See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354208440

Augmented reality in online retailing: A systematic review and research

agenda

Article in International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · August 2021

DOI: 10.1108/IJRDM-06-2021-0287

CITATIONS READS

17 2,522

1 author:

Harish Kumar
Management Development Institute Gurgaon
7 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Harish Kumar on 22 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-0552.htm

Augmented reality in online Augmented

reality in online
retailing: a systematic review and retailing

research agenda
Harish Kumar
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Received 27 June 2021
Revised 8 July 2021
Abstract 6 August 2021
10 August 2021
Purpose – Augmented reality (AR) has received massive attention in online retail. Therefore, the paper aims to Accepted 11 August 2021
review the state-of-the-art literature on AR in online retailing, by identifying the antecedents, drives, outcomes,
theoretical lenses, typology and methodological approaches. The study further aims to identify the critical
avenues for future research.
Design/methodology/approach – To advance the conceptual and managerial understanding of AR, the
study synthesizes the literature through a systematic literature review approach by reviewing 53 articles.
Findings – Several AR characteristics significantly influence utilitarian, hedonic, perceived risk and experiential
value, ultimately resulting in a positive attitude, decision-making assistance and behavioural intentions, wherein
customer experience (flow, spatial presence, mental imagery and immersion) plays a mediating role in the process.
The study also lists the top authors, articles, journals, countries, theories and methodology used.
Originality/value – The study provides a comprehensive framework on consumer behaviour towards AR in
online retailing. Further, the study proposes the future research agenda in the social side of AR, the dark side of
AR, customer engagement, use of AR for experiential value and AR marketing domain.
Keywords Augmented reality, Retail, Consumer behaviour, Customer experience,
Systematic literature review
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the past decade, technological innovations have led to radical changes in the online
marketing environment (Hoyer et al., 2020; Rauschnabel et al., 2019). While such technologies
are significantly influencing the retail topography (Grewal et al., 2017), engaging customers in
more interactive ways has become the managerial imperative (Brodie et al., 2019). Since these
interactive technologies are essential for enhancing sales, customer experience and attitude
towards the brand (Smink et al., 2019; Rauschnabel et al., 2019), companies are looking for
different novel technologies to exploit the opportunities, particularity in the online
environment (BCG, 2018).
To counter such challenges, augmented reality (AR) is one of the most promising
technology with enormous possibilities in retail (Dacko, 2017). AR is a medium that integrates
virtual content realistically into a user’s field of view, ranging from very functional uses
(assisted reality) to highly realistic experiences (mixed reality) where virtual elements are
almost indistinguishable from real ones (Dwivedi et al., 2021). AR as an interactive technology
is classified into wearables (Microsoft HoloLens), mobile (apps) and stationary (virtual
mirror), wherein mobile augmented reality (MAR) has received prolific attention
(Rauschnabel, 2018). Several firms such as BMW, Sephora, Dulux, Ikea, Zara, L’Or
eal have
introduced their apps to virtually try on, shop, interact, evaluate products. Considering the
facts that the total global AR market in 2020 was estimated to be US$56.8bn, and in retail it
was expected to reach US$11.4bn in 2025 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
International Journal of Retail &
The author would like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regard to Distribution Management
Prof. Jaydeep Mukherjee for the constant guidance throughout the article. Also the author would like to © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-0552
thank the reviewers for their quick and valuable feedbacks. DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-06-2021-0287
IJRDM 38% (MarketsandMarkets, 2019). Therefore, 3.5 bn smartphones users worldwide
contributing 72.9% of the total e-commerce market share (Statista, 2020) impact of AR in
the online retail industry cannot be ignored.
Theoretically, AR in the online retail has majorly used technology acceptance model
(TAM) (McLean and Wilson, 2019; Plotkina and Saurel, 2019; Qin et al., 2021; Rese et al., 2017;
Rauschnabel, 2018), equity theory (Poushneh, 2018; Smink et al., 2019), Privacy Calculus
Theory (Smink et al., 2019), situated cognition theory (Chylinski et al., 2020; Fan et al., 2020;
Hilken et al., 2017) and self-determination theory (Huang et al., 2019). AR has the power to
engage the customer in a creative way (Jessen et al., 2020; Nikhashemi et al., 2021), inspire
them (Rauschnabel et al., 2019; Hinsch et al., 2020), help in the decision-making process
(Cuomo et al., 2020; Perannagari and Chakrabarti, 2019), embrace customer experience (Heller
et al., 2019a; Vongurai, 2021), forming a positive attitude towards the brand (Rauschnabel
et al., 2018) and purchase intention (Mishra, 2021; Smink et al., 2019).
The existing literature on AR is quite fragmented because of its interdisciplinary nature
(Bonetti et al., 2018). AR has been investigated from different perspectives in the extant
literature. Some investigated how it differs from other forms of technologies such as virtual
reality (VR) (Flavi
an et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2021). Some considered AR as a set of
characteristics and investigated its impact on customers response (McLean and Wilson,
2019); some authors considered AR as an interface and explored different values derived from
it (Hilken et al., 2017; Vongurai, 2021; Watson et al., 2020); some authors compared the
customer’s response to AR and websites (Kowalczuk et al., 2021); while some investigated
how the AR omnichannel experience can be integrated into the online and offline
environment (Cuomo et al., 2020). In terms of augmentation majorly three types of
augmentation exist in the literature, i.e. augmentation of the product/object (Sunglasses;
Smink et al., 2019), augmentation of the self/body (Sephora make-up app (Juvornik et al.,
2021)) and augmentation of the environment (Ikea app (Rauschnabel et al., 2019)). In light of
the diverse spread of literature across various dimensions, a systematic review can
undoubtedly be vital by collating the fragmented literature, synthesizing it and providing
avenues for future research at a single place.
Some review attempts were found relevant to the study. Javornik (2016a), one of the early
review studies of AR and retail-focused on identifying characteristics of interactive media
and to what extent AR complements these characteristics. Perannagari and Chakrabarti
(2019) systematically reviewed the literature on the adoption of AR in retail and found that
AR characteristics and media quality generate flow and value for customers, which incites
them towards behavioural intentions. Similarly, Bonetti et al. (2018) also confined their study
to mere adoption and acceptance of AR and VR in online retail. Caboni and Hagberg (2019)
reviewed the literature on AR and retail in terms of its features, applications and values. The
authors reviewed the literature on three types of AR technologies, i.e. MAR, in-store and web-
based AR, and discussed the value of AR for retailers and consumers. But the study looked at
consumer behaviour from a retailer’s standpoint rather than from a customer standpoint.
Besides significant contribution to the literature, these reviews are limited in their area of
inquiry, for example, media characteristics (Javornik, 2016a), adoption and acceptance of AR
(Bonetti et al., 2018; Perannagari and Chakrabarti, 2019) or retailers stand-point (Caboni and
Hagberg, 2019). Also, Caboni and Hagberg (2019), Javornik (2016a) did not follow a
systematic approach to a literature review, where Perannagari and Chakrabarti (2019)
approached systematically but limiting the scope to adoption only. Therefore, a systematic
review is required to bring more objectivity and reproducibility (Paul et al., 2017).
Concluding, despite the growing body of knowledge in the domain, the knowledge
remains scarce in understanding consumer behaviour (beyond mere adoption and AR media
characteristics) towards AR in retail and fails to provide a holistic understanding. Therefore,
the purpose of the study is to provide answers to the following research questions:
 RQ1. What are the different AR characteristics influencing consumer behaviour? Augmented
RQ2. Drivers and outcomes of AR in online retail? reality in online
RQ3. Theoretical lenses used and typology of AR in online retail?
retailing
RQ4. Identifying the research gaps and proposing the future research agenda?
By doing so, this research will work as a starting point for future researchers to investigate
the impact of AR in online retail. Second, as per the BCG report (2018) and CMO survey (2019)
there is a lack of understanding about AR among managers. Therefore, the author proposes a
conceptual model of AR in online retail, which will broaden the understanding of the influence
of AR on consumer behaviour for retailers. Third, we propose a future research agenda that
will advance the existing body of knowledge. In the next section, the author provides an
overview of AR and the methodology for the systematic review, followed by the findings and
conceptual model. Lastly, future research avenues and limitations are discussed.

