Role of Augmented Reality in Changing Consumer Behavior and Decision Making: Case of Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulation on your paper!

I would suggest the authors add in the title that this is a study applicable in Pakistan. For extrapolation, an international survey has to be designed. 

Also, new bibliographic sources published in the last 3 years might be added.

Author Response

1. I would suggest the authors add in the title that this is a study applicable in Pakistan. For extrapolation, an international survey has to be designed. 

   Authors response:

   We have added the Pakistan in the title of research paper as suggested by the reviewer as follows:

   “Role of Augmented Reality in Changing Consumer Behavior and Decision Making: Case of Pakistan”

   In the limitations and areas of future studies we have recommended to the future authors to replicate the same model at the international level.

2. Also, new bibliographic sources published in the last 3 years might be added.

   Authors response:

   We have added current and relevant citations of 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 throughout the paper as recommended by the reviewer, and highlighted with RED color through track changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

the topic is interesting and to some extent relevant. It is unclear why for Pakistan? 

Abstract:	The relevance of the study is insufficiently substantiated. What contingent is it designed for? why do the authors think that this is the most promising? what conclusions have been drawn? Why is it for Pakistan?
1. Introduction	It is projected that the potential of the AR market could be risen to $56.8 billion 93 by 2020 [23], while Fortune estimates sales of $120 billion by 2020 [24]. – 2021 ? 2020 has already passed the introduction looks somewhat sloppy. There are repetitions. There is no justification for the stated topic.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development	ok
3. Methodology	why were 3 experts chosen? 100 volunteers? how was their level of knowledge determined?   Data was collected by employing a 34 item questionnaire designed on a 7 point Likert  Scale. The first portion contained an informed consent form and demographical  questions  along  with  three  items??? 1) inquiring  the  respondent  whether  they  are  eye glasses/sunglasses  consumers,  their  preferred  brands,  and  whether  they  like  to  make online purchases for the sunglasses/eyeglasses. justify the reliability of the selected questionnaire to identify consumer groups   2) why did 30 respondents take part in the experiment further? Justify 3) paragraph 3.6. repeats in part what has already been stated above. need to fix
4. Findings and data analyses	it is necessary to do everything structurally and clearly. Hard to read. Again there is another number of subjects. It is necessary to coordinate the methodology- experiment-conclusion.
5. Conclusions	this part is a repeat of earlier. it is necessary to draw certain conclusions: for example: 1)why use augmented reality? 2) the theoretical studies were supplemented ..... 3) the result of the experiment is confirmed by objective studies in that in that 4) research prospects...

 

Author Response

ABSTRACT

1) The relevance of the study is insufficiently substantiated. What contingent is it designed for? why do the authors think that this is the most promising? what conclusions have been drawn? Why is it for Pakistan?

Authors response:

We have re-formulated the abstract and inculcate the important points, and addressed the reviewers questions, and highlighted with RED color through track changes on Page No. 1

INTRODUCTION

1) It is projected that the potential of the AR market could be risen to $56.8 billion by 2020 [23], while Fortune estimates sales of $120 billion by 2020 [24]. – 2021 ? 2020 has already passed.

Authors response:

Now, we have updated the total augmented reality market size up to 2021, and projection from 2021–2028, and added a citation, and highlighted with RED color with track changes on Page No. 3 as pointed out by the reviewer.

2) The introduction looks somewhat sloppy. There are repetitions. There is no justification for the stated topic?

Authors response:

Now, we have provided ample justification of this study, moreover, we have also improved the introduction section, and highlighted with RED color with track changes on Page No. 3 and 4, as pointed out by the reviewer.   THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Authors response: The reviewer approved this section and did not ask any question.   METHODOLOGY  

1) Why were 3 experts chosen? 100 volunteers? how was their level of knowledge determined?

Authors response:

The study was conducted in two phases, in first phase we have a pilot project in which we, examine the overall protocol of the study including, face & content validity, reliability, discriminant and convergent validities of items and constructs. Initially in pilot project we have taken 30 respondents, and results were obtained through Smart PLS that provides the facility of small sample size with accurate results. We have shared the details of the experiment with three experts who were the expert of the field for checking the experimental validly. Three experts are used for more accuracy and cross check. We have selected 100 respondents who were well-versed with AR stimulus and familiarity with AR technology. A set of qualifier questions were presented to volunteering participants to determine their level of engagement and interactivity (See A1). Based on their level of familiarity (low to high), they were randomly assigned to a group of two exposed to the AR stimulus. Familiarity with AR technology is a crucial qualifier, please see on Page No. 11 and 12 highlighted with RED color with track changes.

2) Data was collected by employing a 34 item questionnaire designed on a 7 point Likert Scale?

Authors response:

In the pilot testing we employed 42 items, but the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)  demonstrated that the factor loading of deleted items were less than 0.6, therefore, we had to reduced or condensed our items up to 34. Therefore, the final study was carried out on 34 items questionnaire 7 point Likert scale.

3) The first portion contained an informed consent form and demographical  questions  along  with  three  items???

Authors response:

Please see appendix A1 (see A1) in which we have taken first informed consent and explain the experiment and objectives, and then selected 100 volunteers. Then we asked some basic demographic questions (see A1), lastly, we asked three qualifier questions (mistakenly written items, please see the next point in which we written three qualifier questions). In the last we had asked our main items (3 to 9) of different constructs on 7 point Likert scale.   

4) Inquiring  the  respondent  whether  they  are  eye glasses/sunglasses  consumers,  their  preferred  brands,  and  whether  they  like  to  make online purchases for the sunglasses/eyeglasses?

 Authors response:

These were the basic questions that we asked from the respondents. We have asked three qualifier questions (See A1) in which we asked following questions:

5) Do you use online websites or forums to purchase eyeglasses/sunglasses?

How frequently you use online application/social forums or websites to for purchasing or searching?

Daily (more than 30 minutes)

Daily (less than 30 minutes)

Several times a week

Occasionally but not every week

Fewer

Are you familiar with AR (augmented reality) applications?

Yes                                                         No

6) Justify the reliability of the selected questionnaire to identify consumer groups?

Authors response:

We have used exploratory factor analysis in which we determined the factor loadings of each item, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). These are the different indicators to justify the reliability of items and constructs. However, the discriminant and convergent validities are fine in which Cronbach alpha is more than 0.70 and composite reliabilities are also more than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, AVE is higher than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Moreover, Fornell and Larcker Criterion also validated the discriminant validities. Thus, in this way reliability and validity of questionnaire are validated. Since we used Smart PLS software that provides the facility to run smaller number of sample with accurate results as compared to the AMOS.

7) Why did 30 respondents take part in the experiment further? Justify  

Authors response:

In the pilot testing we employed 30 respondents to check the overall protocol of the study, for instance, reliability and validity of questionnaire, use of PLS-SEM, and other statistical models. We also examined the hypothesized measurement and structural model. Since, we employed Smart-PLS software and it provides the facility to check even small sample size with accurate results.

8) Paragraph 3.6. repeats in part what has already been stated above. need to fix?

Authors response:

We have deleted the repeated part of 3.6 on Page No. 13, and highlighted with RED color with track changes as pointed out by the reviewer.

 FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSES   1) It is necessary to do everything structurally and clearly. Hard to read. Again there is another number of subjects. It is necessary to coordinate the methodology- experiment-conclusion?  

Authors response:

Now, we have re-formulated hypotheses, provide sequencings in the results, and made a separate tables for hypothesized direct relationship, hypothesized moderating relationship, and hypothesized mediating relationship. We have also numbered the hypotheses in the result tables, and also provided the validation or non-validation of hypotheses on Page 15 and 16, and highlighted through track changes as suggested by the reviewer. Now, the findings are coherent with the methodology discussions, and conclusion.   CONCLUSION  

This part is a repeat of earlier. it is necessary to draw certain conclusions: for example: 

1)why use augmented reality?

Authors response:

We have elaborated and explained the importance of augmented reality, and provided the reasons why we have used augmented reality in the current study. The details can be seen on Page No. 18 & 19, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

2) the theoretical studies were supplemented .....?

Authors response:

Now, we have supplemented the conclusion with previous theoretical studies on Page No. 18. Moreover, theoretical studies are supplemented with the results, and discussions attached with the results, these studies substantiated the results on Page No. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and highlighted with RED color through track changes.

3) The result of the experiment is confirmed by objective studies in that in that:???  

Authors response:

The results of the experiment are in lined with the objective of the current study, and coherent with the findings of the previous literature, these can be seen in conclusion section on Page No. 18 & 19. Theoretical and practical implications also substantiated the objective of the study on Page No. 19 & 20, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

4) Research prospects...??   Authors response: The research prospects are discussed in theoretical and practical implications, and areas of future studies in a comprehensive manner on Page No. 19 & 20, and highlighted with RED color through track changes.      

