The Use of Augmented Reality in Retail: A Review of Literature

Riar, Marc; Korbel, Jakob J.; Xi, Nannan; Zarnekow, Rüdiger; Hamari, Juho

doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.078

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, most online retail AR applications achieve low total numbers of installs on customer smartphones compared to AR applications with a more playful purpose (Dacko, 2017). Due to reserved customer acceptance of AR in retail, its impact on business performance is hardly assessable, and retailers are thus unconfident about the future of AR in their business (Pozharliev et al, 2021;Riar et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customer fairness perceptions in augmented reality-based online services

Christ-Brendemühl

Schaarschmidt

2021

JOSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAn increasing number of retailers is trying to stimulate customers by embedding augmented reality (AR) features such as video try-on into the online shopping experience. As such AR-based online services require customers to actively participate in the service provision, this paper aims at investigating fairness perceptions and customer responses associated with AR-enabled customer participation.Design/methodology/approachThe conceptual framework of this study is based on equity theory. To compare customer responses after an in-store service encounter as opposed to AR-enabled customer participation involving video try-on, this study contains a between-subject online experiment. The effective sample comprises N = 215 participants.FindingsThe data analysis demonstrates that AR-enabled customer participation leads to significantly lower levels of distributive, procedural and price fairness as well as lower engagement intentions than in-store service encounters. Simultaneously, participants in the video try-on scenario report higher negative word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions than in the in-store scenario.Research limitations/implicationsThe extra mile customers go when using AR-based online services is reflected in less favorable fairness evaluations.Practical implicationsService managers should design AR applications in a manner that requires minimum customer participation.Originality/valueThis study contributes to service research by linking AR-enabled customer participation to evaluations of distributive, procedural and price fairness and their outcomes. This is vital to fully exploit the potential of AR in services.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customer fairness perceptions in augmented reality-based online services

Christ-Brendemühl

Schaarschmidt

2021

JOSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…D2 Hardware: The implemented hardware significantly impacts how the user interacts with the AR solution. Four major characteristics have been identified: mobile AR [9,11,14,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], such as smartphone or tablets, and HMDs, including monocular [29,30,35] and binocular [11,14,26,28,29,30,31,31,32,33,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], are the most common hardware options. Projection-based AR [14,24,53] and desktop AR [14,31,…”

Section: Taxonomy Of Interactions For Augmented Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four major characteristics have been identified: mobile AR [9,11,14,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], such as smartphone or tablets, and HMDs, including monocular [29,30,35] and binocular [11,14,26,28,29,30,31,31,32,33,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], are the most common hardware options. Projection-based AR [14,24,53] and desktop AR [14,31,54] both use a static non-mobile environment, with the former using projectors ...…”

Section: Taxonomy Of Interactions For Augmented Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Haptic feedback [27,34,45] can be active or passive and can be provided by an additional haptic glove. The most described characteristic is visual feedback [9,14,26,27,28,30,31,31,33,36,37,40,41,43,51,52,53,55,57,60,61,62,63,64,65,66], which includes any form of visual presented information as an output from an interaction. The final output characteristic is auditory feedback [36,37,61,66], which refers to audio feedback from the interaction.…”

Section: D3 Input Modalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…D5 Interaction implementation: Interaction can be divided into three main task purposes, independent of the information the user aims to interact with. The goal of an interaction can be virtual object selection [9,11,26,27,28,30,31,33,35,36,37,38,40,41,44,50,51,55,57,60,61,63,64]. Object selection is mostly always the first step in a sequence of interactions.…”

Section: D3 Input Modalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conceptualizing Interactions of Augmented Reality Solutions

Bräker¹,

Hertel²,

Semmann³

2022

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid evolution of augmented reality has resulted in an ever-increasing number of applications in a wide range of industries and services. Despite this progress, there is still a lack of conceptual understanding of AR interactions and the entire solution space. To bridge this gap, we conceptualize AR solution interactions and provide a comprehensive taxonomy. To represent the state-of-the-art, we build upon an extensive literature review. The resulting taxonomy consists of seven dimensions that encompass 29 characteristics. We contribute to the understanding of AR interactions and, as a result, the applicability of AR solutions in businesses by developing the taxonomy. Likewise, the taxonomy can guide the design of AR solutions as it convincingly describes the solution space.

show abstract