See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372205288
Immersive technologies and consumer behavior: A systematic review of two
decades of research
Article in Australian Journal of Management · July 2023
DOI: 10.1177/03128962231181429
CITATIONS
READS
30
4,356
3 authors:
Anupama Ambika
Hyunju Shin
Institute of Management Technology, Dubai
Kennesaw State University
22 PUBLICATIONS 233 CITATIONS
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,584 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Varsha Jain
Mudra Institute of Communications Ahmedabad
184 PUBLICATIONS 4,531 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hyunju Shin on 08 July 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
1181429
research-article2023
AUM0010.1177/03128962231181429Australian Journal of ManagementAmbika et al.
Article
Immersive technologies and
consumer behavior: A systematic
review of two decades of research
Australian Journal of Management
1­–25
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962231181429
DOI: 10.1177/03128962231181429
journals.sagepub.com/home/aum
Anupama Ambika
IMT Dubai, Dubai International Academic City, UAE
Hyunju Shin
Department of Marketing & Professional Sales, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA
Varsha Jain
MICA, Ahmedabad, India
Abstract
Immersive technologies, including augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR),
and three-dimensional (3D) views, are digitally expanding consumers’ reality, enabling neverbefore-seen experiences. As these technologies transform from a quirky novelty into a ubiquitous
utility for consumers, we analyze the advances of the past two decades of research that elaborate
on the influence of immersive technologies on consumer behavior. While the past reviews in
this area have focused on a limited number of immersive technologies or their application in
a sole industry, we holistically analyze and compare the influence of AR, VR, MR, and 3D on
consumer behavior across various sectors. We adopt an integrated TCM (Theories, Contexts,
and Methods)-ADO (Antecedents, Decisions, and Outcomes) framework to systematically
review 129 studies from high-quality academic journals. The findings from this analysis present
implications for future research, theory, and practice.
JEL Classification: M31 Marketing
Keywords
AR, consumer behavior, immersive technology, MR, systematic review, VR, 3D
Corresponding author:
Hyunju Shin, Department of Marketing & Professional Sales, Kennesaw State University, 560 Parliament Garden Way
NW MD0406, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA.
Email: hshin13@kennesaw.edu
Final transcript accepted 23 May 2023 by Nitika Garg (AE Marketing).
2
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
1. Introduction
The world is at the threshold of significant technology revolutions that will influence consumer
behavior, with immersive technologies among the top disruptors (World Economic Forum, 2018).
Technologies such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), and threedimensional (3D) views, which were previously limited to the entertainment space, are now moving into consumers’ everyday lives. In addition, the recent pandemic-driven restrictions have
further heightened the demand for innovative technologies that bridge the physical-digital divide
(Baron, 2021). With the immersive technologies market poised for higher growth, nearing
US$114.5 billion by 2027 (Markets and Markets, 2022), it is vital to understand how the various
immersive technologies influence consumer behavior to inform further advancement in theory and
to enhance the applications in industry.
Scholars have shown a growing interest in this domain, investigating consumer adoption, usage,
experiences, and outcomes associated with various applications of immersive technologies (Choi
and Taylor, 2014; Dwivedi et al., 2021; Li et al., 2002; Perannagari and Chakrabarti, 2020; Scholz
and Duffy, 2018). There have also been multiple endeavors to review existing research on immersive technologies. However, these reviews have focused on one or two types of immersive technology and limited their investigations to a single sector. For instance, Chen et al. (2022), Rejeb et al.
(2021), Kumar (2022), and Javornik (2016b) limitedly focused on the role of AR in retail. Wedel
et al. (2020) reviewed AR/VR research and developed a conceptual framework for consumer marketing. Loureiro et al. (2019) conducted a text-mining-based review and discussed how VR studies
have evolved in marketing. Similarly, Xi and Hamari (2021) and Riar et al. (2022) focused on the
application of AR/VR in shopping in their reviews, while Yung and Khoo-Lattimore (2017)
reviewed AR/VR research in tourism.
These reviews are limited in scope to a few types of immersive technologies and industries,
which might help understand the unique features of each technology and their specific applications
to a particular industry. However, as the digital brand ecosystem combines multiple immersive
elements for unique brand experiences (Singh, 2022), siloed approaches to examining the literature
may not be sufficient. Even though immersive technologies, including AR, MR, VR, and 3D, are
part of the same reality–virtuality spectrum, their affordances and consequent customer experiences differ significantly (Rauschnabel et al., 2022), which ultimately leads to varying influences
on consumer behaviors. Therefore, it is essential to consolidate existing knowledge on the influence of immersive technologies on consumer behavior through a holistic lens encompassing all
immersive technologies across the various business sectors, including retail, tourism, and entertainment. Hence, the primary purpose of this research is twofold: (1) to develop an all-inclusive
conceptual framework for the cross-section between immersive technology and consumer behavior and (2) to guide future scholarly work to extend this line of research.
Accordingly, we conducted a systematic literature review of 129 studies focusing on immersive
technologies and consumer behavior using the integrated TCM (Theories, Contexts, and Methods)ADO (Antecedents, Decisions, and Outcomes) framework (Paul and Benito, 2018; Paul et al.,
2017). The insights from the TCM model and the ADO framework will enrich the consumer behavior research stream by analyzing the similarities and differences among immersive technologies in
their influences on consumer behavior. In addition, we lay out research agendas for future studies
that may pique consumer behavior researchers’ interest in immersive technologies from theoretical, contextual, and methodological perspectives. The findings also enrich the managerial understanding of integrating immersive technologies into overall marketing strategies and improve their
applications to draw consumers’ positive responses. The rest of the article is divided into the following sections: an overview of immersive technologies, research methodology, results, discussion of findings, and future research directions.
Ambika et al.
3
2. Overview of immersive technologies
The term “immersion” signifies the engagement of a person in a simulated environment, during
which the individual often feels disconnected from the real world (Radianti et al., 2020). Immersive
technologies blur digital and physical barriers while providing sensory visual (sight), audio (hearing), olfactory (smell), and haptic (touch) experiences of immersion (Soliman et al., 2017). Brands
employ immersive technologies to create engaging user experiences (Wedel et al., 2020). The
technologies considered in this study include virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed
reality (MR), and three-dimensional content (3D). These technologies are part of the reality–virtuality continuum, which delineates technologies based on the level of immersion they provide
(Flavián et al., 2019; Milgram et al., 1994). The continuum ranges from absolute reality to complete virtuality (VR), with technologies such as AR, MR, and others in between.
VR is a completely simulated digital environment where users intermingle with virtual components (Milgram et al., 1994). Popular forms of VR marketing include interactive content (games,
simulated activities) or passive content (videos). For example, in the in-store VR experience from
TOMS, a shoe brand, customers take a virtual “giving trip” to another country to gift a shoe (Beer,
2016). Consumers access VR via high-end headsets (e.g. Oculus Rift), mobile-based headsets (e.g.
Google Cardboard), or web-based VR (e.g. Konterball). In addition to immersion, presence/telepresence (i.e. the feeling of being in the simulated space) and interactivity (i.e. the level of possible
live communication with the technology) are essential features of VR (Radianti et al., 2020).
AR facilitates the overlay of interactive digital content (e.g. text, image, and video) upon the
consumer’s physical context, leading to the simultaneous co-existence of reality and virtuality
(Javornik, 2016b). Consumers experience AR through glasses/headsets (e.g. Google Glass), holographic displays (e.g. Microsoft HoloLens), or handheld devices (e.g. smartphones). The most
popular uses of AR include social media filters and virtual product trials. Interactivity, vividness
(i.e. sharpness of the image), and augmentation (i.e. the effective merging of real and virtual components) are the vital features of AR (Javornik, 2016a, 2016b).
MR environments blend virtual and real objects, intermingling and interacting with consumers
(Farshid et al., 2018). In many instances, the terms AR and MR are used interchangeably. However,
the key distinguishing features are the interaction between the natural and digital components and
the absence of superimposition in MR (Liberatore and Wagner, 2021). Notable applications of MR
include the transportation of interactive celebrity holograms used in live shows and the longawaited Metaverse (Smart, 2022).
Finally, the 3D view, which forms the essential component of immersive technologies, enables
a better view of the presented object by creating the illusion of depth (Grigorovici and Constantin,
2004). 3D views are primarily used in videos and product presentations. Consumer engagement
increases by 66% when using 3D technology in a product presentation compared to traditional 2D
technology (Melnyk, 2019).
