Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Small Ruminants Farming
Previous Article in Journal
Skill Needs for Sustainable Agri-Food and Forestry Sectors (II): Insights of a European Survey
 
 
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 5
10.3390/su15054117
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

Melting the Psychological Boundary: How Interactive and Sensory Affordance Influence Users’ Adoption of Digital Heritage Service

by
Weiwei Jia
1,
Han Li
1,
Meimei Jiang
1 and
Liang Wu
2,*
1
School of Management Science and Information Engineering, Jilin University of Finance and Economics, Changchun 130117, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4117; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054117
Submission received: 7 February 2023 / Revised: 22 February 2023 / Accepted: 22 February 2023 / Published: 24 February 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As a result of the post-pandemic situation, enhancing digital heritage services has become one of the key issues for the recovery of tourism. Disruptive innovation in human–computer interaction technology has brought new opportunities for digitalization and intelligent transformation in the contemporary cultural tourism industry. Existing research on the adoption behavior of digital heritage services primarily focuses on users’ assessments of behavior results. There is a considerable gap in research about the interaction and value co-creation between users and digital intelligence services and users’ cognitive construction logic of digital heritage services. Following reciprocal determinism, we propose a conceptual model to deconstruct the detailed transmission path of interactive affordance and sensory affordance to digital heritage adoption. In Study 1, a lab experiment in an AI-assisted smart screen digital heritage service context revealed that interactive affordance and user adoption of digital heritage services were partially mediated by psychological distance. Findings from a between-subject online experiment in Study 2 confirmed that embodied cognition and psychological distance play a parallel intermediary role in the impact of sensory affordance on adoption. In Study 3, a lab experiment in a VR-based digital museum context further verified that information overload moderates the influence of embodied cognition on psychological distance. This research reveals the deep-bounded, rational decision-making logic of digital heritage service adoption and provides significant practical enlightenment for the optimization of the affordance experience.

1. Introduction

In the era of digital intelligence, the development of digital heritage service has become an inevitable trend that brings considerable environmental and economic benefits [1,2]. On the one hand, the COVID-19 crisis has brought challenges to the digital transformation of tourism. On the other hand, by using digital heritage services based on information technology, cultural heritage can be protected and passed on sustainably, consumers can co-create the value of services. With the enhancement of the accessibility of wireless connection and the development of affordable imaging technologies, cultural heritage has achieved digital integration with real life, involving value creation in production, distribution, and acquisition [3,4]. Digital heritage is conducive to enabling value, improves the accessibility of fragile cultural relics, releases the great potential of knowledge popularization of scarce cultural heritage such as museum collections, and brings opportunities for tourism destinations to introduce digital technology to realize value creation and expand business model innovation [5,6,7]. Cultural tourism has embraced digital upgrades through smart heritage services, but relevant research has not received enough attention. Increasing the quality of service in digital heritage has become a critical issue for cultural tourism’s digital transformation.
Existing studies mainly interpreted the attractiveness and industrial application value of digital heritage based on application orientation [8,9], and user-oriented perceived values perspective [10,11]. However, it is still unclear how consumers process digital intellectual cultural heritage service information. During the past few years, owing to the deep fusion of information and image technology, the affordance of digital heritage services has been qualitatively improved. Intelligent interaction technology expands the interactive affordance of digital heritage, and consumers can obtain personalized interactive experience with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted tourism services according to their needs [12,13]. Digital experiences undergo a paradigm shift as a result of breakthroughs in information technology such as virtual reality (VR) and the emergence of the metaverse. Tourism is facing new opportunities for digital transformation and situational immersion of cultural heritage protection. Alternative experiences based on virtual visual presentation minimize interference with heritage sites [14]; augmented reality (AR) is applied to digital heritage services to enhance immersive experience and perceived value [11,15]. In recent years, the service scope of digital heritage has involved not only the digital presentation of landscape but also cultural relics and events. The focus of research on the digital transformation strategy of cultural heritage has changed from enhancing the number of visitors to integrating deep intelligent technology into the human–computer coordination mechanism [16].
Failure to address user interaction with digital intelligence services is a critical oversight that should be addressed in order to crack the logic behind digital heritage adoption. Consumers in the tourism context face emerging multiple choices involving interactions with smart services. For example, the existing research has explored whether travelers prefer hotels with robotic or human service based on the COVID-19 impact [17]. A few studies have examined how consumers’ willingness to adopt AI-assisted intelligent services is affected by the health crisis, considering the behavioral immune system [18]. The human-computer interaction logic of hotel service robots has been explored based on the differences between function and social perception [19]. It is worth pointing out that digital heritage services that employ interactive technology emphasize the values of co-creation with customers. Following the service-dominant logic, service is a process in which multiple actors participate in formulating value propositions and co-creating value [20], and revealing the interaction and cognitive mechanism of users with digital heritage services and other companions is a necessary prerequisite for interpreting the logic of digital intelligence value co-creation. Relevant studies have neglected the affordance system of digital heritage as a technology-enabled service supply and the theoretical logic of cognitive conduction, and a significant gap in the research of user cognitive construction logic of digital heritage service still exists. Users’ evaluation of the value of digital heritage is reflected in the interactive perception and embodied experience in the use of technology [21,22]. Improving the affordance experience of digital heritage services and bridging the psychological gap between users and digital heritage are the key issues to break through the bottleneck of digital transformation of the tourism and cultural industry.
Thus, to fill the significant academic gap addressed above, based on a dual perspective of interactive affordance and sensory affordance, this paper deconstructs the internal logic of cognitive processing in the context of digital heritage services. We aim to gain insight into (1) how to interpret the affordance of digital heritage service, (2) what the internal value creation theoretical logic of digital heritage service is, and (3) the mechanism of psychological distance and embodied cognition in the service value transmission of digital heritage service. In other words, this is an in-depth analysis of the adoption mechanism of intelligent service for digital heritage service.
This study makes the following contributions. Firstly, the service adoption of digital heritage service is discussed from the micro level, and the theoretical framework of service adoption is constructed based on the dual perspective of interactive and sensory affordance. Scholars have explored the influencing factors of smart service adoption in the early stage. For example, usefulness and self-efficacy have an influence on smart service adoption, while privacy risk and technology anxiety are barriers to adoption [23]. The communication form of digital media technology is a different perspective [15]. In fact, users are associated with intelligent service through collaborations and give commands through voice and gestures. How to improve service performance based on an interactive and multi-sensory experience is an urgent issue of the times [24]. Taking digital heritage service as the starting point, this research investigates the impact mechanism of interactive and sensory affordance on the adoption of intelligent services, which expands the limitations of single technology affordance research.
Secondly, this study deconstructs the consumer’s psychological cognitive process in the context of digital cultural heritage service. Focusing on psychological distance and embodied cognition, this paper explores the detailed transmission path from affordance to service adoption. On the one hand, it innovatively proposes that interactive affordance and sensory affordance enhance emotional participation and reduce psychological distance. The existing research has shown that the anthropomorphism of AI-assisted service enhances intimacy and reduces psychological distance [25], and with the increasing maturity of digital technologies such as AR\VR, traditional information presentation forms such as text and pictures are replaced by highly interactive and immersive forms [24] that bring opportunities for the reduction of psychological distance. On the other hand, this paper reveals the theoretical logic that sensory affordance under new technologies enhances embodied cognition. There has been research on the application of AR/VR functions to marketing and learning effectiveness [26,27]. This paper clarifies the transmission mechanism of psychological distance and embodied cognition from affordance to intelligent service adoption and expands the understanding of how digital heritage services create value.
Thirdly, this research enriches knowledge of the adoption of digital heritage service and expands the application scope of reciprocal determinism. Many studies have explained the adoption mechanism of service robot technology from the perspective of behavioral theory. For example, studies based on planned behavior theory have shown that employees’ internal and external motivations affect their willingness to use chatbots [28], and research based on the norm theory has pointed out that the application of AI-assisted smart service in catering industry is influenced by factors such as service value and personal and social norms [29]. However, studies on the adoption process of intelligent digital heritage service under the critical situation of technology affordance are scarce. Based on the theory of affordance, this paper discusses the cognitive mechanism of users in the process of accepting digital heritage service, analyzes the psychological processing mechanism under the environment of information overload, and reveals the deep-bounded rational decision-making logic of digital heritage service.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Reciprocal Determinism

Reciprocal determinism interprets the logic of influence among elements based on the interdependence and decision relationship between environment, individual, and behavior [30]. Environmental stimuli play a decisive role in individuals and their behavior; individual cognition affects behavior, and behavior results further change individual cognition and environmental status [31]. This reciprocal determinism realizes the organic integration of environmental determinism, in which behavior is affected by the environment, and self-determinism, in which behavior is affected by instinct, expectation, and drive.
Reciprocal determinism has high applicability in interpreting the relationship among technological environment, individual cognition, and behavior. Based on interactive determinism, scholars have examined the influencing factors of individual and organizational behaviors in different situations. At the level of individual behavior, the community interactivity environment and personal self-construal affect user participation behavior in video-sharing communities [32], and the online learning technology environment and individual learning motivation affect learners’ empowerment [33]. In the field of organizational behavior, the virtual community environment and members’ self-perception affect community cohesion and collective efficiency [34]. Moreover, the organizational innovation atmosphere environment and individual creativity affect innovation performance [35]. Based on reciprocal determinism, this paper interprets consumers’ cognitive processing and acceptance behavior mechanism in the environment of digital cultural heritage service.

2.2. Effect of Affordance on Digital Heritage Service Adoption

The affordance theory describes the possibility that an actor completes a certain behavior using situational elements or objective objects [36]. Affordance refers to the possibility that objects might afford behaviors, such as physical, perceptual, cognitive and functional. With disruptive innovation of information technology, affordance has emerged as a valuable perspective to analyze human–machine relationships and as the possibility that technical functions allow specific users to realize the target behavior [37]. Affordance may be functional, interactive, sensory, associative, visible and of other levels [38,39,40].
Interactive affordance provides users with the possibility of interactive behavior. In the era of digital intelligence, interactivity has become an essential indicator of customer experience [41]. From the perspective of information transmission, interactivity refers to the enhancement of the interaction between users and computers through new technologies, which is reactive, interactive and reciprocal [42]. Interactive affordance improves interactivity; users’ needs are immediately met, and the realization of consumption behavior is accelerated, which is of outstanding importance in communication [43,44]. Machine-based interactions should enhance features such as selectivity, connectivity, information gathering and reciprocal communication [45]. The degree to which smart service may promote and respond to communication is a representation of their interaction [46], and in digital heritage service, consumers may interact with both smart service robots and other companions, enhancing their interactive experience.
Sensory affordance refers to the subject’s sensory experience and behavioral attitude towards technology, which interprets the complex relationship between technology and society based on the perspective of user perception and action [37,47]; this is one of the important dimensions of affordance. Studies have pointed out that museums should meet people’s expectations of multifunctional social roles such as physical sensory accessibility [48]. In recent years, scholars have gained beneficial insight into the anthropomorphic affordance of AI-assisted service. On the one hand, according to the media equation theory, visual and auditory anthropomorphism affects users’ perception of similarity in AI-assisted service and generates a sense of warmth [49]. On the other hand, following the uncanny valley, the over-anthropomorphic design of service robots may trigger fear and offense.
The affordance theory provides a theoretical interpretation perspective for the IT ability of enterprises, users’ metaverse games experience, and travel live streaming [50,51,52]. As a new human–computer interaction channel, the influencing mechanism of smart service has also attracted researchers’ attention. First, studies based on social exchange theory and reciprocity have indicated that human–computer interaction is a circular process of resource exchange and self-cognitive reinforcement, and the intelligence and perceived social interaction of service robots affect the rapport of human–machine interaction and use intention [53]. Based on the value co-creation perspective, scholars have revealed the impact of smart service interactive affordance on customer participation [54]. Secondly, service robots affect value perception in human–machine interactions through sensory affordance such as sound, vision and touch [55]. Compared with AI services with mono-sensory stimuli, multisensory stimuli affect customers’ continuous use intention through psychological distance [56]. Following the technology readiness and acceptance model, when cultural heritage uses AR digital technology, the influence of visual and sensory attraction factors and situational factors on tourists’ use and visit intention should be clearly considered [8]. In general, as an emerging intelligent service subject, the interactive affordance and sensory affordance of digital heritage service influence users’ usage intention. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
H1a. 
Interactive affordance enhances users’ adoption of digital heritage service.
H1b. 
Sensory affordance enhances users’ adoption of digital heritage service.

2.3. Psychological Distance as a Potential Mediation Mechanism

Following the time construction theory, psychological distance relates to the subjective experience perception of being close or far away from certain people, places, events or psychological representations. It refers to the individual’s proximity to objects or events in time, space, social relations, and uncertain events involving time distance, space distance, social distance and probability distance, etc. [57,58].
The existing psychological distance research is applied to the fields of management and communication. Psychological distance affects consumers’ decision-making behavior; moreover, physical distance between physical retail stores and consumers affects psychological distance perception and then purchase intention [59]. When consumers find that the brand’s behavior on social media is morally or competently contradictory, psychological distance affects product evaluation [60]. The research from the perspective of interpretive level theory proposes that emotional service experience can reduce customers’ psychological distance and thus increase the willingness to participate in interaction [61]. At the organizational management level, the reduction of psychological distance can improve the employees’ pro-environment attitude and promote the sustainable development practice of enterprises [62]. In addition, psychological distance is an obstacle for users to respond to climate change, and psychological distance in climate change affects users’ participation and attention behavior [63,64].
Researchers’ understanding of how smart services affect psychological distance perception has grown in recent years. On the one hand, there may be an increase in psychological distance associated with smart services; for example, mobile remote simulation interview increases the psychological distance of interviewees in the communication space [65]. Individuals feel greater psychological distance when interacting with AI agents than with human agents [66]; nevertheless, the more the service robot behaves like a humanoid, the stronger the participants’ sense of enthusiasm, which narrows the human–robot psychosocial distance [67]. AI assistant personification features close the psychological distance between users and AI assistants in the process of interaction and promote the positive evaluation of participants [68]. Based on the theory of social response, scholars propose that high empathy AI response can shorten the psychological distance between customers and AI, which then increases the former’s intention to continue using it [56]. The human-like interaction affordance of the digital service in the virtual space improves user participation, and perception of sensory affordance improves the sense of immersion. The emotional connection and image recognition of the digital service is enhanced, thus reducing the psychological distance between technology and user, which further affects service adoption. In view of this, this paper makes the following assumptions:
H2a. 
Psychological distance mediates the impact of interactive affordance on users’ adoption of digital heritage services.
H2b. 
Psychological distance mediates the impact of sensory affordance on users’ adoption of digital heritage services.

2.4. The Mediating Role of Embodied Cognition

According to the embodied cognition theory, human cognitive activities are significantly linked to the body and the environment, which is an integrated cognition of body and brain embedded in each other [69,70]. Based on the integration of situation and environment, immersive experiences improve embodied cognition as the direct sense of physical presence and the multidimensional relationship with the world can stimulate the user’s imagination and sense of space [71]. Based on the vivid, multi-level information simulated by immersive virtual technology, users can generate sensory perception and stimulate an embodied experience of reality [72].
When using a digital heritage service, the interaction of body, perception, environment and other elements helps embodied cognition; in other words, sensory perception and body perception enhance embodied cognition. Moreover, multi-sensory experiences and richness of information may enhance user experience [73]. In the new wave of cultural heritage visualization, visual, acoustic and immersive technologies provide opportunities to draw and repair tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and the expressive and embodied narrative functions are expanded [24].
Embodied cognition believes that the interaction between human beings and the spatial world produces cognition [74]. Embodied cognition involves multiple physical, virtual and hybrid spaces of service robotics, and VR technology enhances interactivity and creates an immersive space experience. For example, AR enhances the user’s internalized embodiment of game value [75]. Smart service constructs the digital space and obtains interactive information based on a personalized service, providing a new channel for knowledge exploration.
Previous studies have found that embodied cognition is a cognitive system process based on the acquisition and use of specific physical experience information [76]. According to the embodied cognition theory, the sensory experience of physical cues is the direct causal input of embodied cognition, and the sensory experience produced by touch, sight and taste can affect personal decision-making. VR and AR technologies enable users to feel the embodied cognition of sensory cues in stories through empathy, thus creating a sense of immersion. As immersion is an embodied cognitive state, the boundary between subjectivity and external objectivity in it is relatively fuzzy, which increases the perception of the authenticity of the virtual environment and produces higher trust [75,77]. Based on expectation confirmation theory, scholars have interpreted users’ psychological cognition in an immersive journalism environment and revealed the dynamic role of immersion [78].
In addition, an avatar’s embodied cognition affects one’s emotional experience. The emotional expression of virtual characters in metaverse games can arouse the self-identification of embodied cognition and then affect users’ emotional response and emotional experience [79]. Perceptual symbol system (PSS) theory emphasizes that an individual’s synchronized physical sensory experience leads to a positive evaluation of products [80]. In the context of a digital heritage service, embodied cognition is a process of information processing and cognitive processing of users’ sensory affordance cues. As it is of great significance to extend the research of embodied cognition to the perspective of sensory affordance, the following hypotheses are brought forth to investigate the relationship between sensory affordance and users’ adoption of digital heritage services from the viewpoint of embodied cognition and psychological distance:
H3a. 
Embodied cognition mediates the influence of sensory affordance on users’ adoption of digital heritage service.
H3b. 
Embodied cognition mediates the influence of sensory affordance on psychological distance.

2.5. Information Overload as a Potential Moderating Mechanism

Information overload refers to the state by which individuals cannot effectively process relevant and useful information, which exceeds their ability to receive and process information; this leads to boredom and psychological anxiety [81,82]. According to the information overload model, information characteristics such as information content and complexity, task, and process parameters and prior experience affect users’ information processing and behavior decisions [83]. The existing research has mainly focused on users’ psychological and behavioral decision response under information overload. Consumers have different information overload perception due to diversified processing capabilities of information and knowledge [84]. Based on the logic of information processing, users tend to adopt a heuristic processing policy when they have enough reliable information to fully support decision making. The poor quality of information influences consumers’ perception of information overload, which results in negative behavioral outcome. Information overload leads to decision-making difficulties, increases perceived risk, reduces purchase intention, and even leads to the sharing of unverified information [85].
In the context of a digital heritage service, information overload is a high degree of information response exchange promoted by the affordance of digital services. When product information is complex and fuzzy, users have trouble getting targeted guidance in a virtual environment. In addition, the huge amount of information by smart digital service exceeds individual needs and may bring negative emotional states to users in the information exchange, expanding the psychological distance between them and AI-assisted services [86]. Individuals prefer to interact in relaxed sensory situations rather than deal with stress, information anxiety, and overload sensory situations. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. 
Information overload moderates the influence of sensory affordance on psychological distance.
Based on the research hypotheses above, the research model is constructed as follows (see Figure 1).

3. Methodology and Result Analysis

Three studies, including one-shot case studies and between-subject design, were designed to test the above hypotheses. In addition, for the stimulus scenario design, we collected emerging application scenarios of digital heritage and invited tourism experts to discuss them. Finally, we chose digital museum and sightseeing as the cultural heritage contexts. The empirical studies were conducted in China. It is a representative region for the study of digital heritage services for the following reasons: first, the cultural digitization strategy is the major development direction of China during the 14th Five-Year Plan period. Second, China is one of the four ancient civilizations with a long history and cultural heritage.

3.1. Study 1

3.1.1. Purpose and Design

In Study 1, we examined how interactive affordance affects digital heritage service adoption and the role psychological distance plays as a mediating factor. A one-shot case study was designed in museum and sightseeing contexts. A total of 112 undergraduate students in management science and engineering from a northern university in China took part in the study (48% men, 52% women). In the museum context, participants considered a situation in which they were planning to go to a museum to learn historical and cultural facts (52 participants). In the sightseeing context, participants considered a situation in which they were planning to go sightseeing to experience local culture and customs (60 participants). Then, each participant took turns interacting with an AI-assisted smart screen digital heritage service robot in the laboratory. Everyone asked three questions to interact with the AI assistant digital heritage service and receive feedback in the forms of voice, pictures, and videos (see Figure 2). Afterwards, participants filled in the questionnaires.
All variables except demographic characteristics were rated using a 7-point Likert scale. Interactive affordance was measured by three items: “I can communicate well when using the digital heritage service”, “The digital heritage service provides me with information according to my needs”, and “The information sent to me by the digital heritage service is customized according to my situation” [42,43]. Psychological distance was rated on the following items: “The digital heritage service gives me the feeling of being far/close”, “The digital heritage service makes me feel inaccessible/accessible”, and “The digital heritage service gives me the impression that it is unfriendly/friendly” [59]. The measurement of service adoption was based on three items: “I will use the digital heritage service next time I travel”, “In the future, I will use the digital heritage service”, and “I will recommend the digital heritage service to others” [18].

3.1.2. Results

Hierarchical multiple regression and bootstrapping were conducted to determine whether psychological distance mediates the relation between interactive affordance and adoption of digital heritage services (see Table 1). Regression model I shows that interactive affordance has a significant effect on the adoption of digital heritage services (βmuseum = 0.898, pmuseum < 0.001; βsightseeing = 0.698, psightseeing < 0.001) and regression model II implies that interactive affordance has a significant effect on psychological distance (βmuseum = −0.561, pmuseum < 0.001; βsightseeing = −0.537, psightseeing < 0.01). When psychological distance is introduced, the impact of interactive affordance on service adoption is still significant (βmuseum = 0.671, pmuseum < 0.001; βsightseeing = 0.437, psightseeing < 0.001), and psychological distance has a significant impact on service adoption (βmuseum = −0.406, pmuseum < 0.01; βsightseeing = −0.485, psightseeing < 0.001).
Mediation analysis based on PROCESS model 4 in SPSS with a 5000 bootstrap sample showed that interactive affordance had an indirect effect on service adoption through psychological distance in the digital museum context (β = 0.228, CI = [0.062, 0.585]), that the 95% confidence interval excluded zero, and 25.4% of the total effect was due to indirect effects (see Table 2). Moreover, interactive affordance also had an indirect effect on service adoption through psychological distance in the sightseeing context (β = 0.260, CI = [0.109, 0.447]), with the 95% confidence interval also excluding zero. Approximately 37.3% of the total effect came from indirect effects; therefore, psychological distance plays a partial intermediary effect between interactive affordance and service adoption.

3.2. Study 2

3.2.1. Purpose and Design

Study 2 aimed to verify the research findings in Study 1 and further investigate whether embodied cognition and psychological distance mediate the influence of sensory affordance on service adoption.
In contrast to Study 1, we used a one-factor, two-level (low vs high) between-subject design to manipulate sensory affordance. A total of 216 Chinese consumers (46% men and 54% women; those aged between 21 and 30 years accounted for 42.6%) were recruited from the Credamo consumer panel and randomly assigned to low sensory affordance (AI-assisted chat service) and high affordance online experiment condition (AI-assisted VR service). After viewing the digital heritage service ad (see Figure 3), participants responded to measures that collected psychological distance perception, embodied cognition, service adoption, and manipulation checks of sensory affordance, as well as demographic questions.
The measurement of psychological distance and service adoption was the same as Study 1. Sensory affordance was measured using four items: “The digital heritage service provides me with tangible clues”, “The digital heritage service provides me with sensory experience”, “The cultural heritage service has a strong sense of picture”, “The cultural heritage service has a strong sense of scene substitution”.

3.2.2. Results

Manipulation Check

We adopted an independent t-test to verify inter-group differences. The results revealed that participants in the high sensory affordance condition (Mhigh = 5.74) felt more sensory feelings than those in the low sensory affordance condition (Mlow = 4.99) and showed a significant difference (F = 9.788, t = −4.859, p = 0.000). Thus, sensory affordance was successfully manipulated.

Mediation Effect

Hierarchical multiple regression and bootstrapping verified that interactive affordance had an indirect effect on digital service adoption through psychological distance (β = 0.260, CI = [0.171, 0.355]).
Sensory affordance was set as a dummy variable to investigate the parallel mediating roles of embodied cognition and psychological distance in the influence of sensory affordance on digital heritage service adoption. As shown in regression model 4 and model 6 (see Table 3), sensory affordance negatively affected psychological distance (β = −0.482, p < 0.05) and positively affected embodied cognition (β = 0.925, p < 0.001). When psychological distance and embodied cognition were introduced, sensory affordance had a significant impact on service adoption (β = −0.319, p < 0.05). Both embodied cognition (β = 0.355, p < 0.001) and psychological distance (β = −0.413, p < 0.001) had a significant impact on service adoption. Moreover, mediation analysis based on PROCESS with a 5000 bootstrapping sample (see Table 4) showed that sensory affordance had an indirect effect on service adoption though embodied cognition (β = 0.328, CI = [0.182, 0.508]) and psychological distance (β = 0.199, CI = [0.044, 0.373]). Sensory affordance directly affected digital service adoption (β = −0.319, CI = [−0.566, −0.072]). The above results verified the parallel mediating mechanism of embodied cognition and psychological distance in the relationship between sensory affordance and digital heritage service adoption.

3.3. Study 3

3.3.1. Purpose and Design

In Study 3, we aimed to verify the results in the above two studies and further test the moderation role of information overload. A one-shot case study was designed in an interactive and VR based on the digital museum context.
Targeted experimental material featuring a multi-person interaction and VR museum game named “museum of other realities” was chosen for this experiment because games constitute one of the common fields in exploring service scenario digitization in China. An invitation to join a lab experiment was sent to all students at a university in northern China via a campus poster. A total of 209 university students were recruited; excluding two students who had heard of “museum of other realities” before, 207 participants (44% men and 56% women) finally participated in the experiment to eliminate interference from previous experience.
When the participants arrived at the laboratory, they were assisted in wearing VR glasses and using the handle equipment. Considering that the general duration VR experience halls is usually 3–5 min, in this experiment, each participant experienced the virtual museum experimental material for 4 min (see Figure 4). Afterwards, they filled in an online questionnaire. The measurements in Study 3 were the same as those in Study 1 and Study 2.

3.3.2. Results

First, exploratory analysis was applied to verify the data validity. KMO measure (0.930) and Bartlett’s value (χ2 = 4257.191, df = 171, p = 0.000) supported high viability. Twenty items were grouped into six factors with a total variance of 87.871. For all constructs, the Cronbach’s α were above 0.80, indicating high composite reliability (see Table 5).
Confirmatory factor analysis was adopted to further verify content validity. As shown in Table 6, an acceptable measurement model fit was demonstrated by all indices (CMIN/df = 1.696 < 3, GFI = 0.901, NFI = 0.948, IFI = 0.978, TLI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.058 < 0.8). Moreover, all the AVE values were greater than the 0.50 level, and factor loadings were above 0.70, implying high convergent validity. Further, the coefficients in all correlations between constructs were less than AVE measures (see Table 7), indicating that discriminant validity was high. The variance inflation factors (VIFs) were estimated to evaluate multicollinearity within the composite indicators. The VIF values ranged from 1.178 to 3.467, which suggests there is no problem with multicollinearity.
The structural model was examined using structured equation modeling in Study 3. The model fit showed acceptable values (CMIN/df = 1.936 < 3, GFI = 0.900, NFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.067 < 0.8). Path coefficients provided evidence for the influencing logic of affordance, psychological distance, and embodied cognition on service adoption (see Table 8). The AMOS model showed that embodied cognition partially mediates the impact of sensory affordance on psychological distance (indirect effect = −0.467; total effect = −0.647; direct effect = −0.180, p = 0.003).
To examine the moderating mechanism of information overload, a PROCESS model 5 analysis (5000 bootstrapped sample) based on SPSS was conducted. As shown in Table 9, taking gender, age and education level as control variables, sensory affordance had a significant influence on psychological distance (model I, β = −0.639, p < 0.001) and embodied cognition (model II, β = 0.900, pmuseum < 0.001). When information overload, the interaction between sensory affordance and information overload, and embodied cognition were introduced in the influence of sensory affordance on psychological distance (model V), all the above had significant influence on service adoption. Sensory affordance had a conditional direct effect on psychological distance and an indirect effect on psychological distance through embodied cognition (see Table 10). For users with low information overload, the psychological distance reduction brought by the improvement of sensory affordance is stronger (see Figure 5).

4. Discussion

4.1. The Intermediary Mechanism of Psychological Distance in the Effect of Interactive Affordance on Service Adoption

Study 1 confirmed that interactive affordance had a positive impact on the adoption of digital heritage services. Existing research has suggested that interactive affordance enhances the willingness to purchase intelligent services [53]. Smart digital heritage service has a distinctive interactivity. This study expands the psychological processing transmission mechanism of interactive affordance and finds a significant correlation between interactive affordance and the adoption of digital heritage service. Following the service dominant logic, the benefit-oriented supply of relational service value is the essence of service. Interactive supply experience is an important hub to achieve effective value delivery, and social interaction is a positive influence factor for the adoption of smart service. Users expect intelligent services to have interactive properties, reduce the perception of time and space distance with digital cultural heritage, and drive the formation of identity. Through personalized, multi-scene, real-time interaction with a smart digital heritage service, consumers can enhance closeness, establish emotional bonds, promote the achievement of common service goals [87] and create service value together.
The mediation effect test further showed that interactive affordance affects service adoption through psychological distance, which is in line with the theoretical logic of relationship marketing. Increasing interactive experience can build relationship perception, increase the degree of proximity to the uncertainty of digital technology, and reduce psychological distance. Interaction is the process of service value co-creation, and interaction commonality can establish the relationship between experience and psychological processing and maximize the impact of interactive affordance on service adoption. Smart digital heritage services have more intelligent information processing capabilities than traditional cultural tourism service personnel, and the service is more personalized to enhance users’ sense of participation with digital intelligence. Psychological distance is an important transmission factor to promote service adoption. Compared with traditional tour guides and other face-to-face live explanations, users may lack interactive situational awareness of the digital heritage services. They appreciate the perceived benefits of smart service experience and psychological emotional support, and overcoming the psychological distance of social relations based on interactive affordance can better stimulate service adoption.

4.2. The Parallel Mediation Effect of Personal Cognition and Psychological Distance in Sensory Affordance and Service Adoption

The results of Experiment 2 and Experiment 3 show that physical cognition and psychological distance have parallel mediating effects on the relationship between sensory affordance and service adoption. Existing research has shown that authenticity in the virtual environment improves credibility [75,77]. This study analyzed the affordance of digital cultural heritage services based on sensory experience and identified the transmission mechanism of the impact of sensory affordance on service adoption from the perspective of cognitive processing, namely sensory affordance → personal cognition → service adoption and sensory affordance → psychological distance → service adoption. Sensory affordance can build a perceptual bridge between experience and cognitive construction and contribute to the effect of sensory affordance on service adoption. Based on the physical sensory clues provided by VR and AR, smart digital heritage services enhance the integration of users’ bodies, perception and intelligent environment, improve the sense of presence, enhance embodied cognition, and positively affect its value judgment. In addition, multi-dimensional sensory clues can enhance users’ imagination and sense of space [71], reduce their perception of the time and space distance of digital heritage, and activate a service adoption tendency. In addition, compared with the transmission path of psychological distance, the transmission path of embodied cognition has a greater impact. In the construction of digital heritage, the senses can be used to optimize the experience and shorten the psychological distance.

4.3. The Moderating Mechanism of Information Overload in the Influence of Sensory Affordance on Psychological Distance

Experiment 3 confirmed that information overload moderates the impact of sensory affordance on service adoption and was consistent with prior research suggesting that information overload negatively impacts behavioral intentions [88], thus expanding the research on the impact of digital heritage services on users’ information element processing. In the context of information overload, users face information anxiety, risk perception, and decision-making difficulties [85,89], and low information overload enhances the impact of sensory affordance on the reduction of psychological distance. Intelligent services of digital cultural heritage should focus on information overload management and optimize the impact of sensory affordance on the reduction of users’ psychological distance based on the amount of information.

5. Conclusions, Implications and Limitations

5.1. Conclusions

Based on interactive determinism, this study focused on sensory affordance and interactive affordance to interpret the technical affordance of digital heritage service. With psychological distance and embodied cognition as the intermediary, and information overload as the adjusting variable, it analyzed the theoretical logic behind the impact of the affordance of digital heritage service on users’ adoption intention in depth. The study found that psychological distance has a complete intermediary effect on the influence of interactive affordance on service adoption, and psychological distance and embodied cognition have a parallel mediating effect on the relationship between sensory affordance and digital service adoption. Moreover, information overload moderates the influence of sensory affordance on psychological distance. That is, compared with a situation of high information overload, the psychological distance shortened by the improvement of sensory affordance under low information overload is stronger.

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This paper extends theoretical research on digital heritage adoption behavior and value co-creation in the following ways. First, we introduced interactive determinism to reveal the theoretical logic behind the affordance of digital heritage service and its impact on users’ individual cognitive processing, which compensates for the lack of analysis of the cognitive processing process of digital heritage services in existing research. As a new topic in the field of digital transformation of tourism and cultural industry, digital heritage service has not been deeply explored in its cognitive processing process and mechanism in existing research. Following interactive determinism, this research identifies the transmission elements of the digital heritage service to achieve the service effect, explains the impact mechanism of technology affordance on service adoption, expands the application of interactive determinism, and enriches the theoretical and logical cognition of the digital heritage service’s affordance to achieve a service innovation outcome. In addition, this paper reveals the impact path of embodied cognition and psychological distance on service adoption. Cognitive processing is the key logic of analyzing behavior mechanism. This study found that sensory affordance affects service adoption not only through embodied cognition but also through psychological distance, and interactive affordance acts on service adoption through psychological distance. The intermediary role of psychological distance deepens the understanding of user–robot interaction, and the intermediary role of embodied cognition expands the theoretical interpretation of the relationship between sensory affordance and service adoption. This research provides a systematic interpretation for the discussion of the intermediary mechanism of the affordance of digital cultural heritage services, reveals the influencing logic of affordance on smart service adoption, enriches the existing knowledge about the effect mechanism of affordance, and provides a theoretical logic for the research on the transmission of affordance to service outcome.
Secondly, this study uncovers the path of information overload on psychological distance, filling the gap in existing research on the impact mechanism of information overload. In the context of smart digital heritage service, information overload is a new perspective to interpret its affordance effect boundary. This paper creatively analyzes users’ psychological cognition of intelligent services based on the perspective of information overload and studies its moderating mechanism in the impact of sensory affordance on users’ adoption of digital heritage service, offering an innovative perspective on the strategic practice of providing intelligent service affordances for digital heritage.
In terms of practical implications, this paper provides valuable insight into the construction of digital heritage and the optimization of service affordance experiences. First, in order for a digital heritage service to be adopted, it should be affordance-driven. The reduction of psychological distance and the improvement of embodied cognition are important indicators of the realization of the service effect. Based on a cognitive view, interactive determinism analyzes the core relationship between environment, individual and behavior, and the reason why consumers accept the digital heritage service is the embodiment and psychological processing brought by affordance. Unlike the traditional service logic that emphasizes face-to-face service interaction, in the context of digital heritage service, consumers’ service adoption process has a higher situational cognitive processing logic. The development of a digital heritage service strategy should focus on the evaluation of the affordance of intelligent service technology, which is the fundamental path to enhance the adoption of digital heritage service.
Secondly, this research is conductive to the tourism and cultural industries, revealing the internal logic of the adoption of digital heritage services. The results show that service adoption is supported by psychological distance and embodied cognitive processing, and the improvement of interactive affordance is conducive to shortening the psychological distance of individuals to technology and improving service adoption. The cultural tourism industry should be aware of the importance of optimizing sensory affordance and interactive affordance and innovate the application of experience management strategies in improving the effectiveness of smart services. In addition, the improvement of sensory affordance is conducive to improving consumers’ embodied cognition and weakening psychological distance when contacting digital heritage services, and to realizing the transformation to service adoption. On the one hand, the development of digital culture industry should pay attention to the innovation of interaction strategies, actively build a bridge of human–machine communication in digital intelligence context, shape the value of relationship in interaction, and enhance users’ sense of participation and identity. This is an essential way to enhance the innovation of digital heritage services based on user orientation. On the other hand, the cultural tourism industry should actively expand the sensory affordance of digital cultural heritage services and enhance the embodied cognitive guidance and incentive strategies of consumers. Digital transformation institutions should pay attention to building multi-sensory experience scenarios, enhance the penetration of perception systems in digital services, build the perception function attributes of digital heritage under the integration of virtual space and reality, and promote the formation of metaverse, enabling the sensory supply mechanism of digital heritage. In addition, this research indicates that information overload is important for psychological distance processing in digital heritage services, finding that compared with a situation of high information overload, the psychological distance reduction effect brought by the realization of sensory affordance in a situation of low information overload is greater. Faced with low information overload, sensory affordance is more conducive to reducing psychological distance perception. The digital intelligence service of the cultural tourism industry should consider the possible negative impact of information overload while paying attention to the improvement of sensory affordance experience.

5.3. Limitations and Potential Future Research

While this study deconstructed the internal logic of users’ adoption of digital heritage services based on affordances innovatively and verified the propositions with experiments, there are still some limitations to be recognized. In the future, relevant research needs to be expanded. First, in this case, we explored user cognition and adoption behavior in the context of digital heritage. In the near future, once the high perceived authenticity of the virtual environment has been realized, the value proposition may shift from knowledge experience value to knowledge application value. Further research could explore how the real-world scenarios and virtual space, such as the metaverse, can be integrated to realize the empowerment value of digital heritage service. Therefore, the organic integration path of virtual tourism and physical tourism is the future research direction. In addition, the user experience of different avatars may be different. Future research can expand the third- and first-person perspectives on how personal experience affects cognitive process and service adoption. In addition, a further interesting research question is how positive and negative emotions influence users’ cognition and behavior [79].
Secondly, as far as the adoption of digital heritage services is concerned, we only examined psychological distance from the perspective of social relations. This is consistent with research in the field of online consumer behavior [59], enabling us to expand the research on the user cognitive process of digital heritage. Future study may discuss the impact of multidimensional psychological distance on service adoption, such as the impact of the occurrence probability of events in the real world on the processing and adoption of digital heritage information. In addition, psychological distance perception may affect users’ emotions when using digital heritage services. Exploring the impacts of technology affordance on psychological distance and the multiple types of emotions and effects generated in the process of personal cognition may be a potential research direction. In addition, in the future, research on the dynamic evolution logic of users’ adoption behavior with regard to digital heritage service could be conducted based on a longitudinal design, exploring the application boundary of sensory affordance in differentiated digital heritage service scenarios.
Finally, even though we focused on the moderating effects of information overload on users’ cognitive processing of digital heritage, this contributed to our understanding of the boundary conditions of user adoption mechanisms for digital heritage services. In this study, empirical research was conducted in one country which may be a lack of representation of all users across cultures. In addition, stereotypes and special groups may also serve as moderating factors. Future research can further expand the boundaries of digital cultural heritage service user adoption. For example, exploring the impact of children and elderly groups’ information literacy in terms of digital heritage service adoption could be a potential research direction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.J. and L.W.; methodology, W.J., H.L. and M.J.; software, H.L. and M.J.; validation, W.J., H.L., M.J. and L.W.; formal analysis, W.J.; investigation, M.J. and H.L.; resources, L.W.; data curation, H.L. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, H.L., M.J. and W.J.; writing—review and editing, W.J., M.J. and L.W.; visualization, W.J. and L.W.; supervision, W.J. and L.W.; project administration, W.J. and L.W.; funding acquisition, W.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research got support from National Social Science Fund of China (17CGL006).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Jilin University of Finance and Economics, China.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. Requires can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Laing, J.; Wheeler, F.; Reeves, K.; Frost, W. Assessing the experiential value of heritage assets: A case study of a Chinese heritage precinct, Bendigo, Australia. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Russo-Spena, T.; Tregua, M.; D’Auria, A.; Bifulco, F. A digital business model: An illustrated framework from the cultural heritage business. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2022, 28, 2000–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Were, G. Digital heritage in a Melanesian context: Authenticity, integrity and ancestrality from the other side of the digital divide. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2015, 21, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Were, G. Out of touch? Digital technologies, ethnographic objects and sensory orders. In Touch in Museums; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2020; pp. 121–134. [Google Scholar]
  5. Remondino, F. Heritage recording and 3D modeling with photogrammetry and 3D scanning. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1104–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Tscheu, F.; Buhalis, D. Augmented reality at cultural heritage sites. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 607–619. [Google Scholar]
  7. Korro Bañuelos, J.; Rodríguez Miranda, Á.; Valle-Melón, J.M.; Zornoza-Indart, A.; Castellano-Román, M.; Angulo-Fornos, R.; Pinto-Puerto, F.; Acosta Ibáñez, P.; Ferreira-Lopes, P. The role of information management for the sustainable conservation of cultural heritage. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. 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]
  9. Swensen, G.; Nomeikaite, L. Museums as narrators: Heritage trails in a digital era. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 525–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S. A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gatelier, E.; Ross, D.; Phillips, L.; Suquet, J.-B. A business model innovation methodology for implementing digital interpretation experiences in European cultural heritage attractions. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sigala, M. New media and technologies: Trends and management issues for cultural tourism. In International Cultural Tourism; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2006; pp. 187–200. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kabassi, K. Personalisation systems for cultural tourism. In Multimedia Services in Intelligent Environments; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  14. Noh, Z.; Sunar, M.S.; Pan, Z. A review on augmented reality for virtual heritage system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment 2009, Banff, AB, Canada, 9–11 August 2019; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 50–61. [Google Scholar]
  15. Errichiello, L.; Micera, R.; Atzeni, M.; Del Chiappa, G. Exploring the implications of wearable virtual reality technology for museum visitors’ experience: A cluster analysis. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 590–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Laws, A.S. Museum Websites and Social Media: Issues of Participation, Sustainability, Trust and Diversity; Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim, S.S.; Kim, J.; Badu-Baiden, F.; Giroux, M.; Choi, Y. Preference for robot service or human service in hotels? Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kang, Q.; Zhou, L.; Liu, J.; Ran, Y. Do contagion cues shape customers’ willingness to adopt hospitality service robots? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 104, 103244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Song, B.; Zhang, M.; Wu, P. Driven by technology or sociality? Use intention of service robots in hospitality from the human–robot interaction perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 106, 103278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xie, L.; Liu, C.; Li, D. Proactivity or passivity? An investigation of the effect of service robots’ proactive behaviour on customer co-creation intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 106, 103271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gallarza, M.G.; Maubisson, L.; Rivière, A. Replicating consumer value scales: A comparative study of EVS and PERVAL at a cultural heritage site. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 126, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. 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]
  23. Yang, H.; Yu, J.; Zo, H.; Choi, M. User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value. Telemat. Inform. 2016, 33, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Buono, M.; Capece, S.; Chivăran, C.; Gerbino, S.; Giugliano, G.; Greco, A.; Laudante, E.; Nappi, M.L.; Scognamiglio, C. Multisensory Fruition Between Cultural Heritage and Digital Transformation. In Perspectives on Design and Digital Communication III; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 329–355. [Google Scholar]
  25. Baek, T.H.; Bakpayev, M.; Yoon, S.; Kim, S. Smiling AI agents: How anthropomorphism and broad smiles increase charitable giving. Int. J. Advert. 2022, 41, 850–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kurilovas, E. Evaluation of quality and personalisation of VR/AR/MR learning systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Javornik, A. Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 30, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Brachten, F.; Kissmer, T.; Stieglitz, S. The acceptance of chatbots in an enterprise context–A survey study. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 60, 102375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jang, H.-W.; Lee, S.-B. The relationship between contact-free services, social and personal norms, and customers’ behavior for the sustainable management of the restaurant industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bandura, A. The self system in reciprocal determinism. Am. Psychol. 1978, 33, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bandura, A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1986, 4, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, M.; Zhang, M.; Luo, N. Understanding participation on video sharing communities: The role of self-construal and community interactivity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pan, X. Examining the influencing factors and the functioning mechanism of online learning supporting learners’ empowerment. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1028264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lianju, N.; Qian, L.; Wen, X. Empirical analysis on influence mechanism of cohesiveness and collective efficacy of virtual community based on triadic reciprocal determinism. China Commun. 2014, 11, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhao, Y.; Lin, S.; Liu, J. Employee innovative performance in science and technology-based small and medium-sized enterprises: A triadic reciprocal determinism perspective. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2020, 48, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Greeno, J.G. Gibson’s affordances. Psychol. Rev. 1994, 101, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Yan, R.; Gong, X. Peer-to-peer accommodation platform affordance: Scale development and empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 144, 922–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Treem, J.W.; Leonardi, P.M. Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2013, 36, 143–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oostervink, N.; Agterberg, M.; Huysman, M. Knowledge sharing on enterprise social media: Practices to cope with institutional complexity. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2016, 21, 156–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Hartson, R. Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2003, 22, 315–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, G.; Hu, X.; Wu, Y. Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived web assurance and disposition to trust on initial online trust. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2010, 16, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Downes, E.J.; McMillan, S.J. Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media Soc. 2000, 2, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, W.-H.; Lin, C.-W.; Shih, K.-H. A technology acceptance model for the perception of restaurant service robots for trust, interactivity, and output quality. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2018, 16, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Varadarajan, R.; Srinivasan, R.; Vadakkepatt, G.G.; Yadav, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Krause, T. Interactive technologies and retailing strategy: A review, conceptual framework and future research directions. J. Interact. Mark. 2010, 24, 96–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ha, L.; James, E.L. Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1998, 42, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, D.; Chen, Q.; Huang, J.; Kong, S.; Li, Z. Customer-robot interactions: Understanding customer experience with service robots. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 99, 103078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chemero, A. An outline of a theory of affordances. In How Shall Affordances Be Refined? Four Perspectives; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; pp. 181–195. [Google Scholar]
  48. Black, G. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Appel, M.; Lugrin, B.; Kühle, M.; Heindl, C. The emotional robotic storyteller: On the influence of affect congruency on narrative transportation, robot perception, and persuasion. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 120, 106749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guo, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, J. Business Model Innovation of IT-Enabled Customer Participating in Value Co-Creation Based on the Affordance Theory: A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shin, D. The actualization of meta affordances: Conceptualizing affordance actualization in the metaverse games. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Deng, Z.; Benckendorff, P.; Wang, J. From interaction to relationship: Rethinking parasocial phenomena in travel live streaming. Tour. Manag. 2022, 93, 104583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, H.; So, K.K.F.; Wirtz, J. Service robots: Applying social exchange theory to better understand human–robot interactions. Tour. Manag. 2022, 92, 104537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gao, L.; Li, G.; Tsai, F.; Gao, C.; Zhu, M.; Qu, X. The impact of artificial intelligence stimuli on customer engagement and value co-creation: The moderating role of customer ability readiness. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
  55. Belk, R. Ethical issues in service robotics and artificial intelligence. Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 41, 860–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Lv, X.; Yang, Y.; Qin, D.; Cao, X.; Xu, H. Artificial intelligence service recovery: The role of empathic response in hospitality customers’ continuous usage intention. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 126, 106993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Darke, P.R.; Brady, M.K.; Benedicktus, R.L.; Wilson, A.E. Feeling close from afar: The role of psychological distance in offsetting distrust in unfamiliar online retailers. J. Retail. 2016, 92, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chung, S.; Park, J. Exploring consumer evaluations in social media: The role of psychological distance between company and consumer. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 76, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Holmqvist, J.; Guest, D.; Grönroos, C. The role of psychological distance in value creation. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 1430–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Boivin, D.V.; Boiral, O. So close, yet so far away: Exploring the role of psychological distance from climate change on corporate sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chen, M.-F. Effects of psychological distance perception and psychological factors on pro-environmental behaviors in Taiwan: Application of construal level theory. Int. Sociol. 2020, 35, 70–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Van Lange, P.A.; Huckelba, A.L. Psychological distance: How to make climate change less abstract and closer to the self. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 42, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tree, J.E.F.; Whittaker, S.; Herring, S.C.; Chowdhury, Y.; Nguyen, A.; Takayama, L. Psychological distance in mobile telepresence. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2021, 151, 102629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ahn, J.; Kim, J.; Sung, Y. AI-powered recommendations: The roles of perceived similarity and psychological distance on persuasion. Int. J. Advert. 2021, 40, 1366–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, L.; Li, Y.; Song, B.; Shi, Z.; Wang, C. How Human-like Behavior of Service Robot Affects Social Distance: A Mediation Model and Cross-Cultural Comparison. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, X.; Sung, Y. Anthropomorphism brings us closer: The mediating role of psychological distance in User–AI assistant interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 118, 106680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wilson, M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2002, 9, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M.; Sowa, J.F. Review of Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Comput. Linguist. 1999, 25, 631–634. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kristeva, J. The Portable Kristeva; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ahn, S.J.; Le, A.M.T.; Bailenson, J. The effect of embodied experiences on self-other merging, attitude, and helping behavior. Media Psychol. 2013, 16, 7–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ji, M.; King, B. Explaining the Embodied Hospitality Experience with ZMET. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 3442–3461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Gibbs, R.W., Jr. Embodiment and Cognitive Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  75. Shin, D. Does augmented reality augment user affordance? The effect of technological characteristics on game behaviour. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2021, 41, 2373–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Barsalou, L.W. Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behav. Brain Sci. 1999, 22, 637–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Shin, D. Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 78, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shin, D.; Biocca, F. Exploring immersive experience in journalism. New Media Soc. 2018, 20, 2800–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hofer, M.; Hüsser, A.; Prabhu, S. The effect of an avatar’s emotional expressions on players’ fear reactions: The mediating role of embodiment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ye, X.; Guo, Z.; Ye, J. The effect of the synchrony experience on product evaluation. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 108, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bawden, D.; Holtham, C.; Courtney, N. Perspectives on information overload. In Aslib Proceedings, 1999; MCB UP Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  82. Schick, A.G.; Gordon, L.A.; Haka, S. Information overload: A temporal approach. Account. Organ. Soc. 1990, 15, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jackson, T.W.; Farzaneh, P. Theory-based model of factors affecting information overload. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2012, 32, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Cheng, P.; Ouyang, Z.; Liu, Y. The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles. Transportation 2020, 47, 2067–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Huang, Q.; Lei, S.; Ni, B. Perceived information overload and unverified information sharing on WeChat amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated mediation model of anxiety and perceived herd. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 837820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Baddoura, R.; Venture, G. Social vs. useful HRI: Experiencing the familiar, perceiving the robot as a sociable partner and responding to its actions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2013, 5, 529–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ulaga, W.; Eggert, A. Relationship value and relationship quality: Broadening the nomological network of business-to-business relationships. Eur. J. Market. 2006, 40, 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hu, H.-f.; Krishen, A.S. When is enough, enough? Investigating product reviews and information overload from a consumer empowerment perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Soto-Acosta, P.; Molina-Castillo, F.J.; Lopez-Nicolas, C.; Colomo-Palacios, R. The effect of information overload and disorganisation on intention to purchase online: The role of perceived risk and internet experience. Online Inf. Rev. 2014, 38, 543–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 04117 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Sustainability 15 04117 g001
Sustainability 15 04117 g002 550
Figure 2. Participants interact with AI-assisted smart screen digital heritage service.
Figure 2. Participants interact with AI-assisted smart screen digital heritage service.
Sustainability 15 04117 g002
Sustainability 15 04117 g003 550
Figure 3. AI-assisted chat service versus AI-assisted virtual reality service.
Figure 3. AI-assisted chat service versus AI-assisted virtual reality service.
Sustainability 15 04117 g003
Sustainability 15 04117 g004 550
Figure 4. Target experimental material in Study 3.
Figure 4. Target experimental material in Study 3.
Sustainability 15 04117 g004
Sustainability 15 04117 g005 550
Figure 5. Moderating effect of information overload.
Figure 5. Moderating effect of information overload.
Sustainability 15 04117 g005
Table
Table 1. Mediation effect test of psychological distance in Study 1.
Table 1. Mediation effect test of psychological distance in Study 1.
VariablesModel I (DSA)Model II (PD)Model III (DSA)
Digital MuseumDigital SightseeingDigital MuseumDigital SightseeingDigital MuseumDigital Sightseeing
ββββββ
IA0.898 ***0.698 ***−0.561 ***−0.537 **0.671 ***0.437 ***
PD −0.406 **−0.485 ***
R20.5600.3880.3160.1690.6380.655
F63.610 ***36.794 ***23.132 ***11.750 **43.133 ***54.122 ***
Notes: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. IA is interactive affordance; PD is psychological distance; DSA is digital service adoption.
Table
Table 2. Mediation effect summary of psychological distance in Study 1.
Table 2. Mediation effect summary of psychological distance in Study 1.
βBootstrap 95% CIRelative Effect
Lower Upper
Digital museumTotal effect0.8980.6721.125
Direct effect0.6710.4200.92174.6%
Indirect effect0.2280.0620.58525.4%
Digital sightseeingTotal effect0.6980.4670.928
Direct effect0.4370.2460.62962.7%
Indirect effect0.2600.1090.44737.3%
Table
Table 3. Mediation effect test in Study 2.
Table 3. Mediation effect test in Study 2.
VariablesModel IModel IIModel IIIModel IVModel VModel VIModel VII
(DSA)(PD)(DSA)(PD)(DSA)(EC)(DSA)
βββββββ
IA0.686 ***−0.557 ***0.426 ***
PD −0.467 *** −0.413 ***
SA −0.482 *0.2080.925 ***−0.319 *
EC 0.355 ***
R20.3520.1950.5610.0300.0070.1050.544
F116.353 ***51.840 ***136.326 ***6.601 *1.43125.069 ***84.171 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. SA is sensory affordance; EC is embodied cognition.
Table
Table 4. Mediation effect summary in Study 2.
Table 4. Mediation effect summary in Study 2.
βBootstrap 95% CI
LLCI ULCI
Total effect0.6860.5610.812
IA → DSADirect effect0.4260.3110.541
IA → PD → DSAIndirect effect of PD0.2600.1710.355
Total effect0.208−0.1350.551
SA → DSADirect effect−0.319−0.566−0.072
SA → PD → DSAIndirect effect of PD0.1990.0440.373
SA → EC → DSAIndirect effect of EC0.3280.1820.508
Table
Table 5. Exploratory Analysis and Reliability Analysis.
Table 5. Exploratory Analysis and Reliability Analysis.
MeasurementsFactor LoadingCronbach’s α
IIIIIIVIVVI
SASA10.818 0.942
SA20.813
SA30.776
SA40.784
IARA1 0.6890.898
RA2 0.778
RA3 0.551
ECEC1 0.633 0.930
EC2 0.764
EC3 0.721
EC4 0.633
PDPD1 −0.800 0.910
PD2 −0.785
PD3 −0.624
IOIO1 0.923 0.957
IO2 0.934
IO3 0.947
DSASP1 0.765 0.939
SP2 0.803
SP3 0.796
Cumulative%58.19270.14876.70181.28485.10887.871
Note: IO is information overload.
Table
Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
VariablesItemsStandard EstimateStandard ErrorC.R.AVECR
SASA10.8320.04916.5430.7840.935
SA20.8740.04818.468
SA40.8790.03624.905
SA50.925
IARA10.8550.05316.9730.7510.900
RA20.8600.05817.168
RA30.884
ECEC10.8770.06515.1140.7600.927
EC20.9200.06716.293
EC30.8770.05418.795
EC40.809
PDPD10.8920.07216.6130.7740.911
PD20.8980.06816.783
PD30.849
IOIO10.9160.03925.6560.8830.958
IO20.9480.03528.939
IO30.954
DSASP10.9260.04821.3060.8370.939
SP20.9190.04422.545
SP30.900
Note: CR is composite reliability.
Table
Table 7. Correlation Analysis.
Table 7. Correlation Analysis.
MeanVIFSAIAECPDIODSA
SA5.8503.4671
IA5.8413.1710.746 **1
EC5.4023.3720.787 **0.732 **1
PD2.3382.792−0.618 **−0.766 **−0.705 **1
IO4.4061.1780.319 **0.331 **0.348 **−0.363 **1
DSA5.496 0.659 **0.696 **0.726 **−0.727 **0.347 **1
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 8. Path Analysis.
Table 8. Path Analysis.
PathStandard EstimateStandard ErrorC.R.p
SA → EP0.8920.06713.7020.001
SA → PD0.5960.1423.6030.003
IA → PD−0.7910.113−7.3420.001
EC → PD−0.6970.119−4.9140.001
EC → DSA0.4210.0795.2740.017
PD → DSA−0.4670.094−5.8480.003
Table
Table 9. Regression analysis results in Study 3.
Table 9. Regression analysis results in Study 3.
VariablesModel I (PD)Model II (EC)Model III (PD)Model IV (PD)Model V (PD)
βββββ
Gender0.074−0.0390.0530.0350.041
Age−0.079−0.036−0.098−0.047−0.042
Education0.070−0.0260.0560.0430.013
SA−0.639 ***0.900 ***−0.171 *−0.578 ***−0.068
EC −0.520 *** −0.503 ***
IO −0.127 **−0.121 **
SA × IO 0.075 **
R20.3840.6200.5100.4130.542
F31.537 ***82.538 ***41.852 ***28.294 ***33.596 ***
ΔR2 0.019 **
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 10. Conditional effects of sensory affordance on psychological distance.
Table 10. Conditional effects of sensory affordance on psychological distance.
Effect βBootstrap 95% CI
Lower Upper
Conditional direct effectInformation overload
M-1SD−0.203−0.366−0.040
M−0.068−0.2380.102
M+1SD0.067−0.1530.288
Indirect effectEmbodied cognition−0.452−0.584−0.328
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

Jia, W.; Li, H.; Jiang, M.; Wu, L. Melting the Psychological Boundary: How Interactive and Sensory Affordance Influence Users’ Adoption of Digital Heritage Service. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054117

AMA Style

Jia W, Li H, Jiang M, Wu L. Melting the Psychological Boundary: How Interactive and Sensory Affordance Influence Users’ Adoption of Digital Heritage Service. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Weiwei, Han Li, Meimei Jiang, and Liang Wu. 2023. "Melting the Psychological Boundary: How Interactive and Sensory Affordance Influence Users’ Adoption of Digital Heritage Service" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054117

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