HoloLens to do what I want it to do. between the constructs suggested that respondents indeed made dis­
Perceived usefulness (PU) tinctions between AT, BI, and the other constructs (Appendix B). These
PU1 If I want to buy furniture, I could Adopted and revised based on the
accomplish just what I might need scales used in Rese et al. (2017),
differentiations are advantageous for examining two of the main aspects
with the HoloLens. Venkatesh et al. (2002), of the technology acceptance model. That is the impact of PI, PEOU, PU,
PU2 Shopping with the HoloLens would Venkatesh et al. (2003). and PE on AT and BI. In conclusion, the measurement model fits the
make my life easier. observed data well. The fit indices supported convergent and discrimi­
PU3 The HoloLens would make shopping
nant validity for most constructs.
more productive.
PU4 The HoloLens would improve my
shopping ability.
PU5 With the HoloLens, I couldn’t get the 4.2. Structural model evaluation
product presentation that I need.
Perceived enjoyment (PE)
After the initial assessment of the measurement model, the authors
PE1 Shopping with HoloLens is fun for its Adopted from Huang and Liao
own sake. (2015), Kim and Forsythe (2008). conducted structure equation modeling (SEM) and tested the proposed
PE2 Shopping with HoloLens makes me paths by maximum likelihood estimation. The authors used STATA v15
feel good. (Stata-Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) for this procedure. Besides, the
PE3 Shopping with HoloLens would be
comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual
boring.
PE4 Shopping with HoloLens is exciting.
(SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) served
PE5 Shopping with HoloLens is to evaluate the model. A bootstrapping procedure with 5000 re-samples
enjoyable. made it possible to assess the indirect effects. In particular, it examined
PE6 Shopping with HoloLens is the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effects (MacKinnon
interesting.
et al., 2004). The direct relationships are displayed in Fig. 2, while a
Attitude toward using (AT)
AT1 In my opinion, using the HoloLens is Adopted and revised based on the detailed breakdown of direct and indirect relationships can be found in
a good idea. scales used in Venkatesh et al. Appendix A. Fit measures showed an acceptable model fit, according to
AT2 Altogether, I like shopping with the (2003) the threshold suggested in the literature (CFI = 0.942, SRMR = 0.071,
HoloLens.
and RMSEA = 0.053).
Behavioral intention to use (BI)
BI1 I will use the HoloLens in the future. Adopted and revised based on the
The research results indicate that TAM offers valuable insights to
BI2 I will recommend using the scales used in Rese et al. (2017) explain the determinants, which influence users’ AT and BI to use AR
HoloLens. Ahn et al. (2004), Rese et al. wearables in the future. The final model explained a substantial amount
BI3 Using the HoloLens in the future is (2017) of variance for BI (R2 = .874), AT (R2 = .793), PU (R2 = .579), PE
important to me.
(R2 = .299), and PI (R2 = .062). Table 2 displays the results of the
Notes: regression analysis:
a
All items were measured on a 5 point Likert scale anchored from 1 (strongly We found AT to have a significant influence on BI (H1a; β = 1.121, p
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). < .001). In contrast, the relationship between PU and BI was not sig­
b
The final wording was discussed with an expert group with AR background.
c nificant (H1c; β = − 0.157, p > .05). However, there was a highly sig­
Includes only studies with independent and dependent variables similar to
nificant direct relationship between PU and AT (β = 0.399, p < .001).
the ones examined in this paper.
Therefore, our model led to the acceptance of H1b, which is an essential
component of the original TAM. The direct relationship between PEOU
Concerning convergent validity, all estimated factor loadings were
and AT was not significant (β = 0.095, p > .05). Although PU is
statistically significant, and all standardized loadings exceeded 0.5,
considered as the main explanation of the process between PEOU and AT
except one. The AVE for all constructs exceeded 0.5, except PU (AVE of
(Huang and Liao, 2015; Rese et al., 2017), there was no significant direct
0.487). With 0.508, PE had the second-lowest AVE. Removing the items
effect of PEOU on PU (β = − 0.029, p > .05). Hence, our model assess­
PU3, PU5, PE3, and PE6 improved the AVE for both PU (0.533) and PE
ment led to the rejection of H1d and H1e. While having no direct in­
(0.541). When consulting the composite reliability (CR), scores above
fluence on PU, PEOU significantly influenced PI (β = 0.354, p < .05) and
0.7 for all constructs further supported convergent validity. Cronbach
PE (β = 0.266, p < .01), which led to the acceptance of H2a and H2b. PI,
alphas, which are all greater than 0.7, additionally supported the
in turn, directly predicted PU (H4b; β = 0.612, p < .001) and PE (H4a; β
impression that the construct measures for PI, PEOU, PU (α = 0.725), PE,
= 0.267, p < .001). Moreover, PE had a positive direct influence on PU
AT, and BI are internally consistent (Taber, 2018).
(H3b; β = 0.401, p < .001) and AT (H3a; β = 0.762, p < .001). A
Correlations between constructs, which will serve as model vari­
comparison of the standard regression weights showed that PE (βstd =
ables, indicate potential multicollinearity (Appendix B). However, with
0.544) had a stronger direct effect on AT compared to PU (βstd = 0.434),
3.76, the highest variance inflation factor (VIF) was found for AT as an
which led to the rejection of H5. None of the control variables, personal
exogenous variable for BI (Table 2). Moreover, removing one of the
innovativeness (β = 0.008, p > .05), gender (β = − 0.039, p > .05), age

6
E. Holdack et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259

Table 2
Direct effects.
Name Effect Standardized regression weighta Regression weighta Standard error Variance inflation factor (VIF) Evaluation

H1a AT→BI 1.048 1.121*** .194 3.76 Supported

H1b PU→AT .434 .399*** .104 1.90 Supported
H1c PU→BI -.159 -.157 .157 3.76 Not supported
H1d: PEOU→AT .072 .095 .099 1.21 Not supported
H1e: PEOU→PU -.019 -.029 .133 1.22 Not supported

H2a PEOU→PI .249 .354* .151 1.00 Supported

H2b PEOU→PE .283 .266** .100 1.09 Supported
H3a PE→AT .544 .762*** .181 2.11 Supported
H3b PE→PU .263 .401*** .171 1.57 Supported
H4a PI→PE .403 .267*** .074 1.09 Supported
H4b PI→PU .607 .612*** .119 1.41 Supported

Control Inno→AT .001 .008 .323 – –

Control Gender→AT -.039 -.061 .100 – –
Control Age→AT .007 .001 .004 – –
Control Edu→AT .041 .013 .019 – –

Notes:
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (N = 126).
Model Fit Indices: χ2(195) = 265.055, p < .01; χ2/df = 1.359; CFI = 0.942, SRMR = 0.071, RMSEA = 0.053.
a
Point estimate of the specific direct effect.

(β = 0.001, p > .05), and education (β = 0.013, p > .05), had a signif­
icant effect on AT.
As displayed in Table 3, results from bootstrapping yielded signifi­
cant indirect effects of PE and PEOU on BI (CI95% for PE: 0.596, 1.345;
CI95% for PEOU: 0.237, 0.786). Both variables had no direct effect on
BI, which indicated an indirect-only mediation through AT and led to
the acceptance of H1f and H1g. Besides, PU had a significant indirect
effect on BI (CI95%: 0.135, 0.761). Other than hypothesized, this
mediation through AT was not partial as there was no significant direct
effect (H1c). Thus, H1h was only partly accepted.
As described above, there was no direct effect of PEOU on AT.
However, there was a significant indirect effect, given that the confi­
dence interval for the indirect effect exceeded zero (CI95%: 0.165,
0.650). Unexpectedly, PE and PI completely mediated the effect of PEOU
on PU (CI95%: 0.235, 0.636) since there was no direct relationship
(H1e). Moreover, there was a significant indirect relationship between
PI and PU through PE (CI95%: 0.011, 0.203). PE only partially mediated
the effect of PEOU and PI on PU as PI had a significant direct effect on PU
(H4b). However, PE explained the process of PI and PEOU towards PU
and AT to a large extend. To the best of our knowledge, the literature on
technology acceptance has not considered this mediating role of PE so
far. This finding emphasizes the power of PE to predict AT, which led to
the rejection of H5. Fig. 4 displays the final equation model:
5. Discussion
Although most researchers anticipate tremendous growth rates for
this technology in retail, the research on acceptance drivers for AR smart
glasses is scarce. AR is an immersive, interactive media, which creates an
extensive shopping experience in online and offline retailing. It enables
customers to experience products without the necessity of physical co-
presence. (Poushneh, 2018). In this context, smart glasses are of
particular interest as the product visualization is more suited to the
users’ natural field of view compared to other AR devices like smart­
phones. This natural form of augmentation generates utilitarian and
hedonic benefits, which positively affect behavioral intentions (Childers
et al., 2001).
The study at hand contributes to the discussion on AR by analyzing
the factors, which influence customers’ acceptance of AR wearables in a
retailing context. The authors extend the original TAM with context-
specific variables deduced from the individual characteristics of these
smart glasses. Namely, the use of smart glasses enhances customer ex­
periences by including additional entertainment and informational
factors. Consequently, they differ from other technologies, for which
reason the basic TAM model does not fully explain the acceptance
drivers of these wearables. Thus, the authors added the variables PI and
PE to the model based on the unique nature of AR smart glasses
(Rauschnabel and Ro, 2018).
The authors empirically tested (1) users’ perceptions of usefulness,
ease of use, enjoyment, and informativeness; (2) their impact on the
attitude towards using AR smart glasses; (3) the impact on customers’
willingness to use AR glasses in retails stores.
From a theoretical perspective, the study confirms the robustness of
the TAM constructs in the context of AR wearables, explaining

Table 3
Mediation analysis.
Effect Regression weighta Standard error Confidence intervalb Evaluation

Lower limit Upper limit

H1f: PE→BI .971*** .191 .596 1.345 Supported

H1g: PEOU→BI .511*** .140 .237 .786 Supported
H1h: PU→BI .448** .160 .135 .761 Partly supported

PEOU→AT .408*** .124 .165 .650 –

PEOU→PU .361** .112 .221 .602 –
PI→PU .107** .049 .011 .203 –
PE→AT .160* .081 .001 .320 –

Notes:
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (N = 126).
a
Point estimate of the specific indirect effect.
b
95% confidence interval, n = 5000.