The academic community has been closely following the industry application of these technologies by developing new knowledge of immersive technologies. The early research before
2000 was technically oriented and focused on features and benefits in general. Technology adoption studies and research on experience and engagement with immersive technologies followed.
However, these studies are highly fragmented due to the interdisciplinary nature of the research
(Bonetti et al., 2018). Considering the growing academic and industry interest in consumers’
adoption of immersive technologies, multiple scholars have reviewed and summarized the
research in this area. However, their narrow focus on selected immersive technologies or industry
sectors has resulted in atomistic views. Hence, this study reviews research that integrated multiple
immersive technologies constituting the reality–virtuality continuum across various business sectors to investigate their influences on consumer behavior. The following section discusses the
4
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
research methodology used to investigate the current research landscape on immersive technologies and consumer behavior.
3. Methodology
This study analyzes existing research on immersive technologies’ influence on consumer behavior through a systematic review to identify critical variables, theories, methods, and research gaps
(Paul and Benito, 2018). We adopt a framework-based review approach that establishes a framework to guide the review of a research domain (Paul et al., 2021). The primary frameworks available for the framework-based review include the (1) 5W1H (What, Why, Where, When, Who, and
How) framework (Lim, 2020); (2) Theories, Contexts, and Methods (TCM) model (Paul et al.,
2017); (3) Antecedents, Decisions, and Outcomes (ADO) framework (Paul and Benito, 2018); (4)
Theories, Constructs, Characteristics, and Methods (TCCM) model (Gupta et al., 2022; Paul and
Rosado-Serrano, 2019); and (5) integrated TCM-ADO framework (Lim et al., 2021). In the past,
employing a single framework for a review was sufficient. However, doing so offered a fragmented view of the literature. In addition, the bar for the quality and comprehensiveness of
reviews has been raised in recent years, requiring the integration of multiple frameworks (Lim
et al., 2022).
This study, therefore, adopts the integrated TCM-ADO approach, a combination of the TCM
model and the ADO framework. These two frameworks are complementary, and the integration
assists in developing a comprehensive understanding of the literature (Lim et al., 2021). While the
ADO model is a valuable tool for detailing previous research findings in a logical order, it may be
insufficient to promote a robust future research direction due to the lack of focus on theories, contexts, and methods. Similarly, even if the TCM framework effectively integrates the foundations of
prior research in the direction of future findings, it cannot demonstrate the significance of the key
constructs and interrelationships (Lim et al., 2021). The combined TCM-ADO framework permits
a solid encapsulation of the topic in which insights from the current literature and future roadmaps
are organized using the TCM framework, and essential variables are identified to demonstrate the
systematic relationships through the ADO model.
While we adopted the TCM-ADO framework to analyze the literature and organize the insights,
the literature selection and reporting procedure followed the established PRISMA (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocols. PRISMA presents a
checklist of items to “provide the rationale for the review and pre-planned methodological and
analytic approach, before embarking on a review . . . (to) avoid the need for multiple amendments”
(Moher et al., 2015: 2). The primary goal of utilizing PRISMA is to ensure the complete and transparent reporting of the systematic review (Liberati et al., 2009). The key PRISMA phases include
(1) initiation, (2) screening, (3) evaluation, and (4) confirming inclusion. Figure 1 illustrates the
flowchart of the PRISMA process we have undertaken for this research.
Phase 1 (initiation): In the initiation stage, we identified keywords, data sources, and inclusion and
exclusion criteria. We employed Boolean operators to develop the search string, following Loureiro
et al. (2019): (“virtual reality” or “augmented reality” or “mixed reality” or 3D or immersive) and
(consumer or customer). The search was conducted via Scopus and Web of Science for articles with
relevant terms in the title, abstract, or specified keywords to obtain optimal results (Bramer et al.,
2017). After the duplicate studies were eliminated, 1026 articles were identified.
Phase 2 (screening): The initial 1026 articles were then screened based on the titles and abstracts
for appropriateness to be included in the research sample. As a result, 494 articles were eliminated, leaving 532 articles.
Ambika et al.
5
Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature search process (PRISMA diagram).
Phase 3 (evaluation): In this phase, all the screened 532 articles were reviewed in detail based
on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:
•• English, peer-reviewed, and empirical studies.
•• Articles published in journals in the A*, A, or B categories in the 2019 Australian Business
Deans’ Council (ABDC) journal list (Hao et al., 2019).
•• Our pilot phase indicated that studies before the year 2000 focused on the technicalities,
features, and categorizations of multiple immersive technologies without a specific focus on
their influence on consumers (e.g. Azuma, 1997; Milgram et al., 1994). Post-2000, studies
in leading journals focused on using immersive technologies in marketing and consumer
behavior. Hence, our review encompassed articles published from January 2000 to June
2021, which meaningfully incorporated immersive technology and consumer behavior as
crucial variables.
•• Since we focused on the influence of immersive technologies on consumer behavior after
technology adoption, studies examining the adoption of immersive technologies or the
usage of accessories (e.g. AR glasses) as a primary endogenous variable were excluded.
After this review, 393 articles were eliminated, and 123 articles remained in the sample.
Phase 4 (confirming inclusion): In this phase, we focused on ruling out the accidental omission
of relevant articles. First, recent systematic reviews on AR, VR, and immersive technologies
were appraised to triangulate the comprehensiveness of the samples. Second, we followed backward and forward snowball searches (e.g. Ter Huurne et al., 2017). As a result, six more studies
were identified, taking the final sample count to 129.
6
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
To analyze the data, we developed an Excel-based tabulation structure to capture the vital elements of each study, which itemized each study into its fundamental research components to
understand the associations and commonalities among different research endeavors (Tranfield
et al., 2003). One primary coder was involved in classifying the study characteristics. Two senior
scholars independently checked the coding and categorization (Chan et al., 2022). Any disagreement among the research team members was resolved through multiple discussion sessions
(Oliveira et al., 2021). The following section discusses the results of this analysis.
4. Results
4.1. A descriptive review of the literature
This section details the descriptive findings from the study. The study sample included a total of
129 studies from 49 journals. As elaborated in Table 1, the Journal of Business Research published
the most significant number of studies (17.1%), followed by the Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services (14%) and Computers in Human Behavior (13.2%).
Table 2 presents the top-cited papers published between 2000 and 2021. Research papers on AR,
VR, and 3D technologies are among the top 10 cited articles. A separate analysis shows that the
highest percentage of studies were conducted in the areas of VR (39%) and AR (37%), followed by
3D (12%). However, MR (2%) was ranked at the bottom. Given that MR can take consumer experience to new levels and is predicted to find its place in fashion, retail, and e-commerce advertisements (Kunkel and Soechtig, 2017), it is an underresearched yet promising area for future research,
the implications of which will help practitioners pursue further applications in marketing.
The retail (51%), hospitality and tourism (including food and beverages; 21%), and entertainment (including media, movies, and sports; 11%) sectors comprised the top three industries studied
in the marketing domain. The rest of the studies focused on real estate, education, and healthcare.
Regarding the countries and regions in which the studies were conducted, more than 50% were
conducted in the Americas (25.6%) and Europe (25%) (see Table 3). Relying on the findings from
these two primary regions may lead to generalizability issues in the practical application of immersive technologies. Academics should broaden their geographic scope to capture the cross-cultural
variances in consumers’ responses to immersive technologies.
Figure 2 highlights the research trends that show how the study of immersive technologies
has evolved over the past two decades. The early research primarily focused on 3D technology,
Table 1. Journal-wise breakdown of publicationsa (n = 129).
Rank
Journal name
%
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Computers in Human Behavior
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Tourism Management
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
Internet Research
Journal of Consumer Behavior
171
140
132
47
47
23
23
23
a
Only the journals which contributed more than three papers.
Ambika et al.
7
Table 2. Top papers (n = 129).
Top 10 papers by citation (as of November 2021)
Paper
Citations
Primary technology focus
Li et al. (2002)
Li et al. (2001)
Suh and Lee (2005)
Tussyadiah et al. (2018)
Jung et al. (2015)
Chung et al. (2015)
Nah et al. (2011)
Dacko (2017)
Shin (2018)
Yim et al. (2017)
988
653
452
405
373
353
343
341
314
302
3D
3D
VR
VR
AR
AR
3D
AR
VR
AR
VR: virtual reality; AR: augmented reality.
Table 3. Countries and regions (n = 129).
