COMPARING THE EFFECT OF TWO-DIMENSIONAL DISPLAY AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRY ON TECHNOLOGIES ON THE CONSIDERATION SET FORMATION AND FINAL CHOICE ON THE WEBSITES

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 3, 627 - 645, 09.07.2018

Ayşegül Sağkaya Güngör Tugce Ozansoy Çadırcı

Öz

The conceptualization of virtual
three-dimensional experiences has emerged lately because advancements in the
technology have led to immersive experiences in virtual environments. This new
technology enables users to get the information about a product that is very
similar to the real product examination. On the other hand, there is already an
online display opportunity that is familiar to the online customer, i.e., two
dimensional (2-D) product view. A laboratory experiment was conducted to
explore what difference Virtual try-on (3-D try-on) technology creates in the
consideration set formation and final choice decision compared to the 2-D
product display in an e-commerce website. The experiment was conducted with the
participation of the university students by using a website of a well-known
international company.
The study is grounded in the consideration set theory. The results revealed a
difference in the consideration set formation, but not in the final choice
outcome. The possible reasons are discussed, along with theoretical and
practical implications of the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

3-D try-on technology, 2-D display technology, augmented reality, consideration set theory

WEB SİTELERİNDE KULLANILAN İKİ BOYUTLU ÜRÜN GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNOLOJİSİ İLE ÜÇ BOYUTLU ÜRÜN DENEME TEKNOLOJİSİNİN DEĞERLENDİRME KÜMESİ OLUŞUMUNDAKİ VE SATIN ALMA KARARINDAKİ ETKİSİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Teknolojideki ilerlemelerin sanal ortamlarda tüketiciyi içine alan
deneyimlere imkân sağlaması, son zamanlarda sanal üç boyutlu deneyimin
kavramsallaştırmasına yol açtı. Sanal üç boyutlu ürün deneme teknolojisi,
kullanıcıların gerçek ürün deneyimlemesine çok benzer bir şekilde ürün hakkında
bilgi almalarına olanak sağladı. Diğer taraftan, çevrimiçi müşterinin aşina
olduğu bir görüntüleme olan iki boyutlu ürün görüntüleme teknolojisi de halen
sıkça kullanılan bir teknoloji. Sanal üç boyutlu ürün deneme (3-D deneme)
teknolojisinin, iki boyutlu ürün görüntülemeye kıyasla, ürünün dikkate
alınanlar kümesine girmesinde ve son seçim kararında bir fark yaratıp
yaratmadığını keşfetmek amaçlı bir laboratuvar deneyi tasarlanmıştır. Deney,
tanınmış uluslararası bir şirketin web sitesini kullanarak üniversite
öğrencilerinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın araştırma soruları
küme teorisine dayanarak oluşturulmuştur. Sonuçlara göre; sanal üç boyutlu ürün
deneme teknolojisi son seçim kararında etkili olmamakla birlikte, ürünün
dikkate alınanlar kümesine girmesinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark
yaratmaktadır. Olası sebepler, araştırmanın teorik ve pratik sonuçları ile
birlikte çalışmada tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

3-D ürün deneme teknolojisi, 2-D ürün görüntüleme teknolojisi, arttırılmış gerçeklik, küme teorisi

Kaynakça

• Alba, J. W., and Chattopadhyay, A. (1985) “Effects of context and part-category cues on recall of competing brands”, Journal of Marketing Research, p. 340-349.
• Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
• Bulearca, M., and Tamarjan, D. (2010) “Augmented reality: A sustainable marketing tool”, Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2(2), p. 237-252.
• Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y. H., and Huang, H. Y. (2014) “Understanding customers' repeat purchase intentions in B2C e‐commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk”, Information Systems Journal, 24(1), p. 85-114.
• Crow, J. J. (2006) “Examining Cognitive Processes of Unstructured Decision Making”, PhD Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
• Dierks, A. (2017), “Chapter A: Changing consumer behavior as a challenge for brand management”, In Re-Modeling the Brand Purchase Funnel, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, p.1-36
• Gabish J. (2011) “Virtual world brand experience and its impact on real world purchasing behavior”, Journal of Brand Management, 19 (1), p. 18-32.
• Gensch, D. H. (1987) “A two-stage disaggregate attribute choice model”, Marketing Science, 6(3), p. 223-239.
• Gupta P.B., Gould S.J., and Grabner-Kräuter S. (2000) “Product placements in movies: A crosscultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers’ attitudes towards this emerging, international promotional medium”, Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), p. 41-57.
• Ho, S. Y., and Tam, K. Y. (2005) “An empirical examination of the effects of web personalization at different stages of decision making”, International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 19(1), p. 95-112.
• Howard, J. A., and Sheth, J. N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
• 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, 15(2), p. 269-295.
• In Shim, S., and Lee, Y. (2011) “Consumer's perceived risk reduction by 3D virtual model”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39(12), p. 945-959.
• Javornik, A. (2016) “Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 252-261.
• Kassim, N. M., Bogari, N., Salamah, N., and Zain, M. (2016) “Product status signaling as mediator between materialism and product satisfaction of Saudis and Malaysians”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(6), p. 973-985.
• Kardes, F. R., Kalyanaram, G., Chandrashekaran, M., and Dornoff, R. J. (1993) “Brand retrieval, consideration set composition, consumer choice, and the pioneering advantage”, Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), p. 62-75.
• Khakimdjanova, L., and Park, J. (2005) “Online visual merchandising practice of apparel e-merchants”, Journal of Retail and Consumer Services, 12, 307–318.
• Kim, M., and Lennon, S. (2008) “The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping”, Psychology and Marketing, 25(2), p. 146-178.
• Kim, Y., and Peterson, R. A. (2017) “A meta-analysis of online trust relationships in e-commerce”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 44-54.
• Kim, H. Y., Lee, J. Y., Mun, J. M., and Johnson, K. K. (2017) “Consumer adoption of smart in-store technology: assessing the predictive value of attitude versus beliefs in the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 10(1), p. 26-36.
• Kim, J., and Forsythe, S. (2007) “Hedonic usage of product virtualization technologies in online apparel shopping”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 35(6), p. 502-514.
• Kim, J., and Forsythe, S. (2008) “Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel shopping”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), p. 45-59.
• Li, H., Daugherty, T., and Biocca, F. (2002) “Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence”, Journal of Advertising, 31(3), p. 43-57.
• Li, H., Daugherty, T., and Biocca, F. (2015), “Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence”, Stafford, M.R., and Faber, R.J. (Ed.) Advertising, Promotion, and New Media, Routledge, New York, USA, p.148-174.
• Lee, K. Y. (2012) “Consumer processing of virtual experience in e-commerce: A test of an integrated framework”, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), p. 2134-2142.
• Loker, S., Ashdown, S. P., Cowie, L., and Schoenfeder, K. A. (2004) “Consumer interest in commercial applications of body scan data”, Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management, 4(1), p. 1–13.
• Moon, J., Chadee, D., and Tikoo, S. (2008) “Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer purchase intention to buy personalized products online”, Journal of Business Research, 61(1), p. 31-39.
• Nah, F. F. H., Eschenbrenner, B., and DeWester, D. (2011) “Enhancing brand equity through flow and telepresence: A comparison of 2D and 3D virtual worlds”, MIS Quarterly, 35(3), p. 731-747.
• Nguyen, T. T. H., Do, D. T. D., and Do, H. T. (2017) “The impact of Perceived Risk on Perceived Value and Purchase Intention in E-Commerce: Case study on Hochiminh City”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, FPT University (FUG HCM), p. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
• Oh, H., Yoon, S. Y., and Shyu, C. R. (2008) “How can virtual reality reshape furniture retailing?”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26(2), p. 143-163.
• Overmars, S., and Poels, K. (2015) “How product representation shapes virtual experiences and re-patronage intentions: the role of mental imagery processing and experiential value”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 25(3), p. 236-259.
• Pachoulakis, I., and Kapetanakis, K. (2012) “Augmented reality platforms for virtual fitting rooms”, International Journal of Multimedia and Its Applications. 4(4), p. 35-46.
• Papagiannidis, S., See-To, E., and Bourlakis, M. (2014) “Virtual test-driving: The impact of simulated products on purchase intention”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(5), p. 877-887.
• Poncin, I., and Mimoun, M. S. B. (2014) “The impact of “e-atmospherics”on physical stores”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(5), p. 851-859.
• Rese, A., Schreiber, S., and Baier, D. (2014) “Technology acceptance modeling of augmented reality at the point of sale: Can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(5), p. 869-876.
• Roberts, J. H., and Lattin, J. M. (1991) “Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition”, Journal of Marketing Research, 429-440.
• Roberts, J. (1989) “A grounded model of consideration set size and composition”, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 749-757.
• Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., and Nedungadi, P. (1991) “Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions”, Marketing Letters, 2(3), p. 181-197.
• Shin, E., and Baytar, F. (2014) “Apparel Fit and Size Concerns and Intentions to Use Virtual Try-On: Impacts of Body Satisfaction and Images of Models’ Bodies”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 32(1), p. 20-33.
• Shugan, S. M. (1980) “The cost of thinking”, Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), p. 99-111.
• Spreer, P., and Kallweit, K. (2014) “Augmented reality in retail: Assessing the acceptance and potential for multimedia product presentation at the PoS”, Transactions on Marketing Research, 1(1), p. 20-35.
• Stigler, G. (1961) “The economics of information”, Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–225.
• Thill, J. C. (1992) “Choice set formation for destination choice modelling”, Progress in Human Geography, 16(3), p. 361-382.
• Verhagen, T., Vonkeman, C. C., Feldberg, J. F. M., and Verhagen, P. (2013), “Making online products more tangible and likeable: The role of local presence as product presentation mechanism”, Research momerandum, Available at http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/40414/2013-3.pdf?sequence=1 (Last retrieved 24.08.2017)
• Waiguny, M. K., Nelson, M. R., and Marko, B. (2013) “How advergame content influences explicit and implicit brand attitudes: When violence spills over”, Journal of Advertising, 42(2-3), p. 155-169.
• Weathers, D., Sharma, S., and Wood, S. L. (2007) “Effects of online communication practices on consumer perceptions of performance uncertainty for search and experience goods”, Journal of retailing, 83(4), p. 393-401.
• Xu, P., Chen, L., and Santhanam, R. (2015) “Will video be the next generation of e-commerce product reviews? Presentation format and the role of product type”, Decision Support Systems, 73, 85-96.
• Yaoyuneyong, G., Foster, J., Johnson, E., and Johnson, D. (2016) “Augmented reality marketing: Consumer preferences and attitudes toward hypermedia print ads”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16(1), p. 16-30.
• Yaoyuneyong, G., Foster, J. K., and Flynn, L. R. (2014) “Factors impacting the efficacy of augmented reality virtual dressing room technology as a tool for online visual merchandising”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 5(4), p. 283-296.