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

net/publication/363813107

Meta-analysis of augmented reality marketing

Article in Marketing Intelligence & Planning · September 2022

DOI: 10.1108/MIP-06-2022-0221

CITATIONS READS

12 1,172

3 authors:

Harish Kumar Parul Gupta

Management Development Institute Gurgaon Management Development Institute Gurgaon
10 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 1,893 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sumedha Chauhan
O.P. Jindal Global University
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,792 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special REVIEW Issue as EDITOR- The Services Industries Journal, Deadline: Aug 20 View project

Call for Papers for the Special Issue of JITCAR – PLATFORM ECOSYSTEMS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harish Kumar on 24 September 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/0263-4503.htm

Meta-analysis of augmented Meta-analysis

of augmented
reality marketing reality
marketing
Harish Kumar
Department of Marketing, Management Development Institute Gurgaon,
Gurgaon, India
Parul Gupta Received 1 June 2022
Strategy and General Management, Management Development Institute Gurgaon, Revised 25 July 2022
6 September 2022
Gurgaon, India, and 7 September 2022
Sumedha Chauhan 7 September 2022
Accepted 10 September 2022
Jindal Global Business School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

Abstract
Purpose – Amidst the ambiguity about the impact of augmented reality (AR) attributes on hedonic or
utilitarian values, the present study aims to understand what AR attributes create hedonic and utilitarian
values and how their interaction determines consumers’ behavioral intention.
Design/methodology/approach – The study synthesizes the results of 19 quantitative studies on AR
marketing by using the meta-analysis technique.
Findings – The findings reveal that interactivity and augmentation are salient AR attributes that offer users
both hedonic and utilitarian values. They are instrumental in fostering users’ behavioral intention. However,
interactivity does not have any direct influence on the behavioral intentions.
Originality/value – Being one of the first meta-analyses on AR marketing; theoretically, it synthesizes the
statistical data of the state of art literature on AR marketing. The results of the study would allow AR
practitioners to decide on their AR marketing related activities in a better way.
Keywords Augmented reality marketing, Meta-analysis, Hedonic value, Utilitarian value, Consumer behavior
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Technological progressions and the use of interactive technologies, in particular, have
completely transformed consumers’ shopping experience and consumer engagement
landscape (Rajagopal, 2022; Flavi
an et al., 2019). Augmented reality (AR) is one of the
most rapidly evolving technologies being adopted in retail (Kumar, 2021; Lavoye et al., 2021).
It is defined as “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 the real ones”
(Rauschnabel et al., 2022a). Since its inception, when Ivan Sutherland prototyped the first-
ever head-mounted display in 1960, AR has progressed heavily in the last decade (Caboni and
Hagberg, 2019; Rauschnabel, 2018).
Many leading companies (e.g. Ikea, Amazon, Adidas, Apple and Microsoft) are using AR apps
for their consumers (Kumar and Srivastava, 2022). AR industry in retail markets is estimated to
reach almost $7.9bn globally by 2023 (Markets and Markets, 2019). Additionally, Shopify also
found that products with AR visualization had 94% more conversion rates than those without AR
visualization features. These global data paint a promising future for AR in the retail industry.
In the last decade, there has been a surge of scholarly research studying AR applications
in business in general and retailing in particular (Wedel et al., 2020; Yim et al., 2017). The
existing literature on AR marketing uncovers several dimensions such as AR media Marketing Intelligence & Planning
characteristics and consumer response (Javornik, 2016), consumer acceptance of AR (McLean © Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-4503
and Wilson, 2019; Huang and Liao, 2015), customer experience (Huang et al., 2019) and AR’s DOI 10.1108/MIP-06-2022-0221
MIP impact on consumer behavior (Kumar, 2021; Kumar and Srivastava, 2022). Additionally, an
in-depth review of existing literature on AR marketing reveals that scholars have shown keen
interest in investigating how various media characteristics such as interactivity,
augmentation, vividness and novelty (McLean and Wilson, 2019; Javornik, 2016; Yim et al.,
2017; Kim and Hyun, 2016) create hedonic (Javornik, 2016) and utilitarian values (Hinsch et al.,
2020; Poushneh, 2018) which ultimately deliver desirable outcomes in the form of consumers’
positive brand attitude (Rauschnabel et al., 2019), purchase intention (Hilken et al., 2017),
consumer engagement (McLean and Wilson, 2019), impulse buying (Kumar and Srivastava,
2022) and usage intention (Yim et al., 2017; Gatter et al., 2022). The focus of these inquiries has
been specific AR media characteristics and perceived consumer values that might determine
consumer behavior.
However, existing empirical research provides mixed results about users’ perception of
AR as a tool for creating utilitarian or hedonic value (Qin et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2018;
Hilken et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2021; Nikhashemi et al., 2021) and the salient media attributes of
AR. For example, some argue that AR attributes lead to hedonic value but not utilitarian
value (Nikhashemi et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2021), while others reported that AR attributes
influence the utilitarian value but not the hedonic value (Lee et al., 2020; Pantano et al., 2017).
Lastly, some researchers posit AR attributes influence both utilitarian and hedonic values
(Qin et al., 2021; Plotkina and Suareal, 2019). Thus, despite an encouraging amount of
research, scholars have no consensus about which value consumers seek to obtain by using
AR; utilitarian or hedonic? Next, which AR attributes generate these values?
Amidst these mixed empirical findings coupled with rising calls by practitioners aspiring
to use AR marketing applications (Rauschnabel et al., 2022b), a generalized understanding of
what media characteristics create hedonic value and/or utilitarian value and how this
interplay determines consumer behavioral intention to purchase is warranted, for multiple
audiences – academics, practitioners and theorists. A refined and clear direction would allow
practitioners to better decide on their targeting, positioning, advertising and engagement-
related activities. From a theoretical perspective, clarity on this issue would reduce the
ambiguity in the AR marketing literature. Meta-analysis is often used to synthesize results to
develop a generalized understanding of a phenomenon and better understand and interpret
conflicting results (Oduro et al., 2021; Prashar and Gupta, 2020; Dennis et al., 2001). With the
primary objective to study how media characteristics create hedonic and utilitarian values
and how their interaction determines consumers’ behavioral intention, we consolidated and
quantitatively meta-analyzed results published in empirical studies on AR in retailing from
January 2012 to February 2022. This period is crucial as during this time, the research on AR
in retailing picked up and grew. The sample selection, research methodology, and analysis
have been explained in the subsequent sections in detail.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1 AR attributes and perceived values
The existing literature provides several AR attributes such as interactivity, augmentation,
vividness, novelty, spatial, physical control and environmental embedding (Kumar, 2021;
Lavoye et al., 2021). Interactivity and augmentation are two important media characteristics
(Yim et al., 2017; Javornik, 2016; Park and Yoo, 2020). Interactivity has been studied from two
different viewpoints, first as a technical attribute and second as a consumer’s perception. As a
technical attribute, it refers to the “technological system’s capacity to allow individuals to
interact with and be involved with content more easily” (Yim et al., 2017). Certain aspects are
used to explain interactivity, for example, speed, mapping or range (for more details, see
Steuer, 1992). From a consumer’s perception viewpoint, it is a subjective experience with the
media. The researchers have majorly used the technical aspect to explain interactivity in the
AR context. Using stimulus-organism-response (SOR) theory, Qin et al. (2021) concluded a Meta-analysis
positive and significant impact of interactivity on the hedonic and utilitarian values. Kumar of augmented
and Srivastava (2022) also conceptualized the effect of interactivity on the hedonic and
utilitarian values in the AR context. Furthermore, while exploring the role of AR on customer
reality
engagement, Nikhashemi et al. (2021) also found that AR’s interactivity provides hedonic and marketing
utilitarian values to the users, ultimately resulting in brand engagement and inspiration.
Therefore, we posit that:
H1. Interactivity positively impacts the utilitarian value.
H2. Interactivity positively impacts the hedonic value.
Augmentation is the “ability to overlay the physical world with the virtual environment”
(Javornik, 2016). The literature suggests three types of augmentation, namely self/body
augmentation, product augmentation and augmentation on the environment. It is considered
one of AR’s most important and distinguishing features, which influences customers’ hedonic
value and affective response (Watson et al., 2018).
In one of the earliest studies, Javornik (2016) postulated perceived augmentation as a
salient media attribute of AR and found that perceived augmentation significantly influences
the flow experience (fun, enjoyment). Furthermore, several pieces of research confirmed that
perceived augmentation as a media attribute has a significant impact on hedonic and
utilitarian values (Hilken et al., 2017; Javornik, 2016; Kumar and Srivastava, 2022; Watson
et al., 2018). Therefore, we posit that:
H3. Augmentation positively impacts the utilitarian value.
H4. Augmentation positively impacts the hedonic value.

2.2 Perceived values and behavioral intention

As per the theory of planned behavior, the intentions can very well predict the actual behavior
of the consumers (Azjen, 1980). Additionally, values are the prime determinants of consumer
choice and preference behavior (Gutman, 1982).
AR has proven to highly influence consumer behavior (Hilken et al., 2017; Wedal et al.,
2020; Moriuchi et al., 2021; Roy et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2021; Whang et al., 2021). The AR’s
outcomes could be segregated into three categories, namely decision-making assistance,
behavioral intentions and attitudinal outcomes (Kumar, 2021). Because the decision-making
assistance and attitudinal outcomes ultimately lead to behavioral outcomes, we look at the
impact of AR attributes (interactivity and augmentation) on behavioral intentions through
perceived values (hedonic and utilitarian).
AR, an immersive technology, can generate a highly stimulating and enjoyable
experience, resulting in hedonic value for the users (Rauschnabel, 2021; Javornik, 2016).
The hedonic value generated by AR was found to influence the behavioral intentions
significantly. For instance, Yim et al. (2017) found that interactivity provides the hedonic
value (enjoyment) that results in behavioral intention for the users. Additionally, Javornik
(2016) found that augmentation generates hedonic value which ultimately influences the
consumers’ behavioral intentions.
We found several pieces of evidence concerning the role of utilitarian value on behavioral
intentions (Nikhashemi et al., 2021; McLean and Wilson, 2019; Moharana and Pradhan, 2020). In
an experimental study, Bonnin (2020) confirmed that AR-generated utilitarian and hedonic
values resulting in behavioral intentions. Furthermore, Lavoye et al. (2021) also posited the impact
of AR-generated hedonic and utilitarian values on behavioral intentions. Therefore, we posit that:
H5. AR-generated hedonic value positively influences the behavioral intentions.
MIP H6. AR-generated utilitarian value positively influences the behavioral intentions.
H7. Interactivity positively influences the behavioral intentions.
H8. Augmentation positively influences the behavioral intentions.

2.3 Moderating effect of culture

Culture is considered as a collective programming of the mind that differentiates the people in
one group to another (Hofstede et al., 2010). Culture significantly influences the values, beliefs
and the perceptions of the users (Eisend, 2019). Following means-end chain theory (Gutman,
1982) which asserts that values are the prime drivers of the user’s behavior and actions, we
argue that the behavioral intentions might vary as per the cultural context. Prior research
studies have also established the same (Adel et al., 2021).
We have referred to Hofstede et al.’s (2010) cultural dimensions as the proxy to culture.
These cultural dimensions have been used as the moderating variables in the prior meta-
analysis research assessing the behavioral outcomes in the context of technologies (e.g.
Eisend, 2019; Blut et al., 2016). In the present study, we have employed indulgence and
uncertainty avoidance as the moderating variables.
2.3.1 Indulgence. Indulgence refers to the society’s acceptance of hedonistic and enjoyable
activities. On the other hand, restraint culture disapproves personal happiness and freedom
(Hofstede et al., 2010). Thus, the culture which is high on indulgence would have more hedonic
orientation, whereas restraint culture would be more oriented towards utilitarian values. Previous
research has found indulgence to be moderating the impact of hedonic value and utilitarian value
on behavioral intentions (Jadil et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2013). Additionally, people from indulgent
culture have high desires and wants, while the people from restraint culture tightly suppress their
desires and wants (Gu et al., 2021). People from indulgent culture tend to adopt new technology
(Syed and Malik, 2014). Hence, augmentation and interactivity may have higher influence on
hedonic value, utilitarian value and behavioral intentions in indulgent culture in comparison to the
restraint culture. Based on the above discussion we hypothesize the following:
H9. Indulgence moderates the relationships present in the research model.
2.3.2 Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance refers to “the extent to which the members
of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 161). Culture
high on uncertainty avoidance embrace predictability and avoid ambiguity (Blut et al., 2016).
Thus, such culture would welcome new technologies such as AR as it reduces the risk associated
with the product due to its novel media attributes, namely interactivity and augmentation
(Kumar and Srivastava, 2022). Additionally, we find that users perceive the values (hedonic and
utilitarian) provided by AR differently across cultures (Hilken et al., 2017; Poushneh, 2018). Prior
research studies have also found that uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationships of
hedonic value and utilitarian values with behavioral intentions (Blut et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020).
In light of the above discussion, we hypothesize the following:
H10. Uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationships present in the research model.
Figure 1 depicts the research model containing the hypothesized relationships of the
present study.

3. Methodology
The present study used the meta-analysis technique, which describes the outcomes of
multiple empirical research studies by normally using an effect size measure such as
correlation coefficient and then integrating these measures to provide a summary (Hedges
and Vevea, 1998). Meta-analysis has been used in the present study due to following reasons. Meta-analysis
First, it is a method that statistically synthesizes the prior literature on several relationships. of augmented
It thus “provides the opportunity to view the ‘whole picture in a research context by
combining and analysing the quantitative results of many empirical studies” (King and He,
reality
2005, p. 668). Second, it provides higher statistical power by combining several quantitative marketing
studies’ outcomes and by eluding an individual study’s statistical limitations (Borenstein
et al., 2011), and examine possible moderators that emerged through logical reasoning and
prevailing theory (King and He, 2005; Oduro et al., 2021).
Next, we describe the three main steps conducted in meta-analysis: identification of
articles, coding and statistical analysis.

3.1 Identification of articles

For identification of studies, we followed the steps indicated in Figure 2. First, a
comprehensive search was conducted on the Scopus and Google Scholar databases for
research papers and peer-reviewed conference papers. The ProQuest dissertations and theses
global database was used for searching the relevant Ph.D. dissertations. We used the
following string with Boolean “OR” and “AND” operators for extracting the studies:
(“Augmented reality” OR “Mixed reality” OR “AR”) AND (“Retail” OR “Online retail” OR
“Consumer behavior” OR “Consumer behavior” OR “Customer experience” OR “Purchase
intention” OR “engagement” OR “hedonic” OR “utilitarian” OR “perceived value”). This
process resulted in a total of 6,532 studies.
Second, two authors jointly read each study’s title and keywords to choose the relevant
ones. At this stage, we excluded studies that did not investigate AR attributes, perceived
values/benefits and AR’s impact on user behavior. Authors also excluded books, book
chapters, notes, editorials, short surveys, reviews, nonEnglish and duplicate studies. In case
of disagreements, the consensus was achieved by discussion among all the authors. This
resulted into a total of 4,135 studies.
Third, all the authors independently read the abstract of each study. At this stage, all those
studies were excluded which apparently did not investigate the AR attributes, their hedonic
and/or utilitarian values and user’s intention to purchase. Subsequently, all the authors
jointly discussed to achieve consensus in case of disagreements. This process resulted in
limiting the number of studies to 318.
Fourth, all the authors independently went through the full text of each study to shortlist
the relevant ones. Following criteria was used for including the relevant studies: (1) the study
should have clearly mentioned its research objectives; (2) the study should have
quantitatively examined at least one hypothesized relationship; (3) the definition of the
construct in the study should have matched with our definition; (4) the study should have
indicated the correlation coefficient or any statistic that could be changed to the correlation

Hedonic Value
H4 H5

Augmentation H8
Behavioral
H2 H3 H7 Intentions
Interactivity

H1 H6 Figure 1.
Utilitarian Value Research model
MIP Stage 1: Search for studies on Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Total 6532 studies

Stage 2: Exclusion of studies that did not investigate AR attributes,

perceived values/benefits, and AR's impact on user behavior. Total 4135 studies
Exclusion of books, book chapters, notes, editorials, short surveys,
reviews, non-English, and duplicate studies

Stage 3: Exclusion of studies based on reading of abstract

Total 318 studies

Stage 4: Exclusion of studies based on reading of full text

1) Study should have mentioned research objectives;

2) Study should have quantitatively examined at least
one hypothesized relationship;
Total 19 studies
3) Definition of the construct in the study should match
with our definition;
4) Study should have indicated the correlation
coefficient or any statistic changeable to the correlation
coefficient;
5) Study should have indicated the sample size.

Added 0 studies
Stage 5: Forward and Backward search
Figure 2.
Stages of the sample
selection process
Final Sample = 19 studies

coefficient, e.g. F-ratio and Student’s t; and (5) the study should have indicated the sample
size. Again, the discussion among all the authors resulted in achieving consensus in case of
any inconsistency. This process resulted in a total of 19 studies.
Lastly, a forward and backward search of these studies did not add any further studies to
the dataset. Thus, we made sure that no relevant study was missed.

3.2 Coding
For coding, two authors worked on recording the information regarding authors, source,
title, country, publication year, sample size and correlation coefficients from each study
in a spreadsheet. The inter-rater reliability values exceeded the recommended threshold
value of 0.70 (Rust and Cooil, 1994). The authors settled the discrepancies in data
recording through discussions, and the third author validated the process.

3.3 Statistical analysis

The correlation coefficient was used as the effect size metric (Cohen et al., 1983). Two common
models used in the meta-analysis are the fixed-effects and random-effects models. The
random-effects model was found appropriate for the study (Hedges and Vevea, 1998). The
assumption behind the fixed-effects model is that there occurs one true effect size across
every study. However, the assumption behind the random-effects model is that each study’s
population has a varying effect size (Borenstein et al., 2011).
The meta-analysis included the following steps (Cheung, 2015; Hedges and Vevea, 1998;
Lipsey and Wilson, 2001):
 1) The Fisher transformation of the correlation coefficients was computed. Meta-analysis
2
2) The Q-statistic and I index were calculated to assess the heterogeneity in the sample of augmented
studies. reality
3) Pooled correlation values were calculated. marketing
4) Correlation matrix (see Table 1) was created using the pooled correlation values.
Correlation matrix was used as the input to the analysis of a moment structures
(AMOS) software for conducting meta-analytic structural equation modeling
(MetaSEM). As suggested by previous studies, the harmonic mean of all the sample
sizes for each relationship was calculated to be used in MetaSEM (Landis, 2013).
Various meta-analyses considered the correlation matrix as the covariance matrix in
MetaSEM and therefore had not calculated the standard deviation (Cheung, 2015).
Based on such literature, the unit standard deviation was used. Also, the pooled
correlation matrix was used as if it was an observed covariance matrix in fitting the
structural equation model as indicated by Cheung (2015, p. 219).
5) Meta-analysis studies tend to be affected by publication bias as journals have a
propensity to publish studies containing statistically significant outcomes. Hence,
publication bias was examined through Rosenthal’s fail-safe N test (Rosenthal, 1991)
and Begg and Mazumdar’s (1994) rank correlation test.

4. Results
Table 2 and Figure 3 present the meta-analysis results. The results reveal that all
the hypotheses were supported except H7, H9, H10, as we did not find support for the
relationship of interactivity with intention and moderating impact of cultural dimensions.
While estimating the model, we discovered χ 2(1) 5 77.06; goodness-of-fit index
(GFI) 5 0.99; and comparative fit index (CFI) 5 0.98, which indicates that the model fits
the data. The Q and I2 statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity in the sample. The
significant value of the Q-statistic did not support the null hypotheses of homogeneity. Also,
the value of I2 statistic was found to lie in the range of 75–100%, which further indicated a
high level of heterogeneity among the studies (Deeks et al., 2009). Heterogeneity among the
studies supported our decision to choose the random-effects model.
We conducted the moderating variable analysis using random-effects meta-regression to
explore the moderators contributing to the heterogeneity of effect sizes (Thompson and
Higgins, 2002). The analysis explores the linear relationship between continuous moderating
variables and effect size. We used Hofstede’s two cultural dimensions as moderating variables,
namely indulgence and uncertainty avoidance. The insignificant p-value of the regression
analysis indicated the absence of linear relationship between moderating variables and effect

Behavioral
Interactivity Augmentation Utilitarian value Hedonic value intentions

Interactivity 1.00
Augmentation 0.59 1.00
Utilitarian Value 0.57 0.58 1.00
Hedonic value 0.54 0.52 0.50 1.00
Behavioral 0.41 0.46 0.50 0.49 1.00 Table 1.
intentions Pooled correlation
Note(s): n 5 2004.3 matrix
MIP No. of Sample Meta Q-statistic I2 Fail-
Hypothesis studies (N) size β (p-value) (%) safe N p(τ)

H1 (Interactivity → 9 2,567 0.35* 209.87* 96.19 123 0.14

Utilitarian value)
H2 (Interactivity → Hedonic 9 2,567 0.36* 144.54* 94.47 156 0.30
value)
H3 (Augmentation → 5 1,390 0.38* 115.66* 96.54 34 0.33
Utilitarian value)
H4 (Augmentation → 6 1,535 0.31* 110.40* 95.47 43 0.35
Hedonic value)
H5 (Hedonic value → 14 3,678 0.26* 141.19* 90.79 460 0.13
Behavioral intentions)
H6 (Utilitarian value → 13 3,505 0.25* 153.21* 92.17 362 0.54
Behavioral intentions)
H7 (Interactivity → 10 2,527 0.03ns 65.94* 86.35 220 0.66
Behavioral intentions)
H8 (Augmentation → 10 2,233 0.16* 85.47* 89.47 188 0.93
Table 2. Behavioral intentions)
Meta-analysis results Note(s): *: p < 0.05, ns: nonsignificant

Hedonic Value
0.305* (R 2 = 34.90%)
0.258*
Augmentation 0.164*
Behavioral
0.381* Intentions
0.358* 0.033 ns
(R 2 = 32.90%)
Interactivity

0.345* Utilitarian Value 0.251*

(R 2 = 41.90%)
Figure 3.
Meta-analysis results
Note(s): *: p < 0.05, ns: non-significant

size. Table 3 provides the summary of the outcomes of both moderating variable analyses. It
indicates that other suitable moderators can be explored in future studies.
Furthermore, we tested for publication bias through Rosenthal’s fail-safe N test
(Rosenthal, 1991) and Begg and Mazumdar’s (1994) rank correlation test. Rosenthal’s fail-
safe N value signifies the number of additional studies with insignificant effect size needed to
bring the overall effect size to an insignificant level. Publication bias is not considered as an
issue if the value of Rosenthal’s fail-safe N is higher than 5N þ 10 (N 5 No. of studies for a
relationship) (Rosenthal, 1991). Table 2 indicates that except for the relationship of
augmentation and utilitarian value, all the fail-safe numbers are higher than 5Nþ 10.
Begg and Mazumdar’s (1994) rank correlation test uses the rank-order correlation to
assess whether effect size and its standard error are independent. As publication bias tends to
affect smaller sample studies, a statistically significant inverse rank-order correlation signals
the existence of publication bias (Kepes et al., 2012). However, as shown in Table 2, all
Kendall’s Tau values are statistically insignificant, potentially ruling out the concern of
sample publication bias.
 Indulgence (H9) Uncertainty avoidance (H10)
Meta-analysis
95% 95% of augmented
Relationship R2 (%) Beta CI [LL, UL] R2 (%) Beta CI [LL, UL] reality
Interactivity → Utilitarian value 0.04 0.02ns 0.02, 0.02 8.65 0.29ns 0.02, 0.01 marketing
Interactivity → Hedonic value 8.22 0.29ns 0.01, 0.02 33.52 0.58ns 0.02, 0.00
Augmentation → Utilitarian value 8.43 0.29ns 0.05, 0.03 3.45 0.19ns 0.04, 0.03
Augmentation → Hedonic value 1.95 0.14ns 0.03, 0.04 20.98 0.46ns 0.04, 0.02
Hedonic value → Behavioral intentions 14.95 0.39ns 0.00, 0.01 14.78 0.38ns 0.01, 0.00
Utilitarian value → Behavioral 0.05 0.02ns 0.01, 0.01 2.95 0.17ns 0.01, 0.01
intentions
Interactivity → Behavioral intentions 8.71 0.30ns 0.00, 0.01 7.69 0.28ns 0.01, 0.01
Augmentation → Behavioral intentions 39.15 0.63* 0.02, 0.00 30.07 0.55ns 0.00, 0.02 Table 3.
Note(s): *: p < 0.05, ns: non-significant Moderator analysis

5. Discussion
The analysis yielded several interesting insights. First, the findings reveal that interactivity
and augmentation are AR’s two important media attributes. Although the existing literature
provides a long list of AR attributes; for example, interactivity, vividness, novelty, perceived
augmentation, spatial physical control, environmental embedding, reality congruence and
customization, among others (Yim et al., 2017; Hilken et al., 2017; McLean and Wilson, 2019;
Kowalczuk et al., 2021). Despite significant contribution, such diverse finding creates
confusion among researchers and practitioners about the way forward for the AR
applications in research and practice. The present study in some way provides a direction as
we posit that augmentation and interactivity are the most important attributes of AR.
Next, we found that these AR attributes significantly influence the hedonic and utilitarian
values with a little variation. Several pieces of research found AR to be a utilitarian
technology (Lee et al., 2020; Pantano et al., 2017). On the other hand, some researchers argued
that AR being an interactive tool, is used primarily to derive hedonic value (Kumar and
Srivastava, 2022; Hsu et al., 2021; Nikhashemi et al., 2021). Also, some posit that AR influences
both utilitarian and hedonic values (Qin et al., 2021). Ambiguity also exists concerning media
attributes of AR. Present study discovers that AR provides both utilitarian and hedonic value
to the users. Thus, we addressed the long-existing confusion about the value proposition
offered by AR by reviewing the state of art literature using a meta-analysis technique.
Third, interactivity was not found to be significantly influencing the behavioral
intentions. Although interactivity has been a salient media attribute of AR (Yim et al., 2017),
we found that only augmentation significantly impacts the behavioral intentions. We argue
that interactivity might create a hedonic or utilitarian value, but it is not good enough to
influence users’ behavior. Reasons might be attributed to the fact that interactivity is not new
to AR. Thus, users take it for granted. Consequently, the findings should be further explored
to better understand the role of AR interactivity on consumer behavior.
Lastly, the study further validates the theoretical arguments based on the SOR theory (Qin
et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2021), wherein the authors posited that the AR media attributes work as
a stimulus, creating hedonic and utilitarian values for the users (organism), that ultimately
results in the behavioral intentions (response). Additionally, the study also supports the uses
and gratification theory (UGT) premise in the AR marketing context (Nikhashemi et al., 2021;
Rauschnabel et al., 2019) because we found that people use AR due to its power of realistically
augmenting the virtual object and interact in the real-time, which allow them to obtain
hedonic and utilitarian values.
MIP 5.1 Theoretical implications
Present study provides several theoretical contributions. First, there has been a long debate
about AR regarding whether people use it to obtain utilitarian value or hedonic value. This
study found that AR significantly impacts hedonic as well as utilitarian values without much
variation. This is an important contribution for researchers as by knowing that AR works
equally for different values, they can be more open in their approach to use different
theoretical lenses, which might accelerate the theoretical development for AR marketing or at
least some new relationships. For example, Kumar and Srivastava (2022) use flow theory for
hedonic value and spatial presence theory for utilitarian value to find two different routes
through which AR impacts online impulse buying. We argue that considering AR as just a
hedonic or utilitarian tool might hinder the identification of new findings.
Second, another disagreement among researchers exists about the salient attributes of AR
(for a summary, see Rauschnabel et al., 2022a). Several AR media attributes have been
proposed in the existing literature. The present study discovered that interactivity and
augmentation are salient media attributes of AR. Furthermore, we found that interactivity
does not significantly influence behavioral intentions. The reason might be that interactivity
is not new to marketing literature. It has been a salient media attribute for websites, mobile
apps, etc. Therefore, people might take it for granted in the AR context. Thus, researchers
shall strive to find new way to look at how AR works for users beyond interactivity.
Third, we did not find any meta-analysis despite several systematic reviews on AR
(Kumar, 2021; Lavoye et al., 2021). Although those systematic reviews contribute
significantly to the existing literature, their findings are subjective. The present study fills
this gap by consolidating the findings of existing empirical research in this domain by using
statistical data. Future researchers might use these findings to further build new theoretical
models and arguments.

5.2 Practical implications

While the managers lack an understanding of AR and its impact on consumer behavior,
therefore still hesitant to bring AR to the business (Wedel et al., 2020; Flavi
an et al., 2019), this
study demonstrates that AR significantly influences the hedonic and utilitarian values of the
consumers through its augmentation and interactivity. Thus, it would allow them to
understand the paths through which AR influences consumer behavior and better frame their
AR marketing strategies.
Next, we discovered that AR augmentation significantly impacts behavioral intentions,
but AR interactivity does not significantly affect behavioral intention. Hence, we argue that
although interactivity has been posited to be an important media attribute of AR (Yim et al.,
2017; Rauschnabel. 2021), it’s not new to the marketing literature. Several authors have argued
that interactivity is an important media attribute for websites (Song and Zinkhan, 2008) and
mobile apps (Furner et al., 2014). Therefore, people might take interactivity for granted.
Therefore, managers striving to achieve strategic differentiation using AR should focus more
on augmentation and consider interactivity as integral but not a differentiating factor.

6. Limitations and future research

The present study has some limitations. First, we mined the relevant articles by using key search
terms. However, certain suitable studies may not have been included because they might not
contain those key search terms. Second, due to heterogeneity in the sample, some variables must
moderate the hypothesized relationships present in the research model. Out of 19 studies in our
sample, 18 (except Malaysia) studies were conducted in developed countries. Hence, we could not
consider the country type (developing vs developed) as a moderator. Hence, future research on
AR should be conducted in developing countries as well. One of the interesting areas for research
could be exploring novel AR attributes from users’ perspective rather than technical perspective.
Existing research limits AR as a technical tool; however, research exploring why people prefer to Meta-analysis
use AR, or in particular what attributes of AR do users seek when they use AR, has been under- of augmented
researched. Next, the majority of the literature uses existing theories (Technology acceptance
model (TAM), UGT and SOR) in the AR context, but attempts to develop AR-specific theories are
reality
rare. Hence, we urge to focus on the building of AR-specific theories. Lastly, we should consider marketing
AR as more than just a tool for product presentation, but only as a potential disruptor. AR has
the power to influence the 4 Ps of marketing. Additionally, AR could be well integrated into
product development, customer experience, service excellence and customer journey. Therefore,
we should think of AR marketing as a new discipline in marketing just like digital marketing –
especially as part of the meta-verse.

References
Note: (1) References marked as * are included as part of the Meta-analysis. (2) Details on studies,
included in the meta-analysis are available on request to the corresponding author.
Adel, A.M., Dai, X. and Roshdy, R.S. (2021), “Investigating consumers’ behavioral intentions toward
suboptimal produce: an extended theory of planned behavior–a cross-cultural study”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 99-139.
Azjen, I. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood cliffs.
Begg, C.B. and Mazumdar, M. (1994), “Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for
publication bias”, Biometrics, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 1088-1101.
Blut, M., Wang, C. and Schoefer, K. (2016), “Factors influencing the acceptance of self-service
technologies: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 396-416.
Blut, M., Chong, A., Tsiga, Z. and Venkatesh, V. (2021), “Meta-analysis of the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): challenging its validity and charting a research
agenda in the red ocean”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, SSRN, available
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract53834872.
Bonnin, G. (2020), “The roles of perceived risk, attractiveness of the online store and familiarity with”,
AR in the influence of AR on patronage intention", Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 52, 101938.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P. and Rothstein, H.R. (2011), Introduction to Meta-Analysis,
John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
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.
Cheung, M.W.L. (2015), Meta-analysis: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, West Sussex.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Deeks, J.J., Higgins, J.P.T. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Analyzing data and undertaking meta analyses”,
in Higgins, J. and Green, S. (Eds), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Version 5.0.2, Wiley, Chichester.
Dennis, A.R., Wixom, B.H. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2001), “Understanding fit and appropriation effects
in group support systems via meta-analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167-193.
Eisend, M. (2019), “Explaining digital piracy: a meta-analysis”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 636-664.
~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.
Furner, C.P., Racherla, P. and Babb, J.S. (2014), “Mobile app stickiness (MASS) and mobile
interactivity: a conceptual model”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-188.
MIP uttl-Maack, V. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2022), “Can augmented reality satisfy consumers’
Gatter, S., H€
need for touch?”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 508-523.
Gu, M., Tan, J.H.L., Amin, M., Mostafiz, M.I. and Yeoh, K.K. (2021), “Revisiting the moderating role of
culture between job characteristics and job satisfaction: a multilevel analysis of 33 countries”,
Employee Relations: The International Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 70-93.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categorisation processes”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-72.
Hedges, L.V. and Vevea, J.L. (1998), “Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis”, Psychological
Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 486-504.
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.
*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, Vol. 53, 101987.
Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context”, Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2307-0919.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Professional, New York.
*Hsu, S.H.Y., Tsou, H.T. and Chen, J.S. (2021), “Yes, we do. Why not use augmented reality? Customer
responses to experiential presentations of AR-based applications”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 62, p. 102649.
*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.
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.
Jadil, Y., Jeyaraj, A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P. and Sarker, P. (2022), “A meta-analysis of the factors
associated with S-commerce intention: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as moderators”, Internet
Research, ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/INTR-10-2021-0768.
Javornik, A. (2016), “Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics
on consumer behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, pp. 252-261.
Kepes, S., Banks, G.C., McDaniel, M. and Whetzel, D.L. (2012), “Publication bias in the organizational
sciences”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 624-662.
*Kim, H.C. and Hyun, M.Y. (2016), “Predicting the use of smartphone-based Augmented Reality (AR):
does telepresence really help?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 28-38.
King, W.R. and He, J. (2005), “Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 32.
*Kowalczuk, P., Siepmann, C. and Adler, J. (2021), “Cognitive, affective, and behavioral consumer
responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: a comparative study”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 124, pp. 357-373.
Kumar, H. (2021), “Augmented reality in online retailing: a systematic review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 537-559.
Kumar, H. and Srivastava, R. (2022), “Exploring the role of augmented reality in online impulse
behaviour”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp.
1281-1301, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-11-2021-0535, (in this issue).
Landis, R.S. (2013), “Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling:
recommendations and strategies”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 251-261.
Lavoye, V., Mero, J. and Tarkiainen, A. (2021), “Consumer behavior with augmented reality in retail: a Meta-analysis
review and research agenda”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 299-329. of augmented
Lee, S.G., Trimi, S. and Kim, C. (2013), “The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption”,
reality
Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 20-29. marketing
*Lee, H., Xu, Y. and Porterfield, A. (2020), “Consumers’ adoption of AR-based virtual fitting rooms:
from the perspective of theory of interactive media effects”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2001), Practical Meta-Analysis, SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Markets and Markets (2019), available at: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/
augmented-reality-retail.asp (accessed 26 March 2022).
*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,
pp. 210-224.
Moharana, T.R. and Pradhan, D. (2020), “Shopping value and patronage: when satisfaction and
crowding count”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
*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.
*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.
Oduro, S., Nguar, K.D.A., De Nisco, A., Alharthi, R.H.E., Maccario, G. and Bruno, L. (2021), “Corporate
social responsibility and SME performance: a meta-analysis”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 184-204.
*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.
*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,
101912.
*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, pp. 362-377.
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, pp. 169-176.
Prashar, A. and Gupta, P. (2020), “Corporate boards and firm performance: a meta-analytic approach
to examine the impact of contextual factors”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 16
No. 7, pp. 1454-1478.
*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, 102337.
*Qin, H., Osatuyi, B. and Xu, L. (2021a), “How mobile augmented reality applications affect continuous
use and purchase intentions: a cognition-affect-conation perspective”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 63, 102680.
Rajagopal, R. (2022), “Impact of retailing technology during business shutdown”, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 441-459.
MIP 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.
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, 102279.
*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, pp. 43-53.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H. and Alt, F. (2022a), “What is XR? Towards a framework
for augmented and virtual reality”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 133, p. 107289.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Babin, B.J., tom Dieck, M.C., Krey, N. and Jung, T. (2022b), “What is augmented
reality marketing? Its definition, complexity, and future”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 142,
pp. 1140-1150.
Rosenthal, R. (1991), Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
*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, pp. 257-270.
Rust, R.T. and Cooil, B. (1994), “Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and implications”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2008), “Determinants of perceived web site interactivity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Syed, H. and Malik, A.N. (2014), “Comparative study of effect of culture on technology adoption
in Pakistan and USA”, The Business and Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Thompson, S.G. and Higgins, J.P. (2002), “How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and
interpreted?”, Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1559-1573.
*Wang, Y., Ko, E. and Wang, H. (2021), “Augmented reality (AR) app use in the beauty product
industry and consumer purchase intention”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 310-331.
*Watson, A., Alexander, B. and Salavati, L. (2018), “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.
Wedel, M., Bign
e, E. and Zhang, J. (2020), “Virtual and augmented reality: advancing research in
consumer marketing”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 443-465.
*Whang, J.B., Song, J.H., Choi, B. and Lee, J.H. (2021), “The effect of augmented reality on purchase
intention of beauty products: the roles of consumers’ control”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 133, pp. 275-284.
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.

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