Empirical Study on the Factors Affecting Individuals’ Switching Intention to Augmented/Virtual Reality Content Services Based on Push-Pull-Mooring Theory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- What are the trends in AR/VR usage?
- (2)
- What are the situational factors related to non-AR/VR and AR/VR?
- (3)
- How do non-AR/VR and AR/VR context variables affect an individual’s intention to switch to AR/VR content services?
- (4)
- Does personal innovativeness enhance the relationships between the push/pull variables and intention to switch to AR/VR services?
2. Related Works and Hypotheses
2.1. Augmented/Virtual Reality
2.2. Push-Pull-Mooring (PPM) Framework
2.3. Research Based on PPM
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Research Model
3.2. Hypothesis Development
3.3. The Moderating Effect of Personal Innovativeness
4. Methodology and Analysis
4.1. Samples
4.2. Development of Measures
4.3. Analysis of the Measurement Model
4.4. Structural Model Assessment (Direct Effects H1–H6)
4.5. Moderating Effects (H7–H12)
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Summary of Results
5.2. Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lee, J.; Suh, K.; Nam, S. CPND Ecosystem-based Broadcasting/Media Virtual Reality (VR) Prospects. J. Broadcast Eng. 2018, 23, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, J. Effect of Interaction Based on Augmented Context in Immersive Virtual Reality Environment. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2018, 98, 1931–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Forecast for the Number of Active Virtual Reality Users Worldwide from 2014 to 2018 (in Millions); Statista: Hamburg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zion Market Research. Virtual Reality (VR) Market to Report Impressive Growth, Revenue to Surge to US$26.89 Billion by 2022; Zion Market Research: Maharashtra, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Guttentag, D.A. Virtual Reality: Applications and Implications for Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 637–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, S.K.; Yuan, M.L.; Nee, A.Y.C. Augmented Reality Applications in Manufacturing: A Survey. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2008, 46, 2707–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagan, M.; Kilmon, C.; Pandey, V. Exploring the Adoption of a Virtual Reality Simulation. Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 2012, 29, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, T.; Nam, C.S.; Chen, K.B. Immersion of Virtual Reality for Rehabilitation—Review. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 69, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noh, K.-H.; Jee, H.-K.; Lim, S. Effect of Augmented Reality Contents Based Instruction on Academic Achievement, Interest and Flow of Learning. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2010, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nee, A.Y.; Ong, S.K.; Chryssolouris, G.; Mourtzis, D. Augmented Reality Applications in Design and Manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2012, 61, 657–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.W. A Study on Effects of AR and VR Assisted Lessons on Immersion in Learning and Academic Stress. Int. J. Internet Broadcast. Commun. 2018, 10, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, S.-H.; Lee, C.-K. A Study on the Influence of Sense of Virtual Reality Contents on Experiential Value, Satisfaction and Visit Intention. J. Tour. Sci. 2019, 43, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravenstein, E. The Laws of Migration. J. Stat. Soc. 1885, 48, 167–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.S. A Theory of Migration. Demography 1966, 3, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, H.S.; Taylor, S.F.; James, Y.S. Migrating to New Service Provider: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers’ Switching Behaviors. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2005, 33, 96–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogue, D.J. A Migrant’s-Eye View of the Costs and Benefits of Migration to a Metropolis Internal Migration: A Comparative Perspective; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Moon, B. Paradigms in Migration Research: Exploring ‘Mooring’ as a Schema. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1995, 19, 504–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, H.H.; Wong, K.H.; Li, S.Y. Applying Push-Pull-Mooring to Investigate Channel Switching Behaviors: M-Shopping Self-Efficacy and Switching Costs as Moderators. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2017, 24, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, S.; Lee, S.J.; Choi, B. An Empirical Investigation of Users’ Voluntary Switching Intention for Mobile Personal Cloud Storage Services Based on the Push-Pull-Mooring Framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 92, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Liu, D.; Chen, S.; Wu, X.; Shen, X.