Virtual Reality

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 269–280 | Cite as

Can’t touch this: the impact of augmented reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on perceived ownership

  • Malaika BrengmanEmail author
  • Kim Willems
  • Helena Van Kerrebroeck
S.I. : Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Commerce


The rise of augmented reality (AR) technology presents e-retailers with new opportunities. According to previous research, it is a technology that can positively affect engagement, brand recall and purchase confidence. Mobile-enabled augmented reality differs from regular mobile phone use as the technology virtually overlays images or information to the real environment. As the use of a touch screen device (i.e. smartphone vs. laptop) has previously been found to positively affect feelings of perceived ownership, the current study examines whether the possibility to virtually manipulate a product on a mobile AR application would have an even stronger effect. This is examined for products with either material properties (i.e. products that require the examination of sensory information) or geometric properties (i.e. products that can be examined via written and/or visual information). The findings reveal that AR does indeed result in higher levels of perceived ownership, particularly in case of material products.


Augmented reality Perceived ownership Touch Virtual product interaction Mobile commerce 


  1. Adhani NI, Rambli DRA (2012) A survey of mobile augmented reality applications. In: 1st International Conference on Future Trends in Computing and Communication Technologies, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  2. Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 6:355–385Google Scholar
  3. Baier D, Rese A, Schreiber S (2015) Analyzing online reviews to measure augmented reality acceptance at the point of sale: the case of IKEA. In: Pantano E (ed) Successful technological integration for competitive advantage in retail settings. IGI Global, Business Science Reference, Hershey, PA, pp 168–189Google Scholar
  4. Balaji M, Raghavan S, Jha S (2011) Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: a multisensory perspective. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 23:513–530Google Scholar
  5. Blázquez M (2014) Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: the role of technology in enhancing the customer experience. Int J Electron Commer 18:97–116Google Scholar
  6. Brasel SA, Gips J (2014) Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. J Consum Psychol 24:226–233Google Scholar
  7. Brown SP (1995) The moderating effects of insupplier/outsupplier status on organizational buyer attitudes. J Acad Mark Sci 23:170–181Google Scholar
  8. Bulearca M, Tamarjan D (2010) Augmented reality: a sustainable marketing tool. Glob Bus Manag Res Int J 2:237–252Google Scholar
  9. Carmigniani J, Furht B, Anisetti M, Ceravolo P, Damiani E, Ivkovic M (2011) Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools Appl 51(1):341–377Google Scholar
  10. Citrin AV, Stem DE, Spangenberg ER, Clark MJ (2003) Consumer need for tactile input: an internet retailing challenge. J Bus Res 56:915–922Google Scholar
  11. Coulter KS (2016) How hand proximity impacts consumer responses to a persuasive communication. Psychol Mark 33:135–149Google Scholar
  12. Dacko SG (2017) Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technol Forecast Soc Change 124:243–256Google Scholar
  13. Daponte P, De Vito L, Picariello F, Riccio M (2014) State of the art and future developments of the augmented reality for measurement applications. Measurement 57:53–70Google Scholar
  14. Degeratu AM, Rangaswamy A, Wu J (2000) Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: the effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes. Int J Res Mark 17:55–78Google Scholar
  15. Dhar R, Wertenbroch K (2000) Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res 37:60–71. Google Scholar
  16. Feuchtl S, Kamleitner B (2009) Mental ownership as important imagery content. In: McGill AL, Shavitt S, Duluth MN (eds) NA - Advances in Consumer Research, vol 36. Association for Consumer Research, p 995.
  17. Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications, Beverley HillszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuchs C, Prandelli E, Schreier M (2010) The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand. J Mark 74:65–79Google Scholar
  19. Furby L (1980) The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Polit Psychol 2(1):30–42Google Scholar
  20. Gartner (2016a) Gartner’s 2016 hype cycle for emerging technologies identifies three key trends that organizations must track to gain competitive advantage. Accessed 15/11/2016
  21. Gartner (2016b) Why IT leaders should pay attention to augmented reality.
  22. Gineikiene J, Schlegelmilch BB, Auruskeviciene V (2017) “Ours” or “theirs”? Psychological ownership and domestic products preferences. J Bus Res 72:93–103Google Scholar
  23. Grohmann B, Spangenberg ER, Sprott DE (2007) The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. J Retail 83:237–245Google Scholar
  24. Gurtner S, Reinhardt R, Soyez K (2014) Designing mobile business applications for different age groups. Technol Forecast Soc Change 88:177–188. Google Scholar
  25. Hoch SJ (2002) Product experience is seductive. J Consum Res 29:448–454Google Scholar
  26. Homer PM (1990) The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: some additional evidence. J Mark Res 27:78–86. Google Scholar
  27. Javornik A (2014) [Poster] classifications of augmented reality uses in marketing. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality-Media, Art, Social Science, Humanities and Design (ISMAR-MASH’D). IEEE, pp 67–68Google Scholar
  28. Javornik A (2016a) Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour. J Retail Consum Serv 30:252–261Google Scholar
  29. Javornik A (2016b) ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. J Mark Manag 32:987–1011Google Scholar
  30. Javornik A, Rogers Y, Moutinho AM, Freeman R (2016) Revealing the shopper experience of using a “Magic Mirror” augmented reality make-up application. In: Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), pp 871–882Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98:1325–1348Google Scholar
  32. Kamleitner B, Feuchtl S (2015) “As if it were mine”: imagery works by inducing psychological ownership. J Mark Theory Pract 23:208–223Google Scholar
  33. Kirk CP, Swain SD, Gaskin JE (2015) I’m proud of it: consumer technology appropriation and psychological ownership. J Mark Theory Pract 23:166–184Google Scholar
  34. Klatzky RL, Peck J (2012) Please touch: object properties that invite touch. IEEE Trans Haptics 5:139–147Google Scholar
  35. Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Matula DE (1993) Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:726Google Scholar
  36. Krishna A (2012) An integrative review of sensory marketing: engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. J Consum Psychol 22:332–351Google Scholar
  37. Laroche M, Yang Z, McDougall GH, Bergeron J (2005) Internet versus bricks-and-mortar retailers: an investigation into intangibility and its consequences. J Retail 81:251–267Google Scholar
  38. LeBarr AN, Shedden JM (2017) Psychological ownership: the implicit association between self and already-owned versus newly-owned objects. Conscious Cogn 48:190–197Google Scholar
  39. Liao T (2015) Augmented or admented reality? The influence of marketing on augmented reality technologies. Inf Commun Soc 18:310–326Google Scholar
  40. Mauroner O, Le L, Best S (2016) Augmented reality in advertising and brand communication: an experimental study. World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Soc Behav Educ Econ Bus Ind Eng 10:422–425Google Scholar
  41. McCabe DB, Nowlis SM (2003) The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. J Consum Psychol 13:431–439Google Scholar
  42. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13:334–359Google Scholar
  43. Mekni M, Lemieux A (2014) Augmented reality: applications, challenges and future trends. In: Applied Computational Science—Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applied Computer and Applied Computational Science (ACACOS ‘14) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp 23–25Google Scholar
  44. Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 77:1321–1329Google Scholar
  45. Overmars S, Poels K (2013) Virtual touch sensations in an online shopping context: an experimental approach. In: 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). IEEE, pp 798–801Google Scholar
  46. Pantano E (2014) Innovation drivers in retail industry. Int J Inf Manag 34:344–350Google Scholar
  47. Pantano E, Naccarato G (2010) Entertainment in retailing: the influences of advanced technologies. J Retail Consum Serv 17:200–204Google Scholar
  48. Pantano E, Servidio R (2012) Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and immersive technologies. J Retail Consum Serv 19:279–286Google Scholar
  49. Peck J, Childers TL (2003) To have and to hold: the influence of haptic information on product judgments. J Mark 67:35–48Google Scholar
  50. Peck J, Childers TL (2006) If I touch it I have to have it: individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. J Bus Res 59:765–769Google Scholar
  51. Peck J, Shu SB (2009) The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. J Consum Res 36:434–447Google Scholar
  52. Peck J, Barger VA, Webb A (2013) In search of a surrogate for touch: the effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. J Consum Psychol 23:189–196Google Scholar
  53. Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2003) The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Rev Gen Psychol 7:84Google Scholar
  54. Pousttchi K, Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Hufenbach Y (2015) Introduction to the special issue on mobile commerce: mobile commerce research yesterday, today, tomorrow—what remains to be done?. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Rese A, Schreiber S, Baier D (2014) Technology acceptance modeling of augmented reality at the point of sale: can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews? J Retail Consum Serv 21:869–876Google Scholar
  56. Rese A, Baier D, Geyer-Schulz A, Schreiber S (2017) How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: a comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technol Forecast Soc Change 124:306–319Google Scholar
  57. Rudmin FW, Berry JW (1987) Semantics of ownership: a free-recall study of property. Psychol Rec 37:257Google Scholar
  58. Schlosser AE (2003) Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. J Consum Res 30:184–198Google Scholar
  59. Schlosser AE (2006) Learning through virtual product experience: the role of imagery on true versus false memories. J Consum Res 33:377–383Google Scholar
  60. Shen H, Zhang M, Krishna A (2016) computer interfaces and the “Direct-Touch” effect: can ipads increase the choice of hedonic food? J Mark Res 53:745–758Google Scholar
  61. Song JH, Zinkhan GM (2008) Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. J Mark 72:99–113Google Scholar
  62. Spence C (2011) Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Attent Percept Psychophys 73:971–995Google Scholar
  63. Spreer P, Kallweit K (2014) Augmented reality in retail: assessing the acceptance and potential for multimedia product presentation at the PoS. Trans Mark Res 1:20–35Google Scholar
  64. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93. Google Scholar
  65. Sundar SS, Xu Q, Dou X (2012) Role of technology in online persuasion. In: Rodgers S, Thorson E (eds) Advertising theory, pp 355–372Google Scholar
  66. Van Kerrebroeck H, Brengman M, Willems K (2017) Touching the void: exploring consumer perspectives on touch-enabling technologies in online retailing. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 45(7/8):892–909Google Scholar
  67. Van Krevelen D, Poelman R (2010) Augmented reality: technologies, applications, and limitations. Int J Virtual Real 9:1–20Google Scholar
  68. Varadarajan R, Srinivasan R, Vadakkepatt GG, Yadav MS, Pavlou PA, Krishnamurthy S, Krause T (2010) Interactive technologies and retailing strategy: a review, conceptual framework and future research directions. J Interact Market 24(2):96–110Google Scholar
  69. Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quart 36(1):157–178Google Scholar
  70. Verhagen T, Vonkeman C, Feldberg F, Verhagen P (2014) Present it like it is here: creating local presence to improve online product experiences. Comput Hum Behav 39:270–280Google Scholar
  71. Verhagen T, Vonkeman C, van Dolen W (2016) Making online products more tangible: the effect of product presentation formats on product evaluations. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 19:460–464Google Scholar
  72. Vonkeman C, Verhagen T, van Dolen W (2017) Role of local presence in online impulse buying. Inf Manag 54(8):1038–1048Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malaika Brengman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kim Willems
    • 1
    • 2
  • Helena Van Kerrebroeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business – Marketing and Consumer BehaviourVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Marketing and StrategyHasselt UniversityDiepenbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations