CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 26, Number 3, 2023

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2022.0071

Open camera or QR reader and

scan code to access this article
and other resources online.

The Effect of Augmented Reality and Privacy Priming

in a Fashion-Related App:
An Application of Technology Acceptance Model

Yoori Hwang, PhD,1 Hana Shin, MA,2 Kayoung Kim, MA,2 and Se-Hoon Jeong, PhD2

Abstract

In this research, we tested (a) the effects of augmented reality (AR) and (b) how the effects of AR could be
moderated by privacy perceptions. We used a 2 eyewear app type (AR vs. non-AR) by 2 privacy priming (prime
vs. no prime) between-subject experimental design, and 114 Korean adults participated in the experiment.
Results showed that AR had a main effect on perceived ease of use but not on perceived usefulness. Instead, the
effect of AR on perceived usefulness was moderated by privacy priming such that the positive effect of AR on
perceived usefulness was weaker when privacy concern was salient. Moreover, the results provided support for
a moderated mediation model in which the indirect effect of AR on intent to use the app via perceived
usefulness was moderated by privacy priming. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords: virtual consumer, augmented reality, privacy, technology acceptance

Introduction Consumer attitudes and behaviors regarding AR could be

explained based on the technology acceptance model
(TAM).23 The model predicts behavior based on behavioral
T he development of new technologies (e.g., virtual
reality [VR], augmented reality [AR], and mixed reality)
has blurred the boundary between real and virtual consum-
intentions, which in turn is predicted by two important be-
liefs, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. There
erism.1 According to Milgram and Kishino’s ‘‘virtuality has been much empirical research applying the theoretical
continuum,’’ VR is closer to the virtual environment, whereas model24 to understand acceptance of media technology,25,26
AR is closer to the real environment.2(p1321) AR has been education technology,27–29 and health technology.30,31
defined as a system that ‘‘allows the user to see the real world TAM is particularly relevant to AR technology,32 and
with virtual objects superimposed upon or composited with several studies have applied the model to understand AR
the real world’’.3(p356) VR is a technology that ‘‘generally use.18,33–35 The results suggest that perceived usefulness, as
uses a headset, blocking out visual stimulus from the real well as perceived ease of use, predicts attitudes, which sub-
world,’’ whereas AR is a technology that ‘‘allows users to see sequently influences behaviors. Although AR technology
the real word, but overlays virtual elements.’’4(p706) might be perceived to be useful, some studies have suggested
AR technology could be used in various domains includ- privacy concerns related to AR use.36,37 This is because AR
ing engineering and manufacturing,5–9 education,10 and en- technology could gather and input data that might contain
tertainment.11 AR could be particularly useful for consumer sensitive personal information (e.g., human faces and bodies).
marketing and consumer experiences.12–15 For example, Thus, the present research examines whether the AR (vs.
much previous research examined how AR technology could non-AR) version of an eyewear app affects perceived use-
be used to promote fashion and beauty-related products.16–22 fulness and perceived ease of use, which in turn affect

1
Department of Digital Media, Myongji University, Seodaemun-gu, Korea.
2
School of Media and Communication, Korea University, Seongbuk-gu, Korea.

