Asian Journal of Business Research Volume 8 Issue 2, 2018

ISSN 2463-4522 e-ISSN 1778-8933 DOI: 10.14707/ajbr.180051

Augmented Reality Trends to the Field of Business and

Economics: A Review of 20 years of Research

Mafalda Teles Roxo

LIAAD/INESC-TEC and Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto, Portugal

Pedro Quelhas Brito

LIAAD/INESC-TEC and Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto, Portugal

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) is emerging as a technology that is reshaping the current

society, especially the fields of Business and Economics (B&E). Therefore, the
scientific studies produced on AR call for an interdisciplinary systematic review of
the knowledge generated to structure an organized framework. Three main questions
are addressed: How has the production of AR scientific knowledge evolved? What
user-related aspects does AR affect? Also, which set of subtopics is associated with
each motivation to develop an AR solution? The content of 328 papers produced
between 1997 and 2016 in the field of AR is analyzed, unveiling 58 coding categories.
There are 13 digital media characteristics that assume instrumental roles in addressing
four major motivations to develop AR solutions. Technological topics dominate the
research focus over behavioral ones. The investigations on AR in mobile displays
show the highest increase. This research identifies the main scientific topics that have
led researchers' agenda. Consequently, they contributed to develop and to adopt AR
solutions and to forecast its future application in the organizations' strategies.

Keywords: Augmented Reality; Content Analysis; Digital Media; AR-User Interaction;

Consumer Psychology; Digital Transformation.

________________
Publication Details: Received 06 Sep 2018; Revised 17 Nov 2018; Accepted 23 Nov 2018

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 94

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Introduction
Augmented Reality (AR), is a technology that allows the superimposition of
computer-generated data registered in 3D to the real world, interactively, and in real-
time (Azuma, 1997). The concept of AR represents one form of Mixed Reality (MR)
and it is a blend between the virtual environment (VE) -virtual reality- and the real
one, where elements from both environments are combined (Milgram & Kishino,
1994; Schmalstieg & Hollerer, 2016). AR is distinct from Virtual Reality (VR),
because VR immerses its user in a complete digital and artificial world. Within the
MR, AR calls for attention as it represents the first step into the virtuality continuum
(VC), by adding virtual elements, being closer to the real environment (Schmalstieg &
Hollerer, 2016). On the extremes of the VC, we found AR and the augmented
virtuality (AV) (closer to the VE), where the VE is enhanced with real world elements
(Milgram & Kishino, 1994; Tamura, Yamamoto, & Katayama, 2001).

AR has the potential to expand human perception and the ability to quickly adapt to
different contexts, thus contributing to the creation of new platforms to deliver
content to a global audience (Hugues, Fuchs, & Nannipieri, 2011). This technology
also creates more transparent, flexible and fluid relationships, which leads to an
increased productivity and the creation of immersive, context-aware and transparent
experiences for people and businesses (Gartner Reports, 2017). Hence its wide
application in domains like gaming or psychology (Bonus, Peebles, Mares, &
Sarmiento, 2017). The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) estimated that more than 80
million of US citizens uses AR, i.e., around one third of smartphones users engage
with AR technology at least monthly (Bona, Kon, Koslow, Ratajczak, & Robins,
2018). Moreover, BCG also found out that retail and fashion companies include/are
prone to include AR in their marketing strategies, because advertisers believe that AR,
in a 2 year period, will impact sales, purchase intent and engagement (Bona et al.,
2018).

This specificity of AR causes a need for it to be studied more systematically. In this

sense, some surveys were conducted, systematizing the use of this technology in
assembly research (Wang, Ong, & Nee, 2016) or education (Sungkur, Panchoo, &
Bhoyroo, 2016). Concerning consumer behavior research (CBR), Javornik (2016b)
conducted a literature review about the potential media effects of AR on users.
Although acknowledging the importance of this technology on consumer psychology
few studies started to study the role of AR in consumer preferences and purchase
intention (Beck & Crié, 2018). To the best of our knowledge, it has not yet been made
an effort to systematically understand how the specific aspects of AR facilitate its
influence on the consumer.

The objective of this study is to review the literature produced since 1997. We
highlighted cross-analysed the variables identified by researchers related to the
intrinsic aspects of AR technology that guided the development of AR solutions from
a B&E perspective. Most of such scientific effort has been conducted in the fields of
Education and Computer Sciences, and user research (Bacca, Baldiris, Fabregat, &
Graf, 2014; Billinghurst, Clark, & Lee, 2014; Dey, Billinghurst, Lindeman, & Swan,
2018). However, little attention have been paid to those who use AR as a marketing
tool to improve consumer-brands relationships (Scholz & Duffy, 2018; Scholz &
Smith, 2016), or to develop new methods impacting consumers (Javornik, 2016a). We

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 95

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

pay particular attention to the technical variables underlying AR development,

specifically those relevant to the technology-user relationship, and MC.

To fill this gap in the literature, we conducted a content analysis, whose unit of
analysis were scientific articles (journal and conference papers) retrieved from the
Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases, published between 1997-2016.

The state-of-the-art of Augmented Reality

Technology-related aspects

Our first research question addresses a timeline perspective about the intensity of
production but also the major applications of AR scientific knowledge.

RQ1: How has the production of AR scientific knowledge evolved?

Twenty years after the first systematization of AR (Azuma, 1997), its „ecosystem‟ can
be divided into interfaces, tracking systems, tracking techniques, displays, and
augmented content (see Figure 1).

Interfaces enable the interaction between the user and AR content (Mihelj, Novak, &
Begus, 2014). These may be tangible, collaborative, hybrid, or multimodal
(Carmigniani et al., 2011). Tangibles allow interaction with the virtual content
through physical objects and tools (Chao, Chiu, DeJaegher, & Pan, 2016), whereas
collaborative involves multiple displays that allow several users to work
simultaneously (Tait & Billinghurst, 2015). Hybrids combine complementing
interfaces that create more interaction points in a flexible platform (Manuri, Piumatti,
& Torino, 2015), and multimodal combines tangible with natural user interfaces (e.g.
gesture) (Lv, Khan, & Réhman, 2014).

AR can be characterized according to its tracking system into marker-based (MB),

markerless (ML), and extensible tracking. The tracking system relates to different
tracking techniques because each tracking system has different tracking techniques
associated (Lima et al., 2017). MB AR relies on the recognition of fiducial markers
(Katiyar, Kalra, & Garg, 2015), whereas ML is more interactive than the MB,
depending on natural features/3D models to perform the tracking (Xu, Chia, & Cheok,
2008). Alternatively, there is the extensible tracking where some fiducials are
incorporated in the environment, although the tracking can continue even when there
are no fiducials in the camera‟s field of view (Kim, Lee, Wang, & Kim, 2015).

In a review of the work presented in 10-year ISMAR/ISAR/ISMR and IWAR

conferences, Zhou et al. (2008) divided such techniques into: sensor-based, vision-
based, and hybrid. Since then, these techniques recognized by the tracking system
were further refined and nowadays they can be divided into image-based, requiring
the recognition of a 2D image/tag (Chehimi, Coulton, & Edwards, 2007). Location-
based is a standard version for outdoor AR experiences involving GPS to determine
the user‟s location (Chiang, Yang, & Hwang, 2014). Sensor-based tracking relies on
information from the device sensors like gyroscopes (Nam, 2015), and model-based
depends on 3D structures like computer-aided design models (Comport, Marchand,

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 96

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Pressigout, & Chaumette, 2006). Further, other tracking techniques exist like gesture-
based (Lv et al., 2014) or paper-based (Ryu & Park, 2016).

AR displays, i.e, the components that allow users to have AR experiences, are
organized into four groups. Head-worn displays (HWD) include head-mounted
displays (HMD) (Kress & Starner, 2013) and glasses (Rauschnabel, Brem, & Ivens,
2015). Handheld displays regard portable technologies with adequate processing
capability (e.g., smartphones, tablets) (Carmigniani et al., 2011). Spatial displays
include projectors and holograms (Mihelj et al., 2014), and computer displays create
AR experiences mediated by desktops and laptops with a webcam (Huang & Liao,
2015).

Ideally, AR would augment content from all five senses. However, the available AR
solutions are related to the superimposition of visual artifacts, especially videos,
images, and texts, and few involve a kinesthetic or haptic component (Craig, 2013).

Moreover, there has been an increased investment in mobile devices which makes AR
hardware more accessible (Irshad, Rohaya, & Awang, 2016), and so developing
mobile AR (MAR). MAR is essential in areas such as user interface (UI), user
experience (UX), and app acceptance (Dacko, 2017; Olsson, Lagerstam, Kärkkäinen,
& Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2013).

Figure 1: AR Ecosystem

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 97

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Media Characteristics

The increasing sophistication and diversification of communication media lead to the

need to measure their effect on users since ultimately its characteristics are associated
with consumer behavior and management decisions (Hoffman & Novak, 1996;
Stewart & Pavlou, 2009).

The framework of media characteristics (MC) include the following variables:

interactivity, hypertextuality, modality, connectivity, location-specificity, mobility,
virtuality, augmentation, flow, personalization, agency, and navigability (Blom, 2000;
Javornik, 2016b) (see Table 1).

Table 1: Overview of MC
Media Definition Authors
Characteristics
Interactivity The degree to which two or more parties (Kiousis, 2002)
communicate in a technologically mediated
environment synchronously or asynchronously by
exchanging reciprocal messages.
Augmentation The ability of technology to add additional virtual (Billinghurst et al.,
and dynamic capabilities/content to real systems. 2014)
Flow The result of MC that allows a holistic interaction (Csikszentmihalyi,
experience with the environment leading to 1990)
immersion in the activity performed within the
medium.
Telepresence The experience of presence in an environment (Steuer, 1992)
through a medium.
Modality It pertains to the way content is presented (e.g., (Sundar, Xu, & Dou,
image). 2012)
Hypertextuality This is the number of available links. In AR, it is (Javornik, 2016b)
the connections between the different hyperlinks,
devices, and applications.
Connectivity It regards the kind of communication that can be
established (one-to-one, one-to-many).
Location- It concerns the geolocations of users that are
specificity relevant for AR as these data contribute to content
production.
Mobility It relates to the ability to transport devices which is
relevant, with the emergence of the MAR and
wearable technologies.
Virtuality This is an inherent feature of AR that refers to the
capability of the medium to overlap virtual
elements to the real world.
Personalization Envisaged as the process of adapting the medium (Blom, 2000)
regarding functionality, content, and interface to
increase personal relevance.
Agency The degree to which the self feels s/he is a relevant (Sundar, 2008)
actor in the interaction with the environment,
which may influence the content.
Navigability The ability of the user to explore the mediated (Sundar et al., 2012)
environment system and functions.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 98

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

AR-User Interaction

AR technology is implemented to affect the user and to solve specific problems. Our
second research question tackles the issues about what users‟ need and their context.
As can be observed in this section, these issues have been sensitive topics in the AR
literature.

The AR-user relationship is a recently explored area in studies on UI and UX (Olsson

et al., 2013) and technology acceptance studies (Rese, Baier, Geyer-Schulz, &
Schreiber, 2017). However, it has not yet been systematized the user-related areas that
AR can impact, i.e., there is no consensus regarding which theoretical concepts (TC)
will AR impact. Concretely, which are the elements considered to be relevant to
understanding the effect of AR on the user? Is AR influence reflected in the adoption
of an attitude, in the decision-making process? How do users perceive the affordances
carried by this technology? Does AR change an outcome? Alternatively, does it act in
mediating any process, or even the value that the user perceives that AR has?

RQ2: What user-related aspects (TC) does AR affect?

Attitude concerns the psychological tendency to evaluate an entity on a scale of

acceptability ranging from goodness to badness (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and regards
cognitive (the beliefs and opinions that subjects knowingly have and form that relate
to concepts like perception, memory); behavioral (a penchant for action or inaction
that involves concepts like intention, referral); and affective factors (emotions and
feelings triggered by a stimulus).

The process of decision-making regards problem recognition, search for information,

and assessment of existing options before a decision (Solomon, 2018).

The concept of affordances is commonly employed in the areas of Psychology and

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and is defined as the ability to use technology
(Hartson, 2003). Mediating involves concepts that interfere in the human-technology
relationship like risk, control, engagement. Outcome concerns concepts that lead to
an objective assessment of the expected/verified effect of technology in satisfaction,
performance, usability. Value regards measuring the worth of AR to the user
(utilitarian, hedonic, or experiential) (Willems, Smolders, Brengman, Luyten, &
Schöning, 2017).

Motivations to develop AR solutions

This topic explicitly drives the rationale underlying the development of AR

applications.

RQ3: Which set of subtopics is associated with each motivation to develop an AR

solution?

From an overview of the AR literature we learned that four main motivations lead to
the study and development of AR solutions: hedonic, utilitarian, educational, and
user-technology interaction.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 99

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Utilitarian motivations comprise rational features like the satisfaction of functional

and rational needs and task accomplishment (Etemad-Sajadi & Ghachem, 2015).

Hedonic motivations are involved when AR aims at the satisfaction of leisure,

entertainment, and affective needs and technological experience (Etemad-Sajadi &
Ghachem, 2015).

Educational motivations regard AR as a tool to improve the educational process by

providing new ways for learners to interact with and learn content (Candela et al.,
2014).

The motivation can be to promote user-technology interaction, allowing them to

create content (Liao & Humphreys, 2015) or to use different displays (Javornik,
2016a).

Method
A quantitative content analysis allowed for a systematic and replicable analysis of the
scientific production content, because it is associated with statistical analysis,
permitting to establish relations between the coded contents (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico,
2014).

Data Collection

Journal (JP) and conference papers (CP) on the topic of AR published between 1997-
2016 were analyzed using a method similar to the one applied by ter Huurne et al.
(2017). 1997 was the starting year because the first survey on the subject was
published that year (Azuma, 1997).

A purposive sampling was used to search through the WOS and Scopus databases
(Riffe et al., 2014). The set of keywords applied was: “augmented reality,” (as
dependent variable) AND “marketing,” “consumer behavior,” “consumer
psychology” and “business” (as study context), thus creating a sample of the
knowledge built upon the field of AR.

An additional filter was the English language. The initial database consisted of 502
entries (346 from Scopus and 156 from WOS). This database was refined to eliminate
duplicate entries resulting in 459 documents.

In line with the good practices established for this approach, two researchers
conducted a thorough analysis of titles, abstracts, and keywords in the articles to
eliminate any documents whose subject diverged from the purpose (Costa, Soares, &
de Sousa, 2016). This process produced a final data set of 328 documents (166 JP and
162 CP) retrieved from 85 different publications and 109 conference proceedings.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 100

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Coding Process

The documents were coded relating to the salient aspects listed in figure 2 as relating
to AR, using a phenomenological approach. This process resulted in the
categorization of the articles accordingly to the following variables: domains of
application, MC, tracking systems, tracking technologies, TC, displays, unit of
analysis, augmented components, operating systems, and motivations to develop AR
solutions.

The variable “domains of application” derived from the categorization created by the
databases. “MC” concerned AR traits that create digital media experiences. “Tracking
systems,” “tracking techniques,” “displays,” and “operating systems” are intrinsic to
AR technology development. “TC” represented the most common topics considered
by the authors to explain the effect of AR on users. The variable “unit of analysis”
reflects the scope of the databases‟ documents. The subtopic “augmented
components” is the specific technical feature augmented by AR implementation.

The criteria for the coding process was the “absence” or “presence” of the subtopic in
the article, i.e., if there was an explicit mention of the subtopic, or it addresses the
definition considered for that subtopic we considered that the subtopic was present in
the document. However, all topics were not exclusive, i.e., in some scientific papers,
the authors discussed more than one subtopic belonging to the same category.

Figure 2: Topics and Subtopics

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 101

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Intercoder Reliability

Two researchers conducted the coding solving the disambiguation issues, potential
discrepancies regarding the coding meanings and the categories involved throughout
the process (Krippendorff, 2004). The ultimate intercoder reliability for two coders
was calculated for all documents using Krippendorff‟s alpha reliability measure
(Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). The values range from 0.82 to 0.97. The mean value
was 0.89, which was acceptable.

Data Analysis

Two multivariate data analysis techniques were used to identify patterns in the AR
literature: chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) and a cluster analysis.

The CHAID technique divided a sample into comprehensive, exclusive, and

distinctive subgroups according to the dependency relation between a dependent
variable (decision criteria) and the independent variables that were predictive of the
criterion (Kass, 1980; Magidson, 1994). This algorithm profiles scientific articles
based on the most statistically significant shared features through a decision tree that
identified and profiled the underlying motivations to develop AR solutions.

The cluster analysis classified the documents contained in the database by the
motivations to develop AR solutions, displays used, and MC so that we could
examine the interdependent relations between the list of coded variables (Hair Jr.,
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). This examination led to the identification and
classification of specific sets of articles into groups with high internal homogeneity
and high external heterogeneity (Hair Jr. et al., 2014).

A two-stage clustering approach was also followed. First, using Ward‟s method
(Ward, 1963) of hierarchical clusters to determine the number of clusters to retain.
Then, we used a nonhierarchical method (K-means algorithm) to overcome possible
chaining effects and to fine-tune the results (Punji & Stewart, 1983).

The cluster analysis was complemented with a cross-tabulation analysis to statistically

assess the cluster membership of the articles concerning the association between the
following classifiers: “MC,” “displays,” and “motivations to develop AR solutions”
(Hair Jr. et al., 2014; Lee & MacQueen, 1980).

Results
Evolution of the scientific production on AR between 1997 and 2016

The production of AR scientific literature has grown exponentially since 2013 (see
Figure 3).

In 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010-2012, and 2015, the number of CP exceeded the
number of articles published in journals. In 2007, 2009, 2013, 2014, and 2016, the
number of JP exceeded the number of publications in conference proceedings.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 102

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Figure 3: Evolution of the production of scientific documents between 1997 and 2016

Figure 4 shows the composition of the relevance of subtopics in four selected main
topics of our research aggregated into five-years period groups, illustrating the
evolution of academics‟ interest devoted to specific research subjects that are relevant
for the B&E literature.

Regarding the motivations to develop AR solutions, a great bulk of the research

produced is dedicated to the development and study of applications that promote user-
AR interaction.

Concerning the domains of application, “Computer Sciences,” followed by

“Engineering” represent around 60% of the studies conducted. Also, “Health”
accounts for 6% of the research done since. The number and diversification of areas
of study has also increased over that period of time.

Within the topic of MC, “Augmentation” and “Interactivity” are the most dominant
researched topics in the period under analysis. In contrast, from 2007 onwards, we
assist to a decrease in research interest about topics such as “Agency” and
“Personalization”, favoring the study of “Connectivity”, “Telepresence”, and
“Navigability”.

Finally, concerning, researchers have been paying an increased attention to the type of
displays such as handheld displays. Since 2007, research on HWD and computer
displays have dropped, whereas the interest on spatial displays has been kept constant,
despite the decrease observed between 2002 and 2006.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 103

 Brito and Roxo, 2018

Figure 4: Evolution of the topics “motivation,” “domains of application,” “MC,” and “displays” over 20 years.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 104

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

The user-related aspects that AR affects

Figure 5 shows the most common TC studied in the literature related to the effect of
AR on users. “Affordances” (technology characteristics) is the most present subtopic
(157/328), which indicates that these features are meaningful to the development of
AR solutions. The subtopic “outcome” (72/328) expresses what might be expected
from AR concerning performance in the promotion of collaboration and co-creation
between people and technology.

The subtopic “mediating” aggregates several concepts that involve the relationship
between people and technology (51/328), followed by the cognitive effect on the user
(49/328). Subtopic “value” represents 11.3% of the articles, “behavior” is presented in
9.1%, “attitude” in 8.8%, whereas “decision-making” represents 5.5%. The subtopic
“affective” accounts for only 4.0% of the TC used to study AR phenomena. Overall,
the presence of the above-mentioned subtopics in the literature addresses the type and
frequency of AR concepts affecting users in the period between 1997 and 2016.

Figure 5: Distribution of the TC in the database (%)

Motivations to develop AR solutions

We predefine a dependent variable placed in the root node. The connections of the
other subtopics to that leading variable are evaluated by the distance to the root.
Within a continuous hierarchical mode, the closest predictors to the initial node in the
tree are more statistically related to it. Using the “motivation to develop AR
solutions” as the starting focal point, the CHAID algorithm processes the set of
predictor/subtopics (see figure 2) to explain each one of the four motivational goals to
apply AR according to its degree of influence in each successive node/subtopic.

We estimate four models where each one focuses on the main rationale behind the
development of AR solutions (see
Figure 6): (1) Utilitarian experiences; (2) Hedonic experiences; (3) Educational
experiences; (4) Interactions with AR.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 105

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

From the 58 potential attributes/subtopics, only 10 have predictive power in the

CHAID estimation. Since the dendrogram partitions are based on a binary input
(0=absence;1= presence of that subtopic in the article), they also highlight the relevant
nodes of the tree accounting for absence.

For each motivation or subtopic, the algorithm classifies both the statistically relevant
subtopics mentioned in the articles in connection with the previous node benchmark
subtopic and those also significant but absent subtopics.

Six subtopics are structurally associated to each one of the “motivations to develop
AR solutions.” However, we focus our analysis on those subtopics systematically
present in articles devoted to the main motivation and rooted on successive nodes of
each partition.

The CHAID dendrogram shows that the most likely predictor associated with the
“utilitarian experience” motivation is the MC “augmentation.” From the initial
predictor, two nodes are extracted; 59.5% of the articles of that initial node mention
another MC: “modality.” Furthermore, issuing from “modality,” 85.7% of the articles
discuss the “personalization.” In three nodes, all subtopics present are significantly
associated with the dependent variable: “utilitarian experience.”

Two out of the four CHAID models share a common trait: the first and best predictor
concerning the topic of the development of AR solutions is always considered a MC,
except for the “hedonic experience,” and “educational experience.” Still, even in those
motivations, at least one MC (“navigability” and “connectivity”, respectively) is
present in 9.4% (8/85) and 11.3% (6/53) of the scientific production, respectively.

In general, the scientific studies on AR solutions mainly discuss MC that pertain to

several domains of application (five subtopics mentioned) and one theoretical concept
(“value”). The references to AR augmented content (“image/graphic”) and unit of
analysis (“subjects”) marginally appear in a structurally consistent association with
some AR development motivations.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 106

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Figure 6: CHAID charts

The cluster analysis groups the articles of our database of scientific production if all
variables used for classification have a similar status (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). No
predefined structure was defined. We selected three major topics to categorize into
homogeneous clusters of scientific studies.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 107

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

The rationale for selecting “MC,” “displays,” and “motivation to develop AR

solutions” as inputs in that numerical taxonomy program are the following:
(1) Statistical: the sample size compromises the validity of the output if we try to
include several variables. The selected three topics already bring 21 subtopics to the
estimation;
(2) Interpretability of the clusters: the output should make sense and be meaningful.
The conflict of potential overlapping among clusters would upsurge as the number of
variables increase;
(3) Compatibility with our research Focus.

“MC” embody the digital media substance of AR. Moreover, the “motivation to
develop AR solutions” defines the logic behind the implementation of AR, and
“displays” captures the technological dimension. In fact, the displays are the most
tangible representations of AR that everybody physically interacts with.

Table 2 shows the degree of presence for each subtopic in the cluster. The
corresponding statistic – chi-square – that was estimated through the cross-tabulation
analysis allows the measurement of the extent to which the subtopic is significantly
discriminating in each cluster.

As expected, the MC “augmentation” is the omnipresent issue in all scientific studies

and reaches at best a minimum incidence rate of 87% (79.3% average). Similarly, on
average 82.3% of the articles emphasize the “interaction with AR” behind applying
AR. We precede below with a brief characterization of the AR scientific production
clusters‟ compositions that are labeled according to the most prominent subtopic.

Cluster 1: Headset AR

This cluster assembles the AR publications with the highest incidence of “displays”
subtopics “HWD” (69.6%) and “spatial displays” (47.8%). All papers focus on
“interaction with AR” (100.0%) as the main motivation to apply AR. The MC
“mobility” (78.3%) and “navigability” (52.2%), besides “interactivity” and
“augmentation” are predominant in this cluster.

Cluster 2: General

None of the papers belonging to this collection of publications shows a predominantly

specific subtopic. They list all subtopics but at the lowest levels of presence compared
to the other clusters, except the MC “modality” and “connectivity” that are absent.

Cluster 3: Mobile AR

Cluster 3 concentrates almost all publications studying “handheld displays” (97.7%)

under the subtopic of “location-specificity” (83.7%) in MC.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 108

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Cluster 4: Utility-related AR

Cluster 4 is characterized by a strong prevalence of publications studying “computer

displays” (38.6%) paired with the research motivation “utilitarian experience.” In
contrast, “location-specificity” “and “mobility” are the MC subtopics not referred to
in the papers devoted to AR belonging to this cluster.

Cluster 5: Multi-featured medium

Driven by the “hedonic experience” motivation to develop AR (60.5%, the highest

incidence rate among all clusters), this cluster aggregates articles predominantly
mentioning several MC: “augmentation” (97.4%), “flow” (39.5%), “telepresence”
(50%), “connectivity” (73.7%), “virtuality” (57.9%) and “personalization” (52.6%).

Cluster 6: Educational promoter

Compared to other groups, the most frequent articles dealt with the “educational
experience” AR application in this cluster. “Interactivity” (95.6%) is the most
representative MC.

Cluster 7: User-adaptable medium

The articles mentioning subtopics like “augmentation” (97.0%), “navigability”

(81.8%), and “agency” (75.8%) have a strong prevalence of the MC. The most
common drive to apply AR is “utilitarian experience” (90.9%) that uses “spatial
displays” as the most representative AR display (45.5%).

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 109

 Brito and Roxo, 2018

Table 2: Subtopic presence within cluster regarding MC, displays and motivations to develop AR solutions
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Total per cluster
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Interactivity (𝛘2= 138.284) 20 87.0 11 19.0 15 34.9 29 33.0 35 92.1 43 95.6 2 6.1 155 47.3
2
Augmentation (𝛘 = 225.763) 20 87.0 4 6.9 41 95.3 84 95.5 37 97.4 42 93.3 32 97.0 260 79.3
2
Flow (𝛘 =55.177) 8 34.8 5 8.6 0 0.0 4 4.5 15 39.5 10 22.2 0 0.0 42 12.8
Telepresence (𝛘2= 62.039) 3 13.0 4 6.9 1 2.3 5 5.7 19 50.0 9 20.0 1 3.0 42 12.8
2
Hypertextuality (𝛘 = 85.748) 11 47.8 2 3.4 2 4.7 3 3.4 0 0.0 18 40.0 1 3.0 37 11.3
2
Modality (𝛘 = 68.634) 11 47.8 0 0.0 6 14.0 5 5.7 3 7.9 17 37.8 0 0.0 42 12.8
2
Connectivity (𝛘 = 155.223) 5 21.7 0 0.0 2 2.7 3 3.4 28 73.7 30 66.7 4 12.1 72 22.0
2
Location-specificity (𝛘 = 161.878) 7 30.4 4 6.9 36 83.7 0 0.0 1 2.6 9 20.0 2 6.1 59 18.0
2
Mobility (𝛘 = 161.479) 18 78.3 5 8.6 30 69.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 42.2 0 0.0 72 22.0
2
Virtuality (𝛘 = 68.708) 9 39.1 3 5.2 2 4.7 9 10.2 22 57.9 10 22.2 2 6.1 57 17.4
2
Personalization (𝛘 =44.428) 9 39.1 3 5.2 6 14.0 15 17.0 20 52.6 10 22.2 2 6.1 65 19.8
2
Agency (𝛘 =98.742) 10 43.5 2 3.4 9 20.9 5 5.7 19 50.0 8 17.8 25 75.8 78 23.8
Navigability (𝛘2=149.868) 12 52.2 2 3.4 23 53.5 1 1.1 5 13.2 2 4.4 27 81.8 72 22.0
2
Head-worn Displays (𝛘 =50.815) 16 69.6 12 20.7 3 7.0 17 19.3 7 18.4 1 2.2 6 18.2 62 18.9
Handheld displays (𝛘2=136.952) 7 30.4 22 37.9 42 97.7 27 30.7 8 21.1 43 95.6 1 3.0 150 45.7
2
Spatial displays (𝛘 =52.634) 11 47.8 4 6.9 0 0.0 21 23.9 12 31.6 2 4.4 15 45.5 65 19.8
2
Computer displays (𝛘 =48.171) 1 4.3 8 13.8 1 2.3 34 38.6 14 36.8 1 2.2 10 30.3 69 21.0
2
Utilitarian experience (𝛘 =65.493) 20 87.0 26 44.8 37 86.0 77 87.5 33 86.8 21 46.7 30 90.9 244 74.4
2
Hedonic experience (𝛘 =53.065) 11 47.8 7 12.1 8 18.6 15 17.0 23 60.5 19 42.2 2 6.1 85 25.9
2
Educational experience (𝛘 =34.469) 2 8.7 6 10.3 5 11.6 10 11.4 3 7.9 21 46.7 6 18.2 53 16.2
2 100. 100.
Interaction with AR (𝛘 =72.307) 23 27 46.6 41 95.3 72 81.1 38 38 84.4 31 93.9 270 82.3
0 0

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 110

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Discussion
From the pool of scientific publications developed between 1997 and 2016, we have
tried to understand what the main topics and the logic underlying the associations
within the 328 articles are. The categorization process identifies 10 major topics
covering several attributes such as domains of AR application, theoretical framework,
digital media aspects, motivations to develop AR solutions, and technical dimensions
(displays, components, operating systems, tracking and system techniques). We
deliberately select the subtopics of “motivations to develop AR solutions” and try to
understand the network of connections the researchers considered in their studies
when investigating AR.

A substantial part of the scientific corpus of the literature produced in the studied 20
years involves CP from Computer Science and Engineering which are the main areas
of investigation of AR. However, JP is almost reaching the CP status with an equal
distribution of the publications (an aspect that we highlighted by emphasizing JP over
CP).

CP typically addresses novel and innovative research dimensions. In general, the

publication process involving CP is faster than other topics and might be further
transformed into JP (Bar-Ilan, 2010; Montesi & Owen, 2008). Additionally, CP is a
primary source of feedback that researchers have access before submitting they
studies to journals (Drott, 1995).

Concerning the domain of application, the academic research topics have become
more diversified due to the multiple applications that AR has started to offer.

The results from the multivariate analysis show the instrumental role of the “MC”
topic in motivating the creation of AR solutions. Regardless of the intensive presence
of this topic in academic studies on AR, we naturally detect 13 subtopics that show
the relevance of the topic.

“Augmentation” is the most representative MC in AR research and omnipresent in the

main motivations to invest in AR solutions (Javornik, 2016b). Moreover, since 2007
the research interest in MC like “telepresence” increased. The manipulation of the
level of presence introduced by visual assistance in a consumption experience, or in
the context of location-based AR settings may explain the amplification of
“telepresence” as a relevant research topic (Georgiou & Kyza, 2017; T. L. Huang &
Hsu Liu, 2014). Although we verify a decrease in the research of the MC of “flow”,
some sound studies have worked on the topic of the flow experience in e-shopping
contexts using AR technologies (Huang & Liao, 2017).

The technological features of AR remain directly or indirectly the dominant concern

of the investigations between 1997 and 2016. The interests of researchers have
switched from computer to handheld displays in tune with the growing availability of
those products in the professional and entertainment markets. We observe a tendency
to focus on MAR solutions and wearable, which is a consequence of its increasing
importance (Tarute, Nikou, & Gatautis, 2017).

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 111

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Additionally, despite our database indicates otherwise, the use of HMD is a trend that
is projected to rise in the next few years (e.g.: the studies of Liao, 2016; Rauschnabel
et al., 2015, that did not appeared at the time of the data collection) due to the
applications of headsets in the healthcare and industrial jobs. Within the tracking
technologies, image is still the most used tracking technique. Nonetheless, we witness
an increased use of sensor, location, and gesture-based techniques, which is in line
with the investment in the development of ML AR solutions (Kasapakis & Gavalas,
2017).

Among the user-related aspects, “affordances” is the most investigated subtopic,

because they allow researchers to understand which capabilities of the AR can
influence one‟s behavior (like the fact that AR allows to see something that is not
present in the real world). The second most researched subtopic is outcome, since it
supports the employment of AR to fulfill users‟ needs (e.g., in collaboration
processes) (Poppe, Brown, Johnson, & Recker, 2012). The intellectual investment in
subtopics related to CBR (attitude; cognitive, behavior, and affective factors) seems to
be in its infancy. Only in this decade the research interest started to increase thus
presenting a venue for future research.

Apparently, AR studies have not stimulated the development of a new and more
precise theoretical framework. We do not notice a dominant theory or theoretical
concept that is consistently discussed in association with any main motivation to
develop AR solutions or other technical dimensions.

Limitations and Outlook

AR plays an important role as a new medium and technology, that could be used as a
tool to generate and communicate new content in a wide range of contexts, e.g.
marketing (Liao, 2015) or surgery (Bourdel et al., 2017).

This study provides a focused overview of 20 years of research on AR, showing how
this technology is being incorporated in our society, focusing on the type of AR
solutions that have been developed in the fields of B&E.

This study has some limitations that justify further research. The first is the
phenomenological limitations derived from using a content analysis as the method.
When filling the gap between technical aspects of AR and their effect on the user, it
was developed a coding system based on the analysis of previous studies in other
areas. Therefore, despite reaching acceptable values of intercoder reliability, there is
always the risk of biased interference from the researchers.

Secondly, this study is based on two databases: WOS and Scopus. This could be
complemented by using other databases (e.g., ProQuest), which might broaden the
scope of the investigation, creating a larger data set, and increasing the validity of the
results.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 112

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

It would be interesting, the conduction of a citation analysis to our database to detect

whether there are any relationships among documents regarding its authorship, and
the potential connections between the articles and the major conferences, similar to
the approach followed by Dey et al. (2018), on the topic of AR user studies.
Moreover, it could be used a hybrid (human and computer) approach to content
analysis (Su et al., 2017).

Thirdly, since our goal was to understand the inferences that might be drawn from AR
applications in digital media, future research could adapt the search keywords to other
research goals.

In summary, despite these limitations, this study clarifies some important questions
about the technology of AR, thus constituting a benchmark for researchers and
companies interested in AR as a communication medium.

Acknowledgements
This research was financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
and the North Portugal Regional Operational Programme in the framework of the
project “NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000020”, and by Portuguese Public Funds through
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) in the framework of the Ph.D. grant
SFRH/BD/131191/2017.

References
Azuma, R., (1997), "A survey of augmented reality", Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355–385.
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., and Graf, S., (2014), "Augmented reality trends in
education: A systematic review of research and applications", Educational Technology
and Society, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 133–149.
Bar-Ilan, J., (2010), "Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: the
case of computer science", Scientometrics, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 809–824.
Beck, M., and Crié, 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.
Billinghurst, M., Clark, A., and Lee, G., (2014), "A survey of augmented reality augmented
reality", Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 8, no. 2–3, pp.
73–272.
Blom, J., (2000), "Personalization - A Taxonomy", in Extended abstracts of the CHI2000
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 313–314.
Bona, C., Kon, M., Koslow, L., Ratajczak, D., and Robins, M., (2018), Augmented Reality: Is
the Camera the Next Big Thing in Advertising?, Retrieved from https://www.bcg
.com/publications/2018/augmented-reality-is-camera-next-big-thing-advertising.aspx
Bonus, J. A., Peebles, A., Mares, M. L., and Sarmiento, I. G., (2017), "Look on the bright
side (of media effects): Pokémon Go as a catalyst for positive life experiences", Media
Psychology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 263–287.
Bourdel, N., Collins, T., Pizarro, D., Bartoli, A., da Ines, D., Perreira, B., and Canis, M,
(2017), "Augmented reality in gynecologic surgery: Evaluation of potential benefits
for myomectomy in an experimental uterine model", Surgical Endoscopy and Other
Interventional Techniques, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 456–461.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 113

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Candela, E.S., Pérez, M.O., Romero, C.M., Pérez López, D.C., Herranz, G.S., Contero, M.,
and Raya, M.A.(2014). HumanTop: A multi-object tracking tabletop. Multimedia
Tools and Applications, 70(3),1837–1868.
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.
Chao, J., Chiu, J. L., DeJaegher, C. J., and Pan, E. A., (2016), "Sensor-augmented virtual
labs: Using physical interactions with science simulations to promote understanding of
gas behavior", Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 16–
33.
Chehimi, F., Coulton, P., and Edwards, R., (2007), "Augmented reality 3D interactive
advertisements on smartphones", in Proceedings of the International Conference on
the Management of Mobile Business.
Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., and Hwang, G. J., (2014), "Students‟ online interactive
patterns in augmented reality-based inquiry activities", Computers and Education, vol.
78, no. 2, pp. 97–108.
Comport, A. I., Marchand, É., Pressigout, M., and Chaumette, F., (2006), "Real-time
markerless tracking for augmented reality: The virtual visual servoing framework",
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 615–
628.
Costa, E., Soares, A. L., and de Sousa, J. P., (2016), "Information, knowledge and
collaboration management in the internationalisation of SMEs: A systematic literature
review", International Journal of Information Management, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 557–
569.
Craig, A. B., (2013), Understanding augmented reality: concepts and applications, Elsevier.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper Collins.
Dacko, S.G., (2017), "Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping
apps", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 124, pp. 243–256.
Dey, A., Billinghurst, M., Lindeman, R. W., and Swan, J. E., (2018), "A systematic review of
10 years of augmented reality usability studies: 2005 to2014", Frontiers in Robotics
and AI, vol. 5, no. 37, pp. 1–28.
Drott, M. C., (1995), "Reexamining the role of conference papers in scholarly
communication", Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 46,
no. 4, pp. 299–305.
Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S., (1993), The psychology of attitudes, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
Etemad-Sajadi, R., and Ghachem, L., (2015), "The impact of hedonic and utilitarian value of
online avatars on e-service quality", Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 52, pp. 81–
86.
Gartner Reports (2017), Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2017, Gartner.
Georgiou, Y., and Kyza, E. A., (2017), "The development and validation of the ARI
questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented
reality settings", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 98, pp. 24–
37.
Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E., (2014), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Pearson.
Hartson, R., (2003), "Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction
design", Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 315–338.
Hayes, A. F., and Krippendorff, K., (2007), "Answering the call for a standard reliability
measure for coding data", Communication Methods and Measures, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.
77–89.
Hoffman, D. L., and Novak, T. P., (1996), "Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: Conceptual foundations", Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 50–
68.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 114

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Huang, T. L., and Liao, S. L., (2017), "Creating e-shopping multisensory flow experience
through augmented-reality interactive technology", Internet Research, vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 449–475.
Huang, T. L., and Liao, S.,(2015), "A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive
technology: The moderating role of cognitive innovativeness", Electronic Commerce
Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 269–295.
Huang, T. L., and Hsu Liu, F., (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.
Hugues, O., Fuchs, P., and Nannipieri, O., (2011), New augmented reality taxonomy:
Technologies and features of augmented environment, in B.Furht(Ed.), Handbook of
Augmented Reality, pp. 47–63.
Irshad, S., Rohaya, D., and Awang, B., (2016), User perception on mobile augmented reality
as a marketing tool marketing tool, in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computer and Information Sciences, pp. 109–113.
Javornik, A., (2016a), “It‟s an illusion, but it looks real!” Consumer affective, cognitive and
behavioral responses to augmented reality applications", Journal of Marketing
Management, vol. 32, no. 9–10, pp. 987–1011.
Javornik, A., (2016b), "Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its
media characteristics on consumer behaviour", Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 252–261.
Kasapakis, V., and Gavalas, D., (2017), "Occlusion handling in outdoors augmented reality
games", Multimedia Tools and Applications,vol. 76, no. 7, pp. 9829–9854.
Kass, G. V., (1980), "An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of
categorical data author", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C(Applied
Statistics), vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 119–127.
Katiyar, A., Kalra, K., and Garg, C., (2015), "Marker Based Augmented Reality", Advances
in Computer Science and Information Technology, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 441-445.
Kim, M. J., Lee, J. H., Wang, X., and Kim, J. T., (2015), "Health smart home services
incorporating a mar-based energy consumption awareness system", Journal of
Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 79, no. 3-4, pp. 523–
535.
Kiousis, S., (2002), "Interactivity: A concept explication", New Media and Society,vol. 4, no.
3, pp. 355–383.
Kress, B., and Starner, T., (2013), A review of head-mounted displays (HMD) technologies
and applications for consumer electronics, in Proceedings of SPIE8720, Photonic
Applications for Aerospace, Commercial, and Harsh Environments IV.
Krippendorff, K., (2004), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Sage
Publications.
Lee, H. B., and MacQueen, J. B., (1980), "A K-Means cluster analysis computer program
with cross-tabulations and next-nearest-neighbor analysis", Educational and
Psychological Measurement, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 133–138.
Liao, T., (2015), "Augmented or admented reality? The influence of marketing on augmented
reality technologies", Information, Communication and Society,vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
310–326.
Liao, T., (2018), "Mobile versus headworn augmented reality: How visions of the future
shape, contest, and stabilize an emerging technology", New Media and Society, vol.
20, no. 2, pp. 96–814.
Liao,T., and Humphreys, L., (2015), "Layar-ed places: Using mobile augmented reality to
tactically reengage, reproduce, and reappropriate public space", New Media and
Society, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1418–1435.
Lima, J. P., Roberto, R., Simões, F., Almeida, M., Figueiredo, L., Teixeira, J. M., and
Teichrieb, V., (2017), "Markerless tracking system for augmented reality in the
automotive industry", Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 82, pp. 100–114.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 115

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Lv, Z., Khan, M. S. L., and Réhman, S. U., (2014), "Hand and foot gesture interaction for
handheld devices", ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications,
and Applications (TOMM) - Special Issue on Multiple Sensorial (MulSeMedia)
Multimodal Media : Advances and Applications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 621–624.
Magidson, J., (1994), The CHAID approach to segmentation Modeling: Chi-squared
automatic interaction detection, in R.P. Bagozzi(Ed.), Advances Methods of
Marketing Research, pp.118–159.
Manuri, F., Piumatti, G., and Torino, P., (2015), A preliminary study of a hybrid user
interface for augmented reality applications, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment, vol.17, pp. 37–
41.
Mihelj, M., Novak, D., and Begus, S., (2014), Augmented reality, in Virtual Reality
Technology and Applications, pp. 195–204.
Milgram, P., and Kishino, F., (1994), "A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays", IEICE
Transactions on Information Systems, vol. E77–D, no. 12, pp. 1–15.
Montesi, M., and Owen, J. M., (2008), "From conference to journal publication: How
conference papers in software engineering are extended for publication in journals",
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 59, no.
5, pp. 816–829.
Nam, Y., (2015), "Designing interactive narratives for mobile augmented reality", Cluster
Computing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 309–320.
Olsson,T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T., and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., (2013),
"Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: A user study in the
context of shopping centres", Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
287–304.
Poppe, E., Brown, R., Johnson, D., and Recker, J., (2012), Preliminary evaluation of an
augmented reality collaborative process modelling system, in International
Conference on Cyberworlds, pp. 77–84.
Punji, G., and Stewart, D. W., (1983), "Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and
suggestions for application", Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 134–
148.
Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., and Ivens, B. S., (2015), "Who will buy smart glasses?
Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in
individual awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables", Computers
in Human Behavior, vol. 49, pp. 635–647.
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.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., and Fico, F., (2014), Analyzing media messages: Using Quantitative
content analysis in research, Routledge.
Ryu, H. S., and Park, H., (2016), "A system for supporting paper-based augmented reality",
Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 3375–3390.
Schmalstieg, D., and Hollerer, T., (2016), Augmented Reality: Principles and Practice,
Addison-Wesley Professional.
Scholz, J., and Duffy, K., (2018), We are at home: How augmented reality reshapes mobile
marketing and consumer-brand relationships", Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, vol. 44, pp. 11–23.
Scholz, J., and Smith, A. N., (2016), "Augmented reality: Designing immersive experiences
that maximize consumer engagement", Business Horizons, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 149–
161.
Solomon, M. R., (2018), Consumer Behavior: Buying, having, and being, Pearson.
Steuer, J., (1992), "Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence", Journal of
Communication, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 73–93.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 116

 Roxo and Brito, 2018

Stewart, D. W., and Pavlou, P. A., (2009), Social cognitive theory of mass communication, in
J., Bryant and D., Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research,
pp. 362–401.
Su, L. Y. F., Cacciatore, M. A., Liang, X., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., and Xenos, M. A.,
(2017), "Analyzing public sentiments online: Combining human- and computer-based
content analysis", Information, Communication and Society, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 406–
427.
Sundar, S. S., (2008), Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media, in E. A.,
Konijn, S., Utz, M., Tanis, and S. B. Barnes, (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal
Communication, pp. 58–74.
Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., and Dou, X., (2012)., Role of technology in online persuasion: A main
model perspective, in S. Rodgers., and E., Thorson (Eds.), Advertising Theory, pp.
355–372.
Sungkur, R. K., Panchoo, A., and Bhoyroo, N. K., (2016), "Augmented reality, the future of
contextual mobile learning", Interactive Technology and Smart Education, vol. 13, no.
2, pp. 123–146.
Tait, M., and Billinghurst, M., (2015), "The effect of view independence in a collaborative
AR system", Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 24, pp. 563–589.
Tamura, H., Yamamoto, H., and Katayama, A., (2001), "Mixed reality: Future dreams seen at
the border between real and virtual worlds", IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 64–70.
Tarute, A., Nikou, S., and Gatautis, R., (2017), "Mobile application driven consumer
engagement", Telematics and Informatics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 145–156.
ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., and Buskens, V., (2017). "Antecedents of trust in
the sharing economy: A systematic review", Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 16,
no. 6, pp. 485–498.
Wang, X., Ong, S. K., and Nee, A. Y. C., (2016), "A comprehensive survey of augmented
reality assembly research", Advances in Manufacturing, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–22.
Ward, J. H., (1963), "Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function", Journal of the
American Statistical Association, vol. 58, pp. 236–244.
Willems, K., Smolders, A., Brengman, M., Luyten, K., and Schöning, J., (2017), "The path-
to-purchase is paved with digital opportunities: An inventory of shopper-oriented
retail technologies", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 124, pp. 228–
242.
Xu, K., Chia, K. W., and Cheok, A. D., (2008), "Real-time camera tracking for marker-less
and unprepared augmented reality environments", Image and Vision Computing, vol.
26, no. 5, pp. 673–689.
Zhou, F., Duh, H. B., and Billinghurst, M., (2008), Trends in augmented reality tracking ,
interaction and display : A review of ten years of ISMAR, in Proceedings of the 7th
IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 193–202.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2018 117