2. Theoretical background
The advent of AR dates back to the 1950s in the cinema industry when Morton Heilig
developed a prototype of AR called “Sensoroma” also referred to as the future of the cinema
(Carmigniani et al., 2011). In 1967, Ivan Sutherland developed the first head-mounted display,
calling it a “window to the virtual world.” By the time of 1970–1980, AR was introduced in
airlines and the military, but because of its high cost, it never took off until the arrival of
smartphones. AR is now being used in several industries like education, tourism,
entertainment, medical, retail and marketing.
Regarding how AR differs from VR, MR, Milgram and Kishino (1994) proposed the
“reality-virtuality continuum,” which showcased that there are two subcategories i.e. AR and
augmented virtuality between the real environment and virtual environment. But since the
power of augmentation through the devices has increased tremendously over the decades, the
continuum fails to differentiate between different forms of AR (assisted reality i.e.
superimposition in 2D, and mixed reality i.e. superimposition with enhanced realistic
integration). For example, Microsoft HoloLens provides a highly realistic environment and
could be referred to as mixed reality, whereas Google glass can be classified as “assisted
reality”, however as per the Milgram continuum, it will also fall under mixed reality.
Therefore, we refer to the definition proposed by Dwivedi et al. (2021), which is more relevant
for the classification of new realities, where assisted reality and mixed reality are two
endpoints of the AR continuum, and XR (new realities extended, expanded or some new
technology) will include AR, VR and new forms of realities (see Figure 1).
AR’s unique features include a “mix of real and virtual, real-time interaction and 3D”
(Azuma, 1997, p. 2). AR creates “mixed reality” wherein the objects in the environment are
virtual but the surrounding environment is real. This feature makes it different from other

Figure 1.
Augmented reality,
assisted reality, mixed
reality and virtual
reality
IJRDM types of virtual reality. It is also different in terms of the entities they augment, as AR can
increase the physical reality which covers people, surroundings or products. AR attributes
can be categorized into 3 categories: reality with virtuality, interactivity and computer-based
interaction (Azuma, 1997; Carmigniani et al., 2011). Interactivity, hype-textuality, modality,
location-specificity, mobility, connectivity and virtuality are the fundamental characteristics
of AR (Javornik, 2016a).
The primary focus of research on AR in retail started with the adoption of AR (Huang and
Liao, 2015; Chandra and Kumar, 2018), moving towards creating customer experience and
engagement (Hilken et al., 2017; Scholz and Duffy, 2018). In the last two years, the focus has
shifted towards social AR (Hilken et al., 2020) and privacy issues related to AR (Feng and Xie,
2019). AR has become one of the prominent tools to implement AR due to its affordability and
wide reach influencing online retail to a large extent. It allows the users to try on, collect
relevant information and customize the product. But there is no systematic attempt to study
the impact of AR in an online retail setting. Therefore, this study has vital implications for
practitioners and academia. It provides a holistic understanding of the online retail context
with antecedent, drivers and outcomes of consumer behaviour towards AR. Table 1
showcases various definitions of AR.

3. Methodology
A literature review is necessary to form the basis for developing a new conceptual model or
theory and aid in mapping the development of a particular topic over the years. The
systematic methods of the literature review are found to minimize the bias and provide
reliable results for decision-making (Moher et al., 2009). The academic world has duly
recognized the contribution of systematic review, and there are exclusive journals; special
issues for systematic literature reviews. Mainly four types of systematic reviews are there, i.e.
domain-based reviews, theory-based reviews, method-based reviews and meta-analytic
reviews.
To answer the research questions of this study, the author has followed a domain-based
review and a framework-based approach, where the researcher either adopts a framework
or develops its own (Paul and Benito, 2018). Out of several organizing frameworks
available, the author used a mix of ADO (antecedents, decisions and outcomes) and TCM
(theory, context and method) framework (Paul et al., 2017; Paul and Benito, 2018) for the
research. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) protocol was used to carry out the study, including four steps, i.e. identification,
screening, eligibility and inclusion (Moher et al., 2009). The PRISMA approach is widely
used across disciplines in the academic world for review studies. The process resulted in the
selection of 53 articles for the review process. A detailed explanation of each stage
given below:

3.1 Identification
At this stage, the author considered four elements keywords, platform, period and type of
articles. The study started with identification of the search terms. Since the literature in the field
of AR in online retail is at a nascent stage, the author preliminarily read some papers related to
the domain. Based on 33 articles readings, the final list of keywords included “Augmented
reality”, “AR”, “Online retail”, “Try-on”, “Consumer/customer behavior/behaviour”, “consumer/
customer engagement” “Customer/consumer experience”, “mobile augmented reality”, “mobile
app”, “shopping”, “e-commerce” “smart retail”, “experiential value” with Boolean AND, OR. The
SCOPUS database was selected to search the literature because it has access to 70% more
sources than other databases, including Web of Science (Brzezinski, 2015). Scopus has one of
Author Definition Major elements Purpose of the study
Augmented
reality in online
Carmigniani “Augmented reality (AR) is a Interactivity, real time, Types of AR retailing
et al. (2011) real-time direct or indirect view added information technologies and how it
of a physical real-world is different from VR and
environment that has been mixed reality
enhanced/augmented by adding
virtual computer-generated
information to it. AR is both
interactive and registered in 3D
as well as combines real and
virtual objects”
Huang and Liu “ARIT has persuasive effects on Interactive technology, Technology acceptance,
(2014) increasing the buying intentions mental imaginary experiential value and
and behaviour of consumers by sustainable relationship
stimulating mental imagery”
Javornik “The technology that combines Real time, interactive AR characteristics and
(2016a) real and virtual objects in a real superimposition of virtual its impact on consumer
environment; runs interactively, elements behaviour
and in real time and registers
(aligns) real and virtual objects
with each other”
Poushneh and “AR is a series of technologies Enhance specific reality, Impact of AR on
Parraga (2017) that integrate real world and integration of real world customers experience
virtual information, thereby with visual information
enhancing a specific reality”
Yim et al. (2017) “The superposition of virtual Virtual objects in real Effectiveness of AR in
objects (computer generated environment e-commerce in
images, texts, sounds etc.) on the comparison to traditional
real environment of the user” websites
Rauschnabel “AR marketing as a strategic Digital objects, physical How MAR can be used to
et al. (2019) concept that integrates digital world change attitude towards
information or objects into the the brands
subject’s perception of the
physical world, often in
combination with other media, to
expose, articulate, or
demonstrate consumer benefits
to achieve organizational goals”
Smink et al. “AR combines the real and Spatial presence Impact of online product
(2019) virtual world by overlaying presentation via AR
virtual products onto the
consumer or their surroundings,
which enables them to try a
product ‘as if’ it is really there”
Hilken et al. “We define social AR as a Common view, virtual How social AR supports
(2020) technology that enables two or enhancement, physical shared decision making
more users to communicate by environment
sharing and virtually enhancing
a common view of the physical
environment”
Table 1.
(continued ) Definitions of AR
IJRDM Author Definition Major elements Purpose of the study

Dwivedi et al. Augmented reality (AR) is a Assisted reality, mixed Review paper
(2021) medium that integrates virtual reality
content realistically into a user’s
field of view, ranging from very
functional uses (assisted reality)
to highly realistic experiences
(mixed reality) where virtual
elements are almost
Table 1. indistinguishable from real ones

the most comprehensive coverages in the fields of humanity, science, technology, social science
and medicines, with more than 25,100 journals over 5,000 international publishers. We searched
for the keywords in title, keywords and abstract. The search resulted in 7,104 results. After the
primary search in the database, we implied the filters and included only peer-reviewed journal
articles in the English language in the field of business, management, and accounting, social
science and psychology only. The process resulted in 165 articles till 17 March 2021, wherein
the starting time frame was not fixed.

3.2 Screening
To further strengthen the quality of the review, we excluded papers from the journal not
listed in the ABDC (Australian Business Dean Council) category. The ABDC list was chosen
over Scopus and WOS list because it ranks the journals in a collaborative process where
subject experts and senior researchers determine the quality of research based on rigour,
whereas Scopus and WOS rank based on the citation of the journals only. Second, ABDC lists
a journal in a single field only, whereas WOS and SCOPUS list a single journal in multiple
fields, which created confusion regarding the quality of the journal. Furthermore, we
excluded the duplicate entries. In the process, we checked for predatory journals as well. Total
6 articles were excluded in the process, as 3 articles were published in the “C” category of the
ABDC, and 3 were found duplicate entries.

3.3 Eligibility
After the screening process, a full-text read was given to the articles. The eligibility criteria
was framed based on the type and relevance of the article. Only conceptual and empirical
papers were included. In the process, three systematic literature reviews were excluded
from the study. For the relevance to the study, only those papers were included which were
directly related to AR and the retail context in general and were discussing AR
characteristics, use of AR in online retail, drivers and outcomes of AR, and impact of AR on
consumer behaviour in particular. In this process, 95 papers were excluded due to non-
relevance to the purpose of the study. Concluding, a total of 53 articles were finalized for the
review process.

3.4 Inclusion
A countercheck for the omission of any relevant article was performed at this stage. First,
three systematic reviews, excluded from the previous step, were referred to triangulate the
inclusivity of the study. Second, the bibliography of the selected articles was referred to
look for any other relevant study in the domain till saturation. In the next stage, an excel
sheet was maintained for the summary of the articles with 11 parameters, including Augmented
authors, publisher, methodology, independent variables, dependent mediating and reality in online
moderating variables, theories used, research objective, country, findings and limitations
(see Figures 2 and 3).
retailing

Criteria-(Initial results with

Identification keywords, N = 7104 without filters)
N = 165
1. Keywords
2. Platform- Scopus
3. Time period- N/A till
March, 2021
4. Article type- Journal article,
peer reviewed.

Screening
N = 159 Criteria-(Excluded in screening, n = 6)
1. Only A*, A, and B category
journal papers in ABDC list.
(n = 3)
2. Duplicate entries (n = 3)

Eligibility Criteria-(excluded 106 articles)

N = 53
1. Relevance to the
paper (n = 103)
2. Type of article- only
conceptual and
empirical (n = 3)

Inclusion N = 53 Final articles included in the study Figure 2.

PRISMA approach

No. of papers
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Figure 3.
0 Year wise distribution
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
IJRDM Author No. of documents Citations Average citation per document

Chylinski M 7 182 26
De Ruyter K 7 182 26
Keeling D.I 7 182 26
Mahr D 7 182 26
Hilken T 5 129 25.8
Heller J 5 74 14.8
Huang T.l 4 233 58.25
Scholz J 2 176 88
Baier D 2 151 75.5
Rese A 2 151 75.5
Yim M 2 148 74
Poushneh A 2 139 69.5
Rauschnabel P.A 2 102 51
Table 2. Hinsch C 2 102 51
Top 15 authors Mclean G 2 32 16

Document Citations

Dacko (2017) 126

Yim et al. (2017) 122
Scholz and Smith (2016) 121
Huang and Liao (2015) 120
Flavi
an et al. (2019) 116
Poushneh and Parraga (2017) 96
Hilken et al. (2017) 94
Rese et al. (2017) 94
Rauschnabel et al. (2019) 83
Javornik (2016a) 79
Roy et al. (2017) 72
Huang and Liu (2014) 71
Pantano et al. (2017) 56
Table 3. Scholz and Duffy (2018) 54
Top 15 documents Pousheneh (2018) 42

Country Documents Citations

United Kingdom 17 747

United States 14 584
Australia 11 289
Netherlands 9 205
Germany 5 255
Taiwan 4 233
China 3 91
South Korea 3 67
France 2 14
Hong Kong 2 4
Spain 1 119
Switzerland 1 79
New Zealand 1 30
Table 4. Singapore 1 39
Top 15 countries Portugal 1 3
4. Findings Augmented
4.1 Descriptive statistics reality in online
The tables mentioned above provide an overview of the top authors, articles publishers,
theories, methodology and year-wise publications in the domain. Table 2 shows the top
retailing
authors where the collaboration of Chylinksi, De Ruyter, Keeling and Mahr has produced the
most articles. Table 3 depicts the most cited documents. Table 4 depicts that most of the
research is done in developed countries, where the UK and USA alone accounting for 47% of
the total articles. There is not even a single developing country in the top 10, which clearly
demands investigation of AR in the developing countries such as India, Argentina, Brazil. It
will be interesting to see how the consumer in developing countries adopt and use AR in retail
as compared to consumers in developing countries because they largely differ in terms of
education, income and infrastructure, and lifestyle compared to developed countries.
Concerning methodology, Table 5 shows that the experimental design was used in more than
50% of the articles as the availability of AR users is a concern for researchers, and 33% of
articles used structural equation modelling (SEM) as their methodology. Table 6 showcases
the top journals. Regarding the type of articles, only 3 papers were conceptual in nature and
the rest 50 were empirical. The year-wise publication graph clarifies that the major focus
towards AR in retail started after 2014 and it is continuously rising. Regarding the theoretical
lenses, TAM, “flow”, situated cognition theory and equity theory are the most commonly
used theories in the literature.

Type of papers No. of papers

Empirical 50
Conceptual 3
Method
Experiment 27
SEM 18
In-depth interviews 2
Descriptive analysis 1
Ethnography 1 Table 5.
ANOVA 1 Method used

Journal Number of articles Citations

Journal of retailing and consumer services 13 437

Journal of business research 6 162
Technological forecasting and social change 3 295
Internet research 2 110
Journal of the academy of marketing science 2 108
Computers in human behavior 2 70
Journal of retailing 2 53
Australasian marketing journal 2 14
Journal of fashion marketing and management 2 2
Journal of interactive marketing 1 125
Business horizons 1 122
Electronic commerce research 1 120
Journal of marketing management 1 79
Journal of electronic commerce research 1 29 Table 6.
International journal of retail and distribution management 1 19 Top 15 journals
IJRDM Theory Definition References

Technology “It includes 4 basic dimensions perceived McLean and Wilson (2019), Mishra et al.
acceptance model ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (2021), Pantano et al. (2017), Rese et al.
(PU), attitude toward using (AT) and (2017), Saprikis et al. (2021)
behavioural intention to use (BI) that
influence a person’s intention to make use of
a technology” (McLean and Wilson, 2019)
Flow “Holistic sensation that people feel when Barhorst et al. (2021), Huang and Liao
they act with total involvement” (2017), Javornik (2016b)
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p. 36)
Equity theory “Equity theory postulates that the amount, Poushneh (2018), Smink et al. (2019)
exactness, and sensitivity of information
that users are willing to share with
technology is dependent on the value they
expect to gain from sharing” (Poushneh,
2018)
Situated cognition “Socially situated cognition theory posits Hilken et al. (2020, 2017)
theory that people have a natural tendency to share
their everyday experiences with others to
make relevant, collective judgements or
decisions” (Smith and Collins, 2009)
Theory of “Human responses to media are influenced Javornik (2016b), Lee et al. (2021)
interactive media by technological attributes of the media via
effects consumers’ immersive experiences” (Sundar
et al., 2015)
Mental imaginary “Customers visually simulate the use of Jessen et al. (2020), Park and Yoo (2020)
offerings to foresee consequences of use
before purchase; they gain certainty about
the relation of product attributes to
satisfaction. Mental imagery helps explain
functional as well as hedonic consumption
experiences (customers often use mental
imagery to fill in missing information about
products” (Rodr
ıguez-Ardura and Mart
ınez-
L
opez, 2014)
SOR “When individuals encounter a stimulus, it Baytar et al. (2020), Nikhashemi et al.
triggers an internal state called an organism, (2021)
which in turn delivers responses” (Watson,
2020)
Uses and “People tend to be motivated to fulfil Qin et al. (2021), Rauschnabel et al. (2019)
gratification unsatisfied needs by using particular media.
theory Therefore, motivations represent “general
dispositions that influence people’s actions
Table 7. taken to fulfil a need or want” (Papacharissi
Theories used and Rubin, 2000, p. 179)

4.2 Conceptualization of the model

After summarizing all the articles, it was found that the literature is mainly focused on four
dimensions, namely:
(1) Acceptance of AR in an online retail setting by TAM model (McLean and Wilson,
2019; Mishra et al., 2021; Pantano et al., 2017; Rese et al., 2017).
(2) How AR cerates customer experience (Heller et al., 2021; Rauschnabel et al., 2019;
Hilken et al., 2017; Smink et al., 2020; Brito et al., 2018; Barhorst et al., 2021)
 Constructs References
Augmented
reality in online
Antecedents retailing
Media Interactivity Barhorst et al. (2021), McLean and Wilson (2019), Qin et al.
characteristics (2021), Yim et al. (2017)
Vividness Barhorst et al. (2021), McLean and Wilson (2019),
Nikhashemi et al. (2021), Yim et al. (2017)
Augmentation Hilken et al. (2017), Poushneh (2018), Rauschnabel et al.
(2019)
Simulated physical control Fan et al. (2020), Hilken et al. (2017), Song et al. (2020)
(SPC)
Environmental embedding Fan et al. (2020), Hilken et al. (2017), Song et al. (2020)
Media quality Augmentation quality Hinsch et al. (2020), Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga
(2017)
Media richness Huang and Liu (2014), Vongurai (2021)
Reality congruence Kowalczuk et al. (2021)
Mediating mechanism
Customer Spatial presence Heller et al. (2021), Hilken et al. (2017); Smink et al. (2020)
experience Flow Barhorst et al. (2021), Huang and Liao (2017), Javornik
(2016b)
Immersion Song et al. (2020), Yim et al., 2017)
Mental imaginary Heller et al. (2019b), Jessen et al. (2020), Park and Yoo
(2020)
Drivers
Perceived value Hedonic value Hilken et al. (2017), Mishra et al. (2021), Nikhashemi et al.
(2021), Smink et al. (2019), Smink et al. (2020)
Utilitarian value McLean and Wilson (2019), Plotkina and Saurel (2019),
Qin et al. (2021), Rese et al. (2017), Poushneh (2018),
Vongurai (2021), Watson et al. (2020)
Experiential value Poushneh (2018), Vongurai (2021), Watson et al. (2020)
Risk factors Privacy concerns Feng and Xie (2019), Hilken et al. (2017); Smink et al.
(2019)
Perceived intrusiveness Feng and Xie (2019), Smink et al. (2019), Smink et al. (2020)
Perceived risk Bonnin (2020), Roy et al. (2017)
Control to access personal Poushneh (2018), Smink et al. (2019)
information
Consequences-
Decision making Decision comfort Heller et al. (2019a, b), Hilken et al. (2017), Song et al., 2020)
Choice confidence Romano et al. (2020)
Satisfaction Barhorst et al. (2021), Roy et al. (2017), Vongurai (2021)
Behavioural Purchase intention Feng and Xie (2019), Hilken et al. (2017), Plotkina and
intentions Saurel (2019)
WOM Heller et al. (2019a), Hilken et al. (2017), Mishra et al. (2021)
Engagement Heller et al. (2021), Jessen et al. (2020), McLean and Wilson
(2019)
Re-use intention Kim and Hyun (2016), Rauschnabel et al. (2018)
Re-visit intention Moriuchi et al. (2021)
Patronage intention Bonnin (2020)
Willingness to share Smink et al. (2019)
personal information
Brand/AR congruence Hinsch et al. (2020)
(Hinsch et al., 2020)
Attitudinal Attitude towards AR Plotkina and Saurel (2019), Scholz and Duffy (2018), Yim Table 8.
outcomes et al. (2017) Antecedents, drivers
Attitude towards the brand McLean and Wilson (2019), Rauschnabel et al. (2019) and outcomes
IJRDM (3) What are the values/risk associated with the use of AR (Hilken et al., 2017; Mishra
et al., 2021; Nikhashemi et al., 2021; Smink et al., 2019, 2020)
(4) Impact of AR characteristics on consumer behaviour (Barhorst et al., 2021; McLean
and Wilson, 2019; Qin et al., 2021; Yim et al., 2017; Yim and Park, 2019; Hilken et al.,
2017; Kowalczuk et al., 2021).
While AR characteristics act as antecedents, which creates different types of customer
experience such as flow, spatial presence, immersion, this experience thorough AR leads to
several positive and negative values, which ultimately results in assisting the decision-
making process and influencing the attitude of customers towards the technology as well as
the brand. These outcome variables were also found to be influencing the behaviour
outcomes of the customers. Considering the purpose of the study, which was to investigate
the antecedents, drives and outcomes of consumer behaviour towards AR in online retail, the
author compiled all the variables and their respective influence on other constructs and
conceptualized the model in terms of antecedents, drives and outcomes as depicted in
Figure 4.

4.3 Antecedents
4.3.1 Media characteristics. AR has the power to influence customer experience through its
media characteristics (Yim et al., 2017). The majority of the literature sheds light on AR
characteristics where interactivity, vividness and augmentation are prominent. The
following section discusses in detail the AR media characteristics.

Antecedents
Antecedents Drivers Outcomes

Decision Making
Decision Comfort
Choice Confidence
Satisfaction

Perceived Value
Media Characteristics
Behavioural Intentions
Interactivity Hedonic Value
Utilitarian Value Purchase
Vividness
Experiential Value Revisit
Augmentation
Reuse
Simulated Physical Control
Risk Factors Patronage
Environmental Embedding
Engagement
Perceived Intrusiveness Word-of-Mouth
Media Quality
Privacy Concern Brand/AR Congruence
Perceived Risk Willingness to share
Augmentation Quality
Control over Personal Information
Media Richness
Information Access

Attitudinal Outcome
Customer Experience Attitude towards App
Spatial Presence Attitude towards Brand
Flow
Figure 4. Immersion
Conceptual model Mental Imaging
 4.3.1.1 Interactivity. It can be seen from two perspectives, either as a technological feature or Augmented
as a customer’s perception (Yim et al., 2017). From the technical viewpoint, it includes speed (how reality in online
fast the technology can manipulate the content), mapping (extent of similarity in control of the
virtual world to the real world) and range (to what level the content can be manipulated) (Steuer,
retailing
1992). But it exists only if the customer is willing to engage with the technology. Interactivity is
considered a unique feature as it incites psychological and behavioural actions (McLean and
Wilson, 2019; Nikhashemi et al., 2021). It is one of the significant factors of the adoption of AR
technology (Lee et al., 2021); mental imagery and attitude towards the product (Park and Yoo,
2020); satisfaction with the AR experience (Barhorst et al., 2021). Researchers have further
validated that AR, as compared to websites, is more interactive in nature (Mishra et al., 2021).
4.3.1.2 Vividness. It is defined as “the ability of a technology to produce a sensorially rich
mediated environment” (Steuer, 1992, p. 80). Technically it included two aspects, i.e. depth
(quality of the presented media) and breadth (number of dimensions such as text, image,
videos the medium can provide to the users). Vividness produces immersive experience and
influences cognitive actions (Yim et al., 2017), affects hedonic and utilitarian motivation
(Barhorst et al., 2021; McLean and Wilson, 2019), brand engagement and purchase intention
(Nikhashemi et al., 2021).
4.3.1.3 Augmentation. It is considered as one of the most important distinguishing
features of AR, as AR has the ability to overlay the physical world by the virtual world, thus
creating immersion and flow experience for the users, ultimately influencing the cognitive
and affective state of customers (Javornik, 2016a). In a study of make-up apps, it was found
that augmentation creates spatial presence, leading to a positive attitude towards the app
and brand (Smink et al., 2020). Rauschnabel et al. (2019) showed that augmentation quality
drives inspiration, which leads to a significant improvement in brand attitude after using
an AR app (compared to before). Also, it is a significant factor in the adoption of AR apps
(Lee et al., 2021).
4.3.1.4 Simulated physical control (SPC) and environmental embedding (EE). EE is defined
as “the visual integration of virtual content into a person’s real-world environment” whereas
SPC is defined as “the ability of AR to simulate physical control over an offering as
embodiment” (Hilken et al., 2017, p. 886). While both SPC and EE are necessary for mental
imagery, EE allows imagery generation, whereas SPC allows imagery transformation. SPC
and EE reduce the mental burden and offer greater information about the product as to how
AR contextualize the product in the real environment of the customer (Hilken et al., 2017). The
literature shows that both SPC and EE significantly influence experiential value, creating
immersive experience leading to decision comfort for the customers (Song et al., 2020) also
allows the users to control the environment, which helps in getting the product information at
convenience thus, stimulating the cognitive fluency leading to a positive attitude towards the
brand (Fan et al., 2020).
4.3.2 Media quality (augmentation quality and media richness). The quality of the AR media
significantly influences self-referencing, leading to brand/app congruence (Hinsch et al., 2020).
Augmentation quality is also positively related to users’ satisfaction and control over personal
information (Poushneh, 2018) and also leading to hedonic values and a positive brand attitude
(Rauschnabel et al., 2019). Media richness acting as the most influential factor for generating
experiential value in terms of (consumer return on investment (ROI), playfulness, service
excellence and aesthetics) helping customers in their purchase decisions (Vongurai, 2021).