214
AUGMENTED REALITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS 215

attitudes and intentions to use the app. In addition, the non-AR) mostly focused on the effects of AR on attitudes
present study tests a moderated mediation model in which and purchase intentions. For example, Beck and Crié16 found
the indirect effect of AR on intentions via perceived use- that an AR-based virtual fitting room for clothes and eyewear
fulness is moderated by privacy priming. By examining the increased curiosity about products, which subsequently in-
role of privacy concerns in the acceptance of AR, the present creased purchase intentions, when compared with an
study can contribute to the literature on privacy concerns and e-catalog. Also, Watson et al.21 showed that AR-based retail
technology acceptance. app for cosmetics and makeup products increased positive
affective responses, which increased purchase intentions,
Rationale
when compared with shopping sites.
Yim et al.22 found that AR-based apps (vs. non-AR) for
Technology acceptance model. The purpose of TAM is sunglasses and watches enhanced interactivity and immer-
to predict behaviors (and behavioral intentions) based on sion, which resulted in perceptions of media usefulness and
attitudes and beliefs, and this theoretical framework is based consequently led to positive attitudes and purchase inten-
on the theory of reasoned action.38 The theory of reasoned tions. However, little previous research has tested the effects
action posits that behaviors are determined by behavioral of AR (vs. non-AR) on perceived usefulness and perceived
intentions, and those intentions are influenced by attitudes. ease of use based on TAM as a theoretical framework. Thus,
Attitudes, in turn, are formed based on various beliefs. For in this research, we experimentally test the effects of AR
example, some beliefs (e.g., useful or easy) could lead to apps (vs. non-AR apps) on perceived usefulness and per-
positive attitudes, whereas some beliefs (e.g., boring, costly) ceived ease of use. Thus, we specifically question as follows:
could result in negative attitudes. To predict technology
acceptance, TAM focuses on two key beliefs: perceived ease RQ1: Does AR (vs. non-AR) increase perceived usefulness
of use and perceived usefulness. First, perceived ease of use of the app?
is important because a technology is unlikely to be accepted RQ2: Does AR (vs. non-AR) increase perceived ease of
if it requires much effort and is difficult to learn how to use. use?
Second, perceived usefulness is important because a tech-
nology is unlikely to be accepted if it does not provide
Privacy concerns and privacy priming
benefits compared with conventional methods.
The model has been applied to understand the acceptance Privacy concern refers to ‘‘perceived threat to individual
of AR technology.18,33–35 For example, Goebert and privacy owing to the staggering and increasing power of
Greenhalgh34 examined users’ responses to a sports AR app information-processing technology to collect vast amounts
that allows various interactive features (e.g., in-game player of information,’’39(p41) and it reflects perceptions about the
tracking, player interview, and wayfinding), the results collection and control of information and awareness of pri-
showed that perceived usefulness was a positive predictor of vacy practices.40 Privacy concern is particularly relevant to
attitudes, whereas perceived ease of use was not. Chung AR because AR technology could gather and use information
et al.33 predicted the use of AR app for a tourist site and from the real world that might contain sensitive personal
found that perceived usefulness as well as ease of use was a information (e.g., human faces and bodies). Given the rele-
significant predictor of app use. Kim and Hyun35 examined vance, de Guzman et al.41 have provided a systematic review
users’ responses to an AR app named OVJET, which pro- of the privacy and security threats related to AR, and more
vides virtual information (e.g., phone numbers and consumer broadly mixed reality.
reviews of a place) when they click the markers on a For example, these threats include unauthorized or unin-
smartphone screen, and they found that perceived usefulness tended collection, storage, and disclosure of information
as well as telepresence was an important factor predicting during various stages: input, data processing, interaction, and
reuse intentions. output.41(p110:10) First, related to input, sensitive information
McLean and Wilson18 surveyed consumers who had used (e.g., bystander faces, email and chat logs) could be col-
AR apps for retail brands (e.g., Amazon, ASOS, and IKEA) lected. Second, related to data processing, sensitive infor-
and found that perceived usefulness as well as perceived ease mation could be aggregated and stored in a database. Third,
of use predicted brand engagement, and subsequent behav- related to user interaction, sensitive information could be
ioral intentions and word-of-mouth intentions. Based on shared among multiple users. Fourth, related to output,
survey data, much of the previous research has suggested that spoofing, tampering, and disclosure of information could
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use could predict occur.
intentions to use AR. Privacy concerns can affect one’s intentions to disclose
personal information, although there could be some dis-
H1: Perceived usefulness will result in more positive at-
crepancy between intentions and actual behaviors. The
titudes toward the app and greater intentions to use the app.
‘‘privacy paradox’’ refers to the discrepancy between indi-
H2: Perceived ease of use will result in more positive at-
viduals’ intentions to disclose personal information and their
titudes toward the app and greater intentions to use the app.
actual privacy management behaviors.42 A meta-analytic
Although much research has examined the role of per- review showed that individuals disclose more personal in-
ceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in predicting formation than they intend to.43 The privacy paradox might
individuals’ intentions to use AR technology, little research explain why individuals use AR technology despite potential
has tested whether AR technology (vs. non-AR) could en- privacy issues. For example, Rauschnabel et al.44 surveyed
hance perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Pre- AR users’ perceived risks (e.g., privacy risks and loss of
vious research that tested the effects of AR technology (vs. autonomy) and expected benefits (e.g., utilitarian, hedonic,
216 HWANG ET AL.

