Next Article in Journal
Determination and Evaluation of Landslide-Prone Regions of Isparta (Turkey): An Urban Planning View
Previous Article in Journal
PVNet: A Used Vehicle Pedestrian Detection Tracking and Counting Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914328
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Factors Impact Visitors’ Intentions to Use Location-Based AR Games? An Empirical Study from Chinese Cultural Heritage Sites

by
Jiahui Guo
and
Younghwan Pan
*
Department of Smart Experience Design, Graduate School of Techno Design, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14328; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914328
Submission received: 5 September 2023 / Revised: 25 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 28 September 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Location-based AR games have been discussed as a promising means of providing visitors with meaningful experiences at cultural heritage sites, with great potential to enhance users’ positive emotions and well-being. This research created a conceptual model to empirically evaluate the impact of location-based AR games on the experiential intentions of cultural heritage sites based on the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The model was empirically validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) on 260 visitors who had played location-based AR games at several Chinese cultural heritage sites. The results suggested that visitors’ positive emotions (fulfillment, enjoyment, and self-existence) in location-based AR games positively impact the intention to use location-based AR games. Further, this study demonstrated that competence, relatedness, immersion, presence, interaction existence, emotional existence, and social existence significantly impact tourists’ positive emotional experience. The findings of this study help to complement the application of positive-affect expansion and building theory to the field of cultural heritage research while providing practical insights into the experience of cultural heritage sites.

1. Introduction

As technology advances, augmented reality (AR) is becoming increasingly prevalent in various industries, including tourism, education, medicine, entertainment, marketing, and architecture. AR technology combines visual images, sound overlays, and the physical world to provide real-world information in an interactive way [1]. The use of AR technology at cultural heritage sites is often seen as improving exhibitions, reconstructing places, and encouraging user exploration, which helps users better understand their surroundings by controlling both real and virtual objects [2,3,4]. Incorporating digital multimedia technology into cultural heritage sites can improve a visitor’s experience by providing engaging and educational narratives, characters, and interactive elements [5,6]. However, an increasing number of visitors are dissatisfied with experiences like digital display screens, technological interactive exhibits, and virtual touch. The development and implementation of AR games at cultural heritage sites have become one of the creative digital tours for most cultural and heritage institutions and marketing organizations, drawing a wider variety of users. Among them, location-based AR games are now particularly popular [7] and have been recognized as a promising form of tourism experience [8], but their actual use is limited. Studies on visitors’ adoption of location-based AR games or their influence on the digitalization of cultural heritage sites are still in the early stages [9,10]. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further research on the specific factors that affect the utilization of AR games in the context of visitors’ experiences.
Location-based AR games are a shared medium for generating, maintaining, and enhancing cultural heritage [11], assisting in forming visitors’ public awareness and addressing visitors’ engagement behaviors regarding technology adoption and user perceptions and attitudes. Location-based AR games can locate points of interest (PoI) in area-based GPS locations, including physical structures, historical and cultural objects, landmarks, etc., at cultural heritage sites. The combination of AR with mobile capabilities provides a range of experiences and gratification not found in traditional forms of media or games, as well as strengthening relationships between individuals and their social and physical environments [12]. The cultural heritage experience is a combination of innovative experiences that integrate value and conservation, entertainment and socialization, transforming visitors into active explorers of cultural heritage sites [13]. Location-based AR games facilitate access to information about a PoI’s cultural and heritage values and help users gain a rich cognitive experience and satisfaction with the destination [14,15]. Previous researchers have discussed the relationship between perceived authenticity, content, personalized service quality, and system quality on visitors’ behavioral intentions [16,17]. Multiple evaluation studies have proven that museums can be perceived as instructional instruments at cultural heritage sites, and visitors corroborate the impression of utility and a high perception of enjoyment [18,19,20]. Furthermore, some studies provide insight into the perceived worth of such games in terms of users’ emotions and attitudes, as well as their potential to employ this technology [21,22].
As visitors’ expectations of cultural heritage sites grow more sophisticated, enhancing visitors’ overall satisfaction is more likely to elicit favorable emotional reactions and result in a memorable tourism experience. As a result, highlighting gamification technology is a highly effective technique for encouraging pleasant emotions and assisting tourists in creating individually meaningful experiences. However, few studies have investigated experiences and behaviors at cultural heritage sites with such factors as positive emotions and participation. Positive emotions and engagement are essential to the tourism experience, and meaningful experiences contribute to the general well-being of travelers [23]. Positive emotions can lead to cognitive changes that increase the power of cognition and action [24].
The purpose of this research is to investigate the factors that impact visitors’ intentions to participate in location-based AR games while exploring cultural heritage sites. By exploring how positive emotions can be enhanced, this study aims to uncover the ultimate objectives that visitors aim to achieve through gamification technology. There are three phases in the research. The study will begin by analyzing the factors that influence visitors’ experiences with location-based AR games at cultural heritage sites. This will involve conducting a literature analysis using an established theory based on positive emotions as the theoretical framework. Then, this study will develop a measurement tool based on the factors extracted from the first phase. In the third quantitative phase, evaluation data on visitors’ experiences will be collected from 260 visitors who have experienced an AR game at the location of a cultural heritage site.
The goal of meaningful gamification techniques is to drive engagement and behavior [25]. Therefore, it is necessary to address the issue of technology, such as location-based AR games triggering a positive and enjoyable experience, and to investigate how technology can support individuals in their engagement. Any action triggered by positive emotions includes both physical and cognitive aspects. These cognitive changes may ultimately influence behavior. Therefore, molding positive emotions and perceptual experiences during visits to cultural heritage sites is crucial for using this type of game. This study presents theoretical advances outlining innovative service paradigms based on the interaction of positive visitor emotions, technology, and cultural heritage site content.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 examines the literature on location-based AR games and explains the theoretical background. Additionally, we propose several hypotheses. Section 3 and Section 4 outline research methodology and findings. Section 5 analyzes the research results and the implications. Finally, Section 6 provides a conclusion highlighting the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions

Exploring the concept of “positive technology” is a valuable research endeavor that can enhance the fields of positive psychology and human–computer interaction. It involves creating interfaces and technologies that promote positive emotions and adaptive behavior in users. Understanding how to design such interfaces and technologies is crucial for eliciting positive emotional experiences in users [26]. The expansion and construction theory of positive emotions, a specific theory of positive psychology, highlights how positive emotions can affect cognition. This theory is useful for improving personal creativity and thinking. Researchers have found that consciously supporting people’s psychological well-being can promote social prosperity. Positive emotions play a crucial role in achieving this goal [27,28,29]. Expansion and theorizing of positive emotions find empirical support in related constructs (motivation, attention, cognition, and action) and widen the range of physical, intellectual, and social resources established [30]. Understanding enjoyment is essential in positive psychology, which focuses on well-being and optimal experiences. Enjoyment refers to feelings of pleasure, whereas happiness is related to meaning and self-actualization and is interconnected with an individual’s physical, mental, and social health. The concept of affective design was introduced to promote positive emotions and pleasant feelings in users. This has since been expanded to interaction design, with the goal of using technology to foster connections between individuals and to transcend the self [31,32]. Thus, the extension and establishment of the theory of positive emotions provide a satisfactory theoretical background to study the positive emotions of visitors to cultural heritage with AR technology.
Gaming has been consistently associated with positive emotional experiences [33]. In the gaming world, technology can evoke positive emotions through various paradigms. One such paradigm is the correlation between positive emotions and social interaction. Playing games can provide players with long-lasting social connections, a sense of happiness, and subjective recognition. In addition, AR and simulated environments offer interactive experiences and physical sensations that can enhance feelings of well-being and social connectedness [34,35]. Previous tourism studies have shown that emotions affect behavioral intentions and travel destination choices [36] and have been extensively tested in different psychological experiments as information theory. Evidence indicates positive emotions promote cognitive responses, while negative emotional information inhibits cognitive responses [37]. Bagnall (2003) and Poria et al. have highlighted that cultural heritage sites offer a tourism experience that combines both emotions and cognition [38,39]. The correlation between emotions and tourism experiences is influenced by the entire process of the tourism experience and varies depending on the different types of tourism experiences [40,41]. Using location-based AR gaming technology during cultural heritage tourism can create positive emotional responses that encourage tourists to engage in immersive experiences and discover more about themselves [42]. Enjoyment, fulfillment, and emotion are critical factors that significantly influence technology. While research in the field of tourism marketing has recognized the significance of these factors in determining behavioral intention, there is a mixed relationship between them [43]. The travel experience elicits various emotions in response to external stimuli. To comprehend the emotional reactions to cultural heritage tourism, we must examine their possible nature when experienced through AR. There is no single emotional state associated with the entire travel experience.

2.2. Location-Based AR Games and Cultural Heritage Tourism Experience

The growth of culture-based tourism indicates a changing preference for quality in modern society and a growing particular demand for experiential markets. Heritage tourism results from broader social and economic trends, and the quality and value of tourism experiences are a concern for practitioners and researchers involved in cultural heritage planning, management, and research. The potential benefits of using AR to enhance the travel experience are emerging, and applications using different technologies (live streaming, 3D environments, and geolocation games) have been developed for a variety of purposes [44,45], such as AR building games [46], cultural heritage video games [47], adventure games [48], and severe gaming. Exploring and using mobile devices promotes teamwork and physical activity and creates positive attitudes [49]. According to most studies, the application of gamification and AR to cultural heritage sites mainly focuses on location-based games [50], which take place in natural locations such as historical sites, cultural objects, landmarks, etc., are positioned as points of interest during visits [51]. Haahr defines the game experience in cultural heritage sites as an intermediary experience that perceives the natural environment and further studies the type of immersive perception [52]. Research on AR applications in cultural heritage tourism usually emphasizes technology acceptance (in terms of presenting information) or pedagogical (transmission of information); insights from such studies suggest that visitors to cultural heritage sites place a high value on aesthetics, price value, accessibility, and personal innovativeness and engagement when using AR, often with some degree of positive visitor attitudes toward the technology [53]. Augmented reality environments contain content that guides the visitor’s experience, and the value of using the technology is found during the experience. Tom Dieck and Jung, Chung [54,55] also focused on the same context, finding that technology readiness, visual appeal, cost of use, and convenience affect tourists’ adoption of new technology. In addition, Jung et al. [56] tested quality models to investigate visitor satisfaction and AR app recommendation intent. However, functional characteristics such as usefulness and ease of use alone have been considered insufficient [57], and Hassenzahl [58] emphasizes the importance of individual circumstances. From a visitor experience perspective, usability also includes perceptual and emotional aspects. Therefore, we need to continue to pay attention to the emotional investment and stimulation of location-based AR games in the tourist experience.
The concept of participation plays a central role in the study of cultural heritage tourism and visitors’ behavior. Engagement is a feature that visitor–location-based AR game interactions share with other HCI environments, and the application of games is a key component in shaping visitor experience and behavior. As a positive technology that subjectivizes visitor experience, AR games at cultural heritage sites can induce satisfaction and pleasure [59], and participation comes from this positive experience [60]. In studies investigating the impact on user engagement and experience, it was found that control-based games, performing a character’s physical tasks, or customizing a character’s behavior enhances the fun and positively affects engagement [61]. Yan’s research showed that the game experience was verified under the utility model of positional AR games, and the results were related to fulfillment, presence, and hedonism. Emotions are an essential part of how people experience the world. However, the impact of positive emotions on visitor experiences using location-based AR games and the role of positive emotions delivered through them remains to be empirically tested.

2.3. Fulfillment

Fulfillment is a person’s psychological needs in a particular activity in order to obtain the best motivation and experience. These needs contribute to personal well-being [62]. In the field of cultural heritage tourism, the fulfillment of the AR tourism experience is the emotional connection and positive feelings resulting from frequent interactions with AR-based applications. This is achieved by identifying three related factors that influence visitor fulfillment, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy is the subjective experience obtained by tourists’ free choice and manipulation when participating in game activities [63]. The second factor, competence, refers to proficiency in the game environment and game mechanism. Based on previous research perspectives, in location-based AR games at cultural heritage sites, competency-supporting elements include the degree of participation in the game’s story and challenges, such as locating landmarks in puzzles and finding hidden places [64]. Relatedness refers to feeling a sense of belonging with others and the social environment. Existing studies have identified relatedness elements such as team/community, self-presentation, and stories [65]. Furthermore, Tamborini et al. found that autonomy and competence were associated with higher satisfaction with perceived game control and that the presence of other players had a significant effect on relatedness [66].
Nevertheless, another study found that autonomy and competence moderate game characteristics and influence engagement outcomes. Hassenzahl found a positive relationship between satisfaction and the pleasurable experience of using technology. It is also critical to measuring information systems’ effectiveness. We aim to empirically test the relationship between the factors in the fulfillment dimension (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and the intention to use location-based AR games. Therefore, this study puts forward the following hypotheses:
H1a. 
Autonomy positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.
H1b. 
Competence positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.
H1c. 
Relatedness positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.