4.4 Mediating variables

4.4.1 Customer experience. In the retail setting, AR has the power to create a greater customer
experience in terms of immersion, flow, spatial presence and mental imagery by
superimposing the virtual layer to the real environment (Heller et al., 2019a; Hilken et al.,
2017; Huang and Liao, 2017; Yim et al., 2017). This experience mediates the relationship
IJRDM between AR and customer response. Both immersion (defined as “sense of engrossment and
deep focus free from distraction within the environment”) and flow (concentration,
playfulness, time distortion and exploratory behaviour) significantly influence hedonic and
utilitarian values (Song et al., 2020; Yim et al., 2017), satisfaction (Barhorst et al., 2021). Spatial
presence refers to the “feeling of being physically situated in a different location and perceives
possibilities for action (Wirth et al., 2007).” It also influences the utilitarian and hedonic values
of the customers and aids the decision-making process (Hilken et al., 2017) and a positive
attitude towards brands (Smink et al., 2020). Mental imagery is another experience generated
via AR, which is defined as “a process by which visual information is represented in the
working memory” (MacInnis and Price, 1987, p. 473). The literature suggests that mental
imaginary significantly reduces the cognitive efforts of customers influences their attitude
towards the product and behavioural intention (Park and Yoo, 2020) and customer
engagement and satisfaction (Jessen et al., 2020).

4.5 Drivers
4.5.1 Perceived value. Several motivators were identified in the literature which drives the
behaviour of customers towards AR, wherein hedonic, utilitarian and experiential factors
were prominent (McLean and Wilson, 2019; Nikhashemi et al., 2021; Vongurai, 2021).
Different utilitarian (ease of use, usefulness, informativeness) and hedonic factors
(enjoyment, playfulness) are critical for the adoption of AR technology (McLean and
Wilson, 2019), positive brand attitude and purchase intention (Plotkina and Saurel, 2019),
satisfaction and attitude towards the app (Rauschnabel et al., 2019). The experiential value
comprises four elements, namely consumer ROI, playfulness, service excellence, aesthetics).
The literature suggests that experiential value leads to sustainable customer relationships
(Huang and Liao, 2015), shopping intentions and revisit intention (Moriuchi et al., 2021).
4.5.2 Risk factors. While new technologies are becoming part of everyday life, people are
feeling vulnerable due to privacy and safety concerns. In the case of AR, studies have found
that people are concerned about their privacy (Feng and Xie, 2019), control to access the
personal information (Poushneh, 2018), risk (Roy et al., 2017) and intrusiveness (Feng and Xie,
2019). Perceived intrusiveness significantly influences attitude towards the brand and app
and willingness to share personal information (Smink et al., 2019, 2020). In an experiment of a
virtual try-on app (self-viewing), it was found that people with high privacy concerns have
negative brand attitudes and high perceived intrusiveness (Feng and Xie, 2019). Privacy
concerns also significantly influence the decision comfort of the customers (Hilken et al.,
2017). AR with providing enhanced customer experience also reduces the perceived risk (Roy
et al., 2017). Rauschnabel et al. (2018) showed that consumers perceive bot threats to their own
and other people’s privacy, but they tend to incorporate only other peoples’ privacy into their
attitude formation.

4.6 Outcomes
The consequences of using AR could be classified into decision making (Romano et al., 2020;
Song et al., 2020; Vongurai, 2021), behavioural intentions (Bonnin, 2020; Hinsch et al., 2020;
Jessen et al., 2020; Yim et al., 2017) and attitudinal factors (McLean and Wilson, 2019; Scholz
and Duffy, 2018).
4.6.1 Decision-making. Through its media characteristics and quality, AR creates a
highly realistic environment and provides an immersive experience that makes the
decision-making process easier for the customers, especially in the online context. AR
reduces the cognitive load of customers through mental imagery and enhances fluency in
the decision-making process, ultimately leading to word of mouth (WOM), purchase
decision and willingness to pay (Heller et al., 2019b). With AR creating immersion and
feeling of ownership, it offers decision-making with certainty for the customers (Song et al., Augmented
2020). In a qualitative study on the impact of AR on customer experience with a virtual try- reality in online
on app, it was found that AR enhances choice confidence and reduces the cognitive
dissonance in the post-purchase stage of the process (Romano et al., 2020). With AR
retailing
providing detailed product information and creating flow and spatial presence, it leads to
enhanced experience stimulating improved decision comfort and satisfaction with the
decision (Dacko, 2017; Hilken et al., 2017).
4.6.2 Behavioural intentions and attitudinal factors. While customers adopt/use AR to
fulfil their utilitarian, hedonic and experiential motives, it leads to behaviour and attitudinal
outcomes. The literature clearly establishes the relationship between AR and purchase
intentions, attitude and adoption intentions. Several authors have posited that AR influences
purchase intentions (Feng and Xie, 2019; Hilken et al., 2017; Plotkina and Saurel, 2019), WOM
(Heller et al., 2019a; Hilken et al., 2017; Mishra et al., 2021), engagement (Jessen et al., 2020;
McLean and Wilson, 2019; Hinsch et al., 2020), patronage intentions (Bonnin, 2020). It also
influences customers’ attitudes towards the brand and the technology (McLean and Wilson,
2019; Rauschnabel et al., 2019; Van Esch et al., 2019).

5. Future research directions

AR has proven to be a breakthrough and much more than a gimmick but as a potential
disruptor (Rauschnabel, 2021). However, the literature is still at a nascent stage. After the
critical assessment of the literature review, several areas for future research are identified,
which require immediate attention to bridge the knowledge gap in the domain, which are
discussed as follows.

5.1 The social side of AR

In the modern world, were being local, social and mobile are the key characteristics of
consumers. The existing literature neglects the social dimension of AR. Most of the social
media platforms, such as Snapchat, Instagram have started using AR in their apps.
Companies can leverage the power of AR for a better brand relationship, promotions and
advertisement engagement. These platforms allow users to be more creative in their social
media usage as they can create their avatar, use countless filters, backgrounds and
accessories for their images and videos to be shared on the platforms, persuading users to
immerse in the experiences ultimately leading to continued intention to use the app. The users
of Snapchat and Instagram have increased significantly over the last two years compared to
non-AR-based social media apps. Considering the fact that Snapchat having a daily active
user base of 238 mand 4 m snap created every day (Snap Inc, 2021), brands have started their
social media marketing via AR. Several brands have created their online virtual stores, live
events (PGA tours) on social media for engaging customers and increased ROI. AR
advertising is another way to interact and creating awareness among the customers through
social media. Apart from social media, one of the promising areas is brand communities; since
AR provides the opportunity to create and share content among peers (IKEA place app,
Dulux Visualizer app), it can be a game-changer in the value co-creation process.
Future researchers should explore
(1) How AR in social media enhances self-brand connections and continued intention to
use the app?
(2) What role does AR experience (particularity spatial presence, flow) and customer
creativity generated by AR play in influencing user’s behaviour in social media?
(3) From the theoretical perspective, social comparison theory and self-evaluation theory
are relevant.
IJRDM 5.2 The dark side of AR
While AR offers several benefits to customers and retailers but at the same time, there are
challenges and concerns related to it. The literature suggests some concerns in terms of privacy,
sharing of personal information (Hilken et al., 2017; Smink et al., 2019). Rauschnabel et al. (2018)
explored the role of privacy risk on the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses (ARSGs). It
was found that threat to privacy of others than one’s own is a significant factor to influence
decision making. AR has empowered people to beautify themselves and manipulate their
appearance to a larger extant. Such practices are creating unreal societal standard and
influencing the self-concept and well-being of the users. Since in the digital realm, people have
become much more sensitive about their privacy and security while adopting or using new
technology, access to geo-location, facial recognition and personal space by AR significantly
hinders the adoption of the technology. AR can collect information much more than social
media do. Second, there are no strict guidelines about the ethical standards and guidelines by
the concerned authorities. No later, we will use AR more seamlessly than ever before. It is time
to think how we want to go forward with AR and what are ethical lines we do not want to cross.
The literature on the topical area falls short of providing a broader understanding of the dark
side of AR. Therefore, the following questions could be considered
(1) Impact of perceived intrusiveness in virtual try-on apps (Feng and Xie, 2019).
(2) What is the impact of privacy concerns on attitudinal and behavioural outcomes?
(3) What are the significant privacy issues associated with the usage of AR, and how do
they influence the adoption of AR?
(4) How does AR influence the self-concept and well-being of the users?
(5) Theoretically, equity theory and privacy calculus theory may be explored.

5.3 Augmented reality marketing (ARM)

ARM is an emerging concept as is being defined as a “strategic concept that integrates digital
information or objects into the subject’s perception of the physical world, often in combination
with other media, to expose, articulate, or demonstrate consumer benefits to achieve
organizational goals” (Rauschnabel et al., 2019, p. 44). Dwivedi et al. (2021) also outline ARM
as the future of marketing. The main purpose of ARM is to craft “digital affordance” (Poushneh
and Parraga, 2017) for richer customer experience. In the existing literature, the presence of ARM
is evidenced at each stage of the customer purchase journey (Javornik, 2016a), influencing brand
attitude, inspiration (Rauschnabel et al., 2019) and purchase decision (Hilken et al., 2017). But
despite increased attention to the domain, most of the studies are app-centric (Huang et al., 2019;
Scholz and Duffy, 2018) and neglect the brand powering the app. In a recent study, Rauschnabel
(2021) argued that AR has the power to influence 4Ps of marketing, i.e. promotion (new ways to
communicate), place (distribution, AR shopping app allowing try on), price (companies are
required to determine how prices for products offering AR features) and product (content
development, improvement in existing product). Additionally, future researchers could refer to
other areas where AR is used for broadening the scope of ARM. For example, Schein and
Rauschnable (2021) looked at potential barriers to AR in manufacturing and identified a pool of
11 factors for technology resistance. These findings could be explored in the retail setting for
fresh and interesting insight. Some future avenues could be:
(1) How ARM can be used for influencing brand perception/attitude (Rauschnabel et al.,
2019)?
(2) How ARM can be used for generating better customer experience and customer
retention?
 (3) Customer satisfaction theory and construal level theory might bring valuable Augmented
insights. reality in online
retailing
5.4 Methodological issues
First, 50% of the research has been done in a controlled laboratory setting, which lacks
generalizability as consumer behaviour in the real setting may differ. Several authors have
asked for validation of their results in the real environment (Song et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2020;
Xu et al., 2020). So, it is recommended to test the proposed findings of the existing literature in
the real environment. Second, although AR literature being at a nascent stage, there have been a
few attempts to understand the influence of AR on consumer behaviour with qualitative
research. The lack of conceptualization and theories to understand consumer behaviour
towards AR may be attributed to the fact that most of the researchers have used quantitative
techniques to test the existing theories, such as TAM, flow. Thus, shifting the focus towards
theory building rather than theory testing is desired. Qualitative exploration through grounded
theory, phenomenology and ethnography may bring more enriching insights into the domain.

5.5 How AR can be used for better customer engagement

AR has the potential to create customer engagement in a novel and creative way (Jessen et al.,
2020). MSI report (2020–2022) has also listed the use of AR in customer engagement as a top
research priority. A few attempts have been made in this direction (Jessen et al., 2020; McLean
and Wilson, 2019; Moriuchi et al., 2021; Scholz and Duffy, 2018). However, customer
engagement in the digital era is mostly happening through social media, online communities
and mobile app. At the same time, AR is already in place to disrupt these existing platforms. It
is not surprising that AR will significantly influence customer’s engagement with such
platforms and engagement with firms/brands using these platforms as a tool for engagement.
Some of the landscape for the future research could be
(1) How AR can be used for value co-creation via customer engagement (Cuomo et al.,
2020)?
(2) How firms can frame their engagement strategy concerning AR (Jessen et al., 2020)?
(3) Use of service-dominant logic, human–computer interaction theories and consumer
behaviour theories (consumer culture theory) to understand customers’ engagement
with AR (Moriuchi et al., 2021).

5.6 Use of AR for experiential value

AR will change people’s experiences of day-to-day life. The experience created by AR
positively influences user’s satisfaction and purchase intention (Poushneh, 2018). User
experience in retail is defined as “All the aspects of how people use an interactive product: the
way it feels in their hands, how well they understand how it works, how they feel about it
while they are using it, how well it serves their purposes, and how well it fits into the entire
context in which they are using it” (Alben, 1996). One of the unique benefits that the retailers
can derive is by creating experiential value through AR. The experiential value is important
for building long-term relationships with brands/companies. The existing literature posits
service excellence (shopping and lifestyle apps), customer ROI (shopping, finance, business),
aesthetic (lifestyle, entertainment) and playfulness (entertainment app) as dimensions of
experiential value (Vongurai, 2021; Watson et al., 2020). Most importantly, while the existing
literature explores the impact of AR characteristics on the experiential value, the influence of
consumer personal factor/personality traits is ill explored (Watson et al., 2020). Although
personal factors are found to significantly influence the relationship (Chang et al., 2011).
IJRDM Therefore, future research can bring vital practical and theoretical implications in the
domain. The possible avenues could be:
(1) How AR characteristics create experiential value (Watson et al., 2020)?
(2) How different types of experiential values affect consumer behaviour?
(3) What features of AR account for experiential value leading to satisfaction with the
purchase decision (Vongurai, 2021)?
(4) Role of personal factors such as (cognitive style, age, cognitive innovativeness,
cultural background, and involvement level) on the experiential value of AR and its
consequences.

6. Concluding remarks
The study provides a holistic understanding of state-of-the-art literature on AR in online
retail. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the author reviewed and synthesized the
relevant literature, and proposed a conceptual framework and future research directions. In
all, the study answered four research questions. First, interactivity, vividness, augmentation,
SPC and EE are the main AR characteristics influencing consumer behaviour. To answer the
second question, hedonic, utilitarian, experiential values act as key drivers along with
privacy concerns and risk factors hindering the usage. Furthermore, the outcomes were
categorized into three heads, i.e. decision-making, behavioural intentions and attitudinal
outcomes. To answer research question three, we provide Table 7 for the theoretical lenses
used. Also, the study identifies the typology of AR in online retailing, where (1) adoption of
AR, (2) AR and customer experience, (3) values/risk associated with use of AR, (4) impact of
AR characteristics on consumer behaviour emerged as main themes. Lastly, to answer
research question four, the study provides future research directions in the dark side, the
social side of AR, use of AR for experiential value, AR and customer engagement,
methodological issues and ARM domain.
To conclude, we shall consider AR as a technology that is not only restricted to the
promotion mix but is much more than that. Rauschnable (2021) discussed that AR holograms
could replace physical products and urged to focus upon “radical and future-oriented approach
to studying AR’s future as a disruptor of the real world”. Therefore, rather than a narrow focus,
we shall develop new ways of thinking about AR. However, this study is not free from
limitations. We have selected the articles from the SCOPUS database and only papers from the
journals included in the ABDC list for quality purposes; therefore, there is a possibility that we
might have missed some of the papers on AR in online retail in the process (see Table 8).

