Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ack6CN3EwDY.

References

  • 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 89–96

  • Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 6:355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 168–189

  • Balaji M, Raghavan S, Jha S (2011) Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: a multisensory perspective. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 23:513–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blázquez M (2014) Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: the role of technology in enhancing the customer experience. Int J Electron Commer 18:97–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasel SA, Gips J (2014) Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. J Consum Psychol 24:226–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SP (1995) The moderating effects of insupplier/outsupplier status on organizational buyer attitudes. J Acad Mark Sci 23:170–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulearca M, Tamarjan D (2010) Augmented reality: a sustainable marketing tool. Glob Bus Manag Res Int J 2:237–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmigniani J, Furht B, Anisetti M, Ceravolo P, Damiani E, Ivkovic M (2011) Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools Appl 51(1):341–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin AV, Stem DE, Spangenberg ER, Clark MJ (2003) Consumer need for tactile input: an internet retailing challenge. J Bus Res 56:915–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter KS (2016) How hand proximity impacts consumer responses to a persuasive communication. Psychol Mark 33:135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacko SG (2017) Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technol Forecast Soc Change 124:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 57:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:55–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar R, Wertenbroch K (2000) Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res 37:60–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/14578/volumes/v36/NA-36

  • Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs C, Prandelli E, Schreier M (2010) The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand. J Mark 74:65–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furby L (1980) The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Polit Psychol 2(1):30–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner (2016a) Gartner’s 2016 hype cycle for emerging technologies identifies three key trends that organizations must track to gain competitive advantage. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3412017. Accessed 15/11/2016

  • Gartner (2016b) Why IT leaders should pay attention to augmented reality. http://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/it-leaders-pay-attention-to-augmented-reality/

  • Gineikiene J, Schlegelmilch BB, Auruskeviciene V (2017) “Ours” or “theirs”? Psychological ownership and domestic products preferences. J Bus Res 72:93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann B, Spangenberg ER, Sprott DE (2007) The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. J Retail 83:237–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurtner S, Reinhardt R, Soyez K (2014) Designing mobile business applications for different age groups. Technol Forecast Soc Change 88:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch SJ (2002) Product experience is seductive. J Consum Res 29:448–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer PM (1990) The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: some additional evidence. J Mark Res 27:78–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 67–68

  • Javornik A (2016a) Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour. J Retail Consum Serv 30:252–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javornik A (2016b) ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. J Mark Manag 32:987–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 871–882

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98:1325–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamleitner B, Feuchtl S (2015) “As if it were mine”: imagery works by inducing psychological ownership. J Mark Theory Pract 23:208–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk CP, Swain SD, Gaskin JE (2015) I’m proud of it: consumer technology appropriation and psychological ownership. J Mark Theory Pract 23:166–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky RL, Peck J (2012) Please touch: object properties that invite touch. IEEE Trans Haptics 5:139–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Matula DE (1993) Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna A (2012) An integrative review of sensory marketing: engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. J Consum Psychol 22:332–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche M, Yang Z, McDougall GH, Bergeron J (2005) Internet versus bricks-and-mortar retailers: an investigation into intangibility and its consequences. J Retail 81:251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBarr AN, Shedden JM (2017) Psychological ownership: the implicit association between self and already-owned versus newly-owned objects. Conscious Cogn 48:190–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao T (2015) Augmented or admented reality? The influence of marketing on augmented reality technologies. Inf Commun Soc 18:310–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:422–425

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe DB, Nowlis SM (2003) The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. J Consum Psychol 13:431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13:334–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23–25

  • Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 77:1321–1329

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 798–801

  • Pantano E (2014) Innovation drivers in retail industry. Int J Inf Manag 34:344–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pantano E, Naccarato G (2010) Entertainment in retailing: the influences of advanced technologies. J Retail Consum Serv 17:200–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pantano E, Servidio R (2012) Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and immersive technologies. J Retail Consum Serv 19:279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck J, Childers TL (2003) To have and to hold: the influence of haptic information on product judgments. J Mark 67:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck J, Childers TL (2006) If I touch it I have to have it: individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. J Bus Res 59:765–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck J, Shu SB (2009) The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. J Consum Res 36:434–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:189–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2003) The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Rev Gen Psychol 7:84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:869–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 124:306–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudmin FW, Berry JW (1987) Semantics of ownership: a free-recall study of property. Psychol Rec 37:257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser AE (2003) Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. J Consum Res 30:184–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser AE (2006) Learning through virtual product experience: the role of imagery on true versus false memories. J Consum Res 33:377–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 53:745–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song JH, Zinkhan GM (2008) Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. J Mark 72:99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence C (2011) Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Attent Percept Psychophys 73:971–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreer P, Kallweit K (2014) Augmented reality in retail: assessing the acceptance and potential for multimedia product presentation at the PoS. Trans Mark Res 1:20–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar SS, Xu Q, Dou X (2012) Role of technology in online persuasion. In: Rodgers S, Thorson E (eds) Advertising theory, pp 355–372

  • 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):892–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Krevelen D, Poelman R (2010) Augmented reality: technologies, applications, and limitations. Int J Virtual Real 9:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):96–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:270–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:460–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonkeman C, Verhagen T, van Dolen W (2017) Role of local presence in online impulse buying. Inf Manag 54(8):1038–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malaika Brengman.

Appendices

Appendix 1: scale items

Construct Scale type   Item Cronbach’s α/Pearson correlation
Perceived ownership (Peck and Shu 2009) 7-point Likert scale PO1 I feel like this is my [product]. α = 0.940
PO2 I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of the [product].
PO3 I feel like I own this [product].
Product attitude (Brown 1995) 7-point Likert scale PA1 Negative/positive α = 0.919
PA2 Unfavourable/favourable
PA3 Bad/good
PA4 Unpleasant/pleasant
Purchase intentions (Homer 1990) 7-point Likert scale PI1 Unlikely/likely r = 0.934
(p < 0.001)
PI2 Not probable/probable

Appendix 2: material product

figure a

Appendix 3: geometric product

figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brengman, M., Willems, K. & Van Kerrebroeck, H. Can’t touch this: the impact of augmented reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on perceived ownership. Virtual Reality 23, 269–280 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0335-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0335-6

Keywords

  • Augmented reality
  • Perceived ownership
  • Touch
  • Virtual product interaction
  • Mobile commerce