Country/region
%
Americas
Europe
Asia
Multiple countries
Country not reported
256
249
151
49
295
Figure 2. Research trends over 20 years (2001–2020).
followed by VR. Post-2016, there has been close to a 300% increase in immersive technology
studies, specifically on AR and VR, compared to the number of studies published from 2000 to
2015. The research on MR has just begun to gain traction recently since 2020. The growth in
studies about AR in the past few years corresponds to the rapid adoption of AR-based mobile
apps since 2017.
8
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
Figure 3. TCM framework.
4.2. TCM framework
TCM is a robust framework for guiding a systematic literature review with precise and distinct
theories, contexts, and methods categorizations. Theories are the conceptual foundations for
research studies, whereas contexts encompass examination circumstances, and methods signify the
approaches employed for data collection and analysis (Thomas and Gupta, 2022). See Figure 3 for
the summary results from this analysis.
4.2.1. Theories (T). This systematic review facilitated the identification of various theoretical lenses
that form the research foundations of empirical studies on immersive technologies and consumer
behavior. We identified 129 theories applied across 84 studies and classified them as cognitive,
technology adoption, behavioral, and media theories. In addition, the Stimulus–Organism–
Response (SOR) model, flow theory, and theories of presence/telepresence adopted by more than
five studies have been retained as stand-alone theories.
About 39% of the studies employed theories related to consumers’ cognition. They study the
influence of immersive technologies on consumer behavior. For instance, cognitive fit explains
congruency between the task and available information (e.g. Suh and Lee, 2005). Situated and
embodied cognition help explain body–environment interactions and cognitive associations during
immersive tools (e.g. Wen and Leung, 2021). In addition, theories focusing on consumers’ imagination (e.g. mental imagery theory) were employed to understand the effects of technology-assisted
imagination on consumer behavior (e.g. Park and Yoo, 2020). Finally, information processing theories (e.g. Elaboration Likelihood Model) explain the comprehension of information through
immersive technologies (e.g. Hinsch et al., 2020).
However, 11% of the studies (e.g. Chung et al., 2015) utilized technology adoption theories
and models (e.g. TAM) to develop conceptual frameworks. Theories focusing on behavioral
Ambika et al.
9
Table 4. Top theories employed across immersive technologies (n = 39a).
Technology
Top theory
%
AR
Situated cognition
Technology adoption model (TAM)
Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) theory
Flow theory
Telepresence theory
Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) theory
Theory of technological mediation
Flow theory
Social presence theory
Theory of telepresence
159
159
116
108
108
81
81
81
54
54
VR
3D
VR: virtual reality; AR: augmented reality; TAM: technology adoption model; SOR: stimulus-organism-response.
a
A total of 39 articles are the count of studies that used one or more of the top theories included in Figure 3.
dimensions (e.g. theory of planned behavior) were employed by 10% of studies to decode consumer attitude changes influenced by immersive technologies (e.g. Lombart et al., 2020).
Further, the theories of presence and telepresence (10%) and flow (7%) explained consumers’
responses owing to the feeling of being immersed in the virtual world (e.g. Barhorst et al., 2021).
Another 7% of the studies used media theories (other than the theories of presence and telepresence and flow theory), detailing the role of media attributes such as richness in influencing
consumers (Huang and Liu, 2014). SOR theory was used in 7% of the studies to explain how
immersive technologies’ technical and media features represent the stimulus (S), leading to specific consumer responses (R) through mediators representing the organism (O) component (e.g.
Kim et al., 2020).
There has been a variation in the theories commonly employed to study different immersive
technologies and consumer behavior (Table 4). AR studies relied on cognitive theories, as AR enables product comparisons and evaluations to allow reality and virtuality to co-exist. As smartphone-based AR apps have become ubiquitous, researchers have incorporated the TAM factors
while examining the effect of AR on consumers. In contrast, flow, telepresence, and SOR theories
were the most popular in studies of VR due to their robust ability to transport consumers to virtual
worlds. Finally, 3D studies frequently employed flow, social presence, and telepresence theories,
given that 3D creates the illusion of depth, which offers an enhanced view of the objects in videos
and product presentations.
4.2.2. Contexts (C). Although the studies in our sample were conducted in various circumstances,
the primary research topics can be classified into four broad themes: consumer experiences, consumer purchase journeys, comparison studies, and consumer–brand relationships:
Theme 1 (Consumer experiences): Almost 30% of the studies explored how immersive technologies lead to unique consumer experiences. In the realm of experience, multiple areas have
been studied, such as authentic experience (Kim et al., 2020), virtual experience (Li et al.,
2002), brand/product experience (Sung, 2021), co-created experience (Wang and Chen, 2019),
and user experience (Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga, 2017).
Theme 2 (Consumer purchase journeys): About 23% of the studies investigated the role of
immersive technologies in the consumer purchase journey. Several empirical endeavors
10
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
concluded that immersive technologies assist in the search phase of the customer journey by
enabling them to interact with the virtual products and services, experience them, and gain
product/service knowledge before making a purchase decision (Yim and Park, 2019).
Furthermore, perceived informativeness and playfulness from displaying products using interactive 3D product visualizations for online customers lead to a favorable attitude and positive
post-purchase actions such as purchase and word-of-mouth intentions (Kang et al., 2020).
Theme 3 (Comparison studies): Around 20% of the studies (e.g. Flavián et al., 2020) aimed at
comparing various immersive technologies. The findings indicate that AR, VR, MR, and 3D
have a higher impact on consumer behavior than 2D formats, and VR accessed via headset
offers the highest level of immersion (e.g. Kang et al., 2020; Verhulst et al., 2021). Some studies, however, report adverse effects by detailing how immersive technology increases usage
complexity and causes distraction from the actual process of experiencing the product/service
(Visinescu et al., 2015).
Theme 4 (Consumer–brand relationships): Close to 15% of the studies in the sample investigated how immersive technologies across various touchpoints help maintain consumer–brand
relationships. Immersive technologies have promoted brand attitude, liking, and love. For
instance, Rauschnabel et al. (2019) explain how the benefits of AR apps lead to positive brand
perceptions mediated by consumer inspiration. Interestingly, 60% of the studies on consumer–
brand relationships were based on AR glasses and mobile apps.
A technology-wise breakdown of the studies (Table 5) indicates that for the customer experiences theme (Theme 1) and the consumer purchase journeys theme (Theme 2), VR studies (49.2%
and 50%, respectively) dominated, followed by AR (41.3%; 38.2%) and 3D (9.5%; 8.8%) studies.
This is because VR offers consumers the feeling of being in the simulated space, helping users
engage with the product/service (Radianti et al., 2020). As a result, VR facilitates the customer’s
purchase decisions along the customer purchase journey and amplifies the positive customer experience. However, the consumer–brand relationship theme (Theme 4) was primarily adopted in
studies focusing on AR (62.5%), followed by VR (31.3%) and 3D (6.3%). This may be attributable
to AR’s role in stimulating the simultaneous co-existence of reality and virtuality, which enhances
the interactivity and vividness of the experience (Javornik, 2016a, 2016b), contributing to the
development of perceived closeness with a brand.
4.2.3. Methods (M). As outlined in Figure 3, 87.5% of the studies adopted quantitative approaches.
Among them, experimental methods (64.8%) were the dominant data collection method, with
t-tests and analysis of (co)variance (32.5%) being a prevalent data analysis method. Only 12.5% of
the studies adopted qualitative (8.2%) or mixed-method (4.1%) approaches.
Table 5. Technology-wise breakdown of publications (n = 107a) in %.
Theme
AR
VR
3D
Consumer experience
Consumer purchase journey
Brand relationships
41.3
38.2
62.5
49.2
50
31.3
9.5
8.8
6.3
VR: virtual reality; AR: augmented reality.
a
Studies that do not fall into these themes have not been included.
Ambika et al.
11
Figure 4. ADO framework.
4.3. ADO framework
Based on the vital insights from the detailed literature review, this section discusses the antecedents-decisions-outcomes (ADO) framework as exemplified in the research samples (Figure 4). We
identify the antecedents influencing consumers’ decisions or behavioral performance and the corresponding outcomes, along with relevant mediators and moderators (Thomas and Gupta, 2022).
Compared to a single immersive technology-based literature analysis, our comprehensive ADO
framework analysis for the role of immersive technologies in consumer behavior extends the scope
of the relevant variables. For example, compared to Kumar’s (2022) TCM-ADO-based review on
AR, we identified other antecedents such as embodiment, presence, and telepresence. Similarly,
apart from attitude and intention identified as primary consumer outcomes, we uncovered consumer learning and brand engagement as additional behavioral outcomes of experiencing immersive technologies.
4.3.1. Antecedents (A). The common antecedents examined in the studies on immersive technologies and consumer behavior can be classified into two major categories: technology factors and
media features.
4.3.1.1. Technology factors. The essential technology factors studied include technology adoption model (TAM) factors and information system (IS) success factors.
TAM factors (Davis, 1989) indicate that the degree to which an individual considers the usage
of immersive technology to be effortless (i.e. perceived ease of use) and capable of improving their
12
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
performance (i.e. perceived usefulness) is vital for customer experience, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. For instance, McLean and Wilson (2019) consider perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as important technology factors driven by AR attributes such as interactivity,
vividness, and novelty, which increase brand engagement, satisfaction with customer experience,
and brand usage intention.
Information system (IS) success factors (DeLone and McLean, 2004), such as system quality
(capacity to perform effectively and dependably), information quality (ease and fast availability of
relevant information), and service quality (personalized information and interaction) of immersive
technologies, influence consumer behavior (e.g. Algharabat and Dennis, 2010). For instance, in
their study of mobile AR, Chiu et al. (2021) argue that the personalized and relevant content, easyto-use and convenient application, and value of service represented by the IS success factors are
critical antecedents that drive consumer decisions.
4.3.1.2. Media features. The critical media characteristics studied include augmentation, embodiment, interactivity, presence, telepresence, vividness, and control.
Augmentation allows an enhanced view of the natural world by effectively aligning reality and
virtuality (Javornik, 2016b). For immersive technologies to succeed, how well they help consumers perceive the virtual–real object alignment is critical. Augmentation has been examined in the
form of perceived augmentation (e.g. Javornik, 2016b) and augmentation quality (e.g. Poushneh,
2018). Perceived augmentation signifies clarity and appropriate alignment, leading to spatial presence, positive attitude, and favorable consumer responses (Smink et al., 2020). Augmentation quality, which refers to the quality of AR images, is vital for a positive user experience, consumer
satisfaction, and a positive brand attitude (Rauschnabel et al., 2019).
Embodiment enables users to feel they are physically within the digital environment, where the
virtual components seem like a part of their own body (Shin, 2018). Embodiment is higher in VR,
as it transports users to virtual surroundings, leading to better immersion and engagement (Flavián
et al., 2020). Immersive technologies modify perceptions so consumers feel they are part of the
virtual world/virtual objects within their natural environment (Shin, 2018).
Interactivity enables consumers to respond to stimuli by independently controlling the immersive content and features. For instance, Kim and Ko (2019) explain how the interactivity of VR
improves the flow experience, leading to higher user satisfaction. In addition, interactivity delivers
an engaging and fun experience, making the purchase process pleasurable (Cowan and Ketron,
2019).
Presence explains the feeling of being transported to another environment. Telepresence signifies transferring users to a virtual environment through a communication tool or medium (e.g.
Algharabat and Dennis, 2010). In immersive technologies, presence and telepresence are equated
to the feeling that the virtual object is present within its immediate surroundings. These variables
have been widely used in VR research studies. Presence and telepresence contribute to the enjoyment of using immersive technologies and, as a result, positively change consumer attitudes and
behavioral intentions (Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
Vividness refers to the clarity and richness of the media that help consumers experience complete immersion in the virtual space (Yim and Park, 2019). Vividness is an antecedent across AR,
VR, and 3D studies. It positively influences consumer satisfaction, behavioral intentions, willingness to pay more for the product/service, consumer learning, and enjoyment (Barhorst et al., 2021;
McLean and Wilson, 2019).
Control is the consumers’ ability to regulate the interactions and actions with immersive technology (Han et al., 2020). Multiple forms of control, including a sense of ownership control (i.e.
control over how the body is represented physically), simulated physical control (i.e. ability to
Ambika et al.
13
Table 6. Frequently studied antecedents across immersive technologies.
Technology
Antecedents
AR
VR
3D
Interactivity, vividness, augmentation, TAM factors, IS success factors
Presence, telepresence, interactivity, vividness
Vividness, immersion
VR: virtual reality; AR: augmented reality; TAM: technology adoption model; IS: information system.
move or rotate the virtual objects), ownership control (i.e. the control over the activities of the digital representations of themselves), and sensory control modalities (i.e. ability to control technology
through multiple senses such as touch and voice), have been explored to understand the influence
of immersive technologies on consumers. The ability to control the immersive tools contributes to
the consumer’s feeling of being in harmony with the interactive experience (Huang et al., 2019)
and their perceived playfulness and usefulness of the immersive technologies, which in turn leads
to positive behavioral intentions (Han et al., 2020).
4.3.1.3. Frequently studied antecedents across immersive technologies. As elaborated in Table 6,
AR studies have frequently focused on characteristics such as interactivity, vividness, augmentation, TAM factors, and IS success factors as antecedents. These variables are essential due to the
ubiquitous access to AR through smartphones. VR studies focused extensively on presence and telepresence as antecedents, as VR devices can completely transfer users to a different virtual space.
Finally, the 3D studies mostly adopted vividness and immersion as antecedents since 3D relates to
enhancing the view of the object by increasing the illusion of depth.
4.3.2. Decisions (D). Decisions concern consumers’ behavioral responses, such as how they utilize/
interact with immersive technology-related antecedents (Paul and Benito, 2018). The antecedents
above lead to consumers’ decisions to use immersive technologies for hedonic and functional benefits. The crucial factors include engagement with the product/service/brand, enjoyment, consumer
learning, and uncertainty reduction.
Engagement with product/service/brand: Technology and media antecedents lead to consumers’
decision to engage with immersive technology tools. Engagement refers to consumers’ attention
and involvement with an activity, product, or entity (McLean and Wilson, 2019). Engagement
contributes to behavioral intentions, satisfaction, and a positive attitude toward a brand/product/
service (McLean and Wilson, 2019; Papagiannidis et al., 2017).
Enjoyment: The media features of immersive technologies lead to higher consumer enjoyment
(Yim et al., 2017). Tussyadiah et al. (2018) conclude that VR technology evokes a presence that
positively influences consumer enjoyment, leading to positive attitudes and behavioral intentions
toward brands and products (Li and Chen, 2019).
Consumer learning: Virtually experiencing products and services enables consumers to learn
more about their features (Li et al., 2002). According to Yim and Park (2019), 360-VR helps consumers without sufficient product knowledge gain essential information, leading to favorable
brand attitudes. Similarly, in the case of AR, the perceived informativeness of the technology generates a positive attitude and behavioral intentions (Qin et al., 2021).
Uncertainty reduction: Consumers use immersive tools to evaluate the options before making
their final choice, which increases their comfort with their decision (Song et al., 2019). According
to Cha and Im (2009), such evaluations reduce the risk perception of purchase decisions and make
them comfortable with their choices by reducing uncertainty about online purchase decisions.
14
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
4.3.2.1. The mediating roles of consumer experience. Their experiences mediate the consumer’s
decision to adopt immersive technologies. Various dimensions of experience have been explored
by scholars, including flow experience (i.e. consumers’ mental state of focused immersion and
involvement), immersive experience (i.e. the feeling of being momentarily absorbed in the virtual
world), and imagination of future consumption situations, usage experience, and simulated experience (i.e. imitation of real-life contexts).
For instance, Barhorst et al. (2021) find that AR leads to a heightened flow state, resulting in
improved learning, engagement, and customer satisfaction. Shin (2018) explains that VR’s flow
experience leads to greater customer engagement. Flavián et al. (2019) establish that the mediating
role of imagination enables consumers to experience the products/services through immersive
technologies virtually. In their study of underwater VR exploration experiences, Hudson et al.
(2019) argue that immersion mediates the effect of VR on customer satisfaction.
4.3.3. Outcomes (O). Outcomes represent the results of the consumers’ behavioral responses to the
immersive technology antecedents (Thomas and Gupta, 2022). The key variables include consumer attitudes and behaviors, brand-related outcomes, consumer satisfaction, and post-purchase
outcomes.
Attitudes and behavioral intentions: Consumers use immersive technologies for various functional and hedonic benefits, resulting in positive brand and product attitudes (Li et al., 2002) and
behavioral intentions, such as purchase, visit reuse, and patronage intentions (e.g. Kang et al.,
2020). Several features of immersive technologies and consumer perceptions about their usage,
convenience, and benefits lead to positive attitudes and behavioral intentions. For instance,
Rauschnabel et al. (2019) explain how the benefits and augmentation of AR apps lead to positive
brand attitudes mediated by consumer inspiration.