References
Alben, L. (1996), “Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design”,
Interactions, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 11-15.
Azuma, R.T. (1997), “A survey of augmented reality”, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 355-385.
*Baytar, F., Chung, T. and Shin, E. (2020), “Evaluating garments in augmented reality when shopping
online”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 667-683, doi: 10.1108/
JFMM-05-2018-0077.
BCG (2018), “Augmented reality: is the camera the next big thing in advertising?”, available at: https://
www.bcg.com/publications/2018/augmented-reality-is-camera-next-big-thing-advertising
(accessed 17 March 2021).
Bonetti, F., Warnaby, G. and Quinn, L. (2018), “Augmented reality and virtual reality in physical and Augmented
online retailing: a review, synthesis and research agenda”, Augmented Reality and Virtual
Reality, pp. 119-132, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_9. reality in online
*Bonnin, G. (2020), “The roles of perceived risk, attractiveness of the online store and familiarity with
retailing
AR in the influence of AR on patronage intention”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 52 No. August 2019, p. 101938, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101938.
*Brannon Barhorst, J., McLean, G., Shah, E. and Mack, R. (2021), “Blending the real world and the
virtual world: exploring the role of flow in augmented reality experiences”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 122 No. September 2019, pp. 423-436, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.041.
*Brito, P.Q., Stoyanova, J. and Coelho, A. (2018), “Augmented reality versus conventional interface: is
there any difference in effectiveness?”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 77 No. 6,
pp. 7487-7516, doi: 10.1007/s11042-017-4658-1.
Brodie, R.J., Fehrer, J.A., Jaakkola, E. and Conduit, J. (2019), “Actor engagement in networks: defining
the conceptual domain”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 173-188.
Brzezinski, M. (2015), “Power laws in citation distributions: evidence from Scopus”, Scientometrics,
Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 213-228.
*Caboni, F. and Hagberg, J. (2019), “Augmented reality in retailing: a review of features, applications
and value”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 11,
pp. 1125-1140, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-12-2018-0263.
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E. and Ivkovic, M. (2011), “Augmented
reality technologies, systems and applications”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 51,
pp. 341-377, doi: 10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6.
*Chandra, S. and Kumar, K.N. (2018), “Exploring factors influencing organizational adoption of
augmented reality in e-commerce: empirical analysis using technology-organization-
environment model”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 237-265.
Chang, H.J., Eckman, M. and Yan, R.N. (2011), “Application of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model
to the retail environment: the role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying behavior”, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 233-249.
*Chylinski, M., Heller, J., Hilken, T., Keeling, D.I., Mahr, D. and de Ruyter, K. (2020), “Augmented
reality marketing: a technology-enabled approach to situated customer experience”,
Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 374-384, doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.04.004.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, CA.
CMO Survey (2019), “Augmented reality: what’s behind the marketing industry’s failure of imagination?”,
available at: https://www.cmo.com.au/blog/modern- creative/2019/10/03/augmented-reality-whats-
behind-the-marketing-industrys-failure-of-imagination/ (accessed 23 March 2021).
*Cuomo, M.T., Tortora, D., Festa, G., Ceruti, F. and Metallo, G. (2020), “Managing omni-customer
brand experience via augmented reality: a qualitative investigation in the Italian fashion
retailing system”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 427-445, doi: 10.1108/QMR-11-
2017-0142.
*Dacko, S.G. (2017), “Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 124, pp. 243-256, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.032.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D.L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., Jain, V., Karjaluoto, H.,
Kefi, H., Krishen, A.S., Kumar, V., Rahman, M.M., Raman, R., Rauschnabel, P.A., Rowley, J.,
Salo, J., Tran, G.A. and Wang, Y. (2021), “Setting the future of digital and social media
marketing research: perspectives and research propositions”, International Journal of
Information Management, May, p. 102168, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168.
*Fan, X., Chai, Z., Deng, N. and Dong, X. (2020), “Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and
consumers’ product attitude: a cognitive perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 53 No. February 2019, p. 101986, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101986.
IJRDM *Feng, Y. and Xie, Q. (2019), “Privacy concerns, perceived intrusiveness, and privacy controls: an
analysis of virtual try-on apps”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-57, doi:
10.1080/15252019.2018.1521317.
~ez-S
anchez, S. and Or