7
E. Holdack et al.
Fig. 4. Structure equation model.
behavioral intentions and, thus, the technology acceptance.
The paper at hand further contributes by understanding how PI and
PE affect AT and BI towards AR wearables. The study verifies that PI and
PE positively influence AT and BI. Those customers, who experience AR
smart glasses as easy to use, informative, and enjoyable, experience it as
more useful, which, in turn, improves AT. AR wearables, therefore, have
considerable potential in retail stores, when applied in a way that cus­
tomers perceive as informative and enjoyable. Comparable to mobile AR
applications in online retailing, for AR wearables in retail stores, PI is an
antecedent of PU (Rese et al., 2017). However, in this study, PI also was
a direct predictor of PE. This finding is in line with research indicating
that a playful presentation of information comes along with higher he­
donic value (Pantano and Di Pietro, 2012).
In contrast to studies on mobile AR applications, for AR wearables
used in a retail store, PE emerges not only as a causal variable on PU but
functions as a direct predictor for AT. The effect strength of PE on AT
even exceeds PU. Enjoyment seems to play a crucial role in the accep­
tance of wearables in offline shopping environments.
Furthermore, the study at hand highlights the notable mediating role
of PE. In contrast to other studies, our empirical analysis shows that
PEOU does not affect PU and AT directly but indirectly through PE and
PI. At the same time, PE mediates the relationship between PI and PU. In
other words, with increasing user-friendliness, customers experience
smart glasses as more informative. User-friendliness and informative­
ness together then lead to more joy. Hence, customers seem to perceive
higher enjoyment for AR technologies that are easy to use and infor­
mative at the same time. Finally, this process makes smart glasses appear
more useful to retail customers, which, in turn, improves attitudes and
behavioral intentions. In contrast, the literature on non-wearable AR
devices in online retailing predominantly considers PU as a mediator for
the relationship between PEOU and AT (Rese et al., 2017).
This mediating role of PE towards PU is line with studies, indicating
that enjoyment enables deliberate cognitive processing, which comes
with increased attention, improved learning, and increased innovative
capacity (Dale, 2014; Kapp, 2012; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2018). It
strengthens the view that emotion and cognition concerning technology
usage are highly intertwined, and behavioral intentions build on com­
plex interactions within multiple affective and cognitive spheres (Pes­
soa, 2013).
The primacy of one over the other has been a topic of controversy in
research on technology acceptance for a long time. Most studies on AR
technologies underline the relevance of cognition. While the study at
hand also acknowledges the mutual dependence of cognition and
emotion, it stresses the importance of enjoyment when developing AR
applications for wearable devices.
A possible explanation for this importance is the relationship be­
tween the utilization of attentional resources and attentional focus. With
decreasing attentional resources, hedonic stimuli are more likely to
capture attentional focus (Dolan, 2002; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2018;
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259
Phelps, 2006). Studies often refer to this relationship when explaining
why customers tend to act more rational in online shopping situations
(Aragoncillo and Orús, 2018; Lindh and Lisichkova, 2017; Yeh et al.,
2007). From this perspective, it is plausible to assume an increasing
relevance of PE for attitudes towards using more immersive
technologies.
6. Managerial implications, limitations, and future research
In times of growing online sales and increasing cost pressure in retail,
shoppers will not quickly abandon the habit of experiencing products
before buying. For offline retailers, it is, therefore, important to use
visualization technologies effectively, especially, when expanding the
product range. The presented results show that customers accept AR
glasses for product display if they create enjoyable experiences. The
strong acceptance of this technology linked to enjoyment could enable
retailers to present a variety of products and products with sizes that
normally would not fit in spatially limited stores. Hence, marketers,
developers, and retailers should consider focusing on joy-related aspects
when aiming at the development of a broadly accepted software for
wearable AR devices. For an enjoyable experience, retailers should en­
gineer the product augmentation in a way that is informative and easy to
handle.
Since this study outlines the significant role of hedonic value for the
acceptance of smart glasses, future research should analyze whether
hedonic experiences with AR wearables have a significant impact not
only on the evaluation of the technology but also on the presented
products. It is conceivable that a particularly enjoyment-oriented
product presentation also stresses enjoyment-related aspects of the
product value perceived by customers.
In this context, the authors recommend considering the product
categories displayed via AR smart glasses, which may be more suitable
for hedonic products. For some product categories, retailers might
combine AR wearables with other interactive technologies, in order to
address PU of the product display in a more effective way. Defining
those product categories is another avenue for future research. With the
focus on furniture, the results of this study may not be suitable for
extrapolation to other product categories.
Besides, the paper suggests future studies to assess the strong rela­
tionship between AT and BI further. Although the factor analysis sug­
gests that respondents made distinctions between AT and the other
constructs, the inter-factor correlation between AT and BI raised the
concern whether they were perceived as two different aspects of tech­
nology acceptance (Rese et al., 2017). However, the turning sign of the
direct effect between PU and BI when adding AT as mediator rather
indicates undetected mediator variables (Zhao et al., 2010). Contrib­
uting to the research debate, whether attitude measures function as
conclusive predictors for BI, the authors recommend testing additional
predictors. Especially normative components like social norms could
E. Holdack et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259

influence the intention to use AR technologies in the future. Besides,
customer characteristics like time-conciseness and shopping motiva­
tions might affect the intention to use and the actual behavior
(Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016).
Testing AR wearables in a market with yet nearly no penetration of
smart glasses had the advantage of obtaining data from unbiased and
neutral users to the maximum possible extent. The missing market
penetration, on the other hand, led to a test situation that was restricted
to test BI. Considering the expected future diffusion of AR wearables in
the retail landscape, future studies should test whether the intention to
use AR wearables precedes actual behavior.
Concerning future behavior, the question arises, if the immersive
character of wearable AR technologies provoked the shift towards PE or
if it is rooted in the novelty of the device. This paper suggests future
research to conduct time series analysis in order to find out if this ten­
dency endures over time. Depending on the results of such an analysis,
the present study would reshape the understanding of either the
acceptance of more immersive or more novel technologies. Besides, it
would be interesting to see if the strong influence of PE holds in the
context of other immersive technologies like VR and audio interfaces.
Furthermore, the enjoyment of an interactive experience, as seen in
research on games and films, can involve both positive and negative
emotions. Future research should help in evoking specific emotions that
match the targeted cognition to achieve positive attitudes and
behavioral intentions towards using AR wearables. In general, future
studies should analyze variables that could explain more variance of PE
and PI in the context of AR glasses, like, for example, perceived
playfulness.
Additionally, we know from previous research that a positive atti­
tude towards technology has a positive impact on other relevant factors,
such as customer experience, patronage intention, loyalty, time spent in
a store, and the intention to buy more products (Peukert et al., 2019).
We assume that this relationship also applies for the context of this
study. However, future research should test these relationships for AR
glasses in retail.
In any case, the relative importance of enjoyment in the presented
study shows that a focus on the joy-related elements of augmentations is
crucial for companies for successfully implementing AR technologies in
retail, especially when it comes to wearable devices.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry for
Education and Research (BMBF).

Appendix A. Measurement validation

Items Standardized regression Regression Factor Cronbach’s Composite reliability Average var.extracted
weights weightsa alpha (CR) (AVE)

PI1 .765 1 () Perceived informativeness .857 .863 .679

PI2 .884 1.076*** (.111) (PI)
PI3 .818 .978*** (.108)

PEOU1 .782 1 () Perceived ease of use (PEOU) .779 .805 .517

PEOU2 .513 .906*** (.169)
PEOU3 .870 1.272*** (.150)
PEOU4 .660 1.053*** (.145)

PU1 .776 1 () Perceived usefulness (PU) .725 .786 .487

PU2 .724 .973*** (.140)
PU4 .687 .853*** (.112)

PE1 .615 1 () Perceived enjoyment (PE) .844 .843 .508

PE2 .820 1.339*** (.194)
PE4 .693 1.179*** (.185)
PE5 .797 1.314*** (.191)

AT1 .834 1 () Attitude towards using (AT) .743 .749 .600

AT2 .710 .912*** (.106)

BI1 .855 1 () Behavioral intention (BI) .844 .841 .639

BI2 .794 .949*** (.097)
BI3 .746 .894*** (.093)
Notes:
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (N = 126)
a
() Standard error in parenthesis

Appendix B. Inter-factor correlations, squared inter-factor correlations, and average variance extracted (AVE)

Items PI PEOU PU PE AT BI

PI .679a .062c .470c .219c .458c .247c

PEOU .249**b .517a .050c .136c .171c .10c
PU .686***b .224**b .487a .367c .613c .490c
PE .468***b .369***b .606***b .508a .630c .576c
AT .677***b .414***b .783***b .794***b .600a .869c
BI .497***b .323***b .700***b .759***b .932***b .639a
Notes:
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (N = 126).
a
Values on the diagonal for PI through BI represent the average variance extracted (AVE).
b
Below-diagonal values are inter-factor correlations.

9
E. Holdack et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259

c
Above-diagonal values are squared inter-factor correlations.
Appendix C. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of construct measurement correlations

Items PI PEOU PU PE AT BI

PI
PEOU .287
PU .224 .584
PE .374 .462 .568
AT .398 .714 .753 .774
BI .324 .512 .655 .568 .868

Appendix D. Full Collinearity Estimates

Items PI PEOU PU PE AT BI

VIF 2.93 1.25 2.94 1.88 3.23 3.27

Notes:
The VIFs shown are for all of the constructs, a random latent variable criterion with values varying between 0 and 1 was used.

References Kim, J., Forsythe, S., 2008. Adoption of Virtual Try-on technology for online apparel
shopping. J. Interact. Market. 22 (2), 45–59.
Lee, H.-H., Fiore, A.M., Kim, J., 2006. The role of the technology acceptance model in
Ahn, T., Ryu, S., Han, I., 2004. The impact of the online and offline features on the user
explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses. Int. J.
acceptance of Internet shopping malls. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 3 (4), 405–420.
Retail Distrib. Manag. 34 (8), 621–644.
Aragoncillo, L., Orús, C., 2018. Impulse buying behaviour: an online-offline comparative
Lindh, C., Lisichkova, N., 2017. Rationality versus emotionality among online shoppers:
and the impact of social media, 22 (1), 42–62.
the mediating role of experts as enhancing influencer effect on purchasing intent.
Azuma, R.T., 1997. A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual
J. Cust. Behav. 16 (4), 333–351.
Environ. 6 (4), 355–385.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Williams, J., 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect
Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R.L., van Witteloostuijn, A., 2009. From the
effect: distributions of the product of resampling methods. Multivariate Behav. Res.
Editors: student samples in international business research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 40 (3),
39 (1), 99–128.
361–364.
Martínez, H., Skournetou, D., Hyppölä, J., Laukkanen, S., Heikkilä, A., 2014. Drivers and
Bonneti, F., Warnaby, G., Quinn, L., 2018. Augmented reality and virtual reality in
bottlenecks in the adoption of augmented reality applications. J. Multimed. Theor.
physical and online retailing: a review, synthesis and research agenda. In: Jung, T.,
Appl. 2 (1), 27–44.
Dieck, M.C. (Eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Physical and Online
Mullins, J.K., Sabherwal, R., 2018. Beyond enjoyment: a cognitive-emotional perspective
Retailing: Springer International Publishing, pp. 119–132.
of gamification. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on
Cenfetelli, R.T., Basselier, G., 2009. Interpretation of formative measurement in
System Sciences, pp. 1237–1246.
information system research. MIS Q. 33 (4), 689–707.
Oh, S., Park, K., Kwon, S., So, H.-J., 2016. Designing a multi-user interactive simulation
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S., 2001. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations
using AR glasses. In: TEI ’16: Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International
for online retail shopping behavior. J. Retailing 77 (4), 511–535.
Conference, pp. 539–544.
Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., Lavery, D., 2008. Inspections-based evaluations. In: Sears, A.,
Olsson, T., Kärkkäinena, T., Lagerstama, E., Ventä-Olkkonenb, L., 2012. User evaluation
Jacko, J.A. (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals,
of mobile augmented reality. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 4 (4), 29–47.
Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Taylor and Francis Group, New
Olsson, T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., 2013. Expected
York, pp. 1171–1191.
user experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of
Dacko, S.G., 2017. Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping
shopping centres. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 17 (2), 287–304.
apps. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 243–256.
Pantano, E., 2014. Innovation drivers in retail industry. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 34 (3),
Dale, S., 2014. Gamification: making work fun, or making fun of work?, 31 (2), 82–90.
344–350.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
Pantano, E., Di Pietro, L., 2012. Understanding consumer’s acceptance of technology-
information technology. MIS Q. 13 (3), 319–340.
based innovations in retailing. J. Technol. Manag. Innovat. 7 (4), 1–19.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
Pantano, E., Naccarato, G., 2010. Entertainment in retailing: the influences of advanced
computers in the workplace 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22 (14), 1111–1132.
technologies. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 17 (3), 200–204.
Dolan, R.J., 2002. Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science 298 (5596), 1191–1194.
Pantano, E., Servidio, R., 2012. Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and
Dumas, J.S., Fox, J.E., 2008. Usability testing: current practice and future directions. In:
immersive technologies. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 19 (3), 279–286.
Sears, A., Jacko, J.A. (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook.
Pantano, E., Viassone, M., 2014. Demand pull and technology push perspective in
Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Taylor and
technology-based innovations for the points of sale: the retailers evaluation.
Francis Group, New York, pp. 1129–1149.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (1), 43–47.
Ha, S., Stoel, L., 2009. Consumer e-shopping acceptance: antecedents in a technology
Pessoa, L., 2013. The Cognitive-Emotional Brain: from Interactions to Integration. MIT
acceptance model. J. Bus. Res. 62 (5), 565–571.
press, Cambridge.
Hale, J.L., Householder, B.J., Greene, K.I., 2002. The theory of reasoned action. In:
Petter, S., Straub, D., Rai, A., 2007. Specifying formative constructs in information
Dillard, J.P., Pfau, M. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion. Development of
system research. MIS Q. 31 (4), 623–655.
Theory and Practice, second ed. ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 259–286.
Peukert, C., Pfeiffer, J., Meißner, M., Pfeiffer, T., Weinhardt, C., 2019. Shopping in
Hausman, A.V., Siekpe, J.S., 2009. The effect of web interface features on consumer
virtual reality stores: the influence of immersion on system adoption. J. Manag. Inf.
online purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 62 (1), 5–13.
Syst. 36 (3), 755–788.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
Phelps, E.A., 2006. Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala.
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57 (1), 27–53.
115–135.
Poushneh, A., 2018. Augmented reality in retail: a trade-off between user’s control of
Huang, T.-L., Liao, S., 2015. A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive
access to personal information and augmentation quality. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron. Commer. Res.
41, 169–176.
15 (2), 269–295.
Poushneh, A., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., 2017. Discernible impact of augmented reality on
Javornik, A., 2016a. ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’ Consumer affective, cognitive and
retail customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. J. Retailing
behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. J. Market. Manag. 32
Consum. Serv. 34, 229–234.
(9–10), 987–1011.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Brem, A., Ivens, B.S., 2015. Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical
Javornik, A., 2016b. Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its
results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual
media characteristics on consumer behaviour. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 30,
awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables. Comput. Hum. Behav.
252–261.
49, 635–647.
Jung, T., Chung, N., Leue, M.C., 2015. The determinants of recommendations to use
Rauschnabel, P.A., He, J., Ro, Y.K., 2018. Antecedents to the adoption of augmented
augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park, 49 (1), 75–86.
reality smart glasses: a closer look at privacy risks. J. Bus. Res. 92, 374–384.
Kapp, K.M., 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods
Rauschnabel, P.A., Ro, Y.K., 2016. Augmented reality smart glasses: an investigation of
and Strategies for Training and Education. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
technology acceptance drivers. Int. J. Technol. Market. 11 (2), 123–148.

10
E. Holdack et al.
Rese, A., Baier, D., Geyer-Schulz, A., Schreiber, S., 2017. How augmented reality apps are
accepted by consumers: a comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 306–319.
Schierz, P.G., Schilke, O., Wirtz, B.W., 2010. Understanding consumer acceptance of
mobile payment services: an empirical analysis. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 9 (3),
209–216.
Spreer, P., Kallweit, K., 2014. Augmented reality in retail: assessing the acceptance and
potential for multimedia product presentation at the PoS. SOP Trans. Market. Res. 1
(1), 23–31.
Sun, H., Zhang, P., 2008. An exploration of affect factors and their role in user
technology acceptance: mediation and causality. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 (8),
1252–1263.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 65 (2022) 102259
Taber, K.S., 2018. The use of cronbach’s AlphaWhen developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 48 (6), 1273–1296.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., Morris, M.G., 2002. User acceptance enablers in individual
decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decis. Sci. J. 33 (2),
297–316.
Yeh, L., Min-Yang Wang, E., Huang, S.-L., 2007. A study of emotional and rational
purchasing behavior for online shopping. In: Schuler, D. (Ed.), Online Communities
and Social Computing. OCSC 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4564.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 222–227.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Chen, Q., 2010. Reconsidering baron and kenny: myths and truths
about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37 (2), 197–206.