2.4. Enjoyment

Enjoyment is the primary source of positive technology users’ experience. Enjoyment is a positive response during play [67] and is usually associated with the emotions felt by the player. The enjoyment of playing location-based AR games comes from exploring cultural heritage sites, stimulating interest in them, and experiencing happiness during in-game activities. In the study of AR and immersive media, telepresence has been the focus of many AR studies, and telepresence is defined as “the subjective experience of being in a place or environment”. Some studies have tried to separate presence and immersion to discuss research, defining immersion as an objective description of technology, while presence is a subjective experience [68]. Presence is widely considered a psychological feeling of being there, of feeling like we are part of the game. Immersion is a unique experience associated with the AR world and can also be conceptualized as spiritual participation [69]. Adding spatial and narrative experiences to AR games to incorporate immersive gaming behavior can increase engagement among visitors. Riva and Waterworth believe a relationship exists between presence and optimal experience [70]. Considering the alleged effects of AR on more robust cognitive and emotional responses [71], it is necessary to observe immersion, presence, and resulting emotions and behaviors to promote positive experiences in hedonic heritage tourism. Based on the above discussion, we make the following assumptions:
H2a. 
Immersion positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.
H2b. 
Presence positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.

2.5. Self-Existence

Self-existence is defined in the context of experience as the basic perception of the self when situated in a particular place or situation. It is related to the individual’s awareness of his or her physical presence in the environment. This concept is related to AR research and focuses on the perception of one’s physical location, i.e., it applies to both real and virtual environments, emphasizing the sense of physical existence and the level of awareness. ”Existence” also involves a deep psychological engagement with a particular physical environment or experience, often resulting in an emotional connection. Self-existence is an essential concept in play, and in this state, existence can be divided into three essential domains based on how humans experience the world: the physical, the social, and ego. It can be seen that users interact in the virtual world through one or more of these fields, and their experience will extend from their existence. However, researchers generally agree that this structure is multidimensional, and different conceptualizations may involve different dimensions. Many studies have verified the role of existence in virtual environments, generally showing a positive correlation between existence and user experience [72]. This study divides self-existence into three factors. Operationalization includes interactive existence (virtual or distant objects, cultural relics, and architectural spaces), social existence (virtual self or other social participants), and emotional existence (with other participants or in a virtual environment). Researchers have highlighted the importance of emotional experience as an influencer and predictor of visitors’ behavioral intentions [73], and emotional virtual environments induce a higher sense of “subjective” existence. Among them, the authenticity of existence affects visitors’ satisfaction and cognitive loyalty [74].
On the other hand, Ryan et al. proposed evaluating the influencing factors of game fun existence and intuitive control [75]. The location of the cultural heritage sites in the AR game’s virtual environment is a complex social space, including the establishment of a psychological connection between the visitor’s virtual self-identity and his or her avatar. Visitors’ participation and the social system have a reciprocal relationship manifested in various forms of interaction. In this case, the virtual self bridges the physical and virtual environments [76]. These perspectives on existence are essential and have a unique role in developing self-existence. Therefore, we make the following hypotheses related to self-existence and cultural heritage experience.
H3a. 
Interactive existence positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.
H3b. 
Emotional existence positively affects the intention to participate in location-based AR games.
H3c. 
Social existence positively impacts the intention to participate in location-based AR games.

2.6. Research Model

The psychological literature provides dimensionality and taxonomy as two major approaches to studying emotions, and this study provides a concise explanation for conceptualizing positive emotions using a dimensional (valence-based) approach. Most studies prove that visitors’ emotional responses are fundamental determinants of behavior. Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the research model in Figure 1. The model mainly focuses on the empirical exploration of the relationship between the positive emotional dimensions (fulfillment, enjoyment, and self-existence) in the experience and the participation behavior of visitors. The specific study of the research model in Figure 1 introduces the relationship between cultural heritage tourism experiences and location-based AR games. It explores the role of positive emotions in visitors’ intentions to participate in located-based AR games.

3. Research Method

3.1. Instrument

We employed a questionnaire survey in the data collection. The variables used in this research and the measurement indicators designed for them were primarily sourced from the existing literature. These measurement variables are similar to those used in studies in the same field. They were then adapted and refined to suit the specific research topic and its objectives. During the expert review process for scale design, diversity among experts was prioritized, ensuring that they were professionals from cultural heritage sites and researchers in the field of cultural heritage tourism, each with over 10 years of research experience in heritage tourism experiences and experience design. Subsequently, the experts’ participation schedule and procedures were established, and comprehensive background information about this research was provided to them. The initial draft of the scale and related materials were sent individually for their review. Following this, an expert review meeting was convened to facilitate discussions on various aspects of the scale, such as item wording and the formulation of response options. Finally, the unanimous expert feedback affirmed the clarity and effectiveness of the scale items and instructions. Specifically, three items measuring the user experience of need satisfaction were adapted from Johnson and Qin [77,78]; two items measuring immersion and presence were adapted from Vero Vanden Abeelea and Georgiou [79]; three items on interaction existence, emotional existence, and social existence were measured with the scales of PENS and SUS, as was the section on social existence in the gaming questionnaire (SPEQ) [80]. Intention to use was measured according to the user engagement scale (UES) and Brockmyer [81,82]. The constructs’ measurements were conducted using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (representing ‘strongly agree’) to 5 (representing ‘strongly disagree’). The Likert scale assumes that attitudes can be evaluated and that the degree of an attitude lies on a linear continuum between the extremes of strongly agreeing and strongly disagreeing.
As most of the scale items used in the research were initially created in English, we utilized the back-translation method to translate them into Chinese. This involved three professional translators and two bilingual specialists responsible for the translation, back-translation, and cross-checking of the translated versions. Based on the comments of the expert group, improvements were made to the questionnaire in terms of linguistic expressions and technical terms that were not conducive to comprehension, including modifications to the wording and overall structure to improve clarity and ease of use. Before conducting our study, we conducted a preliminary survey with 50 visitors who had previously experienced cultural heritage tours. The full set of items was then subjected to an exploratory factor numerator (EFA), and the KMO statistic obtained by factor analysis was 0.887, which was significant according to Bartlett’s sphere test. As much as possible, nine factors were obtained through principal component analysis. Combined with the good correspondence between the factors and the items, we finally refined the questionnaire items only in terms of language presentation, and after several discussions and reviews, 41 items were finally identified for testing.

3.2. Respondents

To test the research hypotheses, online data were gathered from users who actively engage in full-fledged location-based AR games. The Palace Museum, Mogao Grottoes, Mawangdui, and Zhengyangmen in Beijing were selected as research sites. The places mentioned above are renowned cultural heritage sites with significant advantages in their cultural significance, popularity, and exposure to digital creative cultural heritage. They were chosen as representative examples for the purposes of this research. The questionnaires for the study were collected through online recycling.
For this study, eligible respondents were individuals who participated in the location-based AR game at cultural heritage sites before completing the survey. The survey was conducted in April and May 2023. An online questionnaire was generated on the platform with a unique web link. The survey link was sent to potential respondents by the researchers through a snowballing process. A screening question was asked to determine eligible respondents with prior experience in cultural heritage tourism audience games: “How many times have you played the location-based AR game while visiting cultural heritage sites?” Through these procedures, a total of 300 questionnaires were distributed. We considered questionnaires with very short response times and those from respondents who had not played the location-based AR games at tourism cultural heritage in the past year invalid. We eliminated the data from these invalid questionnaires during the final formal data analysis. A total of 260 valid questionnaires were collected, with an overall effective response rate of 86.7%.
After analyzing the demographics, we found that the number of male and female respondents was almost equal, and the majority (65.38%) were between the ages of 18 and 32. A total of 43.46% of the subjects had completed university education, and more than half (53.85%) had visited cultural heritage sites 2–5 times between 2022 and 2023. Table 1 illustrates the demographic information of the respondents.

