The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1361-2026.htm

Evaluating garments in augmented Evaluating

garments in
reality when shopping online augmented
reality
Fatma Baytar
Department of Fiber Science and Apparel Design, College of Human Ecology,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Telin Chung Received 31 May 2018
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, and Revised 17 March 2019
25 August 2019
Eonyou Shin 20 December 2019
25 January 2020
Department of Apparel Housing and Resource Management, Accepted 25 January 2020
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Augmented Reality (AR) integrates computer-generated images to a physical environment in real-
time. Online apparel shopping presents some product-related risks, as consumers can neither physically see
and touch the products nor try them on. The present study examined whether AR conveys reliable apparel
product information in terms of fit, size, and product performance; and how AR affects attitudes toward apparel
and purchase intentions when shopping online.
Design/methodology/approach – This research was designed as a within-subject quasi-experimental study
using repeated measures in two conditions: virtual try-on using the AR technology vs. physical try-on. A
scenario was developed to help participants imagine themselves shopping online for a specific dress.
Findings – Results indicated that size and color of dresses were conveyed accurately when utilizing AR as
compared to physical try-on. Visual attributes such as style, garment details, and coordination with other items
were found to be satisfactorily predicted when AR was employed. Overall, attitudes towards both AR and real
dress, and purchase intentions were favorable. Participants with higher telepresence levels were found to have
more positive attitudes towards the dress and greater purchase intentions when using AR as compared to the
participants with low telepresence levels.
Research limitations/implications – Our findings implied that AR can provide enough information
especially for garment sizes and visual characteristics when making purchase decisions. AR technology can be
instrumental in introducing a certain style, building positive attitudes towards products, and driving sales,
when the consumers perceive a certain level of “being there”. This study was limited to female students in North
America. Also, because a single stimulus was used, the results cannot be generalized to other stimuli.
Originality/value – Our study findings showed that participants were able to select the right garment size by
using AR. The average ratings for visual characteristics such as style and detail were above the neutral level
when using AR; indicating that participants can understand visual attributes in AR when shopping online.
Moreover, in the AR condition participants with higher telepresence levels had higher attitudes towards the
garment and purchase intentions as compared to the participants with low telepresence. AR can be
instrumental for online apparel shopping. Retailers need to understand the potentials of these technologies and
work with technology developers to enhance consumers’ experiences.
Keywords Augmented reality, Apparel, Product performance, Virtual, Fit and size, The stimulus-organism-
response model
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
According to a recent report (Narvar, 2017), online shoppers returned apparel more than
goods from any category (43%); 70% of apparel is returned due to being the wrong size or
color. In online shopping environments, simulated reality enables consumers to “test drive”
products during the pre-purchase stage and decreases product returns (Edvardsson et al., Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International
Journal
We would like to thank Iowa State University, College of Human Sciences Helen LeBaron Hilton Grant © Emerald Publishing Limited
1361-2026
for funding our study; and to Zugara for allowing us to use their resources. DOI 10.1108/JFMM-05-2018-0077
JFMM 2005). Especially in fashion, such simulation systems provide companies substantial
opportunities by compensating for the lack of experiential shopping through enriching
product information with interactive visual cues (Fiore and Jin, 2003).
Image interactive technologies (IIT) are website features designed to simulate actual
product experiences by enabling online shoppers to (1) view products from different angles;
(2) change design features; and (3) see how apparel products look on their bodies/avatars to
understand garment fit and appearance (Fiore and Jin, 2003; Fiore et al., 2005; Merle et al.,
2012). IIT creates a feeling of presence in online environments, fully immersing shoppers in
the environment and enabling interaction. Immersion in an online environment is an
important aspect that generates a psychological condition, which is necessary for
experiencing presence when there are only visual clues for making purchase decisions
(Steuer, 1992; Witmer and Singer, 1998).
For online apparel shopping, there are two distinct IIT approaches for virtually trying
garments. One approach requires customizing virtual avatars from an existing library of
parametric models to represent shoppers’ body measurements and shapes as closely as possible,
then trying digital garments on these avatars. Physical and mechanical properties of garments
can be modeled three-dimensionally (3D), allowing shoppers to view garments in transparent or
tension modes and visually judge where the garment is tight or loose (triMirror, n.d). 3D
garments can be also generated from two-dimensional (2D) photographs for virtual try-on and
size recommendations (Metail, n.d.). However, such environments with both virtual garments
and virtual bodies can create artificial settings and make it difficult for consumers to make
real-world connections to the product (Azuma, 1997). As Li et al. (2001) indicated, presenting
products in their environmental context is important. Consumers prefer to see products within
their intended context, such as “the ring displayed on a hand or the laptop computer presented in
an office setting” (Li et al., 2001, p. 28). Therefore, using Augmented Reality (AR) for virtual
try-on is another approach gaining popularity when shopping online, as consumers can see
garments or accessories on their bodies without spending time customizing avatars.
AR technology integrates computer-generated sensory information with a physical
environment in real-time. Pine and Korn (2011) described AR as using digital information “to
enhance, extend, edit, or amend the way we experience the real world” (p. 36). AR systems
appear 3D and can apply to all senses (Azuma, 1997). In order to operate an AR application,
users must have access to a display device with a video camera (e.g. smartphones, tablets,
computers, or mirror-looking screens). On this display device, users can see their environment
while computer-generated images of products are placed on top of the view in real-time
(Carmigniani et al., 2011). From this perspective, AR can provide shoppers with an experience
that resembles physical interaction (Verhagen et al., 2014) and can potentially compensate
for the lack of experiential information in online settings (Kang, 2014; Lee, 2012), thus
bridging the gap between online and offline shopping (Huang et al., 2011; Lu and Smith, 2007).
Previously, researchers focused on the development, usability, and user acceptance of the
AR technology (Chang et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2011; Kang, 2014; Lu and Smith, 2007; Rese
et al., 2017), AR’s experiential value at the pre-purchase stage (Bulearca and Tamarjan, 2010;
Huang and Liu, 2014; Kang, 2014), and AR’s impact on purchase intentions (Beck and Cri
e,
2018; Huang and Liu, 2014; Rese et al., 2017). However, no researcher, to our knowledge, has
specifically developed a study to compare consumers’ perceptions of using AR for evaluating
garment sizes, fit, and product attributes when shopping online with their responses towards
the physical garments once they were “ordered and received.” Therefore, the purpose of the
present study was to examine consumers’ perceptions of a garment’s size, fit, product
performance, attitudes towards the product, and purchase intentions when using AR virtual
try-on in an online shopping context as compared to when physically trying on the real
garment. The focus of the present research was women. Specifically, we aimed to understand
whether AR virtual try-on could provide a comparable representation of physically trying on
a garment in terms of fit, size and product performance, and if there would be a difference Evaluating
between AR virtual try-on and physical try-on regarding their impact on attitudes towards garments in
the apparel product and purchase intentions.
augmented
reality
Literature review
A brief overview of AR apparel applications in online environments
In AR environments, apparel applications range from overlaying 2D static front images of
garments on the real-time static image of the viewer’s body (e.g. Webcam Social Shopper by
Zugara) to 3D, which is simultaneous rendering or dynamic fitting of the garment around the
viewer’s body to simulate garment drape as the viewer moves (e.g. Magic Mirror, n.d.). In both
cases, AR imagery allows viewers to see immediately how clothes would look on them
(Batista, 2013; Huang and Liu, 2014; Pachoulakis and Kapetanaki, 2012). The experience with
an AR garment is very similar to holding a garment up to oneself in front of a mirror
(Schwartz, 2011). AR applications in the apparel industry are usually developed for websites
and mobile devices so that customers can virtually try on clothing and accessories
(Carmigniani et al., 2011; Pachoulakis and Kapetanaki, 2012). Zugara, n.d., FittingBox, n.d.,
MemoryMirror, n.d. and Magic Mirror are some of the developers that provide AR
applications to fashion brands. In 2017, Gap collaborated with San Francisco-based start-up
Avametric and launched a digital dressing room with AR, where shoppers can create their
avatars and try garments on (Avametric, n.d.). In 2018, Amazon patented a magic mirror that
uses AR to superimpose garment images to users’ reflections in the mirror in real-time, which
can help with an AR-enabled shopping experience on Amazon.com (Boyle, 2018).
Although only a few apparel retailers have experimented with AR in their online stores,
more should consider using the potential of AR technologies to support consumers’ online
shopping (Pantano et al., 2017). Benefits of using AR include (1) providing shoppers with
digital help and increased likelihood of exploring more garments, (2) suggesting clothing
based on user preferences or fashion trends, (3) reducing the number of returned items, and (4)
low technology barriers (Chitrakorn, 2018). Challenges of using AR in online shopping are
related to whether these tools can assist shoppers with understanding product performance
when making purchase decisions (Pantano et al., 2017).

Conceptual framework
To explore how consumer perception of apparel products and behavioral intentions would be
impacted by AR in online apparel shopping, the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S–O–R)
model (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) was selected. The model proposes that environmental
stimuli are associated with behavioral responses, and that environmental stimuli (S) affect
organisms (O). Response (R) is the result of the internal (cognitive or emotional) process of the
organism in the form of approach or avoidance behaviors (Eroglu et al., 2003; Fiore and Kim,
2007; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Prashar et al., 2017; Watson et al., 2018). The S-O-R was
applied by numerous researchers to understand the influence of new retail technologies on
consumers’ affective and behavioral responses when shopping online (Eroglu et al., 2001;
Fiore and Kim, 2007; Prashar et al., 2017; Watson, et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2013) and is considered
as a robust model (Watson et al., 2018). Past studies found that AR creates rich sensory
experiences and influences mental imagery, resulting in positive emotional and behavioral
responses (Park and Yoo, 2020; Watson et al., 2018). In the present study, the S-O-R model was
used as a foundation to examine hypotheses. The hypotheses were developed based on the
elements in the model: stimuli (i.e. AR and physical try-on), organism (i.e. telepresence as an
internal state) and responses to the stimuli (i.e. attitudes towards the product and purchase
intentions)
JFMM Understanding stimulus: perception of apparel products in online AR environments
There are only a few studies investigated how garments and fashion accessories would be
perceived in online AR environments. In a study conducted by Chang et al. (2013), a real-time
3D dynamic fitting room was developed by using AR and Microsoft Kinect, through which
sensors were used to automatically measure participants’ sizes. Findings showed that sizes
based on the Kinect measurements were close to participants’ claimed sizes, indicating the
potential of using AR for online apparel shopping. Verhagen et al. (2014) examined the
differences among three different eyeglass presentation formats (picture, 360-spin
application, and AR try-on) on the Ray-Ban website. They found that AR can make users
feel significantly more “locally present” as compared to seeing pictures or 360-spin formats of
the products, suggesting that retailers who sell products that consumers need to try on before
buying can use AR technologies.
Online shoppers tend to perceive that products they see on a website may not look, feel, or
fit the same as the products they find in a brick-and-mortar store (Yu et al., 2012). For apparel
products, these perceptions manifest themselves as risks related to product performance
based on three main attributes: visual, tactile, and trial (Yu et al., 2012). Therefore, it is
important to measure whether apparel products received after using an AR application for
online shopping are close to shoppers’ expectations. Suh and Chang (2006) argued that online
shopping environments lead to a discrepancy between online products (pre-purchase) and
physical products (post–purchase) as consumers can not touch or try-on the online products.
According to the authors, this would result in either finding physical products more
satisfactory (i.e. positive disconfirmation), or the opposite (i.e. negative disconfirmation).
Previous AR studies examined size selections (Chang et al., 2013), technology acceptance
(Pantano et al., 2017), telepresence (Verhagen et al., 2014), interactivity and vividness (Yim
et al., 2017), and perceived tactile sensations (Overmars and Poels, 2015) in various AR
settings. However, none of these studies specifically addressed if and how shoppers fit into
the sizes selected by using an AR application, and if AR products’ expected performance
matches actual products’ performance once the online order is received. Therefore, the
present study’s results would be beneficial for the researchers when examining AR in online
shopping, and help retailers increase benefits and overcome challenges by providing them
with experimental data. In light of these needs, the following hypothesis was examined:
H1. AR virtual try-on will provide a comparable representation of physical try-on in
terms of (a) finding the right size, (b) evaluating fit, and (c) evaluating product
performance.

