Exploring the dual routes in influencing sales and adoption in augmented reality retailing: a mixed approach of SEM and FsQCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates augmented reality (AR) retailing and attempts to develop a profound understanding of consumer decision-making processes in AR-enabled e-retailing. Design/methodology/approach The study is grounded in rich informational cues and information processing mechanisms by incorporating the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and trust transfer theory. This study employs a mixed analytic method that incorporates structural equation modeling (SEM) and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to provide a complete picture of individual information process mechanisms in AR retailing under the tenet of ELM. Findings The SEM analysis results confirm the relationships between the central and peripheral route factors, information processing outcomes and eventual behavioral intentions. Moreover, all configurations revealed by the fsQCA include both central and peripheral factors. Hence, the dual routes proposed in the ELM are verified by using two distinct analytical approaches. Originality/value This study is pioneering in validating and contextualizing ELM theory in AR retailing. In addition, this study offers a methodological paradigm by demonstrating the application of multi-analysis in exploring consumers’ information process mechanisms in AR retailing, which offers a holistic and comprehensive view to understand consumers’ decision-making mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".