Submitted:
09 April 2024
Posted:
09 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Background
2.2. Usefulness
2.3. Ease of Use
2.4. Hedonic
2.5. Customer Experience
2.6. Customer Participation
2.7. Satisfaction
2.8. Customer Loyalty
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Research Hypotheses
3.2. Scale Measurement
3.3. Data Analysis Methods
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Sample Analysis
4.2. Reliability Analysis
4.3. Factor Analysis
4.4. Structural Equation Model Analysis
5. Discussion and Management Implications
6. Conclusion and Research Limitations
References
- Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-hall,278.
- Alexander, B.; Kent, A. Change in technology-enabled omnichannel customer experiences in-store. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 65, 102338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ameen, N.; Hosany, S.; Paul, J. The personalisation-privacy paradox: Consumer interaction with smart technologies and shopping mall loyalty. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 126, 106976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structure equations with latent variables. New York: john wiley.
- Biscaia, A.R.; Rosa, M.J.; e Sá, P.M.; Sarrico, C.S. Assessing customer satisfaction and loyalty in the retail sector. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2017, 34, 1508–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butt, A.; Ahmad, H.; Muzaffar, A.; Ali, F.; Shafique, N. WOW, the make-up AR app is impressive: a comparative study between China and South Korea. J. Serv. Mark. 2021, 36, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carbone, L. P. , Haeckel, S. H.(1994).Engineering customer experiences. Market Management,3(3),8-19.
- Chi, T. Understanding Chinese consumer adoption of apparel mobile commerce: An extended TAM approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 44, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,233-250.
- Dick, A.S.; Basu, K. Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1994, 22, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finn, A.; McQuitty, S.; Rigby, J. Residents' acceptance and use of a mega-multi-mall: West Edmonton Mall evidence. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1994, 11, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelbrich, K.; Hagel, J.; Orsingher, C. Emotional support from a digital assistant in technology-mediated services: Effects on customer satisfaction and behavioral persistence. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2020, 38, 176–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, T.-L.; Liao, S. A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron. Commer. Res. 2014, 15, 269–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilken, T.; de Ruyter, K.; Chylinski, M.; Mahr, D.; Keeling, D.I. Augmenting the eye of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 884–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hudson, S.; Matson-Barkat, S.; Pallamin, N.; Jegou, G. With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 100, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Benbasat, I. Research Note—Investigating the Influence of the Functional Mechanisms of Online Product Presentations. Inf. Syst. Res. 2007, 18, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Forsythe, S. Hedonic usage of product virtualization technologies in online apparel shopping. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2007, 35, 502–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Forsythe, S. Adoption of Virtual Try-on technology for online apparel shopping. J. Interact. Mark. 2008, 22, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.-Y.; Lee, J.Y.; Mun, J.M.; Johnson, K.K.P. Consumer adoption of smart in-store technology: assessing the predictive value of attitude versus beliefs in the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2016, 10, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; So, K.K.F.; Mihalik, B.J.; Lopes, A.P. Millennials’ virtual reality experiences pre- and post-COVID-19. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Choi, J.Y. The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telematics Informatics 2018, 39, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, G.; Wilson, A. Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 101, 210–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education.
- Pantano, E.; Servidio, R. Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and immersive technologies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2012, 19, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantano, P. (2014). Innovation drivers in retail industry. International Journal of Information Management,34(3),344-350.
- Prentice, C.; Loureiro, S.M. An asymmetrical approach to understanding configurations of customer loyalty in the airline industry. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poushneh, A. , & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z.(2017).Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail customer's experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer services,34,229-234.
- Peukert, C.; Pfeiffer, J.; Meißner, M.; Pfeiffer, T.; Weinhardt, C. Shopping in Virtual Reality Stores: The Influence of Immersion on System Adoption. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2019, 36, 755–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rese, A. , Schreiber, S., and Baier, D.(2014).Technology acceptance modeling of augmented reality at the point of sale: Can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,21(5),869-876.
- Rese, A.; Baier, D.; Geyer-Schulz, A.; Schreiber, S. How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: A comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 124, 306–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Zhang, P. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 2006, 64, 53–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, B. (2010). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management,15,53-67.
- Scholz, J.; Smith, A.N. Augmented reality: Designing immersive experiences that maximize consumer engagement. Bus. Horizons 2016, 59, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, D.G.; Strutton, D. Has e-marketing come of age? Modeling historical influences on post-adoption era Internet consumer behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 950–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V. , & Davis, F. D.(1996).A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Journal of Decision Sciences,27,451-481.
- Venkatesh, V. (2000).Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating control,intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Journal of Information Systems Research,11(4),342-365.
- Wang, F. , Head, M., & Archer, N.(2000).A relationshipÿbuilding model for the web retail marketplace. Internet Research,10(5),374-384.
- Yim, M.Y.-C.; Chu, S.-C.; Sauer, P.L. Is Augmented Reality Technology an Effective Tool for E-commerce? An Interactivity and Vividness Perspective. J. Interact. Mark. 2017, 39, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Project | Cronbach’ | Items |
|---|---|---|
| usefulness | 0.875 | 6 |
| Ease of use | 0.852 | 5 |
| Hedonic | 0.927 | 6 |
| customer experience | 0.901 | 5 |
| customer engagement | 0.891 | 5 |
| Satisfaction | 0.931 | 5 |
| customer loyalty | 0.931 | 5 |
| Project | SME | Bartlett's Ball Test | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| usefulness | 0.864 | 0.000 | 0.67 |
| Ease of use | 0.832 | 0.000 | 0.64 |
| Hedonic | 0.891 | 0.000 | 0.74 |
| customer experience | 0.875 | 0.000 | 0.72 |
| customer engagement | 0.853 | 0.000 | 0.70 |
| Satisfaction | 0.900 | 0.000 | 0.79 |
| customer loyalty | 0.862 | 0.000 | 0.78 |
| Index | Results | standard |
|---|---|---|
| Chi-square of freedom | 2.590 | Excellent |
| RMSEA | 0.72 | Good |
| GFI | 0.76 | Good |
| AGFI | 0.72 | Good |
| NFI | 0.85 | Good |
| RFI | 0.84 | Good |
| IFI | 0.91 | Excellent |
| CFI | 0.91 | Excellent |
| PNFI | 0.77 | Excellent |
| PGFI | 0.82 | Excellent |
| Research hypotheses | Path | P-Value | Significant |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Usefulness → loyalty | + | 0.529 | No. |
| H2: Ease of use→ loyalty | + | 0.061 | No. |
| H3: Hedonic→ loyalty | + | 0.000 | Support |
| H4: Customer experience→ loyalty | + | 0.993 | No. |
| H5: Customer engagement→ loyalty | + | 0.246 | No. |
| H6: Satisfaction→ loyalty | + | 0.011 | Support |
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. |
© 2024 by the author. 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/).