The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-3845.htm
ITP
33,4
1214
Received 9 March 2019
Revised 4 July 2019
31 August 2019
15 October 2019
Accepted 16 October 2019
Information Technology & People
Vol. 33 No. 4, 2020
pp. 1214-1234
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-3845
DOI 10.1108/ITP-02-2019-0092
Try-on experience with
augmented reality comforts
your decision
Focusing on the roles
of immersion and
psychological ownership
Hyo Kyung Song
Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design,
Seoul National University, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
Eunsoo Baek
Business Division, Institute of Textiles and Clothing,
Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, and
Ho Jung Choo
Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design,
Seoul National University, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand how augmented reality (AR) try-on experiences
facilitate consumers’ shopping decision. Focusing on the immersion and psychological ownership, the study
investigated how the properties of AR experiences (environmental embedding (EE) and simulated physical
control (SPC)) affect decision comfort.
Design/methodology/approach – This research theoretically and empirically analyzes how each property
of AR experiences affects consequential psychological states and then further increases decision comfort by
employing an existing AR try-on mobile application. A total of 99 valid responses were used for the partial
least square structural equation modeling analysis. One’s prior AR try-on experience was predicted as a
moderator and analyzed using SPSS-based PROCESS macro.
Findings – The results demonstrated that EE and SPC evoke immersion and the feeling of ownership of a
virtual product, which increased decision comfort. The moderating effect of one’s prior AR try-on experience
showed that the impact of EE and SPC on immersion was attenuated for those with prior experience. Further,
immersion mediated the effect of EE but SPC on the feeling of ownership, which corroborated the direct effect
of SPC on the feeling of ownership.
Practical implications – Firms must consider technological and user-experience features that can induce
users to perceive high levels of AR characteristics such as EE and SPC. Practitioners should develop realistic
content that can correctly place virtual products on users to enhance EE. Including more interactive features
is encouraged to provide users with a feeling of control toward the virtual product that directly leads to
ownership and positively affects decision making. Further, practitioners need to be cautious about consumers
getting used to the new technology; retailers and marketers need to focus on creating new and innovative
content to continually engage customers.
Originality/value – This study adopted EE and SPC to determine how each property of AR experience
forms the consequential psychological states, particularly depending on one’s prior experience.
Methodologically, the study provided external validity in conducting an experiment by adopting an
existing AR mobile application available in the market and employing an objective measure of respondents
(e.g. prior AR try-on experience).
Keywords Technology, Partial least squares, Methodology, Consumer behaviour, Online shopping,
E-commerce (B2B/B2C/B2G/G2C), Mobile communication, Quasi-experiment, Quantitative method,
Phenomenon, Theoretical concept
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Try-on
In 2016, the CEO of the independent Swiss watch company Formex, Raphael Granito experience with
decided to bring the company’s sales operations entirely online. The company tried to augmented
increase sales by slashing its prices in half and extending warranties by a year. However,
the company encountered a problem; customers were reluctant to make purchases before reality
they tried the products to see how they looked on their wrist. To address this, the company
turned to augmented reality (AR) and developed an application that would provide 1215
customers a “try-on” experience using their smartphone, allowing them to see how a watch
would look strapped to their wrist. As Granito noted: “Despite the many advantages of
buying a watch online, the biggest drawback so far was that customers were not able to try
them on. Even though every Formex comes with a 30-day free return policy, we found that
people are still hesitant to buy watches without having had them on their wrist. That’s
why we came up with the idea for this App” (Hills-Duty, 2017).
AR is a technology that superimposes digital content onto real surroundings. It has
transformed how consumers interact with brands and products and has revolutionized the
online shopping experience. Global Market Insights reported that the size of the AR market had
already exceeded $1bn in 2016 and is expected to double in size by 2024 (Bhutani and Bhardwaj,
2017). The vast majority of companies utilizes AR to connect with and engage their customers
(Skeldon, 2018). Leading retailers, such as IKEA and Sephora, have adopted AR technology and
developed mobile applications to enable consumers to virtually “try-out” products.
Initial applications of AR for virtual try-on services were implemented for in-store
installations, such as virtual mirrors or virtual fitting rooms (e.g. Poncin and Mimoun, 2014).
The virtual try-on technology made it possible for consumers to try different garments
without physically wearing them. However, the technology was not successfully
implemented and spread to larger markets due to limited accessibility and privacy
concerns (Sekhavat, 2017). Recent AR services have broadened access by providing
applications that can be used with consumers’ mobile devices (e.g. Hilken et al., 2017;
Poushneh, 2018; Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga, 2017; Yim et al., 2017). The strength of AR
try-on mobile applications is that they only need a smartphone to provide an enhanced
online shopping experience without requiring specialized equipment (Skeldon, 2018).
Continuous development has enabled AR try-on applications to virtually provide consumers
with opportunities to try products and view and interact with them from any angle. The
realistic look and feel of wearing the virtual product and the interactivity AR can provide
might address the limitations of online shopping and may contribute to making better
purchasing decisions.
Despite that AR try-on services have become a critical component in e-commerce,
understanding how AR try-on experiences reshape the shopping experience has been
limitedly explored (Shankar et al., 2016). The purpose of this study is to investigate how the
consumers’ AR try-on experience affects comfort in making purchase decisions, using
immersion and feeling of psychological ownership as critical predictors. Most previous
studies employed AR as a technological condition and examined interactivity, presence or
immersion as indirect rather than direct measures of the AR experience. The current study
focused on the two unique properties adopted from Hilken’s conceptualization of
AR: environmental embedding (EE) and simulated physical control (SPC). With the
perceptions of AR experiences as antecedents, the study will investigate how consumers’
subjective EE and SPC uniquely determine the consequential psychological states such as
immersion, and how one’s prior experience might influence these. Also, the study examined
the role of ownership feeling which facilitates shopping decisions by investigating how
directly or indirectly feeling of ownership is affected by EE or SPC. By testing a model
employing an existing AR try-on mobile application available in the market, this study
provides external validity and offers practitioners insights into how the utilization of an
ITP AR try-on mobile application can enhance shoppers’ experiences leading to positive
33,4 outcomes such as enhancing decision comfort for their future purchase.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the extant research on
AR, immersion, feeling of ownership and decision comfort. Hypotheses with a conceptual
model are also provided at the end of the section. Section 3 present the methodology for
testing the proposed hypotheses and Section 4 presents the results. Finally, this paper
1216 concludes with suggestions for future researchers and highlights managerial implications.