-L.; Zhang, X. Understanding Users’ Switching Behavior of Mobile Instant Messaging Applications: An Empirical Study from the Perspective of Push-Pull-Mooring Framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Luo, X.R.; Yang, X.; Qiao, Z. Easy Come or Easy Go? Empirical Evidence on Switching Behaviors in Mobile Payment Applications. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 103–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, J.K.; Hsieh, Y.C.; Chiu, H.C.; Feng, Y.C. Post-Adoption Switching Behavior for Online Service Substitutes: A Perspective of the Push–Pull–Mooring Framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1912–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Hikmet, N. Physicians’ Resistance toward Healthcare Information Technology: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Test. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 16, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laumer, S.; Eckhardt, A. Why do People Reject Technologies: A Review of User Resistance Theories. In Information Systems Theory; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 63–86. [Google Scholar]
- Alter, S. Work System Theory: Overview of Core Concepts, Extensions, and Challenges for the Future. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2013, 14, 72–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lapointe, L.; Rivard, S. A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 461–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Permatasari, C.L.; Prajanti, S.D.W. Acceptance of Financial Accounting Information System at Schools: Technology Acceptance Model. J. Econ. Educ. 2018, 7, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolz, N. The Use-illusion of the World: On the Meaning of Design for the Economy and Society in the Computer Age. Mediamatic 1998, 9, 61. [Google Scholar]
- Maican, C.; Lixandroiu, R. A System Architecture Based on Open Source Enterprise Content Management Systems for Supporting Educational Institutions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E.; Leiter, M.P.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Schwab, R.L. Maslach Burnout Inventory; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1986; Volume 21, pp. 3463–3464. [Google Scholar]
- Yew Wong, C.; Johansen, J. A Framework of Manufacturer-Retailer Coordination Process: Three Case Studies. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2008, 36, 387–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trappey, A.J.; Trappey, C.V. Global Content Management Services for Product Providers and Purchasers. Comput. Ind. 2004, 53, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mujber, T.S.; Szecsi, T.; Hashmi, M.S. Virtual Reality Applications in Manufacturing Process Simulation. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2004, 155, 1834–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, A.C.; Chern, C.C.; Chen, H.G.; Chen, Y.C. Migrating to a New Virtual World: Exploring MMORPG Switching through Human Migration Theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1892–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, B.H.; Vega, R. Factors to Consider When Evaluating a Web-based Instruction Course: A Survey. In Web-Based Instruction; Khan, B.H., Ed.; Educational Technology: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1999; pp. 375–379. [Google Scholar]
- Reeves, T.C.; Reeves, P.M. Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning on the World Wide Web. In Web-Based Instruction; Khan, B.D., Ed.; Educational Technology: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bruckman, A.; Jensen, C. The Mystery of the Death of MediaMOO: Seven Years of Evolution of an Online Community’. In Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace; Renninger, K.A., Shumar, W., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 21–33. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Merrilees, B. Interactivity Design as the Key to Managing Customer Relations in e-Commerce. J. Relatsh. Mark. 2002, 1, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Formsma, K. ParabolaX: Learner Engagement with Serious Games. Master’s Thesis, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA, 2013; p. 150. [Google Scholar]
- Market Advisor. 4 Reasons for B2B Marketers to Score with AR/VR in 2018. Available online: https://www.martechadvisor.com/articles/customer-experience-2/4-reasons-for-b2b-marketers-to-score-with-arvr-in-2018 (accessed on 14 October 2019).
- Zhang, J.; Mao, E. Understanding the Acceptance of Mobile SMS Advertising Among Young Chinese Consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2008, 25, 787–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Zhu, J.; Liu, Q. A Meta-Analysis of Mobile Commerce Adoption and the Moderating Effect of Culture. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1902–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nysveen, H.; Pedersen, P.E.; Thorbjørnsen, H. Intentions to Use Mobile Services: Antecedents and Cross-Service Comparisons. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2005, 33, 330–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.; Kim, D.J. Customer Self-Service Systems: The Effects of Perceived Web Quality with Service Contents on Enjoyment, Anxiety and E-Trust. Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 43, 746–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Karahanna, E. Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage. MIS Q. 2000, 24, 665–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.H.; Wang, S.C. What Drives M-commerce? An Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whyte, J. Innovation and Users: Virtual Reality in the Construction Sector. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Cao, Y.; Wang, B.; Yang, S. A Study on Factors that Affect Users’ Behavioral Intention to Transfer Usage from the Offline to the Online Channel. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.C.; Ryoo, S.Y. An Empirical Investigation of End-Users’ Switching Toward Cloud Computing: A Two Factor Theory Perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Lee, J.-N. Understanding the Product Information Inference Process in Electronic Word-of-Mouth: An Objectivity–Subjectivity Dichotomy Perspective. Inf. Manag. 2009, 46, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lii, Y.S.; Lim, H.J.; Tseng, L.P.D. The Effects of Web Operational Factors on Marketing Performance. J. Am. Acad. Bus. 2004, 5, 486–494. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Y.C.; Yang, Y.; Cheng, Z.; Lim, J. Retaining and Attracting Users in Social Networking Services: An Empirical Investigation of Cyber Migration. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.Z.; Cheung, C.M.; Lee, M.K. Online Service Switching Behavior: The Case of Blog Service Providers. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 184. [Google Scholar]
- Bentler, P.M. Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
- Goodhue, D.L. Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems. Manag. Sci. 1995, 41, 1827–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmines, E.G.; Zeller, R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment; SAGE University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1979; pp. 7–17. [Google Scholar]
- Wixom, B.H.; Watson, H.J. An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data Warehousing Success. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carte, T.A.; Russell, C.J. In Pursuit of Moderation: Nine Common Errors and Their Solutions. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 479–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murawski, M. Virtual Reality as a Potential Marketing Tool in the Tourism Industry. Bachelor’s Thesis, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Berlin, Germany, 8 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
Demographic Categories | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 286 | 61.51 |
Female | 179 | 38.49 | |
Age (years) | 15–19 | 82 | 17.63 |
20–29 | 197 | 42.37 | |
30–39 | 78 | 16.77 | |
40–49 | 55 | 11.83 | |
50+ | 53 | 11.40 | |
Occupation | Student | 152 | 32.69 |
Company employee | 148 | 31.83 | |
Self-employed | 91 | 19.57 | |
Professional | 59 | 12.69 | |
Other | 15 | 3.23 | |
Devices used for AR/VR contents | Smartphone | 428 | 92.04 |
Head-mounted display (HMD) | 337 | 72.47 | |
Smart TV/Smart Blackboard | 256 | 55.05 | |
Tablet PC | 350 | 75.27 | |
Others | 12 | 2.58 | |
Length of using AR/VR service after switching to the service | Less than 1 year | 66 | 14.19 |
1–3 years | 203 | 43.66 | |
3–5 years | 137 | 29.46 | |
More than 5 years | 59 | 12.69 | |
AR/VR contents used or in use (multiple responses) | Entertainment | 389 | 83.66 |
Education | 165 | 35.48 | |
Content development | 50 | 10.75 | |
Social life (e.g., shopping, hobby, travel, etc.) | 244 | 52.47 | |
Other | 53 | 11.40 |
Construct | Measures | Related Studies |
---|---|---|
Low usefulness | I think that non-AR/VR content services … | Bhattacherjee and Hikmet [23] Lapointe and Rivard [26] |
| ||
Functional simplicity |
| Permatasari and Prajanti [27] Maican and Lixandroiu [29] |
Perceived inefficiency |
| Maslach et al. [30] Mujber and Szecsi [33] |
Interactivity |
| Merrilees [39] Lii et al. [53] |
Experienceability |
| Hsieh et al. [22] |
Amplified enjoyment |
| Hou et al. [34] Xu et al. [54] |
Personal innovativeness |
| Lu et al. [50] Park and Ryoo [51] |
Intention to switch to AR/VR content services |
| Hsieh et al. [22] Zhang et al. [55] |
Model | NFI | GFI | AGFI | CFI | RMSEA | χ2/df |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial model | 0.859 | 0.886 | 0.827 | 0.915 | 0.047 | 2.124 |
Revised model | 0.910 | 0.927 | 0.886 | 0.932 | 0.041 | 1.963 |
Threshold | ≥0.9 | ≥0.9 | ≥0.8 | ≥0.9 | ≤0.05 | ≥5.0 |
Latent Construct | Item | Factor Loading | Composite Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low usefulness | lu1 | 0.828 | 0.904 | 0.759 | 0.873 |
lu2 | 0.895 | ||||
lu3 | 0.889 | ||||
Functional simplicity | fs1 | 0.830 | 0.896 | 0.742 | 0.849 |
fs2 | 0.844 | ||||
fs3 | 0.908 | ||||
Perceived inefficiency | pi1 | 0.835 | 0.875 | 0.700 | 0.786 |
pi2 | 0.786 | ||||
pi3 | 0.886 | ||||
Interactivity | int1 | 0.862 | 0.851 | 0.655 | 0.892 |
int2 | 0.778 | ||||
int3 | 0.786 | ||||
Experienceability | exp1 | 0.904 | 0.894 | 0.739 | 0.764 |
exp2 | 0.839 | ||||
exp3 | 0.834 | ||||
Amplified enjoyment | ae1 | 0.851 | 0.907 | 0.764 | 0.825 |
ae2 | 0.854 | ||||
ae3 | 0.916 | ||||
Personal innovativeness | inno1 | 0.827 | 0.870 | 0.691 | 0.899 |
inno2 | 0.888 | ||||
inno3 | 0.775 | ||||
Intention to switch to AR/VR services | swi1 | 0.836 | 0.894 | 0.737 | 0.901 |
swi2 | 0.872 | ||||
swi3 | 0.867 |
Latent Construct | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Low usefulness | 0.871 | |||||||
(2) Functional simplicity | 0.322 | 0.869 | ||||||
(3) Perceived inefficiency | 0.214 | 0.300 | 0.837 | |||||
(4) Interactivity | 0.227 | 0.216 | 0.260 | 0.810 | ||||
(5) Experienceability | 0.196 | 0.251 | 0.347 | 0.313 | 0.860 | |||
(6) Amplified enjoyment | 0.288 | 0.178 | 0.296 | 0.310 | 0.377 | 0.874 | ||
(7) Personal innovativeness | 0.258 | 0.250 | 0.178 | 0.415 | 0.361 | 0.229 | 0.831 | |
(8) Intention to switch to AR/VR Services | 0.349 | 0.258 | 0.416 | 0.403 | 0.299 | 0.324 | 0.399 | 0.858 |
Hypothesis | Path | Std. β | t-Value | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Low usefulness | → | Intention to switch to mixed reality (MR) services | 0.315 | 5.227 | S ** |
H2 | Functional simplicity | 0.298 | 3.954 | S ** | ||
H3 | Perceived inefficiency | 0.094 | 0.853 | NS | ||
H4 | Interactivity | 0.426 | 8.520 | S ** | ||
H5 | Experienceability | 0.386 | 6.258 | S ** | ||
H6 | Amplified enjoyment | 0.299 | 4.276 | S ** |
Hypothesis/ Path | Model | Path (Std. β/t-Value) | R2 | ∆R2 | F-Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H7: LU → SWI ↑ INNO | No Interaction | LU → SWI (β = 0.302/4.128 **) | 0.276 | 0.014 | 8.047 ** | Supported |
INNO → SWI (β = 0.198/2.001 *) | ||||||
Interaction | LU → SWI (β = 0.303/5.718 **) | 0.305 | ||||
INNO → SWI (β = 0.212/3.886 **) | ||||||
LU × INNO → SWI (β = 0.244/3.872 **) | ||||||
H8: FS → SWI ↑ INNO | No Interaction | FS → SWI (β = 0.284/4.563 **) | 0.298 | 0.019 | 11.201 ** | Supported |
INNO → SWI (β = 0.200/1.995 *) | ||||||
Interaction | FS → SWI (β = 0.289/5.123 **) | 0.315 | ||||
INNO → SWI (β = 0.208/3.552 **) | ||||||
FS × INNO → SWI (β = 0.236/4.007 **) | ||||||
H9: PI → SWI ↑ INNO | No Interaction | PI → SWI (β = 0.099/1.001) | 0.147 | 0.004 | 2.172 | Not Supported |
INNO → SWI (β = 0.176/2.169 *) | ||||||
Interaction | PI → SWI (β = 0.127/1.132) | 0.151 | ||||
INNO → SWI (β = 0.186/1962 *) | ||||||
PI × INNO → SWI (β = 0.194/2.204 *) | ||||||
H10: INT → SWI ↑ INNO | No Interaction | INT → SWI (β = 0.427/8.653 **) | 0.292 | 0.015 | 9.978 ** | Supported |
INNO → SWI (β = 0.210/3.064 **) | ||||||
Interaction | INT → SWI (β = 0.439/9.101 **) | 0.307 | ||||
INNO → SWI (β = 0.248/4.253 **) | ||||||
INT × INNO → SWI (β = 0.229/3.723 **) | ||||||
H11: EXP → SWI ↑ INNO | No Interaction | EXP → SWI (β = 0.387/5.436 **) | 0.287 | 0.029 | 19.545 ** | Supported |
INNO → SWI (β = 0.239/3.123 **) | ||||||
Interaction | EXP → SWI (β = 0.398/6.071 **) | 0.316 | ||||
INNO → SWI (β = 0.231/3.540 **) | ||||||
EXP × INNO → SWI (β = 0.280/3.953 **) | ||||||
H12: AE → SWI ↑ INNO | No Interaction | AE → SWI (β = 0.310/5.951 **) | 0.214 | 0.018 | 10.805 ** | Supported |
INNO → SWI (β = 0.211/3.059 **) | ||||||
Interaction | AE → SWI (β = 0.310/5.664 **) | 0.232 | ||||
INNO → SWI (β = 0.216/3.820 **) | ||||||
AE × INNO → SWI (β = 0.242/3.771 **) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, S.; Choi, M.J.; Choi, J.S. Empirical Study on the Factors Affecting Individuals’ Switching Intention to Augmented/Virtual Reality Content Services Based on Push-Pull-Mooring Theory. Information 2020, 11, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11010025
Kim S, Choi MJ, Choi JS. Empirical Study on the Factors Affecting Individuals’ Switching Intention to Augmented/Virtual Reality Content Services Based on Push-Pull-Mooring Theory. Information. 2020; 11(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11010025
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Sanghyun, Moon Jong Choi, and Jae Sung Choi. 2020. "Empirical Study on the Factors Affecting Individuals’ Switching Intention to Augmented/Virtual Reality Content Services Based on Push-Pull-Mooring Theory" Information 11, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11010025
APA StyleKim, S., Choi, M. J., & Choi, J. S. (2020). Empirical Study on the Factors Affecting Individuals’ Switching Intention to Augmented/Virtual Reality Content Services Based on Push-Pull-Mooring Theory. Information, 11(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11010025