Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The role of augmented reality in shaping purchase intentions and WOM for
luxury products
Darragi Nawres a, Bahri-Ammari Nedra a, Anish Yousaf b, Abhishek Mishra c, *
a
Department of Marketing, IHEC of Carthage, Tunisia
b
Department of Marketing & Strategy, Nottingham Business School, UK
c
Department of Marketing, IIM Indore, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The literature examining the influence of augmented reality (AR)-driven experiences on consumer outcomes in
Augmented reality retail is at an emerging stage, with little investigation conducted in the context of luxury products. Leveraging
Affective responses the affect-as-information theory and the stimulus-organism–response framework, this study examines the in­
Experience satisfaction
fluence of AR-driven application experience for luxury brands on consumers’ affective responses (flow,
Luxury brands
Purchase intention
emotional involvement, and pleasure), and cognitive responses (trust and experience satisfaction). These, in turn,
enhance behavioural responses, in the form of purchase intention and word of mouth. The effects are tested for
products with different levels of tactile input requirement. The current study sensitizes luxury brands about the
important role of AR-based applications in driving product sales and the emergence of modern technologies as
part of omnichannel strategies.

1. Introduction et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023).

AR-enabled experiences strengthen the consumer-brand relationship
Multiple advances in the domain of information technology, artificial by making the brand a part of consumers’ ‘augmented self’ (Scholz &
intelligence, computing capabilities, and display quality have curated Duffy, 2018). This is especially relevant for luxury brands with the
new ways for consumers to experience reality (Hoyer et al., 2020). important role of the product’s aesthetics and suitability for the buyer
Augmented reality (AR) is one such technology creating hybrid or (McLean & Wilson, 2019). AR-driven three-dimensional product visu­
‘phygital’ experiences (Heller et al., 2019; Kowalczuk, et al., 2021). alizations reduce product performance uncertainty, provide customers
Within the ‘X-reality’ paradigm, AR is referred to as a combination of with value-added propositions at various touchpoints, generate optimal
real-world elements integrated with digital information in real time purchase experiences, and create strong engagement (Nikhashemi et al.,
(Rauschnabel et al., 2022). This is conceptually different from virtual 2021).
reality (VR), which prominently involves complete immersion in the AR applications in luxury retail need to create hedonic consumer
digital world. AR has applications in a variety of fields/sectors with a experiences and trust in the product quality; yet, few empirical studies
total valuation of USD 4.16 billion in 2020, which is expected to expand support the above argument (Al-Imamy & Al-Imamy, 2022). Addition­
at a compound annual rate of 48.6 % between 2021 and 2028.1 ally, certain categories with higher tactile input and ‘need-for-touch’
AR is increasingly deployed within the retail sector (Javornik, 2016; requirements may generate varied consumer responses to the AR
Jayawardena et al., 2023; Kowalczuk et al., 2021). A majority of brands application (Gatter, et al., 2022). Physical interaction for high-touch
have begun to offer new shopping experiences through AR applications, products assures the consumers about the build quality, strength, size,
like Makeup Genius by L’Oréal, See by Rimmel, and Sephora-to-Go by user fit, or other technical/non-technical features (Brengman et al.,
Sephora. Modern technologies facilitating AR have made it possible for 2019). The likelihood of purchase for such categories through digital
consumers to virtually experience products/services, which, in turn, technologies, like AR, remains under-researched. To address the con­
instils confidence in the purchase decision (Fan et al., 2020; Hilken cerns, this study examines the extent to which the affective and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Nawres), [email protected] (B.-A. Nedra), [email protected] (A. Yousaf), abhishek@
iimidr.ac.in (A. Mishra).
1
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/augmented-reality-ar-market-102553.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114368
Received 17 December 2021; Received in revised form 30 October 2023; Accepted 1 November 2023
Available online 10 November 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

cognitive responses to a luxury brand’s AR application influence the leveraging digital technologies (Javornik et al., 2021). As per a report by
consumer’s behaviour. The moderating roles of a luxury product’s Bain (2021),2 by 2025, around a third of all luxury sales will occur
‘touch and feel’ requirements and of the category itself (luxury and non- through facilitations by digital technologies. The recent COVID-19
luxury) are also investigated. pandemic has further accelerated the transition (Achille & Zipser,
The study uses the affect-as-information theory (Zanger et al., 2022) 2020). Yet, the literature on such implementation and its outcomes for
and the stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) framework as theoretical luxury brands is emerging only now and requires greater academic focus
underpinnings (Lee et al., 2022). The proposed model relates the AR (Bazi et al., 2020; Javornik et al., 2021; Jayaswal & Parida, 2023; Lee &
experiences, enabled by an AR-enabled application (stimulus), to the Watkins, 2016).
affective (pleasure/emotional involvement/flow) and cognitive re­
sponses (trust/experience satisfaction) of the consumer (organism), 2.2. AR and luxury retail
which, in turn, influence the purchase intention and word of mouth
(WOM; response). Data collection was done across two studies and three One of the key technologies as part of the digitization of luxury brand
points in time, with stage 1 (S1) in July-August 2021 (luxury; study 1), sales is AR, which allows users to ‘try on’ products virtually without
stage 2 (S2) in June-July 2022 (non-luxury; study 1), and stage 3 (S3) in necessarily having to visit a physical store (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Jav­
November 2022 (luxury/non-luxury; study 2). The data collected from ornik, 2016). The innovations in AR-based technologies have pro­
1194 individuals across the three stages were analysed using covariance- foundly changed the retail landscape by enabling an environment where
based structural equation modelling (CBSEM). The study is expected to physical and digital objects are integrated (Velasco et al., 2021). The
motivate luxury brands to leverage capable AR applications for interest among retail practitioners in such visual-enabling technologies
providing rewarding ‘phygital’ experiences to their consumers for and their influence on luxury product evaluations is high, yet, the aca­
enhanced sales. demic knowledge on the same is severely limited (Javornik et al., 2021).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next two This is because most of the discussion on AR and its application in
sections discuss the theoretical background. The proposed framework is marketing has remained generic and context-neutral (Ko et al., 2019).
then presented, followed by the research methodology, data analysis, AR is defined as a hybrid experience that includes context-specific
and findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of results, contri­ virtual content, combined with the user’s real-time perception of his/
butions, limitations, and future directions. her physical environment using computing devices (Rauschnabel et al.,
2022). Devices that enable this experience include smartphones, tablets,
2. Theoretical Background wearables, fixed interactive displays, and projectors. A major outcome
of AR, compared to VR, is local presence, with the experiences ranging
2.1. Luxury products and digital technologies from assisted reality (low role of the physical environment) to mixed
reality (high role of the physical environment). While VR creates the
Luxury products represent superior quality, authenticity, aesthetics, sense of being present in a remote (virtual) location (Huang and Liao,
hedonic experiences, and brand immersion (Chandon et al., 2016; Ko 2017), AR brings virtual objects into the consumers’ real environment
et al., 2019; Kumagai, 2021; Stathopoulou & Balabanis, 2019). Such (Hilken et al., 2018). The local presence curates authentic experiences as
products enable the user to gain self-esteem through their prestigious consumers can try virtual objects in a personal environment, which
ownership (Tseng, et al., 2021; Wirtz et al., 2020). The purchase and helps them appreciate the product, improves trial experiences, and
consumption experiences of luxury products are concerned as much makes the purchase decision easier (Lavoye et al., 2021).
with hedonism as with utilitarianism, which creates a strong resonance AR applications which are well-designed and experiential have
with the buyer (Holmqvist et al., 2020; Thomsen et al., 2020). larger positive implications for luxury brands (Fan et al., 2020; Kim &
For luxury brands, the utilitarian value represents product attributes Choo, 2021). For example, Scholz and Duffy (2018) suggest that AR-
such as superior performance, quality, innovativeness, and robust design enabled hedonic experiences have a strong influence on the consumer-
(Kwon et al., 2016). For non-luxury products, this value is reflected in brand relationship, as such experiences can invoke a consumer’s self-
the form of maximum utility for low prices (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2009; image and brand-image congruity. Similarly, Rauschnabel et al.
Kumagai, 2021). Emotional value for luxury brands emerges from the (2019) posit that the quality of the AR-enabled application, by gener­
brand’s capability to generate personal expression, hedonic pleasure, ating inspirational experiences, has a positive influence on the change in
social status and prestige (Wilcox et al., 2009). Luxury brands must a brand’s attitude. While the effect of meaningful AR-enabled experi­
maintain a positioning through product and retail-specific experiences ences on the consumer’s relationship with the contextual brand is
serving both values judiciously (Mishra, 2016). documented, the same for luxury brands is limited. For example, Shin
Despite possessing both utilitarian and hedonic values, consumers and Jeong (2022) discuss how AR is a commonly adopted technology by
typically purchase luxury products as hedonic possessions due to the luxury hotel brands, with Butler (2019) discussing a case study of
experiential and symbolic benefits derived from their consumption Marriott Hotels allowing their guests to use compatible devices to
(Kwon et al., 2016; Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2009). The perceived hedonic personalize their room with AR art gallery. Consequently, Javornik et al.
value is stronger when the brand is defined by attributes that proffer (2021), who conceptually argue that immersive experiences enabled by
exclusivity, heritage, and design reputation (Xu & Mehta, 2022). The AR through various design-level characteristics can help luxury brands
ability to replicate this value through digital technologies with virtual build brand equity, call for more research in this domain.
product presentation poses an important challenge. The development of
digital algorithms focuses on the cognitive aspects of information pro­ 2.3. Affect-as-Information theory and S–O–R framework
cessing with serious limitations in recreating an environment that can
evoke true human feelings (Huang, 2019; Rusch et al., 2023). Such To examine the effect of AR-based experiences on consumer out­
technologies cannot provide affective interactions with consumers as comes for luxury brands, the current work integrates the affect-as-
they cannot process the ’human’ aspects of a situation (Longoni & Cian, information theory with the S-O-R framework. The affect-as-
2020). information theory argues that emotions play an important role in the
There is an argument that incorporating digital technologies in lux­ context of immersive experiences and help consumers form cognitive
ury marketing can have an adverse, rather than favourable or neutral,
impact on brands with a rich heritage built largely through offline retail
encounters (Pantano et al., 2017; Xu & Mehta, 2022). Yet, luxury brands 2
https://www.marketingmag.com.au/social-digital/how-augmented-reality
represent a fast-growing sector, especially due to the emphasis on -is-changing-the-face-of-luxury-retail/.