2. Literature review
2.1 Augmented reality (AR)
AR is a technology that superimposes virtual elements directly into the real environment
through a screen or projector ( Javornik, 2016; Scholz and Smith, 2016). AR embeds virtual
content into the physical environment, which is distinguished from augmented virtuality (AV )
that overlays real-world elements on virtual environments (Regenbrecht et al., 2004; Tamura
et al., 2001). Both AR and AV are categorized as mixed reality, in which real and virtual objects
are merged on the “reality–virtuality continuum” (Flavián et al., 2018; Milgram and Kishino,
1994); however, AR evokes less of a sense of presence – the sense of being elsewhere –
compared to AV. Rather, AR enhances users’ perceptual capabilities, such as sight, by
involving their senses and improving these experiences (Tussyadiah et al., 2017). AR glasses
and contact lenses, for example, are designed to maximize technological embodiment leading
to increased immersive experiences (Biocca, 1997; Flavián et al., 2018).
Although AR applications were initially developed a few decades ago, the technology
has recently received increased attention from industries and has been adopted by the
public owing to the increased ubiquity of smartphones and other smart devices
(e.g. Brengman et al., 2018). Simultaneously, rapid growth in academic research regarding
AR on smart devices has occurred over the last few years. Early studies provided insight
into user experience and acceptance of AR mobile applications (e.g. reuse intention; Kim and
Hyun, 2016). Recently, although scarce, studies regarding the effect of AR experience on
consumers’ attitudes and behaviors have increased. Particularly in the marketing and retail
sectors, interest regarding AR has been increasing because of its ability to affect consumers’
online shopping behaviors by providing realistic product experience. AR-embedded service
provides added product information and the ability to interact with products (Pantano
and Servidio, 2012), assisting consumers’ decision making (Papagiannidis et al., 2017).
AR services increase decision comfort (Hilken et al., 2017) and help reduce the uncertainty of
customers’ decision making by delivering experiential and informative benefits (Dacko,
2017). Consumer engagement ( Javornik, 2016), brand recall (Mauroner et al., 2016), product
effect, likability (Verhagen et al., 2014) and purchase impulsiveness (Verhagen et al., 2014)
are also enhanced by mobile-enabled AR services.
Despite the number of studies, there is a lack of consensus concerning how to measure
users’ AR experience. Most studies focused on the induced experience such as presence,
immersion and interactivity after the AR experience (e.g. Yim et al., 2017). While few studies
have attempted to measure the AR experience itself (e.g. Javornik, 2016; Poushneh, 2018),
their conceptualization of perceived augmentation and augmentation quality focused on
content quality rather than the users’ AR experience itself. Recently, Hilken et al. (2017)
conceptualized the AR-based service with EE and SPC. This is based on situated cognition
theory and corroborated by the manner that situated cognition enables people to link
abstract “facts” with real-time contexts and physical interactions to learn about the value of
the offering as information processing. EE is defined as “the visual integration of virtual
contents into a person’s real-world environment” (Hilken et al. 2017, p. 886). In AR try-on
contexts, EE can be described as the visual embedding of virtual products onto consumers’
bodies and viewable through the device running the application. This is a similar concept to
self-location in virtual reality. Self-location refers to one’s spatial experience of being inside a Try-on
body can also reflect the feeling that one’s body is located in an avatar’s body or in a virtual experience with
environment (Kilteni et al., 2012; Huang and Liao, 2017). Hilken et al. (2017) suggested that a augmented
person’s experience of self-location in a virtual environment might instead be described as
“object-location” in the perceptually-altered physical reality that is experienced in AR reality
contexts. Environmentally embedding a virtual offering into personally relevant contexts
(e.g. projecting a visualization of a watch on one’s wrist or makeup on one’s face) facilitates 1217
situational information processing and resolves potential uncertainty experienced by
customers. EE can also provide insights into how offerings relate to the contexts where
customers may potentially use them (Hilken et al., 2017).
SPC refers to “the ability of AR to simulate physical control over an offering as
embodiment” (Hilken et al., 2017, p. 886). Physical interaction with products is well known to
evoke certain affects, such as pleasure and enhances customers’ ability to evaluate the
offering (Grohmann et al., 2007) and is critical to the shopping experience (e.g. Peck and
Shu, 2009). The mere touching activity or even an imagery of touching is known to increase
product valuation via an increased feeling of ownership (Peck and Shu, 2009). AR try-on
experiences can provide consumers with some control over virtual products engaging the
same physical movements as they would when actually using the product (Rosa and Malter,
2003). This brings some of the sensory elements of actual product use to the online shopping
experience to help people experience the product as “real” (Hilken et al., 2017) and owned by
them (Brengman et al., 2018).
Heller et al. (2019) suggest that AR applications assist customers to offload mental imagery
by distinguishing AR configurations into imagery generation and imagery transformation
based on mental imagery account (Kosslyn et al., 2006; Pearson et al., 2015). According to
Heller et al. (2019), imagery generation through AR helps release customers from picturing
themselves trying out products by digitally generating a 3D product presentation against the
real-world background. On the other hand, imagery transformation through AR gives
customers control over the digital contents (Heller et al., 2019), offloading otherwise
cognitively-demanding visual transformations in the working memory. In the current study,
EE and SPC are technical terms to describe the activities in which the AR users engage and,
thus, are considered the necessary conditions of mental imagery: EE is the necessary
condition for imagery generation, while SPC is necessary for imagery transformation.

2.2 Immersion
In the technology literature, immersion is often used for an objective description of the
immersive properties of systems (see the “reality–virtuality continuum” by Milgram and
Kishino, 1994; Flavián et al., 2018) and is thus a quantifiable feature (Schubert et al., 2001).
The degree of immersion can vary by devices; that is, from traditional media such as
television and computer screens to sophisticated wearable devices like AR glasses.
Immersion has evolved as a concept that reflects individuals’ experience (Carù and
Cova, 2006; Jennett et al., 2008; Raptis et al., 2018; Shin, 2018). Despite the pre-embedded
technological properties, immersion is influenced by user traits and contexts and thus
redefined through user experience (Shin, 2018). Witmer and Singer (1998, p. 227) defined
“immersion as a psychological state of being enveloped by, included in, and interacting with
and an environment that provides a continuous stream of stimuli and experiences.” Immersion
is reflected by the degree of physical and mental participation (Carù and Cova, 2006) and
manifested by the extent that individuals ignore other attentional biases apart from the
activity (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000). Immersion is the actual experience of engaging in
a virtual activity, and should not be confused with cognitive absorption, a state of deep
involvement with software which is best categorized as an attitude toward technology in
general (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000; Sekhavat and Zarei, 2018).
ITP Immersion is a psychological concept that is often examined with but distinguished from
33,4 flow or presence. Presence is a perceptual illusion in which users feel as if they are in the
mediated environment (typically the virtual environment). Unlike virtual reality that
transports users to a virtual environment, AR users remain within and can see the real
world while interacting with virtual objects. Although similar, immersion is a larger concept
than presence (Lombard and Ditton, 1997), which posits that immersive experiences, such as
1218 losing one’s awareness of time and being deeply involved in activities, can occur in activities
regardless of one’s feeling of being in a different place. Flow and immersion share some
aspects, but flow differs in that it is a fleeting, optimal moment that is experienced
during immersion ( Jennett et al., 2008; Rodríguez-Ardura and Meseguer-Artola, 2018). Flow
is considered a more extreme form of immersion that can be experienced during a challenge
in which an individual feels the level of difficulty fits their particular skill and provides
achievement of a goal. Flow corresponds to a positive emotion, but immersion does not
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).