and symbolic benefits), and they found that intentions to laboratory, and they received 30,000 Korean won (about 30
adopt AR glasses were better predicted by expected benefits USD) for their participation. Of the 120 participants, 6 par-
than perceived risks. Although AR users have privacy con- ticipants’ responses were excluded because they had already
cerns, they may use the technology unless privacy concerns used the app before, and thus, they would have prior attitudes
become salient. toward the app. As a result, data from 114 participants were
Privacy concern could be particularly salient when privacy analyzed. The participants’ age ranged from 26 to 59 years
is primed. Priming theory suggests that a prime that depicts (M = 46.72, SD = 6.77), and 49.1 percent were females. The
the characteristics of a target could influence judgments of the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four ex-
target.45,46 For example, the judgments of a target (e.g., young perimental conditions, and the sample size per condition
or old person) could be affected by prime words (e.g., fast/ ranged from 27 to 30. This study was approved by the In-
slow), even if the relationship between the prime word and the stitutional Review Board at the author’s institution.
target is not explicitly described. Meta-analytic reviews have
shown that priming stereotypes could affect the judgments of
Experimental materials
social groups such as gender, age, race, and religion,47 and
priming weight cues could affect food intake.48 For the present experiment, we selected an eyewear
Priming theory could be applied to understand privacy shopping app named ‘‘Rounz’’ due to the following reasons.
concerns and AR-related cognitions and behaviors. The AR First, we chose a fashion- or beauty-related app because this
version of an eyewear app might result in greater perceived type of app could have privacy issues, which is the focus of
usefulness, when privacy is not primed, whereas the AR the present study. Privacy regarding personal faces is par-
version might be judged negatively when privacy is primed. ticularly important for fashion- or beauty-related apps than
Perceived usefulness involves individuals’ perceptions re- for other types of AR apps such as tourist sites33 and sports
garding the benefits of a technology. Privacy concerns re- games.34 Second, of the various fashion- or beauty-related
garding the AR technology may decrease perceived apps, we chose an eyewear product because it was gender
usefulness, and accordingly the positive impact of the AR neural. Finally, among several eyewear apps available in the
technology can be reduced when privacy concern is primed. Korean market, the ‘‘Rounz’’ app had the highest rating (4.7
Based on survey data, Cowan et al. (Study 1)36 reported that out of 5).
one’s perceived level of privacy risk was negatively related To manipulate app type, we used the AR mode versus non-
to perceived usefulness of AR apps, which in turn was as- AR mode of the ‘‘Rounz’’ app. The AR mode allowed users
sociated with flow and behavioral intention. Furthermore, to wear glasses or sunglasses on their own face. Thus, it
Cowan et al. (Study 2),36 using experimental data, showed provided virtual try-on experiences, and the AR function of
that concrete (vs. abstract) privacy policy disclosure re- the app was easy to operate. When one tapped a ‘‘virtual
garding Snapchat resulted in lower perceived usefulness and fitting’’ button, the app automatically placed an eyewear on
indirectly affected flow and intent to use. the user’s face. On the contrary, the non-AR mode showed
Although Cowan et al.’s study examined the role of privacy male or female models wearing glasses or sunglasses, and the
risk, their study was not tested in the context of virtual con- model gender was matched to the participant’s gender. Thus,
sumerism and marketing. Cowan et al.’s study focused on the the non-AR mode did not provide information regarding how
hedonic function of AR technology related to social media, the product would fit to one’s own face. To ensure compa-
whereas the present study examines the marketing aspect of rability, the same glasses and sunglasses were shown to the
AR technology related to commercial apps. To the best of our participants in the AR mode and non-AR mode.
knowledge, no study has applied TAM to examine the role of For priming, the participants were shown a news article
privacy concerns when using an AR-based marketing app. about privacy concerns. The news article mentioned privacy
Thus, in this research, we propose and test a moderated me- concerns about Facebook and TikTok. Specifically, it said
diation model in which the indirect effect of AR on intentions that Facebook shut down its facial recognition system and
to use the app via perceived usefulness is moderated by pri- deleted the face scan data of more than one billion users due
vacy priming. Therefore, we question as follows: to privacy issues, and TikTok updated the privacy policy to
collect biometric data such as faceprints and voiceprints. The
RQ3: Is the indirect effect of AR on intentions to use the
news article contained 163 words.
app via perceived usefulness (and attitudes) moderated by
privacy priming?
Measures
Methods Response options ranged from not at all ( = 1) to very
much ( = 5) unless otherwise noted.
Study design
Perceived usefulness was measured by six items adapted
The present study used a 2 app type (AR vs. non-AR) by 2 from past research.18 Sample items are as follows: ‘‘Using
privacy priming (prime vs. no prime) between-subject ex- the app enhances my shopping performance,’’ ‘‘Using the
perimental design. app enhances my shopping effectiveness,’’ and ‘‘I find the
app to be useful’’ (Cronbach’s a = 0.95, M = 3.77, SD = 0.86).
Perceived ease of use was measured using four items
Participants
adapted from past research.33 Sample items are as follows:
A total of 114 Korean adults participated in this study. ‘‘The interaction with the app is clear and understandable’’
There were 120 participants, who were recruited by Hankook and ‘‘I find the app easy to use’’ (Cronbach’s a = 0.87,
Research. Research participants were invited to a university M = 4.07, SD = 0.66).
AUGMENTED REALITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS 217

Attitudes toward the app were measured by three five- Hypotheses testing
point semantic differential items (bad-good, unpleasant- The present study suggested a moderated mediation model
pleasant, unappealing-appealing) that assess general in which privacy priming moderates the effects of AR on
thoughts about the app adapted from past research (Cron- intentions via perceived usefulness. Before directly testing
bach’s a = 0.89, M = 3.89, SD = 0.83).49 the moderated mediation model, the present study first tested
Intentions to use the app were assessed by three items H1 and H2 as well as RQ1 and RQ2 to examine the initial
that measure participants’ intentions to use the app in the relationships between AR, perceived usefulness, perceived
future following past research.33 Sample items are as fol- ease of use, attitudes toward the app, and intentions to use the
lows: ‘‘I intend to use the app in the future’’ and ‘‘I plan to app without privacy priming in the model.
use the app in the future’’ (Cronbach’s a = 0.96, M = 3.60, H1 and H2 hypothesized that perceived usefulness (H1)
SD = 1.08). and perceived ease of use (H2) would lead to more positive
For manipulation check, privacy concerns were as- attitudes toward the app and greater intentions to use the app.
sessed by four items adapted from previous research.37 In addition, RQ1 and RQ2 questioned whether AR (vs. non-
Sample items are as follows: ‘‘I think the app will over- AR) increases perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
collect my personal information’’ and ‘‘If I were to use. To simultaneously test H1, H2, RQ1, and RQ2, Hayes’
download and use this app, I would be concerned that the PROCESS macro (Model 80) was used.50
app would violate my privacy’’ (Cronbach’s a = 0.95, Results showed that perceived usefulness resulted in more
M = 2.79, SD = 1.13). positive attitudes (B = 0.59, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001) as well as
greater intent to use the app (B = 0.60, SE = 0.12, p < 0.001).
Thus, H1 was supported. However, the effect of perceived
Results ease of use on attitudes was marginally significant (B = 0.21,
SE = 0.11, p < 0.06), and perceived ease of use was not re-
Manipulation check and randomization check lated to intent to use the app (B = -0.01, SE = 0.13, p = 0.92).
Manipulation check results showed that privacy priming Thus, H2 was not supported. Related to RQ1, AR did not
had a significant effect on privacy concerns [t(112) = -3.22, increase perceived usefulness (B = 0.28, SE = 0.16, p = 0.08).
p < 0.01], such that participants in the privacy prime condi- With regard to RQ2, AR resulted in greater perceived ease of
tion (M = 3.11, SD = 1.14) reported a greater level of privacy use (B = 0.29, SE = 0.12, p < 0.05).
concerns compared with those in the nonprime condition Finally, RQ3 questioned whether the indirect effect of AR
(M = 2.46, SD = 1.02). Because the news article about privacy on intentions via perceived usefulness is moderated by pri-
concerns was shown only to those in the prime condition but vacy priming. To test a moderated mediation model, Hayes’
not to those in the nonprime condition, the difference be- PROCESS macro (Model 83) was used. As illustrated in
tween the two conditions indicates that the manipulation of Figure 1, results showed that there was a significant inter-
privacy priming was successful. action effect between AR and privacy priming on perceived
With regard to randomization check, there were no sig- usefulness (B = -0.68, SE = 0.32, p < 0.05) such that AR in-
nificant differences across the conditions in terms of age creased perceived usefulness only when privacy was not
[F(3, 110) = 0.72, p = 0.54], level of education [F(3, primed. In addition, perceived usefulness was positively re-
110) = 1.09, p = 0.36], and gender (v2 = 1.14, df = 3, p = 0.77). lated to attitudes (B = 0.69, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001) and inten-
Specifically, the proportions of female participants in tions (B = 0.59, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001). Attitudes were also
each condition were as follows: (a) the non-AR and no pri- positively related to intentions (B = 0.49, SE = 0.11,
vacy prime condition (45 percent), (b) the non-AR and pri- p < 0.001).
vacy prime condition (50 percent), (c) the AR and no privacy Results of a moderated mediation test showed that there
prime condition (44 percent), and (d) the AR and privacy was a significant indirect effect of AR on intentions via
prime condition (57 percent). Thus, randomization could be perceived usefulness, only when privacy was not primed
considered successful. (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11–0.71). When privacy

FIG. 1. Study model (moderated mediation model). Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
218 HWANG ET AL.

was primed, there was no indirect effect of AR on intentions plained based on TAM. Based on the findings of this study,
via perceived usefulness (95% CI: -0.33 to 0.23). Similarly, future research could further assess the processes through
there was a significant indirect effect of AR on intentions use which AR technology affects perceived usefulness and per-
via perceived usefulness and attitudes when privacy was not ceived ease of use. Furthermore, this study showed that
primed (95% CI: 0.05–0.42). However, there was no indirect privacy concerns could be an important moderator for
effect of AR on intentions via perceived usefulness and at- technology acceptance, particularly for AR technology. Al-
titudes when privacy was primed (95% CI: -0.19 to 0.15). though privacy concerns might have been less important
Thus, the moderated mediation model was supported. predicting technology acceptance in the past, it could be-
come more important for acceptance of AR technology. This
is because AR technology, and probably other new forms of
Discussion
technologies, could gather and use personal information.
Based on TAM, this study tested how AR apps could in- The present study can contribute to the field of virtual
crease perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which consumerism by showing that privacy concerns can be par-
subsequently lead to positive attitudes and intentions to use ticularly important in virtual consumerism (vs. traditional
the app, and the moderating role of privacy priming. The marketing) because privacy concerns can nullify the benefits
present study found that perceived usefulness was positively of AR features. Future research on TAM needs to pay close
related to attitudes and intentions, whereas the impact of attention to the role of privacy concern in TAM. In addition,
perceived ease of use was weak. The relationship between while the present study experimentally manipulated privacy
perceived ease of use and attitudes was only marginally concerns, future research can further examine the role of
significant, and there was no significant relationship between preexisting privacy concerns in virtual consumerism.
perceived ease of use and intentions. The results suggest that This study has some important practical implications as
perceived ease of use is a weaker predictor of attitudes and well. The finding suggests the importance of privacy con-
intentions. The result is quite consistent with the previous cerns in AR-based apps. When privacy concerns are
meta-analytic research, which has shown that perceived heightened, users might be less favorable toward AR
usefulness was a stronger predictor of behaviors and be- technology and might become reluctant to use the tech-
havioral intentions.27,29,31 nology despite the benefits. This might be particularly true
The present study showed that AR (vs. non-AR) can in- for fashion and beauty apps. Thus, corporations need to
crease perceived ease of use. Previous research on AR has address users’ concerns regarding privacy so that the ben-
examined some correlates of perceived ease. For example, efits of AR technology could be fully utilized by consumers.
Pantano et al.20 showed that interactivity of AR apps for sun- To that end, practitioners need to focus on the role of trust.
glass products increased perceived ease of use, while quality of For example, Norberg et al.42 proposed a model in which
information increased perceived usefulness. Also, McLean and risk perceptions predict intention to disclose personal in-
Wilson18 suggested that interactivity, vividness, and novelty formation, while trust perceptions predict actual disclosure
characteristics of AR apps for fashion and furniture products behavior. This means that risk perceptions would have a
increased perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. In negative impact on intentions to disclose personal infor-
addition, Oyman et al.19 found that novelty seeking increased mation, whereas trust perceptions would have a positive
the perceived degree of augmentation, which led to perceived impact on actual disclosure behaviors. Thus, corporations
ease of use and perceived usefulness of an AR app for makeup should aim to build trust with customers by clearly dis-
products. Thus, AR may lead to greater perceived ease of use closing their privacy policy and providing relevant infor-
through multiple processes. Future research could empirically mation proactively.
test the role of the potential mediators.
In addition, the present study showed that the effect of AR Author Disclosure Statement
on perceived usefulness was moderated by privacy priming
No competing financial interests exist.
such that the positive effect of AR on perceived usefulness
was found only when privacy was not primed. Moreover, the
Funding Information
results provided support for a moderated mediation model in
which the indirect effect of AR on intent to use via perceived This research was supported by the School of Media and
usefulness was moderated by privacy priming. These results Communication at Korea University.
suggest that privacy concerns could hinder individuals’ ac-
ceptance of AR apps, particularly when AR technology References
could possibly collect user’s sensitive personal information,
1. Wiederhold BK. Purchasing in a pandemic? Virtual con-
as in the case of fashion or beauty apps. When individuals
sumerism in 2021. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
estimate that the risks associated with AR technology are Networking 2021; 24:77–78.
greater than the benefits, perceived usefulness as well as 2. Milgram P, Kishino F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual
intentions to use the technology can be undermined. The displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems
finding is quite consistent with findings of previous research 1994; E77-D:1321–1329.
that has shown that users’ privacy concern could influence 3. Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence:
attitudes toward AR apps or intentions to use AR apps.37,51 Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1997; 6:355–385.
The present study has important theoretical implications. 4. Kaplan AD, Cruit J, Endsley M, et al. The effects of virtual
While past research has rarely tested the effects of AR (vs. reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training
non-AR) based on TAM as a theoretical framework, the enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Human Factors
present study showed that the impact of AR could be ex- 2021; 63:706–726.
AUGMENTED REALITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS 219