2
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

judgments (Schwarz & Clore, 2003). The theory supports the ‘feel-and- like AR, involving experimentation, malleability, and upgradability,
think’ philosophy and suggests that consumers process what they feel should immerse users in a state of flow generating rewarding experi­
about the experience which subsequently shapes their cognitive evalu­ ences (Lavoye et al., 2021).
ations (Zanger et al., 2022). For immersive experiences, consumers
ascribe more importance to the affective states, with emotions providing 2.5. Cognitive responses to AR
credible informational value (Schwarz, 2012). When emotions are
attributed to a specific object, such as the AR application or the product This work argues that trust (in the luxury product) and experience
embedded within it, consumers attribute more value to their emotions as satisfaction are key cognitive outcomes of AR-enabled experiences.
sources of information, and the rational processing of the experience Trust in product quality is a crucial challenge for online luxury product
becomes an outcome (Pham et al., 2013). Given that a luxury purchase is retail (Rosa et al., 2006). Such trust is built due to the credibility of the
prominently a hedonic experience, we argue that AR experiences are luxury brand’s seller, the product’s authenticity, and physical valida­
expected to evoke affective responses, which, in turn, should generate tion, and is difficult to replicate online (Chen et al., 2015). With recent
cognitive evaluations as well as behavioural outcomes for the luxury advances in technology, a high-quality AR-based application that sim­
product/AR application (Holmqvist et al., 2020). ulates physical presence can allay these fears (Kumar, 2022).
In the S–O–R framework, the internal processing of the organism, an Barutçu et al. (2015) argue that applications enabling digital shop­
intervention between the stimulus and the response, is characterized by ping experiences must be designed with the primary aim of satisfying
pleasure, emotions, flow, trust, and arousal (Han & Kim, 2020). Such customers to evoke long-term consumer-brand relationships. Consumer
processing strongly influences the willingness to pay high prices and dissatisfaction with new self-service technology experiences in retail is
acquire the contextual stimulus/product (Bian & Forsythe, 2012). The S- quite common (Fan et al., 2020). Hence, AR-enabled applications in
O-R framework has found wide application in retail-focused research retail must enrich the customers’ luxury shopping experiences, and lead
which investigates the influence of environmental cues on a consumer’s to greater satisfaction with the experience (Flavián et al., 2021; Pantano
emotions and behaviours like purchase or advocacy (Do et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2017).
et al., 2018). In various shopping environments, like physical stores,
mobile applications, and online stores, extant research, using this 2.6. Behavioural responses to AR
framework, has examined salient attributes of a retail environment that
can influence consumer responses (e.g., Do et al., 2020; Jang et al., This work proffers two behavioural outcomes to AR experiences:
2018). With the emergence of experiential retail practices, the S-O-R purchase intention and WOM. According to Triandis (1980), intentions
framework enables the exploration of various such retail elements on are self-oriented procedures to achieve certain outcomes or gain bene­
consumer’s attitudinal, emotional, and behavioural outcomes (Lee et al., fits. Such intentions are manifestations of the consumers’ cognitive and
2022; Watson et al., 2018). affective states, evoked due to rewarding experiences by capable tech­
Hence, we argue that in the context of AR environments, the S-O-R nologies like AR (Huang et al., 2018; Kim & Ko, 2012). Positive purchase
framework as an underpinning is suitable. In the context of AR, the intentions are consequences of the perceived luxuriousness and the
S–O–R framework indicates that the AR application should act as a corresponding experiential values concomitant to the luxury brand, as
trigger (S) for a consumer to showcase the ’real world’ representation of simulated by the application (Liu et al., 2017; Tseng, et al., 2021; Yu &
the product through local presence. In correspondence with the affect- Zheng, 2022).
as-information theory, as an outcome of the stimulus, consumers or The notion of WOM can be defined as the tendency of the consumer
organisms (O) are expected to display affective responses (R) followed to advocate a product or a brand or, in this case, an AR application,
by cognitive ones (R) which, in turn, leads to psychological immersion enabled by invested loyalty (Bahri-Ammari et al., 2016; Shin & Jeong,
and resultant behavioural responses (R; Kim & Hyun, 2016; Rauschna­ 2022; Song & Kim, 2022). WOM includes both the quality of the infor­
bel et al., 2019). The corresponding affective, cognitive, and behav­ mation shared, as a cognitive evaluation of the experiences, and the
ioural responses are discussed next. persuasiveness of the recommendation, driven by the emotions with
which the information is shared (Sweeney et al., 2012). Both compo­
2.4. Affective responses to AR nents of WOM should be prominent if customers have rich experiences
with an AR application that enhances the fairness evaluations for the
This work proposes pleasure, emotional involvement, and flow as luxury brand, as expected in an offline setting (Christ-Brendemuehl &
three affective responses to AR-enabled purchase experiences (Haavisto Schaarschmidt, 2022; Zanger et al., 2022).
& Sandberg, 2015). In an e-commerce environment, consumers who are
presented with more vivid product representations derive a more plea­ 3. Hypotheses Development
surable experience (Yim et al., 2017). AR, through innovative visuali­
zations, can help consumers create a customized enriching experience. Based on the integration of the affect-as-information theory and the
Such virtual trials enabled by AR applications, involving three- S–O–R framework, the study argues that AR application-derived expe­
dimensional digital models of the product, add greater pleasure to the riences serve as the stimulus (S) which causes the consumers (O) to
shopping experience, compared to the two- or three-dimensional rota­ display three types of responses (R): affective (pleasure, emotional
tion-enabled tools in typical online websites (Kim & Forsythe, 2008). involvement, flow), cognitive (trust, experience satisfaction), and
Emotional involvement represents how an individual is emotionally behavioural (purchase intention for product and WOM for the AR
invested in a digital experience. Banos et al. (2004) suggest that digital application), with the three responses in that order. The proposed model
immersion through AR-enabled tools should trigger emotional involve­ is depicted in Fig. 1.
ment that affects users’ feelings of reality. The current research on
luxury branding suggests that high emotion involvement is integral to 3.1. Main effects
the purchase processes, including those enabled by AR (Javornik et al.,
2021; Kuehnl et al., 2019). The provision of multisensory aesthetic experiences in digital envi­
Flow is an affective state when consumers feel a temporal disconnect, ronments, including visual, auditory, haptic, somatosensory, and ol­
especially when the immersive task is novel and challenging (Huang & factory, is key to technology developers (Spence et al., 2019). Previous
Liao, 2017). Previous studies have established the role of flow in research indicates that a consumer’s consumption experience is tied to
explaining technology–human interactions and how it shapes consumer their aesthetic appreciation of the AR environment (Chung & Kim,
evaluations of the technology (Su et al., 2016). Thus, new applications, 2020). As an individual becomes a buyer/consumer, the distant

3
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Fig. 1. Proposed model (2-column).

appreciation of a product’s aesthetic attributes leads to values like like’ environment or object is crucial to ensuring consumer trust in the
pleasure, emotional involvement, and immersion (Mishra, 2016). This product and resultant satisfaction with the experience (Rosa et al.,
means that AR-enabled interactivity and vividness can create strong 2006). Therefore, we hypothesize:
emotional and immersive user experiences (Kim & Ko, 2019; McLean & H4: Trust in the luxury product positively affects experience
Wilson, 2019). Thus, we hypothesize: satisfaction.
H1a/b/c: AR application experience positively influences affective By offering a powerful simulation of the real experience of buying a
responses (a: pleasure, b: emotional involvement, and c: flow). ‘high-ticket item’ through reality-based content, potential customers can
Bastide (2017) and Merle et al. (2012) claim that online visualization feel better positioned to make their purchase decisions (Wagler &
tools in high-quality AR positively impact consumers’ trust in a product. Hanus, 2018). Satisfaction is one of the most important factors affecting
This trust is crucial for the purchase of high-value luxury items online. behavioural intentions, particularly for novel experiences like AR (tom
Al-Imamy and Al-Imamy (2022) posit that AR has the potential to pro­ Dieck et al., 2018). Hence, we argue that satisfactory purchase experi­
vide customers with more meaningful knowledge about high-value ences for luxury brands, enabled by AR, have strong consequences for
luxury products. The enhanced trust in the product details enabled by purchase intentions, and hypothesize:
the AR application will help reduce perceived purchase-related risks H5: Experience satisfaction positively influences purchase intent for
(Kumagai & Nagasawa, 2021). Thus, we hypothesize: a luxury product.
H2: AR application experience positively influences consumer trust Satisfaction with the purchase experience generates recommenda­
in a luxury product. tion behaviour for the experience in question (Host & Knie-Andersen,
Affective responses have important implications for consumers’ in­ 2004). Payne et al. (2001) indicate that positive WOM is the result of
formation processing, their choice processes, and their attitudes towards surprise associated with the purchase experiences of the high-
advertising messages (Batra and Ray, 1986). This is especially true for involvement product, with the expectations from the experience being
hedonic luxury purchases (Liu et al., 2013). Wirtz and Bateson (1999) exceeded. In this context, the experience is supplied by the AR appli­
suggest that integrating emotional states improves satisfaction with an cation and hence, WOM is directed towards it. Thus, we hypothesize:
experience. Such satisfaction is an important lever for a company’s sales H6: Experience satisfaction positively affects WOM for the AR
(Shankar et al., 2003). Aesthetically designed AR applications are an application.
important influence on hedonic user experiences in retail and conse­
quently influence user satisfaction (Poushneh & Vasquez-Parraga,
2017). Thus, we hypothesize: 3.2. Moderating effects
H3a/b/c: Affective responses (a: pleasure, b: emotional involvement,
and c: flow) positively influence experience satisfaction. Consumers form their product purchase beliefs based on personal
Trust, due to the reduced risk with a purchase decision, is recognized knowledge, which is shaped by their ‘hands-on’ experiences (Hamilton
as an important driver of satisfaction (Al-Ansi et al., 2019). When con­ et al., 2019). However, their decisions are contingent on the type of
sumers trust a luxury brand, they derive greater satisfaction from the product, with those requiring higher tactile information mandating
process of acquiring such products (Sirieix & Dubois, 1999). Bastide more purchase effort (Liao et al., 2016; Pino et al., 2019). AR applica­
(2017) argues that a lack of realism is a drawback of online visualization tions, despite attempting to replicate the ‘touch’ perceptions through
tools like AR. This means that the developer’s ability to recreate a ‘life- tactile inputs in the application (Gatter et al., 2022), will have limita­
tions in providing the ‘proof-of-quality’ product characteristics such as