2.3 AR try-on experiences and immersion

Sekhavat (2017) classified virtual try-on systems into three types: image-based, model-based
and live AR. Image-based virtual try-on places a garment picture on the model as static
overlays (e.g. Hauswiesner et al., 2013), which was limited in that it generated arbitrary
viewing angles. Model-based virtual try-on employs a reconstructed 3D model of a user or
personalized avatar (e.g. Shin and Baytar, 2014). Live AR try-on utilizes body images
captured by multiple video cameras in a virtual fitting room and overlay the garment
images onto them in real-time. This was made possible with the advent of motion capture
tools (e.g. Microsoft Kinect). However, due to logistical limitations and privacy concerns,
virtual fitting rooms have not been accepted by the public. The Pokemon-Go game that
grabbed the attention of the public with its use of AR, and advances in mobile AR services
have expanded the possibilities of today’s virtual try-on services, and many products might
take advantage of these services in the future.
This study focuses on the AR try-on services that are provided through mobile
applications. We argue that the perceptions of EE and SPC as properties of the AR
experience evoke the experience of immersion. When consumers have AR try-on
experiences by embedding a visualized product (e.g. watch) via an AR application onto their
body in a real environment and affirm the feeling that a product is being worn on one’s
body, they will be immersed in the try-on process in a similar manner as if they had the
physical product. Consistent with virtual liminoid theory ( Jung and Pawlowski, 2014a, b)
which suggests decorating the self-body is the key to making consumers quickly immerse
themselves into the virtual context (Belk, 2014; Jung and Pawlowski, 2014a, b). Applied to
e-shopping contexts, Javornik (2016) asserted that the psychological effects of decorating
the self-body caused e-shoppers to be completely immersed in the process. In an empirical
study by Huang and Liao (2017), people became immersed particularly due to haptic
imagery and perceived a sense of self-location, after being engaged in a self-decorative
experience via AR interactive technology. As discussed earlier, the perception of EE via
visually embedding virtual products onto one’s body is similar to one’s sense of self-location
in a virtual environment. In addition, freely interacting with the visualized product gives a
feeling of physical control and is a key driver of the immersive experience (Yim et al., 2017).
In the AR try-on context, the activity of embedding the visual contents onto one’s wrist and
controlling the contents interactively is sufficient to immerse people in the try-on process.
Based on these previous findings, the following hypotheses were proposed:
H1a. EE will increase immersion into the try-on process.
H1b. SPC will increase immersion into the try-on process.
2.4 The moderating effect of prior AR try-on experience Try-on
Previous research contends that consumers’ prior experience in using a technology provides experience with
a great part of the explanation for the user experience (e.g. Moore and McElroy, 2012). augmented
AR-based retail service such as a virtual try-on is designed to help customers generate
visual imagery of a product and transform the image with touch-and-feel functions reality
(Brynjolfsson et al., 2013; Heller et al., 2019). By nature, an AR try-on service is full of
sensory information that is the core of customers’ decision making. The current study 1219
proposes one’s prior experience of AR try-on service as a moderator that may affect how the
AR experience leads to immersion.
Habituation-tedium theory (Sawyer, 1981) explains how users’ repeated exposure to, and
subsequent familiarity with, new stimuli act to exhaust any tension and uncertainty created
by the novel stimuli. Novelty is known to draw one’s attention and leads to the state of being
engrossed (Kover and William, 1993; Lang, 2000; Thorson and Lang, 1992). The novelty effect
is more salient when it comes to a sensory stimulus (e.g. sound and scene; Easterbrook, 1959),
in which people’s cognitive flow is shaken, leading to a high level of arousal. While unexpected
or unusual stimuli direct people’s attention to concentrate on an unusual stimulus and ignore
other stimuli, people are likely to experience low levels of arousal and low selectivity or low
attention once things become familiar (Easterbrook, 1959). Applied to a new, innovative
technology, this novelty effect is diminished with repeated experience of that technology as a
result of increased habituation (Sawyer, 1981; Tellis, 1997).
Because an individual’s familiarity is based on whether the individual has experience
with the stimulus (Kent and Allen, 1994), we assumed that whether one has a prior
experience of the AR try-on service will work as familiarity and expected that virtual try-on
is a relatively novel experience for those without prior experience, while it may not be so
novel for those familiar with the experience. Based on the findings of Yim et al. (2017) that
AR medium familiarity reduced people’s motivation to be mentally immersed during the AR
experience, we posit that the effect of EE and SPC on immersion will be attenuated for
people with prior experience compared to those without. Therefore, the following
hypotheses were proposed:
H1c. The positive effect of EE on immersion will be attenuated for individuals with prior
AR try-on experiences.
H1d. The positive effect of SPC on immersion will be attenuated for individuals with
prior AR try-on experiences.

2.5 Feeling of psychological ownership

Pierce et al. (2003) defined psychological ownership (or perceived ownership) as a feeling of
possession toward a certain object or as a sense of “mine.” Psychological ownership can
arise independent of personal and legal ownership (Pierce et al., 1991). It has been studied in
various contexts, such as child development (e.g. Furby, 1980) and organizational behavior
(e.g. Pierce et al., 2001). In marketing literature, psychological ownership has received
considerable attention along with the endowment effect; that is, people highly evaluate an
object and become reluctant to simply give it up after psychologically owning it (Kahneman
et al., 1990). Several studies have confirmed that psychological ownership is an antecedent of
many positive consumer outcomes (e.g. Fuchs et al., 2010; Shu and Peck, 2011), such as word
of mouth (Kirk et al., 2015) and purchase intention (Brengman et al., 2018; Spears and
Yazdanparast, 2014).
Psychological ownership consists of three key experiences: controlling the target,
intimately knowing the target and investing the self into the target (Pierce et al., 2003).
Research has shown the mere act of touching (Peck and Shu, 2009; Shu and Peck, 2011)
ITP or even mental imagery of touching the product reported an increased sense of ownership
33,4 (Peck et al., 2013) because they experienced physical control. Recent research has applied the
impact of touch on perceived ownership into the AR context and has claimed that
interacting with a product over AR compared with mobile phones or laptop screens led to
higher psychological ownership (Brengman et al., 2018). Brengman et al. (2018) conjectured
that virtually touching a product via AR can increase perceived ownership; however, they
1220 have yet to empirically address this.
This study posits that immersion will play a mediating role in the relationship between the
augmentation of a product and a feeling of ownership. Immersion increases para-authentic
product experience, which is the sense of experiencing virtual products as real (Lee, 2004).
Previous studies have suggested that immersion mediates the association between
technological experience and positive experiences (Rudd et al., 2012; Schuemie et al., 2001;
Yim et al., 2017). For example, immersion induced by interacting within a virtual environment
positively affects satisfaction and loyalty in the virtual environment (Hudson et al., 2019) and
the enjoyment of an experience (Yim et al., 2017). The way immersion is experienced with
physical and mental participation (Carù and Cova, 2006), and manifested by the degree that
people ignore other attentional biases apart from the activity (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000),
can also partly explain the mechanism of psychosocial ownership in investing the self into the
target (Pierce et al., 2003). Indeed, Avery et al. (2012) showed that individuals dedicate time,
physical effort and “mental energy” toward a target object when they experience engagement
with that object. Similarly, consumers reported increased feeling of ownership toward a
product when they spent resources and energy in processes related to the product (Kamleitner
and Erki, 2013). Pierce et al. (2003) also demonstrated that the engagement of a self into a
target leads the self to become one with the target object, thereby facilitating the development
of feeling of ownership toward that object. Immersive experience has been shown to be one of
the most critical precedents of psychological ownership of game avatars in a game context
(Moon et al., 2013). Based on previous findings, this study argues that immersion will enhance
feeling of ownership:
H2. Immersion will have a positive effect on feeling ownership of a virtual product.

2.6 Decision comfort

Decision comfort is defined as the degree that consumers are satisfied and feel at ease with a
specific decision, which was introduced as a critical factor of consumer experience
(Parker et al., 2016). Decision comfort consists of affective responses that are soft and
positive and lead to customers’ overall evaluations of the decision process and reach beyond
generic affect or confidence in decision making (Hilken et al., 2017). Decision comfort is
particularly meaningful to explain users’ attitudes and behaviors toward AR try-on
experiences (Heller et al., 2019). The primary purpose of providing AR try-on applications
for retailers is to reduce cognitive costs by increasing realism, thereby making online
customers feel more at ease with purchase decision (Schubert and Koole, 2009).
Since decision comfort was first introduced by Parker et al. (2016), several studies of virtual
AR try-on technology have adopted the variable into their research (e.g. Heller et al., 2019;
Hilken et al., 2017). Adopting decision comfort into the virtual try-on contexts seems suitable
considering that the predominant experiences of AR are affect-driven (e.g. presence).
In contrast to decision confidence, which is more affected by factors that are more objective
and cognition-based, decision comfort is more sensitive to factors that are affect-relevant
(Broniarczyk and Griffin, 2014; Parker et al. 2016).
Previous research has shown that the use of AR try-on for shopping not only
increases experiential benefits but also reduces decision uncertainty (Dacko, 2017; Hilken
et al., 2017). A virtual try-on experience using AR can provide a quicker and more intuitive
understanding of product information with ease of interpretation (Heller et al., 2019). It is Try-on
known that a reality-like firsthand experience of virtual offerings allows customers to feel at experience with
ease and reduces the cognitive cost. In line with the past findings, we also believe that try-on augmented
experiences can make online customers feel more comfortable in their future purchases.
Particularly, this study examines how feeling of ownership increases decision comfort. reality
While Hilken et al. (2017) found feeling of ownership increased hedonic value, this study
extends the finding by positing that feeling of ownership will have a positive impact on 1221
decision comfort. It is believed that consumers will find it more comfortable to make a
purchasing decision regarding the product because they experience a feeling of ownership
after they interact via AR, which is consistent with the endowment effect that people ascribe
more value to a thing they once own (Kahneman et al., 1990). Therefore, the following
hypothesis was posited:
H3. The feeling of ownership of a product will increase comfort toward purchasing
the product.
Overall, Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework of the research.

3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
Participants of a university in Seoul, South Korea were recruited via an on-campus online
community and on-campus bulletin board announcement. The rationale for recruiting
college students as participants is that they are more open to innovative technologies
compared with other age groups (Wang et al., 2014). This attribute renders the sample
homogenous concerning their general attitude toward a comparatively new technology like
AR, thereby providing reliable results on the hypothesized path relationships.
Respondents voluntarily participated in the experiment with small monetary
compensation of KRW 5,000 (about $4.46). The experiment was conducted in a controlled
laboratory, in which an experimenter facilitated the procedure. A total of 100 respondents
were recruited, and 99 remained after excluding one incomplete response. Participants’
mean age was 24.21 (SD ¼ 4.31) years, and 49.5 percent were women. Undergraduate
students comprised 60.6 percent, and the rest were graduate students.

3.2 Stimuli and procedure

A watch was selected for the AR try-on experience because it has no sex bias and is an
ageless fashion product. We adopted an existing AR try-on application (www.formex
watch.com) as the stimulus. Formex is a Swiss watch company who developed this AR
application to provide customers a try-on experience of their offerings as it recently
transformed into an online business. The application allows consumers to view how a
watch would look when strapped to their wrist by providing various functions such as
changing straps and snapping pictures of the watches. Users can select up to three

Prior
experience

Interaction with the

product via AR
Environmental
embedding (EE)
Immersion Feeling of Decision
ownership comfort
Simulated physical Figure 1.
control (SPC) Theoretical model
ITP designs and zoom in and out to observe the details of the materials and design, thereby
33,4 providing a realistic inspection. Figure 2 illustrates the three selected designs and
superimposed image over the wrist of an experimenter.
Each session involved one participant and one experimenter. The experiment followed
a protocol (see Figure 3), with mobile phones for the software and paper straps prepared
in advance. Upon arrival, a participant was seated, informed of the study purpose and
1222 asked to complete the consent form. After a brief introduction to the experiment,
participants were asked to imagine themselves in a shopping situation for a watch.
Detailed instruction was provided as follows: wear the paper strap comfortably; run the
app and click try-on after selecting one of the three watches provided; try different
designs of watch, choose the best one for you, and evaluate how the selected watch is
placed onto your wrist; explore design details such as materials and color by zooming in
and out; select straps for the chosen watch; and proceed to purchase if desired. Otherwise,
take a picture and save it to your account. Participants were told to spend as much time as
needed and to let the experimenter know when they finished. Then, participants
completed the other questionnaires.

3.3 Measurement
EE was measured with two items from Hung et al. (2017) and Hilken et al. (2017). SPC was
measured with three items from Peck et al. (2013) and Hilken et al. (2017). Additionally,
psychological ownership was measured using three items that were adopted from Peck and Shu
(2009). Immersion was measured with three items from Jennett et al.’s (2008) scale. For decision
comfort, five items from Parker et al. (2016) were adopted. All items were measured on a seven-
point Likert scale anchored from 1 ¼ not at all (strongly disagree) to 7 ¼ a lot (strongly agree).
The prior experience of AR try-on was measured with a binary scale where 1 ¼ yes or 2 ¼ no.
A description of each item is provided in Table I, and each had adequate to excellent reliability.

Figure 2.
The sample
images of the
experimental stimuli

1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 3.
A visualized protocol
of the AR experience
used in the
experiment
Factor Items FL AVE CR
Try-on
experience with
Environmental While I was using this augmented reality service 0.829 0.906 augmented
embedding (α ¼ 0.794) I was able to see how the watch looked on my wrist 0.919
I felt like I wore this watch on my wrist 0.902 reality
Simulated physical While I was using this augmented reality service 0.676 0.862
control (α ¼ 0.757) I was able to move the watch around 0.749
It was easy to control 0.884 1223
I had physical control over it 0.828
Immersion (α ¼ 0.950) While I was using this augmented reality service 0.909 0.968
I was absorbed in what I was doing 0.928
I was immersed in the task that I was performing 0.975
I felt completely immersed 0.957
Feeling of ownership While I was using this augmented reality service 0.935 0.977
(α ¼ 0.965) I felt like this is my watch 0.967
I felt a very high degree of personal ownership of the watch 0.977
I feel like I own this watch 0.956
Decision comfort When I make a purchase 0.729 0.915
(α ¼ 0.876) I am comfortable with choosing this watch 0.861
I feel good about choosing this watch 0.835
Whether or not it is “the best choice.” I am okay with 0.808
choosing this watch
Although I do not know if this watch is the best, I feel 0.908 Table I.
perfectly comfortable with the choice I made Measurement
Notes: FL, factor loading; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability assessment

3.4 Common method bias

Data from a self-reported survey that were collected at the same points in time suffer
from common method bias (Malhotra et al., 2006). To address this issue, Harman’s
single-factor test for the proposed model was conducted (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986)
using SPSS (IBM Corp., 2017). This test detects a common-method problem when a single
unrotated factor solution from the exploratory factor analysis accounts for most of the
covariance among the measures. The results showed that the first factor accounted for
less than 50 percent of the variation in the data (42.96 percent). This indicates that the
common-method variance does not seem to pose a major threat in this study; thus,
hypotheses testing commenced.

