Technology acceptance modeling of augmented reality at the point of sale: Can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews?

Abstract Online reviews by users have become an increasingly important source of information. This is true not only for new users of goods or services, but also for their producers. They extend the insight into the acceptance of new goods and services, e.g. at the point of sale, from a mere sales and usage quantity oriented point of view to a cause and effect oriented one. Since online reviews by consumers of many goods and services are nowadays widespread and easily available on the internet, the question arises whether their analysis can replace the more traditional approaches to measure technology acceptance, e.g., using questionnaires with TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) items. This paper tries to answer this question using IKEA׳s mobile catalogue app as an example. For comparisons reasons, data on the acceptance of the current version of this catalogue is collected in four different ways, (1) as answers to batteries of TAM items, (2) as assignments to pre-defined adjective pairs, (3) as textual likes and dislikes of users (simulating online reviews), and (4) as publicly available (real) reviews by users. The source for (1)–(3) is a survey with a sample of respondents, the source for (4) an online forum. The data is analyzed using partial least squares (PLS) for TAM modeling and text mining for pre-processing the textual data. The results are promising: it seems that data collection via surveys can be replaced – with some reservations – by the analysis of publicly available (real) online reviews.

[1]  Lin Guo,et al.  Digging for gold with a simple tool: Validating text mining in studying electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication , 2015 .

[2]  Feng Li,et al.  Who is talking? An ontology-based opinion leader identification framework for word-of-mouth marketing in online social blogs , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[3]  X. Zhang,et al.  Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics , 2010 .

[4]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[5]  Yuzhu Lu,et al.  Augmented Reality E-Commerce Assistant System: Trying While Shopping , 2007, HCI.

[6]  T. S. Robertson,et al.  Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion , 1986 .

[7]  J. Arndt.  Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product , 1967 .

[8]  Susan J. Winter,et al.  Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Online Environments , 2006 .

[9]  Lei-da Chen,et al.  Technology Adaptation in E-Commerce: Key Determinants of Virtual Stores Acceptance , 2004 .

[10]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents: , 1990 .

[11]  Scott D. Johnson,et al.  Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources , 1997 .

[12]  Mark E. Parry,et al.  The Effect of Personal and Virtual Word‐of‐Mouth on Technology Acceptance , 2012 .

[13]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs , 1999, MIS Q..

[14]  Susan M. Keaveney,et al.  Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study , 1995 .

[15]  E. Pantano,et al.  Entertainment in retailing: The influences of advanced technologies , 2010 .

[16]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[17]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies , 1997 .

[18]  Naveen Donthu,et al.  Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics , 2006 .

[19]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model , 2003, MIS Q..

[20]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Acceptance of e-commerce services: the case of electronic brokerages , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[21]  Mark E. Parry,et al.  The Impact of Word of Mouth Sources on the Perceived Usefulness of an Innovation , 2013 .

[22]  Hannu Saarijärvi,et al.  From selling to supporting - Leveraging mobile services in the context of food retailing , 2014 .

[23]  Eleonora Pantano,et al.  Modeling innovative points of sales through virtual and immersive technologies , 2012 .

[24]  D. Gerbing,et al.  Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis , 1996 .

[25]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[26]  Mira Lee,et al.  Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) , 2009 .

[27]  M. Bulearca,et al.  Augmented Reality: A Sustainable Marketing Tool? , 2010 .

[28]  P. A. Dabholkar,et al.  A comprehensive framework for service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study , 2000 .

[29]  Robert M. Schindler,et al.  Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information , 2001 .

[30]  Dwayne D. Gremler,et al.  Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? , 2004 .

[31]  Robert H. Ducoffe.  ADVERTISING VALUE AND ADVERTISING ON THE WEB , 1996 .

[32]  A. Hausman,et al.  The effect of web interface features on consumer online purchase intentions , 2009 .

[33]  Chi-Ren Shyu,et al.  How Can Virtual Reality Reshape Furniture Retailing? , 2008 .

[34]  J. C. Flanagan.  Psychological Bulletin THE CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE , 2022 .

[35]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[36]  Lee D. Butterfield,et al.  Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond , 2005 .

[37]  R. Calantone,et al.  The effects of market network heterogeneity on innovation diffusion: An agent-based modeling approach , 2010 .

[38]  Thomas Olsson,et al.  Online user survey on current mobile augmented reality applications , 2011, 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality.

[39]  J. Zaichkowsky.  Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[40]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[41]  Ingoo Han,et al.  The impact of the online and offline features on the user acceptance of Internet shopping malls , 2004, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[42]  E. Anderson.  Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth , 1998 .

[43]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[44]  Mark E. Parry,et al.  Personal Word of Mouth, Virtual Word of Mouth, and Innovation Use , 2013 .

[45]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[46]  Kaisa Väänänen,et al.  Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of shopping centres , 2011, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[47]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[48]  Leena Ventä-Olkkonen,et al.  User evaluation of mobile augmented reality scenarios , 2012, J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ..

[49]  G. Lilien,et al.  A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing , 2008 .

[50]  Gordon C. Bruner,et al.  Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices , 2005 .

[51]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Reconceptualizing Compatability Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research , 2006, MIS Q..