Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102680

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

How mobile augmented reality applications affect continuous use and

purchase intentions: A cognition-affect-conation perspective
Hong Qin a,*, Babajide Osatuyi b, Lu Xu c
a
Department of Information Systems, Robert C. Vackar College of Business & Entrepreneurship, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 W Univ Dr, Edinburg,
TX, 78539, USA
b
Department of Management Information Systems, Sam & Irene Black School of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, 5101 Jordan Road, Burke Center 269, Erie,
PA, 16563, USA
c
Department of Management and Marketing, Mike Cottrell College of Business, University of North Georgia, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Mobile augmented reality Augmented reality (AR) is rapidly gaining attention in practice, and research as the adoption of smartphones and
Perceived value technological advancements persist. The focus of current literature on AR has been on its use for improving visual
Cognition-affect-conation and display quality. However, limited guidance is offered on how consumers evaluate their experience and how
Continuous use intention that, in turn, influences their behaviors, especially in the smartphone context. This study seeks to extend this line
Purchase intention of research by applying the cognition-affect-conation framework to examine how mobile augmented reality
(MAR) experiences shape the consumer decision-making process. Data collected from 316 users in the United
States were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The results reveal that
consumers’ cognitive evaluation of MAR applications stimulates their affective reactions, which eventually
create conative behaviors. Thus, this study offers an integrated perspective for investigating continuous use and
purchase intentions jointly in one research model. In addition, it examines how perceived value, a cognitive trait
variable, influences consumer conative responses directly and indirectly through affective responses. The results
confirm the relationships proposed in the cognition-affect-conation framework and empirically support the
direct and indirect influence of perceived value on conative efforts in the MAR context. The findings contribute to
AR theory building, application design, and marketing strategy development.

1. Introduction
Augmented reality (AR) technology has revolutionized how we
experience goods and services. Augmenting the display of real-world
objects and spaces with virtual information creates an immersive
shopping experience for customers with additional accessibility of goods
and services (He et al., 2018). AR has emerged as one of the major digital
market trends in recent years (Whang et al., 2021). The global AR
market was approXimately $10.7 billion in 2019, expected to reach
$72.7 billion by 2024 with a compound annual growth rate of 46.6%
(ReportLinker, 2020). The recent pandemic has accelerated the shift
to augmented retail and digital shopping by appro Ximately five years
(Papagiannis, 2020). The diffusion and growing popularity of smart
devices drive multiple industries to integrate smart retailing into
their business model (Nikhashemi et al., 2021). Firms like IKEA, ZARA,
LEGO, New York Times, Cadbury, and Toyota have been utilizing
mobile AR
features to enhance consumer experiences and leverage the power of AR
to strengthen their brand image (Paine, 2018).
It is not surprising that AR has received significant attention from
both academic and practical perspectives. Systematic reviews have been
conducted on AR influences in a variety of industrial settings, such as
manufacturing (de Souza Cardoso et al., 2020), education (Iba´n˜ez
and Delgado-Kloos, 2018), and healthcare (Ng et al., 2019). For
instance, in the tourism industry, AR technologies, such as 3D
spatialization and sound adaptation mechanisms, remove the barrier
of distance to gain
information, add more enjoyable and playful components to the visit,
facilitate the navigation, and increase visitors’ immersion into exhibi-
tions (Flavia´n et al., 2021; Huang, 2021). Visitors were not only
satisfied
but were willing to recommend and continuously use the technology
in the future (Kim and Hall, 2019; Kaghat et al., 2020). More recently,
some firms such as Amazon and Target have introduced a search by
image feature using mobile AR (MAR) applications, enabling consumers

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hong.qin@utrgv.edu (H. Qin), bosatuyi@psu.edu (B. Osatuyi), Lu.Xu@ung.edu (L. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102680
Received 9 December 2020; Received in revised form 15 June 2021; Accepted 13 July 2021
Available online 27 July 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Qin et
to take a photo of a product on their smart devices and use the photo to
search for a specific product within the mobile application (McLean and
Wilson, 2019). Smart retail and mobile AR apps have radically trans-
formed the retail environment and significantly improved consumers’
quality of life (Nikhashemi et al., 2021). As consumers’ use of MAR
applications increases, theoretical and empirical insights need to be
reinforced to support these deliberations and understand its influences
on consumer behaviors (McLean and Wilson, 2019).
Despite the rapid flourishment and the growing importance of AR,
recent research suggests that managers lack insight into how AR might
engage customers and require guidance in targeting customers that will
embrace AR (Jessen et al., 2020). For instance, MAR applications have
been identified as the preferred platform for product information and
interactive demonstration due to their low costs and high accessibility
compared with traditional e-commerce channels such as websites
(Cranmer et al., 2020). However, a thorough review of cognitive, af-
fective, and behavioral responses in AR indicates that various studies
have focused on benefits and advantages such as enjoyment and use-
fulness (e.g., Qin et al., 2021); few studies considered the overall trade-
off between benefits and costs (Kowalczuk et al., 2021), which may lead
to a biased and unbalanced perspective of the value creation process
(e.g., Kowalczuk et al., 2021; Nikhashemi et al., 2021). To shed new light
on this research gap, our present study uses the perceived
value to capture the consumer’s overall assessment of the MAR appli-
cation based on their perceptions of what is received and what is given
(Wang, 2014). Prior research in the theory of service science has indi-
cated that perceived value plays important roles in formulating con-
sumer satisfaction and influencing their future behaviors; hence, it is
imperative for consumer engagement and business success in the context
of MAR (Peppard and Ward, 2016).
Although extant literature has recognized that AR enhances con-
sumer experience and drives their behavioral intentions in multi-
channel marketing contexts (Fan et al., 2020; Kowalczuk et al., 2021;
Nikhashemi et al., 2021), the majority of prior studies focus predomi-
nately on either purchase intention (Sung, 2021) or continuous use
intention (Kim et al., 2016). For instance, Whang et al. (2021) affirmed
that MAR technology affordances (i.e., vividness and interactivity)
evoke consumer behavioral and cognitive states, which, in turn, stim-
ulate consumer purchase intention. However, their study did not
consider the continuous use intention of AR, which is a major issue in
this field since recent industry statistics demonstrate that around one-
quarter of the AR applications are never used after the initial download
(Nikhashemi et al., 2021). Furthermore, purchase intention focuses on
how much effort consumers are willing to invest in making purchases
after interacting with MAR applications (Lo et al., 2020), while
continuous use intention emphasizes the extent to which con- sumers
will use MAR applications in the future (Tsai and Hung, 2019). Hence, it is
vital to address the importance of AR as a strategy of boosting consumer
engagement and its accountable effects on purchase intentions.
This study extends the literature in the AR research stream by
providing a balanced perspective to understand the consequences of
MAR applications. We contribute to extant knowledge by conceptual-
izing and empirically testing how MAR applications stimulate contin-
uous use and purchase intentions by affecting their affective states. More
specifically, we attempt (1) to examine consumer perceptions of MAR
cognitive components (i.e., virtual presence, experiential value, shop-
ping benefits, and perceived value), (2) to assess how the cognitive
components affect consumer affective states (i.e., attitude and
satisfac- tion), (3) to evaluate how MAR affects consumer behavior
formulation, including both continuous use and purchase intentions,
and (4) to examine how perceived value, directly and indirectly,
influences con- sumer intentions for purchases and technology
continuous use. This study examines the underlying mechanism of
consumer behaviors in the MAR context by integrating cognitive and
affective components. The results are expected to provide theoretical
and empirical insights in AR
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
marketing, smart technology adoption, consumer decision-making, and
mobile application design.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In the next
section, we outline the theoretical framework and present the compo-
nents of MAR cognition, affect, and conation. In the following section,
we draw on related literature in AR to formulate a conceptual model and
develop research hypotheses. We then introduce the methodology de-
tailing the research design and procedure. Following that, we empiri-
cally test this conceptualization and discuss major findings. Finally, the
article concludes with implications and limitations.
2. Literature review and theoretical background
2.1. MAR
The rapid growth of AR applications has gained the attention of re-
searchers and practitioners in the marketing field. AR as a communi-
cation tool can improve product presentation by adding virtual elements
in the physical environment, enhance customer information processing,
and enrich user experiences (Fan et al., 2020). As a result, researchers
proposed AR marketing as a new concept for innovative marketing
strategy and practice (Chylinski et al., 2020). Furthermore, as AR mar-
keting is adopted across many stages of customer experience, including
pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase, companies can use AR in
major marketing areas such as advertising, retailing, and consumption
experience (Wedel et al., 2020).
As the use of mobile devices has dramatically changed the traditional
retailing environment, the integration of AR and mobile applications is
appealing to both retailers and customers (Rauschnabel et al., 2019; Qin
et al., 2021). Despite a range of mobile devices, smartphones are
considered the most common mobile AR device due to their high
accessibility and proliferation (Wang et al., 2016). In addition, techno-
logical advances such as embedded cameras, touch screens, and smart-
phone sensors can enhance MAR experiences and create new
opportunities (Billinghurst and Duenser, 2012). As a result, MAR ap-
plications have been adopted across various industries, including
apparel, automotive, beauty, home goods, entertainment, and others
(Wedel et al., 2020). For example, IKEA recently added a MAR appli-
cation called IKEA Place, which allows customers to select a piece of
virtual furniture from the app and view the item in an actual room in
real-time (IKEA, 2021).
In the context of retail, researchers have provided evidence on the
positive effects of MAR experiences in the consumer decision-making
process (Pantano et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2021). As presented in
Table 1, prior MAR studies in retailing have highlighted not only the
pleasurable and enjoyable experiences of MAR but also emphasized
usefulness in the shopping process (Kim et al., 2016; Pantano et al.,
2017; Rese et al., 2017; McLean and Wilson, 2019; Rauschnabel et al.,
2019; Park and Yoo, 2020; Kowalczuk et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2021).
Their findings suggest that both aspects of benefits create positive atti-
tudinal and behavioral responses. However, none of these studies have
focused on consumer perceptions of MAR experiences from the cognitive
perspective. Fan et al. (2020) argued that the core value of AR is to
change cognition in human information processing. Hilken et al. (2017)
further proposed that AR’s spatial sense and value perception improves
consumer decision-making. Therefore, in this study, we evaluate con-
sumer perceptions of virtual object presentation and values in their MAR
experiences from the cognitive perspective. In addition, none of these
prior studies have investigated perceived value. A deeper understanding
is needed regarding how consumers evaluate benefit components when
considering the cost (Cranmer et al., 2020). We address this gap by
investigating multiple values, particularly perceived value, to capture
the trade-off between benefits and costs.
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)