Brand-related outcomes: Consumers’ interactions with immersive tools for hedonic and functional purposes promote brand love/liking, brand recall, and self-brand connection. Immersive
technologies offer a unique environment where brands can interact with consumers, gauge their
reactions, and uncover new opportunities (Rejeb et al., 2021). As a result, Scholz and Duffy (2018)
observe that branded AR apps can forge intimate consumer–brand relationships. In other words,
immersive technologies help consumers connect firmly to the brands, leading to robust relationships entailing brand love and liking.
Consumer satisfaction: Customers interacting with immersive visualization feel an intense
experience of immersion and presence, leading to satisfaction with the shopping process, store,
product/service, and brand. Pizzi et al. (2019) find that in the context of a VR store, hedonic and
utilitarian benefits are enhanced, resulting in satisfaction with the store. Lee and Chung (2008)
similarly demonstrate that the user interface with a VR shopping mall more positively influences
consumer satisfaction than that with an ordinary shopping mall. Thus, the unique features of
immersive technologies can raise consumers’ level of satisfaction.
Post-purchase outcomes: Multiple scholars have focused on the role of immersive technologies
in inducing post-purchase outcomes such as positive word-of-mouth and recommendation intentions. For instance, Jung et al. (2015) observe that after satisfactory usage of AR devices in a theme
park, consumers exhibit a greater intention to recommend others to visit the place. Similarly,
Rodrigues and Loureiro (2021) study the impact of immersive technologies versus 2D in the context of movies and confirm that adopting immersive technology formats garners more significant
word-of-mouth compared to 2D designs.
4.3.4. Moderators. The moderators employed in the studies of immersive technology can be categorized as consumer-related, product-related, and situational. Consumer-related variables include
Ambika et al.
15
enjoyment from the immersive tools, information processing style, involvement with the products/
services, and personality factors. For instance, Kim and Ko (2019) conducted a VR study in the
context of sports. They concluded that the influence of the VR (IV) on the flow experience (mediator) is moderated by the consumer’s involvement with the sport (moderator), which ultimately
influences consumer satisfaction (DV).
Researchers have also considered product-related factors such as product type/category and
product liking. Choi and Taylor (2014) find that 3D advertising (IV) is more effective in influencing purchase intentions (DV) depending on the product type (moderator), such that the influence is
more substantial for geometric products (where size and shape are essential) than for material
products (where texture and weight are important).
Finally, situational factors such as the facilitating conditions and usage contexts have also been
explored as moderators. As an example, Heller et al. (2019) establish that the positive relationship
between AR-enabled processing fluency (mediator), influenced by AR configuration and AR transformation (IVs) and decision comfort (DV) is moderated by-product contextuality (where the consumer has to evaluate not only the product features but also their relationship with the context),
such that it will be stronger for contextual (vs non-contextual) products.
Based on the insights from the TCM-ADO framework, we identified research gaps and future
research areas, as outlined below.
5. Future research agenda
The previous section focused on the trends in examining the influence of immersive technologies
on consumer behavior. While the extant research is quite extensive, this emerging field of immersive technology has several untapped research avenues to be explored. Based on the systematic
literature review insights, we propose new areas for future research broadly divided into three sections: theory, research topics, and methodology.
5.1. Theory
As reflected by the wealth of top theories employed in studying the roles of immersive technologies on consumer behaviors, dominant theories used across the topic vary significantly. This makes
sense, given that the different immersive technologies have varying affordances, rendering dissimilar customer experiences. Examining the lists of the dominant theories reveals that most were
borrowed from the literature on technological adoption and media and have been used for decades.
We must identify and adapt newer theories from multiple disciplines to assist in explaining previously undiscovered phenomena associated with immersive technology experiences. Some recent
studies have focused on implementing such theories, resulting in novel findings. For instance,
Chylinski et al. (2020) described distinctive AR affordances using theories of situated cognition
from social psychology.
In addition, while most studies used a single theory from one domain to understand the consumer’s immersive technology experience, newer technological advances such as extended reality
(XR) and the Metaverse are evolving to provide consumers with fully immersive and engaging
experiences by integrating various immersive technologies, such as 3D, VR, AR, and MR.
Therefore, it may take a combination of theories to explain such complex phenomena involving
multiple immersive technologies, primarily because of the blending of disparate resources such as
embodiment, imagination, telepresence, and technology simulation (Keifert et al., 2020). Hence,
researchers studying consumer behavior in the Metaverse, for instance, will have to adopt integrated theoretical foundations considering technology adoption (e.g. TAM), the higher feeling of
16
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
VR-enabled presence (e.g. theories of presence and telepresence), the AR-facilitated consumption
imagination (e.g. theory of mental imagery), ephemeral considerations (e.g. time-space compression), and so forth. As Dwivedi et al. (2022) highlighted, the upcoming research on immersive
technology-based digital systems will have to explore consumer behavior using a combination of
“grand and mid-range theories” (p. 27).
Next is the need for a theoretical focus on changing consumption patterns triggered by the emergence of immersive technologies. As a welcome move toward sustainable consumption, a trend
toward replacing physical products such as post-it notes and product manuals with virtual alternatives (e.g. AR holograms, 3D formats, and others; Rauschnabel, 2021) has been observed, which
has the potential to alter consumer behaviors significantly. Similarly, the world has witnessed new
consumption behaviors during the pandemic, such as attending immersive virtual music festivals
(Yung et al., 2022) and virtual tours (Kwok and Koh, 2021) due to travel restrictions. Hence, there
is a pertinent need to examine the theoretical frameworks that can explain consumer responses to
the newer forms of consumption experiences empowered by the utilization of the latest immersive
technologies.
5.2. Research topics
The contexts in which most studies on the topic of immersive technologies and consumer behavior
have been conducted encompassed consumer experience (30%), consumer purchase journey
(23%), comparison studies (22%), and brand-consumer relationships (22%). However, as immersive technologies expand toward multiple consumer touchpoints, future scholars must focus on
emerging yet underexplored research contexts, as outlined below.
5.2.1. Advertising using immersive technologies. Marketers have been experimenting with immersive
technologies and regard AR and VR as vital disruptors in the advertising sector (Forbes, 2021).
Several social media platforms (e.g. Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok) and advertisement campaigns (e.g. Instagram filter campaigns) adopt immersive technology-based promotions. However,
few studies are available to guide academics and professionals on the efficacy of immersive technology-based advertisements (e.g. Leung et al., 2020; Sung, 2021). Therefore, future scholars may
contribute to the understanding of the role of immersive technology advertisements in consumer
reactions by answering the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are the antecedents and consumer-related outcomes of effective immersive technology advertisements?
How should advertising content be changed and adapted to be more effective in immersive
technology advertisements?
What factors determine positive consumer engagement with immersive technology advertisements? How can immersive content be designed, positioned, and communicated to
avoid challenges, including consumer disengagement, ad blocking/blindness, and
irritation?
What are the effects of the type of viewing device (e.g. smartphone, glasses), ad format
(e.g. image, video), and technology-novelty levels, as well as the individual differences of
familiarity with immersive technologies, demographic factors, cultural factors, and product
type (e.g. functional vs hedonic) in influencing the effectiveness of immersive-technology
advertisements?
5.2.2. Inclusive marketing. For several years, scholars have expressed the need for more studies on
inclusivity (e.g. Fisk et al., 2018), defined as an intentional practice of recognizing and mitigating
Ambika et al.
17
biases to include diverse people without exclusion or marginalization regardless of gender, race,
status, disability, sexuality, and nationality (Dewsbury and Brame, 2019). It is incumbent upon
brands to ensure that consumers are not denied equal opportunities to learn about products and
services. Immersive technologies can be of massive advantage to such consumers.
Recent studies (e.g. Celik, 2021) have found that disabled consumers’ needs must be considered
more profoundly for better accessibility and experiences. Some studies have indicated that immersive technologies facilitate better accessibility and management of physical obstacles for disabled
consumers (Ozdemir, 2021). Lotte et al. (2012) note that immersive technologies can offer freedom
from bodily constraints in a brain-stimulated experiential world. However, there is a lack of
research focused on the capabilities of immersive technology-enabled marketing for differentlyabled consumers. Hence, future researchers may consider the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
How can brands adopt immersive tools to reach differently-abled consumers? What are the
barriers to adoption for these consumers?
How can immersive technology marketing be devised to help disabled consumers better
integrate themselves into the real-world marketplace?
What models/frameworks help understand the efficacy of inclusive marketing through
immersive technologies?
5.2.3. Privacy and security concerns. Immersive technology devices utilize much data about the user
and the surroundings to create vivid, engaging experiences. In addition to user demographics and
behavioral information, immersive tools capture details such as images and videos of the users and
their surroundings and biometric data that might include eye-tracking and heart rate (Dick, 2021).
However, there are security concerns that hackers can use immersive technology systems to
deceive and manipulate consumers through social engineering assaults (Dwivedi et al., 2023;
Kaspersky, 2021). However, past studies have limitedly considered privacy and security issues by
examining their influences on consumer usage and purchase intention (e.g. Cowan et al., 2021).
Therefore, in-depth research and analysis are required from a public policy perspective to ensure
consumer privacy and security.
Furthermore, immersive technologies can result in adverse cognitive-behavioral effects on consumer behaviors, such as tech addiction and anti-social behavior, reducing shared human experience and threatening consumers’ mental health and social well-being (Morvan et al., 2020). To this
end, future researchers must examine how immersive technologies interact with consumers’ physical and mental health and affect individual and societal well-being. This is important in the long
run to guarantee the sustainable success of using immersive technologies. Some research questions
that can guide such studies include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are the consequences of perceived privacy and security invasions for consumers in
utilizing immersive technologies? What are the mechanisms and the moderators that might
reduce the negative influence?
Concerning consumer privacy and security, what considerations should be made when
firms implement immersive technology-infused marketing strategies?
To what extent are consumers willing to trade their privacy and security in exchange for
their user experience with immersive technologies?
How can immersive technologies enhance consumer well-being? Which types of immersive technologies or combinations of them are most effective?
5.2.4. Emerging formats of immersive technologies. Our analysis indicates that most of the studies
have been focused on VR (39%) and AR (37%), followed by 3D (12%) as the focal type of
18
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
immersive technology for investigation. Only 2% of the studies have investigated the role of MR
on consumer experiences. Moreover, we know little about the relationship between extended reality (XR), an umbrella term that subsumes the entire spectrum of realities assisted by immersive
technology (Kwok and Koh, 2021), and consumer behavior. Thus, more exploration of the roles of
MR and XR across the customer journey is needed to elevate the understanding of immersive technologies and consumer behavior.
5.3. Methodology
Our analysis indicates that most studies have adopted experiments or cross-sectional designs to
study the influence of immersive technologies on young consumers. In addition to traditional
research methods, biometric techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
and eye-tracking (Huang et al., 2021), which enable the capture of actual consumer behavioral
outcomes (Hulland and Houston, 2021), can be employed to deepen the understanding of the consumer’s actual physiological and neural responses to the use of the immersive technologies.
Immersive analytics is a new research method alternative receiving increasing attention (Skarbez
et al., 2019). Immersive analytics is the science of analytical reasoning and decision-making facilitated
by immersive human–computer interfaces (Chandler et al., 2015). The aim is to provide multi-sensory
interfaces for analytics approaches that support collaboration and allow users to immerse themselves
in their data. To this end, important questions include which immersive technologies are most effective
for immersive analytics (e.g. VR vs AR) and the advantages and disadvantages of immersive analytics
compared to traditional analytic approaches in understanding consumer behavior.
As these technologies become ubiquitous, future researchers should conduct longitudinal studies to observe whether consumer behavior changes over time. Moreover, even if young consumers
are the likely target of immersive technology marketing, it is imperative to examine how different/
similar the responses of older consumers will be compared to those of younger consumers in their
immersive technology experiences.
Finally, most studies were conducted in the United States and Europe, restricting the broader
applications of the findings. Considering that the Asia/Pacific market for immersive technology is
predicted to reach US$14.8 billion by 2026 (International Data Corporation (IDC), 2022), future
research endeavors should focus on this market along with multi-country comparisons and explorations into less-explored markets such as the Middle East and Africa. Geographical diversity in
study contexts must be achieved to apply region-specific strategies effectively.
6. Theoretical implications
This systematic review contributes to the literature by integrating past research on the influence of
immersive technologies on consumer behavior into a common framework through the TCM-ADO
approach. Even though there have been several literature reviews on this theme, most narrowly
focused on one or two immersive technologies and limited their applications to a single industry
(Chen et al., 2022; Javornik, 2016b; Kumar, 2022; Rejeb et al., 2021). Our review differs from
previous endeavors in that we consolidated existing knowledge on the influence of immersive
technologies on consumer behavior through a holistic lens across diverse business sectors encompassing retail, tourism, and entertainment. Doing so allowed us to reflect on the current digital
brand ecosystem that combines multiple immersive elements for consumers’ unique brand experiences and to acknowledge the different affordances conferred by immersive technologies. We
show that immersive technologies are not homogeneous and thus must be comprehended in the
broader framework while appreciating their differential influences on consumers.
Ambika et al.
19
We proposed future research opportunities for moving the field forward, considering an integrative view of the literature across the different types of immersive technologies anchored on the
integrated TCM-ADO framework, in as much as the focus of the research is on consumer behavior
associated with various immersive technologies. Although significant advances have been made in
understanding consumer responses to firms’ utilization of immersive technologies, many untapped
research areas have the potential to facilitate the advancement of the knowledge bases on this topic.
Therefore, we laid out research agendas for future studies to spark consumer behavior researchers’
interest in immersive technologies from theoretical, topical, and methodological perspectives.
7. Managerial implications
Our study highlights two vital managerial insights. First, the TCM-ADO framework focuses on the
crucial factors to be considered to ensure that immersive technologies create unique experiences
for the target consumers. Specifically, brands can look at combining multiple technologies along
the customer journey, as another can overcome the limitations of one technology. For instance, VR
provides higher levels of presence (i.e. the feeling of being in another place/near the virtual object).
In contrast, AR offers a “closer to reality” experience because users are given virtual content while
exposed to actual circumstances. Regarding the device needed to have an immersive experience,
VR may need headsets/hardware, but AR can be accessed through mobile, social media, and the
web. Combining different immersive tools can help marketers deliver immersive experiences in
the physical, virtual, and social domains, thus redefining customer engagement.
Second, our findings highlight the importance of providing highly immersive flow experiences
that can empower consumer imagination. Such experiences are inevitable for consumers to realize the value of adopting immersive technologies. Moreover, as explained in the ADO framework,
managers need to ensure that beyond the novel experience of using AR/VR/3D/MR tools and
interfaces, immersive technologies should allow consumers to engage with the brand actively,
learn from the experience about the product/service, and reduce uncertainty about purchase decisions and consumption scenarios. For instance, using immersive technology, brands can present
customers with significant interactive information beyond the product labels, bridging the gap
between reality and virtuality while providing knowledge that facilitates learned decisions. Such
value-added contributions will ensure a compelling return on investment for immersive technologies by enhancing consumers’ purchase intentions, positive consumer–brand relationships, and
positive word-of-mouth.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Hyunju Shin
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6338-801X
References
Algharabat R and Dennis C (2010) Using authentic 3D product visualization for an electrical online retailer.
Journal of Customer Behaviour 9: 97–115.
Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6:
355–385.
Barhorst JB, McLean G, Shah E, et al. (2021) Blending the real world and the virtual world: Exploring the role
of flow in augmented reality experiences. Journal of Business Research 122: 423–436.
20
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
Baron J (2021) Top 6 biggest challenges to implementing AR technology. CGS, 20 November. Available
at: https://www.cgsinc.com/blog/top-6-biggest-challenges-implementing-ar-technology-2021 (accessed
1 March 2023).
Beer J (2016) Why Toms Shoes and AT&T are taking a virtual reality trip to Colombia. Fast Company, 5
May. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3059526/why-toms-shoes-and-att-are-taking-a-virtual-reality-trip-to-colombia (accessed 1 March 2023).
Bonetti F, Warnaby G and Quinn L (2018) Augmented reality and virtual reality in physical and online
retailing: A review, synthesis and research agenda. In: Jung T, tom Dieck M and Rauschnabel PA (eds)
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Cham: Springer, pp. 119–132.
Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, et al. (2017) Optimal database combinations for literature searches
in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews 6: 245.
Celik AA (2021) Inclusion of disabled consumers in online retail landscape: Web accessibility conformance
of Turkish organized food retailers’ web sites. In: Cobanoglu C and Della Corte V (eds) Advances in
Global Services and Retail Management. Sarasota, FL: USF M3 Publishing, pp. 1–9.
Cha JY and Im KS (2009) The effects of virtual reality advertisement on consumer’s intention to purchase:
Focused on rational and emotional responses. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems 19: 101–124.
Chan G, Huo Y, Kelly S, et al. (2022) The impact of eSports and online video gaming on lifestyle behaviours
in youth: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior 126: 106974.
Chandler T, Cordeil M, Czauderna T, et al. (2015) Immersive analytics. In: Proceedings of the 2015 big data
visual analytics (BDVA), Hobart, TAS, Australia, 22–25 September, pp. 73–80. New York: IEEE.
Chen R, Perry P, Boardman R, et al. (2022) Augmented reality in retail: A systematic review of research foci
and future research agenda. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 50: 498–518.
Chiu CL, Ho HC, Yu T, et al. (2021) Exploring information technology success of augmented reality retail
applications in retail food chain. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61: 102561.
Choi YK and Taylor CR (2014) How do 3-dimensional images promote products on the Internet? Journal of
Business Research 67: 2164–2170.
Chung N, Han H and Joun Y (2015) Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality
(AR) application for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior 50: 588–599.
Chylinski M, Heller J, Hilken T, et al. (2020) Augmented reality marketing: A technology-enabled approach
to situated customer experience. Australasian Marketing Journal 28: 374–384.
Cowan K and Ketron S (2019) A dual model of product involvement for effective virtual reality: The roles
of imagination, co-creation, telepresence, and interactivity. Journal of Business Research 100: 483–492.
Cowan K, Javornik A and Jiang P (2021) Privacy concerns when using augmented reality face filters?
Explaining why and when use avoidance occurs. Psychology & Marketing 38: 1799–1813.
Dacko SG (2017) Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 124: 243–256.
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Quarterly 13: 319–340.
DeLone WH and McLean ER (2004) Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the DeLone & McLean
information systems success model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9: 31–47.
Dewsbury B and Brame CJ (2019) Inclusive teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education 18: fe2.
Dick E (2021) Public policy for the Metaverse: Key takeaways from the 2021 AR/VR policy conference.
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Available at: https://www2.itif.org/2021-arvrpolicy-conference-report.pdf (accessed 1 March 2023).
Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Baabdullah AM, et al. (2022) Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International
Journal of Information Management 66: 102542.
Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Wang Y, et al. (2023) Metaverse marketing: How the metaverse will shape the future
of consumer research and practice. Psychology & Marketing 40: 750–776.
Dwivedi YK, Ismagilova E, Hughes DL, et al. (2021) Setting the future of digital and social media marketing
research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management 59:
102168.
Ambika et al.
21
Farshid M, Paschen J, Eriksson T, et al. (2018) Go boldly!: Explore augmented reality (AR), virtual reality
(VR), and mixed reality (MR) for business. Business Horizons 61: 657–663.
Fisk RP, Dean AM, Alkire L, et al. (2018) Design for service inclusion: Creating inclusive service systems by
2050. Journal of Service Management 29: 834–858.
Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S and Orús C (2019) The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. Journal of Business Research 100: 547–560.
Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S and Orús C (2020) Impacts of technological embodiment through virtual reality
on potential guests’ emotions and engagement. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 30:
1–20.
Forbes (2021) 11 ways VR and AR stand to impact advertising, marketing and PR, 31 August. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2021/08/31/11-ways-vr-and-ar-stand-to-impact-advertising-marketing-and-pr/?sh=5ef2321b5201 (accessed 1 March 2023).
Grigorovici DM and Constantin CD (2004) Experiencing interactive advertising beyond rich media: Impacts
of ad type and presence on brand effectiveness in 3D gaming immersive virtual environments. Journal
of Interactive Advertising 5: 22–36.
Gupta DG, Shin H and Jain V (2022) Luxury experience and consumer behavior: A literature review.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 41: 199–213.
Han SL, An M, Han JJ, et al. (2020) Telepresence, time distortion, and consumer traits of virtual reality shopping. Journal of Business Research 118: 311–320.
Hao AW, Paul J, Trott S, et al. (2019) Two decades of research on nation branding: A review and future
research agenda. International Marketing Review 38: 46–69.
Heller J, Chylinski M, De Ruyter K, et al. (2019) Let me imagine that for you: Transforming the retail frontline through augmenting customer mental imagery ability. Journal of Retailing 95: 94–114.
Hinsch C, Felix R and Rauschnabel PA (2020) Nostalgia beats the wow-effect: Inspiration, awe and meaningful associations in augmented reality marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 53:
101987.
Huang J, Zhao P and Wan X (2021) From brain variations to individual differences in the color–Flavor incongruency effect: A combined virtual reality and resting-state fMRI study. Journal of Business Research
122: 604–612.
Huang T-L and Liu FH (2014) Formation of augmented-reality interactive technology’s persuasive effects
from the perspective of experiential value. Internet Research 24: 82–109.
Huang T-L, Mathews S and Chou CY (2019) Enhancing online rapport experience via augmented reality.
Journal of Services Marketing 33: 851–865.
Hudson S, Matson-Barkat S, Pallamin N, et al. (2019) With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a
virtual reality experience. Journal of Business Research 100: 459–468.
Hulland J and Houston M (2021) The importance of behavioral outcomes. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 49: 437–440.
International Data Corporation (IDC) (2022) AR/VR spending in Asia/Pacific* to reach $14.8 billion, driven
by remote meetings, training, and collaboration, says IDC, 4 December. Available at: https://www.idc.
com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prAP49932422 (accessed 1 March 2023).
Javornik A (2016a) Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics
on consumer behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30: 252–261.
Javornik A (2016b) ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’ Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural
responses to augmented reality applications. Journal of Marketing Management 32: 987–1011.
Jung T, Chung N and Leue MC (2015) The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management 49: 75–86.
Kang HJ, Shin JH and Ponto K (2020) How 3D virtual reality stores can shape consumer purchase decisions:
The roles of informativeness and playfulness. Journal of Interactive Marketing 49: 70–85.
Kaspersky (2021) What are the security and privacy risks of VR and AR, 11 June. Available at: https://
usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/security-and-privacy-risks-of-ar-and-vr (accessed 1 March
2023).
22
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
Keifert D, Lee C, Enyedy N, et al. (2020) Tracing bodies through liminal blends in a mixed reality learning
environment. International Journal of Science Education 42: 3093–3115.
Kim D and Ko YJ (2019) The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport spectators’ flow experience
and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 93: 346–356.
Kim MJ, Lee CK and Jung T (2020) Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended
stimulus-organism-response model. Journal of Travel Research 59: 69–89.
Kumar H (2022) Augmented reality in online retailing: A systematic review and research agenda. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 50: 537–559.
Kunkel N and Soechtig S (2017) Mixed reality: Experiences get more intuitive, immersive, and empowering. In: Tech Trends 2017: The Kinetic Enterprise. Deloitte University Press, pp. 49–52. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/tech-trends/2017/mixed-reality-applications-potential.
html (accessed 3 November 2022).
Kwok AO and Koh SG (2021) COVID-19 and extended reality (XR). Current Issues in Tourism 24: 1935–
1940.
Lee KC and Chung N (2008) Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the virtual reality shopping mall.
Computers in Human Behavior 24: 88–104.
Leung XY, Lyu J and Bai B (2020) A fad or the future? Examining the effectiveness of virtual reality advertising in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 88: 102391.
Li H, Daugherty T and Biocca F (2001) Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing 15: 13–30.
Li H, Daugherty T and 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: 43–57.
Li T and Chen Y (2019) Will virtual reality be a double-edged sword? Exploring the moderation effects
of the expected enjoyment of a destination on travel intention. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management 12: 15–26.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology 62: e1–e34.
Liberatore MJ and Wagner WP (2021) Virtual, mixed, and augmented reality: A systematic review for immersive systems research. Virtual Reality 25: 773–799.
Lim WM (2020) Challenger marketing. Industrial Marketing Management 84: 342–345.
Lim WM, Kumar S and Ali F (2022) Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: “What,” “why,” and
“how to contribute.” The Service Industries Journal 42: 481–513.
Lim WM, Yap SF and Makkar M (2021) Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: What
do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? Journal of Business Research 122:
534–566.
Lombart C, Millan E, Normand JM, et al. (2020) Effects of physical, non-immersive virtual, and immersive
virtual store environments on consumers’ perceptions and purchase behavior. Computers in Human
Behavior 110: 106374.
Lotte F, Faller J, Guger C, et al. (2012) Combining BCI with virtual reality: Towards new applications
and improved BCI. In: Allison BZ, Dunne S, Leeb R, et al. (eds) Towards Practical Brain-Computer
Interfaces. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 197–220.
Loureiro SMC, Guerreiro J, Eloy S, et al. (2019) Understanding the use of virtual reality in marketing: A text
mining-based review. Journal of Business Research 100: 514–530.
McLean G and Wilson A (2019) Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through
augmented reality mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior 101: 210–224.
Markets and Markets (2022) Augmented reality and virtual reality market by technology type (AR: Markerless,
marker-base; VR: Non-immersive, semi-immersive and fully immersive technology), device type, offering, application, enterprise, and geography—Global forecast to 2027. Market Research Report, June.
Available at: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/augmented-reality-virtual-realitymarket-1185.html (accessed 1 March 2023).
Ambika et al.
23
Melnyk R (2019) Audi’s 3D online car configurator uses Zerolight to deliver a fully interactive 3D experience. In: Amazon Partner Network (APN) Blog, 25 January. Available at: https://aws.amazon.com/
blogs/apn/audis-3d-online-car-configurator-uses-zerolight-to-deliver-a-fully-interactive-3d-experience/
(accessed 8 November 2022).
Milgram P, Takemura H, Utsumi A, et al. (1994) Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: Proceedings of the photonics for industrial applications (ed H Das), Boston, MA,
31 October–4 November, pp. 282–292. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and metaanalysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 4: 1–9.
Morvan L, Hintermann F and Ovanessoff A (2020) Preparing for the risky world of Extended Reality. MIT
Sloan Management Review 61: 1–4.
Nah FFH, Eschenbrenner B and DeWester D (2011) Enhancing brand equity through flow and telepresence:
A comparison of 2D and 3D virtual worlds. MIS Quarterly 35: 731–747.
Oliveira R, Arriaga P, Santos FP, et al. (2021) Towards prosocial design: A scoping review of the use of
robots and virtual agents to trigger prosocial behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior 114: 106547.
Ozdemir MA (2021) Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies for accessibility and
marketing in the tourism industry. In: Eusébio C, Teixeira L and Carneiro MJ (eds) ICT Tools and
Applications for Accessible Tourism. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 277–301.
Papagiannidis S, Pantano E, See-To EWK, et al. (2017) To immerse or not? Experimenting with two virtual
retail environments. Information Technology & People 30: 163–188.
Park M and Yoo J (2020) Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer responses: A
mental imagery perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52: 101912.
Paul J and Benito GR (2018) A review of research on outward foreign direct investment from emerging
countries, including China: What do we know, how do we know and where should we be heading? Asia
Pacific Business Review 24: 90–115.
Paul J, Lim WM, O’Cass A, et al. (2021) Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature
reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies 45(4): 1–16.
Paul J and Rosado-Serrano A (2019) Gradual internationalization vs. born-global/international new venture
models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review 36: 830–858.
Paul J, Parthasarathy S and Gupta P (2017) Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research
agenda. Journal of World Business 52: 327–342.
Perannagari KT and Chakrabarti S (2020) Factors influencing acceptance of augmented reality in retail:
Insights from thematic analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 48: 18–34.
Pizzi G, Scarpi D, Pichierri M, et al. (2019) Virtual reality, real reactions?: Comparing consumers’ perceptions and shopping orientation across physical and virtual-reality retail stores. Computers in Human
Behavior 96: 1–12.
Poushneh A (2018) Augmented reality in retail: A trade-off between user’s control of access to personal information and augmentation quality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41: 169–176.
Poushneh A and Vasquez-Parraga AZ (2017) Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail customer’s
experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34: 229–
234.
Qin H, Peak DA and Prybutok V (2021) A virtual market in your pocket: How does mobile augmented reality
(MAR) influence consumer decision making? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58: 102337.
Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, et al. (2020) A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers &
Education 147: 103778.
Rauschnabel PA (2021) Augmented reality is eating the real-world! The substitution of physical products by
holograms. International Journal of Information Management 57: 102279.
Rauschnabel PA, Felix R and Hinsch C (2019) Augmented reality marketing: How mobile AR-apps can
improve brands through inspiration. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 49: 43–53.
Rauschnabel PA, Felix R, Hinsch C, et al. (2022) What is XR? Towards a framework for augmented and
virtual reality. Computers in Human Behavior 133: 107289.
24
Australian Journal of Management 00(0)
Rejeb A, Rejeb K and Treiblmaier H (2021) How augmented reality impacts retail marketing: A state-of-theart review from a consumer perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing. Epub ahead of print 30 August.
DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2021.1972439.
Riar M, Xi N, Korbel JJ, et al. (2022) Using augmented reality for shopping: A framework for AR induced
consumer behavior, literature review and future agenda. Internet Research 33: 242–279.
Rodrigues MB and Loureiro SMC (2021) Virtual reality in the motion picture industry: The relationship
among movie coolness, sympathy, empathy, and word-of-mouth. Journal of Promotion Management
28: 144–159.
Scholz J and Duffy K (2018) We ARe at home: How augmented reality reshapes mobile marketing and
consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44: 11–23.
Shin D (2018) Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality
stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior 78: 64–73.
Singh S (2022) Metaverse: The future of (virtual) reality. Financial Express, 6 April. Available at: https://
www.financialexpress.com/industry/metaverse-the-future-of-virtual-reality/2483228/ (accessed 1 March
2023).
Skarbez R, Polys NF, Ogle JT, et al. (2019) Immersive analytics: Theory and research agenda. Frontiers in
Robotics and AI 6: 82.
Smart P (2022) Minds in the metaverse: Extended cognition meets mixed reality. Philosophy & Technology
35: 87.
Smink AR, Van Reijmersdal EA, Van Noort G, et al. (2020) Shopping in augmented reality: The effects of
spatial presence, personalization and intrusiveness on app and brand responses. Journal of Business
Research 118: 474–485.
Soliman M, Peetz J and Davydenko M (2017) The impact of immersive technology on nature relatedness and
pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Media Psychology 29: 8–17.
Song HK, Baek E and Choo HJ (2019) Try-on experience with augmented reality comforts your decision:
Focusing on the roles of immersion and psychological ownership. Information Technology & People 33:
1214–1234.
Suh KS and Lee YE (2005) The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: An empirical investigation.
MIS Quarterly 29: 673–697.
Sung EC (2021) The effects of augmented reality mobile app advertising: Viral marketing via shared social
experience. Journal of Business Research 122: 75–87.
Ter Huurne M, Ronteltap A, Corten R, et al. (2017) Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic
review. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16: 485–498.
Thomas A and Gupta V (2022) Tacit knowledge in organizations: Bibliometrics and a framework-based systematic review of antecedents, outcomes, theories, methods and future directions. Journal of Knowledge
Management 26: 1014–1041.
Tranfield D, Denyer D and Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–222.
Tussyadiah IP, Wang D, Jung TH, et al. (2018) Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management 66: 140–154.
Verhulst I, Woods A, Whittaker L, et al. (2021) Do VR and AR versions of an immersive cultural experience
engender different user experiences? Computers in Human Behavior 125: 106951.
Visinescu LL, Sidorova A, Jones MC, et al. (2015) The influence of website dimensionality on customer experiences, perceptions and behavioral intentions: An exploration of 2D vs. 3D web design. Information &
Management 52: 1–17.
Wang Y and Chen H (2019) The influence of dialogic engagement and prominence on visual product placement in virtual reality videos. Journal of Business Research 100: 493–502.
Wedel M, Bigné E and Zhang J (2020) Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 37: 443–465.
Wen H and Leung XY (2021) Virtual wine tours and wine tasting: The influence of offline and online embodiment integration on wine purchase decisions. Tourism Management 83: 104250.
Ambika et al.
25
World Economic Forum (2018) Creative disruption: The impact of emerging technologies on the creative
economy (White paper), 21 February. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/creative-disruption-the-impact-of-emerging-technologies-on-the-creative-economy (accessed 1 March 2023).
Xi N and Hamari J (2021) Shopping in virtual reality: A literature review and future agenda. Journal of
Business Research 134: 37–58.
Yim MYC and Park SY (2019) “I am not satisfied with my body, so I like augmented reality (AR)”: Consumer
responses to AR-based product presentations. Journal of Business Research 100: 581–589.
Yim MYC, Chu SC and Sauer PL (2017) Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e-commerce?
An interactivity and vividness perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing 39: 89–103.
Yung R and Khoo-Lattimore C (2017) New realities: A systematic literature review on virtual reality and
augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism 22: 2056–2081.
Yung R, Le TH, Moyle B, et al. (2022) Towards a typology of virtual events. Tourism Management 92:
104560.
View publication stats