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

in my opinion your work is quite original and worth of consideration, but need a deep revision also in the literature part and most of all for the analysis part. I think that something important missing. 

1. It better revised the English used and converted something into Academic English;
2. Lines 170-172: it is not clear what you refers about;
3. I do not separate paragraph 2.1 and 2.2;
4. In the literature revision, it can be helpful add something about fashion brand and the features of this consumption. In the abstract you report your intention to focus on this topic and it is better to specify something about this;
5. Relating to the five categories of Katz, I suggest to revised the interpretation, most of all for social and personal needs;
6. H1 is too complicated; can you write in a easy way? In my opionion is better to split in two different hyphothesis, but I’m sure about my interpretation of your sentence;
7. For H2 user experience and consumer satisfaction are two different concept and should be investigate separately;
8. Regarding experiental marketing is more correct to refer not only to economists but also on the consumer psychology. It exists a branch of psychology who work on these issues.
9. In my opinion the literature for the H3 need to be potentiate. It is hard to understand the literature background that leads you to that hypothesis.
10. For the hypotheses H4 b and c I recommend to explicit better the sentences. An hypothesis is something specif, based on studies and previous literature review, so you should define what you expect. User experience is strengthened or weakened? In the hypothesis you have to indicate what you want to do; on the contrary what you test? Also for this part, if you talk about gender and age it is useful to add some references that talk about the importance to study these differences or justify your study.
11. In the conceptual framework and in you model I suggest to indicate attitude in attitude after exposition or something similar, to indicate this specific topic and construct.
12. Are you investigate in a preliminary study the attitude before the exposition to AR?
13. Why survey questionnaire was reduced from 42 items to 34 items? In your pilot test these items are not good?
14. For the  prescreening questions what is the total range for answer?
15. It is useful also add the descriptive analysis for the structural questionnaire
16. The questionnaire is composed of validated scale? What are the authors of these scales?
17. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.64 indicate a scarse validity in my opinion, most of all if it is consider that the sample is not large. Are you sure that less items is a good choice?
18. Analysis performed in the paragraph 4.4 is not CFA but EFA. In relation to the PCA, to you perform in the entire questionnaire? If the answer is yes, the total factor of three is definitely not a good results. You investigated more than 3 factors.
19. For the CFA analysis is useful to indicated what items refer to a specify factor and indicate the fit of the measurement model. It better to ri-organize the order of paragraph and put the analyses for the measurement model before
20. Results are confusing. Can you try to explain better the mediation/moderation? For example you can use the hypotheses and start to say if they are verified or not.

Author Response

1. It better revised the English used and converted something into Academic English;

Authors response:

We have revised English and converted sentences into the academic English throughout the paper as suggested by the reviewer.

 

2. Lines 170-172: it is not clear what you refers about;

Authors response:

We have make correction from line 170–172, as suggested by the reviewer and highlighted through track changes.

 

3. I do not separate paragraph 2.1 and 2.2;

Authors response:

We have made one paragraph and merged 2.1 and 2.2 as per the suggestions of the reviewer on Page No. 4, and highlighted with RED color through track changes.

4. In the literature revision, it can be helpful add something about fashion brand and the features of this consumption. In the abstract you report your intention to focus on this topic and it is better to specify something about this;

Authors response:

We have added one paragraph and new current & relevant citations, which demonstrates the fashion brand and the features of this consumption in the Literature Review section on Page No. 4, and highlighted through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

 

5. Relating to the five categories of Katz, I suggest to revised the interpretation, most of all for social and personal needs;

Authors response:

We have revised the interpretations regarding the five categories of Katz, which demonstrate the social and personal needs on Page No. 5, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

 

6. H1 is too complicated; can you write in a easy way? In my opionion is better to split in two different hyphothesis, but I’m sure about my interpretation of your sentence;

Authors response:

We have split the H1 into two hypotheses on Page No. 6, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

 

7. For H2 user experience and consumer satisfaction are two different concept and should be investigate separately;

Authors response:

Now, we have re-formulated the hypotheses and addressed the pointed out suggestions of the reviewer, and all the hypotheses are re-numbered again with more meaningful manner on Page No, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as recommended by the reviewer.

 

8. Regarding experiental marketing is more correct to refer not only to economists but also on the consumer psychology. It exists a branch of psychology who work on these issues.

Authors response:

We have made correction regarding the experiential marketing, and also defined in the consumers psychology perspective on Page No. 6, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

 

9. In my opinion the literature for the H3 need to be potentiate. It is hard to understand the literature background that leads you to that hypothesis.

Authors response:

We have substantiated the H3, and H4a to H4d with current and relevant literature on Page No. 6 and 7, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

 

10. For the hypotheses H4 b and c I recommend to explicit better the sentences. An hypothesis is something specif, based on studies and previous literature review, so you should define what you expect. User experience is strengthened or weakened? In the hypothesis you have to indicate what you want to do; on the contrary what you test? Also for this part, if you talk about gender and age it is useful to add some references that talk about the importance to study these differences or justify your study.

Authors response:

Now, we have not only re-formulated the hypotheses H4b and H4c but also reformulated all the hypotheses, and addressed the pointed out suggestions of the reviewer, and all the hypotheses are re-numbered again with more meaningful manner, and also added relevant citations for gender and age as a moderating variable on Page No, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as recommended by the reviewer.

 

11. In the conceptual framework and in you model I suggest to indicate attitude in attitude after exposition or something similar, to indicate this specific topic and construct.

Authors response:

We have made changes in the conceptual framework on Page No. 10, and explained the construct as suggested by the reviewer.

 

12. Are you investigate in a preliminary study the attitude before the exposition to AR?

Authors response:

We have completely described and linked the attitude with the augmented reality (AR), and this model is derived from the model 1, and also explained in methodology section.

13. Why survey questionnaire was reduced from 42 items to 34 items? In your pilot test these items are not good?

Authors response:

In the pilot testing we employed 42 items, but the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)  demonstrated that the factor loading of deleted items were less than 0.6, therefore, we had to reduced or condensed our items up to 34.

 

14. For the  prescreening questions what is the total range for answer?

Authors response:

 

We have asked three questions for the prescreening of the respondents, and on these three qualifier questions 100 volunteers were recruited (see A1). For the prescreening stage we conducted a pilot testing, and we have received 35 answered in which 5 answers were discarded due to incompleteness and we selected 30 respondents for the piolet study to examine our entire study protocol, since we used Smart PLS software that provides the facility to run smaller number of sample with accurate results as compared to the AMOS.

 

15. It is useful also add the descriptive analysis for the structural questionnaire

Authors response:

We have added the descriptive analysis such as mean, standard deviation of our structural questionnaire on Page No 12, and highlighted with RED color through track changes.

 

16. The questionnaire is composed of validated scale? What are the authors of these scales?

Authors response:

The authors of scales are provided in Table 1 (Reliability test) on Page No. 13, and highlighted with RED color through track changes.

 

17. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.64 indicate a scarse validity in my opinion, most of all if it is consider that the sample is not large. Are you sure that less items is a good choice?

Authors response:

We have taken 9 and 6 items where the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.642, we have taken maximum items for these constructs, however, the discriminant and convergent validities are fine in which Cronbach alpha is more than 0.70 and composite reliabilities are also more than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, AVE is higher than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Moreover, Fornell and Larcker Criterion also validated the discriminant validities. Since we used Smart PLS software that provides the facility to run smaller number of sample with accurate results as compared to the AMOS.

 

18. Analysis performed in the paragraph 4.4 is not CFA but EFA. In relation to the PCA, to you perform in the entire questionnaire? If the answer is yes, the total factor of three is definitely not a good results. You investigated more than 3 factors.

Authors response:

We have mistakenly mentioned the CFA, it was a typo error, actually it is Exploratory factor analysis to analyze the construct, items, convergent and discriminant validities (to justify our hypothesized measurement model). Thank you very much for the pointing out, we have made corrections.

 

19. For the CFA analysis is useful to indicated what items refer to a specify factor and indicate the fit of the measurement model. It better to ri-organize the order of paragraph and put the analyses for the measurement model before

Authors response:

Now, we have re-organized sections, first we examine the measurement model, and then secondly we examine the structural model, and highlighted with RED color through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

 

20. Results are confusing. Can you try to explain better the mediation/moderation? For example you can use the hypotheses and start to say if they are verified or not.

Authors response:

Now, we have re-formulated hypotheses, provide sequencings in the results, and made a separate tables for hypothesized direct relationship, hypothesized moderating relationship, and hypothesized mediating relationship. We have also numbered the hypotheses in the result tables, and also provided the validation or non-validation of hypotheses on Page 15 and 16, and highlighted through track changes as suggested by the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the article has been adequately revised. The authors have added a lot. . Now everything has become clear. The topic is very relevant

Reviewer 3 Report

I’m sorry but some answers didn’t satisfy me. I think that this article must to be improve and studied in the methodological aspect