Table 1
Recent MAR studies.
Source Theory MAR variables Affective responses Conative responses Key findings
Kim et al. Technology acceptance Information quality, interactivity, Satisfaction Continuous Information quality is the strongest factor
(2016) model (TAM), motivation visual quality; perceived usefulness, intention for the continuance intention of
theory perceived enjoyment smartphone AR apps.
Pantano et al. TAM Aesthetic quality, interactivity, Attitude towards the Behavioral The effect between usefulness and attitude
(2017) response time, quality of adoption intention to use and the effect between attitude and
information, ease of use, enjoyment, behavioral intention are significant in
perceived usefulness Italy and Germany in the online retail
context. The link between ease of use and
attitude is only significant for the German
sample.
Rese et al. TAM Perceived informativeness, perceived Attitude toward using Behavioral The model was tested for different AR
(2017) enjoyment, perceived usefulness, AR apps intention to use apps (two mobile and two not mobile).
perceived ease of use The results confirm the robustness of the
TAM model. However, the relative
importance of perceived informativeness
and perceived enjoyment are different for
different AR apps.
Heller et al. Mental imagery theory AR mental imagery factors: Choice, word of AR configuration and transformation
(2019) configuration, transformation; mouth (WOM) motive positive WOM and facilitate the
processing fluency, decision comfort choice of higher value products. This
effect is mediated via processing fluency
and decision comfort.
McLean and TAM, stimulus-organism- Interactivity, vividness, novelty; Satisfaction with Brand usage AR and technology attributes influence
Wilson response model, theory of technology attributes: perceived ease customer experience intention brand engagement, which positively
(2019) reasoned action (TRA), of use, perceived usefulness, influences brand usage intention and
cue utilization theory enjoyment, subjective norms; brand satisfaction with the experience.
engagement
Rauschnabel AR marketing theory, Utilitarian benefits, hedonic benefits, Attitude toward the Utilitarian benefits and hedonic benefits
et al. (2019) information integration augmentation quality mobile AR-app, significantly influence consumer attitude
theory inspiration, changes toward the mobile AR-app. Consumer
in brand attitude inspiration mediates the relationships
between benefits and changes in brand
attitude.
Fan et al. Cognitive theory Environmental embedding, Product attitude AR characteristics can reduce cognitive
(2020) simulated physical control; cognitive load while enhancing cognitive fluency,
fluency, cognitive load which positively affects users’ product
attitude.
Hinsch et al. Processing fluency Psychological inspiration: hedonic Behavioral Nostalgia fully mediates the effect
(2020) theory, TAM, cognition benefits, augmentation quality, app- inspiration: app/ between psychological and behavioral
theory ease of use, AR expertise; nostalgia, brand congruence inspiration with the Lego Playground AR
wow-effect app.
Jessen et al. Regulatory mode Mobile AR use, customer Anticipated The use of mobile AR, compared with a
(2020) engagement, customer creativity satisfaction website, increases customer engagement
and creativity, which in turn, offers a
source of intrinsic satisfaction.
Park and Yoo Cognitive consistency Perceived interactivity factors: Attitudes Behavioral Controllability and playfulness influence
(2020) theory, TRA controllability, responsiveness, intentions mental imagery, which, in turn, influences
playfulness, elaboration, quality attitudes toward a product and behavioral
intentions (e.g., willingness to revisit a
store, willingness to purchase a product,
positive WOM) in a mobile shopping
context in South Korea. Individual’s
involvement moderates the relationship
between perceived interactivity and
elaboration quality.
Kowalczuk EXperiential hierarchy Interactivity, system quality, product Immersion, Behavioral Reuse and purchase intentions are formed
et al. (2021) model, gratification informativeness, reality congruence; enjoyment, product responses: reuse by affective and cognitive responses to the
theory, feelings-as- cognitive responses: media liking intention, AR characteristics. AR apps perform
information theory usefulness, choice confidence purchase intention better than web-based product
presentations in immersion and
enjoyment, while the opposite is true for
media usefulness.
Qin et al. Stimulus-organism- Interactivity, virtuality; hedonic Attitude toward using Intentions to use Gratification perceptions and
(2021) response model, gratification, utilitarian gratification, the MAR app the MAR app informativeness positively influence
information richness informativeness, ease of use attitude toward using a MAR app, which,
theory, gratification in turn, increases intentions to use the
theory MAR app.

2.2. Cognition-affect-conation (C-A-C) framework

We reviewed the theories regarding how technologies, mainly the
MAR technology, facilitate online purchase behaviors, such as the stimuli-
organism-response model (Lin, 2014; Zhao et al., 2012; Qin
et al., 2021), technology-oriented models (Van der Heijden et al., 2003)
including technology acceptance model (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Kim
et al., 2016; Pantano et al., 2017; Rese et al., 2017; McLean and Wilson,
2019; Hinsch et al., 2020) and theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 2010; Park and Yoo, 2020). The C-A-C framework has been