4
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

material, weight, hardness, ruggedness, and build-quality (Grohmann application experience was measured using four items from the scale by
et al., 2007). Hence, we hypothesize: Yim et al. (2017). Affective responses (pleasure, emotional involvement,
H7: The type of luxury product (low-tactile/high-tactile) moderates flow) were measured using the eleven-item scale developed by Kim et al.
the proposed model such that the relationships are higher for low-tactile (2020). Trust in the product was measured using Bastide’s (2017) four-
luxury products. item scale. Experience satisfaction was measured by McLean and Osei­
Javornik et al. (2021) argue that digital experiences through AR play frimpong’s (2017) three-item scale. Purchase intent was measured by
a strong role in supporting luxury brands in communicating product the three-item scale of Merle et al. (2012), while WOM was measured by
attributes. For non-luxury products, the primary role of AR is to drive Cristau’s (2003) three-item scale.
consideration and conversion, with little focus on the creation of he­ For the manipulation check between the categories (luxury/non-
donic luxury experiences (Holmqvist et al., 2020, Lee et al., 2020; luxury), the perceived luxuriousness was measured by a four-item scale
Rokka, 2021). AR applications play an important role in creating unique from Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008), whereby participants evaluated
experiences for luxury products, beyond mere virtual representations whether the product was perceived as luxurious, prestigious, attractive
typical of non-luxury products (Javorski et al., 2021). Such experiences, and high-class. To check for the manipulation of tactile input require­
including AR-enabled ones, are part of the specific touchpoints built by a ment, four items from the need-for-touch scale (Peck and Childers,
luxury brand that generate affective, cognitive, and conative outcomes. 2003) were borrowed “I feel more comfortable purchasing this product
Hence, we hypothesize: after physically examining it”, “If I can’t touch this product in the store, I
H8: The type of product (luxury/non-luxury) moderates the pro­ am reluctant to purchase it”, “I feel more confident making a purchase
posed model such that the relationships are higher for luxury products. after touching this product”, and “The only way to make sure a product
is worth buying is to touch it”.
4. Research Methodology All scales were measured with a five-point Likert scale ranging from
[1] strongly disagree to [5] strongly agree. The draft questionnaire was
4.1. Population definition and product categories shown to three marketing professors and two doctoral scholars who
were familiar with the selected context and language to ensure the
The population for the study comprised people in France who are content validity and suitability of the scales. The questionnaire was also
frequent purchasers of luxury/non-luxury (context-dependent) products subjected to a pre-test with 30 respondents to identify any language
online, with at least one purchase within the last three months. France and/or typing errors, which were corrected.
was chosen as it is a leading luxury market with revenues of USD 14.56
bn in 2022 and an expected growth rate of 7.72 % from 2022 to 2027.3
The capital, Paris, and the cities of Lyon and Cannes are the top three 4.3. Data collection
shopping destinations in France4 and were chosen as locations for the
data collection. The services of a national research agency5 were used The data collection happened in three stages across two studies (the
for this study, who deployed the central location method for data first two stages as part of study 1 and the third stage as part of study 2).
collection. The respondents were members of their panel in the three In the first stage, the data, collected for luxury watch (high-tactile) and
cities who fulfilled the population criteria. To manipulate tactile input as cosmetics (low-tactile) categories, helped evaluate the hypotheses about
well as category (luxury/non-luxury), we opted for analogue watches luxury products (H1-H7). In the second stage, data was collected for
(high-tactile), sneakers (high-tactile), cosmetics (low-tactile) and hats non-luxury cosmetics (low-tactile) to evaluate hypothesis H8. The third
(low-tactile) as the contextual categories. stage, as part of study 2, was executed to check for the overall robustness
For luxury watches, generally treated as jewellery items, the of the model results with both luxury (sneakers: high-tactile; hats: low
important specific features like build quality, metallic feel and weight on tactile) and non-luxury (sneakers: high tactile) products.
the wrist are difficult to simulate in an AR application. Similarly, for
sneakers, beyond outer appearance, it is important to experience the fit 4.3.1. Stage 1 (Study 1)
and comfort in the foot, which cannot be easily represented in an AR In the first stage, the brand selected in the cosmetics category was
application (Ofek et al., 2011). Thus, both are treated as high-tactile L’Oréal which is a world leader in the sector and has an AR product
categories. The cosmetics industry has tremendously benefitted from called ModiFace. The second AR product in the luxury watch category
AR-based retailing due to the easy replication of offline aesthetics and was WatchBox. Email invitations were sent to 1800 eligible participants
vividness in an online format (Wang et al., 2022). Similarly, hats, like during June 2021 to seek in-person participation. Of these, a total of 520
cosmetics, are more aesthetics-focussed and easier to simulate in a respondents indicated their interest. The data collection stage took place
digital “AR mirror”.6 Thus, these two are proposed as low-tactile cate­ in July-August of 2021 with 382 eligible respondents visiting the central
gories. To validate this categorization, the perceived “need-for-touch”, a locations. Each of the respondents was randomly allocated to the
measure of tactile input requirement for a product, was further evalu­ watches or the cosmetics category. The respondents tried the respective
ated by respondents (Gatter et al., 2022). AR applications and completed the questionnaire. After removing out­
liers using Cook’s method, a final sample size of 370 respondents was
4.2. Measurement items obtained, making the overall response rate 71.15 %.

The measurement items were adapted from previously validated 4.3.2. Stage 2 (Study 1)
instruments to develop a questionnaire in the French language. All of the For this stage, the cosmetics category by NYX, which has an AR
original measurement instruments were translated into French (by one application for its relatively less expensive cosmetics, was chosen. The
expert) and then back-translated into English (by another expert). The data collected in this case was conducted from June to July 2022 in the
results produced near-identical questionnaires. The variable AR same cities. The one-year gap between the first two stages ensured the
general temporal robustness of the model, free of any specific effects
(occasion factors) prevalent at the time of data collection (Spector,
3
https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/luxury-goods/france. 2019). The data collection protocols were identical. For this phase, 856
4
https://traveltriangle.com/blog/shopping-in-france/. eligible individuals were sent invitation emails. Of the invitees, a total of
5
The name kept confidential on request. 422 agreed to participate. On the days of data collection, 208 people
6
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/02/08/augmented-r turned up at the location. In total, 203 complete questionnaires with no
eality-in-retail-the-incredible-case-of-tenth-street-hats/. outlier responses were obtained with the response rate being 48.10 %.

5
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

4.3.3. Stage 3 (Study 2) Table 1

The one-year gap in the first two stages of data collection may lead to Sample profile.
concerns with the moderator evaluation. This is because the situational L (Stage NL L/NL (Stage 3)
effects may be different at each time causing data aggregation and 1) (Stage
comparison of effects based on the type of category challenging.7 Hence 2)
Variable Category N (%) N (%) N (%) - N (%) -
a third-stage data collection was done in a replication study with all data
L NL
collected at one point in time.
The luxury brand Gucci’s AR application was used for sneakers and Gender Male 157 88 (43.3) 148 122
(42.4) (41.3) (46.4)
hats. For benchmarking the results for non-luxury products, the Wanna Female 213 115 210 141
Kicks AR application for non-luxury sneakers from Nike was deployed. (57.6) (56.7) (58.7) (53.6)
The brands and categories were altered from the first two stages (study Age 18–25 years 178 102 172 135
1) to allow for the generalizability of the findings. The data collection (48.1) (50.2) (48.0) (51.3)
26–35 years 101 54 (26.6) 91 64
was executed in November 2022. For this phase, 1699 eligible in­
(27.3) (25.4) (24.3)
dividuals were sent email invitations with a choice to participate in the 36–50 years 56 37 (18.2) 49 41
luxury or the non-luxury category. Of those invited, a total of 623 and (15.1) (13.7) (15.6)
281 respondents agreed to participate in the luxury and non-luxury 51+ 35 (9.5) 10 (4.9) 46 23 (8.7)
categories, respectively. A total of 621 people turned up at the loca­ (12.8)
Marital Married 167 84 (41.4) 142 119
tion, with 358 for the luxury category. Those for the luxury category status (45.1) (39.7) (45.2)
were randomly allocated to sneakers and hats applications. All people Single 203 119 216 144
filled out the questionnaires completely with no outliers, making the (54.9) (58.6) (60.3) (54.8)
response rate 68.69 %. Education Undergraduate or 118 69 (34.0) 116 76
below (31.9) (32.4) (28.9)
Table 1 presents the sample profile.
Graduate 119 60 (29.6) 108 82
(32.2) (30.2) (31.2)
5. DATA ANALYSIS Postgraduate 96 49 (24.1) 85 69
(25.9) (23.7) (26.2)
The normality check for all datasets reported that skewness and Doctorate 37 25 (12.3) 49 36
(10.0) (13.7) (13.7)
kurtosis values were within the recommended range of − 2.00 to + 2.00,
Income 5000–20000 30 (8.1) 19 (9.4) 32 27
and − 7.00 to + 7.00, respectively (Curran et al., 1996). We also checked (annual) (8.9) (10.3)
for the presence of common method bias (CMB) in the entire dataset Euros 21000–40000 72 41 (20.2) 67 51
using the Harman one-factor method with the principal component (19.5) (18.7) (19.4)
41000–60000 108 57 (28.1) 101 62
analysis in SPSS 26. For the three datasets, the single largest factors
(29.2) (28.2) (23.6)
accounted for only 27 %, 24 %, and 28 %, respectively, of the total 61000–100000 138 75 (36.9) 147 118
variance, thus implying a lack of CMB. (37.3) (41.1) (44.9)
A preliminary manipulation check for perceived luxuriousness and >100000 22 (5.9) 11 (5.4) 11 5 (1.9)
tactile input was also done. The average of the four items of perceived (3.1)
Category Watches/Sneakers 185 0 (0.0) 179 263
luxuriousness and need-for-touch was taken for each respondent and
(50.0) (50.0) (100.0)
independent sample t-tests were done. The differences in perceived Cosmetic/Hats 185 203 179 0 (0.0)
luxuriousness between the two luxury categories were found insignifi­ (50.0) (100.0) (50.0)
cant, both in stage 1 and 3 (S1|S3) datasets (tS1μwatch-μcosmetics = 0.74, p City Paris 159 72 (35.4) 141 135
(42.9) (39.4) (51.3)
> 0.05; tS3μsneakers-μhats = 0.89, p > 0.05), and were found significant
Lyon 117 64 (31.5) 126 81
between the luxury and non-luxury categories, both in stage 1/stage2 (31.6) (35.2) (30.8)
(S1/S2) and stage 3 (S3) datasets (tS1/S2μluxury-μnon-luxury = 2.66, p < Cannes 94 67 (33.1) 91 47
0.05; tS3μluxury-μnon-luxury = 3.49, p < 0.05). It was the same case with (25.5) (25.4) (17.9)
tactile input with the difference of need of touch between high-tactile L: Luxury; NL: Non-luxury

and low-tactile categories, for luxury brands, found significant

(tS1μwatch-μcosmetics = 2.84, p < 0.05; tS3μsneakers-μhats = 2.66, p < 0.05). CFI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06 for luxury category in the third stage
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS24, a CBSEM dataset; and χ2/df = 2.77, SRMR = 0.07, GFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.91, IFI =
tool, was performed to check the measurement properties of the scales, 0.91, CFI = 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.07 for the non-luxury category in the
with the results depicted in Table 2. The overall fit of the CFA model for third stage dataset.
all the datasets8 was evaluated using fit indices including Standardized The loadings of all the items on their respective factors were satis­
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), factory as they exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.70. Convergent
Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Comparative Fit validity was also established, as all of the average variance extracted
Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). (AVE) values for the constructs were above the recommended cut-off of
The fit indices were found to be satisfactory, with χ2/df = 2.81, SRMR = 0.50 (Cheung & Wang, 2017).
0.05, GFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.05 To establish discriminant validity for all the datasets, we followed
for the first stage dataset; χ2/df = 2.31, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.92, NFI = Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion and compared the square root of
0.92, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.04 for the second stage AVE with the inter-construct correlation coefficients (see Table 3).
dataset; χ2/df = 2.59, SRMR = 0.07, GFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.91, Since the study also involved comparing the model across groups
(low-tactile/high-tactile and luxury/non-luxury), multi-group analysis
(MGA) in AMOS24 was deployed. MGA is a well-established technique
7
For example, the first data collection happened just after the deadly second to check for model variations in case the moderator is categorical and is
wave of COVID-19, with high consumer concern for safety, while the second expected to influence the entire model (Cheah et al., 2023). This is in
data collection happened during a period when concerns for the pandemic had contrast to an interaction-based moderation test which requires a
significantly reduced. continuous moderator which acts on a specific path(s). As part of MGA,
8
For the third dataset, luxury and non-luxury categories were analyzed it was prudent to first establish the measurement model invariance
separately.

6
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Measurement properties. Measure Item Mean Loadings CR AVE
Measure Item Mean Loadings CR AVE
This product suits 3.74| 0.75|
S1L|S2NL|S3L|S3NL my style 3.78| 0.87|
AR I like the quality of 3.56| 0.79| 0.86| 0.61| 3.77| 0.83|0.82
Application navigation of the 3.98| 0.82| 0.87| 0.63| 3.76
Experience AR application 3.66| 0.81|80 0.85| 0.59| Experience I am satisfied with 3.82| 0.82| 0.88| 0.72|
(ARE) 3.71 0.90 0.70 Satisfaction my experience. 3.92| 0.83| 0.87| 0.71|
I like the way the 3.53| 0.77| (SAT) 3.93| 0.81|0.76 0.86| 0.68|
content was 3.66| 0.86| 3.84 0.81 0.59
displayed in the AR 3.76| 0.71|0.88 The experience is 3.77| 0.88|
application 3.87 exactly what I 3.57| 0.86|
I feel control over 3.52| 0.74| wanted. 3.49| 0.78|0.72
the pace of viewing 3.85| 0.79| 3.55
the products in the 3.79| 0.74|0.86 The experience 3.73| 0.85|
AR application. 3.82 works as well as I 3.66| 0.84|
The AR application 3.51| 0.81| thought it should. 3.67| 0.87|0.82
meets my specific 3.61| 0.72| 3.79
needs quickly and 3.72| 0.81|0.81 Purchase I can see myself 3.75| 0.87| 0.91| 0.77|
efficiently 3.59 Intentions buying this 3.86| 0.77| 0.91| 0.78|
Pleasure (PL) Using the AR 3.47| 0.77| 0.87| 0.64| (PI) product with this 3.81| 0.77|0.75 0.89| 0.72|
application is fun 3.63| 0.73| 0.86| 0.62| AR application. 3.82 0.85 0.66
for me. 3.58| 0.74|0.76 0.86| 0.61| The next time I 3.84| 0.88|
3.98 0.87 0.62 purchase this 3.79| 0.91|
Using the AR 3.31| 0.79| product, I will take 3.77| 0.88|0.83
application is 3.87| 0.89| this AR application 3.81
enjoyable for me. 3.87| 0.82|0.87 into consideration.
3.78 I would be very 3.85| 0.89|
Using the AR 3.38| 0.82| interested in 3.89| 0.94|
application is 3.71| 0.76| purchasing this 3.88| 0.89|0.85
entertaining for 3.77| 0.79|0.74 product on this AR 3.91
me. 3.48 application
Using the AR 3.35| 0.83| Word-of- I like to talk about 3.68| 0.91| 0.92| 0.79|
application makes 3.67| 0.76| Mouth this AR application 3.84| 0.86| 0.88| 0.72|
me happy. 3.66| 0.77|0.78 (WOM) with other people. 3.78| 0.85|0.74 0.85| 0.65|
3.59 3.77 0.87 0.70
Emotional I am completely 3.77| 0.81| 0.82| 0.61| I tell stories about 3.73| 0.87|
Involvement involved in the AR 3.71| 0.72| 0.83| 0.62| this AR application 3.78| 0.84|
(EI) experience. 3.79| 0.87|0.72 0.85| 0.65| to other people. 3.71| 0.80|0.86
3.81 0.83 0.62 3.67
I am deeply 3.86| 0.76| I explain to others 3.77| 0.89|
impressed with the 3.90| 0.92| why they may find 3.84| 0.85|
AR experience. 3.92| 0.82|0.87 it beneficial to use 3.76| 0.77|0.90
3.75 this AR application 3.78
I feel total empathy 3.86| 0.78| Note: S1: Stage 1; S2: Stage 2; S3: Stage 3; L: Luxury, NL: Non-luxury; CR: Composite
with the AR 3.88| 0.71| Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted
experience. 3.85| 0.73|0.77
3.87
Flow (FL) When I use the AR 3.82| 0.76| 0.86| 0.61| (Mathwick et al., 2002). The results of the invariance are displayed in
activity, I am 3.79| 0.73| 0.86| 0.60| Table 4. For the moderator tactile input, the MGA was executed through
totally captivated. 3.71| 0.78|0.79 0.87| 0.64|
the data for cosmetics/hats and watches/sneakers within the luxury
3.73 0.88 0.66
When I use AR 3.85| 0.71| category in stage 1 and 3 datasets; however, for the moderator of the
activity, time 3.81| 0.78| category (luxury/non-luxury), the MGA was executed through the
seems to pass very 3.85| 0.80|0.88 dataset for cosmetics (low-tactile) only in stage 1 and stage 2 data, and
quickly. 3.84 for sneakers (high-tactile) only in stage 3 data.
When I use the AR 3.85| 0.82|
activity, I forget 3.86| 0.85|
We see that the model fits generally well across all types of con­
about all the 3.89| 0.87|0.82 straints. Furthermore, within the nested model comparison with the
concerns. 3.84 unconstrained model as a benchmark, it was found that Δχ2 was sta­
Using AR activity 3.65| 0.85| tistically insignificant once additional model constraints were imposed,
often makes me 3.72| 0.75|
thus implying measurement model invariance (Counsell et al., 2020).
forget where I am. 3.79| 0.77|0.74
3.76 After the CFA, the structural model was evaluated. For the primary
Trust (TR) This product 3.58| 0.88| 0.88| 0.65| paths of the model (hypotheses H1-H7), the data for respondents
makes a good 3.69| 0.83| 0.89| 0.69| answering for the luxury products only was considered (S1|S3), with
impression on me. 3.78| 0.79|0.91 0.88| 0.64| paths also examined separately for each luxury category. The signifi­
3.72 0.91 0.71
This product 3.81| 0.79|
cance of the individual paths was tested based on a t-test greater than
makes me feel safe. 3.82| 0.76| 1.96 and a p-value of less than 0.05 (see Table 5). The effects of AR
3.89| 0.77|0.79 application experience on pleasure (β1aS1 = 0.65, t = 11.64; β1aS3 = 0.54,
3.87 t = 9.67), emotional involvement (β1bS1 = 0.53, t = 11.49; β1bS3 = 0.52,
This product suits 3.82| 0.81|
t = 11.44), and flow (β1cS1 = 0.35; t = 8.36; β1cS3 = 0.31; t = 7.81) were
my safety 3.91| 0.86|
requirements. 3.89| 0.81|0.84 respectively significant. Hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c are thus sup­
3.67 ported. AR application experience had a positive impact on trust (β2S1 =
0.42, t = 10.55; β2S3 = 0.44, t = 10.59), which supports hypothesis H2.
The results showed that the effects of pleasure (β3aS1 = 0.19, t = 2.79;

7
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Table 3
Discriminant validity evaluation.
(S1L|S2NL|S3L| ARE PL EI FL TR SAT PI WOM
S3NL)

ARE 0.78|0.79|0.77|
0.84
PL 0.44|0.42|0.48| 0.80|0.79|0.78|
0.47 0.79
EI 0.41|0.53|0.55| 0.34|0.39|0.33| 0.78|0.79|0.81|
0.51 0.39 0.79
FL 0.24|0.32|0.29| 0.56|0.45|0.57| 0.59|0.55|0.51| 0.78|0.77|0.80|
0.33 0.59 0.52 0.81
TR 0.57|0.49|0.52| 0.45|0.47|0.49| 0.43|0.47|0.46| 0.51|0.55|0.53| 0.81|0.83|0.80|
0.54 0.48 0.49 0.52 0.84
SAT 0.51|0.55|0.57| 0.41|0.42|0.48| 0.35|0.38|0.39| 0.49|0.52|0.53| 0.74|0.71|0.70| 0.85|0.84|0.82|
0.55 0.47 0.42 0.51 0.72 0.77
PI 0.52|0.49|0.49| 0.39|0.45|0.49| 0.38|0.41|0.43| 0.43|0.45|0.44| 0.71|0.72|0.72| 0.74|0.75|0.71| 0.88|0.88|0.85|
0.53 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.73 0.69 0.81
WOM 0.46|0.47|0.48| 0.32|0.33|0.35| 0.32|0.36|0.39| 0.49|0.48|0.52| 0.66|0.69|0.66| 0.73|0.68|0.65| 0.72|0.70/0.70| 0.89|0.85|0.81|
0.51 0.34 0.39 0.51 0.68 0.69 0.71 0.84
Note: S1: Stage 1; S2: Stage 2; S3: Stage 3; L: Luxury, NL: Non-luxury; AVE: Average Variance Extracted
The diagonal items are square root of AVE values, and the non-diagonal ones are inter-construct correlations; for acronyms, please refer to Table 2.

Table 4
Measurement Invariance: Measurement Model.
Cosmetics vs. Watch (S1|S3)
Constraints Δχ2 p-value χ2/df SRMR GFI NFI IFI CFI RMSEA

Unconstrained – 2.81|2.92 0.05|0.06 0.91|0.90 0.91|0.90 0.91|0.91 0.90|0.90 0.06|0.07

Measurement Weights 18.8|19.2 0.12|0.10 2.75|2.77 0.06|0.06 0.90|0.90 0.91|0.91 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.05|0.06
Structural Covariance 36.4|41.4 0.14|0.12 2.68|2.71 0.06|0.06 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.05|0.06
Measurement Residuals 79.2|82.5 0.17|0.13 2.65|2.68 0.06|0.06 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.05|0.06
Luxury vs. Non-Luxury (S1/S2|S3)
Constraints Δχ2 p-value χ2/df SRMR GFI NFI IFI CFI RMSEA
Unconstrained – 2.47|2.41 0.06|0.06 0.92|0.91 0.92|0.91 0.91|0.91 0.91|0.90 0.05|0.06
Measurement Weights 22.7|23.8 0.14|0.15 2.44|2.45 0.06|0.06 0.91|0.91 0.91|0.91 0.90|0.90 0.91|0.90 0.05|0.06
Structural Covariance 28.9|27.8 0.16|0.17 2.39|2.41 0.06|0.06 0.91|0.91 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.91|0.90 0.05|0.05
Measurement Residuals 33.3|32.6 0.19|0.22 2.31|2.38 0.06|0.06 0.91|0.91 0.90|0.90 0.90|0.90 0.91|0.90 0.04|0.05
Note: S1: Stage 1, S2: Stage 2, S3: Stage 3

