Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Zeng, J.-Y.; Xing, Y.; Jin,
C.-H. The Impact of VR/AR-Based
Consumers’ Brand Experience on
Consumer–Brand Relationships.
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15097278
Academic Editor: Diego Monferrer
Received: 22 March 2023
Revised: 22 April 2023
Accepted: 26 April 2023
Published: 27 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
The Impact of VR/AR-Based Consumers’ Brand Experience on
Consumer–Brand Relationships
Jing-Yun Zeng, Yisitie Xing and Chang-Hyun Jin *
Department of Business Administration, Kyonggi University, Suwon-si 16227, Republic of Korea
*Correspondence: chjin@kgu.ac.kr
Abstract:
This study aims to identify types of virtual/augmented reality–based brand experiences
(VR/AR experiences) to understand their impacts on consumer–brand relationships. For this study,
brand experiences were divided into four types: entertainment, aesthetic, educational, and real-escape
experiences. Today, consumers can experience virtual/augmented reality–based brand experiences.
In this study, a survey of consumers who participated in brand experiences was conducted. A total
of 518 consumers participated in the survey. To verify the study hypotheses, structural equation
modeling was conducting using the EQS 6 program. The results confirmed that entertainment,
aesthetic, educational, and real-escape experiences were the main types of brand experiences that
consumers accessed through AR/VR technologies. Additionally, brand experiences utilizing VR/AR
technologies were found to affect consumer–brand relationship-building. Moreover, consumer–
brand relationships were found to have a positive effect on consumer satisfaction, which, in turn,
had a positive effect on purchase intentions. Furthermore, perceived brand authenticity played an
important role in moderating the relationship between the brand experience types and consumer–
brand relationship-building. It was found that there were interactions between study participants
who perceived brand authenticity as high or low with all regulatory variables. These empirical
studies of actual consumers’ AR and VR have the advantage of being able to present the most reliable
analysis method for researchers to access their goals through various statistical data and analysis
techniques. One of the most important factors in empirical research is sample size. This is because
samples have a significant impact on generalizing the results. This means that the validity of the
research results is high. The impact of VR and AR on sustainability examined in this study, the
impact of VR and AR, and consumer-brand relationship building tried to deviate from the existing
perspective in explaining sustainable behavior. It is judged that it contributed to grasping the causal
relationship by establishing the relationship with the variables of brand experience with VR and AR
and purchase intention. The fact that this study established the impact of VR and AR experience in
predicting sustainable behavior of consumers contributed to the field of sustainable marketing.
Keywords:
virtual reality; augmented reality; brand experience; consumer–brand relationships;
consumer satisfaction; purchase intentions
1. Introduction
In the current market environment, consumers build increasingly complex relation-
ships with brands. Beyond the information controlled and provided by sellers, new media
channels have been introduced, expanding opportunities for countless brands. Addition-
ally, consumers continue to maintain relationships with brands following purchases by
publicly promoting or criticizing purchased products and cooperating in brand develop-
ment. As online purchases have become more routine, users have begun experiencing
discomfort with the limited display of brand information on small screens. Thus, marketers
have sought to improve this experience through design. Efforts have been undertaken to
improve the user experience and user interfaces, increasing their intuitiveness by integrat-
ing infographics and icons into brand information [
1
,
2
]. Consequently, traditional graphic
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097278 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 2 of 16
design is disappearing, with user experiences becoming more comprehensive to keep up
with a constantly evolving design environment [3].
The creation of brand presentations for consumers using virtual reality (VR) and aug-
mented reality (AR) technologies has been achieved in many markets. Through marketing
using VR and AR technologies, brands can create experiences, engage consumers, and
induce transformations in interesting ways [
4
–
7
]. According to a Markets and Markets
(2023) report, the AR and VR display market is projected to grow from USD 1.8 billion in
2023 to USD 8.2 billion by 2028; it is expected to grow at a CAGR of 35.6% from 2023 to
2028. AR has increased brand competitiveness not only in markets for personal hygiene
products, clothing, and furniture, but also in the market for housing interiors. According to
a survey of online shoppers across the United States conducted by Interactions Consumer
Experience Marketing, a retail survey agency, 65% of shoppers want product information
through AR and 61% of shoppers prefer shopping at stores that offer AR technology over
stores that do not [8].
Although practical applications of VR and AR technology are multiplying, specific
research on how brand marketing activities utilize these technologies is insufficient. Mar-
keters expect brand experiences to enable them to retain customers and generate revisits
and purchases; however, research on the situations and factors that affect customers when
they make strategic decisions is lacking [
1
–
3
,
9
]. With the recent increase in VR and AR use,
several related studies have been conducted. In previous studies, VR and AR technologies
have been separated for comparative analysis to study not only consumer acceptance,
but also to understand what motivates usage and how retailers implement AR and VR
applications [1,2,9–11].
This study focuses on VR and AR phenomena, which are new marketing communica-
tion tools. It aims to understand the effect of consumers experiencing a brand through these
devices. Users want to gain fun or satisfaction through VR and AR shopping and brand
experience. It is judged that the results of this causal relationship can provide strategic
implications for the many companies that are trying to utilize the latest technologies. The
VR and AR experiences and sustainable development technology devices covered in this
study promote sustainable behavior. Furthermore, it is believed that the brand experiences
will play an important role in creating a sustainable future. It is necessary to have care
and responsibility to ensure that these devices are designed, developed, and used in a
way that maximizes environmental or technical benefits and minimizes environmental
costs. If the aforementioned factors become a reality, the virtual world can truly contribute
to a more sustainable and equitable future. Research related to augmented reality and
virtual reality is being applied to various fields. In particular, the effects of experience and
satisfaction in the fields of education, medical care, and marketing are being investigated.
Start-ups and technology transfers using augmented reality and virtual reality technologies
are also occurring. It is judged that certain factors from the results of this study can provide
valuable information in predicting consumers’ reasonable consumption or sustainable
consumption behavior.
Unlike previous studies, this study has increased the reliability of the survey by
allowing actual consumers to experience AR and VR. It is also possible to generalize the
results by using vast consumer samples. This study seeks to analyze consumer experience
factors to determine whether these factors affect consumer–brand relationships. To this end,
the experience economy theoretical model was applied. Thus far, research on the effects of
VR- and AR-based brand-experience factors on customer–brand relationship building has
been limited. Therefore, this study seeks to understand the influential relationships between
brand experiences and the creation of consumer–brand relationships. Additionally, this
research aims to determine whether a moderating effect exists by treating brand authenticity
as a moderating variable. By examining this causal relationship, it is possible to determine
meaningful implications that will enable companies to build consumer–brand relationships
via VR and AR.
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 3 of 16
2. Theoretical and Empirical Background
2.1. Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR vs. AR)
VR is a technology through which users become immersed in a simulated three-
dimensional environment that is projected through a headset. The original meaning of the
word “virtual” is “being such in essence or effect but not formally recognized or admitted”,
which means that a virtual reality space closely resembles an actual space—it is nearly like
reality. AR, on the other hand, is a technology that adds digital elements to real environ-
ments, while VR technology completely immerses users in synthetic environments [
4
–
6
,
12
].
During this immersion, users cannot see the real world around them. In contrast, AR allows
the user to see the real world, with virtual objects overlapping or synthesizing with the real
world. AR combines virtual information with the real world, whereas with VR, all sensory
information is virtual [5,13,14].
As an interface technology that mixes real-time and virtual images to provide users
with virtual information overlaid upon their perceptions, AR improves users’ ability to
recognize reality and has become an important digital marketing tool in recent industrial
trends. Convenient information acquisition may be provided by adding information to an
actual projected environment or intuitive information delivery through the camera function
of a smartphone. Because AR delivers richer real messages through a combination of real-
world and virtual-world elements, real-time interaction, and the use of three-dimensional
images, it generates user satisfaction, user immersion of the five senses, and augmented
effects [1,2,9–11].
In a VR experience, a person interacts with a simulated surrounding environment in
a virtual space with a high level of immersion. In other words, VR is delivered through
the interface between a programmer who can create a virtual experience and the tech-
nology
[6,15–17]
. This is an innovative technology that extends the five human senses
through virtual space. Recently, a range of devices, new content production, and virtual
distribution platforms have emerged. For its part, AR is typically viewed as a form of
VR; however, unlike VR, AR involves a virtual interface that mixes digital features with
reality [
1
,
2
,
9
–
11
,
13
]. The main difference between VR and AR is that VR feels like reality
itself, while AR overlays a specific virtual image on a real background [18,19].
In marketing, VR and AR technologies are being used actively for “shopping”. Con-
sumers can access products they are considering through AR before buying them. For
example, the famous fast-fashion brand ZARA has utilized AR to allow customers to check
whether the clothes they desire will fit them without having to try on the clothes physically.
Additionally, IKEA can match a home with desired furniture in advance through AR and
help consumers to see the colors or textures they are seeking in advance. Alibaba in China
has used VR machines to allow shoppers to shop in virtual spaces in famous department
stores in New York in the United States.
In terms of marketing effectiveness and experience, VR technology has undeniable
potential and has brought new IT innovation to marketing. VR marketing has already be-
come an important means through which companies seek to enhance their competitiveness
and has been characterized as potentially the most significant marketing innovation of
the twenty-first century [
20
]. According to some research reports, 75% of world-famous
brands (excluding Chinese companies) identified by Forbes provide consumers or employ-
ees with some type of VR- or AR-based experience. VR technology is widely applied in
corporate product development, marketing research, and store and advertising promo-
tions [1,2,9–12,21,22].
2.2. Brand Experience
A brand experience is conceptualized as an emotional, cognitive, and behavioral
response to the design, packaging, communication, and environmental features of a product
or service created by brand-related stimuli that form part of a brand’s identity [
23
]. A
brand experience comprises a consumer’s perceptions at any moment of contact with a
brand, whether that involves the brand’s image projected in an advertisement, personal
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 4 of 16
contact, or the quality of the individual treatment received [
24
,
25
]. Brand experiences are
created when customers use a brand, communicate with others about the brand, and seek
brand-related information, promotions, and events [26–28].
Brand managers should work with consumers to create an overall brand experi-
ence
[29,30]
. Brand-related marketing activities can affect a consumer’s “mindset” about a
brand, i.e., what is known and felt about the brand. In this context, a customer ’s mindset
comprises everything that exists in the customer’s mind in relation to a particular brand,
e.g., thoughts, emotions, experiences, images, perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes about the
brand [
26
]. When consumers search for, purchase, and consume brands, they are exposed
to the practical attributes of the corresponding products. However, they are also exposed
to a variety of specific brand-related stimuli, such as a brand’s identification colors [
31
–
33
].
Pine and Gilmore argue that when a product embodies a variety of brand experi-
ence types, it becomes a highly competitive and differentiated experiential product [
29
].
Additionally, to prevent a brand’s products from being involved in price competition
with competitors and to increase product demand to generate profits, the key is to cre-
ate experiential products and services that remind consumers of memories by enabling
them to participate in the production process. Additionally, by appropriately harmoniz-
ing distinct types of brand experiences to create memories, companies can increase their
marketing opportunities.
Brakus, Schumit, and Zhang defined brand experiences as subjective and internal
repercussions for consumers caused by combining brand-related stimuli, such as identity,
packaging, design, communication, and the environment, which are delivered through
marketing, philosophy, management practice, and cognitive science [
23
]. In other studies,
brand experience has been referred to as the accumulated result of user or consumer experi-
ences. Schmitt emphasized that the concept of experiential marketing can be strengthened
through brand loyalty and brand value when strategic experiences using the five senses,
emotions, cognition, behavior, and relationships are provided [
30
]. Summarizing the results
of previous studies, brand experience is an important factor in building a company’s brand.
2.3. Consumer–Brand Relationships
Research on consumer–brand relationships begins with brands’ personalities, which
make these relationships similar in some ways to relationships between people. A brand’s
personality is created through personalization. If the focus of a brand’s personality is to
induce consumers to see using the brand’s products as an expression of a real or ideal self
or a specific aspect of oneself, a consumer–brand relationship can be established with the
product or brand, just as consumers are related to each other in their own ways. In other
words, consumer–brand relationships, like interpersonal relationships, involve a complex
mix of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes that occur between consumers and
brands [34–36], creating solidarity between consumers and brands as equal partners [35].
Consumer–brand relationships have attracted attention recently in the marketing
literature [
35
,
37
]. The concept of consumer–brand relationships began as a metaphor
based on interpersonal relationships [
35
,
37
]. In consumer–brand relationships, brands
are depicted as active partners, much like individuals in interpersonal relationships, and
brands are known to have unique personalities just like humans [
34
,
38
,
39
]. The basis of
consumer–brand relationships was formed through various interpersonal theories such as
interdependence theory [
40
], social penetration theory [
40
,
41
], the investment model [
42
],
social exchange theory [
43
], and resource exchange theory [
44
]. Therefore, the concept of a
consumer–brand relationship has established itself on a theoretical and conceptual level as
a distinct subject of research in the marketing literature.
Consumer–brand relationships involve brand differentiation, risk aversion, and loyal pur-
chasing behavior as dimensions in the formation of consumer–brand relationships
[45–48]
. Fac-
tors that influence the formation of a consumer–brand relationship include past purchase experi-
ences, emotional or behavioral experiences, cognitive beliefs, and brand commitment
[35,45,49]
.
According to Fournier, the quality of a consumer–brand relationship evolves through the be-
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 5 of 16
havior of the brand and the consumer [
35
]. These behaviors can strengthen, dilute, or even
extinguish such relationships. A model of brand relationship quality that incorporates six
factors—love and passion, self-connection, interdependence, commitment, intimacy, and brand
partner quality—has been presented in previous studies [
35
,
45
,
49
]. Consumer–brand relation-
ships provide a basis for forming consumer behavior and outcome variables such as brand
loyalty, and consumer–brand relationship quality has a positive effect on consumer behavior,
increasingly attracting attention as an important factor in consumer happiness.
3. Hypotheses and Theoretical Model
3.1. Hypotheses
This study investigates whether VR- and AR-based brand experiences affect the es-
tablishment of consumer–brand relationships by exploring factors that shape VR- and
AR-based brand experiences. Conceptualization and scale development regarding brand
experiences are very important for understanding the concept of consumer–brand rela-
tionships [
23
,
29
,
50
,
51
]. Brand experiences can be positive or negative and short-lived or
long-lasting. A brand experience can have a positive effect on consumer satisfaction as well
as on establishing consumer–brand relationships [
52
]. The concept of a brand experience
is empirically distinct from other brand- and customer-centered concepts such as brand
attachment, brand participation, and consumer satisfaction [23,52].
When consumers pay attention to certain empirical characteristics of a brand, long-
lasting brand experiences are stored in their memories which gradually influences their
attitudes toward the brand [
53
,
54
]. In this way, the accumulation of experience through
brand consumption is the starting point for establishing consumer–brand relationships.
Additionally, to understand the nature of consumer relations, a brand should be viewed as
an active subject from a consumer’s standpoint, not as a passive object. To establish a true
relationship with consumers requires a brand to emphasize the quality, depth, and strength
of its consumer relationships [
35
]. As described above, factors that shape brand experiences
can lead to consumer–brand relationships. Pine and Gilmore identified four areas that are
relevant to the customer experience of a brand, including entertainment, education, aesthet-
ics, and escapism [
29
]. These four dimensions are divided across two axes: the degree of
customer participation and the connection to the surrounding environment [
55
]. The first
dimension is the entertainment factor that is developed when consumers absorb an experi-
ence passively, such as when watching a theatrical performance [
27
]. Entertainment can
affect consumers’ emotions and satisfaction [
55
,
56
]. Therefore, this study proposes the fol-
lowing hypothesis to examine how brand experiences affect consumer–brand
relationships
:
H1-1.
Entertainment during brand experiences has a positive (+) effect on consumer–
brand relationships
.
Hedonic benefits comprise the utility attained through emotions or emotional states
such as pleasure, fun, and entertainment enjoyed through consumer experiences [
57
]. A
restaurant’s Facebook fan page reflects the degree to which dining at that establishment
satisfies guests’ socio-psychological and hedonic needs. Restaurant marketers hope to be
effective in identifying and implementing activities that provide social, psychological, and
hedonic benefits to guests, as reflected on Facebook fan pages [58,59].
Pleasant brands are used and purchased by consumers primarily to obtain emotional
satisfaction from the brands’ sensory attributes through entertainment, escape, or relax-
ation [
60
]. Advertising is a key aspect of marketing; thus, visual imagery is an important
consideration in the field of consumer behavior. The aesthetic nature of a brand is related
to consumers’ perception of beauty [
61
]. Cognitive and emotional responses to imagery
may also include sensory responses [
61
]. Pleasant consumption is about pleasure. Pleasure
may be an element of aesthetic appreciation, which almost certainly elicits a hedonic re-
sponse. These two concepts are not, however, equivalent. Let us compare two activities:
reading a bestselling book and bungee jumping. The former has a significant cognitive
element (struggling with language, plot, and ideas) that will result in pleasure. The latter
activity can also generate pleasure; however, there are few or no cognitive factors involved.
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 6 of 16
Moreover, there is no aesthetic appreciation resulting from the sense of danger and speed
one experiences during free fall. Therefore, an aesthetic experience is a form of hedonic
consumption. Thus, it can be predicted that consumers’ aesthetic brand experiences will be
closely connected to their inclination to establish relationships with brands. Therefore, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H1-2.
Aesthetic pleasure during brand experiences has a positive (+) effect on consumer–brand relationships.
The purpose of consumer education is to protect consumers. Providing economic
welfare and fair competition to contribute to society as a whole involves promoting under-
standing. Consumer education informs consumers about the functions, attitudes, knowl-
edge, and understanding that they need to cope with an increasingly complex market. The
internet has deepened this complexity. Consumer education influences consumer decision-
making at each step in the decision-making process and through external and internal
factors that influence consumer decision-making. Resource management (target-setting,
personal finances, purchasing savings), and consumer participation are important factors
that affect consumer–brand relationships. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1-3.
Educational information obtained during brand experiences has a positive (+) effect on
consumer–brand relationships.
While measuring consumer satisfaction with travel experiences, it was revealed that
entertainment, aesthetic, and educational experiences have a positive effect on customer sat-
isfaction through reality-escape experiences [
55
,
62
–
64
]. In such cases, though, satisfaction
may not be determined directly by the offering itself but rather by attributes of other em-
pirical dimensions (e.g., entertainment, aesthetics, education). In other words, real-escape
experiences are unlikely to be made satisfying through destination attributes or qualities.
Rather, such satisfaction is highly likely to involve a summation of the psychological con-
sequences of the overall experience [
55
,
62
–
64
]. If tourists enjoy an experience provided
by a travel destination, they can step outside their daily lives and immerse themselves in
a different world and in a different level of experiential economy. In this way the experi-
ence of the travel destination will satisfy tourists [
55
,
62
–
64
]. It can be predicted that these
consumers’ brand experiences will be closely linked to the creation of consumer–brand
relationships. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1-4.
Real-escape features of brand experiences have a positive (+) effect on consumer–brand relationships.