3
 H. Qin et
utilized as the fundamental and underlying structure of other theories,
for instance, the theory of reasoned action, the technology acceptance
model, and the expectation-confirmation model (Dai et al., 2020b).
In this study, we adopt the C-A-C framework as our core theoretical
framework because it provides a multi-layer perspective for under-
standing the mechanisms responsible for translating a customer’s
experience through affect into action. First, this model has been
employed and empirically validated in online retail (Chang and Chen,
2008; Lin et al., 2015; Dai et al., 2020a) and further in the context of
reality (e.g., Martínez-Navarro et al., 2019; McLean and Wilson, 2019;
Flavi´an et al., 2021). More importantly, the C-A-C framework provides
a theoretical foundation to integrate technology characteristics and value
creation in the context of MAR; hence it enables us to examine the effects
of technologies in a consumer decision-making process. Second, ac-
cording to one of the most frequently cited AR articles conducted by
Javornik (2016), consumers respond to AR characteristics in three ways:
affectively, cognitively, and behaviorally. However, the order of affec-
tive, cognitive, and behavioral responses has not been adequately
addressed in extant MAR literature. While the hierarchy of effect model
can explain different processes from particular inputs to particular
outputs (Eisend and Tarrahi, 2016), the C-A-C model further clarifies the
sequential linkage of cognition, affect, and conation in the consumer
decision-making process. Finally, we argue that the C-A-C model is
appropriate because it addresses how consumers transfer their learning
and perception of MAR applications to behaviors through positive
emotions, which precisely aligns with our research objectives.
Building upon the C-A-C framework, this study investigates how
consumers make their MAR decisions, which involve continuous use and
purchase intentions (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961). The framework pro-
vides a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical mechanism of
loyalty formation and fortification. It proposes three stages of a loyalty
phase, namely cognition (functional aspects), affect (emotional re-
sponses and satisfaction), and conation (commitment and intention)
(Han et al., 2011). These three phases and/or aspects have also been
identified and validated to measure user experience, namely the
cognitive dimension (perceptions and understandings), the affective
dimension (emotions, moods, or attitudes), and the conative dimension
(behaviors or what people do) (Richards et al., 2020). In the context of
MAR, during the cognitive stage, consumers gather information to learn
more about products. This information retrieval experience will
generate an emotional response which is processed in the affective stage.
Finally, consumers will form their behaviors based on their feelings and
emotions developed in the affective stage in the conative stage.
2.2.1. Cognitive factors
We investigate consumer perceptions of the virtual presence, expe-
riential value, shopping benefits, and perceived value at the cognitive
state. Virtual presence is a significant stimulus that triggers consumer
affective states through their experiences with MAR (Qin et al., 2021).
Equivalent to other terms such as virtuality, vividness, and immersion
(Yim et al., 2017; Hudson et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2021), virtual presence
reflects the media’s capability of presenting both physical and virtual
components through immersion in the computer-generated environ-
ment (Blascovich and Bailenson, 2011). Consistent with a prior study
(Yim et al., 2017), we define virtual presence as the level of vividness of
the virtual object presented on the screen of the MAR application. As the
most representative feature of MAR, vividness has been the focus of
MAR application development because it enhances consumer evalua-
tions on both technologies and products (Yim et al., 2017).
Additionally, we consider cognitive factors from a value perspective
(Hsiao, 2020; Lim and Kim, 2020), given MAR’s ability to provide multi-
faceted values to customers during their shopping experiences (Dacko,
2017). Pantano and Naccarato (2010) proposed that advanced
technologies such as MAR created values in three aspects: increased
speed of obtaining information, improved service at the point of sale,
and positive shopping experience. We consequently examined shopping
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
benefits, perceived value, and experiential value in this study.
Shopping benefits refer to the utilitarian value, which shows use-
fulness in acquiring product information when using MAR applications
(Qin et al., 2021). Some examples of shopping benefits include more
personalized products or services, product demonstrations, and virtual
try-out. These benefits measure various ways to acquire rich information
about the product or service and enrich consumer knowledge in the
decision-making process.
Perceived value has been traditionally defined as a trade-off between
quality and price (e.g., Grewal et al., 1998; Chen and Dubinsky, 2003).
However, this definition is too simplistic because consumers nowadays
compare benefits and costs in a more comprehensive perspective when
they make a purchase decision (Chopdar and Balakrishnan, 2020). For
example, the intangible dimensions of costs such as time, convenience,
and risks are also important factors (Wang and Wang, 2010). Prior
studies suggest that perceived value toward a technology involves a
consumer’s overall value perception of the technology based on the
trade-off between benefits and costs (Yang et al., 2015). In our study,
perceived value refers to how MAR applications make the shopping
experience more efficient by organizing and integrating shopping ac-
tivities. It provides another source of cognitive stimuli that informs
consumers’ beliefs and understanding of the benefits of MAR
applications.
EXperiential value represents customers’ perceptions of products or
services based on their direct use or indirect observation (Mathwick
et al., 2001). Dacko (2017) adopted this concept and examined it in the
context of MAR. EXperiential value focuses on playfulness and aesthetics
in our study, representing the shopping environment’s entertainment
experiences and visual characteristics. Prior studies suggest that expe-
riential value, such as entertainment, is a powerful tool to facilitate the
decision-making process (Pantano and Naccarato, 2010).
2.2.2. Affective factors
Affect refers to users’ emotional responses to the technology based
on their knowledge and experiences with MAR (Sun and Zhang, 2006).
From both the experiential and information processing perspectives,
emotional responses are key requirements for the applications (Hol-
brook and Hirschman, 1982). While a few researchers such as Kowalc-
zuk et al. (2021) examine immersion, enjoyment, and product liking as
affective factors, considerably more researchers center on attitude
(Pantano et al., 2017; Rese et al., 2017; Rauschnabel et al., 2019; Fan
et al., 2020; Park and Yoo, 2020; Qin et al., 2021) and satisfaction (Kim
et al., 2016; McLean and Wilson, 2019; Jessen et al., 2020). As
demonstrated in Table 1, they have recognized the importance of these
affective factors in influencing behavioral intentions. In line with these
studies, we examine attitude and satisfaction as affective responses.
While Fishbein (1967) posited that attitude has cognitive, affective, and
conative elements, we use attitude to capture an individual’s favorable
or unfavorable feelings. Attitude measures the degree of positive feel-
ings about the technology products such as MAR applications (Ajzen,
1991). Satisfaction reflects a user’s overall assessment of the pleasurable
level of the fulfillment experience (Osatuyi and Qin, 2018).
2.2.3. Conative factors
Conation, the last component of the C-A-C framework, is the conse-
quence of the consumer decision-making process. Consistent with pre-
vious research, this study measures behavioral intentions as conative
reactions to the affective responses (Lim and Kim, 2020). As presented in
Table 1, the current literature in MAR consumer experience has focused
on two types of behavior intentions: the continuous use of the MAR
application (Kim et al., 2016; Pantano et al., 2017; Rese et al., 2017;
Kowalczuk et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2021) and the intention of purchasing
products or services (Park and Yoo, 2020; Kowalczuk et al., 2021).
However, few studies have integrated both behavioral intentions in the
same research model (Kowalczuk et al., 2021). In our study, we oper-
ationalized continuous use and purchase intentions as two separate
 H. Qin et
constructs. The two constructs complementally explain post-adoption
behaviors as we measured them after our participants experienced the
MAR application. Continuous use intention refers to the degree to which
users intend to continuously use the MAR application to buy similar
products in the future (Kim et al., 2016; Pantano et al., 2017).
Purchase intention refers to the degree to which people intend to
purchase a product with a MAR application or to patronize a physical
store without continuously using a MAR application in the future (Shao et
al., 2004). It is important to include both continuous use intention and
purchase intention in our model since some consumers prefer to use
the MAR application to search for products without actually
purchasing. In contrast, some other consumers prefer to visit a store
to view an item instead of viewing it with the MAR application before
purchasing.
3. Research model and hypothesis development
Consistent with the theoretical foundation and development in the
context of MAR, we developed a comprehensive model to investigate the
effects of cognitive components on consumer affective reactions and
behavioral intentions (Fig. 1). The C-A-C framework serves as the un-
derlying theory of our research model and tests the sequential re-
lationships among these three components. The cognitive factors we
examined are virtual presence, shopping benefits, perceived value, and
experiential value. They evoke affective reactions, which are measured
by attitude and satisfaction. In turn, the affective reactions simulate
consumer intentions to continuously use the MAR applications and
make purchases.
3.1. The relationship between virtual presence and attitude toward MAR
application
Virtual presence is the ability to visualize objects and promote
immersive perceptions in the augmented environment (Qin et al., 2021).
As a cognitive component, virtual object requires consumers to think
through the product/service and make more efforts to process infor-
mation. The underlying process from virtual presence to attitude toward
the MAR application can be explained by mental imagery, which in-
volves mental images visualized by users while processing information
(Park and Yoo, 2020). When more vivid information evokes imagery,
consumers are more likely to positively evaluate the product (Kisielius,
1982). Empirical evidence suggested that virtual presence activated
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
emotional reactions through the vivid presentation in a life-sized 3D
augmented environment (Kang et al., 2020). This study examines the
effect of virtual presence on attitude toward the MAR application.
Improving the virtual presence of the product in an augmented envi-
ronment may result in a positive attitude toward the MAR application.
As a result, we hypothesize the following:
H1. Virtual presence has a positive effect on attitude toward the MAR
application.
3.2. The relationship between experiential value and attitude toward
MAR application
EXperiential value is defined as customers’ perceptions of products or
services based on their direct use or indirect observation of the MAR
apps (Mathwick et al., 2001). Enjoyment, aesthetics, and playfulness
have been widely used to measure experiential value (e.g., Keng et al.,
2007). Based on the flow theory, Nusair and Parsa (2011) argued the
influence of cognitive enjoyment on consumers’ online shopping expe-
rience. Previous studies also suggest that the relaxing and playful
experience from the virtual reality environment evokes a positive
emotional association with the product (Serrano et al., 2013; Ahn et al.,
2019) and a positive attitude toward the use of mobile applications
(Pleyers and Poncin, 2020). Accordingly, when consumers perceive
entertainment with MAR applications through aesthetic enjoyment and
emotional release, they are more likely to generate positive attitudes
toward MAR applications. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H2. EXperiential value has a positive effect on attitude toward the
MAR application.
3.3. The relationship between shopping benefits and attitude toward the
MAR application
Shopping benefits is another cognitive factor that might influence
consumer attitude. We adapted the shopping benefits construct from the
perspective of utilitarian value, which is defined as the extent to which
consumers perceive the usefulness of the MAR apps (Osatuyi and Qin,
2018). MAR technologies have been extensively used to reduce friction
and integrate multiple channels for an optimal and seamless customer
experience (Flavia´n et al., 2019). A virtual try-on application
allows a consumer to interact with the app by rotating, zooming in or
out, and examining product appearance and fit (Kim and Forsythe,
2008). These
H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
Fig. 1. MAR consumer intentions research model.

6
 H. Qin et
benefits enable consumers to evaluate the product thoroughly and make
a decision with more certainty (Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga, 2017).
A positive relationship has been supported between shopping benefits
and attitude toward the MAR app (Rauschnabel et al., 2019; Qin et al.,
2021). Thus, we hypothesize that:
H3. Shopping benefits have a positive effect on attitude toward the
MAR application.
3.4. The relationship between perceived value and customer satisfaction
Perceived value refers to the ratio of benefits received and costs
sacrificed (Cranmer et al., 2020). Regarding sacrifices, the concern is
about money for some users, while for others, the concern is about time
and effort (Wang, 2014). Consistent with the broad view of perceived
value, we conceptualize it in terms of efficiency and perceived price.
Efficiency measures the ratio of outputs to inputs, comparing good-
s/services purchased with non-monetary sacrifices such as time and
effort (Sa´nchez-Ferna´ndez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2009). Perceived
price measures the monetary cost when purchasing goods or services
(Xu et al., 2015). Woodruff (1997) argued that perceived value reflected
user cognition of products/services obtained from the provider. The
behav- ioral model further suggests that cognition significantly influences
affect (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Prior studies showed that perceived
value-enhanced consumer experiences improved shopping convenience
and lowered search cost (Hult et al., 2019; Chopdar and Balakrishnan,
2020; Sa´nchez-Ferna´ndez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2009; Yoo and
Park, 2016; El-Adly, 2019). In the context of mobile application, Wang
(2014) showed the important role perceived value played in formulating
satisfaction. Therefore, we propose that the higher value consumers
have perceived relative to the cost (e.g., time and money, effort), the
more satisfied they are with the MAR applications.
H4. Perceived value has a positive effect on satisfaction.
3.5. The relationship between attitude toward the MAR application and
customer satisfaction
Compared to attitude, which reflects the level of positive feeling,
satisfaction indicates a higher level of a user’s affective state (Wang,
2014). The relationship between attitude and satisfaction has been
empirically tested (Lee et al., 2015; Ayo et al., 2016). The more positive
consumers feel toward technology usage, the more they are satisfied
(Osatuyi and Qin, 2018). Previous findings support usage attitude as the
most significant predictor of customer satisfaction with mobile appli-
cation services (Lee et al., 2015). As a result, we propose that the con-
sumer attitude toward a MAR application positively influences his or her
satisfaction level with the application.
H5. Attitude toward the MAR application has a positive effect on
consumer satisfaction.
3.6. The relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral
intentions
The positive influences of affective components on conative re-
sponses have been investigated in a variety of industries, for instance,
technology (Kwahk et al., 2018; Kowalczuk et al., 2021), tourism
(Mainolfi and Marino, 2018), retailing for eco-friendly products (Pra-
kash et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2021), social commerce (Osatuyi and
Qin, 2018; Meilatinova, 2021), and online retailing (Fan et al., 2020).
Prior studies confirm that satisfaction improves technology usage,
customer repurchases, recommendations, and revisits (Shang and Wu,
2017; McLean et al., 2018; Chopdar and Balakrishnan, 2020). In the
context of MAR applications, satisfaction has been demonstrated to have
a positive impact on patronage intentions and continuous use intentions
(Poncin and Mimoun, 2014; Chang et al., 2018). Therefore:
H6a: Satisfaction has a positive effect on continuous use intention.
H6b: Satisfaction has a positive effect on purchase intention.
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
3.7. The relationship between perceived value and behavioral intentions
Prior research in IS and consumer behavior has shown that perceived
value positively affects behavior outcomes such as repurchase intention
(e.g., Chopdar and Balakrishnan, 2020) and continuous use intention (e.
g., Lin and Lu, 2015). Perceive value regarding monetary and non-
monetary benefits also drives satisfaction and further shapes loyalty
intention (Xu et al., 2015; Ozturk et al., 2016). Therefore, when con-
sumers perceive the MAR application as more valuable compared to its
monetary and non-monetary sacrifices, the likelihood for them to
continuously use the application and make a purchase increases corre-
spondingly. To validate the assumptions, we hypothesize the following:
H7a: Perceived value has a positive effect on continuous use
intention.
H7b: Perceived value has a positive effect on purchase intention.
4. Research methodology
Based on a comprehensive review of the related literature, an online
questionnaire was designed and administered to evaluate how con-
sumers assess their MAR experience. Before filling in the questionnaire,
the respondents were provided with guidelines to download the AR
application(s) on their smart devices and experience the application(s)
at least once. Using the data collected from 389 subjects, data
screening and cleaning analysis was conducted, followed by common
method bias and multicollinearity examination. We then employed
PLS-SEM to evaluate the measurement model and the structural
model with the acceptable support from these tests, as presented in
Fig. 2.
4.1. Survey design
A survey was conducted to test the research hypotheses. Eight
con- structs were used in this study: virtual presence, experiential
value, shopping benefits, perceived value, attitude, satisfaction,
continuous use intention, and purchase intention. To ensure content
validity, the items were adapted from validated instruments in the
literature and were adapted to our research context, following the
same set of questions to reinforce construct validity (Rodrigues et
al., 2020). A seven-point
Likert scale was used to specify respondents’ level of agreement to the
statements, ranging from 1 representing “strongly disagree” to 7 rep-
resenting “strongly agree.” The items and their sources are presented in
the AppendiX in detail. In addition to these primary constructs, we also
collected basic information about respondent characteristics, including
gender, age, MAR experiences, and usage frequency.
4.2. Data collection
To check the validity and reliability, a pilot study was conducted
with 30 subjects and si X faculty experts in this research field who were
not included in the main survey. The questionnaire was refined for
increased clarity and validity in response to the gathered feedback and
the preliminary results. Several items were removed from further anal-
ysis, for instance, the complete information to measure experiential
value.
The formal questionnaire survey was designed to be anonymous and
presented online. The survey link was distributed to college students
enrolled at a university located in the southern United States through an
email invitation to explain the research scope and relevance to reduce
respondent doubts (Hu et al., 2017). Meanwhile, the invitation email
emphasized that participation was entirely voluntary and confidential to
minimize social desirability bias and common method variance (Pod-
sakoff et al., 2003). The subjects were required to download an AR
application such as IKEA Place and Ray-ban Virtual Try-on on their
smart devices. After using the application, they were asked to complete
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
the online survey to evaluate their experience.
We collected a total of 389 responses. To ensure participants’

8
 H. Qin et
Fig. 2. Research method flow chart.
qualifications, the following procedures were adopted and applied. First,
the responses completed in less than 15 min were removed since the
survey takes approXimately 25 min. Secondly, the responses with more
than 5% incomplete data were removed. Finally, we deleted the re-
sponses with the same answer to all questions, for instance, all 7s.
Seventy-three responses were removed, leaving a total of 316 useable
responses for further analysis. Around 52% of respondents were female.
More than 81% were between 18 and 30 years old. Appro Ximately 73%
used the MAR application more than once a month. The majority eval-
uated their user experience based on their previous usage of IKEA Place
and Ray-ban Virtual Try-on. Fig. 3 demonstrates an example of the IKEA
Place app.
4.3. Common method bias
Common method bias usually occurs in survey research when the
questionnaires are answered completely by the same respondents
(Malhotra et al., 2017). Three recommended techniques were used to
examine common method bias in this study. According to Harman’s
single-factor test, the maximum variance explained by the unrotated
factors is around 45.783 percent, less than the 50 percent threshold
value. The marker-variable technique reveals that the average correla-
tion between the eight main constructs and the selected marker variable,
Fig. 3. Screenshots of the IKEA Place app (Left: original; Right: live demon-
stration with virtual desk and chairs).
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
gender, was 0.056. Therefore, the findings of both techniques suggest
minimal evidence of common method bias.
Furthermore, prior studies (Hair et al., 2019a; Kock, 2015) recom-
mend considering all the VIF values in the model and conducting the full
collinearity test is a conservative and effective alternative for identifying
common method bias. The results from a full collinearity test indicate
that all the VIF values were below the ideal value of 3.0, ranging from
1.282 to 2.953 (Hair et al., 2019a). The findings do not recognize serious
multicollinearity or common method bias issues in this study.
5. Results
The empirical assessment of the research model was conducted using
the PLS structural model based on the path coefficients and respective
significance levels. PLS-SEM has been a predominant method in many
social science disciplines in recent years, including marketing (Hair
et al., 2019b). PLS structural model can tackle complex research models
that require conceptualization and operationalization of different types
of theoretical concepts such as behavioral intentions and the estimation
of their relationships (Benitez et al., 2020). In addition, as a causal-
prediction approach, PLS-SEM emphasizes prediction while explaining
causal relationships; hence it integrates the demands of prediction by
practitioners and explanation by academia (Hair et al., 2019a). This study
employs the Smart PLS 3 Version 26 software for analysis (Ringle et al.,
2015). More specifically, we used a bootstrapping procedure with 5000
subsamples and 95% bias-corrected and acceler- ated lower-level
confidence intervals (LLCIs) and upper levels confi- dence intervals
(ULCIs) to estimate the statistical significance of the parameter
estimates.
5.1. Measurement model
The Cronbach’s alpha values were used to assess the construct reli-
ability. As presented in Table 2, all the values are above the recom-
mended cutoff value of 0.80, indicating sufficient reliability of these
underlying constructs (Hair et al., 2019a). Convergent validity was
measured using three criteria. The item loadings are greater than 0.70
and statistically significant. The item of composite construct reliability
measures the internal consistency of the construct on a scale; values are
greater than 0.80. Finally, the average variance extracted (AVE) mea-
sures the extent of the variance explained by the latent construct; values
are greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results confirm
that the measurement model has good convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing the square root of
a construct’s AVE and the inter-construct correlations (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). As presented in Table 3, all the diagonal values are
greater, demonstrating satisfactory discriminant validity. Furthermore,
heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) was used to measure the discrimi-
nant validity for variance-based estimators (Henseler et al., 2015). As
presented in Table 4, the HTMT values range from 0.438 to 0.855, less
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)

Table 2 than the threshold value of 0.90. Because of the heavy criticism that
Reliability assessment. HTMT calculation does not provide an estimate of its standard error, it is
Indicators Factor Cronbach’s Composite AVE suggested that an inferential test of whether the HTMT is significantly
loadings alpha reliability lower than 1.00 should be conducted (Franke and Sarstedt, 2019).
Virtual Presence 1 0.900 0.887 0.888 0.725 Therefore, the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals were con-
Virtual Presence 2 0.829 structed, including 2.5% lower bounds and 97.5% upper bounds. None
Virtual Presence 3 0.823 of these confidence intervals cover 1; therefore, all HTMT values are
EXperiential Value 1 0.903 0.86 0.86 0.674
significantly different from 1 (Benitez et al., 2020). Hence, the
EXperiential Value 2 0.709
EXperiential Value 3 0.839 discriminant validity was established. After testing the measurement
Shopping Benefits 1 0.789 0.84 0.84 0.636 model with all these criteria met, we can confirm that the constructs
Shopping Benefits 2 0.808 proposed in this research model are reliable and valid.
Shopping Benefits 3 0.795
Attitude 1 0.797 0.864 0.865 0.681
Attitude 2 0.808
5.2. The structural model
Attitude 3 0.869
Satisfaction 1 0.926 0.881 0.883 0.717
Satisfaction 2 0.723 The structural model was used to examine the hypotheses in the
Satisfaction 3 0.877 research model. First of all, the standardized path coefficients and their
Perceived Value 1 0.873 0.907 0.906 0.708 statistical significance levels were estimated for paths of influence.
Perceived Value 2 0.847 2
Perceived Value 3 0.791
Then, the coefficient of determination R was computed for endogenous
Perceived Value 4 0.852 variables to evaluate the predicted power of the research model. Fig. 4
Continuous Use 0.861 0.842 0.839 0.635 and Table 5 illustrate the results of the structural model.
Intention 1
Continuous Use 0.739
5.2.1. Cognition
Intention 2
Continuous Use 0.786
As Fig. 4 shows, the cognition of MAR, virtual presence, was posi-
Intention 3 tively related to consumer attitude (β=0.221; p < 0.01), supporting H1.
Purchase Intention 0.887 0.901 0.902 0.689 EXperiential value was also positively related to attitude with statistical
1 significance (β = 0.281; p < 0.05), supporting H2. Shopping benefits
Purchase Intention 0.835
were strongly related to consumer attitude (β=0.369; p < 0.01), sup-
2
Purchase Intention 0.875 porting H3. Three cognitive components explained 54.7% of the varia-
3 tion of attitude.
Purchase Intention 0.735
4 5.2.2. Affect
Attitude showed a positive association with consumer satisfaction (β

Table 3
Fornell-Larcker test results.
Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1- Attitude 0.825
2- PurchaseIntention 0.616 0.835
3-Continuous Use Intention 0.858 0.582 0.797
4-Experiential Value 0.679 0.625 0.633 0.821
5-Shopping Benefits 0.692 0.735 0.614 0.806 0.798
6-Perceived Value 0.739 0.604 0.708 0.695 0.702 0.841
7-Satisfaction 0.649 0.549 0.597 0.581 0.574 0.607 0.847
8-Virtual Presence 0.510 0.446 0.444 0.453 0.438 0.490 0.752 0.852

• Diagonal values in bold are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE).

Table 4
HTMT values and their 95% confidence interval bounds.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1-Attitude
2-Purchase Intention 0.600 [0.479,
0.704]
3-Continuous Use 0.855 [0.787, 0.558 [0.433,
Intention 0.909] 0.669]
4-EXperiential Value 0.672 [0.555, 0.623 [0.497, 0.627 [0.520,
0.778] 0.732] 0.730]
5-Shopping Benefits 0.685 [0.570, 0.725 [0.609, 0.612 [0.500, 0.808 [0.716,
0.783] 0.821] 0.713] 0.883]
6-Perceived Value 0.727 [0.626, 0.594 [0.465, 0.705 [0.611, 0.694 [0.577, 0.701 [0.582,
0.810] 0.704] 0.786] 0.790] 0.795]
7-Satisfaction 0.646 [0.517, 0.538 [0.411, 0.593 [0.459, 0.586 [0.458, 0.575 [0.444, 0.606
0.752] 0.654] 0.699] 0.702] 0.694] [0.491,
0.705]
8-Virtual Presence 0.502 [0.375, 0.452 [0.327, 0.441 [0.304, 0.455 [0.322, 0.438 [0.322, 0.490 0.753 [0.650,
0.612] 0.564] 0.560] 0.575] 0.548] [0.368, 0.837]
0.596]

Note: The lower boundary represents confidence interval bias-corrected 2.5%; the upper boundary represents confidence interval bias-corrected 97.5%.

1
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)

Fig. 4. SEM results of the research model.

Table 5 intention, greater than the threshold 0.350, depicts a large effect size,

Structural model outcomes. which confirms the contribution of testing perceived value in the C-A-C
2
framework. The other links depict small effect sizes, with f values
2
Hypothesized Path Path t- Decision f greater than 0.020 but less than 0.150. Different effect sizes are usual
Coefficient value
since it is an unrealistic expectation that all/most of effect magnitudes
Virtual presence- > Attitude 0.221 3.170 supported 0.079 are large (Benitez et al., 2020).
EXperiential value- > Attitude 0.281 2.259 supported 0.061 Moreover, the blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy mea-
Shopping benefits- > Attitude 0.369 2.954 supported 0.099 2
Perceived value- > Satisfaction 0.279 2.989 supported 0.072
sure Q values were employed to assess the predictive accuracy of the
2
Attitude- > Satisfaction 0.443 4.287 supported 0.164 structural model together
2 with the coefficient of determination R (Chin
Satisfaction- > Continuous use 0.259 2.968 supported 0.093 et al., 2020). The Q values for constructs attitude, satisfaction, MAR
intention
application continuous use intention, and purchasing intention are
Satisfaction- > Purchase 0.282 2.908 supported 0.085
intention 0.297, 0.285, 0.306, and 0.232, respectively. These values indicate
Perceived value- > Continuous 0.550 6.519 supported 0.418 medium predictive relevance of the PLS structural model since most of
use intention the values are around or above the threshold value of medium 0.250
Perceived value- > Purchase 0.426 4.155 supported 0.193 (Hair et al., 2019a). Overall, the empirical data corroborated the theo-
intention
retical model quite well.

2
= 0.443; p < 0.001), supporting H5. Not surprisingly, perceived value 0.350. The f value of 0.418 from perceived value to continuous use
was identified as a significant determinant of satisfaction (β 0.279; p
= 45.7%
< 0.01), supporting H4. In conjunction with attitude, it explains
of the variation in satisfaction.

5.2.3. Conation
Also confirmed were the hypotheses of the impacts of satisfaction on
continuous use intention (β = 0.259; p < 0.01) and purchase intention (β
= 0.282; p < 0.01), H6a and H6b respectively. Meanwhile, perceived
value demonstrated a direct and positive association with intention to
continuously use MAR applications (β = 0.550; p < 0.001) and purchase
intention (β =0.426; p < 0.001), supporting H7a and H7b. The model
explained 35.6% of the variation in MAR continuous use intention and
29.2% in purchase intention.
In addition to path coefficient estimates and their significance levels,
2
the effect size f values were reported to evaluate how the removal of
2
one predictor latent variable affects the R value of the endogenous
latent variable (Hair et al., 2019a). From the values presented in Table 5,
two links (e.g., attitude to satisfaction and perceived value to purchase
2
intention) depict medium effect sizes with f values between 0.150 and

1
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
5.3. Testing for mediation effects

Furthermore, we performed a mediating effect analysis using a four-

step regression method (Baron and Kenny, 1986). For example, the
mediation effect in which perceived value leads to purchase intention
through satisfaction is called the indirect effect; it represents the rela-
tionship between perceived value and purchase intention mediated by
satisfaction. A full mediation occurs when the effect of perceived value
becomes insignificant after controlling for satisfaction. On the other
hand, a partial mediation occurs when the relationship between
perceived value and purchase intention is still significant after control-
ling for the effects of satisfaction.
The summary of the mediation effect analysis is provided in Table 6.
The results revealed that satisfaction mediated the relationship between
perceived value and MAR continuous use intentions with a p-value
of
0.022. The mediation effect on purchasing intentions was also
supported by the p-value of 0.037. In addition to the significance
level of the in- direct effects, the lower levels (LLCIs) and upper
levels (ULCIs) of the 95% confidence intervals supported the
mediation effects of satisfaction. These results confirm that cognitive
elements including virtual presence, experiential value, and shopping
benefits have positive effects

1
 H. Qin et
Table 6
Mediation effect test results.
Indirect effects Perceived value - > Perceived value- >
Continuous use intention Purchase intention
Coefficient value 0.075 0.082
Significance level 0.022 0.037
Lower confidence interval 0.024 0.024
bias-corrected (LLCI) – 2.5%
Upper confidence interval 0.155 0.179
bias-corrected (ULCI) –
97.5%
Mediation testing conclusion Partial Mediation Partial Mediation
on consumer attitude, which plays a significant role in improving
satisfaction level. Moreover, this study empirically supports the positive
impact of satisfaction on consumer purchasing and MAR usage conation.
In addition, the findings support our proposition that the cognitive trait
perceived value also plays an important role in consumer behavioral
responses; these influences were partially mediated by consumer satis-
faction level.
6. Discussion and implications
This study sought to investigate how MAR consumers evaluate their
experiences and form decision-making behaviors. Based on the C-A-C
framework, the research model posits that cognitive factors trigger
consumers’ affective reactions, resulting in behavioral changes. In this
study, we identified virtual presence, experiential value, shopping
benefits, and perceived value as sources of cognitive stimuli. The af-
fective factors include attitude and satisfaction, and the conation factors
are behavioral response variables that include continuous use and pur-
chase intentions. The influence of perceived value on conation through
affective variables was examined to provide evidence of cognitive
evaluations that influence consumer behaviors and motivation.
Our results indicate that cognitive factors, virtual presence, experi-
ential value, and shopping benefits were significant and positive de-
terminants of consumers’ attitudes, which positively influenced their
satisfaction with MAR applications. Consistent with prior studies, sup-
port for the influences of these cognitive factors provides evidence for
the importance of examining consumer perceptions of the functionality
and usability of the MAR application (Fan et al., 2020; Nikhashemi et al.,
2021). The positive effects of experiential value on affective variables
indicate its motivating role on consumer perceptions of MAR applica-
tions. Shopping benefits are shown to be a valuable benefit
component in marketing research to inform users’ attitudes. Support for
this rela- tionship in the current study confirms the relevance of benefit
analysis in the MAR application use context (Cranmer et al., 2020).
Regarding the affective responses responsible for translating the
cognitive factors into action, we find that the link between attitude and
satisfaction is consistent with findings from prior research in IS and
Marketing (Kwahk et al., 2018; Hsiao, 2020; Lim and Kim, 2020). Our
introduction of the influence of perceived value on satisfaction and
conative factors provides an avenue to understand consumer percep-
tions of the composite value they derive from the MAR use experience.
The result is consistent with prior studies that value positively influences
conative responses through affective factors such as attitude and satis-
faction (Prakash et al., 2019). Satisfaction was also found to mediate the
relationship between perceived value and response variables, including
continuous use and purchase intentions. The reconfirmation of attitude-
satisfaction-behavioral intentions link in the context of MAR application
further demonstrates the robustness of this association. Thus, to retain
consumer patronage and loyalty, MAR application de- signers should
focus on technological improvements and deliver compelling user
experiences.
This study examined two response variables to provide robust evi-
dence of our claim that consumers respond to cognitive variables
1
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
through affective factors. The intentions to continuously use MAR ap-
plications and also make purchases indicate a strong adoption behavior
pattern. It is important to examine the two response variables since a
consumer may simply use the application to “window-shop” and not
purchase it. On the contrary, it is also plausible that a consumer might
prefer to go into the store to try on an attire before buying rather than
viewing or trying it on the phone. Finding support for both adoption
behaviors extends prior research that examined only one of the response
variables (Qin et al., 2021; Huang, 2021). More importantly, it
indicates that these two behaviors are different, yet important to
understand a
broader range of behavioral responses that consumers can exhibit in
response to their calculus of the cost and benefit of MAR applications.
Finally, support for these two response behaviors is indicative of the
generalizability of the findings in other adoption behavior contexts. The
findings from this study have both theoretical and practical
implications.
6.1. Theoretical implications
This study found support for the influence of virtual presence,
experiential value, and shopping benefits on attitude in the context of
MAR technologies. While some of these variables have been examined in
other contexts, we provide empirical evidence of their efficacy in the
mobile reality context. The findings confirm the positive relationships
between cognitive and affective factors, supporting the importance of
value creation and immersive experiences in MAR.
The current AR literature focuses on examining either the continuous
use intention (Rese et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2021) or purchase intention
(Fan et al., 2020). We contribute to the body of knowledge by investi-
gating two unique response behavior variables simultaneously in the
same research model rather than conducting the study separately. MAR
is addressed as a technological means of improving consumer experience
and enforcing consumer engagement and its significant influences on
purchase intentions.
Our model considers multiple perspectives in explaining MAR be-
haviors as it includes cognitive and emotional factors. The medication
analysis establishes the relevance of cognitive factors directly enhancing
affective response and indirectly increasing continuous use and pur-
chase intentions. This model, therefore, provides a rich extension of
prior research that focused on either cognitive factors or emotion
variables.
Finally, this paper validates the efficacy of the C-A-C framework in
the MAR context and extends prior research that used other underlying
theories such as the S-O-R framework (Qin et al., 2021). This indicates
that the decision to use MAR applications for online purchases is not a
simple one. Therefore, the complex decision-making process needs to be
investigated further to better understand how application designers and
retailers can leverage this new technology to improve customer online
purchase experience.
6.2. Practical implications
The results provide valuable implications for online retailers. With
MAR technologies, retailers can extend the offering of their goods
beyond the traditional brick-and-mortar locations and modalities.
Consumers can have a rich experience of trying outfits at their leisure
without visiting a physical mall to make a purchase. Mobile reality ap-
plications for shopping can be vital for customers’ well-being, for
instance, from the perspective of limiting unintentional transmission of
infectious diseases such as the recent COVID-19 global pandemic. Re-
tailers can integrate MAR into their current marketing channels and
provide consumers with the opportunity to obtain more information
about the product/service and directly interact with the virtual
presentations.
Additionally, the results provide practical insights for mobile reality
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
application designers. Knowing that consumers follow a complex

1
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)

decision-making process to inform their usage decisions presents an

opportunity for retailers to improve the cognitive factors. For instance, (continued )
MAR application designers need to pay attention to the technological Construct Item Sources Contextualized Item
features that will effectively merge the real and virtual environments to Virtual Presence He et al. (2018) Virtual objects on the screen of the MAR
enhance the consumer experience. application are lively.
Finally, perceived value is identified as an important factor of both Virtual objects on the screen of the MAR
application are described in practical
affective and conative variables in our model. Consumers who perceive
higher value are more likely to use the MAR applications and make a terms.
Virtual objects on the screen of the MAR

purchase. Therefore, retailers need to help consumers visualize multiple application are expressed vividly.
values using the MAR application to keep them engaged and interested. Experiential Dacko (2017) The MAR application provides you with:
Value More entertaining shopping;
For instance, the MAR application can provide consumers with relevant
More visually appealing shopping;
information and various choices to facilitate their decision-making More intrinsically enjoyable shopping.
process. Shopping Dacko (2017) Compared with in-store shopping, I
Benefits received the following shopping benefits
7. Limitations and future research from the MAR shopping application:
Trying out a product before buying it;
Although this research provides some invaluable insights into the Seeing demonstrations of products;
Buying a product that is more

relationships between the cognitive, affective, and conative components personalized.

Perceived Value Cranmer et al. I value the retail settings where MAR
in the MAR context, it has some recognizable limitations that open
(2020) applications are offered as:
future research directions. First, the sample was taken from a specific Ways to make my shopping more
geographical area and composed of consumers of a specific platform. efficient;
Consumers from different geographical and cultural backgrounds may Ways for me to access more product
choice and variety;
have different experiences and evaluations with MAR applications.
Ways to integrate all my shopping;
Thus, we must be cautious about generalizing these findings to other Ways to introduce better value into my
consumers with different profiles. A larger and more diverse sample is shopping.
recommended to obtain stronger statistical power. Attitude Rese et al. (2017) I am positive about the MAR application.
Second, the data utilized to test the research hypotheses were It just makes sense to use this MAR
application.
collected through a survey methodology, which is primarily based on
It is a good idea to use this MAR
voluntary respondents’ subjective perceptions of MAR applications; application.
hence, the findings may be prone to social desirability bias and recall People should also use this MAR
bias. Despite these associated issues, self-reporting data is valuable in application.
obtaining respondents’ perspectives and opinions. Future research is Satisfaction Oliver (2014); I am satisfied with using the MAR
Kim et al. (2016) application.
suggested to use a triangulation methodology comprising self-report
data, interviews, and objective observation. For instance, eye-tracking I am not complaining about using the
MAR application.
The MAR application fulfills my demand.
technology can unobtrusively capture consumers’ visual activities dur-
Continuous Use Rese et al. (2017) If I were to buy this product in the future,
ing their interaction with MAR applications, which provides objective Intention I would download or use the MAR
data for researchers to analyze consumer attentional information and application.
investigate their decision-making. I would give the MAR application priority
Third, in addition to augmented reality, there are various mobile over other alternative means.
I would use the MAR application as much
reality technologies such as virtual reality and mi Xed reality. Our study
as possible.
focuses on how consumers evaluate their experiences and form behav- Purchase Peng et al. The MAR application enables your
ioral intentions by using augmented reality applications. Since the Intention (2019) preference and future patronage intent:
recent literature has established the conceptual boundaries among these More likely to purchase this product;
mobile technologies (e.g., Flavia´n et al., 2019), future research More likely to recommend this product;
More likely to try this product;
may empirically compare how they enhance consumer interactions and
More willing to purchase the item;
in- crease purchase intentions in different reality settings. More loyal to this product.
Finally, this study did not include consumers’ characteristics (e.g.,
usage frequency, technological self-efficacy) in the research model,
which may also influence their information processing and overall
perceptions of MAR applications. For instance, technology References
continuance
theory proposes that novice users and experienced users demonstrate (continued on next column)
different shopping behaviors and attitudes. It would be meaningful to
compare differences between these two types of consumers in future
research. In addition, the explained variance of continuous use intention
was low, which suggests some important links or determinants were not
included in the research model, for instance, the direct relationship
between experiential value and intentions. Therefore, future research
could adopt other potential antecedents and examine more factors
together with consumers’ characteristics, especially concerning con-
sumers’ prior experiences, knowledge, and predispositions.

AppendiX - Survey Items

Construct Item Sources Contextualized Item

1
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
Ahn, J., Lee, C.K., Back, K.J., Schmitt, A., 2019. Brand experiential value for
creating integrated resort customers’ co-creation behavior. Int. J. Hospit. Manag.
81, 104–112.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
(2), 179–211.
Ayo, C.K., Oni, A.A., Adewoye, O.J., Eweoya, I.O., 2016. E-banking users’ behavior: e-
service quality, attitude, and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Bank Market. 34 (3),
347–367.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., Schuberth, F., 2020. How to perform and report
an impactful analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and
explanatory IS research. Inf. Manag. 57 (2), 103168.
Billinghurst, M., Duenser, A., 2012. Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer
45 (7), 56–63.
Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J., 2011. Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New
Worlds, and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution. William Morrow Co.

1
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
Hudson, S., Matson-Barkat, S., Pallamin, N., Jegou, G., 2019. With or without you?
Chang, C.W., Heo, J., Yeh, S.C., Han, H.Y., Li, M., 2018. The effects of immersion and Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J. Bus. Res. 100, 459–468.
interactivity on college students’ acceptance of a novel VR-supported educational
technology for mental rotation. IEEE Access 6, 66590–66599.
Chang, H.H., Chen, S.W., 2008. The impact of customer interface quality, satisfaction
and switching costs on e-loyalty: internet experience as a moderator. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 24 (6), 2927–2944.
Chen, Z., Dubinsky, A.J., 2003. A conceptual model of perceived customer value in
ecommerce: a preliminary investigation. Psychol. Market. 20 (4), 323–348.
Chin, W., Cheah, J.H., Liu, Y., Ting, H., Lim, X.J., Cham, T.H., 2020. Demystifying the
role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation
modeling in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 120 (12),
2161–2209.
Chopdar, P.K., Balakrishnan, J., 2020. Consumers response towards mobile commerce
applications: S-O-R approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 53, 102106.
Chylinski, M., Heller, J., Hilken, T., Keeling, D.I., Mahr, D., de Ruyter, K., 2020.
Augmented reality marketing: a technology-enabled approach to situated customer
experience. Australas. Market J. 28 (4), 374–384.
Cranmer, E.E., tom Dieck, M.C., Fountoulaki, P., 2020. EXploring the value of augmented
reality for tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 35, 100672.
Dacko, S.G., 2017. Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping
apps. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 243–256.
Dai, B., Ali, A., Wang, H., 2020a. EXploring information avoidance intention of social
media users: a cognition–affect–conation perspective. Internet Res. 30 (5), 1455–
1478.
Dai, H.M., Teo, T., Rappa, N.A., Huang, F., 2020b. EXplaining Chinese university
students’ continuance learning intention in the MOOC setting: a modified
expectation confirmation model perspective. Comput. Educ. 150, 103850.
de Souza Cardoso, L.F., Mariano, F.C.M.Q., Zorzal, E.R., 2020. A survey of industrial
augmented reality. Comput. Ind. Eng. 139, 106159.
Eisend, M., Tarrahi, F., 2016. The effectiveness of advertising: a meta-meta-analysis of
advertising inputs and outcomes. J. Advert. 45 (4), 519–531.
El-Adly, M.I., 2019. Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and customer loyalty. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50, 322–332.
Fan, X., Chai, Z., Deng, N., Dong, X., 2020. Adoption of augmented reality in online
retailing and consumers’ product attitude: a cognitive perspective. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 53, 101986.
Fishbein, M., 1967. Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: an Introduction to
Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: the Reasoned Action
Approach. Taylor Francis.
Flavia´n, C., Ib´an˜ez-S´anchez, S., Orú s, C., 2019. The impact of virtual,
augmented and miXed reality technologies on the customer experience. J. Bus.
Res. 100, 547–560.
Flavia´n, C., Iba´n˜ez-S´anchez, S., Orú s, C., 2021. The influence of scent on virtual
reality
experiences: the role of aroma-content congruence. J. Bus. Res. 123, 289–301.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Franke, G., Sarstedt, M., 2019. Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing:
a comparison of four procedures. Internet Res. 29 (3), 430–447.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B., Krishnan, R., 1998. The effects of price-comparison advertising
on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value and behavioral
intentions. J. Market. 62 (2), 46–59.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., 2019a. When to use and how to report
the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1), 2–24.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., 2019b. Rethinking some of the rethinking of
partial
least squares. Eur. J. Market. 53 (4), 566–584.
Han, H., Kim, Y., Kim, E.K., 2011. Cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty:
testing the impact of inertia. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 30 (4), 1008–1019.
He, Z., Wu, L., Li, X.R., 2018. When art meets tech: the role of augmented reality in
enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tourism Manag. 68,
127–139.
Heller, J., Chylinski, M., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D., Keeling, D.I., 2019. Let me imagine
that for you: Transforming the retail frontline through augmenting customer
mental
imagery ability. J. Retailing 95 (2), 94–114.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hilken, T., de Ruyter, K., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., Keeling, D.I., 2017. Augmenting the
eye of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to
enhance online service experiences. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 45 (6), 884–905.
Hinsch, C., FeliX, R., Rauschnabel, P.A., 2020. Nostalgia beats the wow-effect:
inspiration, awe and meaningful associations in augmented reality marketing.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53, 101987.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption:
consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (2), 132–140.
Hsiao, C.C., 2020. Understanding content sharing on the internet: test of a cognitive-
affective-conative model. Online Inf. Rev. 44 (7), 1289–1306.
Hu, Y.P., Chang, I.C., Hsu, W.Y., 2017. Mediating effects of business process for
international trade industry on the relationship between information capital and
company performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 (5), 473–483.
Huang, T.L., 2021. Restorative experiences and online tourists’ willingness to pay a price
premium in an augmented reality environment. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 58,
102256.

1
 H. Qin et Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled
Hult, G.T.M., Sharma, P.N., Morgeson III, F.V., Zhang, Y., 2019. Antecedents and trials. Comput. Hum. Behav. 99, 278–291.
consequences of customer satisfaction: do they differ across online and Nikhashemi, S., Knight, H.H., Nusair, K., Liat, C.B., 2021. Augmented reality in smart
offline purchases? J. Retailing 95 (1), 10–23. retailing: a nA Symmetric Approach to continuous intention to use retail brands’
Ib´an˜ez, M.-B., Delgado-Kloos, C., 2018. Augmented reality for STEM learning: a mobile AR apps. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 60, 102464.
Nusair, K., Parsa, H.G., 2011. Introducing flow theory to explain the interactive online
systematic review. Comput. Educ. 123, 109–123.
IKEA, 2021. Say hej to IKEA Place. Retrieved from. shopping experience in a travel context. Int. J. Hospit. Tourism Adm. 12 (1), 1–
https://www.ikea.com/au/en/cus tomer-service/mobile-apps/say-hej-to-ikea- 20.
Oliver, R.L., 2014. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer: A Behavioral
place-pub1f8af050. (Accessed March 2021).
Perspective on the Consumer. Routledge.
Javornik, A., 2016. ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’ Consumer affective, cognitive
and
behavioral responses to augmented reality applications. J. Market. Manag. 32
(9–10), 987–1011.
Jessen, A., Hilken, T., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., Heller, J., Keeling, D.I., de Ruyter,
K., 2020. The playground effect: how augmented reality drives creative customer
engagement. J. Bus. Res. 116, 85–98.
Kaghat, F.Z., Azough, A., Fakhour, M., Meknassi, M., 2020. A new audio augmented
reality interaction and adaptation model for museum visits. Comput. Electr. Eng.
84, 106606.
Kang, H.J., Shin, J.H., Ponto, K., 2020. How 3D virtual reality stores can shape
consumer
purchase decisions: the roles of informativeness and playfulness. J. Interact.
Market. 49, 70–85.
Keng, C.J., Huang, T.L., Zheng, L.J., Hsu, M.K., 2007. Modeling service encounters
and customer experiential value in retailing. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 18 (4),
349–367.
Kim, J., Forsythe, S., 2008. Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel
shopping. J. Interact. Market. 22 (2), 45–59.
Kim, K., Hwang, J., Zo, H., Lee, H., 2016. Understanding users’ continuance
intention toward smartphone augmented reality applications. Inf. Dev. 32 (2),
161–174.
Kim, M.J., Hall, C.M., 2019. A hedonic motivation model in virtual reality
tourism: comparing visitors and non-visitors. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 46, 236–
249.
Kisielius, J., 1982. The role of memory in understanding advertising media effectiveness:
the effect of imagery on consumer decision making. ACR N. Am. Adv. 9, 183–186.
Kock, N., 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity
assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collaboration 11 (4), 1–10.
Kowalczuk, P., Siepmann, C., Adler, J., 2021. Cognitive, affective, and
behavioral consumer responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: a
comparative study.
J. Bus. Res. 124, 357–373.
Kumar, A., Prakash, G., Kumar, G., 2021. Does environmentally responsible
purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model
developed through an empirical study. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 58, 102270.
Kwahk, K.Y., Ahn, H., Ryu, Y.U., 2018. Understanding mandatory IS use behavior:
how outcome expectations affect conative IS use. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 38 (1), 64–
76.
Lavidge, R.J., Steiner, G.A., 1961. A model for predictive measurements of advertising
effectiveness. J. Market. 25 (6), 59–62.
Lee, C.Y., Tsao, C.H., Chang, W.C., 2015. The relationship between attitude toward
using and customer satisfaction with mobile application services. J. Enterprise Inf.
Manag.
28 (5), 680–697.
Lim, S.H., Kim, D.J., 2020. Does Emotional intelligence of online shoppers affect their
shopping behavior? From a cognitive-affective-conative framework perspective.
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 36 (14), 1304–1313.
Lin, J., 2014. The effects of gratifications on intention to read citizen journalism news:
the mediating effect of attitude. Comput. Hum. Behav. 36, 129–137.
Lin, K.Y., Lu, H.P., 2015. Predicting mobile social network acceptance based on mobile
value and social influence. Internet Res. 25 (1), 107–130.
Lin, T.C., Huang, S.L., Hsu, C.J., 2015. A dual-factor model of loyalty to IT product–
The case of smartphones. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 35 (2), 215–228.
Lo, F., T H, Y., Chen, H., 2020. Purchasing intention and behavior in the sharing
economy: mediating effects of APP assessments. J. Bus. Res. 121, 93–102.
Mainolfi, G., Marino, V., 2018. Destination beliefs, event satisfaction and post-visit
product receptivity in event marketing. Results from a tourism experience. J.
Bus.
Res. 116, 699–710.
Malhotra, N.K., Schaller, T.K., Patil, A., 2017. Common method variance in
advertising research: when to Be concerned and how to control for it. J. Advert.
46 (1), 193–212.
Martínez-Navarro, J., Bign´e, E., GuiXeres, J., Alcan˜iz, M., Torrecilla, C., 2019. The
influence of virtual reality in e-commerce. J. Bus. Res. 100, 475–482.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., Rigdon, E., 2001. EXperiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping
environment. J. Retailing 77 (1), 39–56.
McLean, G., Wilson, A., 2019. Shopping in the digital world: examining customer
engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Comput. Hum. Behav.
101, 210–224.
McLean, G., Al-Nabhani, K., Wilson, A., 2018. Developing a mobile
applications customer experience model MACE-implications for retailers.
J. Bus. Res. 85,
325–336.
Meilatinova, N., 2021. Social commerce: factors affecting customer repurchase
and word-of-mouth intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 57, 102300.
Ng, Y.L., Ma, F., Ho, F.K., Ip, P., Fu, K.W., 2019. Effectiveness of virtual and
augmented reality-enhanced exercise on physical activity, psychological
outcomes, and physical

1
 H. Qin et
Osatuyi, B., Qin, H., 2018. How vital is the role of affect on post-adoption behaviors?
An examination of social commerce users. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 40, 175–185.
Ozturk, A.B., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., Okumus, F., 2016. What keeps the mobile hotel
booking users loyal? Investigating the roles of self-efficacy, compatibility, perceived
ease of use, and perceived convenience. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (6), 1350–1359.
Paine, J., 2018. 10 Brands Already Leveraging the Power of Augmented Reality.
Retrieved from. https://www.inc.com/james-paine/10-brands-already-leveraging
-power-of-augmented-reality.html. (Accessed July 2020).
Pantano, E., Naccarato, G., 2010. Entertainment in retailing: the influences of advanced
technologies. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 17 (3), 200–204.
Pantano, E., Rese, A., Baier, D., 2017. Enhancing the online decision-making process by
using augmented reality: a two country comparison of youth markets. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 38, 81–95.
Papagiannis, H., 2020. How AR is redefining retail in the pandemic. Harv. Bus. Rev. 7.
October.
Park, M., Yoo, J., 2020. Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on
consumer responses: a mental imagery perspective. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52,
101912.
Peng, L., Zhang, W., Wang, X., Liang, S., 2019. Moderating effects of time pressure on the
relationship between perceived value and purchase intention in social E-commerce
sales promotion: considering the impact of product involvement. Inf. Manag. 56 (2),
317–328.
Peppard, J., Ward, J., 2016. The Strategic Management of Information Systems: Building
A Digital Strategy. John Wiley and Sons, London.
Pleyers, G., Poncin, I., 2020. Non-immersive virtual reality technologies in real estate:
how customer experience drives attitudes toward properties and the service
provider. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 57, 102175.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879.
Poncin, I., Mimoun, M.S.B., 2014. The impact of “e-atmospherics” on physical stores.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (5), 851–859.
Poushneh, A., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., 2017. Discernible impact of augmented reality on
retail customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 34, 229–234.
Prakash, G., Choudhary, S., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Khan, S.A.R., Panda, T.K.,
2019. Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase
intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical investigation.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50, 163–169.
Qin, H., Peak, D.A., Prybutok, V., 2021. A virtual market in your pocket: how does
mobile augmented reality MAR influence consumer decision making? J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 58, 102337.
Rauschnabel, P.A., FeliX, R., Hinsch, C., 2019. Augmented reality marketing: how mobile
AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 49,
43–53.
ReportLinker, 2020. Augmented Reality Market by Offering, Device Type, Application
and Region – Global Forecast to 2024. Retrieved from. https://www.reportlinker.
com/p05026084/?utm_source=GNW. (Accessed January 2020).
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.
Richards, G., King, B., Yeung, E., 2020. EXperiencing culture in attractions, events and
tour settings. Tourism Manag. 79, 104104.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M., 2015. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt. SmartPLS
GmbH.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021)
Rodrigues, J., Ruivo, P., Oliveira, T., 2020. Mediation role of business value and strategy
in firm performance of organizations using software-as-a-service enterprise
applications. Inf. Manag. 58 (1), 103289.
S´anchez-Ferna´ndez, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A´ ., 2009. Efficiency and quality as
economic
dimensions of perceived value: conceptualization, measurement, and effect on
satisfaction. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 16 (6), 425–433.
Serrano, B., Botella, C., Ban˜os, R.M., Alcan˜iz, M., 2013. Using virtual reality and
mood-
induction procedures to test products with consumers of ceramic tiles. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 29 (3), 648–653.
Shang, D., Wu, W., 2017. Understanding mobile shopping consumers’ continuance
intention. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 117 (1), 213–227.
Shao, C.Y., Baker, J.A., Wagner, J., 2004. The effects of appropriateness of service
contact personnel dress on customer expectations of service quality and purchase
intention: the moderating influences of involvement and gender. J. Bus. Res. 57 (10),
1164–1176.
Sun, H., Zhang, P., 2006. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance.
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64 (2), 53–78.
Sung, E.C., 2021. The effects of augmented reality mobile app advertising: viral
marketing via shared social experience. J. Bus. Res. 122, 75–87.
Tsai, H.C., Hung, S., 2019. EXamination of community identification and interpersonal
trust on continuous use intention: evidence from experienced online community
members. Inf. Manag. 56, 552–569.
Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., Creemers, M., 2003. Understanding online purchase
intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 12
(1), 41–48.
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.
Wang, C., 2014. Antecedents and consequences of perceived value in Mobile Government
continuance use: an empirical research in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 140–147.
Wang, D., Xiang, Z., Fesenmaier, D.R., 2016. Smartphone use in everyday life and travel.
J. Trav. Res. 55 (1), 52–63.
Wang, H.Y., Wang, S.H., 2010. Predicting mobile hotel reservation adoption: insight
from a perceived value standpoint. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 29 (4), 598–608.
Wedel, M., Bign´e, E., Zhang, J., 2020. Virtual and augmented reality: advancing research
in consumer marketing. Int. J. Res. Market. 37 (3), 443–465.
Whang, J.B., Song, J.H., Choi, B., Lee, J.H., 2021. The effect of Augmented Reality on
purchase intention of beauty products: the roles of consumers’ control. J. Bus. Res.
133, 275–284.
Woodruff, R.B., 1997. Customer value: the next source of competitive advantage.
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 25, 139–153.
Xu, C., Peak, D., Prybutok, V., 2015. A customer value, satisfaction, and loyalty
perspective of mobile application recommendations. Decis. Support Syst. 79,
171–183.
Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H., Yu, B., 2015. Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment
acceptance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (2), 253–269.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C., Sauer, P.L., 2017. Is augmented reality technology an effective
tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. J. Interact. Market.
39, 89–103.
Yoo, J., Park, M., 2016. The effects of e-mass customization on consumer perceived
value, satisfaction, and loyalty toward luXury brands. J. Bus. Res. 69
(12), 5775–5784.
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, L., Chau, P.Y., 2012. Assessing the effects of service quality and
justice on customer satisfaction and the continuance intention of mobile value-
added services: an empirical test of a multidimensional model. Decis. Support Syst.
52 (3), 645–656.