3.3. The Data Analysis Process

We utilized SPSS 26 and AMOS 26 to analyze the data. The data analysis consisted of two steps. Firstly, we tested the reliability and validity of the data. Following this, we employed a structured equation model to assess the causal relationships between the eight factors and the experiences of visitors playing location-based AR games. This technique is frequently employed in research focused on analyzing intentions to visit and utilize technology fields [83].

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis

As shown in Table 2, the factor loadings were greater than 0.766. The construct validity of the measures was demonstrated at both the item and construct levels by the factor loadings and average amount of variance extracted (AVE). All individual item loadings larger than 0.70 suggested that the constructs had more measured variation than error variances [84]. According to Fornell and Larcker [85], an AVE greater than 0.50 showed that the concept shared more variance with its indicators than with error variance. As a result, all measuring items demonstrated strong convergent validity.
Following Fornell and Larcker (1981) [85], this study tested discriminant validity by comparing the correlations among constructs to the AVE values. All constructs demonstrated acceptable discriminant validity since all intra-construct correlations were lower than the square root of each construct’s AVE, indicating that all indicators were better explained by their respective construct than the other constructs, as shown in Table 3.

4.2. Structural Model

The structural model showed a good fit with the data (χ² = 871.629, df = 553, p = 0.00, CMIN/df = 1.576, NFI = 0.799, CFI = 0.915, IFI = 0.916, and RMSEA = 0.047). All model fit index values were acceptable. Table 4 shows that the correlations between seven of the eight constructs (autonomy, competence, relatedness, immersion, presence, interaction existence, emotional existence, social existence) and intention to use were statistically significant at p < 0.01, adding support to hypotheses H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, and H3c. The results, however, revealed that the relationship between autonomy and intention to use was insignificant, leading to the rejection of hypothesis H1a.

4.3. The Structural Equation Model Test

The hypotheses were examined by looking at the standardized path coefficient of the model. As illustrated in Figure 2, H1b and H1c were supported, as the results demonstrated that the fulfillment of competence (β = 0.139, p < 0.01) and relatedness (β = 0.106, p < 0.01) was positively related to intention to use, whereas H1a was not supported (β = 0.083, p >0.01). H2a and H2b addressed the structural relationships among intention to use, immersion, and presence. The effects of immersion (β = 0.176, p < 0.001) and presence (β = 0.126, p < 0.01) were statistically significant contributors to the intention to use. Therefore, H2a and H2b were supported. Finally, H3a, H3b, and H3c addressed the relationships among interaction existence, emotional existence, social existence, and intention to use. Interaction existence had a positive effect on the intention to use location-based AR games. (β = 0.263, p < 0.001); thus, the result supported H3a. What is more, emotional existence (β = 0.133, p < 0.001) and social existence (β = 0.219, p < 0.001) impacted visitors’ intentions to use location-based AR games. Therefore, H3b and H3c were also supported.

5. Discussions

This study revealed the dimensions of positive emotional experiences that are affected by the intention to use location-based AR games at cultural heritage sites. This part reviews the emerging influencing factors in the study and discusses the findings. Theoretical and practical implications are also mentioned.

5.1. The Three Dimensions of Location-Based AR Games at Cultural Heritage Sites

The first dimension was fulfillment. The autonomy, competence, and relatedness factors can inspire internal emotions in visitors, resulting in increased engagement with both the game and the destination. Previous tourism research suggests [86] that examining engagement intentions triggered in the broader context of destination experiences. Participants reported that tourists maintain a positive traveling game experience by gradually improving their skills and competencies during the exploration of cultural heritage sites. The results of this study confirm that acquiring competencies helps to stimulate positive emotional and behavioral effects in a person [87]. Additionally, the correlation factor is consistent with the findings of Buhalis [88] that AR technology enhances contextual relevance and supports the creation of value from shared experiences in context. However, the influential factor of autonomy in this dimension is inconsistent with the claim that we have previously found. One possible explanation is that an important aspect of autonomy is allowing visitors a more creative and personalized experience. Based on the specificity of cultural heritage site visits under location-based AR games, visitors enhance the interactive experience of physical virtual elements and real environments. Interestingly, the adoption of technology has changed the context of the tour, with visitors seeking to interact more with their peers and share and shape the experience together [89]. While this interaction can take place between visitors, organizational providers, and multiple stakeholders, this experience emphasizes the importance of the role of the visitor in the space, participating together in the creation of a narrative experience through the storytelling of the cultural heritage site [90].
The second dimension referred to enjoyment, and this study found that immersion and presence were predictors of enjoyment. In the case of AR technology applications, this finding is similar to that of Daassi and Debbabi [91], where immersion and presence positively influence usage and reuse intentions through the user’s real-life experience. Previous research has assessed the potential of AR as an interpretive tool, pointing to the influence of perceived enjoyment on the willingness to use AR [92]. This dimension found that the sense of presence that AR games bring to visitors also plays a crucial role in determining the quality of their subjective experience. The application and key features of AR technology in the cultural heritage sector allow visitors to enhance the experience of a cultural heritage site with digitized information and artifact clues that enhance immersion and presence, engaging visitors physically and emotionally. The colors, sounds, and styles of the virtual scenes help to recreate the atmosphere of a visit to a cultural heritage site and stimulate visitors to explore interactions with their surroundings and objects. [93]. Furthermore, this finding was in line with Sigala [94] and He’s [95] research, recognizing the impact of AR technology on visitors’ behavior and experience, as well as retaining visitor attention through more engaging and immersive content. This study strengthens and adds credibility to the existing literature by confirming that AR gaming experiences provide multi-sensory stimulation that creates a deeper, unique, and memorable experience.
The third dimension is self-existence. Self-existence is widely regarded as a one-dimensional spatial or physical presence construct in the tourism domain based on destination-specific immersive behaviors. Prior research has shown the universality of the existence in the study of AR tourism applications [96]. Most importantly, among the technological features discussed in AR tourism, existence is the core emotional perception that directly influences visitors’ diverse responses during the cultural heritage tourism experience. In response to these studies, our research proposes three distinct components of existence: interactive existence, emotional existence, and social existence. According to the participants, effective interactions during the location-based AR games experience, including a controlled, responsive, and exciting cultural heritage experience environment, enhanced the quality and authenticity of the tourists’ experience and fulfilled the positive entertainment experience of the tourism activity. This factor responds to Minjung Park’s findings [97]. At the same time, the influential factor of social existence proves that social interaction plays a key role in many tourism contexts. In addition to human–computer interactions, interactions between tourists and cultural heritage sites’ staff also influence existence [98]. This finding is consistent with the study by Flavian [99], which found that the interactive and novel experience provided by AR games becomes an important basis for communication and promotes social behaviors among tourists. In addition, emotional interaction factors have been less researched in the field of tourism with AR technology, and it has been shown that the arousal of emotions in the tourism experience occurs through the interaction between the visitor and the destination, i.e., between tourism demand and supply. This study further empirically highlights that emotions generated by affective interactions are important for visitors’ satisfaction and their intention to engage with cultural heritage destinations.

5.2. Implications

This study provides both theoretical and practical implications. This study provides empirical evidence for the validity of engagement intentions for positive emotional experiences under location-based AR games. We have identified the significant aspects of emotions in positive psychology and developed a framework to apply them systematically to the tourism industry. We created a new measurement instrument to assess the dimensions of visitors’ emotions in relation to location-based AR game experiences and showed that the relationship between emotions and the tourism experience is affected by different factors. This research enhances our comprehension of the factors that influence tourists’ positive emotions when playing location-based AR games. The present framework enriches the research on positive emotion theory in the cultural heritage domain. Previously, positive emotion theory used in cultural heritage tourism experience has been limited, but this finding re-validates the increasing focus on emotions in tourism marketing research for cultural heritage sites due to the stronger links between fulfillment, enjoyment, and self-existence tested or theorized in this research. Having a comprehensive framework based on the theory of positive emotions could also address the issue of the visitor experience when augmented reality technology is used as a tool, i.e., the determinants of positive emotions influence the cultural heritage tourism experience. The use of AR is becoming increasingly social, and research needs to consider not only the experience of individual users with the system but also the social and cultural impacts related to the system. The link between demand and intention in cultural heritage tourism is explored through the study of positive emotions, and a theoretical framework based on positive psychology research is constructed and applied to the cultural heritage tourism experience. The eight-factor and three-dimensional analysis based on AR game tools provides a fundamental theoretical paradigm for further research.
The positive emotions of visitors strongly influence their experience at cultural heritage sites, and the experience of visitors is an important factor in tourism satisfaction, directly affecting the future development of location-based AR games and destinations. Through the study, we gained an extensive and deep understanding of visitors’ positive emotions and needs in AR game technology. It also provides guiding principles to bridge the theories into design practices for cultural heritage tourism sites. The improvement of location-based AR games can also considerably influence the overall experience. For example, the enhancement of gamification concept technology for cultural heritage sites, as well as the high availability and performance of mobile AR games, can be facilitated to allow tourists to engage and interact with heritage and cultural information at a deeper level, thus increasing the motivation for visitors to revisit the destination.
This research also has fruitful managerial implications for the marketing and managing of cultural heritage sites. Firstly, the study enables the management of cultural heritage sites and heritage organizations to better understand AR games’ impact on visitors. Despite the accelerated adoption of AR technologies across tourism sectors, the pervasiveness of their use has prevented some organizations, particularly smaller cultural heritage sites or those with limited digital resources, from investing in and conducting proof of concept for these technologies. This study provides empirical evidence of the influence on visitor experience and engagement through the adoption of AR gaming technologies. Such influences will advance the management of cultural heritage sites to incorporate AR gaming considerations into their development strategy plans and help them decide how to capitalize on recent technological advances.
Furthermore, well-designed location-based AR games can also provide visitors with an upgraded interactive experience and a unique and memorable experience. The study results can inspire the management of cultural heritage sites to strengthen their focus on the deep positive experiential feelings of visitors and to develop and design practical content to be expressive in AR environments. When developing cultural heritage sites, project designers aim to create digital interactive gaming experiences that integrate the attributes and characteristics of artifacts to enhance visitors’ emotional connection to the destination’s culture. In further measures, visitors can be stimulated to generate emotions and positive experiences at cultural heritage sites for the sustainable development of cultural heritage sites and to promote both the cultural and industrial values of cultural heritage.

6. Conclusions

This research delves into how positive emotional experiences through location-based AR games can enhance engagement with cultural heritage destinations. Tourism technologies aim to influence visitors’ behavior and transform heritage tourism experiences. By utilizing the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, behaviorism, and persuasive technology, this study offers a theoretical framework for technology and tourism design. It also outlines guiding principles to bridge these theories into design practices for tourism sites, with the intention of promoting behavioral change through AR game technology. Ultimately, the aim is for cultural heritage tourism sites to provide enjoyable and memorable experiences for tourists while benefiting all stakeholders involved.
There are some limitations to this study. Firstly, the research focused on cultural heritage sites in China where AR games are already well-established. Participants were asked to complete a survey based on their experiences with AR games, a common quantitative research method. However, it would be beneficial for future studies to observe visitors’ emotional responses to using AR games on-site to avoid any potential memory bias. Secondly, the study’s sample size was not representative of all AR tourists. Therefore, future research should focus on a larger and more diverse sample of AR users at cultural heritage destinations across different regions. The visitor experience can vary due to the different artifactual characteristics of cultural heritage sites. However, as visitors use location AR games more frequently, they may provide new insights into the experience. Considering other factors, such as cultural motivations and tourist knowledge, alongside external observations can lead to a better understanding of how augmented reality is used in heritage tourism.
Future research could include more cultural heritage sites to investigate visitors’ experiences in the use of location-based AR games, especially those visitors whose digital technology is constantly updated and developed and who have been actively using location-based AR games. Some comparative studies could be conducted between different types of cultural heritage sites and different location-based AR games to address the visitors’ positive emotional experiences. Secondly, due to cultural, political, economic, and historical differences, visitors’ behavioral characteristics differ between countries. Therefore, cross-cultural studies should be conducted in the future to test the diverse influences on the positive experiences of visitors from different countries. In addition, future research could introduce variables such as perceived tourist interaction effectiveness and psychological sense of belonging into the research framework to investigate the moderating factors of the relationship between visitors’ positive experiences and engagement behaviors. Finally, future research needs a more comprehensive research methodology to enhance validity, including objective measures to assess the impact of positive emotions on engagement behaviors at actual cultural heritage sites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.G. and Y.P.; methodology, J.G.; software, J.G.; validation, J.G.; formal analysis, J.G.; investigation, J.G.; data curation, J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.; writing—review and editing, J.G.; visualization, J.G.; supervision, Y.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Kookmin University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. The raw data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants in this study for their time and willingness to share their experiences and feelings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boboc, R.G.; Băutu, E.; Gîrbacia, F.; Popovici, N.; Popovici, D.-M. Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Last Decade of Applications. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jiang, S.; Scott, N.; Tao, L. Antecedents of Augmented Reality Experiences: Potential Tourists to Shangri-La Potatso National Park, China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 24, 1034–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marto, A.; Gonçalves, A.; Melo, M.; Bessa, M. A Survey of Multisensory VR and AR Applications for Cultural Heritage. Comput. Graph. 2022, 102, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trunfio, M.; Lucia, M.D.; Campana, S.; Magnelli, A. Innovating the Cultural Heritage Museum Service Model through Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality: The Effects on the Overall Visitor Experience and Satisfaction. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Okanovic, V.; Ivkovic-Kihic, I.; Boskovic, D.; Mijatovic, B.; Prazina, I.; Skaljo, E.; Rizvic, S. Interaction in eXtended Reality Applications for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abeele, V.V.; Spiel, K.; Nacke, L.; Johnson, D.; Gerling, K. Development and Validation of the Player Experience Inventory: A Scale to Measure Player Experiences at the Level of Functional and Psychosocial Consequences. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2020, 135, 102370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sorrentino, A.; Elgammal, I.; Ferretti, M.; Risitano, M. Does Digital Technology Improve the Visitor Experience? A Comparative Study in the Museum Context. Int. J. Tour. Policy 2020, 10, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tabacchi, M.E.; Caci, B.; Cardaci, M.; Perticone, V. Early Usage of Pokémon Go and Its Personality Correlates. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xu, F.; Buhalis, D.; Weber, J. Serious Games and the Gamification of Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kleftodimos, A.; Moustaka, M.; Evagelou, A. Location-Based Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage Education: Creating Educational, Gamified Location-Based AR Applications for the Prehistoric Lake Settlement of Dispilio. Digital 2023, 3, 18–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Spierling, U.; Winzer, P.; Massarczyk, E. Experiencing the Presence of Historical Stories with Location-Based Augmented Reality; Nunes, N., Oakley, I., Nisi, V., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 10690, pp. 49–62. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cosgrove, D. Cultural Cartography: Maps and Mapping in Cultural Geography. Ann. Géogr. 2008, 660–661, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S.; Magnelli, A. Measuring the Impact of Functional and Experiential Mixed Reality Elements on a Museum Visit. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1990–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S. A Visitors’ Experience Model for Mixed Reality in the Museum. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zollo, L.; Rialti, R.; Marrucci, A.; Ciappei, C. How Do Museums Foster Loyalty in Tech-Savvy Visitors? The Role of Social Media and Digital Experience. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 2991–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jung, T.; Tom Dieck, M.C.; Lee, H.; Chung, N. Effects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality on Visitor Experiences in Museum. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016; Inversini, A., Schegg, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 621–635. ISBN 978-3-319-28230-5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ramkissoon, H.; Uysal, M.S. The Effects of Perceived Authenticity, Information Search Behaviour, Motivation and Destination Imagery on Cultural Behavioural Intentions of Tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 537–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Domínguez-Quintero, A.M.; González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Paddison, B. The Mediating Role of Experience Quality on Authenticity and Satisfaction in the Context of Cultural-Heritage Tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K.; Evangelidis, G. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, Y. Evaluating Visitor Experience of Digital Interpretation and Presentation Technologies at Cultural Heritage Sites: A Case Study of the Old Town, Zuoying. Built Herit. 2020, 4, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jones, C.E.; Theodosis, S.; Lykourentzou, I. The Enthusiast, the Interested, the Sceptic, and the Cynic: Understanding User Experience and Perceived Value in Location-Based Cultural Heritage Games Through Qualitative and Sentiment Analysis. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2019, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kim, M.J.; Lee, C.-K.; Jung, T. Exploring Consumer Behavior in Virtual Reality Tourism Using an Extended Stimulus-Organism-Response Model. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Botella, C.; Banos, R.M.; Guillen, V. Positive Technologies for Improving Health and Well-Being. In Positive Psychology Interventions in Practice; Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 219–234. ISBN 978-3-319-51785-8. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yin, J. Study on the Progress of Neural Mechanism of Positive Emotions. Transl. Neurosci. 2019, 10, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Johnson, D.; Deterding, S.; Kuhn, K.-A.; Staneva, A.; Stoyanov, S.; Hides, L. Gamification for Health and Wellbeing: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Internet Interv. 2016, 6, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gaggioli, A.; Villani, D.; Serino, S.; Banos, R.; Botella, C. Editorial: Positive Technology: Designing E-Experiences for Positive Change. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Fredrickson, B.L. The Broaden–and–Build Theory of Positive Emotions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 359, 1367–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fredrickson, B.L.; Losada, M.F. Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Seligman, M.E.P.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Positive Psychology: An Introduction. In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 279–298. ISBN 978-94-017-9087-1. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fredrickson, B.L. Positive Emotions Broaden and Build. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 47, pp. 1–53. ISBN 978-0-12-407236-7. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kitson, A.; Prpa, M.; Riecke, B.E. Immersive Interactive Technologies for Positive Change: A Scoping Review and Design Considerations. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Triberti, S.; Chirico, A.; La Rocca, G.; Riva, G. Developing Emotional Design: Emotions as Cognitive Processes and Their Role in the Design of Interactive Technologies. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Burgdorf, J.; Panksepp, J. The Neurobiology of Positive Emotions. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2006, 30, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cummings, J.J.; Bailenson, J.N. How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence. Media Psychol. 2016, 19, 272–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rubio-Tamayo, J.L.; Gertrudix Barrio, M.; García García, F. Immersive Environments and Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Advances in Communication, Interaction and Simulation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2017, 1, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhou, J.; Xiang, K.; Cheng, Q.; Yang, C. Psychological and Behavioural Consistency Value Seeking of Tourists in Niche Tourism: Nostalgia, Authenticity Perception, and Satisfaction. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 1111–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Clore, G.L.; Huntsinger, J.R. How Emotions Inform Judgment and Regulate Thought. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2007, 11, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. The Core of Heritage Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003, 30, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bagnall, G. Performance and Performativity at Heritage Sites. Mus. Soc. 2003, 1, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, S.; Phau, I.; Hughes, M.; Li, Y.F.; Quintal, V. Heritage Tourism in Singapore Chinatown: A Perceived Value Approach to Authenticity and Satisfaction. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2016, 33, 981–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Scuttari, A.; Pechlaner, H. Emotions in Tourism: From Consumer Behavior to Destination Management. In Design Science in Tourism: Foundations of Destination Management; Tourism on the Verge; Fesenmaier, D.R., Xiang, Z., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 41–53. ISBN 978-3-319-42773-7. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bekele, M.K.; Pierdicca, R.; Frontoni, E.; Malinverni, E.S.; Gain, J. A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2018, 11, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Prayag, G.; Hosany, S.; Odeh, K. The Role of Tourists’ Emotional Experiences and Satisfaction in Understanding Behavioral Intentions. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2013, 2, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hanes, L.; Stone, R. Applying Constrained Virtual Environments to Serious Games for Heritage. Int. J. Serious Games 2019, 6, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lu, Z.; Annett, M.; Fan, M.; Wigdor, D. “I Feel It Is My Responsibility to Stream”: Streaming and Engaging with Intangible Cultural Heritage through Livestreaming. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  46. Koo, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, C.; Kim, J.; Cha, H.S. Development of an Augmented Reality Tour Guide for a Cultural Heritage Site. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2019, 12, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Di Paola, F.; Inzerillo, L.; Alognaa, Y. A Gaming Approach for Cultural Heritage Knowledge and Dissemination. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 2019, XLII-2/W15, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alha, K.; Leorke, D.; Koskinen, E.; Paavilainen, J. Augmented Play: An Analysis of Augmented Reality Features in Location-Based Games. Converg. Int. J. Res. Into New Media Technol. 2023, 29, 342–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Koutromanos, G.; Styliaras, G. “The Buildings Speak about Our City”: A Location Based Augmented Reality Game. In Proceedings of the 2015 6th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), Corfu, Greece, 6–8 July 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  50. Varinlioglu, G.; Halıcı, S. Gamification of Heritage through Augmented Reality. Ecaade Sigradi 2019, 1, 513–518. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lacka, E. Assessing the Impact of Full-Fledged Location-Based Augmented Reality Games on Tourism Destination Visits. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Haahr, M. Creating Location-Based Augmented-Reality Games for Cultural Heritage. In Serious Games; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Alcañiz, M., Göbel, S., Ma, M., Fradinho Oliveira, M., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Marsh, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 10622, pp. 313–318. ISBN 978-3-319-70110-3. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wen, X.; Sotiriadis, M.; Shen, S. Determining the Key Drivers for the Acceptance and Usage of AR and VR in Cultural Heritage Monuments. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chung, N.; Han, H.; Joun, Y. Tourists’ Intention to Visit a Destination: The Role of Augmented Reality (AR) Application for a Heritage Site. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H. Value of Augmented Reality at Cultural Heritage Sites: A Stakeholder Approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jung, T.; Chung, N.; Leue, M.C. The Determinants of Recommendations to Use Augmented Reality Technologies: The Case of a Korean Theme Park. Tour. Manag. 2015, 49, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Law, E.L.-C. The Measurability and Predictability of User Experience. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, Pisa, Italy, 13–16 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hassenzahl, M. The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 3, pp. 31–42. ISBN 978-1-4020-2966-0. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lehto, A.; Luostarinen, N.; Kostia, P. Augmented Reality Gaming as a Tool for Subjectivizing Visitor Experience at Cultural Heritage Locations—Case Lights On! J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2020, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Boyle, E.A.; Connolly, T.M.; Hainey, T.; Boyle, J.M. Engagement in Digital Entertainment Games: A Systematic Review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kleinsmith, A.; Gillies, M. Customizing by Doing for Responsive Video Game Characters. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2013, 71, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xi, N.; Hamari, J. Does Gamification Satisfy Needs? A Study on the Relationship between Gamification Features and Intrinsic Need Satisfaction. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 46, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Economou, T.; Vosinakis, S. Mobile Augmented Reality Games As An Engaging Tool For Cultural Heritage Dissemination: A Case Study. Sci. Cult. 2018, 4, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sailer, M.; Hense, J.U.; Mayr, S.K.; Mandl, H. How Gamification Motivates: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Specific Game Design Elements on Psychological Need Satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tamborini, R.; Bowman, N.D.; Eden, A.; Grizzard, M.; Organ, A. Defining Media Enjoyment as the Satisfaction of Intrinsic Needs. J. Commun. 2010, 60, 758–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Caroux, L.; Isbister, K.; Le Bigot, L.; Vibert, N. Player–Video Game Interaction: A Systematic Review of Current Concepts. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 48, 366–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Baños, R.M.; Botella, C.; Alcañiz, M.; Liaño, V.; Guerrero, B.; Rey, B. Immersion and Emotion: Their Impact on the Sense of Presence. CyberPsychology Behav. 2004, 7, 734–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. McGloin, R.; Farrar, K.; Fishlock, J. Triple Whammy! Violent Games and Violent Controllers: Investigating the Use of Realistic Gun Controllers on Perceptions of Realism, Immersion, and Outcome Aggression. J. Commun. 2015, 65, 280–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Riva, G.; Waterworth, J.A.; Waterworth, E.L.; Mantovani, F. From Intention to Action: The Role of Presence. New Ideas Psychol. 2011, 29, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mikropoulos, T.A.; Strouboulis, V. Factors That Influence Presence in Educational Virtual Environments. CyberPsychology Behav. 2004, 7, 582–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. McCreery, M.P.; Schrader, P.G.; Krach, S.K.; Boone, R. A Sense of Self: The Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 1635–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Goossens, C. Tourism Information and Pleasure Motivation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 301–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fu, X. Existential Authenticity and Destination Loyalty: Evidence from Heritage Tourists. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 12, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ryan, R.M.; Rigby, C.S.; Przybylski, A. The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motiv. Emot. 2006, 30, 344–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. McCreery, M.P.; Kathleen Krach, S.; Schrader, P.G.; Boone, R. Defining the Virtual Self: Personality, Behavior, and the Psychology of Embodiment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Johnson, D.; Gardner, M.J.; Perry, R. Validation of Two Game Experience Scales: The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) and Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2018, 118, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Qin, Y. Attractiveness of Game Elements, Presence, and Enjoyment of Mobile Augmented Reality Games: The Case of Pokémon Go. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 62, 101620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Georgiou, Y.; Kyza, E.A. The Development and Validation of the ARI Questionnaire: An Instrument for Measuring Immersion in Location-Based Augmented Reality Settings. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017, 98, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kort, D.; IJsselsteijn, W.; Poels, K. Digital Games as Social Presence Technology: Development of the Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ). In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Barcelona, Spain, 25–27 October 2007. [Google Scholar]
  81. Brockmyer, J.H.; Fox, C.M.; Curtiss, K.A.; McBroom, E.; Burkhart, K.M.; Pidruzny, J.N. The Development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A Measure of Engagement in Video Game-Playing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45, 624–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. O’Brien, H.L.; Cairns, P.; Hall, M. A Practical Approach to Measuring User Engagement with the Refined User Engagement Scale (UES) and New UES Short Form. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 112, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chung, N.; Lee, H.; Kim, J.-Y.; Koo, C. The Role of Augmented Reality for Experience-Influenced Environments: The Case of Cultural Heritage Tourism in Korea. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Seyfi, S.; Rather, R.A.; Hall, C.M. Investigating the Mediating Role of Visitor Satisfaction in the Relationship between Memorable Tourism Experiences and Behavioral Intentions in Heritage Tourism Context. Tour. Rev. 2021, 77, 687–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wei, W.; Qi, R.; Zhang, L. Effects of Virtual Reality on Theme Park Visitors’ Experience and Behaviors: A Presence Perspective. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Buhalis, D. Technology in Tourism-from Information Communication Technologies to eTourism and Smart Tourism towards Ambient Intelligence Tourism: A Perspective Article. Tour. Rev. 2019, 75, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vom Lehn, D.; Heath, C. Action at the Exhibit Face: Video and the Analysis of Social Interaction in Museums and Galleries. J. Mark. Manag. 2016, 32, 1441–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Panhale, T.; Bryce, D.; Tsougkou, E. Augmented Reality and Experience Co-Creation in Heritage Settings. J. Mark. Manag. 2023, 39, 470–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Daassi, M.; Debbabi, S. Intention to Reuse AR-Based Apps: The Combined Role of the Sense of Immersion, Product Presence and Perceived Realism. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Do, H.-N.; Shih, W.; Ha, Q.-A. Effects of Mobile Augmented Reality Apps on Impulse Buying Behavior: An Investigation in the Tourism Field. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Innocente, C.; Ulrich, L.; Moos, S.; Vezzetti, E. A Framework Study on the Use of Immersive XR Technologies in the Cultural Heritage Domain. J. Cult. Herit. 2023, 62, 268–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sigala, M. New Technologies in Tourism: From Multi-Disciplinary to Anti-Disciplinary Advances and Trajectories. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 25, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. He, Z.; Wu, L.; Li, X. When Art Meets Tech: The Role of Augmented Reality in Enhancing Museum Experiences and Purchase Intentions. Tour. Manag. 2018, 68, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jiang, S.; Moyle, B.; Yung, R.; Tao, L.; Scott, N. Augmented Reality and the Enhancement of Memorable Tourism Experiences at Heritage Sites. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 26, 242–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Park, M.; Yoo, J. Effects of Perceived Interactivity of Augmented Reality on Consumer Responses: A Mental Imagery Perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hudson, S.; Matson-Barkat, S.; Pallamin, N.; Jegou, G. With or without You? Interaction and Immersion in a Virtual Reality Experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Flavián, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S.; Orús, C. The Impact of Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality Technologies on the Customer Experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14328 g001
Figure 1. The conceptual model in this study.
Figure 1. The conceptual model in this study.
Sustainability 15 14328 g001
Sustainability 15 14328 g002
Figure 2. Results of structural equation model test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Results of structural equation model test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 14328 g002
Table 1. The profile of the respondents (N = 260).
Table 1. The profile of the respondents (N = 260).
VariablesN (%)N (%)
Gender
Male125 (48.08)
Female135 (51.92)
Age
≤1728 (10.77)
18~2581 (31.15)
26~3289 (34.23)
33~4045 (17.31)
≥4117 (6.54)
Monthly Income (RMB)
≤200028 (10.77)
2001–5000105 (40.38)
5001–10,000101 (38.85)
Education≥10,00126 (10)
High school46 (17.69)
Academy 89 (34.23)
Undergraduate113 (43.46)
Graduate12 (4.62)
Number of visits to cultural heritage destinations between 2022 and 20231 time46 (17.69)
2–5 times140 (53.85)
6–10 times57 (21.92)
Over 10 times17 (6.54)
Table 2. Assessment of the construct measurement.
Table 2. Assessment of the construct measurement.
MEANSDSFDCAAVECR
Autonomy 0.8330.6650.888
Q73.5501.1150.828
Q83.6901.1150.828
Q93.9101.0530.802
Q103.8201.0760.804
Competence 0.7960.6200.867
Q113.7901.0460.796
Q123.9301.0350.774
Q134.1200.9720.813
Q144.0600.9940.766
Relatedness 0.8860.7460.922
Q153.4801.1740.872
Q163.5801.1740.853
Q173.7801.1560.863
Q183.6801.1230.867
Immersion 0.8230.6530.883
Q193.6201.0930.800
Q203.7501.0910.797
Q214.0201.0260.805
Q223.8901.0470.829
Presence 0.8230.6520.882
Q233.7001.0870.820
Q243.8401.0750.818
Q254.0800.9940.794
Q263.9800.9940.797
Interaction Existence 0.8340.6660.889
Q273.5101.1170.830
Q283.6401.0650.829
Q293.9100.9840.795
Q303.7801.0910.811
Emotional Existence 0.8610.7060.906
Q313.4801.1470.850
Q323.6001.1190.846
Q333.8401.0750.832
Q343.7201.0950.832
Social Existence 0.8300.6620.887
Q353.8800.9590.807
Q363.9800.9640.819
Q374.2000.9330.801
Q384.0901.0040.828
Intention 0.7800.6920.900
Q393.9301.0430.845
Q404.0601.0000.818
Q414.2000.9780.836
Note: SD = standard deviation; SFD = standardized factor loading; CR = construct reliability; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted.
Table 3. Assessment of the construct measurement.
Table 3. Assessment of the construct measurement.
123456789
1. Autonomy0.815
2. Competence0.3000.787
3. Relatedness0.2900.3270.864
4. Immersion0.2380.2870.2630.808
5. Presence0.2500.2420.2360.2470.807
6. Interaction Existence0.2940.2730.3850.2790.3230.816
7. Emotional Existence0.3210.1940.2670.2360.2750.2920.840
8. Social Existence0.3320.2270.2600.2660.3560.3500.2730.802
9. Intention0.3820.3720.4170.3900.4020.5070.3900.4500.832
Note: Figures on the diagonal line (in bold) are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). Off-diagonal figures show inter-construct correlations.
Table 4. Standardized structural estimates and hypotheses tests.
Table 4. Standardized structural estimates and hypotheses tests.
Hypothesis/PathEstimateS.E.C.R.t ValueResults
H1a: Autonomy → Intention0.0830.0392.1631.619Unsupported
H1b: Competence → Intention0.139 **0.0482.8872.181Supported
H1c: Relatedness → Intention0.106 **0.0343.1142.377Supported
H2a: Immersion → Intention0.176 ***0.0493.6142.674Supported
H2b: Presence → Intention0.128 **0.0432.9712.326Supported
H3a: Interaction Existence → Intention0.263 ***0.0544.8354.264Supported
H3b: Emotional Existence → Intention0.133 ***0.0393.3932.527Supported
H3c: Social Existence → Intention0.219 ***0.0553.9823.200Supported
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guo, J.; Pan, Y. What Factors Impact Visitors’ Intentions to Use Location-Based AR Games? An Empirical Study from Chinese Cultural Heritage Sites. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914328

AMA Style

Guo J, Pan Y. What Factors Impact Visitors’ Intentions to Use Location-Based AR Games? An Empirical Study from Chinese Cultural Heritage Sites. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914328

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guo, Jiahui, and Younghwan Pan. 2023. "What Factors Impact Visitors’ Intentions to Use Location-Based AR Games? An Empirical Study from Chinese Cultural Heritage Sites" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914328

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop