Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: a two

country comparison of youth markets

Abstract. Although online stores extend the traditional offer of the brick and mortar ones, the

limited possibilities to virtually try the product before the effective buying makes the online

purchase decision a complex process for consumers. Therefore, online retailers face new

challenges for supporting consumers consisting of the introduction of advanced technologies

such as augmented reality systems. The present study investigates the effect of augmented

reality technologies on consumer behaviour within the online retail environments, by

comparing two different cultural settings. Drawing upon the technology acceptance model

(TAM), new constructs related to the technology characteristics (e.g. quality of information,

aesthetic quality, interactivity, and response time) developed a new conceptual model. This

model has been tested for a new technology for virtual try-on (a smart mirror for virtual

glasses). Focusing on young consumers, data collected in Italy and Germany yielding a total

of 318 participants was used. Findings across these two markets reflect cross-market

similarities, but also dissimilarities, related to consumers’ motivation to employ augmented

reality systems for supporting their online purchase decision. These insights should prove

helpful to retailers in better manage the online channels, that could be easily extended to the

mobile one.

Keywords. Augmented reality; aesthetic quality; interactivity; consumer behaviour; decision-

making; e-tailing; technology acceptance model (TAM)

1. Introduction

Due to the rapid advancements in technology, also retailers are increasingly aware of the

benefits of technological innovations providing a variety of systems, such as such as self-

service technologies equipped with interactive touch screen displays, 3D virtual reality

systems, mobile apps, etc. (Sha et al., 2013; Papagiannidis et al., 2014; Blázquez, 2014;

Demirkan and Spohrer, 2014; Dennis et al., 2014; Rese et al., 2014; Pantano, 2016). Past

literature in consumer behaviour largely investigated the role of these innovations in

consumer decision-making, by considering the new technologies as decision support systems

and drivers of positive evaluations of the shopping experience (including satisfaction,

enhanced purchase decisions, and of loyalty to retailer) (Koufaris, 2002; Fiore et al., 2005a,

b; Hernandez et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2011). Although these studies provide evidence of the

extent to which consumers are influenced by the new technologies available in retail settings,

this study emphasises the promising role of augmented reality. While it has been successfully

introduced in other sectors like tourism to influence consumers buying decisions (in terms of

the choice of the destination) (Chung et al., 2015), the benefits of augmented reality in retail

settings is still under investigated.

When it comes to e-commerce adoption industries selling in particular high-involvement

products such as clothes tend to lag behind (Blázquez, 2014). The lack of direct experience in

touching, feeling, smelling and trying on an item makes the evaluation difficult and may

negatively affect enjoyment and the purchase decision (Beck and Crié, 2016; Blázquez, 2014;

Merle et al., 2012). Major concerns and problems are fit and size (Kim, 2016; Lin and Wang;

2016, Shin and Baytar, 2014), or matching with other items (Chen and Wang, 2010). Virtual

try-on systems, as application of augmented reality for retailing, can overcome the main
limitation of online channels related to the possibility to try the products before the effective

buying (Baum and Spann, 2014). Although their promising benefits for allowing consumers

to save time and enjoy more the shopping experience, these systems are emerging as a

promising line of inquiry for new researches in online retailing (e-tailing) and e-commerce

(Dey and Sandor, 2014). In the meantime, technological progress that provides technologies

with new capabilities (i.e. high realistic interfaces and interaction modalities) has increased

(Sekhavat,2016) and retailers become aware of the importance of innovating within the

process (Pantano, 2014). Consumer technology acceptance of virtual try-ons as non-

personalized and personalized versions (Fiore et al., 2005a, b; Kim and Forsythe, 2008a, b;

Merle et al., 2012; Yang and Wu, 2009), but also enriched with augmented reality (Rese et

al., 2016) has been empirically investigated mostly in the context of online apparel retailing.

However, technological characteristics were less in the focus, but utilitarian and hedonic

value, risk or body esteem (e.g. Merle et al., 2012; Yang and Wu, 2009) (see Table 1).

In this paper, we attempt to fill this gap and examine the influence of technology

characteristics on consumer behaviour, with emphasis on the effect of augmented reality

systems on consumers’ decision making to shop online. To achieve this goal, the present

research starts from the exploitation of the traditional technology acceptance model (TAM),

based on ease of use, usefulness and attitude (Davis, 1989) for including more specific

dimensions related to interactive technologies such as quality of information, aesthetic

quality, response time, and interactivity relying on the user experience concept (Olsson &

Salo, 2011; Olsson et al., 2013). Since cultural settings might affect people usage and

adoption of new technologies (Choi and Totten, 2012), the analysis focuses on a particular

online technology (a system for virtual try-on glasses) involving a German and Italian

sample. Due to the different fiscal policies, consumers’ propensity to buy and different
investments in R&D (Fassio, 2015; Karagounis et al., 2015), consumers in these countries

might show different behaviours towards the online technologies for e-tailing: Qualitative

cross country research points to convergence, but also divergence phenomena with regard to

augmented reality applications developed on a global scale (Gautier et al., 2016).

The contributions of this paper are manifold. First, the paper investigates the effects of

augmented reality application on consumer online shopping behaviour, and sheds lights on

the potential of augmented reality for the design of more effective online retail settings in a

cross-country comparison (in European regions with a different economic context), which has

not yet received significant attention in current research. Second, the paper opens up new

lines of inquiry for future studies towards the increasing role of augmented reality for

supporting e-tailing. To this end, the paper extends the traditional technology acceptance

model (Davis, 1989; Baum and Spann, 2014) by including more constructs of other

frameworks such as user experience that provide evidence on the role of specific technology

characteristics, which can be used for developing new interactive systems and marketing

management strategies. Therefore, the research contributes to the retail (with emphasis on e-

tailing) literature by developing a conceptual framework that links the relationships between

motivational factors with the consumers acceptance of augmented reality tools, online

shopping, and cross-country youth marketing research.

The paper is organized as follows: the next section discusses the preliminary studies on the

introduction of augmented reality, and the traditional technology acceptance models for

investigating the effects of the technology on consumers’ behaviour, with emphasis on retail

settings. The subsequent section deeply investigates the Italian and German samples, by

comparing the results from a cross-cultural perspective. The paper further ends with

theoretical and managerial implications and proposals for future researches.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Augmented reality in retail settings

The recent progresses in information and communication technologies provide the

opportunity to develop new environments enriched with digital technologies, in order to

extend the possibilities offered by the physical word, where real and virtual objects are

successfully integrated (or combined) (Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Lee and Park, 2014; Rese

et al., 2014; Lin and Chen, 2015). Augmented reality is defined as a real-time view of the

physical world enhanced (augmented) with virtual computer generated information, such as

digital images or video stream, etc. (Azuma, 1997; Carmigniani et al., 2011). Within the

‘reality-virtuality continuum’ (Milgram et al, 1994) augmented reality is located towards the

real-world environment side. Azuma (1997, p.356) refers to “the “middle ground” between

VE (completely synthetic) and telepresence (completely real)”. Virtual reality represents the

opposite end and is defined as synthetic, but realistic looking three-dimensional environment

generated by the computer (Burdea and Coiffet, 1999) “consisting solely of virtual objects”

(Milgram et al, 1994, p. 283).

Prior studies showed the usefulness of these new worlds for enhancing the education process,

by providing an entertaining context for learners able to maximize the knowledge transfer of

complex concepts (Kaufmann and Schmalstieg, 2003; Pan et al., 2006). Similarly, it has been

largely used for entertainment (game industry), training and military applications

(simulations), manufacturing and tourism planning (Adhani and Rambli, 2012; Gervautz and

Schmalstieg, 2012; Szczekala et al., 2014).

Recently, marketers started to be aware of the advantages of augmented reality also in

retailing, as tool for improving consumers’ perception of the shopping experience, extending

the possibilities of buying in terms of moment of purchasing (which could be not

simultaneous to the moment of items pick up), products availability and customization

(Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Cuomo et al., 2014; Rese et al., 2014). Furthermore, augmented

reality provides more information able to influence and support consumer decision-making

through visual information (digital and interactive images, videos, etc.), texts, audio,

simulated experiences, etc. (Olsson et al., 2013; Papagiannidis et al., 2017). In fact, if

compared to traditional e-commerce scenarios, augmented reality applications offer more

dynamic 3D animation through high realistic interfaces (Li et al., 2013: Lee and Park, 2014).

Moreover, applications such as the virtual try-on would be able to overcome a crucial limit of

e-commerce, by enhancing interaction possibilities with the product through the possibility to

experience or try the product in terms of scent, texture, appearance, fit, or sound (Lu and

Smith, 2007).

Summarizing, augmented reality technology provides new systems giving consumers the

possibility to virtually interact with the favoured items. In this direction, one the most

promising area of research is the virtual garment try-on experience (or virtual fitting) (Chen

et al., 2011; Pereira et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012) (see Table 1). Its advantages rely on the

possibility to virtually interact with the product in real time before the effective buying in the

online context (or e-commerce).

[TABLE 1 ABOVE HERE]

Table 1: Studies on acceptance of image interactivity technology and virtual-try ons

2.2 Consumers technology acceptance models

Literature focusing on consumer acceptance of advanced technology largely employs the

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its key variables: ease of use, usefulness, attitude
and behavioural intention (Davis, 1989). This basic model posits that user perception of ease

of use and usefulness determines his/her attitude towards a certain system; where perceived

ease of use represents the degree to which a user believes that using the system requires no

effort, and it could be based on the quality of interface, interaction modalities, no need of

instruction for learning functionalities, etc.; whereas perceived usefulness represents the

degree to which a user believes that using the system will improve his/her performance.

Similarly, attitude represents user assessment of the system, and behavioural intention

represents the degree to which a user will intend to use the system. In recent years TAM has

been used for evaluating the online and mobile shopping engagement (Chong et al., 2012;

Kim, 2012), new stores based on immersive technologies (Pantano and Servidio, 2012), and

multimedia systems for enhancing the service delivered at the physical point of sale (Kim et

al., 2011). In addition, the TAM relationships have been to the most part confirmed for

virtual-try ons (Lee et al., 2006; Kim and Forsythe, 2007, 2008a, b, 2009) and augmented

reality-based systems (Rese, et al., 2016).

Accordingly, we hypothesize:

H1: Perceived ease of use has a significant and positive relationship with consumers’

attitude towards the adoption of the virtual try-on system for glasses.

H2: Perceived usefulness positively and significantly influences consumers’ attitude towards

the adoption of the virtual try-on system for glasses.

H3: Attitude towards the adoption of the virtual try-on system positively and significantly

influences the subsequent behavioural intention to use this system.

TAM has been further extended including more constructs to propose a more comprehensive

model. For instance, perceived enjoyment results being one of the most investigated

constructs in extended TAM. This represents the degree to which using the system is

perceived as pleasant apart from any expected performance, and it is able to influence

consumer’s usage of a certain system (Venkatesh, 2000; van der Heijden, 2004; Pantano and

Servidio, 2012). Therefore, it is related to the fun deriving from the system usage (van der

Heijden, 2004). In fact, consumers who exhibit pleasure while shopping are more willing to

prefer that kind of retail environment for their purchases (Ha and Stoel, 2009). Much

emphasis has been placed in previous research on the importance of entertainment technology

for soliciting consumers to engage in more purchases (Soderlund and Julander, 2009), while

stressing the higher degree to which consumers perceive the value of enjoyment in the virtual

store than in the physical one due to the possibility to interact with the environment and

products (Kim et al., 2007; Lee and Chung, 2008). The hedonic value of virtual try-ons has

been confirmed for different levels of image interactivity technology (e.g. Merle et al., 2012)

and augmented reality-based systems (Rese, et al., 2016).

Therefore, we hypothesize:

H4: Perceived enjoyment has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ attitude

towards the usage of the virtual try-on system for glasses.

Perceived enjoyment has been related to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness in

numerous TAM studies (Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Padilla-Meléndez et al., 2013). With

regard to hedonic systems in an Internet and marketing context, research has proposed and
empirically shown that perceived ease of use positively influences perceived enjoyment (van

der Heijden, 2003; Novak et al., 2000; Chung and Tan, 2004). Balog and Pribeanu (2010)

confirmed this relationship for an AR learning context (Balog and Pribeanu, 2010). Research

has emphasized the mediating role of perceived ease of use between skill and the flow

construct (Trevino and Webster, 1992). As an “optimal experience” (Csikszentmihalyi and

LeFevre, 1989, p.816) flow can be described as “the complete engagement with and

immersion in an activity” (Hoffman and Novak, 2009, p.24). One characteristic of

experiencing flow in system usage is intrinsic enjoyment (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). Van

der Heijden (2003, p. 544) argues that a system “that is easier to use provides better feedback

to a visitor’s stimuli, and consequently, leads to increased enjoyment and flow”. In addition,

beginning with Davis et al. (1992) literature has proposed a positive relationship between

perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment. Most often the causal direction between

perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness is investigated. However, relying on content

analysis Chung and Tan (2004) identified perceived usefulness in terms of information

obtained as an antecedent of perceived enjoyment searching the internet for general

information. The informational aspect is also important for augmented reality.

Therefore, we propose:

H5: Perceived ease of use is positively and significantly associated with consumers’

perceived enjoyment of the virtual try-on system for glasses.

H6: Perceived usefulness is positively and significantly associated with consumers’ perceived

enjoyment of the virtual try-on system for glasses.

2.2.1 Technology characteristics

Due to the nature of augmented reality-enriched retail environments, other variables might

influence consumers’ decision making process, in addition to the ones previously identified

by TAM. For instance, Wixom and Todd (2005) defined the importance of system quality for

influencing consumers’ acceptance, including system capability to adapt according to

consumers’ requests, accessibility, and the response time to consumers’ requests. In fact, they

might involve the virtual interaction with products, through 3D animation, that provides

augmented experiences able to compensate the lack of real product touch (Algharabat and

Dennis, 2010; Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Papagiannidis et al., 2017). In the one hand, this

implies the high realism of the graphical interface, whereas in the other, it enriches the

quality of interaction modalities (Costantinides, 2004). Concerning the graphics, the

vividness and realism of virtual images (or aesthetic quality) stimulate the user’s sensory

perceptions and the mental imagery formation (Cheng et al., 2014; Choi and Taylor, 2013),

by positively influencing the confidence with the product derived from experiencing the

augmented reality system (Lee, 2012). Overall with regard to a virtual reality context Steuer

(1992, p. 76) argued that two technological dimensions are important for telepresence which

“refers to the mediated perception of an environment”, e.g. vividness (realness) and

interactivity. These two dimensions are also considered as antecedents of the flow concept,

therefore enhancing perceived enjoyment (Hoffman and Novak, 1996).

Following Churchill (1979) and Steuer (1992), we hypothesize the presence of a new

construct based on aesthetic quality, which includes the graphical effects in terms of

vividness, realism of 3D images, visual appealing of the graphical look, etc., developed from

the website quality for e-commerce construct (Tsikriktsis, 2002; van der Hejiden, 2003; Cyr

and Bonanni, 2005) for extending the TAM. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) emphasize the
nonverbal, sensory experience that is related to many products and facilitates consumers’

choice process, e.g. when using a virtual-try on (Huang and Liao, 2015). In addition, aesthetic

quality is related to the hedonic dimension of a system creating pleasure and enjoyment of an

electronic system (Norman, 2002; Zhang and Li, 2005). Therefore, we propose that aesthetic

quality in turn impacts on the ease of use, but also the perceived enjoyment of the augmented

reality system:

H7: The higher the aesthetic quality, the higher the perception of ease of use of the virtual

try-on system for glasses will be.

H8: The higher the aesthetic quality, the higher the perception of enjoyment of the virtual try-

on system for glasses will be.

The aesthetic quality enabled by the technical quality of the augmented reality technology in

terms of software and hardware, enhances the feeling of realism of the experience. To

achieve this goal, the system needs to improve the interactive tools, by simulating the real

experience with the product, which allows also achieving enriched and detailed information

on the potential product (Fiore et al., 2005a; Papagiannidis et al., 2017). In this way,

consumers are able to explore the different features of the product and virtually manipulate it

(i.e. visualizing from different perspectives, etc.) with benefits for the final positive product

evaluation and choice (Jiang and Benbasat, 2004).

In fact, interactivity has been conceptualized as “the extent to which users can participate in

modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real time” (Steuer, 1992, p.

84). In interacting with the website (e-commerce platform) individuals are able to achieve

customized information or services (Tsikriktsis, 2002). (Machine) interactivity has also been
related to the flow construct facilitating “a seamless sequence of responses” (Hoffman and

Novak, 1996, p. 57) and enhancing enjoyment. Website and image interactivity have been

proposed to offer not only utilitarian, but also hedonic aspects (Lee et al., 2006), such as

“enjoyment with virtual product inspection” (Li et al., 2001, p. 22). Besides a “Wow” factor

due to the innovative visualization and experience (Chandler, 2009), enjoyment is provided

by the potential customization abilities (Li et al., 2001).

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H9: Interactivity positively and significantly influences the ease of use a user perceives from

experiencing the virtual try-on system for glasses.

H10: Interactivity positively and significantly influences the enjoyment a user perceives from

experiencing the virtual try-on system for glasses.

As anticipated, previous studies focusing on the online shopping experience considered more

key elements related to the functionality factors, such as the site speed and quality of

information (Costantinides, 2004; Wixom and Todd, 2005). In fact, consumers expect to

easily and fast find information (including selecting and filtering), which in turn should be

useful for supporting the purchase decision. Hence, the system has to be able to rapidly reply

to their request, in terms of acceptable response time (which may vary according to

consumer’s personal needs), as well as to provide high quality of information, in terms of

availability, accessibility, completeness, accuracy and adequacy that might determine the

overall usefulness of the system (Wixom and Todd, 2005; Fassnacht and Koese, 2006).

Hence, an acceptable response time for consumers would help them to achieve the

information requested rapidly, resulting the system to be more useful for their purposes.
Therefore, we hypothesize:

H11: Response time has a significant and positive influence on perceived usefulness of the

virtual try-on system for glasses.

H12: Quality of information has a significant and positive relationship with the perceived

usefulness of the virtual try-on system for glasses.

2.3 Two-country marketing research

The measure of the extent to which the above mentioned relationships (graphically

summarized in Figure 1) differ in the two countries (Italian and German one) is investigated.

Although both Italy and Germany are well-established market economies, they show different

economic and industrial context (especially with reference to the recent years) (Supino et al.,

2010), thus the different propensity to buy (both online and offline) affecting consumers

might change their adoption of augmented reality tools for supporting online shopping.

Starting from Koopman et al.’s (1999) distinction of a North-Western and a South-Eastern

European cluster with regard to cultural values, we build upon our research, by considering

that Italian and German youth might show different approaches towards new technologies for

supporting shopping, concerning their motivation, use of time, usefulness and ease of use of

the new tools.

Moreover, we chose to compare two different cultural settings to also improve the

generalizability of the results. In particular, due to the different economic situations and

propensity to buy of Italy and Germany (higher in the latter), but a comparable diffusion of

internet and mobile technologies among the youth, we considered these two European

countries as meaningful example for our data settings. Although variations in structural
(industry, macro- and socioeconomic factors) and cultural characteristics exist, there are more

similarities than dissimilarities. Germany is considered to be a mature online retail market

with an online share (forecast) of 15.1%, in comparison to Italy with just 3.1% in 2016

(Centre for Retail Research, 2017). Around three quarters (74%) of the individuals aged 16 to

74 had purchased online in Germany in 2016, while the proportion is much lower for Italy

with 29% (Eurostat 2016). However, the differences in online shopping are less obvious for

younger consumers with a high formal education, e.g. individuals aged 16-24 (Germany:

96%, Italy: 60%), or individuals aged 25-54 (Germany: 93%, Italy: 58%).

With regard to differences across groups (multi-group analysis, e.g. gender, prior experience,

type of application) research has shown that the instruments measuring ease of use and

perceived usefulness provide to the most part an equivalent measurement (Doll et al., 1998;

Deng et al., 2004). Comparing two samples of visitors using an AR application at a cultural

heritage site in Europe and Asia Lee at al. (2015) found some differences in the path

coefficients ranging from -0.296 to 0.112, but could not support all hypotheses proposed on

the influence of cultural dimensions. In addition, a multi-group analysis was not used for

establishing significant differences. Since there are only slight differences in the cultural

dimensions of Hofstede between Italy and Germany (Leimeister et al., 2012), we expect

invariance across the two groups:

H13: Technology characteristics and characteristics of the TAM model are invariant across

the two countries.

3. Research Design

3.1 Research model

Starting from literature review, our research model is developed as shown in Figure 1, in

order to highlight the factors (e.g. perceived ease of use, usefulness, and enjoyment, attitude,

quality of information, aesthetic quality, interactivity, and response time) affecting the

purchase decision in an online retail environment based the usage of augmented reality

systems for supporting consumers online shopping experience and influencing the buying

behaviour.

[Figure 1]

Figure 1: Research model

More in detail, our research refers to a particular virtual try-on system developed by Ray-Ban

and available on the web site (http://www.ray-ban.com/usa/virtual-mirror) to allow

consumers to virtually try sunglasses before the effective purchase through the e-commerce

section.

3.2 Experimental setting: Ray-Ban virtual mirror

The Ray-Ban virtual mirror represents a meaningful example of augmented reality

technology for supporting the online shopping experience. This system is accessible through

the international website for virtual trying the favoured sunglasses among the available items

(Figure 2). The virtual mirror accesses consumer’s camera and takes a picture of his/her face

(while providing some suggestions for the correct position to take the best picture for the

system’s right functioning). Using key points on the face pairs of augmented reality shadows
are mapped on the face. Afterwards, the consumer is able to choose the favourite items

among the available glasses and virtually try them. The system further adds the glasses to the

picture and simulates the final results. If a consumer likes the outcome, he/she can proceed

with the effective purchase through the website.

[Figure 2]

Figure 2: Virtual mirror of Ray-Ban for virtual try the sunglasses through the website.

The virtual-try on offers several benefits to the customer (Yuang et al., 2011): clear view of

the face when trying on dark sun glasses, easier comparison for users with weak eye-sight

e.g. by making snapshots and comparison of a maximum of four glasses by using split screen.

The system helps “to narrow down the selection to a few designs and sizes” (Yuang et al.,

2011, p. 363).

The high potential of online sales of glasses (and contact lenses) highlights the US being still

a leader with 16.7% of contact lenses and 6% of the sun glasses being sold online already in

2012 (http://www.statista.com/topics/1470/eyewear-in-the-us/). In Germany, the interest of

consumers in virtual try-on systems varies considerably depending on the product category

with eyeglasses (67.3%) on the first place followed by home furnishings (49.4%) and

fashion/clothes (41.9%) (Fittkau and Maaß, 2013). However, the online share of total sales in

the glasses and lenses sector (worth 5.831 billion euros) is still relatively low, with 3.86%

(225 million euros) in 2015 (ZVA, 2016). 11.7 million glasses were bought in physical stores,

but only 700.000 online. However, online activities are increasing with pure online market

players (Brille 24 and Mister Spex), cooperation between these online market players and

optical shops as well as optical shops implementing additional online shops. In Italy, the
market share of optical shops in the glasses and lenses sector is also high with 87 % in 2015.

Similar to Germany, internet retailing of eyewear is increasing, e.g. with online shops

specializing on sunglasses only (Tuttoocchiali.com and suneyez.com)

(http://www.euromonitor.com/eyewear-in-italy/report).

3.3 Questionnaire design establishing semantic equivalence

The questionnaire has been developed as an English version and translated into Italian and

German. To ensure similar meaning back-translation of the two versions into English was

used which has been indicated by literature to be an adequate process (Schaffer and Riordan,

2003).

Consistent with previous studies on technology acceptance and technology management in

retail settings (i.e. Pantano, 2014; Papagiannidis et al., 2014; Rese et al., 2014), the variables

have emerged from the extant literature. Five items were used to measure quality of

information (adapted from Ahn et al., 2004, Hausman and Siepke, 2009), four items to

perceived ease of use (adapted from Davis, 1989; Gefen et al., 2003), four to perceived

enjoyment (adapted from Rese et al., 2014), four to perceived usefulness (adapted from Rese

et al., 2014), five to attitude (adapted from Ahn et al., 2004; Porter and Donthu, 2006), five to

behavioural intention (adapted from Ahn et al., 2004), four to response time (adapted from

Loiacano et al., 2007; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), six to aesthetic quality (adapted from

Tsikriktsis, 2002; van der Hejiden, 2003; Cyr and Bonanni, 2005), and four to interactivity

(adapted from Tsikriktsis, 2002; van der Hejiden, 2003); whereas the questions on profile

comprising age, ownership of glasses (including sunglasses, eyeglasses and sports glasses),

online purchases of glasses (i.e. did you buy online glasses at least once?). Beside the
questions related to the demographics, all items have been based on a seven-points Likert

scale (from 1= completely disagree to 7= totally agree).

3.4 Data collection procedure in a laboratory-controlled environment

The data to test the hypotheses was collected relying on university students in a controlled

laboratory environment. The experimental choice task followed the same pattern in Italy and

Germany between October and December 2014. Overall, two separated laboratory studies

with the country of the respondents as the unique manipulated factor, were conducted.

In particular, students were approached randomly at university and invited to take part at the

experiment. In a computer room they should connect to the smart mirror website through one

of the available computers (which guaranteed a high resolution of graphics and a stable

internet connection) and try the online system. The technical equipment at the same level in

both countries should make the results comparable. Participants were asked to explore the

international English e-commerce site of Ray-Ban virtual mirror and fill in a questionnaire on

their experience. No manipulation of its functionalities took place. They were firstly

introduced in the smart mirror section in order to familiarise themselves with the augmented

reality environment, functions and interaction modality, under the guidance of an experienced

researcher. Then, participants were asked to simulate the choice and purchase of two

eyeglasses models (either glasses or sunglasses), and to virtually try them on. Afterwards,

they have been asked to reply to the questionnaire on their recent experience. Overall, the

participants had at least a time frame of thirty minutes at their disposition (see similar Merle

et al., 2012). All of them were volunteers and did not get any award for their participation in

the experiment. Since students samples are considered a consistent sample for testing new

technologies in retail settings (Pavlou, 2003; Harris and Dennis, 2011), we chose this sample
as convenient one. In particular buying glasses online may mostly appeal young buyers being

more comfortable with the internet and online shopping. The composition of the samples was

not manipulated, e.g. with regard to gender, since Kim and Forsythe (2008b) found no

significant gender differences in the adoption process of a virtual-try on.

Researchers collected 150 usable responses in Italy and 168 from the German experiment

(none of questionnaires has been excluded). Table 2 shows the demographic profile for both

samples.

[TABLE 2 ABOVE HERE]

Table 2: Sample demographics for Italian and German sample.

The gender distribution showed a higher percentage of females than males in both samples

(p=0.737). The average age of the participants ranged between 24.8 years (Italy) and 24.0

years (Germany) (T=1.890, p=0.060). On average, the participants possessed more eyeglasses

in the German sample (mean value: 2.89) than in the Italian sample (mean value 1.68) (T=-

1.029, p=0.304). This is especially evident and statistically significant for sunglasses

(German sample: 1.71, Italian sample: 0.91; T=-7.318, p=0.000) and sports glasses (German

sample: 0.49, Italian sample: 0.24; T=-3.425, p=0.001), maybe reflecting the lower

availability of purchase of Italian consumers, due to the actual not florid economic situation.

A noteworthy result concerns the online purchases of glasses. Only a very limited number of

respondents in both data sets purchased at least one pair of glasses through the Internet (8.2%

in the Italian sample, 11.4% in the German sample; p=0.449). A justification might lay in the

characteristics of glasses, which are permanently worn and able to totally modify the
appearance of the face including a certain risk before the buying (i.e. consumers may be

afraid that the glasses do not fit correctly or the frame colour is different from the colour

shown on the screen, etc.). This implies the large importance of e-commerce also for glasses

(including sports glasses and sunglasses), which may take advantages by the new technology

of the virtual try-on.

3.4 Measure validation establishing scaling equivalence

For each of the two samples means, standard deviations, and correlations for each construct

were calculated (see Table 3). In both samples all correlations were significantly positive, but

below the suggested multicollinearity threshold of 0.9 (Hair et al., 2006). The pattern of

correlations showed to the most part to be similar with regard to the Italian and the German

sample, with differences ranging from -0.058 up to 0.296. Skewness and kurtosis of the

constructs were for both samples well below the thresholds (skewness > │2│, kurtosis >

│7│) (West et al., 1995). We have calculated the variance extracted and the composite

reliability as well as testing for scale equivalence using the MICOM procedure and smart

PLS 3.2.6 (Henseler et al., 2016).

[TABLE 3 ABOVE HERE]

Table 3: Correlation matrix and discriminant assessment (calculated with PLS), skewness and

kurtosis (calculated with SPSS 23) of the explanatory constructs in the Italian and German

sample.

3.4.1 Testing for construct quality

The quality of the constructs in both samples in terms of reliability, validity and uni-

dimensionality was analyzed with the help of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

(Gerbing and Hamilton, 1996). To improve construct quality some items had to be removed.

The corresponding values for both data set, Italian and German, are summarized in Table 4.

In all cases the threshold values indicating reliability of the constructs were exceeded

(Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.7, Nunnally, 1978 and composite reliability > 0.70). Average variance

extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 showing some evidence for convergent validity (Hair et al.,

2011). Discriminant validity was in addition confirmed due to square root of average variance

extracted was greater than the correlations of the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see

e.g. Table 4). Each measurement shows a good value for the two data sets, thus the proposed

constructs satisfy the reliability and validity criteria.

[TABLE 4 ABOVE HERE]

Table 4: Reliability and validity measurement for the Italian and German sample.

3.4.2 Testing for scale equivalence

The measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM) procedure (Henseler et al.,

2016) was used to test for measurement invariance, i.e. whether the scales measure the same

constructs across the Italian and German sample, which legitimizes a cross-cultural

comparison (Milfont and Fischer, 2015; Schaffer and Riordan, 2003; Vandenberg and Lance,

2000; Vandenberghe et al., 2001). The procedure consists of three steps assessing (1)

configural invariance, (2) compositional invariance and (3) scalar invariance. Each of the first
two steps is a precondition of the following one. To compare the standardized path

coefficients across groups (multigroup analysis) at least configural and compositional

invariance have to be established. Henseler et al. (2016, p.413) refer to as “partial

measurement invariance”. With regard to configural invariance the models should include the

same number of constructs and indicators relying on an identical coding. The MICOM

procedure “usually automatically establishes configural invariance” (Garson, 2016, p.185)

when applied. Compositional invariance is a test whether the indicator weights being used to

calculate the composite’s scores are equal. There is compositional invariance if the

correlation between the calculated scores of two groups does not differ significantly, e.g.

equals one. Interactivity has the lowest c value with 0.99694. Overall, compositional

invariance is supported for all composites with the correlations lying within the 95%

confidence interval of the distribution of the correlation testing 5,000 permutations (see Table

5). Finally, scalar invariance was assessed. However, scalar invariance could not be

established. The mean values of behavioural intention, usefulness, response time and

aesthetic quality showed significant differences across the two groups implying the need for

“meaningful multigroup analyses by comparing the standardized coefficients in the structural

model” (Henseler et al., 2016).

[TABLE 5 ABOVE HERE]

Table 5:MICOM results.

4. Hypotheses testing and multigroup analysis

The proposed relationships of the constructs (structural model) were further evaluated by

measuring several goodness-of-fit indexes through smart PLS software. Table 6 summarizes

the results for both Italian and German cases and also points to some significant differences.

[TABLE 6 ABOVE HERE]

Table 6: Hypotheses testing including multigroup analysis.

Results indicate that most of the estimated paths, representing the formulated hypotheses, are

significant with p < .05. For both Italian and German experiments, most of the hypotheses are

supported (see Table 6). Hypotheses 1, 2, 3. 4, 5 and 6 dealt with relationships of the TAM

model and considered perceived enjoyment as additional antecedent of attitude to investigate

the effect of augmented reality supporting an enjoyable shopping experience of trying-on

glasses online. In both countries the relationships between usefulness and attitude (H2) as

well as attitude and behavioural intention (H3) were significant each demonstrating a strong

effect size (f2) larger than 0.35 (Chin et al., 2003). The effect of enjoyment on attitude (H4) as

well as usefulness on enjoyment (H5) were significant in both samples, with effect size

displaying a strong effect in the Italian sample and a moderate one (large than 0.15) in the

German sample. In contrast to our hypothesis (H1), the path between ease of use and attitude

was only significant for the German sample (β=0.195, t=3.747, p=0.000), but significant in

the negative direction for the Italian sample (β =-0.106, t=2.043, p=0.0041).

Overall, perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment (and for the German Sample:

perceived ease of use) have a direct effect on consumers’ attitude towards the usage of an

augmented reality system in e-commerce, as tool for supporting their purchase decision.
Despite these positive values, perceived usefulness has the greatest value when compared

with the other causal relationships. Attitude has also a direct positive influence on the

intention to use the system when purchasing glasses. This means that this kind of technology

influences consumers’ online buying decision.

Our results confirm a direct influence of technology characteristics on perceived ease of use,

perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness with similar values of the corresponding

standardized coefficients and effective size, in terms of aesthetic quality on perceived ease of

use (H7), and response time (H11) and quality of information (H12) on perceived usefulness.

In both samples quality of information displays the strongest positive effect (on perceived

usefulness). The effect of aesthetic quality was less strong in particular with regard to

perceived enjoyment showing only moderate effect size for the German sample. Similar, the

relationship between interactivity and dimensions of the TAM model was only moderately

significant for perceived ease of use for the German sample (H9). In addition, the path

between interactivity and perceived enjoyment was not significant at all (H10). This might

imply that the role of technology impacts consumers’ online shopping experience and

purchase decision making process, in terms of collecting information and interaction with the

accessible information. Having entertaining experiences is also important, but in particular

for the Italian sample.

The predictive power of the proposed structural model can be described as moderate (Hair et

al., 2011) since three out of five R 2 values of the endogenous constructs are 0.50 and higher

(see Table 7). R2 value of perceived ease of use is weak for both samples. The same holds for

perceived usefulness. Being considerably above zero Q2 values support the predictive

relevance of the model. While the technical features have a rather good predicate relevance

for perceived enjoyment, this effect is smaller for perceived usefulness and in particular for
perceived ease of use. Thus the effectiveness of technical features of the virtual try-on system

influences at least to some extent consumers’ perception of the technology. The R 2 values of

behavioural intention to use and perceived enjoyment are significantly higher in the Italian

sample. This result is reflected in the star rating of Ray-Ban virtual mirror asked for at the

beginning of the questionnaire being significantly higher (t=2.916, p=0.004) in the Italian

sample (mean value 3.83) compared to the German sample (3.55). Overall, even if

technology characteristics and characteristics of the TAM model are to a large part invariant

across the two countries, there are also some significant differences, not confirming H13.

TABLE 7 ABOVE HERE]

Table 7: R2 (Q2) for endogenous constructs

5. Discussion

In recent years, advances in virtual reality and 3D graphics have attracted a wide range of

research interest due to the possible implications for (e)retail industry. However, the current

studies did not focus on the effect of augmented reality for consumers performing on e-

commerce scenarios. Prior studies concerning the usage of augmented reality in retailing

have attempted to recognize specific factors influencing consumers’ usage of the new tools

for supporting the purchase decision (Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Cuomo et al. 2014;

Papagiannidis et al., 2017). Although the literature emphasized the importance of these tools

for enhancing consumers’ shopping experience (Chen et al., 2011; Pereira et al., 2011; Wang

et al., 2012; Lee and Park, 2014; Rese et al., 2014), empirical investigations of the

effectiveness of augmented reality tools on consumer online buying decision remains scarce.
The present research seems to be the first to have incorporated also the constructs related to

the technology characteristics into an acceptance model that examines the influence of

augmented reality systems on consumer’ intention to use the system to interact with the

product in terms of fit and appearance which can help to make a buying decision online. In

fact, our findings extend these studies by proposing, testing and comparing these elements in

Italian and German data settings.

Both Italian and German settings highlighted the extent to which this system is able to

support the buying decision within the enhanced e-commerce website, by providing

information about the products and to simulate how they would look on oneself to be useful

for making a better choice. This might seem a surprising result, since the most of the two

samples seldomly bought glasses online (134 out of 150 of Italian and 147 out of 168 for

German sample). Thus, this system provides an added service for improving the decision

process that consumers may enjoy by influencing them to start buying this kind of products

online, which most of respondents preferred buying in an offline context due to the

possibility to try the product before testing the smart mirror. In fact, results suggest both

utilitarian and hedonic value of an augmented reality system for both Italian and German

consumers, who found the new available system for virtually trying the glasses enjoyable and

useful (see Table 4). Although virtual try-on technology for trying glasses through the

website is a relatively new technology, Italian and German consumers appreciated the new

supporting tool, as they are quite strangers with online buying of glasses, which represent a

particular kind of product requiring the try before the buying (as anticipated, around 90% of

respondents never purchased glasses through internet). However, our analysis demonstrated

their comfort in using the new technology, while the ease of use and usefulness will influence

consumers’ decision. In particular, this research found aesthetic quality and interactivity as
antecedents of perceived ease of use (.47 and .49 respectively for Italian sample, and .48

and .49 respectively for German sample), and response time and quality of information as

antecedents of perceived usefulness (.31 and .70 respectively for Italian sample, and .38

and .76 for German sample), which in turn influence the attitude combined with the perceived

enjoyment for both samples.

To date, only few eyewear retailers in Germany and Italy have already introduced augmented

reality for supporting online and mobile shopping and influencing consumer buying

decisions. In fact, the emphasis on these elements while developing and adopting a new

technology would enhance the ability of retailers to positively influence consumers’ purchase

decision, this might have ripple effects on loyalty and word-of-mouth communication.

Our study pushes retailers to consider consumers’ interaction with the technology as an

enjoyable experience by focusing on aesthetic quality, interactivity, response time and quality

of information as the most important elements of the technology able to solicit positive

emotions and the online purchase of products that usually require to be tried before.

Noteworthy results further emerge from the similarities in Italians and Germans, by

suggesting that there are no significant cultural evidences for youth while interacting in

online stores enriched with augmented reality technologies, in accordance with Hofstede’s

cultural score analysis for Italy and Germany (Hofestede, 1984; Leimeister et al., 2009).

Summarizing, our findings enhance understanding and managing augmented reality

technology in an e-commerce scenario, by emphasizing the importance of technology

characteristics through the virtual interactions, with some meaningful differences between

Italian and Germans settings. The first difference emerges in the behavioural intention

towards the usage of of the virtual try-on (see table 4 and 5). While Italian respondents are

willing to give Ray-Ban shop and the virtual try-on priority over an optician’s shop and to use
this system regularly in the future (mean 4.39 and 4.89 respectively), German respondents are

more prudent towards these statements (mean 2.80 and 3.05 respectively). Similarly,

concerning the response time of the system Italian respondents seemed very satisfied in terms

of waiting time, loading and speed of the process (mean 4.15, 4.41 and 4.30 respectively),

while Germans respondents showed a lower appreciation (mean 3.54, 3.43, and 3.57

respectively). A second noteworthy difference emerges on the overall hypotheses testing (see

table 6), resulting in a different result for H1 (Perceived ease of use has a positive

relationship with consumers’ attitude towards the adoption of the virtual try-on system for

their purchasing decision to buy glasses through this system) and H6 (Perceived usefulness

has a positive effect on consumers’ perceived enjoyment). In fact, H1 is not supported by

Italian sample and fully supported by German sample, and H6 is fully supported by Italian

sample and not supported by German one. While H9 (Interactivity will positively influence

the ease of use a user perceives from experiencing the augmented reality-based system)

shows a little difference between the two samples: it is fully supported by German sample

and weakly supported by the Italian one. Although the model is valid, there are some

differences among countries that should be taken into account while designing the

introduction of this kind of system to support online retailing. In particular, the aspect of

enjoyment is important for Italian users, while for German users perceived usefulness and in

turn the quality of information and to a lesser extent ease of use are of relevance when

forming an attitude towards usage intention. With regard to enjoyment additional technical

characteristics should be considered since the explanatory power (R 2) is rather low with

around 30%.
6. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of augmented reality technology on

the usage decision within e-commerce among consumers in a controlled laboratory

environment in Italy and Germany and compares and similarities (and differences) of their

motives and adoption behaviour. In particular, the research focuses on consumer willingness

to try on glasses (either sunglasses or eyeglasses) within the e-commerce environment

enriched with augmented reality system such as the virtual try-on (smart mirror). The

proposed conceptual model hypothesizes the presence of constructs related to the technology

characteristics (aesthetic quality, interactivity, response time and quality of information) in

addition to the traditional ones established in TAM (ease of use, usefulness, attitude and

behavioural intention). Data collected in Italy and Germany supported all hypothesized

relationships embedded in the conceptual model. In particular, we have investigated the

effects of the introduction of augmented reality tools within e-commerce, with particular

emphasis on the technology characteristics for the online consumer purchase decision two

developed countries where the smart devices and infrastructures are quite advanced, but

where consumers have different willing to expenditure. Hence, it provide evidence in a cross-

country comparison, by extending the previous studies (Koopman et al., 1999) highlighting

the possible differences of a North-Western and a South-Eastern European cluster, such as

Italy and Germany (Fassio, 2015). At a country level, an interesting result was derived from

the comparison of Italian and German consumers’ motivation in adopting augmented reality

systems for supporting e-shopping. Both consumers’ cohorts considered the new system as

powerful tool to be adopted for supporting the decision making process, able to change their

consumer behaviour mainly thanks to the technology characteristics (aesthetic quality,

interactivity, response time and quality of information). In fact, consumers showed a positive
attitude towards using virtual try-ons to test products such as sunglasses and eyeglasses that

usually suggest physical trying before buying. The virtual try-on system would substitute the

physical try by meeting their preferences. In both samples the mean value of the behavioural

intention to use construct was at least by tendency higher for those (few) respondents who

had already bought glasses online (mean value German sample: users: 4.12; non-users: 3.69;

mean value Italian sample: users: 5.40; non-users: 4.74). Although extensive knowledge

exists on consumers’ acceptance of e-commerce and its influence on purchase decision

(Baum and Spann, 2014), based upon the findings of our experimental study, online retailers

should start the introduction of augmented reality systems, with emphasis on the try-on

technology for supporting shopping experience, by focusing on the technology

characteristics. In particular, they should pay attention to the realistic and interactive design,

providing enriched information and with a limit response time for the both samples. When

implementing this kind of systems, they should be aware of the recent progresses in

technology, and try to have an active role in the innovation process, instead of being passive

adopters as they actually behave (Pantano, 2014). Therefore, the paper opens up new lines of

inquiry for future studies towards the increasing role of augmented reality for supporting e-

tailing, by extending the traditional technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989; Chong et al.,

2012; Kim, 2012; Pantano and Servidio, 2012; Baum and Spann, 2014; Pantano, 2014) with

more constructs related to the specific technology characteristics. These elements can be used

for developing new interactive systems and marketing management strategies. In addition,

when developing augmented reality applications for European or global usage it has to be

taken into account that the importance of technology characteristics might be divergent for

different countries (Gautier et al., 2016).

Moreover, our study embraces the work of Bourlakis and colleagues (2009) by posit the basis

of a new retail environment where virtual reality might be efficiently integrated in

consumers’ day life. Since only few retailers adopted this technology, which got the

appreciations by consumers and pushed them to change their (online) purchase dynamics,

retailers (especially in fashion and accessories industry) should be aware of the potential

augmented reality offers within e-commerce scenario. In fact, this pioneer strategy might

rewards e-retailers, especially while integrating with other offline retail practices.

Future studies could explore this topic, by understanding how the augmented reality tools can

be extended to the mobile scenario and creating new integrated multichannel shopping

environments. Additional technology characteristics should be investigated such as perceived

control with regard to navigation or content (McMillan and Hwang, 2002; Song and Zinkhan,

2008; Wu, 2006).

Although the study makes a cross-country comparison, some limitations suggest that results

should be generalized with caution. In fact, it investigated the two samples mainly focusing

on a certain age range (between 20 and 30 years old). This range has been chosen due to the

extensive use of technology youth do, but it might limit its success to a youth sample, thus

evidences from older consumers would be welcome. Second, the present study relies on an

experimental choice task in a laboratory-controlled environment with a convenient sample of

students who simulated the purchase decision in the augmented reality environment.

Although Pavlou (2003) tested and compared a student sample and a sample of online

consumers by achieving similar results, further studies might extend our research to online

consumers and compare the findings in order to collect more generable results. The

laboratory setting with high-end technical equipment might not reflect the (quality of the)

technical access to a personal computer of the consumers, in particular with regard to Italy
(71% vs. 91% in Germany) (Eurostat 2016). Third, the study considers a specific e-retailer

(Ray-Ban) and a specific product category (glasses), while consumers’ needs and requests

may vary according to the different products they intend to buy. Thus, future research could

compare the present findings in more sectors, such as fashion, etc. Fourth, despite the

controlled laboratory setting, an experimental design with a control group, e.g. participants

trying on and choosing glasses in an optician shop, was not used. The technology could have

been further manipulated (e.g. Kim and Forsythe, 2007, 2008a, 2009; Merle et al., 2012) (see

Table 1). Lastly, as augmented reality for e-commerce is relatively new in Europe, further

studies can consider measuring the diffusion of these technologies across time and the impact

on retailing in general. Similarly, it would be possible to compare the results with countries

such as Korea and Singapore, where advanced technologies are more integrated in

consumers’ shopping experiences.

References

Adhani, N. I. & Awang, R. D. R. (2012). A Survey of Mobile Augmented Reality

Applications. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Future Trends in

Computing and Communication Technologies (pp. 89-96).

Ahn, T., Seewon, R., & Han, I., (2004). The impact of the online and offline features on the

user acceptance of Internet shopping malls. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,

3 (4), 405-420.

Algharabat, R. & Dennis, C. (2010). Using authentic 3D product visualisation for an

electrical online retailer. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 9 (2), 97-115.

Azuma, R.T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual

Environments, 6 (4), 355-385.

Balog, A., & Pribeanu, C. (2010). The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’

acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A structural equation modelling

approach. Studies in Informatics and Control, 19 (3), 319-330.

Baum, D. & Spann, M. (2014). The Interplay Between Online Consumer Reviews and

Recommender Systems: An Experimental Analysis. International Journal of Electronic

Commerce, 19 (1), 129-162.

Baytar, F., Chung, T. L. D., & Shin, E. (2016). Can Augmented Reality Help E-shoppers

Make Informed Purchases on Apparel Fit, Size, and Product Performance?. International

Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA) Annual Conference Proceedings. 95.

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/itaa_proceedings/2016/presentations/95

Beck, M., & Crié, D. (2016). I virtually try it… I want it! Virtual Fitting Room: A tool to

increase on-line and off-line exploratory behavior, patronage and purchase intentions.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.006

Blázquez, M. (2014). Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: the role of technology in

enhancing customer experience. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18 (4), 97-

116.

Bourlakis, M., Papagiannidis, S. & Li, F. (2009). Retail spatial evolution: Paving the way

from traditional to metaverse retailing. Electronic Commerce Research, 9 (1-2), 135-148.

Burdea, G., & P. Coiffet (1994). Virtual Reality Technology. New York: John Wiley.

Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less

traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11 (2), 272-300.

Carmigiani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011).

Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and

Applications, 51 (1), 341-377.

Centre for Retail Research (2017). Online Retailing: Britain, Europe, US and Canada 2017.

http://www.retailresearch.org/onlineretailing.php (accessed April 19th, 2017).

Chandler, P. (2009). Dynamic visualisations and hypermedia: Beyond the “Wow” factor.

Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 389-392.

Chen, A., Kao, C.-Y., Chen, Y.-H., & Wang, W.-C. (2011). Applying augmented reality to

consumer garment try-on experience. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6750, 169-190.

Chen, Y. H. & Wang, W. C. (2010). An interactive virtual fitting room for improved service

in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 8 (1), 63-80.

Cheng, L.-K., Chieng, M.-H. & Chieng, W.-H. (2014). Measuring virtual experience in a

three-dimensional virtual reality interactive simulator environment: a structural equation

modelling approach. Virtual Reality, 18 (3), 173-188.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable

modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation

study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14 (2),

189-217.

Choi, Y.K., & Taylor, C.R. (2014). How do 3-dimensional images promote products on the

Internet?. Journal of Business Research, 67 (10), 2164-2170.

Choi, Y. K., & Totten, J. W. (2012). Self-construal's role in mobile TV acceptance: Extension

of TAM across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 65 (11), 1525-1533.

Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourist’ intention to visit a destination: the role of

augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behaviour, 50

(31), 588-599.
Chung, J., & Tan, F. B. (2004). Antecedents of perceived playfulness: an exploratory study

on user acceptance of general information-searching websites. Information & Management,

41 (7), 869-881.

Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (5), 815-822.

Cuomo, M.T., Tortora, D., & Metallo, G. (2014). In store augmented reality: retailing

strategies for smart communities. Mondo Digitale, 13, 49.

Cyr, D., & Bonanni, C. (2005). Gender and website design in e-business, International

Journal of Electronic Business, 3 (6), 565-582.

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.

Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use

computers in the workplace, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1992, 1111-

1132.

Demirkan, H. & Spohrer, J. (2014). Developing a framework to improve virtual shopping in

digital malls with intelligent self-service systems. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 21 (5), 860-868.

Deng, X., Doll, W. J., Hendrickson, A. R., & Scazzero, J. A. (2005). A multi-group analysis

of structural invariance: an illustration using the technology acceptance model. Information &

Management, 42 (5), 745-759.

Dennis, C., Brakus, J., Gupta, S. & Alamanos, E. (2014). The effect of digital signage on

shoppers’ behavior: the role of evoked experience. Journal of Business Research, 67 (11),

2250-2257.

Dey, A & Sandor, C. (2014). Lessons Learned: Evaluating Visualizations for Occluded

Objects in Handheld Augmented Reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

72 (10-11), 704-716.

Doll, W. J., Hendrickson, A., & Deng, X. (1998). Using Davis's perceived usefulness and

ease‐of‐use instruments for decision making: a confirmatory and multigroup invariance

analysis. Decision Sciences, 29 (4), 839-869.

Eurostat (2016). Eurostat Yearbook. The Statistical Guide to Europe (10.4 Digital economy

and society - households and individuals). Luxembourg: OOPEC.

Fassio, C. (2015). How similar is innovation in German, Italian and Spanish medium-

technology sectors? Implications for the sectoral systems of innovation and distance-to-the-

frontier perspectives. Industry and Innovation, 22 (2), 102-125.

Fassnacht, M., & Koese, I. (2006). Quality of electronic services conceptualizing and testing

a hierarchical model. Journal of Service Research, 9 (1), 19-37.

Fiore, A.M., Kim, J. & Lee, H.H. (2005a). Effect of image interactivity technology on

consumer responses toward the online retailer. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (3), 38-

53.

Fiore, A. M., Jin, H. J., & Kim, J. (2005b). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image

interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychology & Marketing, 22 (8), 669-694.

Fittkau & Maaß (2013). Augmented Reality im E-Commerce.

http://www.fittkaumaass.de/news/augmented-reality-im-e-commerce (accessed June 1st,

2016).
Garson, G.D. (2016). Partial Least Squares: Regression and Structural Equation Models.

Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.

Gautier, S., Gauzente, C., & Aikala, M. (2016). Are AR shopping services valued the same

way throughout Europe? A four-country Q-investigation. Systèmes d'information &

management, 21 (1), 69-102.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D.W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an

integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 51-90.

Gervautz, M. & Schmalstieg, D. (2012). Anywhere Interfaces Using Handheld Augmented

Reality. IEEE Computer, 45 (7), 26-31.

Ha, S. & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology

acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62 (5), 565-571.

Hair, Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006)

Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 139-152.

Harris L., & Dennis, C. (2011). Engaging customers on Facebook: Challenges for e-retailers.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 10 (6), 338-346.

Hausman, A.V., & Siepke, J.S. (2009). The effect of web interface features on consumer

online purchase intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 62 (1), 5-13.

Hernandez, B. Jimenez, J. & Martin, M.J. (2009). The impact of self-efficacy, ease of use and

usefulness on e-purchasing: An analysis of experienced e-shoppers. Interacting with

Computers, 21 (1-2), 146-156.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online: lessons learned and future prospects.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (1), 23-34.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated

environments: Conceptual foundations. The Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverley-Hills: Sage.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:

Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 132-140.

Huang, T. L., & Liao, S. (2015). A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive

technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electronic Commerce Research,

15 (2), 269-295.

Jiang, Z. & Benbasat, I. (2004). Virtual product experience: effects of visual and functional

control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 21 (3), 111-147.

Kaufmann, H. & Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with

collaborative augmented reality. Computers and Graphics, 27 (3), 339-345.

Karagounis, K., Syrrakos, D., & Simister, J. (2015). The stability and growth pact, and

balanced fiscal stimulus: evidence from Germany and Italy. Intereconomics, 50 (1), 32-39.

Kim, D.E. (2016). Psychophysical testing of garment size variation using three-dimensional

virtual try-on technology. Textile Research Journal, 86 (4), 365-379.

Kim, J.B. (2012). An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in online

shopping: integrating initial trust and TAM. Electronic Commerce Research, 12 (2), 125-150.

Kim, J., Fiore, A.M. & Lee, H.H. (2007). Influences of online store perception, shopping

enjoyment, and shopping involvement on consumer patronage behavior towards an online

retailer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14 (2), 95-107.

Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2007). Hedonic usage of product virtualization technologies in

online apparel shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 35 (6),

502–514.

Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008a). Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE‐TAM):

A multiple‐group structural model comparison. Psychology & Marketing, 25 (9), 901-922.

Kim J., & Forsythe, S. (2008b). Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel

shopping, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22 (2), 45-59.

Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2009). Adoption of sensory enabling technology for online apparel

shopping. European Journal of Marketing, 43 (9–10), 1101–1120.

Kim, K.K., Shin, H.K. & Kim, B. (2011). The role of pshychologycal traits and social factors

in using new mobile communication services. Electronic Commerce Research and

Applications, 10 (4), 408-417.

Koopman, P. L., Den Hartog, D. N., Konrad, E., & Al, E. (1999). National culture and

leadership profiles in Europe: Some results from the GLOBE study. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (4), 503-520.

Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online

consumer behaviour. Information Systems Research, 13 (2), 205-223.

Lee, K.C. & Chung, N. (2008). Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the virtual reality

shopping mall. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (1), 88–104.

Lee, K.-Y. (2012). Consumer processing of virtual experience in e-commerce: A test of an

integrated framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (6), 2134-2142.

Lee, E.-J. & Park, J. (2014). Enhancing virtual presence in e-tail: dynamics of cue

multiplicity. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18 (4), 117-146.

Lee, H., Chung, N., & Jung, T. (2015). Examining the cultural differences in acceptance of

mobile augmented reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland. In Information and

communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 477-491). Springer International

Publishing.

Lee, H. H., Fiore, A. M., & Kim, J. (2006). The role of the technology acceptance model in

explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses. International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34 (8), 621-644.

Legris, P., Ingham, J. & Collerette, P. (2003). Why Do People Use Information Technology?

A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management, 40

(3), 191-204.

Leimeister, S., Leimeister, J. M., Knebel, U. & Krcmar, H. (2009). A cross-national

comparison of perceived strategic importance of RFID for CIOs in Germany and Italy.

International Journal of Information Management, 29 (1), 37-47.

Li, H., Daugherty, T. and Biocca, F. (2001). Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic

commerce: a protocol analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (3), 13-30.

Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge,

brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of

Advertising, 31 (3), 43-57.

Li, X.-J., Xie, B. & Ye, F. (2013). Research and application of online product display

technology based on augmented reality. Information Technology Journal, 12 (6), 1134-1142.

Lin, H.-F. & Chen, C.-H. (2015). Design and application of augmented reality query-

answering system in mobile phone information navigation. Expert Systems with Applications,

42 (2), 810-820.
Lin, Y. L. & Wang, M. J. J. (2016). The development of a clothing fit evaluation system

under virtual environment. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75 (13), 7575-7587.

Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2007). WebQual: An instrument for

consumer evaluation of web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11 (3), 51-

87.

Lu, Y. & Smith, S. (2007). Augmented reality e-commerce assistant system: trying while

shopping. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4551, 643-652.

McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration

of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of

interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31 (3), 29-42.

Merle, A., Senecal, S., & St-Onge, A. (2012). Whether and how virtual try-on influences

consumer responses to an apparel web site. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,

16 (3), 41-64.

Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2015). Testing measurement invariance across groups:

Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3

(1), 111-130.

Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented reality: A class of

displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Proc. SPIE Conf. Telemanipulator and

Telepresence Technologies, 282-292.

Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions, 9 (4), 36-

42.

Novak, T. P. Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y.-F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in

on-line environments: a structural modelling approach, Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed., New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Olsson, T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T. & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2013). Expected

user experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of shopping

centres. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17 (2), 287-304.

Olsson, T., & Salo, M. (2011). Online user survey on current mobile augmented reality

applications. 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR)

75-84.

Padilla-Meléndez, A., Del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived

playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning

scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306-317.

Pan, Z., Cheok, A.D., Yang, H., Zhu, J. & Shi J. (2006). Virtual reality and mixed reality for

virtual learning environments. Computers and Graphics, 30 (1), 20-28.

Pantano, E. (2014). Innovation drivers in retail industry. International Journal of Information

Management, 34 (3), 344-350.

Pantano, E. (2016). Benefits and risks associated with time choice of innovating in retail

settings. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44 (1), 58-70.

Pantano, E. & Servidio, R. (2012). Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and

immersive technologies. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19 (3), 279-286.

Papagiannidis, S., See-to, E. & Bourlakis, M. (2014). Virtual test-driving: the impact of

simulated products on purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21

(5), 877-887.

Papagiannidis S., Pantano E., See-To E., Dennis C., Bourlakis M. (2017). To immerse or not?

Experimenting with two virtual retail environments. Information Technology & People, 34

(1).

Pavlou, P.A. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and
Risk With the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic

Commerce, 7 (3), 101-134.

Pereira, F., Silva, C. & Alves M. (2011). Virtual fitting room augmented reality techniques

for e-commerce. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 220, 62-71.

Poncin, I., & Mimoun, M.S.B. (2014). The impact of e-atmospherics on physical stores.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (5), 851-859.

Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how

attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics.

Journal of Business Research, 59 (9), 999-1007.

Rese, A., Baier, D., Geyer-Schulz, A., & Schreiber, S. (2016). How augmented reality apps

are accepted by consumers: A comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.010

Rese, A., Schreiber, S. & Baier, D. (2014). Technology acceptance modelling of augmented

reality at the point of sale: can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews?. Journal

of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (5), 869-876.

Schaffer, B.S. & Riordan, C. (2003). A Review of Cross-Cultural Methodologies for

Organizational Research: A Best-Practice Approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6

(2), 169-215.

Sekhavat, Y. A. (2016). Privacy preserving cloth try-on using mobile augmented reality.

IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

Sha, D.Y., Perng, D.B. & Lai, G.L. (2013). Study of using smart digital content technology in

retail store. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 411-414, 2161-2166.

Shin, E. & Baytar, F. (2014). Apparel fit and size concerns and intentions to use virtual try-

on: impacts of body satisfaction and images of model’s bodies. Clothing and Textiles

Research Journal, 32 (1), 20-33.

Soderlund, M. & Julander, C. (2009). Physical attractiveness of the service worker in the

moment of truth and its effects on customer satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 16 (3), 216-226.

Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity.

Journal of Marketing, 72 (2), 99-113.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., & van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating

marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283–299.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of

Communication, 42 (4), 73-93.

Supino S., Malandrino O., Testa M., & Sica D. (2016). Sustainability in the EU cement

industry: the Italian and German experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112 (1), 430-

442.

Szczekala, M., Karczamrz, D., Madrzycki, P. & Perz-Osowska, M. (2014). Usage of

augmented reality technology in the training given to military technical personnel. Frontiers

in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 262, 602-610.

Trevino, L. K., & Webster, J. (1992). Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic

mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication Research, 19 (5), 539-573.

Tsikriktsis, N. (2002). Does culture influence website quality expectations? An empirical

study. Journal of Service Research, 5 (2), 101-112.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3 (1), 4-70.

Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Delhaise, T. (2001). An examination of

the cross-cultural validity of a multidimensional model of commitment in Europe. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (3), 322-347.

Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing usage of websites: the case of a generic

portal in The Netherlands. Information and Management, 40 (6), 541-549.

Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS

Quarterly, 28 (4), 695-704.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic

Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems

Research, 11 (4), 342-365.

Wang, W.-C., Chen, Y.-H. & Kao, C.-Y. (2012). The digital design applied to consumer

garment try-on experience integrated with augmented reality. Lecture Notes in Electrical

Engineering, 124 (1), 115-122.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal

variables: problems and remedies. In: Hoyle, R.H. (ed.). Structural equation modeling:

Concepts, issues, and applications, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 56-75.

Wixom, B.H. & Todd, P.A. (2005). A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and

Technology Acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16 (1), 85-102.

Wu, G. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring the perceived interactivity of websites.

Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28 (1), 87-104.

Yang, H. E., & Wu, C. C. (2009). Effects of image interactivity technology adoption on e-

shoppers' behavioural intentions with risk as moderator. Production Planning and Control,

20 (4), 370-382.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an

Internet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2 (1), 31-

47.

Yuan, M., Khan, I. R., Farbiz, F., Niswar, A., & Huang, Z. (2011). A mixed reality system

for virtual glasses try-on. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Virtual

Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (pp. 363-366). ACM.

Zhang, P., & Li, N. (2005). The importance of affective quality. Communications of the

ACM, 48 (9), 105-108.

ZVA (Zentralverband der Augenoptiker und Optometristen - Association of Optometrists)

(2016). Augenoptik in Zahlen Branchenbericht 2015/16. ZVA gefoerdert durch

Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaft und Energie, retrieved September 25, 2016,

http://www.zva.de/branchenberichte
FIGURES

Figure 1: Research model

Figure 2: Virtual mirror of Ray-Ban for virtual try the sunglasses through the website
 Investigated
Reference Application Object of research Data collection Control group Sample size Participants
research dimensions

Formation of product knowledge, Concurrent verbalization,

Bedding material, laptop
Li et al. (2001) 3-D visualizations perception of presence, laboratory controlled None 30 US university students
computer, ring, and watch
treatment of affordances environment, survey

Video camera (Experiment 1) Experimental task in a Ex 1: 3-D vs. 2-D

Presence, product knowledge, brand
Li et al. (2002) Product website Watch and jacket university laboratory, Ex 2: 3-D vs. 2-D and product type 60 (Ex 1) US university students
attitude, and purchase intention
(Experiment 2) survey (geometric vs. material)

Global attitude toward on-line store,

willingness to purchase, willingness to
Fiore and Jin Experimental task in a
return to the online store, willingness to
(2003), Fiore et Guess.com Apparel university laboratory, None (mix-and match condition) 103 US university students
patronize
al. (2005b) survey
(Fiore et al. ,2005b: optimum stimulation
level, arousal, pleasure)
Telepresence, experiential value,
High level of IIT (models, back views,
instrumental value, attitude towards the Experimental task in a
Fiore et al. interactive product / product and product
www.imaginariX.com Apparel online retailer, willingness to purchase university laboratory, 206 US university students
(2005a) try-on features)
from the online retailer, willingness to survey
Low level of IIT
patronize the online retailer
Utilitarian shopping orientation, hedonic
shopping orientation, perceived usefulness, Experimental task in a
Lee et al. (2006) www.imaginariX.com Apparel perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, university laboratory, Level of IIT 206 US university students
attitude towards the online retailer, survey
behavioral intention

Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, Online survey after US national sample of
Kim and 3D rotation views
Apparel shopping simulation Apparel attitude towards using, intention to completing a shopping 978 online shopper, 19 and
Forsythe (2007) Virtual Try-on
purchase, reuse, and revisit simulation older (3,000)

Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,

Kim and Online survey after 2D/alternate views,
My Virtual Model™, perceived entertainment, attitude towards US university students
Forsythe (2008a, Apparel completing a shopping 3D rotation views, 354
Viewpoint™ using, actual use, post-use evaluation, (3,000)
2009) simulation virtual try-on
technological anxiety, innovativeness
Virtual Try-on
(High level of IIT: models, Online survey after
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
Kim and zoom in on product features, completing a shopping
perceived entertainment, attitude towards US national sample of
Forsythe rotate and view the product Apparel simulation (try on a top, Male / female 491
using, actual use, post-use evaluation, online shopper (2,000)
(2008b) from different angles, view an outerwear item, and a
technological anxiety, innovativeness
the product in a variety of pair of pants)
colors)
 Italian German

Sample Sample

Age

18-23 89 (50.7 %) 69 (41.3 %)

Vivideness, interactivity, telepresence, Online survey after
Yang and Wu Taiwanese respondents
My Virtual model™ Apparel utilitarian
24-29 value, 38hedonic
(25.5value,
%) risk,94 (56.3completing
%) a shopping None 302
(2009) from a survey portal
satisfaction, purchase, rebrowse simulation

30-35 15 (10.1 %) 4 (2.4 %) Mix-and match condition,

Virtual-try on self-congruity, body esteem, Experimental task in a Female students from a
Merle et al. Modified version of My non-personalized condition,
Apparel confidence in apparel fit, hedonic value, university laboratory, 152 European Business
(2012) Virtual model™ Over 35value, 7purchase
(4.7 %)intentions 0 (0.0 %) personalized condition
utilitarian survey School
highly personalized condition
Models’ bodies (actual vs. ideal), body
Missing Online survey after
(low vs.1high), concerns about
1
Shin and Baytar satisfaction 2 x 2 between-subject Female US university
Mock website Apparel completing a shopping 249
(2014) garment fit and size, intention to use virtual factorial design students
simulation
try-on technology
Mean value 24.8 24.0

Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,

Augmented reality perceived aesthetics, service excellence, Online survey after
Huang & Liao Taiwanese university
interactive technology Apparel perceived playfulness, consumers cognitive completing a shopping None 220
Gender (2015) students
(ARIT) innovativeness, sustainable relationship simulation
behaviour, presence
F 80 (53.7 %) 87 (51.8 %)
Experimental task in a
Perceptual specific curiosity, online (Ex 1) / university laboratory,
M 2) patronage
69 (46.3 %) offline 81 (48.2 %) European university
Beck and Crié Apparel (experiment 1) online (Ex intention, survey (Ex 1), Experiment 1, 2: e-catalogue, magic 228 (Ex 1)
Website students (Ex 1),
(2016) Glasses (experiment 2) (Ex 1) / offline (Ex 2) patronage intention, online survey after mirror based on augmented reality 241 (Ex 2)
consumers (Ex 2)
diversive curiosity, 1
Missing involvement, expertise
0 completing a shopping
simulation (Ex 2)

Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,

Experimental task in a 284 Ray-Ban,
Rese et al. Ray-Ban virtual-try on perceived enjoyment, perceived European university
Glasses university laboratory, None 213 Mister
(2016)
Ownership Mister
of glasses spex virtual-try
(including on eyeglasses, sports glasses)
sunglasses, informativeness, attitude towards using, students
survey Spex
behavioral intention
0-1 61 (45.9 %) 25 (14.9 %)
Fit and size perceptions of the dress,
Experimental task in a
Baytar et al. Virtual dress implemented in product performance risk perceptions, Female US university
Apparel 2-3 68 (51.1 %) 98 university
(58.3 %) laboratory, None 87
(2017) augmented reality attitudes towards the dress, purchase students
survey
intentions
4 or more 4 (3.0 %) 45 (26.8 %)

Missing 17 0 Table 1: Studies on acceptance of image

interactivity technology and virtual-try ons
Mean value 1.68 2.89

Online purchases of glasses (including sunglasses, eyeglasses, sports

glasses)

No 134 (91.8 %) 147 (88.6 %)

Yes 12 (8.2 %) 19 (11.4 %)

Missing 4 2
Table 2: Sample demographics for Italian and German sample.
 Italian sample Square
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 skewness kurtosis
German sample root AVE
5.20 1.25 0.886 -.740 .642
1 Attitude
5.19 1.16 0.861 -1.066 1.377
Behavioural 4.82 1.43 0.825 0.871 -.719 .159
2
intention 3.76 1.38 0.713 0.784 -.124 -.678
5.93 1.13 0.440 0.432 0.934 -1.328 2.042
3 Ease of use 5.87 0.98 0.462 0.323 0.896 -.906 .180
5.13 0.99 0.569 0.578 0.474 0.861 -.730 1.018
4 Interactivity
5.10 1.05 0.615 0.500 0.485 0.819 -.965 1.368
4.85 1.47 0.784 0.765 0.471 0.523 0.904 -.507 -.505
5 Usefulness
5.09 1.14 0.774 0.699 0.337 0.571 0.838 -.750 .326
5.82 1.05 0.728 0.729 0.675 0.577 0.681 0.884 -1.117 1.484
6 Enjoyment
5.65 0.94 0.607 0.433 0.382 0.521 0.605 0.798 -.691 .286
Quality of 5.07 1.12 0.629 0.571 0.447 0.609 0.630 0.532 0.877 -.630 .226
7
information 5.19 0.95 0.617 0.495 0.420 0.667 0.600 0.498 0.744 .-.743 .745
4.29 1.41 0.321 0.411 0.282 0.299 0.346 0.377 0.287 0.952 -.778 -.116
8 Response time
3.51 1.47 0.369 0.293 0.281 0.352 0.337 0.385 0.266 0.915 .224 .-.739
5.49 0.99 0.711 0.674 0.515 0.756 0.608 0.647 0.621 0.299 0.887 -.477 -.091
9 Aesthetic quality
5.12 0.99 0.617 0.445 0.510 0.557 0.610 0.617 0.640 0.313 0.870 -.985 1.282
In bold in the diagonal. square root of AVE
Table 3. Correlation Matrix and discriminant assessment (calculated with PLS), skewness and kurtosis (calculated with SPSS 23)
of the explanatory constructs
 Italian sample German sample
Construct Mean a Cronbach’ Variance CR AVE Mean a Cronbach’ Variance CR AVE
(Std.) s Alpha explaine (Std.) s Alpha explaine
d d
Ease of use 0.951 87.90 0.965 0.872 0.918 80.29 0.942 0.803
I found the virtual try-on to be very easy to use. 5.87 5.71
(1.28) (1.19)
The virtual try-on was intuitive to use. 5.89 5.57
(1.21) (1.30)
It was easy to learn how to use the virtual try-on. 5.95 6.18
(1.16) (0.91)
Handling the virtual try-on was easy. 5.97 6.02
(1.19) (0.99)
Usefulness 0.925 81.76 0.947 0.817 0.858 70.31 0.903 0.701
For me the virtual try-on has great value. 4.81 4.54
(1.72) (1.52)
The virtual try-on provides beautiful ideas for eyeglasses. 5.05 5.64
(1.41) (1.15)
The virtual try-on is very inspiring in terms of eyeglasses. 4.61 5.30
(1.79) (1.24)
The virtual try-on is a perfect aid to come to a decision in the selection of eyewear. 4.93 4.89
(1.57) (1.55)
Attitude 0.931 78.65 0.948 0.785 0.912 74.25 0.935 0.742
I am positive about the virtual try-on. 5.24 5.56
(1.37) (1.21)
The virtual try-on is so interesting that you just want to learn more about it. 4.65 4.46
(1.54) (1.48)
It just makes sense to use the virtual try-on. 5.23 4.96
(1.40) (1.46)
The virtual try-on is a good idea. 5.47 5.67
(1.30) (1.26)
Other people should also use the virtual try-on. 5.41 5.28
(1.44) (1.34)
Behavioural intention 0.921 76.22 0.940 0.759 0.842 61.64 0.888 0.615
If I were to buy glasses in the future, I would…
...use Ray-ban shop and the virtual try-on immediately. 4.96 4.31
(1.57) (1.80)
...give Ray-ban shop and the virtual try-on priority over an optician’s shop. 4.39 2.80
(1.70) (1.73)
...give Ray-Ban shop and the virtual try-on priority over other online shops. 4.82 4.43
(1.50) (1.85)
I will recommend using Ray-Ban shop and the virtual try-on to my friends. 5.05 4.20
(1.61) (1.78)
I will use Ray-Ban shop and the virtual try-on regularly in the future. 4.89 3.05
(1.78) (1.65)
Enjoyment 0.905 78.24 0.934 0.782 0.806 63.74 0.874 0.637
Using the virtual try-on is really funny. 5.92 5.46
(1.34)
(1.16)
The virtual try-on is a nice gimmick. 5.89 6.10
(0.90)
(1.20)
It is fun to discover the virtual try-on. 5.88 5.68
(1.09)
(1.19)
The virtual try-on invites you to discover Ray-Ban online shop. 5.60 5.35
(1.42)
(1.18)
Aesthetic quality 0.946 79.09 0.957 0.788 0.936 75.80 0.949 0.758
The virtual try-on is visually pleasing. 5.62 5.13
(1.03) (1.10)
The virtual try-on displays a visually pleasant design. 5.52 5.08
(0.98) (1.13)
The virtual try-on is visually appealing. 5.43 5.01
(1.25) (1.17)
Overall, I find that the virtual try-on looks attractive. 5.41 5.14
(1.15) (1.22)
The virtual try-on looks professionally designed. 5.56 5.33
(1.06) (1.11)
The virtual try-on design (i.e. colors, layout, etc.) is attractive. 5.45 5.05
(1.15) (1.13)
Quality of information 0.921 76.98 0.943 0.769 0.802 55.90 0.861 0.554
The virtual try-on showed me the information I expected. 4.97 5.14
(1.23) (1.21)
The virtual try-on provides detailed information about eyeglasses. 4.91 5.04
(1.25) (1.25)
The virtual glasses try-on provides the complete information about eyeglasses. 4.89 4.27
(1.31) (1.50)
The virtual try-on provides information that helps me in my decision. 4.89 5.54
(1.41) (1.34)

The virtual try-on provides information to compare eyeglasses.

5.71 5.98
(1.20) (1.07)
Response time 0.949 90.86 0.967 0.907 0.904 83.85 0.939 0.837
When I use the virtual try-on, there is very little waiting time between my actions 4.15 3.54
and the virtual try-on response.
(1.50) (1.67)
The virtual try-on loads quickly. 4.41 3.43
(1.42) (1.63)
The virtual try-on has a quick process. 4.30 3.57
(1.50) (1.51)
Interactivity 0.883 74.18 0.919 0.741 0.837 67.23 0.891 0.671
The virtual try-on allows me to interact with it to receive tailored information 5.17 5.06
about glasses.
(0.94) (1.18)
The virtual try-on has interaction features, which help me to come to a decision in 5.05 5.32
the selection of eyewear.
(1.23) (1.31)
I am able to interact with the virtual try-on in order to get information tailored to 5.11 4.94
my specific needs.
(1.30) (1.31)
The degree of interaction with the virtual try-on is sufficient. 5.20 5.08
(1.14) (1.32)
a
: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
Cronbach’s Alpha, CR= Composite Reliability, AVE= Average Variance Extracted were calculated with Smart PLS; Variance explained was calculated with SPSS

Table 4: Reliability and validity measurement for Italian and German sample.
Composite C value (= 1) 95% confidence interval Compositional invariance?
Attitude 0.99995 0.99963 Yes
Behavioural intention 0.99934 0.99830 Yes
Ease of use 0.99952 0.99926 Yes
Interactivity 0.99694 0.99629 Yes
Usefulness 0.99927 0.99924 Yes
Perc. Enjoyment 0.99886 0.99849 Yes
Quality of information 0.99715 0.99614 Yes
Response time 0.99729 0.99696 Yes
Aesthetic quality 0.99930 0.99832 Yes
Difference of the composite’s
Composite 95% confidence interval Equal mean values?
mean value (Italy-Germany) (= 0)
Attitude 0.00349 -0.22276; 0.21631 Yes
Behavioural intention 0.67096 -0.21921; 0.22292 No
Ease of use 0.03426 -0.22660; 0.21366 Yes
Interactivity 0.04338 -0.22288; 0.22589 Yes
Usefulness -0.18256 -0.22181; 0.21973 No
Perc. Enjoyment 0.15223 -0.22246; 0.21580 Yes
Quality of information -0.16865 -0.22529; 0.22055 Yes
Response time 0.51981 -0.21783; 0.22941 No
Aesthetic quality 0.37027 -0.22131; 0.21838 No
Difference of the composite’s
Composite 95% confidence interval Equal variances?
variances (Italy-Germany) (= 0)
Attitude 0.15116 -0.39172; 0.38958 Yes
Behavioural intention 0.02747 -0.27937; 0.26849 Yes
Ease of use 0.29145 -0.41618; 0.40104 Yes
Interactivity -0.11492 -0.40267; 0.39651 Yes
Usefulness 0.48179 -0.31787; 0.31419 No
Perc. Enjoyment 0.25996 -0.39600; 0.38283 Yes
Quality of information 0.33269 -0.36472; 0.34994 Yes
Response time -0.09513 -0.24235; 0.23197 Yes
Aesthetic quality -0.03691 -0.36392; 0.37606 Yes
Table 5. MICOM results
 Path coefficients (Effect size - f2) T statistics (p-value)

Path coefficient
German German T statistics
Hypotheses Italian sample Italian sample
sample sample (p-value)
differences
H1 Ease of use  Attitude I. Not Supported -0.106 (0.029) 0.195 (0.093) 2.043 (0.041) 3.747 (0.000) 0.301 4.093 (0.000)
G. Supported
H2 Usefulness  Attitude Supported 0.539 (0.505) 0.609 (0.678) 9.054 (0.000) 10.637 (0.000) 0.069 0.841 (0.401)

H3 Attitude  Behavioural Supported 0.825 (2.125) 0.713 (1.036) 25.450 (0.000) 21.057 (0.000) 0.111 2.369 (0.018)
intention
H4 Enjoyment  Attitude Supported 0.432 (0.227) 0.165 (0.048) 6.284 (0.000) 2.518 (0.012) 0.268 2.830 (0.005)

H5 Usefulness  Enjoyment Supported 0.353 (0.215) 0.312 (0.102) 5.256 (0.000) 3.664 (0.000) 0.042 0.378 (0.705)

H6 Ease of use  Enjoyment I. Supported 0.380 (0.288) 0.043 (0.002) 5.844 (0.000) 0.547 (0.584) 0.337 3.288 (0.001)
G. Not supported
H7 Aesthetic quality  Ease of use Supported 0.366 (0.080) 0.347 (0.122) 3.538 (0.000) 4.642 (0.000) 0.019 0.149 (0.882)

H8 Aesthetic quality  Enjoyment Supported 0.177 (0.032) 0.327 (0.103) 2.335 (0.020) 3.679 (0.000) 0.149 1.267 (0.206)

H9 Interactivity  Ease of use I. Weakly supported 0.197 (0.023) 0.292 (0.086) 1.871 (0.061) 3.629 (0.000) 0.094 0.722 (0.471)
G. Supported
H10 Interactivity  Enjoyment Not supported 0.078 (0.007) 0.140 (0.021) 0.880 (0.379) 1.561 (0.119) 0.062 0.490 (0.624)

H11 Response time  Usefulness Supported 0.180 (0.052) 0.192 (0.056) 2.883 (0.004) 3.614 (0.000) 0.011 0.141 (0.888)

H12 Quality of  Usefulness Supported 0.578 (0.535) 0.549 (0.462) 12.867 (0.000) 10.700 (0.000) 0.029 0.428 (0.669)
information

Table 6. Hypotheses testing including multigroup analysis

R2 (Q2) Overall model Italian sample German sample |R2 diff.| t-value (p-value)
Attitude 0.654 (0.470) 0.691 (0.509) 0.661 (0.465) 0.030 0.418 (0.676)
Behavioura
0.529 (0.341) 0.680 (0.491) 0.509 (0.295) 0.171 2.399 (0.017)
l intention
Ease of use 0.294 (0.231) 0.282 (0.222) 0.318 (0.244) 0.037 0.369 (0.712)
Usefulness 0.406 (0.291) 0.427 (0.332) 0.394 (0.260) 0.033 0.375 (0.708)
Enjoyment 0.552 (0.364) 0.657 (0.487) 0.480 (0.286) 0.177 2.154 (0.032)
Table 7. R (Q ) for endogenous constructs
2 2