Table 5
Path analysis results.
Hypotheses Estimate Estimate Estimate (L) Estimate (NL) Result Result
(LT S1|S3) (HT S1|S3) (S1| S3) (S2|S3) (L) (NL)

H1a: ARE → PL 0.71**|0.66** 0.62**|0.56** 0.65**|0.54** 0.34**|0.29** S S

H1b: ARE → EI 0.60**|0.67** 0.49**|0.47** 0.53**|0.52** 0.25**|0.32** S S
H1c: ARE → FL 0.36**|0.31** 0.34**|0.32** 0.35**|0.31** 0.22**|0.21** S S
H2: ARE → TR 0.51**|0.58** 0.37**|0.41** 0.42**|0.44** 0.34**|0.29** S S
H3a: PL → SAT 0.26**|0.34** 0.17**|0.28** 0.19**|0.30** -0.02|0.01 S NS
H3b: EI → SAT 0.07|0.03 0.05|0.03 0.06|0.03 0.24**|0.22** NS S
H3c: FL → SAT 0.45**|0.36** 0.29**|0.22** 0.34**|0.33** 0.13**|0.11** S S
H4: TR → SAT 0.88**|0.76** 0.68**|0.59** 0.75**|0.67** 0.72**|0.37** S S
H5: SAT → PI 0.89**|0.81** 0.73**|0.64** 0.81**|0.73** 0.58**|0.54** S S
H6: SAT → WOM 0.84**|0.77** 0.71**|0.69** 0.79**|0.72** 0.45**|0.42** S S
**p < 0.05; S1: Stage 1, S2: Stage 2, S3: Stage 3; L: Luxury, NL: Non-luxury; LT: Low Tactile, HT: High Tactile; S: Supported, NS: Not Supported

β3aS3 = 0.30, t = 7.14) and flow (β3cS1 = 0.34, t = 6.03; β3cS3 = 0.33, t = significance of difference was to be checked, the contextual path was
5.99) on satisfaction were respectively significant, which supports hy­ constrained to be equal across the two levels of the categorical moder­
potheses H3a and H3c. The results, however, also showed that the effect ator in the AMOS 24′s structural weights protocol, and the Δχ2 along
of emotional involvement on satisfaction (H3b) was not significant with its significance at 95 % level were evaluated. A significant Δχ2
(β3bS1 = 0.06, t = 1.748; β3bS3 = 0.03, t = 0.842). Trust had a significant implied that the models are different and that the paths are significantly
effect on satisfaction (β4S1 = 0.75, t = 13.06; β4S3 = 0.67, t = 13.01); different (Floh &Treiblmaier, 2006). Table 6 shows that most of the path
hence, hypothesis H4 is supported. Satisfaction had a positive effect on values for low-tactile products in the luxury category were higher than
purchase intentions and WOM, thereby supporting hypotheses H5 (β5S1 those for high-tactile ones (S1|S3), except for the paths from AR appli­
= 0.81, t = 17.24; β5S3 = 0.73, t = 15.07) and H6 (β6S1 = 0.79, t = 15.98; cation experience to flow (both significant) and emotional involvement
β6S1 = 0.72, t = 15.02). In contrast, for non-luxury products, the path to satisfaction (both non-significant). The result is identical for luxury
from pleasure to satisfaction was not found to be significant, while the products in stages 1 and 3 of data collection. Hence, hypothesis H7 is
path from emotional involvement to satisfaction was. largely supported. For hypothesis H8, it was found that for luxury
For the moderating variables, MGA was used to test the difference in products, the path values for the model were higher than non-luxury
specific paths across the model. For every path for which the products for most paths, except for the path from emotional

8
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Table 6 physical to ’phygital’ options have encouraged luxury brands to find

Moderation analysis. effective ways to combine brick-and-mortar experiences with online
Category Links Path Δχ2 p- Outcome ones. (Ameen et al., 2021). However, digital experiences lack the human
Difference (S1| value touch which is a key source to seamless and realistic customer experi­
(S1|S3) S3) (S1| ences (Pangarkar et al., 2022). AR is one technology that fills that gap
S3)
and hence, this study examines the impact of AR application experience
Path AR Application 0.09|0.10 12.81| 0.00| Support for a luxury brand on the affective (pleasure/emotional involvement/
Difference Experience → 0.11|0.20 12.92 0.00 Support flow), cognitive (trust/experience satisfaction), and behavioural re­
(Low Pleasure 0.02|-0.01 13.06| 00| No
Tactile- AR Application 0.14|0.17 21.62 0.00 Support
sponses (purchase intention/WOM) of consumers.
High Experience → 0.09|0.06 0.34| 0.55| Support With a three-stage data collection across two studies, the study found
Tactile): Emotional 0.02|0.00 0.22 0.64 Support a positive effect of AR experience on pleasure, emotional involvement,
H7 involvement 0.16|0.14 15.53| 0.00| No and flow, which implies that good navigation, high-quality content,
AR Application 0.20|0.17 18.67 0.00 Support
interface smoothness, and the effectiveness of the AR application create
Experience → 0.16|0.17 12.35| 0.00| Support
Flow 0.13|0.08 9.98 0.00 Support positive affective engagement. The findings align with previous studies
AR Application 0.36| 0.54| Support in the context of interactive AR-based technologies and gaming appli­
Experience → 0.01 0.92 Support cations, and demonstrate the enabling role of modern digital technolo­
Trust 17.91| 0.00| gies, like AR, in generating rewarding emotional experiences for
Pleasure → 15.49 0.00
Satisfaction 22.24| 0.00|
consumers (Hoffman & Novak, 2009; McLean & Wilson, 2019; Yim
Emotional 18.59 0.00 et al., 2017).
involvement → 18.05| 0.00| The significant relationship between the AR application experience
Satisfaction 18.68 0.00 and product-oriented trust means that the ‘reality-simulating’ experi­
Flow → 15.21| 0.00|
ence, ensuring local presence, reinforces the authenticity of the luxury
Satisfaction 11.45 0.00
Trust → product (Bastide, 2017). When users feel that their experience is close to
Satisfaction reality through self-defined parameters, they define the whole experi­
Satisfaction → ence as representative and authentic (Al-Imamy & Nadeem, 2022). This
Purchase upholds the validity of AR application as a complement to physical ex­
Intention
periences, as part of an omnichannel strategy, to induce trust in the
Satisfaction →
WOM expensive purchase to be made by the consumer.
Difference Δχ2 p- Outcome It was found that pleasure and flow had a positive influence on
(S2|S3) (S2| value satisfaction. It means that these ‘in-the-moment’ affective responses,
S3) (S2|
invoked by an immersive AR-enabled shopping experience and reflect­
S3)
Path AR Application 0.37|0.27 45.44| 0.00| Support ing a brand’s equity, can promote positive assessments of the purchase
Difference Experience → 0.35|0.15 34.94 0.00 Support experience (Huang & Liao, 2017; Javornik et al., 2021). However,
(Luxury- Pleasure 0.14|0.11 42.39| 0.00| Support emotional involvement is not found to influence satisfaction, despite
Non- AR Application 0.17|0.12 19.66 0.00 Support theoretical evidence (Shankar et al., 2003; Wirtz & Bateson, 1999). The
Luxury): Experience → 0.28|0.27 18.75| 0.00| Support
lack of effect may be because luxury products are purchased predomi­
H8 Emotional -0.17|-0.19 14.58 0.00 Refuted
involvement 0.32|0.11 22.54| 0.00| Support nantly through offline channels where consumers can physically eval­
AR Application 0.16|0.22 18.99 0.00 Support uate and instantly acquire them (Lee et al., 2020). Hence, despite the AR
Experience → 0.31|0.10 32.17| 0.00| Support application being immersive, the experiences may not permit consumers
Flow 0.39|0.27 31.15 0.00 Support
to invest emotions in the way that they can do in a physical setting for
AR Application 23.25| 0.00|
Experience → 26.38 0.00
some luxury products, which may mandate a complementary multi-
Trust 41.97| 0.00| channel ‘phygital’ strategy for such brands (Javornik et al., 2021). The
Pleasure → 14.56 0.00 argument is substantiated by the significance of this relationship for
Satisfaction 20.04| 0.00| non-luxury products (Ko et al., 2016).
Emotional 28.84 0.00
The results also highlight that the greater the consumer’s satisfaction
involvement → 40.16| 0.00|
Satisfaction 13.68 0.00 with the experience, the more positive their purchase intent is for the
Flow → 49.87| 0.00| luxury product as well as the willingness to spread WOM for the AR
Satisfaction 34.65 0.00 application. Further, the strong indirect effect of trust on the product,
Trust →
through experience satisfaction, on purchase intention and WOM
Satisfaction
Satisfaction →
showcases the important role played by experience with the AR appli­
Purchase cation and the satisfaction with it in converting the trust to behavioural
Intention outcome. This is unlike other online experiences, where trust may be a
Satisfaction → direct antecedent to purchase intentions (Bashir et al., 2018; Oliviera
WOM
et al., 2017). These findings support the emerging role of capable AR
CR: Critical ratio of difference, CR values are compared with the 1.96
cut-off, with higher values implying the paths are significantly applications in enabling sales of luxury products through such immer­
different at 95 % level of significance sive digital technologies (e.g., Bahri-Ammari et al., 2016; Shankar et al.,
S1: Stage 1, S2: Stage 2, S3: Stage 3 2003). The AR application can be an independent retail channel in its
own right for a luxury brand to induce a purchase, without necessarily
the need for the consumer to make a physical visit to the store, which
involvement to satisfaction. Hence, hypothesis H8 is also largely
helps the brand save the costs of owning a physical space.
supported.
Finally, our study supports the moderating role of the product’s
tactile input and product category. For low-tactile products, compared
6. Discussion
to high-tactile ones, the effect of the AR application experience on af­
fective responses is higher. This supports the argument that a con­
In the domain of omnichannel retailing which has revolutionized the
sumer’s offline brand experiences are necessary for products with higher
luxury retailing market, the changes in customer migration from
tactile input and the affective responses to AR-based experiences for

9
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

such categories will be limited, mandating the need for a suitable characteristic of the technology rather than holistic experiences, that too
combination of online and offline retail strategy for such high-tactile in a general product context (e.g., Kim et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2020).
luxury products (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009). Except for the effect of Hence, by measuring the consumer experiences with the relatively
emotional involvement on experience satisfaction, it was found that all mixed nature of AR-enhanced technologies and their outcomes using the
the model paths were higher for luxury products over non-luxury S-O-R framework for luxury products, this study adds value to the
products. Further, as highlighted earlier, it can be argued that the im­ application of the framework in the modern retail technologies domain
plications of positive experience satisfaction, out of meaningful trust- (e.g., Do et al., 2020; Javornik, 2016).
evoking experiences with AR application for behavioural outcomes are Finally, this study integrates the affect-as-information theory and the
higher for luxury products. This reinforces the critical and emerging role S–O–R framework. While previous studies have examined the affective,
of the AR application in shaping hedonic and cognitive experiences for cognitive, and behavioural responses to AR (e.g., Kowalczuk et al., 2021;
luxury products, more than non-luxury ones (Zanger et al., 2022). Kumar, 2022), they have not necessarily established a flow of such re­
sponses in the process (e.g., Javornik, 2016; tom Dieck et al., 2018;
7. Theoretical Contribution Zanger et al., 2022). Similarly, the S–O–R underpinning represents a
progression from previous studies that use adoption models (e.g., Yavuz
The study makes several theoretical contributions. First, this is one of et al., 2021). The integration of these two theories, as a first-time
the first studies to propose the chain effect highlighting the role of AR- contribution to extant retail literature, highlights the hierarchical pro­
enabled experiences as important determinants of a luxury product cess through which capable AR applications can encourage luxury
purchase. While prior studies have discussed AR applications with a buyers to purchase such products to fulfil their need for distinctiveness
focus on technical attributes (e.g., Kim & Choo, 2021; McLean & Wilson, and differentiation (Jebarajakirthy & Das, 2021).
2019; Poushneh & Vasquez-Parraga, 2017), debates on their behav­
ioural or psychological outcomes are limited. By providing a serial 8. Practical Implications
pathway from AR-driven experiences with applications for luxury
products to the consumer’s intention to buy the physical product, this This study offers several managerial contributions. First, it demon­
work adds value to the theme of digital experiences as part of omni­ strates that AR applications can facilitate the triggering of consumer
channel retailing. The findings emphasise how AR-driven experiences pleasure, emotional involvement, and flow through immersion in the
encourage luxury customers to utilize emotion-evoking and trust- shopping experience while also promoting consumer trust in trying the
enthusing digital technologies for purchasing luxury products (Chiu luxury product. Thus, AR application developers need to make their
et al., 2021; Javornik et al., 2021; Nikhashemi et al., 2021; Rauschnabel online applications as immersive and ‘reality-simulating’ as possible for
et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022). Such experiences help luxury brands consumers by creating intuitive navigation designs, curating high-
develop suitable customer-focused omnichannel processes (Ameen quality content for use in AR applications, regulating the pace of prod­
et al., 2021). uct scrolling in the interface, and ensuring applications are configurable
Second, for high-value luxury goods where consumers have an to individual needs. Such qualities can be expected to evoke affective
enhanced need for product authenticity, this study confirms that an responses towards rather expensive luxury products. For omnichannel
‘almost-real’ representation, and a ‘hands-on’ experience of the luxury retailers, relational digital exchanges through the AR application,
product within the AR ecosystem, to generate the necessary trust, is comprising purposeful interactions, can complement/replace physical
critical to purchasing ’high-ticket’ items, more so than regular non- experiences and are expected to build strong emotional connections
luxury ones (Hamilton et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018; Lăzăroiu et al., with the customer. As an example, Dior, a luxury brand, launched its
2020; Rauschnabel, 2021; Tan et al., 2022). This study also argues that B27 sneakers range in its immersive AR application which allowed users
such authenticity is needed more for luxury products with high-tactile to try on the sneakers at home followed by an option to purchase. Just
information to convey their functionalities; hence, the AR application this AR lens-based application helped improve Dior’s sales by around
may have limited utility for categories in which a physical ‘try-on’ is 6.2 times in 2022, combined with over 2.3 million views for its products
viewed as essential (Pino et al., 2019). In the literature on omnichannel online.9
retailing, there are limited studies which examine the role of such digital Second, the study establishes the important role of trust as an enabler
technologies in trust building with the luxury buyer (Pangarkar et al., of the purchase experience for luxury products through an AR applica­
2022). The results of this work, especially those of the moderators, tion. Consumer satisfaction is backed by trust, a reassurance that the
emphasise the need for a ‘phygital’ experience, composed of a suitable product is authentic and high-quality, and hence, luxury retailers need
combination of physical and digital experiences, as part of omnichannel to focus on innovatively creating customer trust through digital tech­
strategies of luxury brands selling products with high need-for-touch to nologies. Luxury brands, more so than non-luxury ones, must create AR-
build the trust needed for purchase as well as long-term enduring based experiences, through cutting-edge programming and background
buyer–seller relationships (Arli et al., 2018). Additionally, the findings engines, that mimic, and not over- or under-represent, the actual
offer an argument that online sales using immersive digital technologies product and create the necessary trust-evoking satisfaction. Further,
are not only driven by a brand’s equity or the quality of its online omnichannel retailers need to supplement digital experiences by giving
presence, including the AR application but also by the physical evalu­ a choice to consumers to further visit a physical store to evaluate the
ation of the ‘high-touch’ product to judge its overall quality (Han & Kim, product in reality and compare the experiences, if needed. Tan et al.
2020; Rauschnabel et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2021). (2022) proffer that customers inherently trust immersive AR applica­
Third, while multiple studies, in the context of modern retail tech­ tions, and feel reliant on such cutting-edge tools to make the eventual
nologies, use the S-O-R framework to investigate consumers’ behav­ purchase. This is substantiated by a NeilsonIQ 201910 survey where 56
ioural responses to technological stimuli, they primarily focus on VR- % of shoppers feel confident about product quality experience through
enhanced technologies, with few of them investigating consumers’ ex­ capable AR, with 61 % preferring to shop through such AR experiences.
periences with AR-enhanced retail technologies (Baytar et al., 2020; Lee Third, our research found that while the effect of an AR-based
et al., 2022). The context of AR applications has moved to a phase where
cognitive and emotional outcomes of AR-driven experiences and sub­
sequent influence on shopping behaviours need to be examined (Fan 9
https://www.marketingmag.com.au/social-digital/how-augmented-reality
et al., 2020; McLean & Wilson, 2019; Poushneh & Vasquez-Parraga, -is-changing-the-face-of-luxury-retail/.
2017; Scholz & Duffy, 2018). Further, much of the AR-enabled retail 10
https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2019/augmented-retai
literature on AR using the S-O-R framework focuses on a particular l-the-new-consumer-reality-2/.

10
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

application on behavioural outcomes was relevant for luxury brands, the other categories in the luxury/non-luxury market. The current study
effects were stronger for low-tactile products. AR application developers chose watches, sneakers, cosmetics and hats as test categories. However,
need to ensure that for products requiring tactile inputs to facilitate many other categories can also be classified as luxury, including apparel,
better quality judgements, applications should be designed to better premium eyewear, perfumes, and a few others. The same applies to the
replicate the physical design of products, including their texture and non-luxury category. The ability of an AR application to do justice to
finish. For products with a greater need for a physical ‘try-on,’ appli­ these categories may be different. While this study tested the model
cations can include an advisory for consumers to physically examine the across categories based on ‘touch-and-feel’ requirements, there may also
product at their nearest store. In other words, for luxury brands selling be further differences such as the appeal of the product to other primary
high-tactile products, it is critical to ensure a combination of physical senses, like taste or smell. Future studies may choose to evaluate the
and digital experiences to ensure believability in the product. An model differences across various types of categories with specific
example of such a case is the jewellery brand Caratlane and premium determinant attributes.
eyewear brand Lenskart in India which were pioneers of online sales in Finally, the study established the influence of trust on experience
their respective categories. Over the years, the brands have offered satisfaction. There are multiple studies, however, that claim the direc­
customers the option to buy expensive jewellery/eyewear through their tionality to be opposite in other contexts (e.g., Melián-Alzola & Martín-
AR virtual try-on application, but at the same time have multiple offline Santana, 2020). Our primary argument is that the perceived consump­
brick-and-mortar stores in India for customers to evaluate the same tion value from an AR application is an inherent source of experience
products offline. Both brands have reaped tremendous benefits from the satisfaction (Al-Imamy & Gnoth, 2022). However, such value also has
application with close to 20 % of their sales happening through it.11 significant effects on the perceived risk and trust with the product shown
Alternately, some brands can allow in-store customers to experience in the application, and once the risk is low and trust is high, due to the
their AR application in specially developed ’digital zones’ so that the luxury brand’s equity, the resultant experience is rewarding leading to
customers can gradually migrate to the digital ecosystem for future greater satisfaction (Wu et al., 2018). The directionality of the rela­
purchases. Such a strategy can also be used by luxury brands selling a tionship may change based on the context of the study, and thus, future
combination of high- and low-tactile products. research can explore such contextual conditions.
Finally, the study found that AR application-derived hedonic and
cognitive experiences followed by behavioural outcomes were largely 10. CONCLUSION
stronger for luxury products, compared to non-luxury ones. This reaf­
firms that brands selling luxury products should adopt a stronger focus This work validates the importance of AR-enabled experiences for
on the development of engaging AR applications to generate higher rates luxury brands in shaping affective and cognitive experiences, culmi­
of purchase conversion. However, AR applications can also be useful in nating in behavioural outcomes. The important roles of tactile input of
driving online sales of non-luxury products, and brands in such cate­ the product, as well as the type of category (luxury/non-luxury) in
gories should endeavour to deploy AR applications for their purposes. moderating the relationships, are also examined. Modern technologies
Non-luxury brands need to build emotional involvement in their appli­ like AR and VR are changing the landscape of global retail and are
cations, possibly through stereoscopic AR, as only then would con­ envisioned to be an integral part of people’s lives in the future.
sumers be motivated to buy such products. This is referred to as ‘bespoke Competition between the two technologies has also ensued. For
personalization’ by Javornik et al. (2021) where AR deployment by non- example, there are contradictory verdicts on the concept of Metaverse
luxury brands helps them during the consideration phase. They further which aims to migrate people to a virtual world through VR technology.
argue that brand managers of luxury products need to focus on AR- While Meta founder, Mr. Mark Zuckerberg, is convinced of the VR-
enabled visualizations that reflect luxuriousness. Luxury brands, thus, enabled future, many, like Snap founder, Mr. Eval Spiegel, and Apple
should focus more on building a pleasurable application through the marketing head, Mr. Greg Joswiak, have raised doubts on the VR’s
spatial presence of the consumer within the application (Wang, Ko, and promise as a mass-market technology application.12 Both latter firms,
Wang, 2022). with their respective AR applications in the works, suggest that AR has
greater implications for most consumer industries with the gradual
9. Limitations And Future Research Directions decline of smartphones and the ascendence of AR-enabled wearables.13
Irrespective of the outcome of this debate, going forward, AR-enabled
Despite its contributions, this study has a few limitations. The first is technologies and devices are going to be critical for the growth of the
that the research model considered AR application experience as a retail industry, especially for the traditional ‘offline’ luxury category, by
unidimensional construct encompassing navigation, content, the pace of creating authentic and trust-inducing purchase experiences (Rauschna­
content delivery, and overall efficiency. However, as an extension, it bel et al., 2022).
may be more prudent to consider each of these design elements sepa­
rately to evaluate their effect on hedonic and cognitive outcomes. Future CRediT authorship contribution statement
researchers may seek to focus on specific attributes of the AR-based
application, for example, visual, information, ergonomics, and inter­ Darragi Nawres: Data Curation, Writing- Original draft preparation,
face design elements (Mishra, 2016). Investigation. Bahri-Ammari Nedra: Visualization, Supervision, Soft­
The second limitation is that specific AR applications for each cate­ ware, Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Methodology. Anish Yousaf:
gory were deployed. Consumers’ experiences may evolve with different Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Validation, Methodology.
applications for the same category. Thus, in line with the first limitation, Abhishek Mishra: Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Validation.
future studies may wish to manipulate an AR application for the same
category and check for incremental improvements in the experiences Declaration of Competing Interest
based on the additional attributes embedded in the AR application. Such
manipulation could also be achieved by moving the application from The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
one device to another. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
The third limitation relates to the generalizability of our results to

12
https://www.gadgets360.com/apps/news/snap-metaverse-slammed-aug
11
https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/digital/ecomm- mented-reality-evan-spiegel-apple-greg-joswiak-3463240.
13
sites-like-caratlane-lenskart-turn-to-virtual-trial-technology/49449561. https://bigthink.com/the-future/ar-will-make-us-superhumans/.

11
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

the work reported in this paper. Cristau, C. (2003). “Definition, measurement and modeling of brand attachment as the
conjunction of two concomitant dimensions: dependence and friendship.” 3rd
International Congress Marketing Trends, Paris-Venise 2003.
Data availability Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to
nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological
Data will be made available on request. methods, 1(1), 16.
Do, H. N., Shih, W., & Ha, Q. A. (2020). Effects of mobile augmented reality apps on
impulse buying behavior: An investigation in the tourism field. Heliyon, 6(8), 1-9.
References Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., …
Wang, Y. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research:
Achille, A., & Zipser, D. (2020). A perspective for the luxury-goods industry during—and Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information
after—coronavirus. McKinsey & Company, 1. Management, 59, 102168.
Al-Ansi, A., Olya, H. G., & Han, H. (2019). Effect of general risk on trust, satisfaction, and Fan, X., Chai, Z., Deng, N., & Dong, X. (2020). Adoption of augmented reality in online
recommendation intention for halal food. International Journal of Hospitality retailing and consumers’ product attitude: A cognitive perspective. Journal of
Management, 83, 210–219. Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101986.
Al-Imamy, S., & Gnoth, J. (2022). I want it my way! The effect of perceptions of Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S., & Orús, C. (2021). The influence of scent on virtual
personalization through augmented reality and online shopping on customer reality experiences, The role of aroma-content congruence. Journal of Business
intentions to co-create value. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107105. Research, 12(3), 289–801.
Al-Imamy, S., & Al-Imamy, S. (2022). Customer perceived value through quality Floh, A., & Treiblmaier, H. (2006). “What keeps the e-banking customer loyal? A
augmented reality experiences in retail: The mediating effect of customer attitudes. multigroup analysis of the moderating role of consumer characteristics on e-loyalty
Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(4), 428–447. in the financial service industry”, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
Al-Imamy, S., & Nadeem, W. (2022). Is this real? Cocreation of value through authentic cfm?abstract_id=2585491.
experiential augmented reality: The mediating effect of perceived ethics and Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
customer engagement. Information Technology & People, 35(2), 577–599. unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
Ameen, N., Hosany, S., & Tarhini, A. (2021). Consumer interaction with cutting-edge 39–50.
technologies: Implications for future research. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, Gatter, S., Hüttl-Maack, V., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2022). Can augmented reality satisfy
106761. consumers’ need for touch? Psychology & Marketing, 39(3), 508–523.
Arli, D., Tan, L. P., Tjiptono, F., & Yang, L. (2018). Exploring consumers’ purchase Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E. R., & Sprott, D. E. (2007). The influence of tactile input
intention towards green products in an emerging market: The role of consumers’ on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 237–245.
perceived readiness. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(4), 389–401. Haavisto, P., & Sandberg, B. (2015). “Man, this frustrates me”: Change of consumer
Bahri-Ammari, N., Van Niekerk, M., Ben Khelil, H., & Chtioui, J. (2016). The effects of emotions in online discussions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(1),
brand attachment on behavioral loyalty in the luxury restaurant sector. International 70–87.
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 559–585. Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the
Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Alcaniz, R. M. L., & Liano, V. (2004). Immersion and Emotion, perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45
Their impact on the sense of presence. CyberPsychlogy and Behavior, 7(6), 734–741. (3), 379–389.
Barutçu, S., Akgun, A. P., & Aydin, H. (2015). “An Analysis of M-Customer Satisfaction Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as
Drivers with Kano’s Model,” 5th European Business Research Conference, Roma, a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 608–618.
September 10-11. Hamilton, R., Thompson, D., Bone, S., Chaplin, L. N., Griskevicius, V., Goldsmith, K., …
Bashir, S., Anwar, S., Awan, Z., Qureshi, T. W., & Memon, A. B. (2018). A holistic Zhu, M. (2019). The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the
understanding of the prospects of financial loss to enhance shopper’s trust to search, Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 532–550.
recommend, speak positive and frequently visit an online shop. Journal of Retailing Han, S. L., & Kim, K. (2020). Role of consumption values in the luxury brand experience:
and Consumer Services, 42, 169–174. Moderating effects of category and the generation gap. Journal of Retailing and
Bastide, E. H. (2017). The influence of augmented reality on the mobile shopping Consumer Services, 57, 102249.
experience: The case of L’Oréal’s Make-up Genius app. Dissertation in Management Heller, J., Chylinski, M., De Ruyter, K., Mahr, D., & Keeling, D. L. (2019). Touching the
Science. Montreal: University of Quebec. untouchable, Exploring multi-sensory augmented reality in the of online retailing.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of Advertising. Journal of Retailing, 95(4), 219–234.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 234–249. Hilken, T., Heller, J., Chylinski, M., Keeling, D. I., Mahr, D., & de Ruyter, K. (2018).
Baytar, F., Chung, T., & Shin, E. (2020). Evaluating garments in augmented reality when Making omnichannel an augmented reality: The current and future state of the art.
shopping online. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(4), 509–523.
Journal, 24(4), 667–683. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online, lessons learned and future prospects.
Bazi, S., Filieri, R., & Gorton, M. (2020). Customers’ motivation to engage with luxury Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 23–34.
brands on social media. Journal of Business Research, 112, 223–235. Holmqvist, J., Ruiz, C. D., & Peñaloza, L. (2020). Moments of luxury: Hedonic escapism
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural as a luxury experience. Journal of Business Research, 116, 503–513.
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–1451. Host, V., & Knie-Andersen, M. (2004). Modeling customer satisfaction in mortgage credit
Brengman, M., Willems, K., & Van Kerrebroeck, H. (2019). Can’t touch this: The impact companies. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22, 26–42.
of augmented reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on perceived ownership. Hoyer, W. D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B., Kraume, K., & Shankar, V. (2020). Transforming
Virtual Reality, 23(3), 269–280. the customer experience through new technologies. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Butler, M. L. (2019). Augmented Reality for Hotels – The Future Is Here. Available: 51, 57–71.
Carmelon Digital Marketing. at: https://www.carmelon-digital.com/digitravel- Huang, T. L. (2019). Psychological mechanisms of brand love and information
magazine/augmented-reality-for-hotels-the-future-is-here/. technology identity in virtual retail environments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Chandon, J. L., Laurent, G., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). “Pursuing the concept of Services, 47, 251–264.
luxury: Introduction to the JBR Special Issue on “Luxury Marketing from Tradition to Huang, R., Ha, S., & Kim, S. H. (2018). Narrative persuasion in social media: An
Innovation””, Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 299-303. empirical study of luxury brand advertising. Journal of Research in Interactive
Cheah, J. H., Amaro, S., & Roldán, J. L. (2023). Multigroup analysis of more than two Marketing, 12(3), 274–292.
groups in PLS-SEM: A review, illustration, and recommendations. Journal of Business Huang, T. L., & Liao, S. L. (2017). Creating e-shopping multisensory flow experience
Research, 156, 113539. through augmented-reality interactive technology. Internet Research, 27(2),
Chen, J., Teng, L., Liu, S., & Zhu, H. (2015). Anticipating regret and consumers’ 449–475.
preferences for counterfeit luxury products. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), Jang, J. Y., Baek, E., & Choo, H. J. (2018). Managing the visual environment of a fashion
507–515. store: Effects of visual complexity and order on sensation-seeking consumers.
Cheung, G. W., & Wang, C. (2017). “Current approaches for assessing convergent and International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(2), 210–226.
discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions”, In Academy of management Javornik, A. (2016). Augmented Reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its
proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 12706). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of media characteristics on consumer behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Management. Services, 30, 252–261.
Chiu, C. L., Ho, H. C., Yu, T., Liu, Y., & Mo, Y. (2021). Exploring information technology Javornik, A., Duffy, K., Rokka, J., Scholz, J., Nobbs, K., Motala, A., & Goldenberg, A.
success of Augmented Reality Retail Applications in retail food chain. Journal of (2021). Strategic approaches to augmented reality deployment by luxury brands.
Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102561. Journal of Business Research, 136, 284–292.
Christ-Brendemuehl, S., & Schaarschmidt, M. (2022). Customer fairness perceptions in Jayaswal, P., & Parida, B. (2023). The role of augmented reality in redefining e-tailing: A
augmented reality-based online services. Journal of Service Management, 33(1), 9–32. review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113765.
Chung, Y., & Kim, A. J. (2020). Effects of mergers and acquisitions on brand loyalty in Jayawardena, N. S., Thaichon, P., Quach, S., Razzaq, A., & Behl, A. (2023). The
luxury Brands: The moderating roles of luxury tier difference and social media. persuasion effects of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) video
Journal of Business Research, 120, 434–442. advertisements: A conceptual review. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113739.
Counsell, A., Cribbie, R. A., & Flora, D. B. (2020). Evaluating equivalence testing Jebarajakirthy, C., & Das, M. (2021). Uniqueness and luxury: A moderated mediation
methods for measurement invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55(2), approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102477.
312–328. Kapferer, J. N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The luxury strategy. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

12
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Kim, T. H., & Choo, H. J. (2021). Augmented reality as a product presentation tool: Ofek, E., Katona, Z., & Sarvary, M. (2011). “Bricks and clicks”: The impact of product
Focusing on the role of product information and presence in AR. Fashion and Textiles, returns on the strategies of multichannel retailers. Marketing Science, 30(1), 42–60.
8(1), 1–23. Oliveira, T., Alhinho, M., Rita, P., & Dhillon, G. (2017). Modelling and testing consumer
Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008). Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel trust dimensions in e-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 153–164.
shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 45–59. Pangarkar, A., Arora, V., & Shukla, Y. (2022). Exploring phygital omnichannel luxury
Kim, H. C., & Hyun, M. Y. (2016). Predicting the use of smartphone-based Augmented retailing for immersive customer experience: The role of rapport and social
Reality (AR): Does telepresence really help? Computers in Human Behavior, 59, engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 68, 103001.
28–38. Pantano, E., Rese, A., & Baier, D. (2017). Enhancing the online decision-making process
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer by using augmented-reality: A two country comparison of youth markets. Journal of
equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business research, 65 Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 81–95.
(10), 1480–1486. Payne, C. R., Parry, B. L., Huff, S. C., Otto, S. D., & Hunt, H. K. (2001). Consumer
Kim, D., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport complimenting behavior, exploration and elaboration. Journal of Consumer
spectators’ flow experience and satisfaction. Computers in human behavior, 93, Satisfaction, 15, 128–147.
346–356. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information processing:
Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Jung, T. (2020). Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality The “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430–442.
tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. Journal of Travel Pham, M. T., Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). The influence of ad-evoked
Research, 59(1), 69–89. feelings on brand evaluations: Empirical generalizations from consumer responses to
Ko, E., Costello, J. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2019). What is a luxury brand? A new definition more than 1000 TV commercials. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30
and review of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 99, 405–413. (4), 383–394.
Ko, E., Phau, I., & Aiello, G. (2016). Luxury brand strategies and customer experiences: Pino, G., Amatulli, C., Peluso, A. M., Nataraajan, R., & Guido, G. (2019). Brand
Contributions to theory and practice. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), prominence and social status in luxury consumption: A comparison of emerging and
5749–5752. mature markets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 163–172.
Kowalczuk, P., Siepmann, C., & Adler, J. (2021). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral Poushneh, A., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. (2017). Discernible impact of augmented reality
consumer responses to augmented reality in e-commerce: A comparative study. on retail customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. Journal of
Journal of Business Research, 124, 357–373. Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 229–234.
Kuehnl, C., Jozic, D., & Homburg, C. (2019). Effective customer journey design: Rauschnabel, P. A. (2021). Augmented reality is eating the real-world! The substitution
Consumers’ conception, measurement, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of of physical products by holograms. International Journal of Information Management,
Marketing Science, 47(3), 551–568. 57, 102279.
Kumagai, K. (2021). Sustainable plastic clothing and brand luxury: A discussion of Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., & Hinsch, C. (2019). Augmented reality marketing: How
contradictory consumer behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33 mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. Journal of Retailing and
(4), 994–1013. Consumer Services, 49, 43–53.
Kumagai, K., & Nagasawa, S. (2021). Moderating effect of brand commitment on apparel Rauschnabel, P. A., Babin, B. J., & tom Dieck, M. C., Krey, N., & Jung, T.. (2022). What is
brand prestige in upward comparisons. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 12(3), augmented reality marketing? Its definition, complexity, and future. Journal of
195–213. Business Research, 142, 1140–1150.
Kumar, H. (2022). Augmented reality in online retailing: A systematic review and Rokka, J. (2021). Consumer Culture Theory’s future in marketing. Journal of Marketing
research agenda. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 50(4), Theory and Practice, 29(1), 114–124.
537–559. Rosa, J. A., & Garbarino., E., & Malter, A.. (2006). Keeping the body in mind, The
Kwon, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, D. (2016). Effective luxury-brand advertising: The ES–IF influence of body esteem and body boundary aberration on consumer beliefs and
matching (Entity–Symbolic versus Incremental–Functional) model. Journal of purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 79–91.
Advertising, 45(4), 459–471. Rusch, M., Schöggl, J. P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2023). Application of digital
Lavoye, V., Mero, J., & Tarkiainen, A. (2021). Consumer behavior with augmented technologies for sustainable product management in a circular economy: A review.
reality in retail: A review and research agenda. The International Review of Retail, Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(3), 1159–1174.
Distribution and Consumer Research, 31(3), 299–329. Scholz, J., & Duffy, K. (2018). We ARe at home: How augmented reality reshapes mobile
Lăzăroiu, G., Neguriţă, O., Grecu, I., Grecu, G., & Mitran, P. C. (2020). Consumers’ marketing and consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
decision-making process on social commerce platforms: Online trust, perceived risk, Services, 44, 11–23.
and purchase intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 890. Schwarz, N. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of theories of social
Lee, H., Rothenberg, L., & Xu, Y. (2020). Young luxury fashion consumers’ preferences in psychology, 1, 289–308.
multi-channel environment. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological
48(3), 244–261. inquiry, 14(3–4), 296–303.
Lee, J. E., & Watkins, B. (2016). YouTube vloggers’ influence on consumer luxury brand Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in
perceptions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5753–5760. online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2),
Lee, H., Xu, Y., & Porterfield, A. (2022). Antecedents and moderators of consumer 153–175.
adoption toward AR-enhanced virtual try-on technology: A stimulus-organism- Shin, H. H., & Jeong, M. (2022). Redefining luxury service with technology
response approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(4), 1319–1338. implementation: The impact of technology on guest satisfaction and loyalty in a
Liao, C., To, P. L., Wong, Y. C., Palvia, P., & Kakhki, M. D. (2016). The impact of luxury hotel. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(4),
presentation mode and product type on online impulse buying decisions. Journal of 1491–1514.
Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 153. Sirieix, L., & Dubois, P.-L. (1999). Towards a quality-satisfaction model integrating trust?
Liu, X., Burns, A. C., & Hou, Y. (2013). Comparing online and in-store shopping behavior Research and Applications in Marketing, 14(3), 1–22.
towards luxury goods. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 41 Song, S., & Kim, H. Y. (2022). Is social media marketing worth it for luxury brands? The
(11/12), 885–900. dual impact of brand page satisfaction and brand love on word-of-mouth and
Liu, M., Wong, I. A., Tseng, T., Chang, W. Y., & Phau, I. (2017). Applying consumer-based attitudinal loyalty intentions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(7),
brand equity in luxury hotel branding. Journal of Business Research, 81, 192–202. 1033–1046.
Liu, Y., Luo, X., & Cao, Y. (2018). Investigating the influence of online interpersonal Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs.
interaction on purchase intention based on stimulus-organism-reaction model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137.
Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 8(1), 1–15. Spence, C., Mancini, M., & Huisman, G. (2019). Digital commensality: Eating and
Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2020). When do we trust AI’s recommendations more than drinking in the company of technology. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2252.
people’s. Harvard Business Review, 23. Stathopoulou, A., & Balabanis, G. (2019). The effect of cultural value orientation on
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. K., & Rigdon, E. (2002). The effect of dynamic retail consumers’ perceptions of luxury value and proclivity for luxury consumption.
experiences on experiential perceptions of value: An Internet and catalog Journal of Business Research, 102, 298–312.
comparison. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 51–60. Su, Y. S., Chiang, W. L., Lee, C. T. J., & Chang, H. C. (2016). The effect of flow experience
McLean, G., & Oseifrimpang, K. (2017). Examining satisfaction with the experience on player loyalty in mobile game application. Computers in Human Behavior, 63,
during a live chat service encounter, implications for website providers. Computers in 240–248.
Human Behavior, 76, 494–508. Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2012). Word of mouth: Measuring the
McLean, G., & Wilson, A. (2019). Shopping in the digital world, Examining customer power of individual messages. European Journal of Marketing, 46(1/2), 237–257.
engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Computers in Human Tan, Y. C., Chandukala, S. R., & Reddy, S. K. (2022). Augmented reality in retail and its
Behavior, 101(4), 210–224. impact on sales. Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 48–66.
Melián-Alzola, L., & Martín-Santana, J. D. (2020). Service quality in blood donation: Thomsen, T. U., Holmqvist, J., von Wallpach, S., Hemetsberger, A., & Belk, R. W. (2020).
Satisfaction, trust and loyalty. Service Business, 14(1), 101–129. Conceptualizing unconventional luxury. Journal of Business Research, 116, 441–445.
Merle, A., Senecal, S., & St-Onge, A. (2012). Whether and how virtual try-on influences tom Dieck, D., tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T., & Moorhouse, N.. (2018). Tourists’ virtual
consumer responses to an apparel web site. International Journal of Electronic reality adoption: An exploratory study from Lake District National Park. Leisure
Commerce, 16(3), 41–64. Studies, 37(4), 371–383.
Mishra, A. (2016). Attribute-based design perceptions and consumer-brand relationship, Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, Attitudes, and Interpersonal Behavior. Nebraska Symposium
Role of user expertise. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5983–5992. on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.
Nikhashemi, S. R., Knight, H. H., Nusair, K., & Liat, C. B. (2021). Augmented reality in Tseng, T. H., Huang, H. H., & Liu, M. T. (2021). Limited-edition advertising does not
smart retailing: A (n)(A) Symmetric Approach to continuous intention to use retail always work for luxury brands: The influence of consumption contexts. Journal of
brands’ mobile AR apps. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102464. Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1204–1215.

13
D. Nawres et al. Journal of Business Research 171 (2024) 114368

Velasco, C., Sunaga, T., Narumi, T., Motoki, K., Spence, C., & Petit, O. (2021). Wu, H. C., Cheng, C. C., & Ai, C. H. (2018). A study of experiential quality, experiential
Multisensory consumer-computer interaction. Journal of Business Research, 134, value, trust, corporate reputation, experiential satisfaction and behavioral intentions
716–719. for cruise tourists: The case of Hong Kong. Tourism management, 66, 200–220.
Wagler, A., & Hanus, M. D. (2018). Comparing virtual reality tourism to real-life Wu, S., Wong, I. A., & Lin, Z. C. (2021). Understanding the role of atmospheric cues of
experience: Effects of presence and engagement on attitude and enjoyment. travel apps: A synthesis between media richness and stimulus–organism–response
Communication Research Reports, 35(5), 456–464. theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 226–234.
Wang, Y., Ko, E., & Wang, H. (2022). Augmented reality (AR) app use in the beauty Xu, L., & Mehta, R. (2022). Technology devalues luxury? Exploring consumer responses
product industry and consumer purchase intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing to AI-designed luxury products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6),
and Logistics, 34(1), 110–131. 1135–1152.
Wang, K. Y., Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N. T., & Nguyen, O. (2023). Influence of social Yavuz, M., Çorbacıoğlu, E., Başoğlu, A. N., Daim, T. U., & Shaygan, A. (2021).
augmented reality app usage on customer relationships and continuance intention: Augmented reality technology adoption: Case of a mobile application in Turkey.
The role of shared social experience. Journal of Business Research, 166, 114092. Technology in Society, 66, 101598.
Watson, A., Alexander, B., & Salavati, L. (2018). The impact of experiential augmented Yim, M. Y. C., Chu, S. C., & Sauer, P. L. (2017). Is augmented reality technology an
reality applications on fashion purchase intention. International Journal of Retail & effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. Journal of
Distribution Management, 48(5), 433–451. Interactive Marketing, 39(1), 89–103.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury Yu, F., & Zheng, R. (2022). The effects of perceived luxury value on customer
brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259. engagement and purchase intention in live streaming shopping. Asia Pacific Journal
Wirtz, J., & Bateson, J. E. G. (1999). Consumer satisfaction with services, integrating the of Marketing and Logistics, 34(6), 1303–1323.
environmental perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconfirmation Zanger, V., Meißner, M., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2022). Beyond the gimmick: How
paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 44(1), 55–66. affective responses drive brand attitudes and intentions in augmented reality
Wirtz, J., Holmqvist, J., & Fritze, M. P. (2020). Luxury services. Journal of Service marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 39(7), 1285–1301.
Management, 31(4), 665–691.

14