Organism: telepresence
Research on IIT-supported environments shows that shoppers can see digital product
attributes through a variety of rich visual cues, using their gestures to control the environment
(Huang and Lui, 2014; Merle et al., 2012). Because of this increased interaction, products are
experienced in “the mind’s eye,” which can potentially provide accurate sensory information
(e.g. touch, taste, and smell) based on real-world experiences with similar products (Schlosser,
2003). Telepresence is defined as a consumer’s sense of being present in a virtual environment,
such as an online store, where consumers could browse and shop as they would in a brick-and-
mortar location (Mollen and Wilson, 2010; Shih, 1998). Lim and Ayyagari (2018) described it as
“the perception of direct product experience simulated through a medium” (p.361).
Telepresence provides a good basis to understand consumers’ immersion and information
processing in the online AR context, as literature has found that telepresence is crucial for
consumer immersion in virtual environments (Steuer, 1992). Sense of telepresence is created by
the quality and quantity of simulated sensory information in the virtual space (Fiore et al.,
2005), particularly the perceived interactivity and virtuality, both characteristics that set AR
apart from more traditional forms of online shopping (Javornik, 2016). Coming into contact Evaluating
with digital products in AR can enrich product experiences. Additionally, consumers perceive garments in
AR products as tangible and attractive (Verhagen et al., 2014).
augmented
reality
Response: attitudes towards apparel products and purchase intentions
AR online shopping experiences can result in positive attitudes toward products and
increased purchase intentions (Verhagen et al., 2014). Yim et al. (2017) found that AR-based
product presentations were superior to conventional web-based product presentations since
they offer higher immersion, media novelty, and media enjoyment, and increase attitude
toward medium and purchase intention. If a website utilizes AR, consumers become more
curious about the products, tend to patronize the website, and eventually purchase the
products (Beck and Cri
e, 2018). Beck and Cri
e (2018) validated their findings by conducting
tests with two products (garments and eyeglasses) with both student and consumer samples.
However, their study was an online study and not set in a laboratory environment where
participants could use the same system and try-on the physical garment and accessory. To
our knowledge, no studies empirically compared consumers’ attitudes towards the product
and purchase intentions between AR and real-world conditions. Therefore, we proposed the
following hypothesis:
H2. AR virtual try-on will have a comparable effect to physical try-on in terms of users’
(a) attitudes towards the apparel product and (b) purchase intentions.
A recent study by Kim et al. (2017) found that the use of AR is positively related to enhanced
telepresence, which in turn contributes to attitude toward the technology, and purchase
intention of products. In the study, researchers suggested that in comparison to virtual reality
(VR)-based presentations (i.e. wearing sunglasses on a 3D virtual model), AR-based
presentations (i.e. using a webcam to see themselves wearing sunglasses) were more likely to
stimulate presence, thus leading to stronger purchase intentions. Other researchers also
supported that telepresence increases attitudes towards products (Debbabi et al., 2013) and
purchase intentions (Song et al., 2007; Watson et al., 2018). When comparing a VR interface to
2D photos and a video interface, Suh and Chang (2006) found that higher levels of
telepresence (i.e. manipulated as VR in their study) increased positive attitudes toward the
product, which was a computer desk. However, they did not find any direct association of
purchase intentions with telepresence. Similar to previous studies which examined a variety
of products from accessories to make-up in both VR and AR settings (Park and Yoo, 2020;
Yim et al., 2017; Watson et al., 2018), telepresence in AR apparel virtual try-on may increase
attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product. Thus, to understand the impact of
telepresence on attitudes towards the apparel product and purchase intentions, we proposed
the hypothesis presented below:
H3. When using AR virtual try-on, individuals who have a higher telepresence will have
greater (a) attitudes towards the apparel product and (b) purchase intentions than
those who have a lower telepresence.

Methods
Data were collected with a one-factor (i.e. garment) within-subject quasi-experimental study
using repeated measures in two conditions: virtually trying-on condition using the AR
technology vs. physically trying-on condition. Within-subject design was selected because it
allowed researchers to remove subject-to-subject variation from the analysis of the relative
effects of different treatments (Seltman, 2015). It is important to “consider the context” when
JFMM deciding whether a between or within subject design should be selected (Charness et al., 2012,
p. 2). Therefore, to be able to create conditions similar to the real-world, and not conflict with
the practice of online shopping (i.e. evaluating a garment on a website first and ordering it for
physical try-on), we let the participants try on the same dress in AR first and did not reverse
the order.
In this study, variance in participants’ body shapes and sizes is controlled with the
within-subject research design. Each participant was asked to try on the virtual dress using
the AR technology (Treatment 1), rate the perceived product performance, fit and size,
attitudes and purchase intentions towards the dress; and then physically try on the same
dress (Treatment 2) in a dressing room in the research lab after “ordering it online and
receiving it via mail.” In a similar vein, after viewing the product (a computer table) in an
online store by using three different viewing formats, Suh and Chang’s (2006) instructed
their study participants to go to a separate room to view the physical product and compare
it to the online product. After Treatment 2 in our study, participants answered the same set
of questions that they did after Treatment 1. The two treatments in this study design were
fundamentally different, as Treatment 1 required participants to evaluate the garment
solely based on the visual images presented by the AR technology, whereas Treatment 2
allowed participants to evaluate the garment by seeing, touching, and wearing it. More
details of the experiment procedure are discussed in the following sections.

Participants
Female college students age 18 and above were targeted as participants as they use the
internet for apparel shopping, are technology-savvy, and adopt new product visualization
technologies easily (Yu et al., 2012). Compared to men, women examine garments in more
detail and tend to have more difficulty in selecting clothing items for themselves when
shopping online (Hansen and Jensen, 2009). After receiving approval from the Institutional
Review Board (IRB), undergraduate and graduate female participants were recruited via a
large Midwestern university’s mass-emailing service. A total of 87 participants from a variety
of majors voluntarily participated in the study. Participants’ mean age was 25.6 years old
(SD 5 6.08). The majority of the participants were European-American (n 5 65, 74.7%),
followed by Asian/Asian-American (n 5 9, 10.3%), other (n 5 6, 6.9%), Latino/Hispanic
(n 5 4, 4.6%), and African-American (n 5 3, 3.4%). Most participants (89.7%) indicated that
they had bought apparel online. To increase participation, each participant was offered a $5
gift card as incentive.
Stimulus
In this study, a dress was used to develop the treatments. For Treatment 1, the dress image
was used in the AR technology for virtual try-on; for Treatment 2, the real dress was used for
physical try-on. Based on their pilot study finding using a convenience sample of 52 female
undergraduate students, Kim and Damhorst (2010) suggested dresses as the most frequently
purchased garment type among students. Huang and Liu (2014) also found that dresses were
among the top-three garments to be tried-on in AR; women spent the longest time on dresses
when using AR for virtual try-ons. Considering computer monitor limitations, full-length
dresses and pants are usually not easily seen with an online AR application. Also, full-length
sleeves add an extra variable to control the believability of the AR simulation.
In order to select the stimulus, six dress images of various knee-length, short-sleeved/
sleeveless dress styles were evaluated by five women in a pre-test. The pre-test examined the
garment style’s attractiveness, fashionability, and likeability, using a 7-point Likert-type
scale adapted from Park (2009). The average ratings of the six dresses were as follows: 4.47
(short-sleeved fitted dress), 3.53 (sleeveless fitted dress), 5.33 (short-sleeved shift/A-line
dress), 3.60 (sleeveless shift/A-line dress), 5.20 (sleeveless fit-and-flare dress), and 4.13
(short-sleeved fit-and-flare dress). Following suggestions from Kim and Lennon (2008) and Evaluating
Park (2009), the short-sleeved fit-and-flare dress with a neutral rating was chosen to limit the garments in
garment style’s potential effect on the variables. The dress was purchased from a mass-
retailer in sizes from XS (0–2) to XL (16–18). To eliminate the confounding effect of brand
augmented
name, brand labels were removed from the dresses. reality
To create the dress image for Treatment 1, a photo of the dress in size medium was taken
on an appropriate dress form. The dress form and background components were then erased
in Adobe Photoshop. The final image was uploaded in PNG format to the AR developer’s
(Zugara) server (Plate 1). In the online AR application, the computer’s webcam captured
participants’ body images, and the front-view of the stimulus was displayed on their body in
2D. Participants were able to adjust the size and placement of the AR dress by moving their
hands in the air and “clicking” the control buttons shown on the screen without needing a
mouse or a keyboard. This way, the computer screen became an interactive mirror without
necessitating a high-tech kiosk (Plate 1).
Since Treatment 2 was the real dress for physical try-on and should remain exactly the same
as the Treatment 1 dress to avoid any variations other than the AR versus physical try-on
conditions, the researchers intentionally made no adjustment to the dress. The researchers
nonetheless made sure that all sizes of the dress were available in the lab for Treatment 2.