According to previous studies of consumer–brand relationships, factors that signif-
icantly affect such relationships include past purchase experiences, emotional or behav-
ioral experiences, cognitive beliefs, and brand commitment [
35
,
45
,
49
]. Consumers tend
to feel more loyal to brands they feel related to, attached to, and love [
65
]. Therefore,
consumer–brand relationships can affect brand loyalty [
66
]. Researchers have learned that
consumer–brand relationships create long-standing bonds between brands and their con-
sumers. Thus, brands (including product brands) are entities with their own personalities
with which consumers can sympathize [
67
]. Therefore, consumers tend to form specific
types of relationships with brands [
67
], not unlike the close personal relationships they
form with other individuals [
68
,
69
]. Some individuals are passionate about a brand, while
others merely like the brand or are indifferent to it [70].
When a consumer is not familiar with a product or has no experience using it, the halo
effect associated with a company or a product’s brand image directly affects the consumer’s
purchase intention because the consumer already believes in the product. Consumer
decision-making is made mainly by predicting purchase behavior. In general, when a
favorable attitude toward a product’s properties is formed, a stronger purchase intention
is formed, and consequently, it is more likely to lead to action [
71
]. As a result of brand
evaluation, purchase intentions reflect the consumer’s desire to purchase a brand to achieve
the highest level of satisfaction [
72
–
76
]. In other words, consumer–brand relationships
form the basis of consumer behavior and outcome variables such as brand loyalty. Thus,
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 7 of 16
the quality of consumer–brand relations has attracted attention as an important factor in
determining consumer satisfaction that affects consumer behavior positively. Additionally,
the degree to which brand experience factors affect consumer–brand relationships may
differ depending on perceived brand authenticity [
77
,
78
]. Therefore, this study proposes
the following hypotheses to investigate the effects of consumer–brand relationships on con-
sumer satisfaction and purchase intentions along with the moderating effects of perceived
brand authenticity:
H2: Consumer–brand relationships have a positive (+) effect on consumer satisfaction
H3: Consumer satisfaction have a positive (+) effect on purchase intentions.
H4:
The influence of sub-factors of brand experiences (entertainment:H4-1, aesthetic:H4-2, educational:H4-3,
and real-escape:H4-4) will affect consumer–brand relationships through the brand authenticity.
3.2. Research Model
The research model for this study was designed based on the identification of factors
that influence the creation and maintenance of consumer–brand relationships by identifying
types of VR/AR-related brand experiences based on previous studies. Hypothesis 1 was
proposed to understand how VR- and AR-based brand experiences affect consumer–brand
relationships. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were established to understand the effect of consumer–
brand relationships on consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions. To fulfill the purpose
and test the hypotheses proposed in this study, a research model was developed, as shown
in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Suggested research model.
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Operational Definitions and Variable Measures
This study classifies brand experiences as entertainment, aesthetic, educational, and
reality-escape experiences, based on a review of literature related to VR- and AR-based
experiences [
23
,
29
,
50
–
52
]. Based on previous comparative cultural research, a total of
12 items were identified, including three items each for entertainment, aesthetic, and
educational experiences and three items for “deviant” experiences [23,29,50–52].
Consumer–brand relationships, like interpersonal relationships, involve complex
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes that occur between consumers and brands,
reflecting the solidarity created as a result of brands’ interactions with their consumers
as equal partners [
35
,
45
,
49
]. Consumer–brand relationships were measured with five
items that were derived from previous consumer–brand relationship studies and were
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 8 of 16
modified for this study [
45
,
46
]. In this study, consumer satisfaction was defined as the
level of positive emotions experienced by consumers during the overall purchase and
consumption experience [
47
,
48
]. To capture this idea, a total of three measurement items
derived from domestic and foreign literature sources were added and modified to suit this
study. Three measurement items derived from previous literature were used to measure
purchase intentions on a single scale based on consumers’ responses to a question that
asked whether they were willing to purchase a given product in the near future. To examine
the moderating effect of perceived brand authenticity, three items were developed based
on the purpose of this study. The perceived brand-authenticity items were constructed
based on existing research [77–80].
4.2. Survey Procedure and Data Collection
To construct the study questionnaire, operational definitions of the variables were
obtained. Additionally, questionnaire items were extracted from previous studies, and
responses to the survey items were measured using a five-point Likert scale with values
ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 3 for “agree” to 5 for “strongly agree”. In other
words, the higher the score, the more positive the response. The demographic attributes of
the sample were measured using four items about gender, age, education, and income.
This study conducted an online survey. The sample subjects were randomly extracted
from a list of consumer panels registered with a global research company, and the ques-
tionnaire was randomly distributed to prospective participants. Finally, the survey was
conducted after the number of participants was secured and the sample size was estab-
lished. Before participating in the survey, participants were asked to undergo experimental
stimulation provided by the researchers.
The survey was involved providing the survey subjects with VR- and AR-based
shopping experiences and brand environments prior to administering the questionnaire.
The VR- and AR-based brand experiences provided by one of the major retailers in Korea
were used. The VR (virtual reality) shopping experience was a distributor’s VR store,
and the AR (Augmented Reality) shopping experience used a distributor’s store. After
completing the shopping experience through these two contents, participants were given
VR and AR questionnaires. The survey period spanned approximately one month, from
March 15 to April 15, 2021. A total of 518 respondents participated in this survey; this
information was obtained by contacting consumer panels in advance to check whether the
participants had completed the survey.
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistics
As shown in Table 1, the final sample comprised a total of 528 participants, including
254 men and 264 women. The respondents’ average monthly income was approximately
US Dollars 3000. A majority of the respondents (85%) had earned college-level degrees.
Most of the participants were above 50 years of age, accounting for 23.4% of the sample.
This was the threshold of the demographic distribution of this survey.
5.2. Measurement Validity
The measurement scales were tested for dimensionality, reliability, and validity using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) before assessing the hypothesized relationships, as shown
in Figure 1. The Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.7 for all variables. The results
for factor loading, communality, and Cronbach’s alpha are presented in Tables 2and 3. As
shown in Tables 2and 3, the factor loadings of the measurement items ranged from 0.556
to 0.865, demonstrating convergent validity at the item level. The factor analysis results for
VR- and AR-based brand experiences showed that the each of the 12 measurement items
fell along one of four dimensions: Factor 1 was named “entertainment experience,” Factor 2
was named “aesthetic experience,” Factor 3 was named “educational experience,” and
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 9 of 16
Factor 4 was named “reality-escape experience.” These four factors, extracted for brand
experience, explained 75.3% of the total variance.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Index (n = 518) Frequency %
Sex Male 254 49.0
Female 264 51.0
Age
20–29 years 99 19.1
30–39 111 21.4
40–49 98 18.9
Over 50 years 121 23.4
Education
Level
High school level 89 17.2
College students 130 25.1
College level 60 11.6
Graduate school level 285 55.0
Monthly
Income
(in US$)
Below $2000 43 8.3
$2000–$3000 194 37.5
$3000–$4000 127 24.5
$4000–$5000 76 14.7
Over $5000 55 10.6
Table 2. Factor analysis results for brand experience.
Variables
(Cronbach’s Alpha) Items Communality Factor
1 2 3 4
Entertainment
(0.928)
En1 0.785 0.837
En2 0.818 0.853
En3 0.803 0.822
Aesthetic
(0.806)
Es1 0.647 0.823
Es2 0.732 0.724
Es3 0.733 0.663
Education
(0.740)
Ed1 0.637 0.739
Ed2 0.719 0.692
Ed3 0.640 0.718
Real Escape
(0.792)
Re1 0.679 0.756
Re2 0.726 0.718
Re3 0.687 0.736
Eigenvalues 9.215 4.124 2.907 1.786
% of variance 51.79 9.369 7.560 6.549
Total variance extracted 22.54 40.41 58.2 75.3
KMO = 0.905, Bartlett’s Sphericity Test χ2= 3643.1(df = 66, p= 0.000)
Table 3. Discriminant and convergent validity.
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Entertainment
0.662
Esthetic 0.403 0.692
Education 0.332 0.397 0.623
Real Escape 0.345 0.349 0.333 0.675
CBR 0.381 0.307 0.338 0.282 0.698
CS 0.161 0.211 0.248 0.152 0.584 0.682
PI 0.112 0.169 0.275 0.158 0.607 0.253 0.517
Note: CBR: Consumer–brand Relationship, CS: Consumer Satisfaction, PI: Purchase Intention, AVE: Average
Variance Extracted, r
2
: correction coefficient, C.V. (convergent validity): AVE > 0.50, D.V. (Discriminant valid-
ity): (AVE/r2> 1).
As shown in Table 3, discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the correlations
between the brand experience types using average variance extracted (AVE). The AVE
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 10 of 16
values ranged between 0.623 and 0.692, while the means of the squares of the correlation
coefficients ranged between 0.112 and 0.607, indicating that the AVE was higher than
the means of the squares of the correlation coefficients (r
2
). This result also satisfies
the requirements for discriminant and convergent validity, thus verifying the research
hypothesis model.
5.3. Hypothesis Testing
To test the structural relationships represented in the model, the hypothesized causal
paths were estimated. The results shown in Table 4and Figure 2indicate that the VR-
and AR-based brand-experience types positively affect consumer–brand relationships
(γ= 0.101
,p< 0.001 for entertainment experience;
γ
= 0.249, p< 0.001 for aesthetic ex-
perience;
γ
= 0.336, p< 0.001 for educational experience; and
γ
= 0.246, p< 0.001 for
reality-escape experience). Thus, H1-1, H1-2, H1-3, and H1-4 were supported. Moreover,
consumer–brand relationships were found to have a positive effect on consumer satisfaction
(
γ
= 0.4, p< 0.001), and consumer satisfaction had a positive effect on purchase intentions
(γ= 0.719, p< 0.001). Thus, H2 and H3 were supported.
Table 4. Path analysis results.
H Paths Coefficients
H1-1 Entertainment →CBR 0.101 ** (0.091)/z = 1.997, p= 0.044
H1-2 Aesthetic →CBR 0.249 *** (0.286)/z = 5.280
H1-3 Education →CBR 0.336 *** (0.381)/z = 7.136
H1-4 Real Escape →CBR 0.246 *** (0.267)/z = 5.260
H2 CBR →CS 0.764 *** (0.703)/z = 26.87
H3 CS →PI 0.719 *** (0.781)/z = 23.50
Goodness of Fit:
χ2
= 9832.3, df = 543, p= 0.000, CFI = 0.936, GFI = 0.888, AGFI = 0.855, NFI = 0.906, NNFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.061
Note: *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.05, CBR: Consumer–brand Relationship; CS: Consumer Satisfaction; PI: Purchase Intention.
Figure 2. Path analysis.
5.4. Moderating Effects of Authenticity
As shown in Table 5, the hypothesized model was estimated separately for each
of the two groups (i.e., those who perceived brand authenticity as high and those who
perceived it as low). The values of the selected fit indexes for the multi-sample analysis
of the path model with equality-constrained direct effects are reported in Table 5, which
shows the standardized solutions. Generally, standardized path coefficients were used to
compare paths within groups. The test results showed that interactions between the brand
experience types (entertainment, aesthetic, educational, and reality-escape experiences)
and consumer–brand relationships (
∆χ2
= 8.169, p< 0.001 for entertainment experiences;
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 11 of 16
∆χ2= 9.609
,p< 0.001 for aesthetic experiences;
∆χ2
= 12.87, p< 0.001 for educational
experiences; and
∆χ2
= 9.250, p< 0.001 for real-escape experiences) were significant. Thus,
H4-1, H4-2, H4-3, and H4-4 were supported.
Table 5. Results of moderating effects of brand authenticity.
HPath Path Coefficient χ2Modification
High Low
H3-1 Entertainment →CBR 0.269 (0.251)/z = 4.168 0.145 (0.106)/z = 1.895 ∆χ2= 8.169, p= 0.000
H3-2 Aesthetic →CBR 0.248 (0.287)/z = 3.644 0.097 (0.092)/z = 1.331 ∆χ2= 9.609, p= 0.000
H3-3 Education →CBR 0.272 (0.261)/z = 3.756 0.219 (0.203)/z = 2.756 ∆χ2= 12.87, p= 0.000
H3-4 Real Escape →CBR 0.381 (0.445)/z = 5.243 0.119 (0.100)/z = 1.784 ∆χ2= 9.250, p= 0.000
Note: High vs. low: classification based on the degree of authenticity (e.g., high- and low-perceived authenticity).