5. Chi HL, Kang SC, Wang X. Research trends and oppor- intention. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
tunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, Management 2018; 48:433–451.
engineering, and construction. Automation in Construction 22. Yim MYC, Chu SC, Sauer PL. Is augmented reality tech-
2013; 33:116–122. nology an effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity
6. Fraga-Lamas P, Fernández-Caramés TM, Blanco-Novoa Ó, and vividness perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing
et al. A review on industrial augmented reality systems for 2017; 39:89–103.
the industry 4.0 shipyard. IEEE Access 2018; 6:13358– 23. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
13375. user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly
7. Frigo MA, da Silva ECC, Barbosa GF. Augmented reality 1989; 13:319–340.
in aerospace manufacturing: A review. Journal of Industrial 24. Marangunić N, Granić A. Technology acceptance model: A
and Intelligent Information 2016; 4:125–130. literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in
8. Li W, Nee AYC, Ong SK. A state-of-the-art review of the Information Society 2015; 14:81–95.
augmented reality in engineering analysis and simulation. 25. Al-Qaysi N, Mohamad-Nordin N, Al-Emran M. Employing
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2017; 1:17. the technology acceptance model in social media: A sys-
9. Wang X, Ong SK, Nee AYC. A comprehensive survey of tematic review. Education and Information Technologies
augmented reality assembly research. Advances in Manu- 2020; 25:4961–5002.
facturing 2016; 4:1–22. 26. Wirtz BW, Göttel V. Technology acceptance in social
10. Chen P, Liu X, Cheng W, et al. (2017) A review of using media: Review, synthesis and directions for future empir-
augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016. In Po- ical research. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research
pescu E, Kinshuk, Khribi MK, et al., eds. Innovations in 2016; 17:97–115.
smart learning. Springer: Singapore, pp. 13–18. 27. Granić A, Marangunić N. Technology acceptance model
11. Lee SO, Ahn SC, Hwang JI, et al. (2011) A vision-based in educational context: A systematic literature review.
mobile augmented reality system for baseball games. In: British Journal of Educational Technology 2019; 50:
Shumaker R, ed. Virtual and mixed reality—New trends. 2572–2593.
Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 61–68. 28. Mustafa AS, Garcia MB. (2021) Theories integrated with
12. Alimamy S, Deans KR, Gnoth J. (2017) Augmented reality: technology acceptance model (TAM) in online learning
Uses and future considerations in marketing. In Benlamri acceptance and continuance intention: A systematic review.
R, Sparer M, eds. Leadership, innovation and entrepre- In 2021 1st Conference on Online Teaching for Mobile
neurship as driving forces of the global economy. Cham: Education (OT4ME), pp. 68–72.
Springer, pp. 705–712. 29. Scherer R, Siddiq F, Tondeur J. The technology acceptance
13. Bulearca M, Tamarjan D. Augmented reality: A sustainable model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation model-
marketing tool? Global Business and Management Re- ing approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital
search: An International Journal 2010; 2:237–252. technology in education. Computers & Education 2019;
14. Hilken T, de Ruyter K, Chylinski M, et al. Augmenting the 128:13–35.
eye of the beholder: Exploring the strategic potential of 30. Rahimi B, Nadri H, Afshar HL, et al. A systematic review
augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. of the technology acceptance model in health informatics.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2017; 45: Applied Clinical Informatics 2018; 9:604–634.
884–905. 31. Tao D, Wang T, Wang T, et al. A systematic review and
15. Poncin I, Mimoun MSB. The impact of ‘‘e-atmospherics’’ meta-analysis of user acceptance of consumer-oriented
on physical stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer health information technologies. Computers in Human
Services 2014; 21:851–859. Behavior 2020; 104:106147.
16. Beck M, Crié D. I virtually try it. I want it! Virtual fitting 32. Jetter J, Eimecke J, Rese A. Augmented reality tools for
room: A tool to increase on-line and off-line exploratory industrial applications: What are potential key performance
behavior, patronage and purchase intentions. Journal of indicators and who benefits? Computers in Human Beha-
Retailing and Consumer Services 2018; 40:279–286. vior 2018; 87:18–33.
17. Huang TL, Liao S. A model of acceptance of augmented- 33. Chung N, Han H, Joun Y. Tourists’ intention to visit a
reality interactive technology: The moderating role of destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application
cognitive innovativeness. Electronic Commerce Research for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 50:
2015; 15:269–295. 588–599.
18. McLean G, Wilson A. Shopping in the digital world: Ex- 34. Goebert C, Greenhalgh GP. A new reality: Fan perceptions
amining customer engagement through augmented reality of augmented reality readiness in sport marketing. Com-
mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior 2019; puters in Human Behavior 2020; 106:106231.
101:210–224. 35. Kim HC, Hyun MY. Predicting the use of smartphone-
19. Oyman M, Bal D, Ozer S. Extending the technology ac- based augmented reality (AR): Does telepresence really
ceptance model to explain how perceived augmented re- help? Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 59:28–38.
ality affects consumers’ perceptions. Computers in Human 36. Cowan K, Javornik A, Jiang P. Privacy concerns when
Behavior 2022; 128:107127. using augmented reality face filters? Explaining why and
20. Pantano E, Rese A, Baier D. Enhancing the online decision- when use avoidance occurs. Psychology & Marketing
making process by using augmented reality: A two country 2021; 38:1799–1813.
comparison of youth markets. Journal of Retailing and 37. Harborth D, Pape S. Investigating privacy concerns related
Consumer Services 2017; 38:81–95. to mobile augmented reality apps—A vignette based online
21. Watson A, Alexander B, Salavati L. The impact of expe- experiment. Computers in Human Behavior 2021; 122:
riential augmented reality applications on fashion purchase 106833.
220 HWANG ET AL.

38. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (eds). (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, 47. Kidder CK, White KR, Hinojos MR, et al. Sequential ste-
and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. reotype priming: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Psychology Review 2018; 22:199–227.
39. Collier G. Information privacy. Information Management 48. Buckland NJ, Er V, Redpath I, et al. Priming food intake
& Computer Security 1995; 3:41–45. with weight control cues: Systematic review with a meta-
40. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J. Internet users’ infor- analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
mation privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, Physical Activity 2018; 15:1–25.
and a causal model. Information Systems Research 2004; 49. Segijn CM, Voorveld HAM. A first step in unraveling
15:336–355. synced advertising effectiveness. International Journal of
41. de Guzman JA, Thilakarathna K, Seneviratne A. Security Advertising 2021; 40:124–143.
and privacy approaches in mixed reality: A literature sur- 50. Hayes AF. (2018) Introduction to mediation, moderation,
vey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 2019; 52:1–37. and conditional process analysis: A regression-based ap-
42. Norberg PA, Horne DR, Horne DA. The privacy paradox: proach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Personal information disclosure intentions versus behav- 51. Bailey AA, Pentina I, Mishra AS, et al. Mobile payments
iors. Journal of Consumer Affairs 2007; 41:100–126. adoption by US consumers: An extended TAM. Interna-
43. Baruh L, Secinti E, Cemalcilar Z. Online privacy concerns tional Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2017;
and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. Jour- 45:626–640.
nal of Communication 2017; 67:26–53.
44. Rauschnabel PA, He J, Ro YK. Antecedents to the
adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look
Address correspondence to:
at privacy risks. Journal of Business Research 2018; 92: Dr. Se-Hoon Jeong
374–384. School of Media and Communication
45. Neely JH. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical Korea University
memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and 145 Anam-ro
limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psy- Seongbuk-gu
chology: General 1977; 106:226–254. Seoul 02841
46. Fazio RH, Sanbonmatsu DM, Powell MC, et al. On the Korea
automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 1986; 50:229–238. E-mail: [email protected]