Experimental procedures
Participants were invited to our research laboratory and received instructions about the task
and the procedures. Informed consent forms were filled out at the beginning. Participants
were instructed to use an iMac on which the AR application website specifically developed for
this study was available. To virtually try on the AR dress (Treatment 1), participants stood 4–
5 steps in front of the computer screen with a built-in video camera, so they could see their
bodies at least from head to calf. After the virtual try-on experience, participants were asked
to complete an online questionnaire on a separate laptop. The questionnaire measured fit and
size perceptions of the dress, product performance perceptions, telepresence, attitudes
towards the dress, and purchase intentions. The respondents also indicated the size of the
dress that would fit them. Next, participants physically tried on the real dress in the sizes they
indicated previously (Treatment 2), and then answered a second online questionnaire
regarding the real dress with the same measurement instruments, except telepresence, as the
previous questionnaire. We implemented “time-off” in two ways to minimize potential
confounding effects of the within-subjects design: (1) after the first questionnaire,
participants went to the changing room to try on the real dress and (2) we added three

Plate 1.
Representation of the
AR interface showing
the controls and the
dress stimulus
JFMM open-ended questions about participant reflections on AR (not included to the present study)
between the questionnaires to make it hard to remember repeated questions between
Treatment 1 and Treatment 2.

Survey instruments and data analysis procedures

Items used to assess dress fit involving thirteen areas (e.g. neck, busk, waist) except buttocks
were adapted from the fit scales developed by Song and Ashdown (2010) using a 5-point scale
that was anchored at too loose/long/wide (1), excellent fit (3), and too tight/short/narrow (5).
Product performance in regards to both treatments was measured with the product
performance risk scale adapted from Yu et al. (2012) using a 7-point Likert-type scale, which
was anchored at not sure at all (1) and very sure (7). A question, “How sure are you about the
apparel product’s attributes to perform satisfactorily to your needs?”, was asked to measure
three dimensions (visual, tactile, and trial) at ten sub-dimensions (visual: style, fabric, color,
details, coordination with other items; tactile: touch and feel, weight of garment; and trial: fit,
comfort, and appearance on body) (Yu et al., 2012). Telepresence was measured using the
scale adapted from Song et al.’s (2007) five-item, 7-point Likert-type scale, which was
anchored at strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The items asked if the application
“. . .lets me easily visualize what the real dress is like,” “. . .gives me as much sensory information
about the dresses as I would experience in a store,” “. . .creates a product experience similar to
the one I would have when shopping in a store,” “. . .allows me to interact with the dresses as I
would in the store,” and “. . .provides accurate sensory information about the dresses.”
Attitudes toward the AR and real dresses were evaluated using six items with a 7-point
Likert-type scale from Holbrook and Batra (1987) and Bruner (1998) for the following
question: “Please tell us about your overall thoughts and feelings about the dress: The dress
is. . .” The items were anchored at very dislikable (1)/very likeable (7), very unattractive (1)/
very attractive (7), very bad (1)/very good (7), very unfavorable (1)/very favorable (7), very
unpleasant (1)/very pleasant (7), very unappealing (1)/very appealing (7). Purchase intention
was measured by a scale originated from MacKenzie et al. (1986) and used by Yu et al. (2012):
very improbable (1)/very probable (7); very unlikely (1)/very likely (7); and very impossible
(1)/very possible (7). The instrument was pilot tested with five students. Some phrases in the
instructions and the questionnaire were further edited for clarity. Cronbach’s alphas of all
scales were greater than 0.8. Table 1 shows the constructs, their items, and the reliability
scores. To examine hypotheses, paired-sample t-tests and multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) were conducted in SPSS 26.

Results
Results for H1
Finding the right size. No statistical difference was found between the virtually tried-on AR
dress sizes (M 5 2.69; SD 5 1.16) and physically tried-on dress sizes (M 5 2.65; SD 5 1.23)
(t(86) 5 1.75; p 5 0.41). Therefore Hypothesis 1a was supported. Table 2 shows the
distribution of best-fitting dress sizes for AR (Treatment 1) and real (Treatment 2) dresses.
Evaluating fit. Before analyzing the overall fit of the dress using the product performance
construct, fit was evaluated in more detail by looking at thirteen locations on both AR and
real dresses. In general, all areas evaluated were perceived to be close to 3 (excellent fit). As
shown in Table 3, there were no significant differences in fit at four areas (neck, shoulder
width, sleeve opening, and volume/fullness in skirt) between AR and real dresses. However,
results showed significant differences between these two conditions in nine areas out of
thirteen. Participants perceived looser fit around bust (ΔM 5 0.28, SD 5 1.00, t(84) 5 2.58,
p < 0.05) and wider shoulder (ΔM 5 0.22, SD 5 0.93, t(86) 5 2.18, p < 0.05) when virtually
 AR dress Real dress
Evaluating
Constructs n M (SD) α n M (SD) α garments in
augmented
Product performance
Style 87 5.10 (1.39) N/A 87 5.70 (1.37) N/A reality
Fabric 86 3.73 (1.90) N/A 86 5.74 (1.24) N/A
Color 86 4.79 (1.50) N/A 86 5.20 (1.59) N/A
Coordination with other items 86 5.22 (1.50) N/A 86 5.70 (1.23) N/A
Details 87 4.37 (1.41) N/A 87 5.33 (1.38) N/A
Touch and feel 87 2.55 (1.84) N/A 87 5.89 (1.09) N/A
Weight of garment 85 2.81 (1.91) N/A 85 6.02 (0.99) N/A
Overall Fit 86 4.20 (1.71) N/A 86 5.36 (1.59) N/A
Comfort 85 3.38 (2.01) N/A 85 5.91 (1.14) N/A
Appearance on the body 86 4.63 (1.66) N/A 86 5.09 (1.71) N/A
Telepresence 86 3.70 (1.25) 0.88 N/A
Attitude towards the dress 86 5.25 (1.00) 0.94 86 5.60 (1.14) 0.96 Table 1.
Purchase Intention 86 4.27 (1.70) 0.96 86 4.74 (1.71) 0.96 The descriptive
Note(s): M 5 mean, SD 5 standard deviation, α 5 Cronbach’s alpha, 7-point Likert-type scales were used to statistics of survey
measure the constructs/ items instruments

