A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism

Current Issues in Tourism

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 154-174

  tom Dieck, M Claudia ^a   Jung, Timothy ^a  

^a MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

augmented reality; Dublin AR; technology acceptance model; urban heritage tourism

Indexed keywords

DATA INTERPRETATION; HERITAGE TOURISM; INNOVATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION; THEORETICAL STUDY; URBAN AREA;

COUNTY DUBLIN; DUBLIN [COUNTY DUBLIN]; IRELAND; LEINSTER;

EID: 84938634834     PISSN: 13683500     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2015.1070801     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Aldhaban, F., (2012). Exploring the adoption of smartphone technology: Literature review. Paper presented at the Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET), Vancouver.
2. Alholjailan, M. I., (2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 39–47.
3. Ayeh, J., Au, N., & Law, R., (2013). Predicting the intention to use consumer-generated media for travel planning. Tourism Management, 35, 132–143.
4. Bader, G. E., & Rossi, C. A., (2002). Focus groups: A step- by- step guide. (3rd ed.). Canada: The Bader Group.
5. Baron, S., Patterson, A., & Harris, K., (2006). Beyond technology acceptance: Understanding consumer practice. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17, 111–135.
6. Boyatzis, R. E., (1998). Thematic analysis and code development-transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Bradley, T., (2013). Study finds most mobile apps put your security and privacy at risk. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2068824/study-finds-most-mobile-apps-put-your-security-and-privacy-at-risk.html
8. Chang, H. H., (2010). Task technology fit and user acceptance of online auctions. International Journal of Human Computer Science, 68, 69–89.
9. Chang, T. C., Milne, S., Fallon, D., & Pohlmann, C., (1996). Urban heritage tourism–The gobal-local nexus. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 284–305.
10. Cheng, J. M., Sheen, G., & Lou, G., (2006). Consumer acceptance of the internet as a channel of distribution in Taiwan–A channel function perspective. Technovation, 26, 856–864.
11. Choi, H., Park, J., & Park, S., (2011). A study on the effect of mobile tourism information services on tourist satisfaction and continual reuse. International Journal of Business Information Technology, 1, 189–195.
12. Davis, F. D., (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
13. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R., (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
14. DeVellis, R. F., (2003). Scale development theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Failte Ireland. (2014a). Destination Dublin: A collective strategy for tourism growth to 2020. Retrieved from media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/4_Corporate_Documents/Strategy_Operations_Plans/Dublin-a-Collective-Strategy-for-Tourism-Growth.pdf
16. Failte Ireland. (2014b). New blueprint to grow tourism in Dublin launched. Retrieved from http://www.failteireland.ie/Utility/Media-Centre/New-blueprint-to-grow-tourism-in-Dublin-launched.aspx
17. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I., (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior an introduction to theory and research. London: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
18. Gao, T., Rohm, A., Sultan, F., & Huang, S., (2012). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward mobile marketing: A comparative study of youth markets in the United States and China. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(2), 211–224.
19. Garau, C., (2014). From territory to smartphone: Smart fruition of cultural heritage for dynamic tourism development. Planning Practice and Research, 29(3), 238–255.
20. Garau, C., & Ilardi, E., (2014). The “non-places” meet the “places:” Virtual tours on smartphones for the enhancement of cultural heritage. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(1), 79–91.
21. Gray, D. E., (2009). Doing research in the real world. London: Sage.
22. Hair, J. F., Money, A., Page, M., & Samouel, P., (2007). Research methods for business. Chichester: John Wiley.
23. Han, D. I., Jung, T., & Gibson, A., (2014a). Dublin AR: Implementing augmented reality in tourism. In Z., Xiang, & I., Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 511–523). Vienna: Springer.
24. Han, D. I., Jung, T., & Leue, M. C., (2014b). A user experience model for augmented reality applications in the urban heritage context. Paper presented at the 12th APacCHRIE Conference, Kuala Lumpur.
25. Haugstvedt, A. C., & Krogstie, J., (2012). Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality 2012 Science and Technology Proceedings, Atlanta.
26. Herbst, I., Braun, A., McCall, R., & Broll, W., (2008). TimeWarp: Interactive time travel with a mobile mixed reality game. Paper presented at MobileHCI 2008, Amsterdam.
27. Herrero Crespo, A., & Rodriguez del Bosque Rodriguez, I. A., (2008). Explaining B2C e-commerce acceptance: An integrative model based on the framework by Gatignon and Robertson. Interacting with Computers, 20, 212–224.
28. Hollerer, T. H., & Feiner, S. K., (2004). Mobile augmented reality. In H., Karinzi, & A., Hammand (Eds.), Telegeoformatics: Location-based computing services (pp. 1–39). Florida: Taylor and Francis books Ltd.
29. Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C., (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–86.
30. Jung, T., & Han, D., (2014). Augmented Reality (AR) in urban heritage tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research, 5, 1–5.
31. Kalay, Y., Kvan, T., & Affleck, J., (2007). New heritage: New media and cultural heritage. New York: Routledge.
32. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M., (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
33. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W., (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of use. Information and Management, 35, 237–250.
34. Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Guota, S., (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43, 11–126.
35. Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muuscanell, N. L., & Dill, N., (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 896–900.
36. King, R., (2009). Augmented reality goes mobile. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2009-11-03/augmented-reality-goes-mobilebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
37. Kounavis, C. D., Kasimati, A. E., & Zamani, E. D., (2012). Enhancing the tourism experience through mobile augmented reality: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4(10), 1–6.
38. Krueger, A. R., & Casey, M. A., (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
39. Lee, H., Chung, N., & Jung, T., (2015). Examining the cultural differences in acceptance of mobile augmented reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland. In I., Tussyadiah, & A., Inversini (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 477–491). Vienna: Springer.
40. Lee, S. M., Kim, I., Rhee, S., & Trimi, S., (2006). The role of exogenous factors in technology acceptance: The case of object-oriented technology. Information and Management, 43, 469–480.
41. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R., (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208.
42. Lee, W., Xiong, L., & Hu, C., (2012). The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence on intention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 819–827.
43. Leue, M. C., tom Dieck, D., & Jung, T., (2014). A theoretical model of augmented reality acceptance. e-Review of Tourism Research, 5, 1–5.
44. Lin, H. F., (2010). An investigation into the effects of IS quality and top management support on ERP system usage. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(3), 335–349.
45. Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P., (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.
46. Linaza, M. T., Guttierrez, A., & Garcia, A., (2014). Pervasive augmented reality games to experience tourism destinations. In Z., Xiang, & I., Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 497–509). Vienna: Springer.
47. Livingston, M. A., Gabbard, J. L., Swan, J. E., Sibley, C. M., & Barrow, J. H., (2013). Basic perception in head-worn augmented reality displays. In W., Huang, L., Weidong, M., Alem, & M. A., Livingston (Eds.), Human factors in augmented reality environments (pp. 35–56). New York: Springer.
48. Lobo, S., & Elaluf-Calderwood, S., (2012). The blackberry veil: Mobile use and privacy practices by young female Saudis. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 3(2), 190–206.
49. Lopez-Nicolas, C., Molina-Castillo, F., & Bouwman, H., (2008). An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models. Information and Management, 45, 359–364.
50. Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E., (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206–222.
51. Lucas, H., & Spitler, V., (1999). Technology use and performance: A field study of broker workstations. Decision Science, 30, 291–311.
52. Maldonado, U., Khan, G., Moon, J., & Rho, J., (2010). E-learning motivation and educational portal acceptance in developing countries. Online Information Review, 35, 66–85.
53. McFarland, D., & Hamilton, D., (2006). Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behaviour, 22(3), 427–447.
54. Montazemi, A. R., & Saremi, H. Q., (2013). Factors affecting internet banking pre-usage expectation formation. Paper presented at 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
55. Morosan, C., (2012). Theoretical and empirical considerations of guests’ perceptions of biometric systems in hotels: Extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(1), 52–84.
56. Olsson, T., Kärkäinen, T., Lagerstam, E., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L., (2012). User evaluation of mobile augmented reality scenarios. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 4(1), 29–47.
57. Pai, F. Y., & Huang, K. I., (2011). Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 789(4), 650–660.
58. Pan, S., & Jordan-Marsh, M., (2010). Internet use intention and adoption among Chinese older adults: From the expanded technology acceptance model perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1111–1119.
59. Parra-López, E., Bulchand-Gidumal, J., Gutierrez-Tano, D., & Diaz-Armas, D., (2011). Intentions to use social media in organizing and taking vacation trips. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 640–654.
60. Patuelli, R., Mussoni, M., & Candela, G., (2013). The effects of World heritage sites on domestic tourism: A spatial interaction model for Italy. Journal of Geographical Systems, 15(3), 369–402.
61. Pearce, P., (2011). Tourist behaviour and the contemporary world. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
62. Prayag, G., & Ryan, C., (2011). The relationship between the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors of a tourist destination: The role of nationality–An analytical qualitative research approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(2), 121–143.
63. Rodriguez-Fino, E., Martin-Gutierrez, J., & Meneses Fernqandez, M. D., (2013). Enrique Armas Davara, interactive tourist guide: Connecting web 2.0, augmented reality and QR codes. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 338–344.
64. Rogers, E., (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
65. Sanchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D., (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of moodle using TAM. Computer in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.
66. Shibly, H. H., (2011). An extended tam model to evaluate user's acceptance of electronic cheque clearing systems at Jordanian commercial banks. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(5), 147–156.
67. Shin, D., (2007). User acceptance of mobile internet: Implication for convergence technologies. Interacting with Computers, 19, 472–483.
68. Silverman, D., (2011). Qualitative research: Issues of theory, method and practice. London: Sage.
69. Stern, B. B., Royne, M. B., Stafford, T. F., & Bienstock, C. C., (2008). Consumer acceptance of online auctions: An extension and revision of the TAM. Psychology & Marketing, 25(7), 619–636.
70. Sun, H., & Zhang, P., (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 53–78.
71. Tayie, S., (2005). Research methods and writing research proposals. Cairo: CAPSCU.
72. Team, F., (2008). News Irish. Retrieved from http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014422.shtml
73. Teo, T., (2010). Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 253–262.
74. Toft, M. B., Schuitema, G., & Thøgersen, J., (2014). Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to consumer acceptance of smart grid technology. Applied Energy, 134, 392–40.
75. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H., (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
76. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackermann, P. L., (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33–60.
77. Wang, K., & Lin, C. L., (2012). The adoption of mobile value-added services: Investigating the influence of IS quality and perceived playfulness. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 22(2), 184–208.
78. Weiser, E., (2001). The functions of Internet use and their social and psychological consequences. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 723–743.
79. Wimmer, R., & Dominick, J., (2013). Mass media research. Boston: Cengage Learning.
80. Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W., (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570–585.
81. Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., & Zheng, H., (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 572–581.
82. Yi, Y., Jackson, J., Park, J., & Probst, J., (2006). Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view. Information and Management, 43, 350–363.
83. Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C., (2012). Overview of smartphone augmented reality applications for tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research, 10(2), 1–5.
84. Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C., (2013). Engineering augmented tourism experiences. In L., Cantoni, & Z., Xiang (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013 (pp. 24–36). Heidelberg: Springer.
85. Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C., (2014). Empirical evaluation of smartphone augmented reality browsers in an urban tourism destination context. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 6(2), 10–31.
86. Yussof, A., Ibrahim, R., Zaman, H., Ahmad, A., & Suhaifi, S., (2011). Users acceptance of mixed reality technology. Issues in Information Systems, 7(1), 194–205.
87. Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A., & Vlachopolou, M., (2012). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile services. Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 225–248.