Seeing eye to eye: social augmented reality and shared decision making in the marketplace

Abstract

Firms increasingly seek to improve the online shopping experience by enabling customers to exchange product recommendations through social augmented reality (AR). We utilize socially situated cognition theory and conduct a series of five studies to explore how social AR supports shared decision making in recommender-decision maker dyads. We demonstrate that optimal configurations of social AR, that is, a static (vs. dynamic) point-of-view sharing format matched with an image-enhanced (vs. text-only) communicative act, increase recommenders' comfort with providing advice and decision makers' likelihood of using the advice in their choice. For both, these effects are due to a sense of social empowerment, which also stimulates recommenders' desire for a product and positive behavioral intentions. However, recommenders' communication motives impose boundary conditions. When recommenders have strong impression management concerns, this weakens the effect of social empowerment on recommendation comfort. Furthermore, the stronger a recommender's persuasion goal, the less likely the decision maker is to use the recommendation in their choice.

Touching the Untouchable: Exploring Multi-Sensory Augmented Reality in the Context of Online Retailing

“…These involve controlling a hologram using swiping and pinching movements with fingers, pressing buttons with fingers or a computer mouse, yet hand-movements that resemble touch are not in use (Krishna 2011). Across prior studies (Hilken et al 2017;Hilken et al 2018;Poushneh and Vasquez-Parraga 2017;Hilken et al 2019), consumers either viewed holograms through a mobile device (phone or tablet) or interacted with a hologram using the touchscreen of the device that resulted in higher value judgements compared to traditional media. From studies conducted outside of m-AR, we know touch can trigger impulse buying, reduce uncertainties and decrease perceived evaluation difficulties (Peck and Childers 2006;Peck and Wiggins 2006;Laroche et al 2005).…”

A theory of multiformat communication: mechanisms, dynamics, and strategies

“…Finally, firms have realized the value of interactions characterized as experiential and engaging too (Gonzalez 2019 ; Hilken et al 2020 ). Chief marketing officers responding to a survey indicate that they plan to spend up to half of their budgets on experiences, and 77% of them identify experiential marketing as vital (Wertz 2019 ).…”

“…Second, extant theories’ format-level predictions largely prioritize effective and efficient communication goals, without clearly illustrating how different formats could promote experiential communication in bilateral exchanges, even though customers demand experiences and “firms face unique challenges with regard to providing compelling customer experiences at the online organizational frontline” (Hilken et al 2020 , p. 884). However, research finds that social presence on websites, for example, can increase pleasure, arousal, and flow (Wang et al 2007 ).…”

“…Firms also worry about introducing AI and VR solutions that customers might reject (e.g., millennials versus boomers). For example, simulated cues can enhance customers’ decision comfort, but privacy concerns attenuate this effect (Hilken et al 2020 ). We anticipate that simulated cues will become even more relevant to multiformat communication strategies over time, growing more common in customer–firm exchanges (Gonzalez 2019 ; Grewal et al 2020a , 2020b ).…”

“…With VR, a sense of colocation can be simulated, which should heighten customer experiences (Expert Panel 2019 ). With simulated proximal cues, customers can explore products in different settings, enhancing decision convenience and comfort (Heller et al 2019 ; Hilken et al 2020 ) and transporting customers into the firm’s story (Grewal et al 2020b ). An avatar can provide an escape for customers, who appear however they want.…”