lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

When art meets tech: The role of augmented reality in enhancingmuseum experiences and purchase intentions

Zeya He*, Laurie Wu, Xiang (Robert) LiTemple University, 1810 N 13th St, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

� This study examines the effects of AR technology's design elements on visitors’ museum experiences and purchasing intentions.� Information type and environmental augmentation were found to jointly influence visitors' willingness to pay a higher price.� Imagery vividness and experiential value were verified astheoretical processes that explain the effects.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 November 2017Received in revised form2 March 2018Accepted 4 March 2018Available online 15 March 2018

Keywords:Augmented realityMuseum experienceAesthetic experienceAttentional control theoryMental imagery theory

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: zeya.he@temple.edu (Z. He), lau

robertli@temple.edu (X. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.0030261-5177/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

As augmented reality (AR) has been increasingly adopted by various industries as a marketing tool,tourism practitioners have come to recognize its promising potential in staging experiences. Despite theextensive discussions around AR's managerial implications, academic inquiry into how to adopt ARtechnology in museum tourism contexts remains rare. Building on this emerging stream of scholarlyliterature, the current study attempts to examine the impact of information type (dynamic verbal vs.dynamic visual cues) and augmenting immersive scenes (high vs. low virtual presence) on visitors'evaluation of the AR-facilitated museum experience and their subsequent purchase intentions. Using anexperimental approach, the results demonstrate that compared with dynamic visual cues, dynamicverbal cues lead to visitors' higher levels of willingness to pay more and such effect is more salient whenenvironmental augmentation provides a high level of virtual presence. Such effects can be explained bythe psychological mechanism of mental imagery.

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The eyes see only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

e Robertson Davies

1. Introduction

Augmented reality (AR) technology is one of the most revolu-tionary inventions in recent years. Crowned the most frequentlysearched term on Google in 2016, “Pok�emon Go” successfullyintroduced AR to a mass audience (Wingfield & Isaac, 2016). Byaugmenting a display of real-world objects and spaces with virtualinformation (Milgram & Kishino, 1994) to seamlessly integrate vir-tuality and reality (Tussyadiah, Jung, & tom Dieck, 2017), AR shows

rie.wu@temple.edu (L. Wu),

great potential as a design tool to craft innovative customer experi-ences across industries. AR's popularity is expected to continuewiththemarket estimated to reach $117.4 billion by 2022 at a compoundannual growth rate of 75.72% (Forbes Agency Council, 2017).

At the forefrontof stagingexperiences in theexperienceeconomy(Pine & Gilmore, 1999), the tourism industry has seized the oppor-tunity to use AR technology to develop never-before-seen tourismexperiences. For instance, outdoor applications such as ViewRangerand AR Mountains Map have introduced augmented trail informa-tion as tourists navigate and tag their adventures (Gooding, 2016).Indoor attractions have begun to enhance visitors’ experiences withAR, such as the new “Terracotta Warriors of the First Emperor”exhibition at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, which digitallyshowcases warriors and their weapons (Hurdle, 2017).

Research on AR in tourism and travel has been spurred by theseemerging trends. Extant body of tourism and travel literature hasfocused mainly on the prospects and challenges of AR adoption(Kounavis,Kasimati,&Zamani, 2012), potential usage scenarios (tomDieck, Jung, & Han, 2016; Scarles, Casey, & Treharne, 2016, p. 1177;

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139128

Hassan & Ramkissoon, 2016; Chung, Han, & Joun, 2015), user read-iness and acceptance of AR (Chung et al., 2015; Jung, Chung,& Leue,2015), uniqueuser experienceswithAR (Tussyadiah et al., 2017), andconsumers' attitudes and behavioral intentions around AR adoption(Chung, Lee, Kim,&Koo, 2017).While experience design researchersargue that well-designed experiences may increase customers'willingness to pay (Pine& Gilmore, 1999), the relationship betweenAR design elements and customers' paying behavior warrantsfurther investigation. Yet, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, noprior research has looked at the impact of AR design elements on thetourism experience and subsequent behaviors.

The current study seeks to fill this gap in the literature viamental imagery theory (Thomas, 1999) and attentional controltheory (Kim& Cave, 1999). Specifically, this research examines howand why two AR design elements, information type (i.e., dynamicverbal vs. dynamic visual cues) and level of virtual presence (i.e.,high vs. low), influence visitors' museum experiences and subse-quent behavioral intentions, particularly their willingness to paymore (WTPmore). As an important product that museum tourismbelongs to, cultural tourism has been recognized as “one of themost important forms of tourist traffic” and is estimated to becomeone of UNWTO's main focus by 2020 (Niemczyk, 2013, p. 24). Inaddition, cultural institutions particularly museums, are acknowl-edged to be premier attractions of tourism destinations that tour-ists tended to visit regardless of destinations (McKercher, 2004, p.498; Stylianou-Lambert, 2011). However, with challenging eco-nomic environment and significant declines in government sup-port, museums are facing server financial challenges and are eagerto convince visitors to pay more for distinct experiences in order toalleviate budgetary pressure and generate revenues (IBISWorld,2017; Silberberg, 1995). Moreover, AR innovation represents anew method for enhancing visitor experiences in the museum in-dustry despite concerns over its return on investment (Center forthe Future of Museums, 2016). To that end, the current researchaims to explore how AR may help museums overcome budgetarypressure by increasing visitors' willingness to pay. The results ofthis study will provide meaningful and specific insights for prac-titioners regarding how to design AR applications to enhance thetourism experience and improve their financial prospects.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. The theo-retical background provides a literature reviewof the key constructsrelated to AR-mediated museum experience, including experientialvalue, AR design elements, and visitors'willingness to paymore. Thehypotheses development section introducesmental imagery theoryand attentional control theory, which underpin our hypothesesregarding the effects of key AR design elements on visitors’ will-ingness to pay more; this section also outlines the potential mech-anism that explains these effects. Following that, the methodologysection details the research design and procedure. The results sec-tionpresents the data description andmajorfindings, and the articleconcludes with a discussion and study limitations.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. The museum tourism experience and experiential value

Museums, especially art museums, have beenwidely recognizedas a major tourist attraction for domestic and international visitorsin many destinations. Art museums are at the helm of staging ex-periences in today's experiential economy. As museums faceserious financial challenges (Pogrebin, 2017), they are turning theirfocus on enhancing the visitor experience in order to increaseadmission rates (IBISWorld, 2017; Kelly, 2004). Driven by serviceco-creation logic (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), the serviceexperience literature indicates that both the visitor and managerial

perspectives should be considered in order to successfully managevisitors' experiences (Johnston & Kong, 2011).

From a visitor's point of view, a key construct that captures thesuccess or failure of the entire museum experience is perceivedexperiential value (Chan, 2009). Perceived experiential value isbased on the transaction or co-creation of experience between theservice provider (i.e., museum) and the customer (i.e., visitor),particularly interactions involving direct either usage or distantappreciation of goods or services (Wu& Liang, 2009). In the contextof museum tourism, previous research has suggested that thegeneration of visitors' experiential value is tied to their aestheticappreciation process (Chung et al., 2017; Csikszentmihalyi &Robinson, 1990). An aesthetic response to the museum experi-ence contains two dimensions: 1) direct visual appeal of themuseum exhibition's design; and 2) spectacular aspects of theexperience (i.e., perceptions of entertainment and amusement)(Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001). As visitors transform fromspectators to participants, their distant appreciation of aestheticelements shifts to value generation (Deighton & Grayson, 1995),specifically intrinsic value. Enjoyment, as one of the core intrinsicvalues in this context (Beardsley, 1965; Chung et al., 2017), resultsfrom participation in absorbing immersive activities or processesthat offers a sense of escape from everyday monotony (Mathwicket al., 2001; Unger & Kernan, 1983). Based on these conceptuali-zations, experiential value in a museum context contains severalkey aspects: visual appeal, entertainment, enjoyment, andescapism (Mathwick et al., 2001; Shih, 2015).