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model assessment
Using SmartPLS, the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modeling
(SEM) was employed to test the measurement model. PLS-SEM is a component-based
approach that can be used to predict key target variables (Hair et al., 2011). Unlike the
covariance-based SEM approach, PLS-SEM can forego distributional assumptions and large
sample sizes (Hair et al., 2011).
To affirm that our sample size was adequate for the analyses used, G*Power 3.1 software
(Faul et al. 2009) was used to conduct power analysis. G*Power is a tool to compute statistical
power analysis for statistical tests including t-test, F-test, etc. (Faul et al., 2009). As proposed
by Cohen et al. (1983) for F-tests, the effect size f² was set as 0.15, α error probability as 0.05,
Power (1−β error probability) as 0.80 and the number of tested predictors as 2 (as the greatest
number of paths that an exogenous variable receives is two). The result shows that our
analysis would require a sample size of 68. We exceeded these thresholds with our actual
sample size of 99, ensuring that our analyses were adequately powered.
ITP The measurement model was examined for composite reliability, construct validity of
33,4 measurement scales and discriminant validity. Individual composite reliability represents the
shared variance among a set of observed variables that measure an underlying construct
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Convergent validity indicates the extent that a set of items
represents one and the same underlying construct. The average variance extracted (AVE) can
be used as a criterion of convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). For each construct, all
1224 composite reliability values exceeded 0.7, and the AVE was above 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
These results thus establish sufficient convergent validity (Table I). Convergent validity is
also demonstrated by the large and significant standardized loadings of each item on its
intended construct. All standardized loadings of each item were significant and larger than
0.7; thus, convergent validity was established. Concerning internal consistency reliability,
Cronbach’s αs were above the recommended level of 0.7 for all constructs (Nunnally, 1978).
Discriminant validity indicates the extent that a given construct differs from other
constructs. In this study, discriminant validity was assessed by the Fornell–Larker and
heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) criteria. For the Fornell–Larker criterion, the square root of the
AVE was computed for each construct. Discriminant validity is established when the diagonal
elements are substantially greater than the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and
columns (Roldán and Sánchez-Franco, 2012). As illustrated in Table II, all reflective constructs
satisfied this condition. Regarding the HTMT criterion, the HTMT ratio (Henseler et al., 2015)
was applied. In this analysis (Table III), the obtained values were compared to a predefined
threshold, whose value was 0.85 (most conservative; Henseler et al., 2015). Evidence validates
that the internal validity of the measurement model is adequate because the values for the
constructs are lower than the most conservative criterion. In sum, examining the psychometric
properties of the scale reveals unidimensionality and conceptual consistency.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

4.2.1 Path relationships. The structural model was used to assess explanatory power (R2),
cross-validated redundancy index (Q2) for model quality and standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) for model fit (Henseler et al., 2016). The model had a satisfactory fit with an
SRMR value of 0.067, where a value of less than 0.1 (Hair et al., 2011) or 0.08 in a
conservative view (Hu and Bentler, 1998) is considered a good fit. The significance of the
path coefficients of the research model was tested using a bootstrapping procedure

EE SPC Immersion Feeling ownership Decision comfort

EE 0.910
SPC 0.505 0.822
Immersion 0.666 0.506 0.953
Table II. Feeling ownership 0.641 0.541 0.607 0.967
Discriminant validity: Decision comfort 0.531 0.519 0.528 0.648 0.854
Fornell–Larker Notes: Diagonal elements (italic) are the square root of variance shared between constructs and their
criterion measures (AVE). Off-diagonal elements indicate correlations among constructs

EE SPC Immersion Feeling ownership

SPC 0.645
Table III. Immersion 0.762 0.597
Discriminant validity: Feeling ownership 0.733 0.633 0.634
HTMT ratio Decision comfort 0.628 0.634 0.576 0.704
with 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., 2011) and 95% confidence interval (Chin, 2001; Table IV Try-on
and Figure 4). Results verify that all direct paths of the hypotheses in the model were experience with
supported with high path coefficients and t-values. Specifically, the AR experiences – EE augmented
and SPC – had significant effects on immersion, which supports H1a and H1b. Immersion
was positively related to feeling of ownership (H2), which led to an increase in decision reality
comfort, which supports H3.
To test the mediating effect of immersion between EE and feeling of ownership and between 1225
SPC and feeling of ownership, the indirect effects of EE and SPC on feeling of ownership were
examined. Results revealed that immersion is a partial mediator for the effect of EE on
psychological ownership (effect: 0.139, p ¼ 0.034) but not for the effect of SPC on psychological
ownership (effect: 0.058, p ¼ 0.123) (see Table V ). Based on the guidelines of Hair et al. (2011), the
28.2 percent variance accounted for (VAF) indicates that the effect of EE on feeling
of ownership was partially mediated by immersion (VAFo20 percent: no mediation,
20~80 percent: partial mediation,W80 percent: full mediation). In fact, the result shows that
psychological ownership could be formed directly by the two AR experiences of EE (b ¼ 0.354,
po0.01) and SPC (b ¼ 0.234, po0.05) without the mediating role of immersion.

Percentile 95% bias Hypothesis

Hypothesis (direct effects) Direct effect t-value (bootstrap) corrected (CI) validation

H1a EE → Immersion 0.550 6.399*** (0.377, 0.715) Supported

H1b SPC → Immersion 0.228 2.334* (0.036, 0.416) Supported
H2 Immersion → Ownership 0.253 2.323* (0.025, 0.460) Supported Table IV.
H3 Ownership → DC 0.648 10.295*** (0.504, 0.750) Supported Hypotheses, path
Notes: EE, environmental embedding; SPC, simulated physical control; DC, decision comfort. *p o 005; coefficients
**p o0.01; ***p o0.001 and results

0.919 immers1 immers2 immers3

embed1
Environmental 0.928 0.975 0.957
embed2 Embedding 0.354** 0.861
dc1
0.902

0.550*** 0.648***
0.835
0.253* Feelings of Decision dc2
Immersion
ownership comfort
spc1 0.749 0.228* 0.808
dc3 Figure 4.
Simulated
The research model,
0.977 0.956 dc4
0.234*
0.884 0.967
spc2 Physical
0.908
showing standardized
Control own1 own1 own1 regression weights
spc3 0.828
obtained through
PLS-SEM modeling
Notes: *p < 005; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Indirect effects Original sample Sample mean SD t-value p-value

EE → Ownership → DC 0.230 0.227 0.087 2.650 0.008

EE → Immersion → Ownership → DC 0.090 0.092 0.044 2.061 0.039
SPC → Immersion → Ownership→ DC 0.037 0.038 0.025 1.514 0.130
SPC → Ownership → DC 0.152 0.156 0.064 2.360 0.018
EE → Immersion → Ownership 0.139 0.140 0.066 2.119 0.034 Table V.
SPC → Immersion → Ownership 0.058 0.059 0.037 1.543 0.123 Significance of the
Notes: EE, environmental embedding; SPC, simulated physical control; DC, decision comfort indirect effects
ITP The quality of the model was assessed using the coefficient of determination (R2)
33,4 that represents the amount of explained variance of each endogenous latent variable
(Hair et al., 2011). The R2 value of decision comfort suggested that 42.1 percent of the
changes in this component can be predicted through the feeling of ownership; 50.7 percent in
the feeling of ownership by EE, SPC, and immersion; and 48.2 percent in immersion by EE
and SPC. The predictive accuracy of a model was also assessed by computing the
1226 cross-validated redundancy index (i.e. Stone–Geisser Q2) for the endogenous variables.
Q2 values of 0.283, 0.407 and 0.438 for decision comfort, immersion and feeling of ownership,
respectively, indicate the positive predictive relevance of the model (Chin, 2001).
4.2.2 Moderation effect of prior try-on experience on immersion. The moderating effect of
prior experience on the relationship between the AR experiences (EE and SPC) and immersion
was examined using PROCESS SPSS Macro (Model 1, n ¼ 5,000 resamples; Hayes, 2017). Two
separate regression analyses were conducted with EE and SPC as independent variables.
Results showed that the interaction between EE and prior experience was significant
(t(94) ¼ 2.03, p ¼ 0.044). Although groups with and without prior experience both reported
immersion as they experienced EE, the group without prior experience showed a stronger
impact of EE on immersion (effect: 0.9203, po0.001), compared to those with prior experience
(effect: 0.6184, po0.001; Figure 5(a)). Similarly, the impact of SPC on immersion was
moderated by prior experience using AR (t(94) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ 0.044). The impact of SPC on
immersion was stronger for those without prior experience (effect: 1.0734, po0.001) than
those with prior experience (effect: 0.5688, po0.001; Figure 5(b)).

5. Discussion
This study explored how AR try-on experience facilitates consumers’ shopping decisions.
The current findings indicate how the AR experiences, EE and SPC, evoke immersion that
leads to the feeling of ownership of a virtual product. Particularly, how one’s prior
experience of AR try-on service moderates the effect of EE and SPC on immersion was
examined. The findings showed that the impact of EE and SPC on immersion was
attenuated for those with prior experience. This is consistent with previous studies that
show users’ repeated exposure to and thereby familiarity with new stimuli exhaust tension
or uncertainty created by the novel stimuli, which leads to reduced motivation to be
mentally immersed (e.g. Sawyer, 1981; Yim et al., 2017). Further, a feeling of ownership was
increased after one experiences immersion. This is because experiencing engagement with a
virtual product (i.e. watch in the study) implies that participants invest their mental energy
toward it (Avery et al., 2012) based on psychological ownership theory (Pierce et al., 2003).
The finding is consistent with past studies that applied feeling of ownership into gaming

(a) (b)
6.50 6.50
PriorExp PriorExp
0.00: Without experience 0.00: Without experience
1.00: With experience 1.00: With experience
6.00
6.00

5.50
Immersion
Immersion

5.50
5.00
5.00
Figure 5. 4.50

The moderating effect 4.50

4.00
of prior experience on
the effect of EE (left: 3.50 4.00
(a)) and SPC (right (b))
on Immersion 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50

EE SPC
contexts (Moon et al., 2013) and showed that immersive experiences are one of the most Try-on
critical precedents of psychological ownership. experience with
Known as a mediating enhancer in a variety of virtual experiences that affect positive augmented
consumer evaluations (Schuemie et al., 2001; Yim et al., 2017), immersion was initially
expected to mediate both AR experiences (EE and SPC) on feeling of ownership. However, reality
the result shows that psychological ownership could be formed directly through the two AR
experiences of EE and SPC without the mediating role of immersion. Despite the existence of 1227
direct relationships of the two AR experiences (EE and SPC) on psychological ownership,
we keep immersion as the mediating mechanism in the research model. This is because
immersion, as individuals’ psychological experience, has the theoretical rigor to bridge the
gap between the users’ experiences of AR technology (EE and SPC) and their perceptions of
virtual offerings as a consequence of the AR experience. In fact, the mediating role of
immersion was significant for the effect of EE on psychological ownership, while the effect
of SPC on psychological ownership became insignificant with the inclusion of immersion as
mediator. Because feeling-of-ownership literature asserts that control is a vital component
that contributes to the experience of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001) and
induces a positive feeling of ownership (Chen et al., 2001), the current results reconfirm that
“simulated” physical control directly induces feeling of ownership.
The results support the moderating effect of prior experience using an AR application.
The impact of EE and SPC to induce immersion was found stronger for individuals without
prior experience as compared to those with experience. Because AR try-on service is full of
sensory information with visual and touch stimulations (Brynjolfsson et al., 2013;
Heller et al., 2019), the moderating role of prior experience of the try-on service could explain
the novelty effect for sensory stimulus that shows that familiarity leads to a low level of
arousal, low selectivity or low attention (Easterbrook, 1959; Sawyer, 1981). The finding of
the moderator is consistent with past studies that showed that AR medium familiarity
reduced people’s motivation to be mentally immersed during the AR experience
(Yim et al., 2017). Lastly, consistent with the endowment effect, the results support the
positive impact of a feeling of ownership on decision comfort.
This study makes two major contributions to the existing literature. First, its academic
significance is that it focuses on the evaluation of the effects of AR experience by measuring
EE and SPC. A multitude of studies has been conducted given the increasing demand in
predicting the usage of AR try-on service in the retail sector. However, most existing studies
examined the influence of AR on consumers by employing indirect measurements such as
interactivity, presence, and immersion. This is because there has yet to be a consensus on
how to measure AR-specific processes; although, augmentation quality or perceived
augmentation has been used in a few studies to address content quality ( Javornik, 2016;
Poushneh, 2018). Based on situated cognition (Hilken et al., 2017), this study adopted EE and
SPC as a direct measure of AR experience and identified the influence of the level of
perceived EE and SPC on immersion and feeling of ownership. Results affirm that increased
perceptions of EE and SPC led to higher immersion and further positive experiences
associated with the product such as feeling of ownership and decision comfort. Moreover, as
immersion varied among individuals (e.g. Miller and Bugnariu, 2016), this study confirmed
that an individual’s previous exposure to AR try-on influences their current experience.
Second, this study identified the mechanism between AR try-on experience and feeling of
ownership, with a focus on the influence of AR characteristics of providing consumers with
the ability to virtually wear the products. Findings revealed the mechanism of how
psychological ownership is induced through immersion or directly by the AR try-on
experience. Although the recent rise of AR usage in marketing has led to studies on
purchasing intentions for products experienced with AR, one that specifically verifies how
AR try-on influences psychological ownership is yet to be conducted. Brengman et al. (2018)
ITP also utilized AR, mobile phones and laptop devices in their research and confirmed that
33,4 using AR led to increased levels of reported ownership compared with other media.
However, they did not explain the underlying mechanism. This study verified immersion as
an underlying mechanism to explain how AR experiences (EE and SPC) induce
psychological ownership. The current results indicate that EE initially evokes immersion,
which leads to feeling of ownership, whereas SPC directly increased the feeling of
1228 ownership. These findings are in line with previous studies on psychological ownership,
which indicate an increase in perceived ownership through control and supplement the
results of Brengman et al. (2018). Moreover, the effect of perceived ownership on decision
comfort was supported by the endowment effect (Kahneman et al., 1990).
This study provides the following managerial implications for stakeholders in the retail
industry who aim to utilize AR in the future. First, firms must consider technological and
user-experience features that can induce users to perceive high levels of AR characteristics
such as EE and SPC. Instead of focusing on simply showcasing content, firms should
develop realistic content that can accurately identify users’ body and facial features to
correctly place virtual products on them to enhance EE. Further, high perceived levels of EE
cause consumers to get immersed with the experience. Presenting virtual products that are
of the same quality as the actual products will enable consumers to get immersed and
closely examine the features of products (e.g. texture) leading to psychological ownership. In
addition, including more interactive features is encouraged to provide users with a feeling of
control toward the virtual product as it directly leads to ownership and positively affects
decision making.
Second, the moderating effect of prior AR try-on experience on immersion suggests that
practitioners pay attention to whether users are familiar with the new technology. The
findings of the current study suggest that the AR experiences evoked weaker immersion for
those with prior experience than for those without experience. Because retailers cannot
avoid the coming prevalence of AR technology and popularization of the service, it is
recommended that the service needs to keep updated by including more novel and
innovative features to immerse the users in the experience, leading to positive consequences
such as feeling of ownership and decision comfort.
Last but not least, firms who try to move their businesses online should strongly
consider providing AR try-on services. As the CEO of Formex mentioned, online customers
are still reluctant to make a purchase without being able to try the offering. The AR try-on
services might replace frontline retail in traditional offline stores. Even without the presence
of salespeople, AR experiences can get online customers immersed, which provides them a
feeling of ownership. In fact, the service is expected to be easily generalizable considering
the customers’ easy and open access to the paper strap. By providing a virtual try-on
service, firms will benefit from customers’ higher probability to make a purchase decision
because they feel more comfortable due to the try-on experience.

6. Limitations and future research

This study had a few limitations that require consideration in future research. First, the
manipulation of the degree of AR experience, EE and SPC was constrained as the
experiments employed the AR mobile service that is currently available on the market.
Thus, this study focused on the perceptions of EE and SPC and examined their impacts on
the consequential psychological states and behaviors. Future research is encouraged to
create AR stimuli that can manipulate the level of EE and SPC so that a rigorous
examination of the interaction effect of EE and SPC on psychological ownership can be
conducted while controlling for individual differences in perceptions.
Second, the research model of the study uses decision comfort as the last predicted
variable. Previous studies emphasized the importance of decision comfort in AR try-on
contexts and demonstrating that online customers feel more at ease in the future purchasing Try-on
decision. This study is limited in that it did not provide a complete model with behavioral experience with
consequences. However, we believe that the use of decision comfort can provide benefits for augmented
securing ecological validity in the current research context, considering such stimuli as
luxury watches. That is, asking decision comfort about purchasing one of the luxury reality
watches after a mere interaction with virtual products, rather than asking purchase
intentions, would be more realistic for participants to answer. In addition, the items of 1229
decision comfort were provided on condition of the purchase situation following “when I
make a purchase” as a preamble. Based on the current research model and the findings, we
are positive that decision comfort will be able to explain purchase intentions.
Future research is encouraged to explore how online customers’ AR try-on experience
affects their purchasing decisions or willingness to pay for an unknown brand or for
different product categories.
Lastly, the current study used a relatively small sample size, but PLS-SEM is not
weakened with relatively small sample sizes compared to CB-SEM because of its non-
parametric bootstrapping approach (Chin and Newsted, 1999). Although power analysis in
G*Power corroborated that the sample size is acceptable for the current model by
conducting, the sample we used is limited to college students having a limited range of age
and occupation. While college student samples are widely used to understand general
attitudes toward a comparatively new technology like AR, it is not free from the
generalizability issue. Future research should extend the number and the range of the
respondents in terms of age, occupation, culture and other demographic variables.

References
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and
beliefs about information technology usage”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 665-694.
Avery, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. and Palanski, M.E. (2012), “Exploring the process of ethical leadership: the
mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Belk, R. (2014), “Digital consumption and the extended self”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30
Nos 11–12, pp. 1101-1118.
Bhutani, A. and Bhardwaj, B. (2017), “Augmented reality market size by component”, Global Market
Insights, December, p. 242, available at: www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/augmented-
reality-ar-market (accessed June 9, 2019).
Biocca, F. (1997), “The cyborg’s dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments”, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, Article JCMC324.
Brengman, M., Willems, K. and Van Kerrebroeck, H. (2018), “Can’t touch this: the impact of augmented
reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on perceived ownership”, Virtual Reality, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Griffin, J.G. (2014), “Decision difficulty in the age of consumer empowerment”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 608-625.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y.J. and Rahman, M.S. (2013), “Competing in the age of omnichannel retailing”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 23-29.
Carù, A. and Cova, B. (2006), “How to facilitate immersion in a consumption experience: appropriation
operations and service elements”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research
Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Chen, G.M., Lee, B.S. and Rui, O. (2001), “Foreign ownership restrictions and market segmentation in
China’s stock markets”, Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 133-155.
ITP Chin, W.W. (2001), “PLS-graph user’s guide”, CT Bauer College of Business, University of Houston.
33,4 Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using
partial least squares”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-341.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for The Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
1230 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997), Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Dacko, S.G. (2017), “Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 124, November, pp. 243-256.
Easterbrook, J.A. (1959), “Effects of emotion on cues utilization and organization of behavior”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 183-201.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. and Lang, A.-G. (2009), “Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 1149-1160.
Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. and Orús, C. (2018), “The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed
reality technologies on the customer experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 100, July,
pp. 547-560.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E. and Schreier, M. (2010), “The psychological effects of empowerment strategies
on consumers’ product demand”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Furby, L. (1980), “The origins and early development of possessive behavior”, Political Psychology,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E.R. and Sprott, D.E. (2007), “The influence of tactile input on the
evaluation of retail product offerings”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 237-245.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hauswiesner, S., Straka, M. and Reitmayr, G. (2013), “Virtual try-on through image-based rendering”,
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 1552-1565.
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Heller, J., Chylinski, M., Ruyter, K., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D. (2019), “Let me imagine that for you:
Transforming the retail frontline through augmenting customer mental imagery ability”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 94-114.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hilken, T., de Ruyter, K., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D.I. (2017), “Augmenting the eye of the
beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service
experiences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 884-905.
Hills-Duty, R. (2017), “Formex Swiss watches use AR to let customers try before they buy”, VR Focus,
August 23, available at: www.vrfocus.com/2017/08/formex-swiss-watches-use-ar-to-let-
customers-try-before-they-buy/ (accessed June 13, 2019).
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 424-453.
Huang, T.L. and Liao, S.L. (2017), “Creating e-shopping multisensory flow experience through Try-on
augmented-reality interactive technology”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 449-475. experience with
Hudson, S., Matson-Barkat, S., Pallamin, N. and Jegou, G. (2019), “With or without you? Interaction augmented
and immersion in a virtual reality experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 100, July,
pp. 459-468. reality
Hung, Y.H., Chen, C.H. and Huang, S.W. (2017), “Applying augmented reality to enhance learning: a
study of different teaching materials”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 33 No. 3, 1231
pp. 252-266.
IBM Corp (2017), IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.
Javornik, A. (2016), “Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media
characteristics on consumer behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, May,
pp. 252-261.
Jennett, C., Cox, A.L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T. and Walton, A. (2008), “Measuring and
defining the experience of immersion in games”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 641-661.
Jung, Y. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2014a), “Virtual goods, real goals: exploring means-end goal structures of
consumers in social virtual worlds”, Information & Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 520-531.
Jung, Y. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2014b), “Understanding consumption in social virtual worlds: a
sensemaking perspective on the consumption of virtual goods”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2231-2238.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1990), “Experimental tests of the endowment effect and
the Coase theorem”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98 No. 6, pp. 1325-1348.
Kamleitner, B. and Erki, B. (2013), “Payment method and perceptions of ownership”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Kent, R.J. and Allen, C.T. (1994), “Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising:
the role of brand familiarity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 97-105.
Kilteni, K., Groten, R. and Slater, M. (2012), “The sense of embodiment in virtual reality”, Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 373-387.
Kim, H.C. and Hyun, M.Y. (2016), “Predicting the use of smartphone-based augmented reality (AR):
does telepresence really help?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59, June, pp. 28-38.
Kirk, C.P., McSherry, B. and Swain, S.D. (2015), “Investing the self: the effect of nonconscious goals on
investor psychological ownership and word-of-mouth intentions”, Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Economics, Vol. 58, October, pp. 186-194.
Kosslyn, S.M., Thompson, W.L. and Ganis, G. (2006), The Case for Mental Imagery, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Kover, A.J. and William, L.J. (1993), “When do advertising ‘power words’ work? An examination of
congruence and satiation”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 32-39.
Lang, A. (2000), “The limited capacity model of mediated message processing”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 46-70.
Lee, K.M. (2004), “Why presence occurs: evolutionary psychology, media equation, and presence”,
Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 494-505.
Lombard, M. and Ditton, T. (1997), “At the heart of it all: the concept of presence”, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, Article JCMC321.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in IS research: a comparison
of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52
No. 12, pp. 1865-1883.
Mauroner, O., Le, L. and Best, S. (2016), “Augmented reality in advertising and brand communication:
an experimental study”, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic,
Business and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 422-425.
ITP Milgram, P. and Kishino, F. (1994), “A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays”, IEICE Transactions
33,4 on Information and Systems, Vol. 77 No. 12, pp. 1321-1329.
Miller, H.L. and Bugnariu, N.L. (2016), “Level of immersion in virtual environments impacts the ability
to assess and teach social skills in autism spectrum disorder”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 246-256.
Moon, J., Hossain, M.D., Sanders, G.L., Garrity, E.J. and Jo, S. (2013), “Player commitment to massively
multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs): an integrated model”, International Journal
1232 of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 7-38.
Moore, K. and McElroy, J.C. (2012), “The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and
regret”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 267-274.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pantano, E. and Servidio, R. (2012), “Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and immersive
technologies”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 279-286.
Papagiannidis, S., Pantano, E., See-To, E.W., Dennis, C. and Bourlakis, M. (2017), “To immerse or not?
Experimenting with two virtual retail environments”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 163-188.
Parker, J.R., Lehmann, D.R. and Xie, Y. (2016), “Decision comfort”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 113-133.
Pearson, J., Naselaris, T., Holmes, E.A. and Kosslyn, S.M. (2015), “Mental imagery: functional
mechanisms and clinical applications”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 590-602.
Peck, J. and Shu, S.B. (2009), “The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 434-447.
Peck, J., Barger, V.A. and Webb, A. (2013), “In search of a surrogate for touch: the effect of haptic
imagery on perceived ownership”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 189-196.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2001), “Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 298-310.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2003), “The state of psychological ownership: integrating and
extending a century of research”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84-107.
Pierce, J.L., Rubenfeld, S.A. and Morgan, S. (1991), “Employee ownership: a conceptual model of process
and effects”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 121-144.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Poncin, I. and Mimoun, M.S.B. (2014), “The impact of ‘e-atmospherics’ on physical stores”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 851-859.
Poushneh, A. (2018), “Augmented reality in retail: a trade-off between user’s control of access to
personal information and augmentation quality”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 41, March, pp. 169-176.
Poushneh, A. and Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. (2017), “Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail
customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 34, January, pp. 229-234.
Raptis, G.E., Fidas, C. and Avouris, N. (2018), “Effects of mixed-reality on players’ behaviour and
immersion in a cultural tourism game: a cognitive processing perspective”, International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 114, June, pp. 69-79.
Regenbrecht, H., Lum, T., Kohler, P., Ott, C., Wagner, M., Wilke, W. and Mueller, E. (2004), “Using
augmented virtuality for remote collaboration”, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 338-354.
Rodríguez-Ardura, I. and Meseguer-Artola, A. (2018), “Imagine, feel ‘there’, and flow! immersive
experiences on m-Facebook, and their affective and behavioural effects”, Information
Technology & People, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 921-947, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-20
17-0358
Roldán, J.L. and Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2012), “Variance-based structural equation modeling: guidelines Try-on
for using partial least squares in information systems research”, in Mora, M., Gelman, O., experience with
Steenkamp, A. and Raisinghani, M. (Eds), Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies
in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems, IGI Global, pp. 193-221. augmented
Rosa, J.A. and Malter, A.J. (2003), “E-(embodied) knowledge and e-commerce: how physiological factors reality
affect online sales of experiential products”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Rudd, M., Vohs, K.D. and Aaker, J. (2012), “Awe expands people’s perception of time, alters decision 1233
making, and enhances well-being”, Psychological Science, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1130-1136.
Sawyer, A. (1981), “Repetition, cognitive responses and persuasion”, in Ostrom, T., Petty, R. and
Brock, T. (Eds), Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 237-262.
Scholz, J. and Smith, A.N. (2016), “Augmented reality: designing immersive experiences that maximize
consumer engagement”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 149-161.
Schubert, T.W. and Koole, S.L. (2009), “The embodied self: making a fist enhances men’s power-related
self-conceptions”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 828-834.
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F. and Regenbrecht, H. (2001), “The experience of presence: factor analytic
insights”, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 266-281.
Schuemie, M.J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M. and Van Der Mast, C.A. (2001), “Research on presence in
virtual reality: a survey”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 183-201.
Sekhavat, Y.A. (2017), “Privacy preserving cloth try-on using mobile augmented reality”, IEEE
Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 1041-1049.
Sekhavat, Y.A. and Zarei, H. (2018), “Sense of immersion in computer games using single and
stereoscopic augmented reality”, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 187-194.
Shankar, V., Kleijnen, M., Ramanathan, S., Rizley, R., Holland, S. and Morrissey, S. (2016), “Mobile
shopper marketing: key issues, current insights, and future research avenues”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 34, May, pp. 37-48.
Shin, D. (2018), “Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: to what extent can virtual
reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 78,
January, pp. 64-73.
Shin, E. and Baytar, F. (2014), “Apparel fit and size concerns and intentions to use virtual try-on:
impacts of body satisfaction and images of models’ bodies”, Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 20-33.
Shu, S.B. and Peck, J. (2011), “Psychological ownership and affective reaction: emotional attachment
process variables and the endowment effect”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 439-452.
Skeldon, P. (2018), “CASE STUDY Formex watches shows how AR is changing the way we shop”,
available at https://internetretailing.net/mobile-theme/mobile-theme/case-study-formex-
watches-shows-how-ar-is-changing-the-way-we-shop-17575 (accessed June 13, 2019).
Spears, N. and Yazdanparast, A. (2014), “Revealing obstacles to the consumer imagination”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 363-372.
Tamura, H., Yamamoto, H. and Katayama, A. (2001), “Mixed reality: future dreams seen at the border
between real and virtual worlds”, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 64-70.
Tellis, G.J. (1997), “Effective frequency: one exposure or three factors?”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 75-80.
Thorson, E. and Lang, A. (1992), “Effects of television videographics and lecture familiarity on
adult cardiac orienting responses and memory”, Communication Research, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 346-369.
ITP Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D. and Jia, C.H. (2017), “Virtual reality and attitudes toward tourism
33,4 destinations”, in Schegg, R. and Stangl, B. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies
in Tourism, Springer, Cham, pp. 229-239.
Verhagen, T., Vonkeman, C., Feldberg, F. and Verhagen, P. (2014), “Present it like it is here: creating
local presence to improve online product experiences”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 39,
October, pp. 270-280.
Wang, S.K., Hsu, H.Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D.C. and Longhurst, M. (2014), “An investigation of middle
1234 school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms:
considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers”, Educational
Technology Research and Development, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 637-662.
Witmer, B.G. and Singer, M.J. (1998), “Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence
questionnaire”, Presence, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 225-240.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C. and Sauer, P.L. (2017), “Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for
e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 39, August, pp. 89-103.

Corresponding author
Eunsoo Baek can be contacted at: eunsoo.baek@polyu.edu.hk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com