Content uploaded by Wanhsiu Sunny Tsai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wanhsiu Sunny Tsai on Mar 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Inspection or Play? A Study of How Augmented Reality Technology Can Be
Utilized in Advertising
Wan-Hsiu Sunny Tsai
a
, Shiyun Chloe Tian
a
, Ching-Hua Chuan
b
, and Cong Li
a
a
Department of Strategic Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA;
b
Department of Cinema and Interactive
Media, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA
ABSTRACT
This study presents one of the earliest empirical studies that evaluates the effects of differ-
ent interactivity and message design aspects of augmented reality (AR) advertising on con-
sumer response. Specifically, this research examined whether and how AR interaction type
(i.e., instrumental versus hedonic), ad context (i.e., realistic versus imaginative), and product
type (think versus feel) jointly influence perceived ad informativeness and brand liking. A
laboratory experiment with 213 college students was conducted using print ads with
marker-based AR technology. The results suggested the effectiveness of instrumental AR
interaction and the mediating role of telepresence. Based on the study findings, theoretical
and strategic implications are discussed.
KEYWORDS
Ad context; augmented
reality; interactive
advertising; telepresence
Augmented reality (AR) has been lauded as a key
technological advance that will change people’s day-
to-day experiences (Palmer 2018). AR technology
superimposes computer-generated content on a user’s
real-time view of the real world, thus providing a
composite, enhanced view. Industry reports reveal
that AR has been embraced by many businesses, cre-
ating new buzzwords such as “augmented retail”
(Palmer 2018). Unlike virtual reality (VR) technology,
AR does not require bulky and expensive headsets.
While VR is confined to the virtual world in a head-
set, AR opens up and enriches the world instead of
closing it down or replacing it with a simulated envir-
onment (Carmody 2018). Many companies including
IKEA now offer AR applications to let consumers
view products in their home settings, such as envi-
sioning how a coffee machine would look on their
kitchen counters.
Preliminary findings on AR in marketing applica-
tions support the positive impact of AR on consumer
evaluation. Scholz and Duffy’s(2018) qualitative study
of how consumers use AR apps in their own homes
suggested that using an AR app may lead to a more
intimate brand relationship and stronger self-brand
connection. Yaoyuneyong et al. (2016) compared con-
sumer responses toward traditional print ads, quick
response (QR) code hyperlinked print ads, and
AR-enriched print ads, and found AR ads led to the
most favorable perceptions of informativeness, nov-
elty, and overall effectiveness. Focusing on online
retail user experience, Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga
(2017) found AR positively shapes user experience,
which in turn drives user satisfaction and willingness
to purchase. Yet the limited research has focused on
AR’s marketing implications for e-commerce websites
(e.g., Pantano, Rese, and Baier 2017; Yim, Chu, and
Sauer 2017), and few studies have discussed how AR
should be utilized in advertising.
The essential function of AR in advertising is to
provide a direct, interactive, although computer-
mediated, product or brand experience that enhances
and makes meaningful connections to the consumer’s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
CONTACT Wan-Hsiu Sunny Tsai, wanhsiu@miami.edu Department of Strategic Communication, School of Communication, University of Miami,
5100 Brunson Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA.
Wan-Hsiu Sunny Tsai (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an associate professor, School of Communication, Department of Strategic Communication,
University of Miami.
Shiyun Chloe Tian (MA, Shanghai International Studies University) is a doctoral student, School of Communication, Department of Strategic
Communication, University of Miami, USA.
Ching-Hua Chuan (PhD, University of Southern California) is a research associate professor, School of Communication, Department of Cinema and
Interactive Media, University of Miami.
Cong Li (PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is an associate professor, School of Communication, Department of Strategic Communication,
University of Miami.
ß2020 American Academy of Advertising
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1738292
physical reality. To shed much-needed insights on AR
as an influential emerging technology driving inter-
active advertising, we conceptualize and test AR as an
advanced form of image interactivity technology (IIT;
Fiore, Kim, and Lee 2005) that can not only simulate
direct product experience but also deliver multisen-
sory (e.g., visual, motion, interactivity), enjoyable
brand experience in consumers’own physical environ-
ments. This study expands and updates IIT research
by evaluating AR advertising (i.e., ARA; hereafter
defined as advertising that incorporates the use of AR
technology) in the context of print media, one of the
most common forms of ARA today. Examining the
effect of AR for print advertising is imperative, as AR
has been advocated as a possible “savior”to print
advertising (Stone 2017) by providing vivid and
immersive experience that brings products to life from
static print media.
This study presents one of the earliest empirical
investigations of ARA by testing a multidimensional
model integrating the interactivity aspect of AR inter-
action, the message design aspect of ad context, and
considerations of product type to provide a more hol-
istic understanding of how AR can augment the
advertising experience. Specifically, this research
explores how AR interaction, ad context, and product
type jointly influence telepresence—”a sense of pres-
ence in a mediated environment”(Klein 2003,
p. 42)—to drive consumer response. It is important to
note that the few AR studies in marketing and adver-
tising have relied on existing brands’AR applications
(e.g., Bulearca and Tamarjan 2010; Hopp and
Gangadharbatla 2016; Javornik 2016) and are limited
in using the presence or absence of AR as the main
manipulation. The current research utilized ARA
stimuli specifically created for this experiment to pro-
vide much-needed insights about the effects of differ-
ent ARA properties.
Literature Review
Overview of AR Technology and ARA
The easy incorporation of AR into use of mobile devi-
ces has introduced AR to consumers’everyday life
(Kumar 2018). Indeed, the massive success of smart-
phone-based AR game Pok
emon Go brought AR into
the mainstream (Rosenberg 2016). Major fields for AR
applications now include manufacturing and design
(Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga 2017), tourism (Jung,
Chung, and Leue 2015), education (Wu et al. 2013),
health care (Barsom, Graafland, and Schijven 2016),
and marketing (Bulearca and Tamarjan 2010;
Yaoyuneyong et al. 2016).
The distinct advantage of AR lies in its ability to
offer unprecedented verisimilitude of merging virtual
content with consumers’physical environments. The
simplest form of AR superimposes virtual content,
such as texts, graphics, or videos, onto real-world
scenes via the real-time video feed captured by a
mobile device’s camera. The best example of this basic
AR is Pok
emon Go. Players seek “pocket monsters”
that appear in their physical environment through a
smartphone’s camera. In this game, the monsters
always appear in the center of the screen and stay the
same distance from the player, regardless of the phys-
ical background and whether the player moves
around. In contrast, the increasingly popular marker-
based AR displays computer-generated content in
relation to a real image (e.g., a print ad as the AR
marker) in the physical world. This AR format is
commonly used in print-based advertising, such as
allowing consumers to view a car’s three-dimensional
(3D) model via a mobile device; here, the 3D image
of the virtual car appears on top of the print ad on
the mobile device’s screen. Compared to the basic AR
using simple overlay, marker-based AR provides better
blending of virtual and physical components. If the
user moves the marker, the virtual object moves and
changes with it accordingly. For example, if the user
turns the print ad upside down, the virtual car also
appears upside down.
The unique advantage of ARA to blend virtual
products with consumers’own physical surroundings
makes it stand out from other interactive technologies
that try to bring together the virtual and physical,
such as VR, in-game advertising, and interactive 3D
product representations. For example, the purpose for
VR is to offer an immersive 360-degree experience
that isolates the user within the virtual world, provid-
ing a total escape or withdrawal from the real world
(Cowan and Ketron 2019). Even in an interactive VR
game where users can use motion controllers in the
real world to interact with objects in the virtual world,
when wearing VR headsets users can see only the vir-
tual setting and can no longer perceive what is actu-
ally around them. Although VR can create a highly
photorealistic replica of the physical world, such tech-
nology is designed to supplant, not supplement, the
physical world with the virtual. Distinct from VR, AR
works to explicitly blending the virtual and the phys-
ical by embedding the virtual within the users’phys-
ical worlds.
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
2 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
Similarly, while advertisers have made efforts to
immerse brands and products within media environ-
ments to enhance the realism of brand content via
in-game advertising, product placements, and adver-
games (Grigorovici and Constantin 2004; Lewis and
Porter 2010), in such contexts the brand is likely to be
processed secondarily or may be outright ignored, as
consumers likely concentrate on the media environ-
ment or stories (Chaney, Lin, and Chaney 2004). By
contrast, ARA makes the brand the focal point in the
immersive experience of planting the virtual content
within consumers’perceptual reality to heighten the
realism and relevance of ad content. Immersivity
refers to a technology’s capability to construct a con-
vincing and engaging experiential context so that
users become involved (Li, Daugherty, and Biocca
2002; Foulsham, Walker, and Kingstone 2011).
Previous immersive technologies (e.g., in-game adver-
tising) allow consumers to interact with the virtual
product only within the confines of fictitious game
settings, while AR works to transport the virtual prod-
uct into consumers’physical surroundings, often in a
true-to-scale manner. By the same token, 3D product
representation, an increasingly common form of IIT
that has been studied as an effective way to simulate
direct product experiences, is limited to use through
websites (e.g., Edwards and Gangadharbatla 2001; Li,
Daugherty, and Biocca 2002). Whereas AR can
implant the virtual product into consumers’surround-
ings, even on their bodies, such as Ray-Ban’s try-on
AR app, which allows consumers to see what particu-
lar styles of Ray-Ban sunglasses would look like on
their faces. Interacting with the virtual product in
consumers’own personal space instead of a virtual
context created by a third party likely renders the
experience more individualized, intimate,
and engaging.
In addition, consumers’direct experiences with
products have been recognized as a key factor in for-
mulating purchase decisions (Wright and Lynch
1995). Previous research has studied various ways to
enable product inspections on the Web. In particular,
research on web interactivity suggests consumers’
reluctance to purchase products on e-commerce web-
sites can be reduced when more sensory information
from direct product experience can be simulated, such
as the use of 3D product visualization, as well as vir-
tual models, which can resemble the appearance of
different types of apparel on a human form (Bl
azquez
2014; Li, Daugherty, and Biocca 2002). However, the
potential of other advertising media, such as print and
out of home, to simulate direct product experience
remains unexplored. Equipped with AR that can be
activated via omnipresent smartphones, print media
can be transformed into a multisensory interactive
platform that offers greater flexibility, mobility, and
creativity potential than websites. For example, con-
sumers can tear out a print ad marker for a frozen
pizza, place it on a plate, and activate the AR app on
their smartphones to view the virtual pizza on their
own plates.
The current research proposes ARA as an optimal
form of IIT that enables manipulation of product or
environment images to simulate or even surpass actual
experiences with the product or environment (Fiore,
Kim, and Lee 2005). Prior research highlights the
importance of media richness, vividness, and inter-
activity of IIT for enhancing consumer learning (Jiang
and Benbasat 2007). IIT, such as virtual models and
virtual try-ons, works to provide enriched information
or experience that can reduce uncertainty, improve
consumer perceptions and attitudes (e.g., enjoyment
and fun) toward the online retailer (Fiore and Jin
2003; Li, Daugherty, and Biocca 2001), and increase
purchase intention and postpurchase satisfaction
(Yang and Xiong 2019). As an advanced form of IIT,
AR can provide enriched, vivid, and interactive prod-
uct experience to improve consumer attitude; it is also
an immersive technology that connects the virtual
product with consumers’physical reality to magnify
the relevance and realism of the ad content.
Therefore, it is predicted that a print ad with AR will
induce more positive consumer evaluations than one
without AR:
H1: A print ad with augmented reality will generate
(a) a higher level of perceived ad informativeness and
(b) stronger brand liking than a traditional print ad
without augmented reality.
Instrumental versus Hedonic AR Interactions
Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) suggested that
brand-related experience could provide instrumental
value by delivering information needed for formulat-
ing purchasing decisions. It could also offer experien-
tial value through intrinsically satisfying pleasure to
the senses, emotional fulfillment, amusement, and fan-
tasies. Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) made similar
differentiation between utilitarian and hedonic shop-
ping experiences. Regarding technology-mediated
product experiences, Fiore, Kim, and Lee (2005) sug-
gested that IIT, such as virtual models, can increase
the perceived instrumental value of the website. They
also suggested that such IIT simultaneously enhances
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 3
the website’s experiential value due to its novelty
appeal and enhancement of pleasurable imagery.
Similarly, Li, Daugherty, and Biocca’s(2001) qualita-
tive analysis of consumers’narrative responses to 3D
product simulations suggested that enjoyment is a key
characteristic of consumers’interactions with vir-
tual products.
Pertinent to how consumers interact with products
in physical stores, the literature on consumers’need
to touch indicates that consumers have two haptic
needs for touching a product. Instrumental touch
entails touching a product for evaluation purposes,
such as touching a sweater to examine its softness.
Comparatively, autotelic or hedonic touch entails
touching for the sake of sensory pleasure or fun, such
as touching a stuffed animal without necessarily
intending to buy the product (Peck and Johnson
2011). In particular, in the human–computer inter-
action (HCI) literature, Beaudouin-Lafon (2000) pro-
posed the instrumental interaction model, which
suggested a guiding principle of matching the medi-
ated interaction with the real-world experience.
This study follows the conceptualization of instru-
mental versus hedonic brand experiences, and adopts
the guideline of instrumental interaction from HCI, to
propose that consumer–product interaction via AR is
instrumental when the interaction allows consumers
to inspect the product in a way that simulates their
direct product experience in a physical store.
Alternatively, the AR interaction can be hedonic when
it is designed to be fun and enjoyable but does not
allows the user to inspect the virtual product up close
or via different angles. An instrumental AR inter-
action thus may involve a 3D product representation
that inherently enables consumers to view the product
from multiple angles and different distances to acquire
more precise product details. In contrast, a hedonic
AR interaction is operationalized herein as disallowing
consumers to alter the viewing angle or distance for
inspection; thus it provides only a two-dimensional
(2D) product representation. Consumers can interact
with the virtual product in an unrealistic yet enter-
taining manner, such as making the product sparkle,
wiggle, break apart, dance, or flip. It is important to
note that although 3D product views can be designed
to be part of a hedonic interaction, 3D product repre-
sentations by nature involves instrumental interactions
that allow users to view the product via different
angles. To clearly distinguish the differential effect of
instrumental versus hedonic interaction, 3D product
representations are designed in this study to involve
only instrumental interactions, not playful interactions
irrelevant to the product usage.
Regarding the effects of instrumental versus
hedonic AR interactions, it is expected that both types
of AR interactions may generate positive responses.
Koufaris, Kambil, and LaBarbera (2001) argued that
for new customers both perceived enjoyment (experi-
ential value) and control of the purchase decision pro-
cess (instrumental value) affect intentions to return to
the e-commerce site. Fiore, Kim, and Lee (2005)
found that the instrumental value of IIT helps con-
sumers in formulating purchase decisions. They also
suggested that due to the novelty appeal and enhance-
ment of pleasurable imagery, IIT can boost a website’s
experiential value by offering consumers “a stimulat-
ing experience”(p. 49) to improve affect-based out-
comes. Research also revealed that consumers’playful
entertainment experiences with an e-commerce site
led to pleasure and arousal that positively influenced
attitude and patronage intention (Eroglu, Machleit,
and Davis 2003; Jeong et al. 2009).
Realistic versus Imaginative Ad Context
Another important consideration in designing ARA
messages is ad context, being either realistic or
imaginative. In the AR game Pok
emon Go, for
example, players can choose to turn off the real-time
camera feed to replace the real-world setting with an
imaginative cartoon background. In Scott’s(1994) the-
orization of advertising imagery, which is specific to
advertising design, she explained that realistic images
are often used in advertising to “represent the con-
sumption experience in a relevant way”(p. 254). For
instance, in-game advertising often strives for realism
such that ad settings are designed to match and
mimic real commercial environments or product
usage settings (Lewis and Porter 2010; Nelson 2002).
Realistic ad context thus is defined herein as ad set-
tings that are reflective of the product’s typical usage
or the environment in which the product is usually
experienced. For example, a realistic ad context for
hiking boots will showcase the boots in an outdoor
setting or on a rugged terrain. In contrast, Scott
(1994) theorized that imaginative visual forms func-
tion as a rhetorical trope to present an idea in a
refreshing, intriguing way. Such surrealistic ads usu-
ally incorporate incongruous juxtaposition of visual or
verbal elements that are bizarre, unexpected, illogical,
and thus unrealistic (Arias-Bolzmann, Chakraborty,
and Mowen 2000) to attract consumer attention
(Homer and Kahle 1986). Therefore, imaginative ad
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
4 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
context is defined herein as ad settings that present
bizarre, unrealistic, and dreamlike backgrounds unre-
lated to the actual consumption experience. An
imaginative ad context for hiking boots thus may
depict the product in fantasy-like settings, such as
being surrounded by rainbows or cartoon characters.
Specific to the study purpose of evaluating the
potential of ARA to simulate direct product experi-
ence, it is expected that a realistic ad context may
remind consumers of the product usage in real life,
which is more congruent with an instrumental AR
interaction that allows consumers to interact with the
virtual product in a manner similar to their in-store
product experience. Research on in-game advertising
found that product placement mimicking the real-
world setting of the product enhances players’sense
of game realism and contributes to superior brand
recall (Chaney, Lin, and Chaney 2004; Nelson 2002).
The limited literature on surrealism in marketing
communication also provides indirect support that an
imaginative ad context irrelevant to actual consump-
tion experience may encourage consumers to
approach the virtual product in an entertaining way,
as comic absurdist elements that are incongruent with
prior expectations are designed to amuse and fascinate
consumers (Stern 1990; Arias-Bolzmann, Chakraborty,
and Mowen 2000). In this way, an imaginative context
is more compatible with a hedonic AR interaction
than with an instrumental AR interaction to enhance
the entertainment value of the ad experience.
Think versus Feel Products
Fiore, Kim, and Lee (2005) suggested that advanced
IIT might be particularly advantageous only for cer-
tain products. Therefore, we further consider the
influence of “think”versus “feel”products. Think
products are purchased primarily for utilitarian,
rational reasons (Claeys, Swinnen, and Abeele 1995),
whereas the purchase of feel products is driven by the
need to satisfy sensory pleasure and gratification, or
emotional, value-expressive desires. Consequently,
purchase considerations of think products involve
objective evaluations of functional performance, cost/
benefit, and product quality, whereas feel products are
considered in terms of subjective preferences, such as
taste, look, touch, smell, sound, or personal meanings.
To understand what kind of message appeal works
better with which product type, advertising research
has investigated the functional matching effect and
suggested that an ad is most persuasive when the
appeal matches the consumer’s psychological goal for
the product (i.e., utilitarian appeal for utilitarian prod-
ucts) (Choi et al. 2012). This study thus explores how
the persuasiveness of different ARA designs may vary
across think versus feel products. As consumers’pur-
chase decisions of think products are based on func-
tional performance, an instrumental AR interaction
that allows consumers to obtain enriched product
information may be more beneficial. In a similar vein,
a realistic ad context may strengthen the utilitarian ad
appeal and thus may be a better match with think
products. For feel products, a hedonic AR interaction
and an imaginative ad context may be more effective
to enhance enjoyment and entertainment value.
Telepresence
To explain the psychological mechanism underlying
the effects of ARA on consumer evaluation, this
research further incorporates the construct of telepres-
ence as a mediator. Prior research suggests that tele-
presence can be induced by media vividness and
interactivity (Coyle and Thorson 2001; Steuer 1992),
which are intrinsic characteristics of ARA. Notably,
telepresence has been traditionally studied as the sense
of being transported to another location or the sense
of being in a mediated space other than where one’s
physical body is located (Biocca 1997). For instance,
3D simulations of online shopping environments, as
found in the popular online role-playing game Second
Life, can generate telepresence by inducing “sensation
and feeling of ‘being there’with a product, in a store”
(Li, Daugherty, and Biocca 2001, p. 26). However, in
its broader definition, telepresence refers to “the feel-
ings of being a part of the phenomenal environment
created by a medium”such that “the user of the
medium considers the items in the mediated environ-
ment as unmediated and reacts directly to the items
as if they are physically present objects”(Kim and
Biocca 1997). Therefore, telepresence can emerge
when consumers interact with either a virtual object
or a virtual environment, as Li, Daugherty, and Biocca
(2002) explained in their study of 3D product displays
on websites. Specifically, telepresence conjured by
interacting with a 3D product on a typical e-
commerce website is generated by the simulated prod-
uct and product interaction, not by the shopping
environment, as the website bears little physical
resemblance to a store in the real world. In other
words, telepresence in such settings entails transport-
ing the product to the user, instead of transporting
the user to the website. In the case of ARA, telepres-
ence can be understood as the product being
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 5
transported to a mediated space where the user can
interact with it. In this way, this study explicates the
conceptualization of telepresence to include verisimili-
tude of immersing virtual content in users’immediate
physical environments and assesses how ARA can
generate telepresence to improve consumer attitude.
Scholars suggest that telepresence is driven by how
closely the computer-mediated experience resembles
the real-world experience in terms of the simulated
sensory information and user interaction with the vir-
tual content (Sheridan 1992; Shih 1998). Although AR
may not provide the entire spectrum of sensory infor-
mation in consumers’in-store product experiences,
such as smell or tactile attributes, an instrumental AR
interaction with photorealistic 3D images that allows
close-up views of the virtual product can greatly
enhance representation of certain observable attrib-
utes, such as color, size, texture, and shape, known as
“search attributes”(Wright and Lynch 1995).
Moreover, an instrumental AR interaction mimics
how consumers can inspect a product in the store
(i.e., simulated ability). Hence, an instrumental AR
interaction is expected to enhance telepresence. In
addition, a realistic ad context is designed to replicate
a typical product usage setting to improve the
approximation of the virtual sensory information to
increase telepresence. Following Fiore, Kim, and Lee’s
(2005) reasoning that 3D virtual model technology
can approximate the direct product experience to
positively affect telepresence, we predict that the com-
bination of realistic ad context and instrumental AR
interaction, especially when used for think products,
will simulate the direct experience of inspecting prod-
ucts, thus intensifying the sense of telepresence.
Prior conceptualization of telepresence predomin-
antly focuses on whether and how the virtual experi-
ence can simulate and approximate the real-world
experience (e.g., Shih 1998; Spielmann and
Mantonakis 2018), while telepresence in unrealistic,
fantasy-like contexts has not been adequately studied.
However, as Cowan and Ketron (2019) point out,
interactive immersive technologies like VR can create
fantasy-like virtual worlds, especially applications
designed to fulfill consumers’escape and entertain-
ment needs. For instance, Lee, Chiang, and Hsiao’s
(2018) study on Pok
emon Go highlights the import-
ance of telepresence in driving flow and user satisfac-
tion in such imaginative fantasy settings. Wu, Chen,
and Chiu (2016) report that curiosity and enjoyment
have significant impacts on the related construct of
flow, with which telepresence is significantly corre-
lated (Faiola et al. 2013). Therefore, we posit hedonic
AR interaction that allows consumers to interact with
the product in an unexpected and fun manner,
coupled with an imaginative context that underscores
the entertainment value of ARA, will amplify telepres-
ence, especially for feel products, for which fun and
enjoyment are important considerations.
In the extensive computer-mediated communica-
tion literature, telepresence has been widely docu-
mented to mediate the relationship between the
virtual content and user response, from online adver-
tising (Keng and Lin 2006) to virtual tours
(Spielmann and Mantonakis 2018) to IIT (Fiore, Kim,
and Lee 2005). Conceptualizing AR as an advanced
form of IIT, we also anticipate the increase of tele-
presence will subsequently enhance advertising effect-
iveness, measured by perceived ad informativeness
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
Figure 1. The conceptual model summarized in hypothesis 2. ARA ¼augmented reality advertising.
6 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
and brand liking. Accordingly, we propose a hypoth-
esis based on this moderated moderated mediation
and visually display it in Figure 1.
H2: There will be a three-way interaction effect
between AR interaction type, ad context, and product
type on telepresence, which subsequently affects (a)
perceived ad informativeness and (b) brand liking. In
particular, an ad with instrumental AR interaction
will generate a stronger sense of telepresence than an
ad with hedonic AR interaction, especially in a
realistic ad context and for a think product, leading
to a higher level of perceived ad informativeness and
greater brand liking.
Method
To test the hypotheses, a between-subjects lab experi-
ment was conducted with three manipulated factors:
AR interaction type (instrumental versus hedonic), ad
context (realistic versus imaginative), and product
type (think versus feel). For comparison purposes, two
control groups were also included in the experimental
design (print ads without AR for think and
feel products).
Stimuli Design and Pretests
Hiking boots and bread were chosen to represent
think and feel products based on suggestions of prior
research (Ratchford 1987). A pretest was conducted to
confirm that this product selection was appropriate. A
total of 25 college students recruited from a medium-
sized U.S. university participated in the pretest on a
voluntary basis. They were asked to rate the hedonic
value (“Purchase decision is based on sensory aspects
such as looks, taste, touch, smell or sound”) and utili-
tarian value (“Purchase decision is based mainly on
functional facts”) for hiking boots and bread on a 7-
point scale (Claeys, Swinnen, and Abeele 1995).
Paired-samples ttests showed that bread was rated
significantly higher on the hedonic value (M¼5.76)
than hiking boots (M¼4.76), t(24) ¼1.86, p¼.038
(one tailed), while hiking boots scored significantly
higher on the utilitarian value (M¼5.96) than bread
(M¼4.96), t(24) ¼2.58, p¼.008 (one tailed).
After this pretest, five versions of experimental
stimulus ads were created for both hiking boots and
bread by an interactive media designer, including (1)
print ad without AR, (2) instrumental AR ad within a
realistic context, (3) hedonic AR ad within a realistic
context, (4) instrumental AR ad within an imaginative
context, and (5) hedonic AR ad within an imaginative
context. Ads with instrumental AR interaction allowed
participants to view and interact with a photographic
quality 3D representation of the product from any
angle or distance. Ads with hedonic AR interaction
featured the same product image but disabled the 3D
effect so that participants could not rotate the product
image or zoom in and out. Instead, they could “play”
with the product (i.e., make the hiking boots break
apart or twist the bread). The ad context was designed
to be either realistic (i.e., hiking boots on an outdoor
surface and bread on a cutting board) or imaginative
(i.e., hiking boots and bread floating in the air sur-
rounded by a rainbow and clouds; see Appendix for
sample stimuli).
To check the manipulation of AR interaction type
and ad context, another pretest was conducted with
28 students recruited from the same university. Each
participant was asked to view four different AR ads
on a tablet computer, including (1) an instrumental
AR ad within a realistic context, (2) a hedonic AR ad
within a realistic context, (3) an instrumental AR ad
within an imaginative context, and 4) a hedonic AR
ad within an imaginative context. The four ads each
participant viewed were either “Bread ads (1) and (4)
plus hiking boots ads (2) and (3)”or “Bread ads (2)
and (3) plus hiking boots ads (1) and (4).”The order
of presenting these four ads to each participant was
counterbalanced. After viewing each ad, participants
were asked to rate its AR interaction type and ad con-
text on a 7-point scale. These measures were created
based on prior research (Voss, Spangenberg, and
Grohmann 2003). In particular, AR interaction type
was measured with four items, with a higher score
indicating instrumental AR interaction: “The inter-
action I have with the AR helps me learn about the
product”;“The interaction I have with the AR is
purely for entertainment”(reverse-coded); “The inter-
action I have with the AR allows me to obtain infor-
mation about the product”; and “The interaction I
have with the AR is similar to how I would examine
the product in a store”(aranged from .74 to .89). Ad
context was measured with another four items, with a
higher score indicating realistic ad context: “The AR
setting in which the product is shown is relevant to
how the product is used or experienced”;“The context
of the AR ad is appropriate to the actual product
usage”;“The AR represents the product in a realistic
environment”; and “The AR background in which the
product is depicted is fantasy-like”(reverse-coded) (a
ranged from .72 to .85). Repeated analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests showed that instrumental AR ads
were viewed as more instrumental (M¼4.70) than
hedonic AR ads (M¼3.97), F(1, 27) ¼8.62, p¼.007,
and ads within a realistic setting were perceived as
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 7
more realistic (M¼5.10) than ads within an imagina-
tive setting (M¼3.56), F(1, 27) ¼17.68, p<.001. No
other significant differences were found, thus confirm-
ing the success of manipulation of AR interaction
type and ad context in the stimuli.
Main Experiment
A total of 213 college students at the same university
who did not take part in the pretests were recruited to
participate in the main experiment on a voluntary
basis. The experiment was conducted in a computer
lab with no more than six participants in each session.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the 10
experimental conditions (eight ARA conditions plus
two print ad control conditions). All participants were
provided with a copy of a print ad either for hiking
boots or bread. Participants in the ARA conditions
were also provided with a tablet computer and
instructed to use it to scan the image marker in the
print ad to activate the AR experience. After viewing
each ad, participants were asked to complete an online
questionnaire that assessed their perceptions
and attitudes.
All measures used in the questionnaire were
adapted from prior studies. To assess perceived ad
informativeness, two items on a 7-point scale were
adapted from Kim and Han (2014): “This ad supplies
relevant information on products or services”and
“This ad is a good source of product information”
(a¼.95). To measure brand liking, participants were
asked to indicate how they felt about the brand
according to Mitchell and Olson’s(1981) 7-point
semantic differential scale (Bad/Good,Unpleasant/
Pleasant,Unfavorable/Favorable, and Negative/
Positive)(a¼.97). The mediator, telepresence, was
measured by three items on a 7-point scale adopted
from Lim and Ayyagari (2018): “Does this ad enable
you to get information about the product as if you are
in a physical store?”;“Can you evaluate the product
via this ad as you do in the physical store?”; and
“Does this ad make you feel like you are looking at
the product in a physical store?”(a¼.91).
Results
Tests of Hypotheses
To test hypothesis 1, two-way ANOVAs were con-
ducted, with perceived ad informativeness and brand
liking being the dependent variable, respectively. The
two factors were advertising type (ARA versus print
ad) and product type (hiking boots versus bread). The
test results revealed a significant main effect of adver-
tising type on perceived ad informativeness, F(1,
209) ¼57.97, p<.001. ARA (M¼4.63) generated a
higher level of perceived ad informativeness than print
ads without AR (M¼2.41) (see Figure 2). The main
effect of advertising type was also significant on brand
liking, F(1, 209) ¼86.20, p<.001. ARA (M¼5.75)
led to stronger brand liking than traditional print ads
(M¼3.64) (see Figure 2). No other main effects or
interaction effects were found. Therefore, hypothesis 1
was supported.
To test hypothesis 2, Model 11 of the PROCESS
macro in SPSS was used (Hayes 2013). Perceived ad
informativeness and brand liking served as the
dependent variable in the model, respectively. The
independent variable was AR interaction type
(1¼hedonic AR, þ1¼instrumental AR). The two
moderators were ad context (1¼imaginative con-
text, þ1¼realistic context) and product type
(1¼hiking boots, þ1¼bread). The mediator was
telepresence. Bootstrapping was conducted with 5,000
samples to obtain valid 95th percentile bias-corrected
confidence intervals (CIs) (Hayes 2013).
As shown in Table 1, AR interaction type was
found to be a significant predictor of telepresence
(b¼.40, t¼3.39, p<.001), suggesting that partici-
pants who viewed ads with instrumental AR interac-
tions sensed greater telepresence than participants
who viewed ads with hedonic AR interactions. As
seen in Table 2, telepresence mediated the effect of
AR interaction type on perceived informativeness
(b¼0.64, t¼9.75, p<.001) when think product (i.e.,
hiking boots) was presented in a realistic ad context
(95% CI ¼.004.524), and feel product (i.e., bread)
was shown in an imaginative ad context (95%
CI ¼.037.655). However, neither the two-way inter-
action effect between AR interaction type and ad con-
text (b¼.01, t¼0.08, p¼.93) nor the three-way
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Perceived ad informativeness Brand-liking
AR advertisin
g
Print advertisin
g
without AR
Figure 2. The main effects of augmented reality (AR) on
perceived ad informativeness and brand liking.
8 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
interaction effect between AR interaction type, ad
context, and product type (b¼.06, t¼47, p¼.64)
was significant.
The results also demonstrated that telepresence
mediated the effect of AR interaction type on brand
liking (b¼.40, t¼7.28, p<.001) when think product
(i.e., hiking boots) was presented in a realistic ad con-
text (95% CI ¼.004 .329) and feel product (i.e.,
bread) was presented in an imaginative context (95%
CI ¼.022 .414). However, neither the two-way
interaction effect between AR interaction type and ad
context (b¼.01, t¼.08, p¼.93) nor the three-way
interaction effect between AR interaction type, ad
context, and product type (b¼.06, t¼.47, p¼.64)
was significant. Hence, hypothesis 2 was par-
tially supported.
Discussion and Conclusion
Focusing on the effects of AR interaction, ad context,
and product type on consumer response, the results
confirmed that AR significantly enhanced perceptions
of ad informativeness and brand liking over
traditional print ads. These findings broaden the lim-
ited research on the usefulness of AR for e-commerce
websites (e.g., Pantano, Rese, and Baier 2017; Yim,
Chu, and Sauer 2017) and highlight the potential of
using AR in print advertising to enrich con-
sumer experience.
Regarding the specific ARA aspects evaluated, the
findings highlight the power of instrumental AR inter-
actions that allow consumers to inspect the virtual
product at a real-world scale from different angles
and distances to approximate direct product experi-
ence. Instrumental AR interactions that offered
enriched product information significantly enhanced
perceived ad informativeness over hedonic AR inter-
actions. In addition, instrumental AR interactions
positively affected the sense of telepresence.
Unexpectedly, instrumental AR interactions also
induced stronger affective brand liking than did
hedonic AR interactions. Prior research suggests that
both instrumental and hedonic values can contribute
to attitudinal outcomes (Childers et al. 2001; Fiore,
Kim, and Lee 2005). In the case of ARA, instrumental
AR interaction emerged as a key driver of consumers’
brand liking. More research is needed to explore the
factors driving the hedonic value of ARA experience,
including testing different types of playful, entertain-
ing interactions, as well as nonrealistic representations
of products, such as illustrations and other artistically
modified product displays.
Moreover, this study expands and updates the def-
inition of telepresence in the ARA setting by concep-
tualizing it as the sense of an object being transported
to a mediated space in which users can interact with
it. The results confirm the significance of telepresence
in mediating the effects of ARA on consumer
response. Specifically, instrumental AR interactions
generated a higher level of telepresence to enhance
perceived ad informativeness and brand liking when it
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
Table 1. Summary of regression analysis for variables predicting dependent measures.
Variable btp95% CI (LL) 95% CI (UL)
Telepresence regressed on
AR interaction .40 3.39 .001 .167 .630
Ad context .10 .83 .408 .134 .329
Product type .05 .45 .654 .179 .284
AR interaction Ad context .01 .08 .933 .241 .222
AR interaction Product type .05 .39 .700 .186 .277
Ad context Product type .09 .75 .463 .145 .318
AR interaction Ad context Product type .06 .47 .640 .287 .177
INFO regressed on
AR interaction .09 .89 .376 .112 .295
Telepresence .64 9.75 .000 .514 .775
BL regressed on
AR interaction .06 .70 .482 .231 .109
Telepresence .40 7.28 .000 .294 .512
Note. INFO ¼perceived ad informativeness; AR ¼augmented reality; BL ¼brand liking; CI ¼confidence interval; LL ¼lower limit;
UL ¼upper limit.
Table 2. Moderated moderated mediation effects of
augmented reality interaction type on perceived ad inform-
ativeness and brand liking (mediator ¼telepresence).
Ad Context
Product
Type
Indirect
Effect SE
95%
CI (LL)
95%
CI (UL)
DV: INFO
Realistic Bread .244 .150 –.045 .541
Realistic Boots .256 .130 .004 .524
Imaginative Bread .328 .159 .037 .655
Imaginative Boots .198 .174 –.145 .544
DV: BL
Realistic Bread .153 .094 –.028 .338
Realistic Boots .160 .082 .004 .329
Imaginative Bread .205 .099 .022 .414
Imaginative Boots .124 .109 –.091 .339
Note. DV ¼dependent variable; INFO ¼perceived ad informativeness;
BL ¼brand liking; CI ¼confidence interval; LL ¼lower limit;
UL ¼upper limit.
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 9
was utilized for think products in a realistic ad con-
text and for feel products in an imaginative ad context
irrelevant to product usage. These findings implied
the functional matching effect between product type
and ad context.
However, the nonsignificant interaction effects
among AR interaction type, ad context, and product
type point to the complexity of ARA, which demands
further theoretical deliberation and more empirical
investigations. Based on our observation, it was likely
that participants mostly focused on interacting with
the virtual product and did not pay much attention to
the context, as most participants’comments during
the experiment focused on the interaction aspect.
More importantly, augmentation—the amalgamation
of virtual objects with the physical environment—is
one of the defining characteristics of AR (Preece,
Rogers, and Sharp 2015). In the current study, the vir-
tual ad context, regardless of whether it was realistic
or imaginative, served as the virtual setting or back-
ground against which the virtual product was dis-
played. Such virtual context fails to connect or
integrate the product within consumers own’physical
environment. Augmentation through meaningful
amalgamation of the virtual object into the users’
physical surroundings may be more impactful. For
instance, a print ad for bread may provide the AR
marker as a cutout or sticker to be directly placed on
a plate or cutting board. More studies thus are needed
to explore the effects of embedding virtual products in
consumers’own intimate and personal spaces. For
designing unrealistic, imaginative ways to display the
virtual product, it may be equally important to con-
sider how the imaginative product experience can be
best enjoyed in the users’physical surroundings. It is
also likely that when the virtual ad context remains
unconnected to the users’physical environment, the
influence of the product type is limited.
Practical Implications
Our findings advance the theoretical knowledge of
interactive advertising by conceptualizing and empiric-
ally assessing different ARA properties—beyond sim-
ply comparing the presence or absence of AR, as
tested in prior research (e.g., Hopp and
Gangadharbatla 2016; Javornik 2016). The multidi-
mensional framework, including the aspects of inter-
activity (AR interaction), message design (ad context),
and product type, offers a more holistic understanding
of ARA. The findings also provide valuable strategic
guidelines for crafting effective ARA campaigns.
Creating a successful ARA campaign requires more
than just embedding the AR technology in a print ad;
it requires a strategic understanding of how various
technological and message design aspects can jointly
influence consumer attitudes and perceptions. Based
on our findings, advertisers should simulate direct
product experience via instrumental AR interactions
and realistic ad contexts. Given the significant medi-
ation effect of telepresence observed, ARA should be
strategically designed to create telepresence to facili-
tate positive cognitive and affective responses.
Specifically, instrumental AR interactions should be
incorporated in ads for think products in a realistic ad
context and for feel products in an imagina-
tive context.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
Several limitations should be noted and addressed in
future studies. This study did not directly measure
and control the novelty effect of AR, which can be a
significant factor driving different consumer responses
toward conventional print ads and ARA. In addition,
a 2D product representation that disabled viewing the
product from varied angles and distances was used for
the hedonic interaction. A 2D representation,
although popular in mobile AR games such as
Pok
emon Go, did not capture a key affordance of this
technology. Future studies should explore the use of
3D product representations in instrumental and
hedonic interactions. We examined only think versus
feel product types. Future research may address the
importance of sensory cues presented in ARA. For
feel products like bread that satisfy sensory pleasure,
ads using an instrumental AR interaction to provide
enriched sensory information may be particularly per-
suasive. In contrast, purchase decisions of think prod-
ucts like hiking boots require a greater amount of
information beyond sensory cues. Information such as
price, warranty, and waterproof performance, as well
as consumers’direct product trials, is necessary in for-
mulating purchase decisions. Hence, ads with instru-
mental AR interactions providing only sensory cues
may not be viewed as informative. Given that IIT may
be more effective only for certain product types
(Fiore, Kim, and Lee 2005), other ways of classifying
products, such as mechanical versus geometric (Li,
Daugherty, and Biocca 2003), or convenience goods
versus shopping goods versus specialty goods (Atkins
and Kim 2012), should be tested in future ARA stud-
ies. The use of convenience student samples limits the
external validity of the research findings. Future
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
10 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
research replicating this experimental design with a
more representative sample is necessary. In terms of
ARA effectiveness, this study assessed only the cogni-
tive outcome of ad informativeness and the affective
outcome of brand liking. Other important consumer
evaluation outcomes should be tested in future
research, including perceived brand quality, prestige,
innovativeness, and purchase intention.
ORCID
Wan-Hsiu Sunny Tsai http://orcid.org/0000-0003-
3124-6882
References
Arias-Bolzmann, Leopoldo, Goutam Chakraborty, and
John C. Mowen (2000), “Effects of Absurdity in
Advertising: The Moderating Role of Product Category
Attitude and the Mediating Role of Cognitive
Responses,”Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 35–49.
Atkins, Kelly G., and Youn-Kyung Kim (2012), “Smart
Shopping: Conceptualization and Measurement,”
International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 40 (5), 360–75.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin
(1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and
Utilitarian Shopping Value,”Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (4), 644–56.
Barsom, Esther Z., Maurits Graafland, and Marlies P.
Schijven (2016), “Systematic Review on the Effectiveness
of Augmented Reality Applications in Medical Training,”
Surgical Endoscopy, 30 (10), 4174–83.
Beaudouin-Lafon, Michel (2000), “Instrumental Interaction:
An Interaction Model for Designing Post-WIMP User
Interfaces,”in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM,
446–53.
Biocca, Frank (1997), “The Cyborg’s Dilemma: Progressive
Embodiment in Virtual Environments,”Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (2), published
electronically.
Bl
azquez, Marta (2014), “Fashion Shopping in Multichannel
Retail: The Role of Technology in Enhancing the
Customer Experience,”International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 18 (4), 97–116.
Bulearca, Marius, and Daniel Tamarjan (2010), “Augmented
Reality: A Sustainable Marketing Tool,”Global Business
and Management Research: An International Journal,
2 (2), 237–52.
Carmody, Tim (2018), “Why Print Legacies Like Time Are
Betting Big on Augmented Reality: The Latest Issue
Featured 4 AR Activations,”Adweek, January 8, https://
www.adweek.com/digital/why-print-legacies-like-time-are-
betting-big-on-augmented-reality/.
Chaney, Isabella M., Ku-Ho Lin, and James Chaney (2004),
“The Effect of Billboards within the Gaming
Environment,”Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (1),
37–45.
Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck, and
Stephen Carson (2001), “Hedonic and Utilitarian
Motivations for Online Retail Shopping Behavior,”
Journal of Retailing, 77 (4), 511–35.
Choi, Hojoon, Hye Jin Yoon, Hye-Jin Paek, and Leonard N.
Reid (2012), “‘Thinking and Feeling’Products and
‘Utilitarian and Value-Expressive’Appeals in
Contemporary TV Advertising: A Content Analytic Test
of Functional Matching and the FCB Model,”Journal of
Marketing Communications, 18 (2), 91–111.
Claeys, Christel, An Swinnen, and P. Vanden Abeele (1995),
“Consumer’s Means-End Chains for ‘Think’and ‘Feel’
Products,”International Journal of Research in Marketing,
12 (3), 193–208.
Cowan, Kirsten, and Seth Ketron (2019), “A Dual Model of
Product Involvement for Effective Virtual Reality: The
Roles of Imagination, Co-Creation, Telepresence, and
Interactivity,”Journal of Business Research, 100 (July),
483–92.
Coyle, James R., and Esther Thorson (2001), “The Effects of
Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web
Marketing Sites,”Journal of Advertising, 30 (3), 65–77.
Edwards, Steven, and Harshavardhan Gangadharbatla
(2001), “The Novelty of 3D Product Presentations
Online,”Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19 (1), 10–18.
Eroglu, Sevgin A., Karen A. Machleit, and Lenita M. Davis
(2003), “Empirical Testing of a Model of Online Store
Atmospherics and Shopper Responses,”Psychology and
Marketing, 20 (2), 139–50.
Faiola, Anthony, Christine Newlon, Mark Pfaff, and Olga
Smyslova (2013), “Correlating the Effects of Flow and
Telepresence in Virtual Worlds: Enhancing Our
Understanding of User Behavior in Game-Based
Learning,”Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3),
1113–21.
Fiore, Ann Marie, and Hyun-Jeong Jin (2003), “Influence of
Image Interactivity on Approach Responses Towards an
Online Retailer,”Internet Research, 13 (1), 38–48.
———, Jihyun Kim, and Hyun-Hwa Lee (2005), “Effect of
Image Interactivity Technology on Consumer Responses
toward the Online Retailer,”Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 19 (3), 38–53.
Foulsham, Tom, Esther Walker, and Alan Kingstone (2011),
“The Where, What, and When of Gaze Allocation in the
Lab and the Natural Environment,”Vision Research,
51 (17), 1920–31.
Grigorovici, Dan M., and Corina D. Constantin (2004),
“Experiencing Interactive Advertising beyond Rich
Media: Impacts of Ad Type and Presence on Brand
Effectiveness in 3D Gaming Immersive Virtual
Environments,”Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (1),
22–36.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation,
Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982),
“The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer
Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,”Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (2), 132–40.
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 11
Homer, Pamela M., and Lynn R. Kahle (1986), “A Social
Adaptation Explanation of the Effects of Surrealism on
Advertising,”Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 50–60.
Hopp, Toby, and Harsha Gangadharbatla (2016), “Novelty
Effects in Augmented Reality Advertising Environments:
The Influence of Exposure Time and Self-Efficacy,”
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
37 (2), 113–30.
Javornik, Ana (2016), “‘It’s an Illusion, But It Looks Real!’
Consumer Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Responses
to Augmented Reality Applications,”Journal of Marketing
Management,32(9–10), 987–1011.
Jeong, Won So, Ann Marie Fiore, Linda S. Niehm, and
Frederick O. Lorenz (2009), “The Role of Experiential
Value in Online Shopping: The Impacts of Product
Presentation on Consumer Responses towards an
Apparel Web Site,”Internet Research, 19 (1), 105–24.
Jiang, Zhenhui, and Izak Benbasat (2007), “Research Note:
Investigating the Influence of the Functional Mechanisms
of Online Product Presentations.”Information Systems
Research, 18 (4), 454–70.
Jung, Timothy, Namho Chung, and Claudia M. Leue
(2015), “The Determinants of Recommendations to Use
Augmented Reality Technologies: The Case of a Korean
Theme Park,”Tourism Management, 49 (August), 75–86.
Keng, Ching-Jui, and Hung-Yuan Lin (2006), “Impact of
Telepresence Levels on Internet Advertising Effects,”
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9 (1), 82–94.
Kim, Taeyong, and Frank Biocca (1997), “Telepresence via
Television: Two Dimensions of Telepresence May Have
Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion,”
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (2),
published electronically September 1.
Kim, Yoo Jung, and JinYoung Han (2014), “Why
Smartphone Advertising Attracts Customers: A Model of
Web Advertising, Flow, and Personalization,”Computers
in Human Behavior, 33, 256–69.
Klein, Lisa R. (2003), “Creating Virtual Product
Experiences: The Role of Telepresence,”Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 17 (1), 41–55.
Koufaris, Marios, Ajit Kambil, and Priscilla Ann LaBarbera
(2001), “Consumer Behavior in Web-Based Commerce:
An Empirical Study,”International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 6 (2), 115–38.
Kumar, Satish (2018), “Have You Heard? Augmented
Reality in Manufacturing Is a Part of Industry 4.0
Revolution. Learn These 5 Successful Ways,”
Augrealitypedia, March 1, https://www.augrealitypedia.
com/augmented-reality-manufacturing/ (accessed on
January 22, 2020).
Lee, Chun-Hsiung, Hsiu-Sen Chiang, and Kuo-Lun Hsiao
(2018), “What Drives Stickiness in Location-Based AR
Games? An Examination of Flow and Satisfaction,”
Telematics and Informatics, 35 (7), 1958–70.
Lewis, Ben, and Lance Porter (2010), “In-Game Advertising
Effects: Examining Player Perceptions of Advertising
Schema Congruity in a Massively Multiplayer Online
Role-Playing Game,”Journal of Interactive Advertising,
10 (2), 46–60.
Li, Hairong, Terry Daugherty, and Frank Biocca (2001),
“Characteristics of Virtual Experience in Electronic
Commerce: A Protocol Analysis,”Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 15 (3), 13–30.
———,———, and ——— (2002), “Impact of 3-D
Advertising on Product Knowledge, Brand Attitude, and
Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Presence,”
Journal of Advertising, 31 (3), 43–57.
———,———, and ——— (2003), “The Role of Virtual
Experience in Consumer Learning,”Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (4), 395–407.
Lim, Jaejoo, and Ramakrishna Ayyagari (2018),
“Investigating the Determinants of Telepresence in the
E-Commerce Setting,”Computers in Human Behavior,
85, 360–71.
Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are
Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of
Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?,”Journal of
Marketing Research, 8 (1), 318–32.
Nelson, Michelle R. (2002), “Recall of Brand Placements in
Computer/Video Games,”Journal of Advertising Research,
42 (2), 80–92.
Palmer, Shelly (2018), “The Current Reality of Augmented
Reality,”AdAge, July 9, https://adage.com/article/opinion/
current-reality-augmented-reality/314145/ (accessed on
January 22, 2020).
Pantano, Eleonora, Alexandra Rese, and Daniel Baier
(2017), “Enhancing the Online Decision-Making Process
by Using Augmented Reality: A Two Country
Comparison of Youth Markets,”Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 38 (September), 81–95.
Peck, Joann, and Jennifer Wiggins Johnson (2011),
“Autotelic Need for Touch, Haptics, and Persuasion: The
Role of Involvement,”Psychology and Marketing, 28 (3),
222–39.
Poushneh, Atieh, and Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga (2017),
“Discernible Impact of Augmented Reality on Retail
Customers’Experience, Satisfaction, and Willingness to
Buy,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,34
(January), 229–34.
Preece, Jenny, Yvonne Rogers, and Helen Sharp (2015),
Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction,
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ratchford, Brian T. (1987), “New Insights about the FCB
Grid,”Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (4), 24–38.
Rosenberg, Gabriel (2016), “To Be the Very Best: Pok
emon
Enters into Augmented Reality,”NPR, June 30, https://
www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/30/
483857216/in-pokemon-go-an-app-to-become-the-very-
best (accessed on January 22, 2020).
Scholz, Joachim, and Katherine Duffy (2018), “We Are at
Home: How Augmented Reality Reshapes Mobile
Marketing and Consumer–Brand Relationships,”Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44 (September),
11–23.
Scott, Linda M. (1994), “Images in Advertising: The Need
for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric,”Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (2), 252–73.
Sheridan, Thomas B. (1992), “Musings on Telepresence and
Virtual Presence,”Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 1 (1), 120–26.
Shih, Chuan-Fong (1998), “Conceptualizing Consumer
Experiences in Cyberspace,”European Journal of
Marketing, 32 (7/8), 655–63.
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
12 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
Spielmann, Nathalie, and Antonia Mantonakis (2018), “In
Virtuo: How User-Driven Interactivity in Virtual Tours
Leads to Attitude Change,”Journal of Business Research,
88 (July), 255–64.
Stern, Barbara B. (1990), “Marketing As Drama: Theatre of
the Absurd,”in Research in Consumer Behavior, vol. 4,
J.N. Sheth and E.C. Hirschman, eds., Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, 195–215.
Steuer, Jonathan (1992), “Defining Virtual Reality:
Dimensions Determining Telepresence,”Journal of
Communication, 42 (4), 73–93.
Stone, Zeda (2017), “Could AR Be the Unlikely Savior of
Print?,”AdAge, May 11, https://adage.com/article/digital-
next/ar-savior-print/308923/ (accessed on January 22, 2020).
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann
(2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian
Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,”Journal of Marketing
Research, 40 (3), 310–20.
Wright, Alice A., and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1995),
“Communication Effects of Advertising versus Direct
Experience When Both Search and Experience Attributes
Are Present,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (4),
708–18.
Wu, Hsin-Kai, Silvia Wen-Yu Lee, Hsin-Yi Chang, and Jyh-
Chong Liang (2013), “Current Status, Opportunities, and
Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education,”
Computers and Education, 62 (March), 41–49.
Wu, Long, Kuei-Wan Chen, and Mai-Lun Chiu (2016),
“Defining Key Drivers of Online Impulse Purchasing: A
Perspective of Both Impulse Shoppers and System Users,”
International Journal of Information Management, 36 (3),
284–96.
Yang, Shuai, and Guiyang Xiong (2019), “Try It On!
Contingency Effects of Virtual Fitting Rooms,”Journal of
Management Information Systems, 36 (3), 789–822.
Yaoyuneyong, Gallayanee, Jamye Foster, Erik Johnson, and
David Johnson (2016), “Augmented Reality Marketing:
Consumer Preferences and Attitudes toward Hypermedia
Print Ads,”Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16 (1),
16–30.
Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Shu-Chuan Chu, and Paul L. Sauer
(2017), “Is Augmented Reality Technology an
Effective Tool for E-Commerce? An Interactivity and
Vividness Perspective,”Journal of Interactive Marketing,
39 (August), 89–103.
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 13
Appendix. Sample Experimental Ads
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
Instrumental augmented reality within a realistic context. (The
user can zoom in and out to view the boots from any angle in a
realistic setting.)
Hedonic augmented reality within a realistic context. (The
user can “break apart” the boots in a realistic setting.)
Instrumental augmented reality within an imaginative context.
(The user can zoom in and out to view the boots from any
angle in a fantasy setting.)
Hedonic augmented reality within an imaginative context.
(The user can “break apart” the boots in a fantasy setting.)
14 W.-H. S. TSAI ET AL.