From a managerial viewpoint, the management of the museumtourism experience relies on delivering inputs (i.e., the core productand the physical environment in which the product is embedded)(Falk, Koran, Dierking, & Dreblow, 1985) by stimulating attention,interest, and engagement (Goulding, 2000). One of the two keyorientations to look at the management of museum experience arethe notions of “exhibit” and “setting” (Falk et al., 1985). The formermaintains that the nature of an exhibit is the dominant driverbehind the museum experience. The latter is more holistic; itregards the museum as a social and physical setting where in-dividuals are constrained by social norms or physical spaces to reactin a predictable way (i.e., aesthetic appreciation). Therefore, inaddition to various exhibits and displays, visitors’ responses can beshaped by social and physical settings. Based on previous under-standing from both perspectives, it is thus essential for museums togenerate compelling stimuli through myriad exhibits and settingsto successfully engage tourists in the co-creation of aesthetic ex-periences. Given this managerial need, the design and imple-mentation of AR technology in museum contexts should attend toboth exhibit and setting.

2.2. Augmented reality (AR) technology

As the midpoint of the reality-virtuality continuum, AR can bedefined as the technique that “augmenting natural feedback to theoperator with simulated cues” (Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi, &Kishino, 1994, p. 283). With the unique ability to superimposevirtual information onto physical objects and environments (Chunget al., 2015), AR can either bring real-world objects into a virtualenvironment or bring virtual objects into reality (Milgram &Kishino, 1994). It also has the potential to reshape the design ofmuseum exhibits and environments and to influence users' atten-tion allocation (Yeh & Wickens, 2000); thus, AR can be utilized asan auxiliary tool in the management of tourists' museum experi-ences. Previous studies on AR in the tourism context have investi-gated the challenges and prospects of AR adoption for tourismneeds (Kounavis et al., 2012). Other studies have explored tourists'readiness and acceptance of AR technology (Chung et al., 2015),

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139 129

users' and non-users’ learning performance (Chang et al., 2014),museum and other potential usage scenarios, including culturaland heritage tourism (tom Dieck et al., 2016; Scarles et al., 2016, p.1177; Hassan & Ramkissoon, 2016; Chung et al., 2015). Mostrecently, the discussion has shifted to attitude and behavioralintention about AR adoption (Chung et al., 2017; Jung et al., 2015)and the unique user experience (e.g., embodiment) of AR technol-ogy in the situated tourism context (Tussyadiah et al., 2017). It canbe concluded from previous studies that adopting AR in the tourismcontext can enhance consumers' experiences, improve their atti-tudes, and increase positive behavioral intention. Moving beyond adiscussion of whether and where to adopt AR, the current researchexamines the specific research question of how best to utilize ARdesign to enhance tourism experiences and improve museums'bottom line. To the best of the authors' knowledge, little researchhas explored the effects of AR design elements on tourists’ expe-riences and subsequent behaviors.

Tofill this gap in the literature, the current research examines theimpact of AR design elements on the museum tourism experience.The existing literature on museum experience management haveidentified two key prototypical design elements used to design ARdisplays in a museum context: augmenting digital assets about theexhibits and augmenting immersive scenes (Feiner, MacIntyre,Hollerer, & Webster, 1997; Wojciechowski, Walczak, White, &Cellary, 2004). Augmenting digital assets about exhibits often in-cludes verbal descriptions of exhibits, 2D or 3D visual images, orvisual animations that convey an exhibit's transformation (Yuen,Yaoyuneyong, & Johnson, 2011), such as the display restored cul-tural relics. Augmenting immersive scenes, such as a historical,natural, or cultural virtual environment that reflects the contents ofthe exhibits (Wojciechowski et al., 2004), affords tourists a new levelof virtual presence (Ba~nos et al., 2004; Tussyadiah, Wang, Jung, &tom Dieck, 2018). Augmenting digital assets about exhibits andaugmenting immersive scenes are integral to AR display design in avariety of scenarios (Cheng & Tsai, 2013; Yuen et al., 2011).

Given current AR design and the museum experience manage-ment literature, it can be concluded that an examination of theeffects of AR design elements, especially the effects of augmentingdigital assets about exhibits and augmenting immersive scenes ontourists' museum experiences, would provide valuable insight. Inparticular, such research should help museum managers under-stand the impact of AR design elements on visitors’ experientialvalue and subsequent behavioral intentions, namely willingness topay more.

3. Hypotheses development

A review of relevant literature suggests that although AR has thepotential to enhance tourists’ museum experiences and visit in-tentions (Chung et al., 2015), specific research on the effects of ARdesign elements on the tourism experience and purchasing be-haviors is still lacking. Taking a unique focus, this study adoptsattentional control theory and mental imagery theory to examinehow two AR design elements, augmenting digital assets about theexhibits and augmenting immersive scenes, may contribute to amental imagery process in aesthetic/art appreciation.

3.1. Willingness to pay more (WTPmore)

Willingness to paymore can be defined as tourists'willingness topay a higher price for an event, service or experience (Baker &Crompton, 2000) compared to the normal price or that of acompetitor. As a construct that directly reflects a business'scompetitive advantage in the marketplace, the willingness to paymore (WTPmore) has been examined as an important behavioral

construct in tourism and hospitality research (Baker & Crompton,2000; Enrique Bigne et al., 2008). Furthermore, as many museumsface significant financial challenges these days (Pogrebin, 2017), theconstruct of willingness to pay more also provides specific andrelevant managerial implications for museum pricing policies.

Previous research has found that, in the context of leisure andtourism services, a better consumer experience can increase con-sumers' willingness to pay or, alternatively, the price premium theyare willing to pay (Enrique Bigne et al., 2008). Yet few studies haveexamined visitors' willingness to pay more for aesthetic experi-ences. In particular, research has revealed very little about thedriving forces behind consumers' willingness to pay more in thecontext of art museum tourism. As “pay what you wish” programsbecome common practice in the museum industry, understandingvisitors' willingness to pay more for museum experiences willprovide meaningful insights for museum tourism operations andrevenue management. Adopting the measurement of WTPmoredeveloped by Baker and Crompton (2000), the current researchattempts to bridge this gap in the literature by examining theimpact of AR design elements on visitors’ willingness to pay morefor an art museum experience.

3.2. Aesthetic appreciation: a top-down attentional control processof mental imagery

Mental imagery is one of the primary methods individuals useto appreciate art. The mental imagery process can be defined as anonverbal, quasi-perceptual inner representation of perceptualinformation in memory (Thomas, 1999). The mental imagery pro-cess is sometimes colloquially termed “visualizing” or “seeing inthemind's eye” (Childers, Houston,&Heckler, 1985; Thomas,1999).Mental imagery offers a primary way for the generation of aestheticpleasure, as the system of creating vivid imagery shares core ele-ments with the creation of aesthetic experience (Starr, 2013). Byuniting sensory input, emotional perception, and semantic data andintegrating information and sensation to redefine and revalue whatone feels and knows, the mental imagery process helps viewers toprocess an art piece and to understand the artist's personalperspective (Starr, 2013).

Previous research in aesthetic appreciation suggests that mentalimagery in art appreciation involves a top-down attentional controlprocess (Cupchik& Gebotys, 1988; Cupchik, Winston,&Herz, 1992;Winston & Cupchik, 1992). According to attentional control theory,there are two key psychological processes that individuals use ineveryday information processing: top-down and bottom-up (Kim&Cave, 1999). The top-down process is a controlled or goal-directedprocess wherein individuals’ thoughts or intentions direct theirvisual attention (Kim & Cave, 1999). In contrast, the bottom-upprocess is more spontaneous and driven mostly by external stim-uli (Kim & Cave, 1999). A similar notion to top-down vs. bottom-upprocessing is captured in the dual processing theory of reasoning,judgment, and social cognition (Evans, 2008).

The aesthetic appreciation process in the art museum tourismexperience involves tourists paying attention to a focal object andsuppressing everyday concerns to enjoy escapism (Cupchik &Winston, 1996; Cupchik, Vartanian, Crawley, & Mikulis, 2009). Assuch, an enjoyable aesthetic experience may require tourists to“[intentionally] shift to overcome the automatic cuing” and to“reinvest attention in the creation of experience” (Cupchik et al.,2009, p. 85). The process of art appreciation also requires an ab-stract level of aesthetic appreciation and knowledge interpretationto facilitate direct visual perception (Cupchik et al., 2009). In thistop-down process, individuals form their own inner representa-tions or mental imagery of an art piece given a conceptual under-standing or knowledge about the art piece (Mellet et al., 1996).

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139130

For example, when trying to appreciate the famous cubist artpiece Guernica by Pablo Picasso, visitors may first attempt toconsider their background knowledge about the artist and thepainting. They may have learned that Picasso was a famous Cubismartist and this piece was created in the 20th century to express hisoutrage over the Nazi bombing of the city of Guernica in northernSpain. After absorbing this knowledge, visitors may use such in-formation to guide their visual attention and search for piecemealelements that reflect Guernica residents’ misery, such as distortedfaces, screaming animals, and dying people. Following the goaldirected process, visitors may piece together the fragmentary in-formation and eventually form their own vivid imagery about apeaceful town suffering atrocities at the hands of the Nazis. Toconclude, this top-down control is key to the construction ofmeaningful and coherentmental images in an aesthetic experience.

3.3. Augmenting digital assets about exhibits: the effect of ARinformation type

By focusing on the AR design element of augmenting digitalassets, this research examines which AR information that willresult in a better museum experience. The study of informationtype on consumer judgement and behavior can be traced back toadvertising literature, where a verbal cue is defined as a textualdescription of a product and a visual cue refers to a pictorialdemonstration of a product (Stafford, 1996). With the developmentof information technology, print materials have been graduallyreplaced by digital information representation in mass communi-cations. Following this trend, research on information type hasexpanded the scope of visual and verbal cues by incorporatingdigital animations (Boucheix, Lowe, Putri, & Groff, 2013), such asvisual graphics that involve dynamics (Boucheix & Lowe, 2010;Fischer, Lowe, & Schwan, 2008) and verbal information that high-lights movements and relations with dynamic presentations(Harvey & Walker, 2014).

Comparing the relative effectiveness of verbal and visual cues,previous research has identified a visual superiority effect and averbal superiority effect under different conditions. The visual su-periority effect suggests that, compared with verbal cues, visualcues generate better recognition, memory, and attitude (Childers &Houston, 1984; Nelson, Reed, & Walling, 1976; Pieters & Wedel,2004; Rossiter & Percy, 1980). Such an effect typically emerges inconditions where people are less motivated or capable of process-ing information, such as when browsing websites and beingmentally preoccupied. In this context, consumers tend to adopt abottom-up information processing strategy and put forth minimalmental effort to process readily available information (Shah &Oppenheimer, 2008). Compared with verbal cues, visual cuesrepresent stronger sensory stimuli (Nelson et al., 1976) and areeasier to store and retrieve (Roediger & Weldon, 1987). Therefore,visual cues are relatively more effective in capturing consumers’attention in conditions where individuals adopt a bottom-up in-formation processing approach.

Meanwhile, some scholars have identified an adverse effect ofverbal superiority in purchase decisions (Kim & Lennon, 2008;Roediger & Weldon, 1987). This line of research suggests that,although comprehension of verbal cues requires more effort, verbalcues (vs. visual cues) lead to greater purchasing intentions inconditions where people are more motivated and capable of pro-cessing information (Childers& Houston, 1984). For instance, whenmaking important decisions, consumers are naturally moreengaged in information processing and decision making. In suchcircumstances, consumers are more inclined to take a top-downsemantic processing approach and to use existing knowledge orgoals to direct their comprehension (Childers & Houston, 1984). As

such, verbal cues outperform visual cues in shaping consumers’purchasing intentions in terms of highly involved and engagedinformation processing and decision-making tasks.

In the context of the current research on art museum tourismexperiences, it is proposed that verbal (vs. visual) cues should leadto greater experiential value and willingness to pay more. Thissupposition is underpinned by a twofold rationale. First of all, dy-namic verbal (vs. visual) cues are better suited to art museumtourists’ top-down mental imagery approach to aesthetic appreci-ation. As argued in the hypotheses development section, visitorstypically follow a top-down mental imagery process for enhancedaesthetic appreciation (Cupchik et al., 2009). At the same time, theverbal superiority literature suggests that verbal (vs. visual) cuesdeliver better results when individuals adopt a top-down strategyto process information (Childers & Houston, 1984). In addition,compared with visual cues, verbal cues can more effectively elicitpersonally relevant andmeaningful mental imagery (Escalas, 2006;Walters, Sparks, & Herington, 2007). Unlike visual cues that makeimaginary scenarios readily available, with verbal cues, individualshave no choice but to mentally imagine and visualize the describedscenario themselves (Walters et al., 2007). Such a process allowsindividuals to use personally relevant knowledge to shape theirmental imagery, which is a manifestation of the top-down pro-cessing approach. Therefore, in the context of museum art appre-ciation, verbal (vs. visual) cues should be better aligned with thetop-down mental imagery process; specifically, verbal (vs. visual)cues should facilitate the mental imagery process more effectively,thereby leading to higher levels of experiential value and increasedwillingness to pay more.

Moreover, dynamic visual (vs. verbal) cues may actually impedethe mental imagery process. Prior studies have indicated that,compared with verbal cues, dynamic visual cues are particularlyeffective in attracting human visual attention (Carmi & Itti, 2006).As mental imagery is both visual (Kosslyn & Thompson, 2003) anddynamic (Freyd, 1987; Krishna, Morrin, & Sayin, 2013), the infor-mation encoding process of dynamic visual cues may compete forthe same mental resources used for mental imagery. As such, cuesthat are dynamic and visual in nature may be particularly powerfulin impeding the top-downmental imagery process (Logie, Zucco,&Baddeley, 1990; Unnava, Agarwal, & Haugtvedt, 1996). Given thisbarrier, when museum visitors are exposed to artwork augmentedwith dynamic visual animation through AR, they may feel deprivedof exploratory freedom in their own mental imagery, which mayfurther impair their experiential value and willingness to pay more.Therefore, it is proposed that:

H1: Compared with dynamic visual cues, dynamic verbal cues willenhance museum tourists' WTPmore.

3.4. Augmenting immersive scenes: the moderating effect of ARvirtual presence

It is important to note that the mental imagery process is notalways initiated successfully in aesthetic appreciation. AR virtualpresence, created by augmenting immersive scenes, can effectivelytrigger the mental imagery process in art/aesthetic appreciationand should thereforemoderate the effect of AR information type onmuseum tourists’ WTPmore.

Virtual presence can be defined as a sense of ‘being there’ in thevirtual environment or, equivalently, “presence in a virtual envi-ronment [that] involves the sense of being in the virtual placerather than in the real physical place where the person's body isactually located” (Slater & Steed, 2000, p. 414). AR technology caneasily transport its users to a virtual setting by augmenting

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139 131

immersive scenes. For example, by adding highly immersive sen-sory input such as a 3D view of a prairie and the smell of grass, anAR display can make users feel as though they have been tempo-rarily located in a prairie rather than their actual physical space,such as a laboratory. The varying degrees of immersion provided byAR will affect users' level of perceived virtual presence.

Previous research has found that virtual presence can effectivelyinfluence individuals' mental imagery level via contextual cueing(Blascovich et al., 2002; Chun & Jiang, 1998). Virtual presenceprovides relevant contextual or environmental information, such astime, location, or geographic orientation, to effectively initiatemental imagery (Byrne, Becker, & Burgess, 2007). Therefore,creating a virtual presence helps an individual successfullygenerate mental imagery (Byrne et al., 2007). In the context of thecurrent research, when a visitor has a high level of virtual presence,a top-down mental imagery process is activated. In such circum-stances, dynamic verbal cues (vs. dynamic visual cues) shouldbetter fit the top-down mental imagery process, yielding animproved experience (Tussyadiah et al., 2018) and greaterWTPmore among museum tourists. However, when visitors areexposed to a normal environment or setting inwhich they perceivea low level of virtual presence, they will have a stronger connectionwith reality, and the top-down mental imagery process may not beactivated at all. AR virtual presence is thus expected to moderatethe effect of AR information type on museum tourists’ WTPmore.Therefore, we propose that:

H2: AR virtual presence moderates the effect of AR information typeon museum tourists' WTPmore, such that when an AR displayprovides high virtual presence, dynamic visual cues (vs. dynamicverbal cues) will further enhance museum tourists' WTPmore.

3.5. The serial mediation effect via imagery vividness andexperiential value

Imagery vividness can be defined as the “clarity with which theindividual experiences a mental image” (Bone & Ellen, 1992, p. 96),which is by far the most prevalently used construct to demonstratethe mental imagery process (Cartwright, Marks, & Durrett, 1978;MacInnis & Price, 1987). According to Starr (2013), vivid mentalimages contribute significantly to aesthetic experiences. In linewith our hypotheses development, mental imagery is argued to bethe key psychological mechanism underlying the effects of ARdesign elements on museum tourists' experiences. We proposethat, especially when an AR display provides high virtual presence byaugmenting immersive scenes, dynamic verbal (vs. dynamic visual)information should better facilitate the mental imagery processand therefore bring about greater experiential value andWTPmore.Put another way, when an AR display provides high virtual presence,the constructs of imagery vividness and experiential value shouldwork in tandem (i.e., serial mediation effect, Hayes, 2013) to explainthe effect of AR information type on museum tourists’ WTPmore.When an AR display does not provide augmented immersivescenes, the virtual presence level will be low and the mental imageryprocess may not occur at all. In such cases, the serial mediationeffect of imagery vividness and experiential value should not apply.It is therefore proposed that:

H3: When an AR display provides high virtual presence, dynamicvisual cues (vs. dynamic verbal cues) enhance museum tourists'WTPmore via the serial mediation effect of imagery vividness andexperiential value.

To conclude, based on the notion that aesthetic appreciation is atop-down mental imagery process, the dynamic verbal cues pro-vided through AR should align with the museum context and leadto higher WTPmore compared to dynamic visual cues. This effectshould be moderated by the level of virtual presence, which canactivate mental imagery through contextual cueing, therebyenhancing experiential value and museum tourists’ WTPmore. Theproposed model is demonstrated in Fig. 1.

4. Methodology

To test the above hypotheses, this study adopted an experi-mental approach. A pilot study was conducted to assess the validityof the study stimuli and refine materials. Following the pilot study,the main study was carried out to test the proposed hypotheses,namely how AR design elements influence tourists’ experiencesand subsequent behavioral intentions to pay more. The minimalsample size needed has been demonstrated in Appendix B.

4.1. Sample demographics

A total of 225 valid respondents (who passed the attentioncheck) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk to participatein this study. Participants were randomly assigned to the fourtreatment groups. About half (49%) of participants were male.About two-thirds (67%) were 18e39 years old, 83% held an asso-ciate's degree or above, and 64% had visited a museum within thepast year. Detailed sample descriptive analysis can be found inAppendix C.

4.2. Design, procedure, and materials

The experiment adopted a 2� 2 (information type: dynamicvisual vs. dynamic verbal cues; virtual presence: high vs. low)between-subjects design. Participants accessed the research stim-uli and survey questionnaire via an online link. In the video sce-narios, the participants were asked to imagine theywere visiting anart museum and used an augmented reality device for paintingappreciation. The video portrayed the museum experience from afirst-person point of view, displaying Vincent van Gogh's paintingStarry Night over the Rhone along with an AR display with variousdesign element combinations.

In the “dynamic visual cue - high virtual presence” condition, thepaintingwas augmentedwith a digital display of 2D dynamic visualcues that were designed to depict the imagery from Vincent vanGogh's perspective. Cues were shown in three stages: glimmers ofdistant stars on amidnight blue sky; gas lighting and stars reflectedon the river; and a couple strolling on the bank who had dis-embarked from the sailing boat moored at the port. Meanwhile, themuseum environment was augmented with a content-related vir-tual background of gently rippling water under the moonlight. Inthe “dynamic verbal cue - high virtual presence” condition, thepainting was augmented with a digital dynamic display of textualdescriptions that described the painting's contents with wordsreflecting each of the aforementioned three (visual) cue stages. Atthe same time, the museum environment was augmented with acontent-related virtual background. In the “dynamic visual cue - lowvirtual presence” condition, the painting was augmented with adigital display of 2D dynamic visual cues, but the museum envi-ronment was not augmented with a virtual background. In the“dynamic verbal cue - low virtual presence” condition, the paintingwas augmented with textual descriptions and no virtual back-ground. Screenshots of the video stimuli used in the four scenariosappear in Appendix A.

After being exposed to the video stimuli, participants were

Fig. 1. Effect of information type and virtual presence level on WTPmore through imagery vividness and experiential value.

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139132

asked to answer several questions about experiential value, will-ingness to pay more, imagery vividness, demographics, etc. Thesurvey included a manipulation check.

4.3. Manipulation check

The level of visitors’ perceived virtual presence required amanipulation check. According to Perdue and Summers (1986),concrete observable variables (e.g., colors, prices, etc.) can berelatively simple to confirm as having been manipulated as inten-ded. Unobservable variables involving higher-order cognition, suchas perceptions, cannot be altered directly and necessitate morethorough manipulation checks. To ensure virtual presence wasmanipulated successfully, a three-item measurement scale wasused to check if “the environment that the exhibited paintingdescribed became a place, rather than just images” (7-point Likertscale: 1¼ “strongly disagree”, 7¼ “strongly agree”; Slater, Usoh, &Steed, 1994) (see Table 1). Participants assigned to the high vir-tual presence conditions rated their perceived virtual presence(Nhigh presence¼ 112, Mhigh presence¼ 5.48, SDhigh presence¼ 1.03) to besignificantly higher than their counterparts assigned to the lowvirtual presence conditions (Nlow presence¼ 113, Mlow presence¼ 4.96,SDlow presence¼ 1.25; t¼ 3.42, p< 0.01). Based on these results, themanipulation of virtual presence was deemed successful.

4.4. Measures

Following previous research, experiential value was measuredusing measure-established scales developed by Mathwick et al.(2001) and Shih (2015) on a 7-point Likert scale (1¼ “stronglydisagree”, 7¼ “strongly agree”; Cronbach's a¼ 0.96). Willingness topay more was assessed via a 2-item, 7-point bipolar scale adaptedfrom Baker and Crompton (2000) (1¼ “not at all likely”,7¼ “extremely likely”; Cronbach's a¼ 0.89). Respondents' imageryvividness (Cronbach's a¼ 0.85) was measured by a 3-item scaleadapted from Bone and Ellen (1992). Measurement scales for themajor measures are summarized in Table 1. Descriptive analysis ofmeasurement items can be found in Appendix D.

5. Results

5.1. ANOVA results - the effects of AR design elements on WTPmore

A2� 2 (information type: verbal vs. dynamic visual cues; level ofvirtual presence: high vs. low) analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasconducted to test H1, H2, and H3. H1 posited that compared withdynamic visual cues, verbal cues would lead to greater WTPmore.ANOVA (see Table 2 and Fig. 2.) results confirmed the proposedpositivemain effect of information type onWTPmore (F(1,221)¼ 4.10,p¼ 0.04, Nverbal¼ 108, Mverbal¼ 4.28, SDverbal¼ 1.43; Nvisual¼ 117,Mvisual¼ 3.91, SDvisual¼ 1.33; Cohen's d ¼ 0.27); thus, H1 was sup-ported. The results also confirmed the interaction effect of infor-mation type and virtual presence level on WTPmore (F(1,221)¼ 5.10,

p¼ 0.03) proposed byH2; that is, when an AR display provided highvirtual presence, dynamic visual cues (vs. dynamic verbal cues)improvedmuseumtourists'WTPmore. Specifically, in theconditionswith a high level of virtual presence, dynamic verbal (vs. dynamicvisual) cues significantly increased WTPmore (Nverbal-high pres-

ence¼ 55, Mverbal-high presence¼ 4.55, SDverbal-high presence¼ 1.38; Nvisual-

high presence¼ 57, Mvisual-high presence¼ 3.77, SDvisual-high presence¼ 1.29;t¼ 3.09; p< 0.01; Cohen's d¼ 0.58; H2 was supported). In the lowvirtualpresenceconditions, dynamicverbal cues anddynamicvisualcues resulted in similar levels ofWTPmore (Mverbal-low presence¼ 3.99,SDverbal-low presence¼ 1.44, Nverbal-low presence¼ 53; Mvisual-low pres-

ence¼ 4.03, SDvisual-low presence¼ 1.37, Nvisual-low presence 60; t¼ 0.15;p¼ 0.84; Cohen's d ¼ 0.03). The residual check demonstrated inAppendix E. suggest that the residuals follow normal distribution.

5.2. PROCESS results e the conditional serial mediation effect ofimagery vividness and experiential value

PROCESS Model 6 of serial mediation (Hayes, 2013) was used totest H3, which suggested that, depending on the level of virtualpresence, the effect of information type (dynamic verbal informa-tion, coded as 0, and dynamic visual information, coded as 1) onWTPmore was driven by the serial mediation effect via imageryvividness and experiential value. To conduct this test, we split thedata based on virtual presence level and tested Model 6 (serialmediation) on each of the sub-datasets. Confirming the proposedhypotheses, in the high virtual presence conditions, results showeda significant negative indirect effect via imagery vividness andexperiential value (b¼�0.10; 95% Boot CI:�0.27,�0.01). In the lowvirtual presence conditions, the indirect effect via imagery vivid-ness and experiential value was non-significant (b¼ 0.00; 95% BootCI: �0.12, 0.13); as such, H3 was supported.

6. Conclusions and discussion

Tofill the researchgapon theeffects of ARdesignelements on themuseum tourism experience, the current study examined how twoAR design elements, information type (dynamic verbal vs. dynamicvisual cues) and environment augmentation (high vs. low virtualpresence) influenced tourists'museum experiences andwillingnessto pay more. The results indicated that compared with dynamic vi-sual cues, dynamic verbal cues exerted a positive main effect onvisitors' willingness to pay more, presumably because verbal infor-mation that attenuates automatic response and facilitates top-downprocessing has a verbal superior effect on visitors' aesthetic expe-rience and decision making. This effect is more salient when virtualpresence is high (vs. low) because 1) a virtual environment canfunction as a contextual cue that facilitates mental imagery; and 2)vivid imagery processing enhances aesthetic experience, therebyincreasing visitors’willingness to pay more.

Table 1Measurement scales.

Measurement Dimension Items Adapted from

Experiential value Visual appeal 1. The way the museum displays its exhibits is attractive. Mathwick et al., 2001; Shih, 20152. The experience process in museum attracts me.3. I love the atmosphere of the entire museum experience.

Entertainment 1. I think the museum exhibition is very entertaining.2. The enthusiasm of the museum is catching-it picks me up.3. The museum does not just exhibit art works-it entertains me.

Enjoyment 1. I am thrilled about having such an experience.2. I really enjoy this museum experience.3. The museum experience is exciting.4. I am indulged in the activities.

Escapism 1. Having such museum experience gets me away from the vexations and pressuresof real life.2. Having such museum experience makes me feel like I am in another world.3. I get so involved when I have the museum experience that I forget everything else.

Virtual presence(manipulation check)

1. The environment the painting describes became a place, rather than just images. Slater et al., 19942. I felt “being there” in the environment the painting describes.3. The environment the painting describes seemed realistic.

Willingness to pay more 1. Continue to visit if the admission price was increased. Baker & Crompton, 20002. Pay a higher price than other similar museums in the area charge.

Imagery vividness 1. The image that you had in your head is intense. Bone & Ellen, 19922. The image that you had in your head is lifelike3. The image that you had in your head is defined.

Table 2ANOVA table.

Dependent Variable: WTPmore

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected model 18.345 3 6.115 3.260 0.022Intercept 3751.526 1 3751.526 1999.969 0.000Virtual presence level (high vs. low) 1.285 1 1.285 0.685 0.409Information type (dynamic visual vs. dynamic verbal cues) 7.681 1 7.681 4.095 0.044Virtual presence level� information type 9.560 1 9.560 5.097 0.025Error 414.550 221 1.876Total 4186.500 225Corrected total 432.896 224

Fig. 2. Interactive effect of information type and virtual presence level on WTPmore.

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139 133

6.1. Theoretical contributions

Theoretically, this research advances the present body oftourism experience literature in several ways. Firstly, it fills the gapin the literature regarding the impact of AR design on tourists'museum experiences and subsequent behavioral intentions. Cur-rent tourism and hospitality research has explored myriad outdoorand indoor AR user scenarios (tom Dieck et al., 2016; Scarles et al.,2016, p. 1177; Hassan & Ramkissoon, 2016; Chung et al., 2015) aswell as consumers' readiness, acceptance, attitudes, experiences,and behavioral intentions towards AR adoption (Chung et al., 2017,2015; Jung et al., 2015; Tussyadiah et al., 2017) in some scenarios.

Previous studies have found that the positive effect of AR adoptionimproves consumers' experiences, attitudes, and behavioral in-tentions in many cases; however, it appears few studies haveexamined how to improve the tourism experience and consumers'behavioral intentions through AR design. This research delves intothe design elements of an AR display specific to the museumtourism context to examine its effect on visitors’ experiences andwillingness to pay more.

Secondly, through attentional control theory and mental imag-ery theory, this study demonstrated that imagery vividness is theunderlying psychological mechanism that can explain the effects ofdesign elements on visitors' museum experiences and behavioralintentions (Kim, Kim, & Bolls, 2014; Lee, Gretzel, & Law, 2010).Previous research on AR in travel and tourism has adopted tradi-tional theories andmodels of attitudes, behavior, and technology totest users' attitudes and intentions toward adoption, overall expe-riences, and behavioral intentions. These include but are notlimited to balance theory, reasoned action theory (Chung et al.,2017), technology embodiment (Tussyadiah et al., 2017), and thetechnology readiness and acceptance model (Chung et al., 2015).The current study offers a newway to examine visitors' experiencesand behavioral intentions through mental imagery theory. Thisperspective has been successfully utilized to explain the effect oftourism information on consumers’ experiences, attitudes, andbehavioral intentions in traditional and technology-mediated vir-tual contexts (Goossens, 2000; Lee et al., 2010). The demonstratedmediating effect of mental imagery can potentially offer significantinsight into the design and management of virtual and real-worldintegrated tourism information.

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139134

Having focused on static design elements, previous research intourism and hospitality found visual cues (e.g., pictures) to play anintegral role in consumption experiences (Hou, Yang, & Sun, 2017;Ye & Tussyadiah, 2011). Extending this line of research to dynamicAR design elements and museum tourism, this study provides arationale for why dynamic verbal cues are more effective thandynamic visual cues in enhancing the aesthetic tourism experienceandmuseum tourists’willingness to pay more. Given such findings,the current research supplements the traditional visual superiorityperspective with new insights on the adoption of dynamic designelements in AR development in tourism experiences.

Moreover, this study's findings also demonstrate themoderatingeffect of virtual presence on the effect of focal AR design cues onindividual consumers' tourism experiences and willingness to pay.Previous research on destination website marketing has found itcritically important to provide tourists with a sense of virtualpresence in marketing stimuli designs (Lee et al., 2010). Currentresearch has consistently revealed that virtual presence also plays akey role in the delivery of AR-facilitated experiences. Augmentedimmersive scenes, as one of the key digital assets specific to AR andothermixed-reality technologies (Feiner et al.,1997;Wojciechowskiet al., 2004), function as a contextual cue to provide visitors a highlevel of virtual presence. When visitors perceive the environmentthat an art piece conveys to be more realistic (i.e., high virtualpresence), the subsequent imagery process proceeds smoothlywiththe help of AR, leading to a better experience and increased will-ingness to pay more. However, when visitors are less able toimmerse themselves into the environment (i.e., low virtual pres-ence), themental imagery process may not be successful, leading toan inferior experience and decreased willingness to pay more.

6.2. Managerial implications

This research reveals important implications for technologyadoption and experience design for tourism and hospitality prac-titioners. With many tourism attractions, including museums, fac-ing substantial financial challenges (Pogrebin, 2017), practitionersare developing new experiential programs such as special exhibi-tions with higher admission fees (Frey & Meier, 2006; Russeth,2017) and discriminatory pricing for different tourist segments(Sharifi-Tehrani, Verbi�c, & Chung, 2013) to increase admissionprices. AR, as an innovative technology, has begun to create uniqueexperiences in many tourism settings such asmuseums/exhibitions(Kite-Powell, 2006) and outdoor adventures (Gooding, 2016). Forinstance, applications in the arts and exhibitions such as ARARToffer new avenues of artistic expression by superimposing virtualanimations onto famous paintings and breathing life into them(Caula, 2012). Our findings show that, with the right type of design,AR technology can potentially drive more museum revenue byproviding visitors a more engaging visit. To that end, this study'sresults may serve to alleviate some practitioners' concerns aboutthe cost effectiveness of AR in tourism settings (Kain, 2016).

More importantly, our research provides specific insights for ARadoption and display design in tourism experiences. One of AR'smost powerful features is its augmentation ability; therefore,museum practitioners may attempt to use AR to bring portraitsalive. For example, the National Museum of Singapore encouragesvisitors to use the museum's AR application on their cellphones tolearn more about the plants or animals captured in the WilliamFarquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings (Billock, 2017). Ourfindings suggest that augmenting immersive scenes can effectivelyenhance visitors' perceived virtual presence and facilitate mentalimagery processing. Practitioners should pay special attention toutilizing this unique AR digital asset to design a small set of virtualfeatures that are compatible with many products (e.g., Snapchat

filters: Benner, 2017) to enhance visitors' experiences in a morecost-effective way.

Althoughmany cases of visual animation design in AR seem eye-catching, our research findings suggest they may not necessarilyresult in a better visitor experience. Dynamic visual animationcould potentially impede visitors' own mental imagery in the artappreciation experience. After all, aesthetic appreciation is a highlypersonal experience requiring individuals' self-driven compre-hension and mental imagery. As some of the participants in thedynamic visual treatment groups pointed out that “if you temptpeople to view artworks like this you are sabotaging the artist'svision”, viewing an art piece that is augmented with visual ani-mation could compromise the viewer's freedom to explore his/herown mental imagery, which might impair aesthetic pleasure andexperiential value. Apart from the museum tourism experience,many tourism experiences also evoke aesthetic appreciation, suchas those involving food (Hegarty & O'Mahony, 2001; Long, 2004),culture (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998), and events (Wang, 1999).Thus, the implications of our findings may go beyond the scope ofmuseum experience management to prove relevant in a widerarray of tourism and experiential settings.

With the rapid development of information technology, peoplereceive a wealth of alluring information through multiple channelsevery day. The enduring enjoyment that comes from investingattention and creating meaningfulness can be easily distracted bybrief moments of sensory pleasure. Though innovative technologieslike AR can use a digital display to render imagesmore concrete andrealistic, which could be compelling, the results of this studyremind practitioners to be very careful when introducing thesetechnologies for tourism marketing and management of tourismexperience, especially in contexts involving aesthetic appreciation(e.g., culture tourism). The implementation of new technologiesshould not only be accompanied by guidance, such as contextualcues to transport tourists into the appropriate environment foroptimal information comprehension, but should also allow spacefor better aesthetic appreciation; that is, tourists should still be ableto use their imaginations to discover the “true” beauty and pleasurein artwork on their own.

7. Limitations and future research

Some limitations in this study warrant attention. First of all, thisresearch focused exclusively on the controlled mental imageryroute of processing to examine the impact of AR design elements.Other aesthetic appreciation strategies adopted by visitors, such asaffect-based hedonic enjoyment and cognitive-focused learning,were not investigated. Accordingly, future studies may wish toexamine how AR influences visitors' pure hedonic enjoyment,knowledge absorption, and memory retrieval. Second, this studyexamined respondents' immediate experiences and behavioral in-tentions towards AR without exploring long-term impacts. WhileAR can boost visitors’ experiences and willingness to pay whensuch technologies are initially adopted, it is not warranted thatthese effects are sustainable. In the future, a longitudinal studycould provide a better understanding of the impact of AR adoptionand design on visitor loyalty and relational engagement with amuseum. Furthermore, the current study assessed the impact of ARdesign on a generic group of visitors without considering by-segment difference. Previous studies have suggested that, in thecontext of art appreciation, novice and experienced viewers couldpotentially employ different evaluation and judgment processes(Winston & Cupchik, 1992). Subsequent research could extend thecurrent study by exploring whether AR design generates differentimpact on novice vs. experienced viewers. In addition, it was notedthat young and well-educated individuals, a group who likely have

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139 135

different preferences and intentions from other segments, wereoverrepresented in the study participants. While sample of suchnature provides unique insights for museum practitionersregarding how to attract the millennial consumers, notably one ofthe most important visitors segment (Patel, 2017), it may also limitthe generalizability of this research. Further research could beconducted to test if findings of this research are generalizableacross generations and educational levels.

To conclude, this study explored the impact of AR design ele-ments on visitors' tourism experiences and willingness to pay morethrough a top-down mental imagery process in a museum setting.More research is welcomed to see if such effects can be explainedby other mechanisms or generalized across time, contexts, andpopulations. It is our hope that this research will shed light on the

topic of technology and aesthetic tourism in addition to encour-aging continued empirical investigation to advance theories andpractices that can explicate tourists’ experiences and behavior.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found athttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.003.

Appendix A. Screenshots of experiment stimuli

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139136

Appendix B. Test of sample size adequacy

Anticipated effect size Desired statistical power (Cohen's f) Number of predictors Significance level Minimum sample size

0.25 0.8 3 0.05 179

Appendix C. Sample frequency and descriptive analysis

Variable Items N Variable Items N Variable Items N

What is the highest level ofeducation you have completed?

High school or less 26 Treatment high virtual presence� dynamicvisual information

57 Museum experiencewithin a year

Yes 145

Technical/vocational high school 11 low virtual presence� dynamicvisual information

60 No 80

Associate degree or some college 70 high virtual presence� dynamicverbal information

55

College graduate 81 low virtual presence� dynamicverbal information

53

Graduate work/Master's/Doctoral degree 36 Gender Male 110Others 1 Female 115

Appendix D. Descriptive analysis of measurement items

Construct Items N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistics Std. Error Statistics Std. Error

Experiential value Visual appeal 1 225 1 7 5.76 1.19 �1.39 0.16 2.44 0.32Visual appeal 2 225 1 7 5.66 1.32 �1.21 0.16 1.28 0.32Visual appeal 3 225 1 7 5.68 1.27 �1.35 0.16 2.07 0.32Entertainment 1 225 1 7 5.60 1.3 �1.37 0.16 1.75 0.32Entertainment 2 225 1 7 5.16 1.54 �0.93 0.16 0.31 0.32Entertainment 3 225 1 7 5.40 1.46 �1.28 0.16 1.39 0.32Enjoyment 1 225 1 7 5.07 1.47 �0.89 0.16 0.55 0.32Enjoyment 2 225 1 7 5.46 1.40 �1.32 0.16 1.66 0.32Enjoyment 3 225 1 7 5.27 1.41 �1.04 0.16 1.03 0.32Enjoyment 4 225 1 7 5.13 1.39 �0.85 0.16 0.62 0.32Escapism 1 225 1 7 5.24 1.42 �1.01 0.16 0.75 0.32Escapism 2 225 1 7 5.06 1.51 �0.81 0.16 0.14 0.32Escapism 3 225 1 7 4.67 1.57 �0.45 0.16 �0.47 0.32

Virtual presence Presence 1 225 1 7 5.29 1.36 �1.06 0.16 1.20 0.32Presence 2 225 1 7 5.01 1.45 �0.94 0.16 0.66 0.32Presence 3 225 1 7 5.36 1.23 �1.03 0.16 1.40 0.32

Imagery vividness Vividness 1 225 1 7 4.60 1.51 �0.47 0.16 �0.28 0.32Vividness 2 225 1 7 4.85 1.39 �0.71 0.16 0.28 0.32Vividness 3 225 1 7 5.00 1.38 �0.64 0.16 �0.08 0.32

WTPmore WTPmore 1 225 1 7 4.14 1.45 �0.20 0.16 �0.54 0.32WTPmore 2 225 1 7 4.03 1.47 �0.25 0.16 �0.73 0.32

Appendix E. Normality test of residuals

N Min Max Mean

Residual for WTPmore 225 �3.55 3.23 0Standardized Residual for WTPmore 225 �2.60 2.36 �2.9E-17

Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

1.36 �0.31 0.16 �0.29 0.320.99 �0.31 0.16 �0.29 0.32

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139 137

References

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.

Ba~nos, R. M., Botella, C., Alca~niz, M., Lia~no, V., Guerrero, B., & Rey, B. (2004). Im-mersion and emotion: Their impact on the sense of presence. CyberPsychologyand Behavior, 7(6), 734e741.

Beardsley, M. C. (1965). Intrinsic value. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,26(1), 1e17.

Benner, K. (2017). To stay ahead of facebook, snap rolls out 3-d features for messaging.April 18. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/technology/snapchat-3d-facebook.html?mcubz¼1.

Billock, J. (2017). Five augmented reality experiences that bring museum exhibits to life.June 29. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/expanding-exhibits-augmented-reality-180963810/.

Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., & Bailenson, J. N.(2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool forsocial psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 103e124.

Bone, P. F., & Ellen, P. S. (1992). The generation and consequences ofcommunication-evoked imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 93e104.

Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of externalpointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex anima-tions. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 123e135.

Boucheix, J. M., Lowe, R. K., Putri, D. K., & Groff, J. (2013). Cueing animations: Dy-namic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learning andInstruction, 25, 71e84.

Byrne, P., Becker, S., & Burgess, N. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining thefuture: A neural model of spatial memory and imagery. Psychological Review,114(2), 340.

Carmi, R., & Itti, L. (2006). Visual causes versus correlates of attentional selection indynamic scenes. Vision Research, 46(26), 4333e4345.

Cartwright, D. S., Marks, M. E., & Durrett, J. H., Jr. (1978). Definition and measure-ment of three processes of imagery representation: Exploratory studies ofverbally stimulated imagery. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13(4), 449e473.

Caula, R. (2012). ARART augmented reality app brings paintings to life. October 9.Retrieved July 31, 2017, from https://www.designboom.com/technology/arart-augmented-reality-app-brings-paintings-to-life/.

Center for the Future of Museums. (2016). TrendsWatch 2016. Arlington, VA:American Alliance of Museums.

Chan, J. K. L. (2009). The consumption of museum service experiences: Benefits andvalue of museum experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,18(2e3), 173e196.

Chang, K. E., Chang, C. T., Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., Chao, H. L., & Lee, C. M. (2014).Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system withaugmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum.Computers & Education, 71, 185e197.

Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science

learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education andTechnology, 22(4), 449e462.

Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect onconsumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 643e654.

Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individualdifferences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12(2), 125e134.

Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists' intention to visit a destination: Therole of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Computers inHuman Behavior, 50, 588e599.

Chung, N., Lee, H., Kim, J. Y., & Koo, C. (2017). The role of augmented reality forexperience-influenced Environments: The case of cultural heritage tourism inKorea. Journal of Travel Research, 0047287517708255.

Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory ofvisual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28e71.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation ofthe aesthetic encounter. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Publications.

Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretivestyles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14(2), 38e50.

Cupchik, G. C., Vartanian, O., Crawley, A., & Mikulis, D. J. (2009). Viewing artworks:Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aestheticexperience. Brain and Cognition, 70(1), 84e91.

Cupchik, G. C., & Winston, A. S. (1996). Confluence and divergence in empiricalaesthetics, philosophy, and mainstream psychology. In M. P. Friedman, &E. C. Carterette (Eds.), Cognitive ecology: Handbook of perception and cognition(pp. 61e85). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Cupchik, G. C., Winston, A. S., & Herz, R. S. (1992). Judgments of similarity anddifference between paintings. Visual Arts Research, 18(2), 37e50.

Deighton, J., & Grayson, K. (1995). Marketing and seduction: Building exchangerelationships by managing social consensus. Journal of Consumer Research,21(4), 660e676.

tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T., & Han, D. I. (2016). Mapping requirements for thewearable smart glasses augmented reality museum application. Journal ofHospitality and Tourism Technology, 7(3), 230e253.

Enrique Bign�e, J., Mattila, A. S., & Andreu, L. (2008). The impact of experientialconsumption cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions. Journal ofServices Marketing, 22(4), 303e315.

Escalas, J. E. (2006). Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportationversus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 421e429.

Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and socialcognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255e278.

Falk, J. H., Koran, J. J., Dierking, L. D., & Dreblow, L. (1985). Predicting visitorbehavior. Curator: The Museum Journal, 28(4), 249e258.

Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., Hollerer, T., & Webster, A. (1997). A touring machine:Prototyping 3D mobile augmented reality systems for exploring the urbanenvironment. October. In Wearable computers, 1997. Digest of papers., first in-ternational symposium on (pp. 74e81). IEEE.

Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139138

dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 22(8), 1126e1141.

Forbes Agency Council. (2017). 11 creative uses of augmented reality in marketing andadvertising. June 13. Retrieved July 31, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/06/13/11-creative-uses-of-augmented-reality-in-marketing-and-advertising/#72488fb86b12.

Freyd, J. J. (1987). Dynamic mental representations. Psychological Review, 94(4), 427.Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2006). The economics of museums. In V. A. Ginsburg, &

D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (pp. 1017e1047).Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.

Gooding, M. (2016). Augmented reality on your iPhone with ViewRanger Skyline.November 2. Retrieved July 31, 2017, from http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/technology/augmented-reality-your-iphone-viewranger-12112780.

Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals ofTourism Research, 27(2), 301e321.

Goulding, C. (2000). The museum environment and the visitor experience. Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 261e278.

Harvey, H., & Walker, R. (2014). Reading with peripheral vision: A comparison ofreading dynamic scrolling and static text with a simulated central scotoma.Vision Research, 98, 54e60.

Hassan, A., & Ramkissoon, H. (2016). Augmented reality application to museumvisitor experiences. In J. N. Albrecht (Ed.), Visitor management in tourist desti-nations (pp. 117e130). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional processanalysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hegarty, J. A., & O'Mahony, G. B. (2001). Gastronomy: A phenomenon of culturalexpressionism and an aesthetic for living. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 20(1), 3e13.

Hou, Y., Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2017). Do pictures help? The effects of pictures and foodnames on menu evaluations. International Journal of Hospitality Management,60, 94e103.

Hurdle, J. (2017). Arming China's terracotta warriors d with your phone. September29. Retrieved October 21, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/science/china-terracotta-warriors-augmented-reality.html.

IBISWorld. (2017).Work of art: Museum visitation and private donations will stimulateindustry revenue growth (IBISWorld industry report 71211). Los Angeles, CA:IBISWorld Inc.

Johnston, R., & Kong, X. (2011). The customer experience: A road-map forimprovement. Managing Service Quality: International Journal, 21(1), 5e24.

Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations touse augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. TourismManagement, 49, 75e86.

Kain, E. (2016). Virtual reality is just an over-priced gimmick, nothing more. October15. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/10/15/virtual-reality-is-just-an-over-priced-gimmick/#4b320f3c137d.

Kelly, L. (2004). Evaluation, research and communities of practice: Program eval-uation in museums. Archival Science, 4(1), 45e69.

Kim, M. S., & Cave, K. R. (1999). Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: Onthe nature of interference from a salient distractor. Attention, Perception, &Psychophysics, 61(6), 1009e1023.

Kim, S. B., Kim, D. Y., & Bolls, P. (2014). Tourist mental-imagery processing: Atten-tion and arousal. Annals of Tourism Research, 45, 63e76.

Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on atti-tudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology and Marketing,25(2), 146e178.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination culture: Tourism, museums, and heri-tage. Oakland, CA: Univ of California Press.

Kite-Powell, J. (2006). Augmented reality and kinect create unique art experience atcleveland museum. October 27. Retrieved August 6, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2016/10/27/augmented-reality-and-kincect-create-unique-art-experience-at-cleveland-museum/#57681a0a3771.

Kosslyn, S. M., & Thompson, W. L. (2003). When is early visual cortex activatedduring visual mental imagery? Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 723.

Kounavis, C. D., Kasimati, A. E., & Zamani, E. D. (2012). Enhancing the tourismexperience through mobile augmented reality: Challenges and prospects. In-ternational Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4, 10.

Krishna, A., Morrin, M., & Sayin, E. (2013). Smellizing cookies and salivating: A focuson olfactory imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 18e34.

Lee, W., Gretzel, U., & Law, R. (2010). Quasi-trial experiences through sensory in-formation on destination web sites. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 310e322.

Logie, R. H., Zucco, G. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Interference with visual short-term memory. Acta Psychologica, 75(1), 55e74.

Long, L. M. (Ed.). (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington, KY: University Press ofKentucky.

MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing:Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473e491.

Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. K., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential Value: Conceptu-alization, measurement, and application in the catalog and internet shoppingenvironment. Journal of Retailing, 77, 39e56.

McKercher, B. (2004). A comparative study of international cultural tourists. CAUTHE2004: Creating Tourism Knowledge.

Mellet, E., Tzourio, N., Crivello, F., Joliot, M., Denis, M., & Mazoyer, B. (1996). Func-tional anatomy of spatial mental imagery generated from verbal instructions.Journal of Neuroscience, 16(20), 6504e6512.

Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE -

Transactions on Info and Systems, 77(12), 1321e1329.Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented reality: A

class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. October. In Telemanipulatorand telepresence technologies (Vol. 2351, No. 11, pp. 282e292).

Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2(5), 523.

Niemczyk, A. (2013). Cultural tourists:“An attempt to classify them”. TourismManagement Perspectives, 5, 24e30.

Patel, D. (2017). How to reach and engage millennial audiences. July 4. RetrievedFebruary 24, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/07/04/how-to-reach-and-engage-millennial-audiences/#21f55504789e.

Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations inmarketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 317e326.

Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand,pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 36e50.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & everybusiness a stage. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Pogrebin, R. (2017). Is the met museum “a great institution in decline”?. February 4.Retrieved July 24, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/arts/design/met-museum-financial-troubles.html.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practicein value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5e14.

Roediger, H. L., III, & Weldon, M. S. (1987). Reversing the picture superiority effect.In M. A. McDaniel, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imagery and related mnemonic processes:Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 151e174). New York, NY:Springer-Verlag.

Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1980). Attitude change through visual imagery in adver-tising. Journal of Advertising, 9(2), 10e16.

Russeth, A. (2017). At the art museum ticket office, how much is too much?. July 18.Retrieved July 31, 2017, from http://www.artnews.com/2017/07/18/at-the-art-museum-ticket-office-how-much-is-too-much/.

Scarles, C., Casey, M., & Treharne, H. (2016). Enriching the visitor experience:Augmented reality and image recognition in tourism. CAUTHE 2016: The Chang-ing Landscape of Tourism and Hospitality: The Impact of Emerging Markets andEmerging Destinations.

Shah, A. J., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reductionframework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207e222.

Sharifi-Tehrani, M., Verbi�c, M., & Chung, J. Y. (2013). An analysis of adopting dualpricing for museums: The case of the national museum of Iran. Annals ofTourism Research, 43, 58e80.

Shih, T. Y. (2015). Attribute design and marketing strategy of branding experiencemuseums. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 13, 85.

Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums andheritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361e365.

Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual Environments, 9(5), 413e434.

Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3(2), 130e144.

Stafford, M. R. (1996). Tangibility in services advertising: An investigation of verbalversus visual cues. Journal of Advertising, 25(3), 13e28.

Starr, G. G. (2013). Feeling beauty: The neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Cam-bridge, MA: Mit Press.

Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2011). Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art mu-seums. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 403e421.

Thomas, N. J. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An activeperception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science, 23(2),207e245.

Tussyadiah, I. P., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2017). Embodiment of wearableaugmented reality technology in tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research,0047287517709090.

Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality,presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. TourismManagement, 66, 140e154.

Unger, L. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation ofsome determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Research,9(4), 381e392.

Unnava, H. R., Agarwal, S., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1996). Interactive effects of presen-tation modality and message-generated imagery on recall of advertising in-formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1), 81e88.

Walters, G., Sparks, B., & Herington, C. (2007). The effectiveness of print advertisingstimuli in evoking elaborate consumption visions for potential travelers. Journalof Travel Research, 46(1), 24e34.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of TourismResearch, 26(2), 349e370.

Wingfield, N., & Isaac, M. (2016). Pok�emon go brings augmented reality to a massaudience. July 11. Retrieved July 31, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/technology/pokemon-go-brings-augmented-reality-to-a-mass-audience.html.

Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art bynaive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18(1), 1e14.

Wojciechowski, R., Walczak, K., White, M., & Cellary, W. (2004). Building virtual andaugmented reality museum exhibitions. April. In Proceedings of the ninth in-ternational conference on 3D Web technology (pp. 135e144). ACM.

Wu, C. H. J., & Liang, R. D. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satis-faction with service encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. International

Z. He et al. / Tourism Management 68 (2018) 127e139 139

Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 586e593.Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). Attention and trust biases in the design of augmented

reality displays. Champaign, IL: Illinois Univ at Urbana-Champaign Savoy Avia-tion Research Lab (No. ARL-00e3/FED-LAB-00-1).

Ye, H., & Tussyadiah, I. P. (2011). Destination visual image and expectation of ex-periences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(2), 129e144.

Yuen, S. C. Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: An over-view and five directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational TechnologyDevelopment and Exchange, 4(1), 11.

Zeya He is a Ph.D. student in the School of Tourism andHospitality Management at Temple University. Her majorresearch interests lie in service technology and travelbehaviors.

Laurie Wu, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School ofTourism and Hospitality Management at Temple Univer-sity. Her major research interests include consumerbehavior and service marketing in tourism and hospitality.

Xiang (Robert) Li, Ph.D., is a Professor and WashburnSenior Research Fellow at the Department of Tourism andHospitality Management, Temple University. He is alsoDirector of Temple's U.S.-Asia Center for Tourism and Hos-pitality Research. Robert's research mainly focuses ondestination marketing and tourist behavior, with specialemphasis on international destination branding, customerloyalty, and tourism in Asia. Robert's research findingshave appeared in numerous top-tier tourism, business, lei-sure, and hospitality journals.