*Flavi
an, C., Ib
an us, C. (2019), “The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed
reality technologies on the customer experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 100,
pp. 547-560, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Sisodia, R. and Nordf€alt, J. (2017), “Enhancing customer engagement
through consciousness”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 55-64.
*Heller, J., Chylinski, M., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D.I. (2019a), “Touching the untouchable:
exploring multi-sensory augmented reality in the context of online retailing”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 219-234, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2019.10.008.
*Heller, J., Chylinski, M., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D. and Keeling, D.I. (2019b), “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, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2019.03.005.
*Heller, J., Chylinski, M., de Ruyter, K., Keeling, D.I., Hilken, T. and Mahr, D. (2021), “Tangible
service automation: decomposing the technology-enabled engagement process (TEEP) for
augmented reality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 84-103, doi: 10.1177/
1094670520933692.
*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, doi: 10.
1007/s11747-017-0541-x.
*Hilken, T., Keeling, D.I., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D. and Chylinski, M. (2020), “Seeing eye to eye: social
augmented reality and shared decision making in the marketplace”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 143-164, doi: 10.1007/s11747-019-00688-0.
*Hinsch, C., Felix, R. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2020), “Nostalgia beats the wow-effect: inspiration, awe
and meaningful associations in augmented reality marketing”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, p. 53, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101987.
Hoyer, W.D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B., Kraume, K. and Shankar, V. (2020), “Transforming the customer
experience through new technologies”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 57-71.
*Huang, T.L. and Liao, S. (2015), “A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology:
the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 269-295, doi: 10.1007/s10660-014-9163-2.
*Huang, T.L. and Liao, S.L. (2017), “Creating e-shopping multisensory flow experience through
augmented-reality interactive technology”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 449-475, doi: 10.
1108/IntR-11-2015-0321.
*Huang, T.-L. and Liu, F.H. (2014), “Formation of augmented-reality interactive technology’s
persuasive effects from the perspective of experiential value”, Internet Research, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 82-109, doi: 10.1108/IntR-07-2012-0133.
*Huang, T.L., Mathews, S. and Chou, C.Y. (2019), “Enhancing online rapport experience via
augmented reality”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 851-865, doi: 10.1108/JSM-
12-2018-0366.
Javornik, A. (2016a), “Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media
characteristics on consumer behaviour”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30,
pp. 252-261, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.02.004.
*Javornik, A. (2016b), “‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’ Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural
responses to augmented reality applications”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 9-10,
pp. 987-1011, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1174726.
Javornik, A., Marder, B., Pizzetti, M. and Warlop, L. (2021), “Augmented self-The effects of virtual face
augmentation on consumers’ self-concept”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 130, pp. 170-187.
*Jessen, A., Hilken, T., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., Heller, J., Keeling, D.I. and de Ruyter, K. (2020), “The Augmented
playground effect: how augmented reality drives creative customer engagement”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 116 April, pp. 85-98, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.002. reality in online
*Kim, H.C. and Hyun, M.Y. (2016), “Predicting the use of smartphone-based Augmented Reality (AR):
retailing
does telepresence really help?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 28-38, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2016.01.001.
*Kowalczuk, P., Siepmann (n
ee Scheiben), C. and Adler, J. (2021), “Cognitive, affective, and behavioural
consumer responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: a comparative study”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 124 No. October 2020, pp. 357-373, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.050.
*Lee, H., Xu, Y. and Porterfield, A. (2021), “Consumers’ adoption of AR-based virtual fitting rooms:
from the perspective of theory of interactive media effects”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-62, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-05-2019-0092.
MacInnis, D.J. and Price, L.L. (1987), “The role of imagery in information processing: review and
extensions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 473-491.
MarketsandMarkets (2019), available at: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/
augmented-reality-retail.asp (accessed 15 May 2021).
*McLean, G. and Wilson, A. (2019), “Shopping in the digital world: examining customer engagement
through augmented reality mobile applications”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 101 No.
November 2018, pp. 210-224, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.002.
Milgram, P. and Kishino, F. (1994), “A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays”, IEICE
Transactions on Information and Systems, Vol. 77 No. 12, pp. 1321-1329.
*Mishra, A., Shukla, A., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “From ‘touch’ to a ‘multisensory’
experience: the impact of technology interface and product type on consumer responses”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 385-396, doi: 10.1002/mar.21436.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. and Prisma Group (2009), “Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6
No. 7, p. 1000097.
*Moriuchi, E., Landers, V.M., Colton, D. and Hair, N. (2021), “Engagement with chatbots versus
augmented reality interactive technology in e-commerce”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 375-389, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2020.1740766.
*Nikhashemi, S.R., Knight, H.H., Nusair, K. and Liat, C.B. (2021), “Augmented reality in smart
retailing: a(n) (A)Symmetric Approach to continuous intention to use retail brands’ mobile AR
apps”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 60, p. 102464, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.
2021.102464.
*Pantano, E., Rese, A. and Baier, D. (2017), “Enhancing the online decision-making process by using
augmented reality: a two country comparison of youth markets”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp. 81-95, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.011.
Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A.M. (2000), “Predictors of internet use”, Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-196.
*Park, M. and Yoo, J. (2020), “Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer
responses: a mental imagery perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 52
No. July 2019, p. 101912, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101912.
Paul, J. and Benito, G.R. (2018), “A review of research on outward foreign direct investment from
emerging countries, including China: what do we know, how do we know and where should we
be heading?”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 90-115.
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S. and Gupta, P. (2017), “Exporting challenges of SMEs: a review and future research
agenda”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 327-342, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.01.003.
Perannagari, K.T. and Chakrabarti, S. (2019), “Factors influencing acceptance of augmented reality in
retail: insights from thematic analysis”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 18-34, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-02-2019-0063.
IJRDM *Plotkina, D. and Saurel, H. (2019), “Me or just like me? The role of virtual try-on and physical
appearance in apparel M-retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 51 No. July
2019, pp. 362-377, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.07.002.
*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 No. October 2017, pp. 169-176, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.12.010.
*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 No. October 2016, pp. 229-234, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.005.
*Qin, H., Peak, D.A. and Prybutok, V. (2021), “A virtual market in your pocket: how does mobile
augmented reality (MAR) influence consumer decision making?”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 58 No. August 2020, p. 102337, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102337.
Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018), “Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: an exploration of
expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 557-572, doi: 10.1002/mar.21106.
Rauschnabel, P.A. (2021), “Augmented reality is eating the real-world! the substitution of physical
products by holograms”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 57, p.
102279.
Rauschnabel, P.A., He, J. and Ro, Y.K. (2018), “Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart
glasses: a closer look at privacy risks”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92 No. April 2016,
pp. 374-384, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.008.
*Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R. and Hinsch, C. (2019), “Augmented reality marketing: how mobile AR-
apps can improve brands through inspiration”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 49 No. March, pp. 43-53, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.004.
*Rese, A., Baier, D., Geyer-Schulz, A. and Schreiber, S. (2017), “How augmented reality apps are
accepted by consumers: a comparative analysis using scales and opinions”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 124, pp. 306-319, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.010.
Rodr
ıguez-Ardura, I. and Mart
ınez-L
opez, F.J. (2014), “Another look at ‘being there’experiences in
digital media: exploring connections of telepresence with mental imagery”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 508-518.
*Romano, B., Sands, S. and Pallant, J.I. (2020), “Augmented reality and the customer journey: an
exploratory study”, Australasian Marketing Journal. doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.010.
*Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Sadeque, S., Nguyen, B. and Melewar, T.C. (2017), “Constituents and
consequences of smart customer experience in retailing”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 124 No. 2017, pp. 257-270, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.022.
Saprikis, V., Avlogiaris, G. and Katarachia, A. (2021), “Determinants of the intention to adopt mobile
augmented reality apps in shopping malls among university students”, Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 491-512, doi: 10.3390/jtaer16030030.
Schein, K.E. and Rauschnable, P.A. (2021), “Augmented reality in manufacturing: exploring workers’
perception of barriers”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, forthcoming.
*Scholz, J. and Duffy, K. (2018), “We ARe at home: how augmented reality reshapes mobile marketing
and consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 44 No.
March, pp. 11-23, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.05.004.
*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, doi: 10.1016/j.
bushor.2015.10.003.
*Smink, A.R., Frowijn, S., van Reijmersdal, E.A., van Noort, G. and Neijens, P.C. (2019), “Try online
before you buy: how does shopping with augmented reality affect brand responses and
personal data disclosure”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 35 No. January,
p. 100854, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100854.
*Smink, A.R., van Reijmersdal, E.A., van Noort, G. and Neijens, P.C. (2020), “Shopping in augmented Augmented
reality: the effects of spatial presence, personalization and intrusiveness on app and brand
responses”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, pp. 474-485, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020. reality in online
07.018. retailing
Smith, E.R. and Collins, E.C. (2009), “Contextualizing person perception: distributed social cognition”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 116 No. 2, p. 343.
SnapInc (2021), “Daily active user base”, available at: https://s25.q4cdn.com/442043304/files/doc_
financials/2021/q1/Q1%E2%80%9921-Earnings-Release-Final.pdf (accessed 23 June 2021).
*Song, H.K., Baek, E. and Choo, H.J. (2020), “Try-on experience with augmented reality comforts your
decision: focusing on the roles of immersion and psychological ownership”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1214-1234, doi: 10.1108/ITP-02-2019-0092.
Statista (2020), “Number of smartphone users worldwide”, available at: https://www.statista.com/
chart/13139/estimated-worldwide-mobile-e-commerce-sales/(accessed 18 February 2021).
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Sundar, S., Jia, H., Waddell, T.F. and Huang, Y. (2015), “Toward a theory of interactive media effects
(TIME)”, in Sundar, S. (Ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 47-86.
*Van Esch, P., Arli, D., Gheshlaghi, M.H., Andonopoulos, V., von der Heidt, T. and Northey, G. (2019),
“Anthropomorphism and augmented reality in the retail environment”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 49, pp. 35-42, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.002.
*Vongurai, R. (2021), “Factors influencing experiential value toward using cosmetic AR try-on feature
in Thailand”, Journal of Distribution Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 75-87, doi: 10.15722/jds.19.1.
202101.75.
*Watson, A., Alexander, B. and Salavati, L. (2020), “The impact of experiential augmented reality
applications on fashion purchase intention”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 433-451, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-06-2017-0117.
Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., B€ocking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Saari, T., Laarni, J.,
Ravaja, N., Gouveia, F.R. and Biocca, F. (2007), “A process model of the formation of spatial
presence experiences”, Media Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 493-525.
*Xu, L., Zhang, L., Cui, N. and Yang, Z. (2020), “How and when AR technology affects product
attitude”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1226-1241, doi: 10.
1108/APJML-03-2019-0221.
*Yim, M.Y.C. and Park, S.Y. (2019), “‘I am not satisfied with my body, so I like augmented reality
(AR)’: consumer responses to AR-based product presentations”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 100 No. January 2018, pp. 581-589, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.041.
*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, pp. 89-103, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2017.04.001.
References marked * are the articles selected in the review process.

Corresponding author
Harish Kumar can be contacted at: fpm19harish_k@mdi.ac.in

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

View publication stats