Which dress size fit you best?

What size do you think you should wear for this dress? XS S M L XL XXL
XS 11 0 0 0 0 0
S 2 27 0 0 0 0 Table 2.
M 0 4 24 4 0 0 Distribution of AR
L 0 0 2 5 0 0 (virtual try-on) and real
XL 0 0 0 0 3 1 (physical try-on)
XXL 0 0 0 0 0 3 dress sizes

trying on the AR dress. However, areas such as waist (ΔM 5 0.39, SD 5 0.97, t(86) 5 3.76,
p < 0.001), abdomen (ΔM 5 0.26, SD 5 0.88, t(83) 5 2.37, p < 0.01), and hip (ΔM 5 0.43,
SD 5 0.83, t(85) 5 4.79, p < 0.001) were perceived tighter when using AR. When using AR,
lengths were perceived to be longer at the following areas: sleeve (ΔM 5 0.29, SD 5 0.85,
t(85) 5 3.16, p < 0.01), torso (ΔM 5 0.26, SD 5 0.92, t(86) 5 2.68, p < 0.01), skirt (ΔM 5 0.37,
SD 5 0.94, t(86) 5 3.64, p < 0.001), and overall dress length (ΔM 5 0.42, SD 5 0.76,
t(84) 5 5.13, p < 0.001). Therefore Hypothesis 1b was partially supported.
Evaluating product performance. Out of ten attributes that investigated participants’
perceived AR dress performance and real dress performance, nine items were found to be
significantly different. Average ratings for the attributes related to tactile properties (i.e.
touch and feel: M 5 2.55, weight: M 5 2.81) were lower than neutral (4) for the AR dress (see
Table 1). When wearing the real dress, participants thought that nine dress attributes
performed significantly better than when using AR: style (ΔM 5 0.60; SD 5 1.69; t(86) 5 3.30;
p < 0.01), fabric (ΔM 5 2.01; SD 5 2.15; t(85) 5 8.68; p < 0.001), coordination with other items
(ΔM 5 0.48; SD 5 1.45; t(85) 5 3.04; p < 0.001), details (ΔM 5 0.96; SD 5 1.64; t(86) 5 5.50;
p < 0.001), touch and feel (ΔM 5 3.34; SD 5 2.17; t(86) 5 14.32; p < 0.001), weight (ΔM 5 3.21;
SD 5 2.05; t(84) 5 14.42; p < 0.001), fit (ΔM 5 1.16; SD 5 1.85; t(85) 5 5.82; p < 0.001), comfort
(ΔM 5 2.53; SD 5 2.17; t(84) 5 10.75; p < 0.001), and appearance on the body (ΔM 5 0.46;
SD 5 2.09; t(85) 5 2.06; p < 0.05). Color (ΔM 5 0.41; SD 5 1.93; t(85) 5 1.12; p > 0.05) was not
significantly different between the two conditions (Table 4). Therefore Hypothesis 1c was
partially supported.
JFMM Real dress AR dress
fit fit AR dress fits. . .than
Fit location M (SD) M (SD) ΔM (SD) df t real dress

Neck 2.44 (0.54) 2.48 (0.65) 0.04 (0.60) 85 0.54 –

Bust 2.76 (0.68) 2.48 (0.85) 0.28 (1.00) 84 2.58* Looser
Waist 3.02 (0.65) 3.41 (1.00) 0.39 (0.97) 86 3.76*** Tighter
Abdomen 3.14 (0.60) 3.40 (0.78) 0.26 (0.88) 83 2.73** Tighter
Hip 2.98 (0.34) 3.41 (0.77) 0.43 (0.83) 85 4.79*** Tighter
Armhole 3.34 (0.61) 3.11 (0.89) 0.23 (1.05) 83 1.86 –
Shoulder width 2.95 (0.61) 2.73 (0.86) 0.22 (0.93) 86 2.18* Wider
Sleeve opening 3.25 (0.51) 3.06 (0.76) 0.19 (0.88) 85 1.97 –
Volume/fullness in 3.06 (0.47) 3.06 (0.56) 0.00 (0.68) 86 0.00 –
skirt
Sleeve length 3.27 (0.50) 2.98 (0.76) 0.29 (0.85) 85 3.16** Longer
Torso length 3.20 (0.63) 2.94 (0.85) 0.26 (0.92) 86 2.68** Longer
Skirt length 3.17 (0.77) 2.80 (0.73) 0.37 (0.94) 86 3.64*** Longer
Overall dress 3.14 (0.64) 2.72 (0.67) 0.42 (0.76) 84 5.13*** Longer
Table 3. length
Fit comparisons at Note(s): ΔM 5 Real dress fit-AR dress fit, A 5-point scale, anchored at too loose/long/wide (1), excellent fit (3),
thirteen areas and too tight/short/narrow (5), was used to measure the items, *p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001

Results for H2
A paired-sample t-test was conducted to test Hypotheses 2a (H2a) and 2b (H2b). Attitudes
towards both AR and real dress were favorable and above 5. Purchase intentions were
moderately positive in both conditions as well (Table 1). Participants had significantly more
favorable attitudes towards the real dress (M 5 5.60, SD 5 1.14) than the AR dress (M 5 5.25,
SD 5 1.00) (ΔM 5 0.35, SD 5 1.15, t(85) 5 2.62, p < 0.05). Participants indicated greater
purchase intentions during physical try-on (M 5 4.74, SD 5 1.71) as compared to AR try-on
(M 5 4.27, SD 5 1.70) (ΔM 5 0.47, SD 5 1.94, t(85) 5 2.32, p < 0.05). Thus, H2a and H2b were
not supported.

Results for H3
In order to examine Hypothesis 3, participants were split into two groups based on the mean
value of telepresence (M 5 3.70). Participants who indicated telepresence 3.70 and higher on
average were assigned to the high telepresence group (n 5 39), whereas participants who had
telepresence level lower than 3.70 were placed in the low telepresence group (n 5 48). Results of

ΔM SD df t

Style 0.60 1.69 86 3.30**

Fabric 2.01 2.15 85 8.68***
Color 0.41 1.93 85 1.12
Coordination with other items 0.48 1.45 85 3.04**
Details 0.96 1.64 86 5.50***
Touch and feel 3.34 2.17 86 14.32***
Weight of garment 3.21 2.05 84 14.42***
Table 4. Overall Fit 1.16 1.85 85 5.82***
Product performance Comfort 2.53 2.17 84 10.75***
comparison of ten Appearance on the body 0.46 2.09 85 2.06*
apparel attributes Note(s): ΔM 5 Real dress performance-AR dress performance, *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001
MANOVA showed that the high telepresence group tended to have more positive attitudes Evaluating
(MLow Telepresence 5 5.04 (SD 5 0.14), MHigh Telepresence 5 5.50 (SD 5 0.16)) and greater garments in
purchase intentions to the apparel product when using AR (M Low Telepresence 5 3.88 (SD 5 0.24),
M High Telepresence 5 4.77 (SD 5 0.27)) than the low telepresence group [F (1, 83) 5 3.15; p < 0.05,
augmented
partial η2 5 0.071]. Thus, Hypothesis 3a and 3b were supported. reality

Discussion
In this present study, we investigated if AR can help online apparel shoppers order the right
size, obtain clues about fit and product performance by judging visual clues, and determine if
virtually trying on an AR garment is the same as physically trying it on in regard to attitudes
towards the garment and purchase intentions. Additionally, we examined how high and low
telepresence levels of the participants in the AR condition impact their attitudes and purchase
intentions. Understanding how online AR technologies affect consumers’ perceptions of
garments can help brands develop new ways to reduce consumers’ regret caused by post–
purchase expectation disconfirmation. In our study, majority of the participants were able to
select their sizes correctly and did not need to try on a different size once they “received” the
garment “via mail” after “ordering it online.” Narvar’s (2017) survey shows that online
apparel shoppers make bracket purchases, which means buying multiple versions of an item
(size-, color- and style-wise) to see which they prefer, with the intention of returning the rest. In
this regard, using AR would be very beneficial for retailers to implement as it gives shoppers
more confidence in the sizes they want to try at home and reduces bracket purchases that
increase re-shelving and shipping costs. Implications also include using this technology in a
physical store environment to help shoppers quickly sort through styles to find what
they like.
In regard to perceiving fit, our study found that participants were able to approximate
how garment parts would fit (loose, tight, or right) when using an AR application. Therefore,
our results imply that AR virtual try-on can give shoppers visual clues on the garment fit.
However, the type of AR technology (3D overlay vs. 2D overlay), interactivity speed, and
quality of the AR images impacts the level of visual information (realistic vs. graphic) that
shoppers receive (Yim et al., 2017). In our study, when compared to the real dress, fit of the AR
dress was perceived to be significantly looser at the bust and tighter at the waist, abdomen,
and hip. The discrepancies found around the waist, abdomen, and hip are considered
plausible because the AR dress was a superimposed, static 2D image on the body, not
stretching at these areas. Our finding on the fit perception at bust was unexpected. This result
may have arisen from a possible difference between the bust measurements of the dress form,
which was used to create the AR dress stimuli, and study participants. Moreover, lengths of
sleeve, torso, skirt, and overall dress were perceived to be significantly longer in AR. Holding
a garment up to oneself and assessing its length may be different than wearing it. After
wearing the garment, the third dimension (depth) adjusts the garment length on the body and
the garment becomes shorter than its flat form against the body.
Although in our study only one type of stimulus (dress) was used, the findings may inform
improvement of AR applications to help consumers evaluate fit. For example, garment
pictures may be improved by taking several pictures of the same product depending on
different body types or sizes (petite, regular, tall, and plus) to reduce the discrepancy. The
images can be adapted to each user’s body shape, to the extent that the materials’ elasticity
allows. While retailers do not have much control over how AR technology improves, the
findings can help inform consumers of possible discrepancies, allowing for more accurate
decisions regarding fit.
Almost all of the product-performance-related items, except color, were perceived
significantly different in two conditions. Attributes such as style, fabric, coordination with
JFMM other items, details, touch and feel, weight, overall fit, comfort, and appearance on body were
perceived to perform better for the real dress. The average ratings for tactile attributes (e.g.
touch and feel, comfort, and weight) were closer to the unsatisfactory side of the scale when
using AR. In AR, users cannot account for tactile attributes such as touch and feel, comfort
and weight. Nonetheless, results related to specific visual characteristics (i.e. style, detail, and
coordination with other items), were above the neutral level when using AR, showing that AR
visuals were satisfactory to help participants understand these attributes when shopping
online.
The findings showed that physical try-on condition affected consumers to have higher
attitudes and purchase intentions compared to AR try-on condition. An explanation could be
that consumers still prefer and make decisions based on the actual tactile experience they
gained from physical try-on. However, it does not mean that AR is useless to consumers. As
the findings from H1 indicated, AR does provide good visual information that can increase
consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Furthermore, participants with higher
telepresence level were found to have more positive attitudes towards the dress and greater
purchase intentions when using AR as compared to the participants with low telepresence
level. This finding adds to the existing literature (Debbabi et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2017; Suh and
Chang, 2006) of how varying levels of telepresence affect attitudes towards the product and
purchase intentions from the apparel field’s point-of–view.

Conclusion
In the present study, the S-O-R model was used as a theoretical framework to investigate
how AR products, most specifically a dress, and AR try-on would be perceived by
consumers in comparison to physical interaction with the dress. For this purpose, we used
an online shopping scenario that allowed our participants to experience the AR product,
“order it” to see the physical dress, and decide if they want to keep it after physical try-on
(i.e. purchase intention of the real dress). In addition to contributing to the academic field of
AR product presentation in online shopping, our findings offer several implications for
research and society/practice. Theoretical contributions of this research imply that
although physical try-on plays an important role in apparel purchase decisions, AR
stimulus can provide information that helps consumers make accurate decisions
particularly regarding apparel sizes and visual characteristics when shopping online.
Therefore AR can supplement, rather than replace, the physical try-on experience.
Attitudes towards the dress and intentions to purchase the dress when using the AR
technology were above the mid-point, and close to the attitudes and intentions measured in
the physical try-on condition. Additionally, participants with higher telepresence levels
were likely to have higher attitudes and purchase intentions as compared to the
participants with low telepresence. These findings suggest that AR can be instrumental in
introducing a certain style, building positive attitudes towards products, and driving sales
when the consumers perceive a certain level of telepresence.
Although adopting AR to provide more information about the product on an e-commerce
environment would be an expensive investment (Plotkina and Saurel, 2019), our findings
imply that retailers can benefit from using AR technology to increase consumer interest in
their products. Retailers need to understand the potentials of AR technologies and work with
technology developers to push the limits to enhance shopper experiences. As suggested by
Pantano et al. (2017), fashion retailers who want to implement AR systems should be aware of
the recent progresses as well as drawbacks in technology, taking part in the innovation
process rather than passively adopting the offered technology. AR technology is an untapped
area in apparel, and its potential in conveying reliable information when shopping online
needs to be examined more closely.
 Some limitations of the present study must be addressed. First, the use of a student Evaluating
population reduces the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the vast majority garments in
of these women were in the XS-M category with very few women in the larger sizes. The
product chosen for this experiment is another limitation. As Kim and Lennon (2008) indicated,
augmented
when a single stimulus is used, the results cannot be generalized to other stimuli. Different reality
garment types in varying silhouettes and fit must be considered for further study. Future
studies should apply our methodology to other product categories and compare the results.
Technology accounts for a third limitation. The AR garments were 2D and did not wrap
around the body. Lu and Smith (2007) mentioned that AR system rendering should be
improved to merge digital and real environments in a realistic way. This would improve
vividness, i.e. “the ability of a technology to produce a sensorially rich mediated environment”
(Steuer, 1992, p. 80). As Suh and Chang (2006) suggested, focus should be on improving IIT
interfaces to generate higher telepresence levels, so that consumers’ perceptions of products
in online stores can be improved. Plotkina and Saurel (2019) argue that AR-based tools for
trying on garments virtually are not “sufficiently technologically advanced” yet. Their study
compared a mobile application with AR try-on to a mobile commerce interface that presented
fashion models similar to the consumers. Plotkina and Saurel (2019) found that their female
participants preferred traditional pictures. The present study used the AR provider’s server;
therefore, fiber, fabric information, and price were not included on the website. Participants
did not get clues on whether the fabric would stretch when wearing the dress, or if the dress
was affordable. Written explanations would encompass the limitations and overcome
picture-related misconceptions. As Kim and Lennon (2008) suggested, detailed verbal
descriptions are important to enhance consumer understanding of the product and positively
influence their purchase decisions. Additionally, collecting information from males would be
a good idea, as they have different preferences and were reported to be less confident when
selecting clothes without advice from a knowledgeable person (Hansen and Jensen, 2009;
O’Cass, 2004). The present study examined the influence of AR, which was developed by a
specific technology provider, on telepresence based on the S-O-R model. Future studies
should consider other providers as well as advancing AR functions, and using additional
theoretical models to compare the effects of different AR try-on conditions on telepresence.
Another limitation was the experimental design. Because a within-subject experimental
design was selected, with a possible carry-over effect, it is possible that attitudes and
purchase intentions were higher in the physical try-on condition due to the participants’
learning of the product, which might have been reinforced by experiencing the same product
twice, first virtually and second physically. Future research should look at conducting a
between-subject experiential design. Future studies should also investigate factors such as
visual imagery on AR fitting experience to better differentiate its competitive advantage as
compared to virtual try-on based on parametric models. Finally, future researchers should
examine the perceived value of AR fitting systems and their influence on consumer
experience. Although AR fitting has limitations on providing accurate fit information, based
on our study, the unique interactive features may contribute to consumers’ perceived value of
the shopping experience.

References
Avametric (2018), available at: https://www.avametric.com/.
Azuma, R. (1997), “A survey of augmented reality”, Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 355-385.
Batisa, L. (2013), “New business models enabled by digital technologies: a perspective from the
fashion sector”, Study report for the EPSRC RCUK DE research project NEMODE (New
JFMM Economic Models in the Digital Economy), available at: http://www.nemode.ac.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2013/03/BATISTA-case-study-in-the-fashion-sector-FINAL-Report.pdf.
Beck, M. and Cri
e, D. (2018), “I virtually try it . . . I want it! Virtual fitting room: a tool to increase on-
line and off-line exploratory behavior, patronage and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 40, pp. 279-286.
Boyle, A. (2018), “Amazon’s blended-reality mirror shows you wearing virtual clothes in virtual
locales”, available at: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-patents-blended-reality-mirror-
shows-wearing-virtual-clothes-virtual-locales/ (accessed 15 March 2019).
Bruner, G.C. (1998), “Standardization and justification: do ad scales measure up?”, Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Bulearca, M. and Tamarjan, D. (2010), “Augmented reality: a sustainable marketing tool?”, Global
Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3, pp. 237-252.
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E. and Ivkovic, M. (2011), “Augmented
reality technologies, systems and applications”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 341-377.
Chang, H., Li, Y., Chen, H., Feng, S. and Chien, T. (2013), “A dynamic fitting room based on Microsoft
Kinect and augmented reality technologies”, in Kurosu, M. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction,
Interaction Modalities and Techniques, Vol. 8007, pp. 177-185.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U. and Kuhn, M. (2012), “Experimental methods: between-subject and within-
subject design”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Chitrakorn, K. (2018), “5 technologies transforming retail in 2018”, available at: https://www.
businessoffashion.com/articles/fashion-tech/5-technologies-transforming-retail (accessed 15
March 2019).
Debbabi, S., Baile, S., Des Garets, V. and Roehrich, G. (2013), “The impact of telepresence in an online
ad on forming attitudes towards the product: the relevance of the traditional experiential
approach”, Recherche Et Applications En Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 3-24.
Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B. and Johnston, R. (2005), “Cocreating customer value through hyperreality
in the prepurchase service experience”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 149-161.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2001), “Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: a
conceptual model and implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 177-184.
Eroglu, S., Machleit, K. and Davis, L. (2003), “Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics
and shopper responses”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 139-150.
Fiore, A.M. and Jin, H. (2003), “Influence of image interactivity on approach responses towards an
online retailer”, Internet Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Fiore, A. and Kim, J. (2007), “An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian
shopping experience”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 421-442.
Fiore, A.M., Kim, J. and Lee, H. (2005), “Effect of image interactivity technology on consumer
responses toward the online retailer”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 38-53.
FittingBox (n.d)., available at: http://www.fittingbox.com/.
Hansen, T. and Jensen, J. (2009), “Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases: the role of gender
and purchase situation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 9/10, pp. 1154-1170.
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), “Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer
responses to advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 404-420.
Huang, T. and Liu, F.H. (2014), “Formation of augmented-reality interactive technology’s persuasive
effects from the perspective of experiential value”, Internet Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-109.
Huang, S., Yang, Y. and Chu, C. (2011), “Human-centric design personalization of 3D glasses frame in
markerless augmented reality”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Javornik, A. (2016), “Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media Evaluating
characteristics on consumer behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30,
pp. 252-261. garments in
Kang, J. (2014), “Augmented reality and motion capture apparel e-shopping values and usage
augmented
intention”, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 26 No. 6, reality
pp. 486-499.
Kim, H. and Damhorst, M. (2010), “The relationship of body-related self-discrepancy to body
dissatisfaction, apparel involvement, concerns with fit and size of garments, and purchase
intentions in online apparel shopping”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 239-254.
Kim, M. and Lennon, S. (2008), “The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and
purchase intentions in Internet shopping”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 146-178.
Kim, S., Baek, T.H. and Kim, S.H. (2017), “The effect of presence on consumers’ responses to virtual
mirror technology”, Paper presented at the 2017 International Textile and Apparel Association
Conference, 14-18 November 2017, St. Petersburg, FL.
Lee, K.-Y. (2012), “Consumer processing of virtual experience in e-commerce: a test of an integrated
framework”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 2134-2142.
Li, H., Daugherty, T. and Biocca, F. (2001), “Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic
commerce: a protocol analysis”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 13-30.
Lim, J. and Ayyagari, R. (2018), “Investigating the determinants of telepresence in the e-commerce
setting”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 360-371.
Lu, Y. and Smith, S. (2007), “Augmented reality e-commerce assistant system: trying while shopping”,
in Jacko, J. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction, Interaction Platforms and Techniques,
Vol. 4551, pp. 643-652.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.E. (1986), “The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of
advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 130-143.
Magic Mirror (n.d)., available at: http://www.magicmirror.me/.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge.
Memory Mirror (n.d)., available at: http://memorymirror.com/.
Merle, A., Senecal, S. and St-Onge, A. (2012), “Whether and how virtual try-on influences consumer
responses to an apparel web site”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 41-64.
Metail (n.d)., available at: http://www.metail.com/.
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63 Nos 9-10, pp. 919-925.
Narvar (2017), “Making returns a competitive advantage”, available at: http://see.narvar.com/rs/249-
TEC-877/images/Narvar_Consumer_Survey_Returns_June2017.pdf (accessed 15 March 2019).
O’Cass, A. (2004), “Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing
involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 869-882.
Overmars, S. and Poels, K. (2015), “Online product experiences: the effect of simulating stroking
gestures on product understanding and the critical role of user control”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 51 No. A, pp. 272-284.
Pachoulakis, I. and Kapetanakis, K. (2012), “Augmented reality platforms for virtual fitting rooms”,
International Journal of Multimedia and its Applications, Vol. 44, pp. 35-46.
JFMM Pantano, E., Rese, A. and Baier, D. (2017), “Enhancing the online decision-making process by using
augmented reality: a two-country comparison of youth markets”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp. 81-95.
Park, M. and Yoo, J. (2020), “Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer
responses: a mental imagery perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 52,
doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101912 (accessed 15 August 2019).
Park, M.J. (2009), “The roles of information load and information quality in online apparel shopping”,
Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 101-110.
Pine, B.J. and Korn, K. (2011), Infinite Possibility: Creating Customer Value on the Digital Frontier,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Plotkina, D. and Saurel, H. (2019), “Me or just like me? The role of virtual try-on and physical
appearance in apparel M-retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 51,
pp. 362-377.
Prashar, S., Sai Vijay, T. and Parsad, C. (2017), “Effects of online shopping values and website cues on
purchase behaviour: a study using S-O-R framework”, Vikalpa, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Rese, A., Baier, D., Geyer-Schulz, A. and Schreiber, S. (2017), “How augmented reality apps are
accepted by consumers: a comparative analysis using scales and opinions”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 124, pp. 306-319.
Schlosser, A. (2003), “Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery in
influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 184-198.
Schwartz, A.M. (2011), “Augmenting purchase intent: an empirical study on the effects of utilizing
augmented reality in online shopping”, Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of California,
Riverside, CA, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id51858976.
Seltman, H.J. (2015), “Within-subjects designs”, in Experimental Design and Analysis, available at:
http://www.stat.cmu.edu/∼hseltman/309/Book/chapter14.pdf.
Shih, C.-F. (1998), “Conceptualizing consumer experiences in cyberspace”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 655-663.
Song, H. and Ashdown, S. (2010), “An exploratory study of the validity of visual fit assessment from
three-dimensional scans”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 263-278.
Song, K., Fiore, A.M. and Park, J. (2007), “Telepresence and fantasy in online apparel shopping
experience”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 553-570.
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Suh, K. and Chang, S. (2006), “User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: the role of
telepresence”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
triMirror (n.d)., available at: http://www.trimirror.com/en/about/.
Verhagen, T., Vonkeman, C., Feldberg, F. and Verhagen, P. (2014), “Present it like it is here: creating
local presence to improve online product experiences”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 39,
pp. 270-280.
Watson, A., Alexander, B. and Salavati, L. (2018), “The impact of experiential augmented reality
applications on fashion purchase intention”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-06-2017-0117 (accessed 15 August 2019).
Witmer, B. and Singer, M. (1998), “Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence
questionnaire”, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 225-240.
Wu, J., Won, J., Hae, K.J., Damminga, C., Kim, H.-Y. and Johnson, K. (2013), “Fashion product display:
an experiment with Mockshop investigating colour, visual texture, and style coordination”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 765-789.
Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C. and Sauer, P.L. (2017), “Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e- Evaluating
commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 39, pp. 89-103. garments in
Yu, U., Lee, H. and Damhorst, M. (2012), “Exploring multidimensions of product performance risk in
augmented
the online apparel shopping context: visual, tactile, and trial risks”, Clothing and Textiles reality
Research Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 251-266.
Zugara (n.d)., available at: http://www.zugara.com.

Further reading
Cass, M. (2017), “Streetwear brands are tapping the creative power of AR”, available at: https://www.
jwtintelligence.com/2017/08/augmented-fashion/ (accessed 15 March 2019).
Kim, H.C. and Hyun, M.Y. (2016), “Predicting the use of smartphone-based Augmented Reality (AR):
does telepresence really help?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 28-38.
Li, H., Daugherty, T. and Biocca, F. (2003), “The role of virtual experience in consumer learning”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 395-407.
Workman, J. (2010), “Fashion consumer groups, gender, and need for touch”, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 126-139.

Corresponding author
Fatma Baytar can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]