6. Conclusions and Discussion
This study was aimed at understanding how consumers’ VR- and AR-based brand
experiences, differentiated by type, affect consumer–brand relationships. It also sought
to examine how consumer–brand relationships affect consumer satisfaction and purchase
intentions. The results of the analysis of the study hypotheses are summarized as fol-
lows: Consumers’ VR- and AR-based brand experiences, when differentiated by type,
had positive effects on their brand experiences. Moreover, consumer–brand relationships
had a positive effect on consumer satisfaction, which in turn had a positive effect on their
purchase intentions. Based on the above-reported results, this study concludes that brand
experiences accessed through VR and AR technologies are closely connected to the building
of consumer–brand relationships. The results of the analysis of the moderating effect of the
perceived authenticity of brands are described below.
It was found that brand authenticity plays a moderating role when entertainment,
aesthetic, educational, and real-escape experiences affect the establishment of consumer–
brand relationships. The path coefficient of the group that perceived brand authenticity
as low increased with the path coefficient of the group that perceived brand authenticity
as high. As a result of this investigation, it was confirmed that there was an interaction
effect between the high- and low-perceived brand-authenticity groups with the moderating
variable. This study offers several academic and practical implications. Regarding the
academic implications, this study was significant in that it investigated whether VR and AR
technologies, which are widely used in the current shopping environment, lead to purchase
intentions when users experience brands. Furthermore, this empirical research determined
the effectiveness of VR- and AR-based brand experiences, which are currently widely used
by distribution companies.
In this study, the process of consumer–brand relationship-building was investigated
by examining consumers’ VR- and AR-based brand experiences. The originality of this
study lies in the fact that examining consumer–brand relationship-building revealed a
causal relationship that runs from such brand experiences through consumer satisfaction to
purchase intentions. The study results confirmed that VR- and AR-based brand experiences
can contribute to creating consumer–brand relationships, which have a significant impact
on consumer satisfaction and the intention to purchase a brand or product.
The degree of brand recognition that brand experiences generate varies with the type
of brand experience involved. Educational content, design elements, and elements that can
provide leisure to users were found to be more effective than the entertainment elements in
VR and AR applications. Additionally, consumers tended to prefer brand experiences that
applied VR and AR technologies to real-life experiences that focus on providing practical
information about brands rather than mere fun. Thus, it is evident that experiential factors
play a critical role in the building of customer–brand relationships. It can be concluded that
VR- and AR-based brand experiences cannot be effective if the focus is simply on providing
fun and one-time VR- and AR-based brand experiences in a marketing environment. In
other words, rather than paying attention to the media experience itself, companies must
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 12 of 16
deliver realistic, undistorted product information through VR and AR technologies and
focus on providing VR- and AR-based brand experiences that are centered on accurate
information delivery.
Consumers want to search for products easily and quickly and obtain accurate infor-
mation without being restricted by time and space, e.g., when shopping on mobile devices
or online. However, they also want to feel the same way when seeing products in an
offline environment. VR- and AR-based brand experiences provide the only brand-driven
shopping environment that can satisfy all of these consumer preferences. The VR- and
AR-based brand-experience environment substantially alters the distribution environment,
as it overcomes physical limitations and provides a more convenient shopping environ-
ment for consumers. Additionally, in a marketing environment, where consumer brand
experiences are created, consumers can immerse themselves in products and brands via
VR- and AR-based brand experiences. Thus, this study contributes to the literature on the
rapid response in distribution and marketing environments to the adoption of VR and
AR technologies.
Moreover, brand authenticity was found to be a very important factor affecting the
relationship between customer–brand relationship-building and VR- and AR-based brand
experiences. When brand authenticity was added to VR- and AR-based brand experiences,
consumers were more willing to positively recognize and establish relationships with
brands. In other words, the story format in which authenticity is harmonized in brand
content development makes consumers feel good about brands.
7. Implications and Limitations
One of the most important factors in empirical research is sample size, because samples
have a significant impact on result generalization and research validity. As a result, the
high validity of this study’s research results can be deemed significant.
Consumers’ brand experiences utilizing VR/AR technologies were found to affect
consumer–brand relationship-building. Global consumers visit actual stores and increase
carbon emissions through product sampling, product purchase, and packaging. Virtual
and augmented product sampling eliminates waste such as cosmetic samples, packaging,
shipping, and transportation that generates carbon emissions. With the help of augmented
reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI), beauty brands can virtually recreate their sam-
pling experiences while saving the planet. Virtual and augmented reality implementations
are being studied in various fields. The virtual world is a powerful tool for raising aware-
ness and educating people on environmental issues. Virtual reality and augmented reality
technologies allow users to experience firsthand the effects of climate change and the impact
of human activity on the environment. For example, virtual reality simulations can show
the results of deforestation, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels. This type of immersive
experience can help people understand the urgency of the situation and take measures to
protect the planet. We believe that virtual and augmented reality-based metaverses will
play significant roles in the future [81].
The goal is to create a more sustainable future by raising awareness, promoting
sustainable action, reducing carbon emissions, and enabling sustainable development.
However, it is important to approach this potential with care and responsibility to ensure
that metaverses are designed, developed, and used in ways that maximize environmental
benefits and minimizes environmental costs. By doing so, the virtual world can truly
contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future. We believe that such virtual and aug-
mented reality-based research in the field of marketing will be sustainable and contribute
to consumer happiness.
Despite its significance, this study is subject to the following limitations: the study
excluded various issues emerging from the technical aspects of VR and AR technologies.
This problem was judged to be a factor that affects consumers when they choose and
evaluate brands. In future studies, it is hoped that these factors will be considered. In
this study, the inability to select various product lines was also a limitation. VR- and
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 13 of 16
AR-based brand experiences differ by product lines. This factor should also be considered
in subsequent studies.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.-Y.Z., Y.X. and C.-H.J.; methodology, J.-Y.Z. and Y.X.;
software, validation, Y.X., J.-Y.Z. and C.-H.J.; formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation,
and writing—original draft preparation, J.-Y.Z., Y.X. and C.-H.J.; C.-H.J. project administration. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Kyonggi University Research Grant 2022-001.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Due to the nature of this study, no formal approval of the
Institutional Review Board of the local Ethics Committee was required. Nonetheless, all subjects were
informed about the study, and participation was on a completely voluntary basis. Participants were
ensured of confidentiality and anonymity of the information associated with the surveys. The study
was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Slater, M. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behavior in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Natl. Cent. Biotechnol. Inf. 2009,364, 3549–3557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Sundar, S.S.; Xu, Q.; Bellur, S. Designing interactivity in media interfaces: A communications perspective. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; ACM: Boston, MA, USA,
2010; pp. 2247–2256.
3.
Kerrebroeck, H.V.; Brengman, M.; Willems, K. Escaping the crowd: An experimental study on the impact of a Virtual Reality
experience in a shopping mall. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017,77, 437–450. [CrossRef]
4. Brown, A.; Green, T. Virtual reality: Low-cost tools and resources for the classroom. TechTrends 2016,60, 517–519. [CrossRef]
5.
Cipresso, P.; Giglioli, I.A.C.; Raya, M.A.; Riva, G. The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: A
network and cluster analysis of the literature. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 2086. [CrossRef]
6.
Cipresso, P.; Serino, S.; Riva, G. Psychometric assessment and behavioral experiments using a free virtual reality platform and
computational science. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2016,16, 37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Markets and Markets. AR and VR Display Market. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5319533/
ar-and-vr-display-market- by-device-type-ar-hmds#sp-pos- 4 (accessed on 18 February 2023).
8.
Interactions Consumer Experience Marketing. The Impact of Augmented Reality on Retail. Available online: http://www.
retailperceptions.com/wp-content/uploads/Retail_Perceptions_Report_2016_10.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2023).
9.
Bonetti, F.; Warnaby, G.; Quinn, L. Augmented reality and virtual reality in physical and online retailing: A review, synthesis
and research agenda. In Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: Empowering Human, Place and Business; Jung, T., Dieck, M., Eds.;
Springer: London, UK, 2018; pp. 119–132.
10.
Bailenson, J.N.; Yee, N.; Merget, D.; Schroeder, R. The effect of behavioral realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on
verbal disclosure, nonverbal disclosure, emotion recognition, and copresence in dyadic interaction. Presence
2006
,15, 359–372.
[CrossRef]
11.
Biocca, F.; Harms, C.; Gregg, J. The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent
validity. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 21–23 May 2001; pp. 1–9.
12. Slater, M.; Sanchez-Vives, M.V. Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front. Robot. AI 2016,3, 74. [CrossRef]
13.
Azuma, R.; Baillot, Y.; Behringer, R.; Feiner, S.; Julier, S.; MacIntyre, B. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph.
Appl. 2001,21, 34–47. [CrossRef]
14.
Benyon, D.; Smyth, M.; O’Neill, S.; McCall, R.; Carroll, F. The place probe: Exploring a sense of place in real and virtual
environments. Presence 2006,15, 668–687. [CrossRef]
15. Di, L.M. New method to measure end-to-end delay of virtual reality. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 2010,19, 585–600.
16.
Dodds, T.J.; Mohler, B.J.; Bülthoff, H.H. Talk to the virtual hands: Self-animated avatars improve communication in head-mounted
display virtual environments. PLoS ONE 2011,6, e25759. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Chirico, A.; Giovannetti, T.; Neroni, P.; Simone, S.; Gallo, L.; Galli, F.; Giancamilli, F.; Predazzi, M.; Lucidi, F.; De Pietro, G.; et al.
Virtual reality for the assessment of everyday cognitive functions in older adults: An evaluation of the Virtual Reality Action Test
and two interaction devices in a 91-year-old woman. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Javornik, A. Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behavior. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016,30, 252–261. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 14 of 16
19.
McLean, G.; Wilson, A. Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile
applications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019,101, 210–224.
20.
Loureiro, S.M.C.; Guerreiro, J.; Eloy, S.; Langaro, D.; Panchapakesan, P. Understanding the use of virtual reality in marketing: A
text mining-based review. J. Bus. Res. 2019,100, 514–530. [CrossRef]
21. Park, S.; Stangl, B. Augmented reality experiences and sensation seeking. Tour. Manag. 2020,77, 104023.
22.
Supriyadi, H. Augmented reality technology (AR) as alternative media for promotional product. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res.
2019
,11,
195–202.
23.
Brakus, J.J.; Schmitt, B.H.; Zarantonello, L. Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? J. Mark.
2009,73, 52–68. [CrossRef]
24.
Alloza, A. Brand engagement and brand experience at BBVA, the transformation of a 150 years old Company. Corp. Reput. Rev.
2008,11, 371–381. [CrossRef]
25.
Moreira, A.; Silva, P.M.; Moutinho, V.M. The effects of brand experiences on quality, satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical study
in the telecommunications multiple-play service market. Innovar 2017,27, 23–38. [CrossRef]
26.
Ambler, T.; Bhattacharya, C.; Edell, J.; Katherine, L.; Vikas, M. Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing
management. J. Serv. Res. 2002,5, 13–25. [CrossRef]
27.
Oh, H.; Fiore, A.M.; Jeong, M. Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. J. Travel Res.
2007
,46, 119–131.
[CrossRef]
28.
Sahin, A.; Zehir, C.; Kitapçi, H. The effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchase intention: The role of brand
relationship quality. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012,6, 11190–11201.
29.
Pine, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theater & Every Business a Stage; Harvard Business School Press: Boston,
MA, USA, 1999.
30.
Schmitt, B. Customer Experience Management: A Revolutionary Approach to Connecting with Your Customers; John Wiley & Sons: New
York, NY, USA, 2003.
31.
Bellizzi, J.A.; Hite, R.E. Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychol. Mark.
2006
,9, 347–363.
[CrossRef]
32.
Gorn, G.J.; Chattopadhyay, A.; Yi, T.; Dahl, D.W. Effects of color as an executional cue in advertising: They’re in the shade. Manag.
Sci. 1997,43, 1387–1400. [CrossRef]
33.
Meyers-Levy, J.; Peracchio, L.A. Moderators of the impact of self-reference on persuasion. J. Consum. Res.
1995
,22, 408–423.
[CrossRef]
34.
Chou, F.S.; Wang, C.C.; Lai, M.C.; Tung, C.H.; Yang, Y.J.; Tsai, K.H. Persuasiveness of organic agricultural products: Argument
strength, health consciousness, self-reference, health risk, and perceived fear. Br. Food J. 2020,122, 1289–1304. [CrossRef]
35.
Aggarwal, P. The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. J. Consum. Res.
2004
,31, 87–101.
[CrossRef]
36.
Fournier, S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res.
1998
,24, 343–373.
[CrossRef]
37. Ghani, N.H.A.; Tuhin, M.K.W. Consumer brand relationships. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2016,6, 950–957. [CrossRef]
38.
Keller, K.L.; Lehmann, D.R. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Mark. Sci.
2006
,25, 740–759. [CrossRef]
39. Aaker, J.L. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 1997,34, 347–356. [CrossRef]
40.
Altman, I.; Taylor, D.A. Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships; Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York, NY,
USA, 1973.
41.
Thibaut, J.W.; Kelley, H.H. The Social Psychology of Groups. 1959. Available online: https://archive.org/details/
socialpsychology00thib (accessed on 2 February 2023).
42.
Skalski, P.; Tamborini, R. The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychol.
2007
,10, 385–413.
[CrossRef]
43.
Rusbult, C.E. Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
1980
,16,
172–186. [CrossRef]
44.
Homans, G.C. Social Behavior in Elementary Forms. A Primer of Social Psychological Theories; Brooks/Cole Publishing Company:
Monterey, CA, USA, 1961.
45. Foa, U.G.; Foa, E.B. Societal Structures of the Mind; Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, IL, USA, 1974.
46.
Evard, Y.; Aurier, P. Identification and validation of the components of the person–object relationship. J. Bus. Res.
1996
,37,
127–134. [CrossRef]
47.
Yang, F.; Yan, K.; Lu, S.; Jia, H.; Xie, D.; Yu, Z.; Guo, X.; Huang, F.; Gao, W. Part-aware progressive unsupervised domain
adaptation for person re-identification. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 2020,23, 1681–1695. [CrossRef]
48.
Jin, C.H.; Yoon, M.S.; Lee, J.Y. The influence of brand color identity on brand association and loyalty. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2019
,
28, 50–62. [CrossRef]
49.
Nicolao, L.; Irwin, J.R.; Goodman, J.K. Happiness for scale: Do experiential purchases make consumers happier than material
purchases? J. Consum. Res. 2009,36, 188–198. [CrossRef]
50. Van Boven, L.; Gilovich, T. To do or to have? That is the question. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003,85, 1193–1202. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 15 of 16
51.
Martin, C.L. Relationship marketing: A high-involvement product attribute approach. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
1998
,7, 6–26.
[CrossRef]
52.
Schmitt, B. Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act and Relate to Your Company and Brands; The Free
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
53. Yang, Z.; Peterson, R.T. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychol. Mark. 2004,21,
799–822. [CrossRef]
54.
Zarantenello, L.; Schmitt, B.H. Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behavior. J. Brand
Manag. 2000,17, 532–540. [CrossRef]
55.
Reichheld, F.F. The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits and Lasting Value; Harvard Business Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2001.
56. Oliver, R.L. Whence Consumer Loyalty? J. Mark. 1999,63, 33–43. [CrossRef]
57.
Hosany, S.; Witham, M. Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. J. Travel Res.
2010
,49,
351–364. [CrossRef]
58.
Mehmetoglu, M.; Engen, M. Pine and Gilmore’s concept of experience economy and its dimensions: An empirical examination in
tourism. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2011,12, 237–255. [CrossRef]
59.
Wang, Y.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Towards understanding members’ general participation in and active contribution to an online travel
community. Tour. Manag. 2004,25, 709–722. [CrossRef]
60.
Watson, P.; Morgan, M.; Hemmington, N. Online communities and the sharing of extraordinary restaurant experiences. J. Food
Serv. 2008,19, 289–302. [CrossRef]
61.
Stockdale, R.; Borovicka, M. Developing an Online Business Community: A travel Industry Case Study. In Proceedings of the
39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06), Kauai, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2006.
62.
Overby, J.W.; Lee, E.J. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions. J. Bus.
Res. 2006,59, 1160–1166. [CrossRef]
63.
Lavine, H.; Sweeney, D.; Wagner, S.H. Depicting women as sex objects in television advertising: Effects on body dissatisfaction.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1999,25, 1049–1058. [CrossRef]
64. Cohen, E. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology 1979,13, 179–201. [CrossRef]
65.
Schlesinger, W.; Cervera-Taulet, A.; Pérez-Cabañero, C. Exploring the links between destination attributes, quality of service
experience and loyalty in emerging Mediterranean destinations. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020,35, 100699. [CrossRef]
66.
Quadri, D.L. An Experience Economy Analysis of Tourism Development along the Chautauqua-Lake Erie Wine Trail; Iowa State University:
Ames, IA, USA, 2012.
67.
Hwang, J.; Kandampully, J. The role of emotional aspects in younger consumer–brand relationships. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2012
,
21, 98–108. [CrossRef]
68. Carroll, B.A.; Ahuvia, A.C. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 2006,17, 79–89. [CrossRef]
69.
Veloutsou, C.L.; Moutinho, L. Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism. J. Bus. Res.
2009
,62, 314–322.
[CrossRef]
70.
Esch, F.R.; Langer, T.; Schmitt, B.H.; Geus, P. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and
future purchases. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2006,15, 98–105. [CrossRef]
71. Fournier, S.; Alvarez, C. Research dialogue: Relating badly to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 2013,23, 253–264. [CrossRef]
72. Pawle, J.; Cooper, P. Measuring emotion: Lovemarks, the future beyond brands. J. Advert. Res. 2006,46, 38–48. [CrossRef]
73.
Kim, S.; Yim, M.Y. Exploring consumers’ attitude formation toward their own brands when in crisis: Cross-national comparisons
between USA and China. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2022,31, 56–72. [CrossRef]
74.
Anderson, E.; Sullivan, M. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Mark. Sci.
1993
,12, 125–143.
[CrossRef]
75.
Gary, M.M.; Karson, M.I. Analysis of Purchase Intent Scales Weighted by Probability of Actual Purchase. J. Mark. Res.
1985
,22,
93–96.
76.
Boulding, W.; Kalra, A.; Staelin, R.; Zeithaml, V.A. A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral
intentions. J. Mark. Res. 1993,30, 7–27. [CrossRef]
77.
Grewal, D.; Monroe, K.B.; Krishnan, R. The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value,
transaction value and behavioral intentions. J. Mark. 1998,62, 46–59.
78.
Bleize, D.; Antheunis, M.L. Factors influencing purchase intent in virtual worlds: A review of the literature. J. Mark. Commun.
2019,25, 403–420. [CrossRef]
79.
Becker-Olsen, K.; Cudmore, B.; Hill, R. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res.
2006,59, 46–53. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 7278 16 of 16
80.
Yoon, Y.S.; Guihan-Canli, Z.; Schwarz, N. The effect of corporate social responsibility activities on companies with bad reputations.
J. Consum. Psychol. 2006,15, 141–148. [CrossRef]
81.
Wongkitrungrueng, A.; Suprawan, L. Metaverse Meets Branding: Examining Consumer Responses to Immersive Brand Experi-
ences. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2023, 1–20. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
