Logging In and Staying On: Exploring Immersive Virtual Influencers and How They Drive Consumers' Immersive Time

Batinovic, Henrietta; Tingelhoff, Fabian; Hammerschmidt, Maik; Schöbel, Sofia Article — Published Version Logging In and Staying On: Exploring Immersive Virtual Influencers and How They Drive Consumers' Immersive Time Journal of Consumer Behaviour Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Batinovic, Henrietta; Tingelhoff, Fabian; Hammerschmidt, Maik; Schöbel, Sofia (2025) : Logging In and Staying On: Exploring Immersive Virtual Influencers and How They Drive Consumers' Immersive Time, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, ISSN 1479-1838, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 24, Iss. 5, pp. 2597-2624, https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70028 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330206 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025; 24:2597–2624 https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70028 2597 Journal of Consumer Behaviour RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Logging In and Staying On: Exploring Immersive Virtual Influencers and How They Drive Consumers' Immersive Time HenriettaBatinovic1 | FabianTingelhoff2 | MaikHammerschmidt1 | SofiaSchöbel3 1Department of Marketing and EBusiness, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany | 2Institute of Information Systems and Digital Business, University of St.Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland | 3Digital Innovation and Information Systems, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück,Germany Correspondence: Maik Hammerschmidt ([email protected]) Received: 12 September 2024 | Revised: 22 May 2025 | Accepted: 15 July 2025 Funding: This work was supported by KonradAdenauerStiftung. Keywords: affordance perspective| consumer experiences| immersive platforms| immersive time| virtual influencers ABSTRACT This study explores the role of virtual influencers (VIs) as critical touchpoints for enhancing consumers' “Immersive Time (ImT)”—the time spent on virtual realityempowered immersive platforms. By blurring the lines between virtual and physicalworld experiences, immersive platforms transform VIs into “Immersive Virtual Influencers (IVIs)” with enhanced functional capabilities. In this paper, we first assess the nature and extent of consumers' ImT with IVIs. Second, using the affordance perspective, we investigate how IVI design elements impact consumers' expectations of IVIs' functions and, in turn, ImT. Employing a mixedmethod approach, our initial survey (N = 179) uncovers that consumers so far only spend limited ImT with IVIs and identifies reasons hindering prolonged engagement. Our following qualitative analysis, based on 30 semistructured interviews, reveals distinct pathways to enhance ImT for two consumer segments: potential and incumbent users of immersive platforms. For instance, potential users seek an idealized utopia, exemplified by IVIs designed to appear flawless. Conversely, incumbents view immersive platforms as an extension of physical reality, represented by IVIs that embrace greater diversity. By unpacking the nuanced drivers of ImT, we construct a framework on consumerspecific expectations regarding IVI functions. The framework informs about the strategic design and functions of IVIs imperative to fostering a more engaging and prolonged virtual experience for different consumer segments. Thus, we contribute to the burgeoning discourse on how immersive platforms alter consumer behavior and offer guidance for brands on how to navigate the complex dynamics of immersive influencer marketing. 1 | Introduction Virtual Influencers (VIs) are computergenerated actors that maintain a presence in digital environments, such as social media profiles on platforms like Instagram (Franke etal.2023). Represented as animationlike figures (e.g., Nobody Sausage) or lifelike characters (e.g., Lil Miquela), VIs exert influence on consumers by mimicking human behavior, embodying unique personalities and narratives (Muniz etal.2024). Unlike human influencers (HIs), VIs are created and controlled entirely by brands or digital agencies hired by these brands, ensuring precise oversight of their representation and messaging (Mouritzen etal.2023). Recently, the emergence of immersive platforms has transformed consumer interactions with VIs (Park et al. 2024). Immersive platforms are digitally mediated spaces powered by virtual reality (VR) technologies, where both consumers and VIs are embodied as threedimensional avatars that interact in real time (HennigThurau etal.2022). As such platforms expand This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Consumer Behaviour published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2598 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 the design possibilities of VIs, they enrich the functions that VIs can provide consumers (Barrera and Shah2023; Liyanaarachchi etal.2024). By making VI interactions more lifelike, immersive platforms blur the lines between virtual and physicalworld experiences (HennigThurau etal.2022). Consequently, VIs acting on those platforms turn into Immersive Virtual Influencers (IVIs). An increasing number of brands like Maybelline New York and Porsche heavily invest in IVIs to trigger consumers to spend more time in their virtual brand worlds hosted on immersive platforms like Roblox or VRChat (McDowell 2024; Porsche2022). For example, on Roblox, Maybelline New York enables consumers to create graffiti with digital makeup products and remix a song in collaboration with the IVI Kai (McDowell2024). Empirical evidence for websites (Eisingerich etal.2019), social media (Luo etal.2013), and mobile applications (Appel etal.2020) already demonstrates that increased time spent on such channels is closely linked to higher purchasing activity and brand loyalty. The important role of the time consumers spend online has recently been emphasized for immersive platforms (Kaur etal.2024; Mogaji etal.2023). To account for the unique characteristics of these environments, scholars introduced the concept of Immersive Time (ImT). ImT is defined as the conscious time consumers spend or intend to spend using devices like VR headsets to engage with their surroundings, including IVIs (Mogaji etal.2023). ImT is especially relevant for brands acting in the context of immersive platforms. Besides driving purchaserelated behavior, prolonged ImT increases the value of consumergenerated data for providing deeper insights into this behavior (Liyanaarachchi etal.2024; Mogaji etal.2023). However, although immersive platforms like Roblox registered over two million installs on Meta's Quest VR headsets shortly after launch, reflecting consumers' high interest (Hiken2023), many companies struggle to motivate consumers to interact virtually with their brands on such platforms (Watson2023). Our first study of 179 consumers regularly active on immersive platforms provides empirical evidence for this challenge, revealing that while 84% expressed interest, only 28% of participants had already spent substantial ImT with IVIs. Moreover, our findings indicate that IVIs' design elements and functions may not align with consumer expectations, emphasizing that brands struggle to leverage their potential and transfer consumers from a state of “having access to” to a state of “spending sustained time.” While previous research highlights escapism (Mogaji etal.2023, 2024), enjoyment (Wongkitrungrueng and Suprawan2024), and social engagement (Cheung etal.2024; Kaur etal.2024) as important factors driving ImT, how these functions are activated through avatar design have yet to be explored, posing a crucial gap for brands aiming to optimize IVI interactions. To respond to this practical need and the scarcity of existing research, we draw on the affordance perspective (Gibson1986; Majchrzak and Markus2012), a psychological framework used to explain consumers' willingness to engage with other actors, such as IVIs (Karahanna etal.2018; Shin2022). In line with this theoretical lens, we posit that the functions of IVIs, based on various design elements, are key to driving the willingness to spend ImT. Thus, we propose the following research question: RQ1. How do the functions associated with IVI design elements drive ImT? According to research on affordances, consumer expectations of an actor's functions can vary. On the one hand, some consumers are already advanced in their “immersive platform journey” and use such platforms regularly, possessing prior experiences with actors similar to IVIs (e.g., nonplayer characters (NPCs)) that shaped their expectations (Herhausen etal.2019). On the other hand, many consumers cannot yet draw on their own experiences but are open to trying out immersive platforms (HennigThurau etal.2024). Their expectations are shaped by external information from media or peers (Bernhard etal.2013; Meske etal.2023). Considering this, we argue that optimizing IVIs' design should address the distinct needs of these two consumer groups: incumbent users (IUs), who draw on their firsthand interactions with comparable virtual actors, and potential users (PUs) of immersive platforms, who depend primarily on secondhand information from external sources. Each group is likely to prioritize different IVI functions (Meske etal.2023), akin to how members of online communities differ in valuing affordances when deciding how much time to spend in those environments (Pethig etal.2024). This distinction leads us to our second research question: RQ2. How do IUs and PUs differ in prioritizing the functions of IVI design elements? To answer our research questions, we adopted a mixedmethod approach. Study 1 provides foundational empirical insights into the (limited) amount of ImT consumers spend with IVIs. It further reveals possible reasons for their lack of engagement. These findings guide a qualitative exploration (Study 2) using semistructured interviews with 15 IUs and 15 PUs (totaling 30 interviewees). As a result, Study 2 provides a richer, contextual understanding of both groups' drivers to spend ImT with IVIs, complementing the quantitative insights from Study 1 (Ryan and Bernard2003). For instance, PUs seek an idealized utopia, exemplified by immaculate IVIs designed to appear flawless. Conversely, IUs view immersive platforms as an extension of physical reality, represented by IVIs embracing broader diversity, including visible imperfections. Our work provides theoretical and practical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, we contribute to understanding IVIs as crucial “ambassadors” motivating consumers to spend ImT. We also reveal which specific IVI design elements intrigue consumers and drive them to spend more ImT. By further exploring the functions of IVIs' design elements, we improve the understanding of why consumers actively seek these elements and, therefore, can better explain why they want to spend ImT with these actors. From a practical perspective, our findings enable brands to understand how IUs and PUs differ in their expectations of IVIs, offering crucial insights for designing IVIs that appeal to both or specific groups. Our results provide actionable design implications for IVIs, empowering companies to leverage IVI marketing to drive ImT for their target consumers effectively. 2599 2 | Conceptual Background 2.1 | Immersive Virtual Influencers on Immersive Platforms Influencers are individuals whose content vitally shapes consumer perceptions of brands due to their credibility and loyal follower base (Ki and Kim2019). Unlike HIs, which act as independent endorsers, VIs are designed and managed by third parties (e.g., brands). This can ensure a tailored and controlled brand representation to target online audiences (Mouritzen et al. 2023). VIs' appearance can vary from unrealistic nonhumans like Nobody Sausage to hyperrealistic humans like Lil Miquela (Mouritzen etal.2023). Such variety enables them to effectively adapt to specific target groups (see Figure1 for examples of different VIs). Additionally, VIs are characterized by unique personalities and engaging storylines, solely existing on digital platforms without a human counterpart in physical reality (Franke etal.2023). At their core, all digital platforms refer to environments that enable consumers to access various applications, tools, or content (Gawer and Cusumano2014). This allows consumers to engage in multifaceted experiences across varied domains like social interactions, education, or shopping (Hein etal.2020). Immersive platforms, a subgroup of digital platforms, represent a novel landscape for distinctive consumerbrand interactions (Schöbel and Leimeister2023). To be considered immersive, a platform must use technologies such as VR headsets to draw consumers into multisensory, often interactive environments (Yoo etal.2023). These environments envelop consumers as avatars, replicating or enhancing physical presence. Such representation enables virtual social interactions that resemble the physical world, including the ability to approach each other spatially (HennigThurau etal.2022). Additionally, immersive platforms must enable simultaneous interaction between actors (e.g., consumers and companies) and peertopeer transactions (e.g., exchanging virtual assets on VRChat) (Yoo etal.2023). While platforms with some of these features existed previously, their collective integration defines immersive platforms as uniquely comprehensive digital environments (Hadi etal.2023). The unique characteristics of these environments shape VI's design and, in turn, functions. For instance, the embodiment through avatars on immersive platforms enables VIs to interact with others (e.g., consumers) and objects (e.g., products) in virtual spaces, mimicking realistic gestures and behaviors through motion tracking and animations—functions not existent for VIs on traditional social media. Moreover, in contrast to social media environments, immersive platforms enable simultaneous interactions that allow VIs to join live shared experiences, enhancing consumers' perceptions of realistic, personal interactions (Batinovic etal.2024). Through this transformation, immersive platforms enable brands to create VIs that transcend twodimensional social media contexts with their predominantly static content. They immerse audiences in threedimensional, dynamic experiences supported by spatial presence and enhanced sensory capacities (Liyanaarachchi et al. 2024). Thereby, VIs' design elements and functions are fundamentally reshaped based on their novel presence and interaction possibilities. Consequently, VIs become immersive and take on new roles as IVIs, designed to fully leverage the potential of immersive platforms and, ultimately, enhance ImT. 2.2 | Immersive Time as a Key Goal of Immersive Virtual Influencer Interactions ImT is emerging as a key goal for brands leveraging IVIs on immersive platforms (Kaur etal.2024). ImT represents the time consumers consciously spend or intend to spend in immersive environments engaging with actors like IVIs using devices such as VR headsets (Mogaji et al. 2023). For brands, this is pivotal, as increased time spent with technology is associated with higher purchasing activity and greater brand loyalty (e.g., Zhang etal.2025). Additionally, IVI interactions generate valuable behavioral and interaction data, providing companies with FIGURE 1 | Examples of VIs. 2600 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 insights into consumer preferences (Liyanaarachchi etal.2024; Mogaji etal.2023). Various functions linked to the unique nature of immersive platforms can drive ImT. During ImT, wearing VR headsets causes consumers to become “disconnected” from physical reality, unable to engage in other activities simultaneously (Mogaji etal.2023). This deep focus can fully draw consumers into the virtual world, making them lose track of time and external events (Schüll2012). For this reason, ImT might be nurtured by escapism (Mogaji etal. 2023, 2024), involving both “escaping from” daily life and “escaping to” the novel, curiositydriven opportunities for exploration (Cova etal.2018; Han etal.2022). Moreover, consumers enjoying immersive platforms tend to invest more time exploring these environments (Wongkitrungrueng and Suprawan 2024). Enjoyable experiences are particularly important in this context, as they likely prolong the time spent, while negative experiences may lead consumers to exit the platform and explore alternatives (Kaur etal.2024). Another function of immersive platforms that could facilitate ImT is social engagement with other consumers or brands (Kaur etal.2024). This includes participation, referring to the resources consumers invest in interacting with others, and affection, which reflects their emotional engagement (Cheung et al. 2024). Appendix A provides a summary of existing research on the functions of immersive platforms that could be deployed by IVIs to potentially drive ImT. To encourage ImT, it is beneficial for brands to design IVIs to leverage these functions of immersive platforms effectively. However, existing studies do not explore whether and which of these functions can trigger consumers' ImT when deployed by avatars like IVIs—an essential gap for brands aiming to create functionally appealing IVIs (Cheung etal.2024). Understanding how IVIs should be designed to meet consumers' expectations regarding IVIs' functions is imperative for brands to develop and leverage avatars that drive ImT. To achieve this, the affordance perspective is highly instrumental. 2.3 | Affordance Perspective on Designing Immersive Virtual Influencers to Drive Immersive Time The affordance perspective serves as a useful tool for understanding how consumers form expectations about the functions of other actors in multiactor environments (Ahn, Kim, and Kim 2022). Affordances represent the action possibilities that an actor (i.e., an IVI) in an environment (i.e., an immersive platform) can offer to an individual (i.e., a consumer) (Gibson1986; Majchrzak and Markus 2012). In other words, it captures the functions of various design elements that IVIs are expected to convey to consumers on immersive platforms. Through the affordance perspective, it becomes clear that specific knowledge gaps—about how VI design affords certain VI functions—are already present in research on traditional social media platforms. Most studies focus on either VI design elements or VI functions in isolation. For instance, studies investigated various VI design elements, such as appearance, sensory capabilities (e.g., Arsenyan and Mirowska 2021; Cheung and Leung2021; Hofeditz etal.2022; Kim etal.2023; Li et al. 2023; XieCarson et al. 2023; Zhou et al. 2024), and disclosure (e.g., Franke et al. 2023; Mirowska and Arsenyan2023; Yoo etal.2024). Studies focusing on VI functions identify roles ranging from providing entertainment, information, or escapism (e.g., Audrezet and Koles2023; Lou etal.2023; Mirowska and Arsenyan2023) to fostering parasocial relationships and community building (e.g., Audrezet and Koles2023; Dondapati and Dehury2024; Liu and Wang2024; Ma and Li2024; Stein etal.2024). The few papers that link VI design elements to functions afforded through these elements only focus on connecting one single VI design element (e.g., humanoid design) to one single VI function (e.g., parasocial relationship building) (e.g., Dabiran etal.2024; Liu and Wang2024; Ma and Li2024; Mrad etal.2024). Hence, most studies do not comprehensively explore how multiple design elements relate to a multitude of expected functions, resulting in a fragmented knowledge landscape. We provide an overview of relevant VI studies in AppendixB. On immersive platforms, these gaps become even more critical as the design elements of VIs and, consequently, their functions can expand. For instance, when creating IVIs, interactive design elements, such as communication style and response type, become increasingly important (Miao etal.2022). Investigating the relationship between specific design elements and affordances provides a clearer pathway to theorizing how IVIs can drive consequential consumer behaviors like spending ImT. Importantly, consumers' expectations regarding an actor's (designenabled) functions (i.e., affordances) can be shaped by experiences with similar actors, such as NPCs, and through external information from media sources or peers (Bernhard etal.2013; Meske etal.2023). Past studies emphasized that affordances can severely differ depending on whether an individual developed them through their own interactions with similar actors or based on external information (e.g., Meske etal.2023). These differences can severely impact how consumers anticipate design elements to function, which, in turn, motivates behavior, such as spending ImT. Recognizing these differences and aligning design elements with consumers' understanding of functions ensures that affordances are actualized satisfactorily when consumers engage with an actor (Leidner etal.2018; Meske etal.2023). The affordance perspective is particularly relevant in the context of IVIs and ImT. Foremost, it emphasizes how IVIs' design elements are anticipated to function and appreciated by different consumer groups. Such knowledge can enhance our understanding of how brands encourage specific consumers to spend time with IVIs. Familiar with the capabilities and constraints of immersive platforms, IUs may perceive and appreciate other affordances than PUs (Shin2022). For instance, IUs are likely to emphasize functional attributes of IVIs, like social connectivity or the ability to navigate seamlessly across interactive components (Shin 2022). Aligning IVI design elements with the expectations of different target audiences is crucial to ensure that, when consumers engage with IVIs, their affordances are actualized to fulfill their anticipated functionalities and 2601 motivate behaviors, such as spending ImT (Leidner etal.2018; Meske etal.2023). Existing research on VIs overlooks differences in how diverse target groups, such as PUs and IUs, form affordances, further limiting our understanding of their broader appeal and effectiveness. 3 | Study 1: Explorative Survey on IVI Usage and Perceptions 3.1 | Method: Data Collection, Participants, and Survey Design The first study uses a quantitative approach to assess consumers' ImT with IVIs systematically. It uncovers the (limited) time spent with IVIs and identifies reasons that may hinder prolonged engagement with these characters. We collected data online through a survey hosted on Qualtrics. We chose the online panel provider Prolific to distribute the survey for its higher data quality compared to other online panel platforms (Peer etal.2022). To ensure data quality, we checked all responses for completeness, processing time, response behavior, and screening question results. We excluded participants with a response time below 3 min and those displaying straightlining patterns or failing the screening question. The final sample consisted of 179 participants, with demographic characteristics presented in Table1. To minimize the risk of common method bias (CMB), we took two steps when designing the survey (Podsakoff etal. 2003). First, we assured participants that there were no right or wrong answers, encouraging them to respond freely and honestly. Second, we maintained clarity by using simple language throughout the survey, ensuring that all definitions and descriptions were concise and easy to understand, and avoiding complex sentence structures. The survey consisted of two sections. In the first section, participants were provided with a definition of “immersive platforms” and asked a screening question to confirm regular usage. Participants indicated whether they regularly spend time on immersive platforms by selecting “Yes” or “No.” If they selected “No,” the survey was discontinued. Those who passed the screening reported details about their platform usage, including time spent (weekly and monthly averages) and the specific immersive platforms they regularly engage with. Next, participants were presented with a definition of “IVIs” before indicating whether they had ever spent time with one on an immersive platform. They then provided details on their IVI interactions, including frequency on a weekly and monthly basis and the average duration of a single interaction. Subsequently, the survey turned to aspirational questions. Participants were asked about their interest in spending time with an IVI in the future, with response options of “Yes” or “No.” This was followed by a series of items measuring their perceptions of IVIs on a 7point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Participants evaluated the future role of IVIs, assessing their potential (e.g., as enjoyable or innovative), and identified what hinders them from spending ImT with IVIs (e.g., lack of appealing design limiting expected functions). The second section entailed demographic questions, such as age, gender, and income. 3.2 | Results: Exploratory Insights on IVI Usage and Perceptions Our participants primarily spent time on VRChat (58%), Roblox (53%), and Horizon Worlds (39%). On average, they accessed immersive platforms 3.18 days per week. While 84% of respondents expressed interest in spending time with IVIs, only 28% had already spent substantial ImT with them. Among those who had, the average time spent per interaction was 7.3 min. We present a summary of these results in Table2. TABLE 1 | Sample demographics. Sample characteristic Sample composition Gender Male 49% Female 51% Age 18–24 years old 36% 2534 years old 50% 35–44 years old 14% Annual income $0–$9999 21% $10,000–$24,999 14% $25,000–$49,999 17% $50,000–$74,999 21% $75,000–$99,999 12% $100,000–$149,000 9% $150,000+ 4% Prefer not to answer 2% Education No schooling completed 1% Some high school, no diploma 2% High school graduate 15% Some college credit 6% Trade/technical/ vocational training 2% Associate degree 4% Bachelor's degree 42% Master's degree 26% Professional degree 1% Doctorate degree 1% 2602 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 The results suggest that brands struggle to leverage the potential of IVIs. Still, participants believed in their future significance (M = 5.47, SD = 1.29), for instance, rating IVIs as potentially interesting (M = 5.82, SD = 1.23), innovative (M = 5.73, SD = 1.17), and relevant (M = 5.64, SD = 1.48). However, this potential does not seem to translate into sustained ImT. Participants state they refrain from IVIs because of a perceived unappealing design (M = 4.78, SD = 1.94) and limited functions, including a lack of expected benefits (M = 4.82, SD = 1.89) and insufficiently engaging activities (M = 4.42, SD = 1.72). We show further insights into the survey results in Table3. These findings provide preliminary evidence of IVIs' shortcomings in driving ImT while raising questions about which specific designenabled functions influence consumers' intention to spend ImT. To address these questions, we designed Study 2 to further investigate these factors, with an interview guide specifically developed to examine the role of IVI designenabled functions in potentially driving ImT. 4 | Study 2: Qualitative Exploration Into IVI Design Driving ImT Building on Study 1's findings, we conducted a complementary qualitative study to explore how consumers' expectations of IVIs' functions potentially drive ImT. We used a qualitative approach, as the complexity and novelty of our topic demand a rich and detailed understanding of IVIs' engaging role. Qualitative research is appropriate as it provides deeper, often contextualized, exploratory insights into a topic (Draper2004). It is, therefore, highly suitable for inductively explaining specific phenomena in more detail. In our case, this pertains to which affordances (i.e., designenabled functions) drive intended ImT with IVIs for different target groups. 4.1 | Method: Data Collection and Analysis Before and during our data collection and analysis, we took several steps to ensure the validity and reliability of our results. We provide more details on this in AppendixC. Foremost, we carefully selected this study's interviewees. All participants were familiar with VIs on social media. We recruited two groups of interviewees to explore the affordances of IVIs that drive ImT by IUs and PUs. The group of IUs was recruited via LinkedIn (5), Instagram (7), and TikTok (3) and had immersive platform experiences (e.g., Horizon Workrooms, Roblox), including interactions with IVIlike avatars (e.g., virtual shop assistants and NPCs in VR games). Of this group, eight participants had regular access to a VR headset, either through ownership, friends, or provided by their work. For the remaining seven IUs, we clarified at the beginning of each interview whether they had sufficient VR experience with IVIlike actors, ensuring their insights were comparable to those of the eight participants with regular access (Table4 compares context information between the two user groups). In contrast, the second group of interviewees (PUs), with only secondhand knowledge of immersive platforms and IVIs, was recruited in a snowball sampling through referrals (Lincoln and Guba1985). At the beginning of all 30 interviews, we verified that each interviewee referred to the same conceptualization when discussing IVIs and immersive platforms. The average age of both groups was 27.9 years (IUs: min: 14, max: 45; PUs: min: 20, max: 35). In the PU group, seven identified as female and eight as male, while the IU group consisted of five females and 10 males. This distribution aligns with current immersive platform users, who are predominantly Gen Z and Millennials, with a higher representation of males (Deloitte2023). Participants were from Germany (12 PUs and 11 IUs), the United States (one PU and one IU), Brazil (one PU and one IU), and one each from Serbia (IU), Austria (IU), and New Zealand (PU). Other research studies (e.g., Verhulst etal.2021) have found no significant influence of cultural differences on the perception of VR content. This indicates that consumers TABLE 2 | Results Study 1—usage patterns. Usage patterns Usage distribution/average Immersive platforms regularly used VR Chat 58% Roblox 53% Horizon Worlds 39% Rec Room 22% Bigscreen VR 17% Altspace VR 15% The Void 11% Others 8% Immersive platform access per week 3.18 days (min: 1; max: 7) Immersive platform access per month 14.04 days (min: 1; max: 31) ImT with IVI No 72% Yes 28% Number of days per week where interaction with an IVI occurred (if “Yes”) 0.81 days (min: 1; max: 7) Number of days per month where interaction with an IVI occurred (if “Yes”) 3.53 days (min: 1; max: 31) ImT with IVI (if “Yes”) 7.3 min (min: 1; max: 50) Interest in future ImT spending No 16% Yes 84% N = 179 2603 from diverse countries experience immersive platforms and form expectations about IVIs similarly. Our data support this finding, as the codes from our participants across different regions showed no structural differences. We provide an overview of the interviewees in Table5. To minimize potential translationinduced alterations, we conducted 80% of the interviews in the native languages of both interviewees and interviewers (Harzing and Maznevski2002), with the remaining interviews held in English. A bilingual researcher with expertise in the topic handled the process to ensure translation accuracy, while a second bilingual researcher crosschecked the transcripts against the audio recordings. Interviews were conducted online via Zoom (22) and within Horizon Workrooms (8) for those with access to a VR headset. The use of Horizon Workrooms allowed us to perform the interviews in a realistic setting for those participants being familiar with VR headsets (Lincoln and Guba1985). Both the interviewer and the participant used VR headsets throughout the interview (see AppendixD for pictures of the VR interview situations). We ensured that the findings are not biased by a specific interview medium by conducting interviews in different media (Zoom and VR), also guaranteeing that we did not miss important aspects unique to immersion. This approach affirmed the robustness of our results. The interviews lasted 38 min on average. We refer to individual participants based on their group affiliation using the abbreviations PU and IU, followed by their chronological number (1–15) for each group. We used a semistructured interview guide, maintaining enough room for our interviewees' experiences and anecdotes (Gioia et al. 2013). The guide featured openended, concise questions and followup probes to resolve ambiguities, with contextual information and examples provided as needed. We started by gathering demographic information, followed by questions about participants' understanding of immersive platforms and IVIs. The focus then shifted to the design elements of IVIs and the functions they should afford to consumers, exploring desirability. We also explored interviewees' willingness to interact with IVIs, with all 30 participants being open to a significant time investment. Most importantly, we investigated their reasons for potentially spending prolonged time with IVIs, represented by the designenabled functions that IVIs offer. Finally, we solicited views on future developments of IVIs. We applied the affordance perspective to help us understand the expected functions that IVIs need to offer consumers. These, in turn, are enabled by various design elements. Recognizing this, we focused on coding both the design elements and their associated functions to uncover the key drivers of ImT. Doing so allows us to close the research gaps identified in 2.3. TABLE 3 | Results Study 1—IVI perceptions and ImT barriers. ItemaMSD IVIs will play an important role on immersive platforms in the future 5.47 1.29 IVIs have the potential to be … … enjoyable 5.36 1.20 … innovative 5.73 1.17 … inspiring 4.99 1.41 … interesting 5.82 1.23 … relevant 5.64 1.48 … relatable 4.83 1.46 What are the main reasons why you might not spend time with IVIs on immersive platforms?b IVIs are not designed in a way that appeals to me 4.78 1.94 IVIs do not provide the benefits I am looking for 4.82 1.89 IVIs do not deliver the activities that I seek 4.42 1.72 IVIs do not match my expectations of entertainment 4.40 1.73 N = 179 aItems measured on a 7point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Completely Disagree” to 7 = “Completely Agree.” bIn an additional freetext box, participants could voluntarily specify reasons. 45 participants used this function and named the following reasons: 47% mentioned the artificial nature of IVIs, 23% an interest mismatch, 23% personal reasons, and 7% data security. TABLE 4 | Comparison of experiences between PUs and IUs. Type of experience PUs IUs Prior experience with VIs on social media Yes Yes Prior immersive platform experience Partly (only secondhand) Yes Prior experience with IVIlike avatars Partly (only secondhand) Yes Prior experience with IVIs No No 2604 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 To analyze our results, we used the coding approach provided by Gioia et al. (2013) and constructed firstorder constructs, secondorder themes, and aggregate dimensions. Firstorder constructs are the initial, fundamental elements derived from the data analysis, representing the basic building blocks of understanding. Secondorder themes are higherlevel categories that emerge from organizing and grouping the firstorder constructs, providing a more abstract and comprehensive understanding. Aggregate dimensions synthesize the secondorder themes into overarching dimensions, embodying broader and more holistic aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. To ensure intercoder reliability through this process, the coders critically discussed their initial coding results until the firstorder codes were sufficiently reviewed, and a second iteration could start that led to a detailed description of our secondorder themes. During the coding, we aimed for the codes to be on a similar level of abstraction while maintaining each informant's nuanced reflections. Saturation was reached by the 10th (PUs) and 13th (IUs) interviews with 96% and 95% of the codes identified by those points, respectively. This is consistent with previous studies on the method (e.g., Francis et al. 2010; Guest etal.2006; Hennink etal.2017), existing studies in marketing TABLE 5 | Demographic data of interview participants. ID Gender Age Country of origin Interview language Regular access to VR headset Interview duration Interview medium PU1 F26 Germany DE No 35 min Zoom PU2 M34 Germany DE No 39 min Zoom PU3 F26 Brazil EN No 36 min Zoom PU4 M35 New Zealand EN No 48 min Zoom PU5 M20 United States EN No 47 min Zoom PU6 F25 Germany DE No 44 min Zoom PU7 M32 Germany DE No 59 min Zoom PU8 F25 Germany DE No 31 min Zoom PU9 M27 Germany DE No 51 min Zoom PU10 M26 Germany DE No 31 min Zoom PU11 M27 Germany DE No 53 min Zoom PU12 M30 Germany DE No 32 min Zoom PU13 F29 Germany DE No 32 min Zoom PU14 F29 Germany DE No 47 min Zoom PU15 F27 Germany DE No 33 min Zoom IU1 M27 Brazil EN No 70 min Zoom IU2 F27 Serbia EN No 52 min Zoom IU3 M16 Germany DE No 49 min Zoom IU4 F14 Germany DE No 19 min Zoom IU5 M26 Germany DE Yes 23 min VR IU6 F43 United States EN No 21 min Zoom IU7 M30 Germany DE Yes 23 min VR IU8 M25 Austria DE No 24 min Zoom IU9 M32 Germany DE No 30 min Zoom IU10 M45 Germany DE Yes 19 min VR IU11 F26 Germany DE Yes 27 min VR IU12 M24 Germany DE Yes 40 min VR IU13 M28 Germany DE Yes 42 min VR IU14 F29 Germany DE Yes 38 min VR IU15 M26 Germany DE Yes 37 min VR 2611 Design elements advancing emotional functions. Movement could help position IVIs as sources of support. Nonverbal gestures like a shoulder touch can convey care (Maloney etal.2020), potentially assisting consumers to feel supported, as mentioned by PU6. Additionally, movement appears to play an essential role in making IVIs sources of enjoyment, leading consumers to spend more time exploring immersive platforms (Wongkitrungrueng and Suprawan 2024). As PU9 imagines, “The IVI could provide information about a volcano and virtually transport me there, making it enjoyable and keeping me engaged for longer.” Higher avatar expressiveness, including facial and body animation, can increase the enjoyment of VR interactions (Fraser et al. 2022). PU7 shares this perspective, stating, “To enjoy interacting with the IVI, it needs to move flexibly.” Supernatural elements, including artistic design features, may also enhance feelings of joy for both groups (Wu etal.2022). Reflecting this, PU14 mentioned, “An imaginative appearance can be particularly entertaining,” referring to surreal stylistic aspects, such as animelike aesthetics. Such elements could also reduce the Uncanny Valley effect (Gutuleac etal.2024), as PU15 explained: “Noonoouri's surreal appearance makes it clear she's not real, which makes me less uncomfortable.” By aligning with these expectations, IVIs can foster enjoyable experiences likely to prolong ImT (Kaur etal.2024). However, as IU9 stated, “When I spend time in these virtual environments, I like to engage with virtual characters like IVIs.” This highlights that, in addition to visual appeal, the interactive elements fostering engagement play a critical role in cultivating positive interactions. Design elements advancing social functions. Humanoid design elements could foster social functions by enhancing social presence (Ahn, Cho, and Sunny Tsai2022; Kang and Watt2013). PU6 suggested that an IVI's “humanlike appearance can make it feel like it's really present.” Because social presence depends on the feeling of interacting with a “real person,” equipping IVIs with identity cues (e.g., name, gender) could strengthen this impression (Choi and Kwak2017). Our IPs also emphasized that behavioral realism, including communication modalities such as speech (Appel etal.2012) and response types like nodding (von der Pütten etal.2010) and eye contact (Bente etal.2008), can enhance social presence by mimicking human interaction. This positions IVIs as potential sources of interpersonal relationships, a key factor in sustaining interest in immersive platforms (Kumar and Shankar2024). For both groups, disclosure seems crucial, as PU14 highlighted: “The first question I [would] ask myself is whether the IVI's operating entity is a computer or a person. I [would] expect full transparency.” A lack of transparency about an IVI's controlling entity could hinder genuine connections (Franke etal. 2023), negatively impact affection—an essential driver of ImT (Cheung etal.2024)—and possibly lead consumers to seek alternatives (Kaur etal. 2024). Multimodal communication, such as combining speech with expressive body movements, may support collaborative experiences (Freeman etal.2022) and encourage participation, another key driver of ImT (Cheung etal.2024). This could position IVIs as sources of community building by “effectively communicating their messages in community meetings, for example, by encouraging users to participate in shared activities” (IU10). During IVI inactivity, allowing consumers to leave messages might sustain interest and encourage future ImT (Freeman and Acena2021). Design elements advancing epistemic functions. IVIs might serve as sources of escapism and exploration by drawing consumers into evolving narratives through storytelling that can keep them engaged over time (Bilgihan et al. 2024). As PU3 speculated, “With an IVI, a continuous story is created that should exist over a long period.” Gestures like “shaking hands” could draw consumers into these narratives, making interactions more natural (PU6, IU10). PU6 added, “Exploring new virtual worlds [would] inherently increase the time I invest,” underscoring how IVIs could encourage ImT through exploration. Similarly, IU2 reflected, “I can escape from reality for hours on immersive platforms without noticing how time flies.” PU9 further emphasized this sentiment, saying, “The opportunity to escape from reality—stepping into new environments and experiencing things beyond everyday life is a major reason for spending time on immersive platforms,” highlighting escapism as another critical ImT driver (Mogaji etal.2023, 2024). 5 | Discussion Our results reveal that, while a majority of participants express interest in spending time with IVIs (84%), only a small percentage have already spent substantial ImT with them (28%). This gap between interest and actual time investment is primarily attributed to the unappealing design of IVIs (Mean score = 4.78/7) and their limited functions, including a lack of expected benefits (Mean score = 4.82/7) and insufficiently engaging activities (Mean score = 4.42/7). Building on these quantitative findings, we use the affordance perspective (Leidner etal.2018; Meske etal.2023) to reveal how specific IVI design elements and their functions can potentially drive ImT. Our qualitative results highlight epistemic functions, including escapism (Mogaji etal.2023, 2024) and exploration, as central for encouraging ImT. Furthermore, alongside enjoyment (Wongkitrungrueng and Suprawan2024), support functions as an emotional driver, potentially triggering positive experiences that increase time spent on immersive platforms (Kaur etal.2024). We show that facets of participation (Cheung et al. 2024), including community building and affection (Cheung etal.2024), expressed through interpersonal relationships, may be important social functions that drive ImT. Finally, educational functions, such as providing knowledge along with product and brand information, also appear to encourage staying longer in these environments. Together, the IVIs' functions are essential drivers of ImT. By exploring these drivers, our findings provide a deeper understanding of “the motivation for [increased] immersive time” (Mogaji etal.2023, 4). Specifically, our study focuses on identifying which affordances (i.e., designenabled functions) drive intended ImT with IVIs for different target groups, addressing Mogaji etal.'s(2023) call to “help brands conceptualize […] affordances” (p. 4) that meet consumers' expectations, potentially 2612 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 leading to satisfying actualization (Leidner etal.2018). Thus, our study expands knowledge on how designenabled functions of IVIs in immersive environments can foster the willingness to spend time in these settings. Considering these insights, we specify a framework on consumerspecific IVI functional expectations driving ImT—building on Mogaji etal.(2023) (Figure4). Through our framework, we provide a more comprehensive understanding of how IVI functions contribute to consumers' ImT with IVIs. To better understand how these drivers manifest, we investigated how PUs and IUs differ in prioritizing the functions of IVI design elements that potentially drive their ImT. Existing research on VIs overlooks differences in how diverse target groups form affordances. Our data reveal three groupspecific differences in the prioritization of designenabled functions: (1) PUs seek an idealized utopia, while IUs view immersive platforms as an extension of physical reality. (2) PUs envision onetoone interactions with IVIs, whereas IUs anticipate community building. (3) PUs are likely to prefer personalized IVI content, while IUs tend to prioritize practical, realitybased IVI functions during their ImT. The foundation for encouraging ImT with IVIs lies in their humanlike appearance, but PUs and IUs differ in their interpretation of this aspect. While previous literature on VIs shows that diversity enhances relatability by making these actors appear more human (e.g., Ferraro etal.2024), our findings indicate that different group expectations may require distinct approaches to diversity for IVIs. PUs seek immaculate IVIs, focusing on diversity limited to demographic traits like skin color. This suggests that PUs expect their time spent with IVIs to reflect a glorified utopia—a perfect world—primarily explained by idealized portrayals on social media. In contrast, IUs embrace a broader interpretation of diversity, including imperfections like acne, and view immersive platforms as an extension of their reality. Furthermore, in terms of social functions, IUs seek more profound relationships with IVIs, likely influenced by the formation of virtual friendships that mirror physicalworld social interactions (Freeman and Acena2021). While PUs are drawn to fictional narratives, positive reallife experiences with happy IVIs also align with their idealized expectations. PUs appear to prioritize the undivided attention of IVIs, valuing onetoone interactions rather than group settings to drive their ImT. Similar to new members in online communities, PUs may benefit from focused attention to sustain participation (Pethig etal.2024). IUs prioritize community building in virtual worlds, seeking shared experiences (e.g., dancing) and collective participation (e.g., gaming), often based on previous VR experiences that bridge virtual and physicalworld connections (Freeman and Acena2021). In addition to their desire for ImT with an IVI, they also express interest in spending time with other community members. Beyond social functions, there are differences in the educational functions required by the two groups. For PUs, concise information delivered quickly is crucial (Zhang etal.2024). In contrast, IUs prefer detailed, interactive product demonstrations (e.g., IVIled tutorials). Additionally, PUs look for IVIs that adapt to their emotional state and act as guides, providing personalized recommendations. TABLE 8 | How interviewees understood immersive time—exemplary quotes. Exemplary quotes PUs IUs “I will spend my time on immersive platforms by putting on a VR headset to interact with an IVI, making it the new way to engage with brands.” PU4 “Spending time immersed in these worlds, at least for me, will also be about defining my own limits – deciding how much I want to engage, what I let in, and what I filter out.” PU6 “For me, spending time there will involve actively engaging with the virtual environment – participating in shared activities with others and truly immersing myself in the experience.” PU7 “One reason I'll spend time on immersive platforms is the opportunity to escape from reality – stepping into new environments and experiencing things beyond everyday life.” PU9 “When I put on a VR headset, I'll be spending time moving through different virtual rooms – exploring products, interacting with others, and accessing detailed information on different things in a fully immersive way.” PU14 “I can escape from reality for hours on immersive platforms without noticing how time flies.” IU2 “Putting on a VR headset to spend time on immersive platforms, I truly immerse myself in the environment and take something meaningful away from it.” IU5 “When I spend time in these virtual environments, I like to engage with virtual characters like IVIs.” IU9 “For me, spending time on immersive platforms means escaping to a world without boundaries – disconnecting from reality to experience things beyond what's possible in the real world.” IU13 “The way I spend my time in these virtual spaces will also be a conscious decision – choosing who I engage with, reflecting on how the content impacts me, and knowing when to step back if needed.” IU14 2613 Conversely, IUs prioritize practical benefits (e.g., discount codes), reflecting their preference for useful features in both virtual and real life. These groupspecific differences in the requirements regarding IVI functions highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding their impact on ImT. While previous studies focus primarily on linking a single VI design element (e.g., humanoid design) to one specific VI function (e.g., parasocial relationship building) (e.g., Dabiran etal.2024; Liu and Wang2024; Ma and Li2024; Mrad etal.2024), we demonstrate how multiple IVI design elements are interrelated with various functional expectations, including educational, emotional, social, and epistemic aspects. Notably, these design elements do not solely support one function but can collectively serve multiple purposes, fulfilling the diverse needs of the different consumer groups. 5.1 | Theoretical Implications Our contribution to marketing and consumer behavior research is threefold: First, we explore the drivers of ImT with IVIs, providing novel insights into their designenabled functions. Second, we examine group differences in how PUs and IUs prioritize these drivers, revealing important distinctions in consumer behavior. Finally, we contribute to establishing the affordance perspective in the (virtual) influencer literature by demonstrating its usefulness for understanding how IVIs' design elements can shape consumers' functional expectations. Kaur etal.'s(2024) findings indicate that consumers perceive immersive platforms as offering limited opportunities to engage with brands, thus constraining ImT. Conversely, our study profoundly investigates how brands can use IVIs as a key opportunity to interact with consumers on these platforms. We demonstrate that, despite the potential of IVIs, discrepancies exist in consumer behavior regarding these characters. These contribute to the limited time spent with IVIs, hindering sustained engagement. We highlight how IVI design and functions may fail to foster the consumer engagement necessary to encourage sustained ImT. Building on this, our research explores the qualitative aspects of consumer behavior in the context of IVIs, indicating which IVI design elements and functions drive ImT. By deepening the understanding of ImT in this context, we uncover how the four drivers—epistemic, emotional, social, and educational—can encourage consumers to spend more time with IVIs. Previous studies have predominantly focused on single drivers of ImT related to immersive platforms. Our research provides an integrated perspective by highlighting how multiple drivers can be activated through avatar design. This comprehensive view broadens the understanding of how IVIs can encourage consumers to spend ImT, offering a key contribution to the literature. Exploring the potential influence of multiple IVI functions on ImT provides more concrete insights into consumer behavior and the affordances (i.e., designenabled functions) that can drive sustained engagement. Our findings also contribute to the conceptual understanding of how “traditional” VIs can be transformed into IVIs. We illustrate how VI design elements (e.g., storytelling) can be advanced through avatarspecific elements (e.g., movement) to enable existing VIs to fully leverage the unique immersive platform characteristics. Past avatar research predominantly investigated selffocused measures, examining users' avatars' selfrelated perceptions (e.g., Kim etal.2025; Taylor et al.2024). However, recent work by Chae etal.(2025) has explored how users perceive other avatars regarding human likeness. Our study expands this perspective by considering various design elements, including storytelling, movement, and other avatarspecific attributes. We explore how these elements shape consumers' expectations and influence their behavioral intentions in terms of spending ImT. In addition, this study reveals that different consumer types expect distinct IVI functions, which, in turn, encourage behaviors such as spending ImT. Our data highlight three groupspecific differences influencing IVI design, reflecting how PUs and IUs prioritize various aspects to drive their ImT. Notably, both groups view IVIs as relevant product and brand information sources, with transparency encouraging ImT. Lastly, deploying the affordance perspective for supporting theory building in marketing and consumer behavior research is limited, with a few recent exceptions (i.e., Park and Yap2024). We achieve this by applying the perspective to a new actor, IVIs. While prior research has focused on the digital capabilities of immersive platforms (Shin2022; Xun and Zheng2023), we broaden this view by identifying affordances unique to platform actors, emphasizing the social interactions they can foster (HennigThurau etal.2022). This approach offers valuable insights into how IVIs, as mediators of consumerbrand interactions, can influence consumer behavior in immersive environments, particularly by driving ImT. 5.2 | Managerial Implications With more brands partnering with IVIs (e.g., Maybelline New York with Kai) and some even creating their own (e.g., Louis Vuitton with Livi) (LVMH2022; McDowell2024), this research offers key managerial insights for shaping current marketing strategies. Based on our framework (Figure4), marketers should target two groups to drive ImT with IVIs, each prioritizing different designenabled functions: PUs, who have yet to start their “immersive platform journey,” and IUs, already advanced in this journey. First, brands targeting PUs should create an idealized utopia by designing immaculate IVIs that appear happy and calm, with diversity limited to traits like skin color. This group is drawn to fictional narratives but also appreciates positive reallife elements that match their idealized expectations. In contrast, to drive ImT with IUs, companies should position IVIs as an extension of physical reality, incorporating broader diversity, including realistic traits (e.g., acne), and blending fiction with reallife events in their storylines. 2614 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 Second, PUs prefer onetoone IVI interactions. Companies should focus on individual interactions, using elements like direct responses or nodding to cater to this. To ease PUs' transition into virtual (brand) communities, IVIs can invite them to events. Conversely, IUs expect community building, which can be addressed through IVIled events (e.g., workshops). Third, PUs envision personalized IVI content. Companies can leverage AIsupported IVIs to deliver targeted advertising, concise content, and guidance. In contrast, IUs prioritize practical, realitybased IVI functions. Brands should provide realworld benefits, such as discount codes or integrate “playtoearn” models. Moreover, detailed content, like IVIled product demonstrations, is crucial for IUs to invest more ImT. For both groups, aligning IVI attributes with the product and ensuring transparency about the controlling entity is vital. Brands should also incorporate behavioral realism, use supernatural elements to avoid the Uncanny Valley effect, and design responsive, flexible IVIs with engaging narratives featuring “leaveamessage” options to drive ImT. In conclusion, by leveraging IVIs with carefully considered design elements, brands can drive ImT with PUs and IUs, enabling them to thrive in the dynamic field of IVI marketing. 5.3 | Limitations and Further Research Our work has some limitations that emphasize the need for further research on IVIs. Our mixedmethod approach provides indepth insights into IVIs' design elements and functions that are important for consumers' decision to spend more ImT with IVIs in the future and for which consumers are likely to exhibit elevated expectations. However, it is up to future research to design different IVIs and analyze consumers' ImT, with a particular focus on how consumers actively engage with specific design elements and experience them, and how these interactions alter their initial expectations and preferences. Additionally, future studies should extend the study's external validity across a diverse demographic and cultural audience. Personality traits (e.g., personal innovativeness) may also shape consumers' expectations of IVIs, and their impact on ImT should be investigated. During our interviews, we noticed that consumers may perceive some IVI design aspects negatively. Future research should identify these potentially problematic elements, assess their impact on consumer expectations, and develop mitigation strategies (Tingelhoff and Marga2025). In addition to the cost of acquiring a VR headset, motion sickness during initial use (HennigThurau etal.2024) presents a limitation for PUs' ImT. Future studies could explore IVI design solutions to reduce this effect, providing a more seamless entry for PUs into immersive environments while motivating them to invest time with IVIs. Additionally, research should investigate other ways to foster initial adoption for PUs. In contrast, for IUs, who are already accustomed to using immersive platforms, future studies should focus more on marketing strategies to prolong their ImT. Moreover, future research could explore when PUs transition into the stage of IUs based on accumulated ImT, providing insights into longterm consumer behavior. By addressing these gaps, future studies can build on our findings and contribute to a more comprehensive framework that accounts for both the drivers and barriers of ImT with IVIs. 6 | Conclusion As immersive platforms continue to transform social and business interactions, IVIs play an increasingly crucial role. As virtual brand “ambassadors,” they can drive consumers to spend ImT and engage with branded content. Despite this potential, how IVIs can drive ImT and influence consumer behavior remains underexplored. This paper contributes to closing this gap FIGURE 4 | Framework on consumerspecific expectations regarding IVI functions driving ImT. Potenal Users Incumbent Users Immersive Virtual Influencers (IVIs) •an idealized utopia •one-to-one interacons •personalized IVI content Potenal Users' Funconal Expectaons of IVIs relying on secondhand informaon regarding their expectaons of IVIs relying on firsthand experience with IVI-like actors regarding their expectaons of IVIs Immersive Time (ImT) driven by educaonal. emoonal, escapist, and social funcons •an extension of reality •community building •praccal reality-based IVI funcons Incumbent Users' Funconal Expectaons of IVIs 2615 by extending the literature on (immersive) VIs, ImT, and immersive platforms, offering new insights into IVIs' role in shaping consumer behavior in immersive environments. It systematically reveals the (limited) amount of ImT consumers currently spend with IVIs and investigates the designenabled functions of IVIs that can enhance this amount of time. Notably, we differentiate between two consumer groups of varying exposure to immersive platforms (i.e., PUs and IUs), tailoring our insights and recommendations to their needs. This differentiation led to novel findings. We uncover consumer behavior patterns distinct to each group, particularly how PUs and IUs prioritize different aspects of IVI design. As our study highlights the importance of aligning IVI design with consumer expectations, we show how IVI design elements can activate multiple drivers of ImT, namely educational, emotional, social, and epistemic drivers. By exploring these, we develop a framework that details the functional expectations of both consumer groups. Thus, our findings offer valuable insights into how IVI design and functions can be strategically tailored to create more engaging and prolonged virtual experiences across both consumer segments. Moreover, our insights direct future research onto pivotal avenues. First, future studies should investigate potential negative perceptions of certain IVI design elements, as these could discourage consumers from spending ImT and may prompt them to explore alternative options (Kaur etal.2024). Additionally, research should explore strategies for fostering initial adoption for PUs and ways to prolong ImT for IUs. Understanding how PUs transition into the stage of IUs based on accumulated ImT with IVIs will provide valuable insights into longterm consumer behavior. Building on our own research and answering these questions will enable us to comprehensively understand IVIs' pivotal role as virtual brand “ambassadors” and harness their full potential. Acknowledgments For this research, Fabian Tingelhoff received funding from the KonradAdenauer Foundation (KAS). Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. References Ahn, R. J., S. Y. Cho, and W. Sunny Tsai. 2022. “Demystifying ComputerGenerated Imagery (CGI) Influencers: The Effect of Perceived Anthropomorphism and Social Presence on Brand Outcomes.” Journal of Interactive Advertising 22, no. 3: 327–335. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15252 019. 2022. 2111242. Ahn, S. J.- G., J. Kim, and J. Kim. 2022. “The Bifold Triadic Relationships Framework: A Theoretical Primer for Advertising Research in the Metaverse.” Journal of Advertising 51: 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00913 367. 2022. 2111729. Appel, G., B. Libai, E. Muller, and R. Shachar. 2020. “On the Monetization of Mobile Apps.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 37, no. 1: 93–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijres mar. 2019. 07. 007. Appel, J., A. von der Pütten, N. C. Krämer, and J. Gratch. 2012. “Does Humanity Matter? Analyzing the Importance of Social Cues and Perceived Agency of a Computer System for the Emergence of Social Reactions During HumanComputer Interaction.” Advances in HumanComputer Interaction 2: 324694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1155/ 2012/ 324694. Arsenyan, J., and A. Mirowska. 2021. “Almost Human? A Comparative Case Study on the Social Media Presence of Virtual Influencers.” International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 155, no. 1: 102694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhcs. 2021. 102694. Audrezet, A., and B. Koles. 2023. “Virtual Influencer as a Brand Avatar in Interactive Marketing.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Interactive Marketing, edited by C. L. Wang, 353–376. Springer. Barrera, K. G., and D. Shah. 2023. “Marketing in the Metaverse: Conceptual Understanding, Framework, and Research Agenda.” Journal of Business Research 155: 113420. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 113420. Batinovic, H., F. Tingelhoff, M. Hammerschmidt, and S. Schöbel. 2024. “Come Closer, but Not Too Close: How Virtual Influencers Can Facilitate or Restrict Brand Experiences in the Metaverse.” Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 57: 2797–2806. Belanche, D., L. V. Casaló, and M. Flavián. 2024. “Human Versus Virtual Influences, a Comparative Study.” Journal of Business Research 173, no. 8: 114493. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2023. 114493. Bente, G., S. Rüggenberg, N. C. Krämer, and F. Eschenburg. 2008. “AvatarMediated Networking: Increasing Social Presence and Interpersonal Trust in NetBased Collaborations.” Human Communication Research 34, no. 2: 287–318. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 14682958. 2008. 00322. x. Bernhard, E., J. Recker, and A. BurtonJones. 2013. “Understanding the Actualization of Affordances: A Study in the Process Modeling Context.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems 34: 1–12. Bilgihan, A., A. M. W. Leong, F. Okumus, and J. Bai. 2024. “Proposing a Metaverse Engagement Model for Brand Development.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 78, no. 5: 103781. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretc onser. 2024. 103781. Biocca, F., C. Harms, and J. Burgoon. 2003. “Towards a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria.” Presence (Cambridge, Mass.) 12, no. 5: 456–480. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ 10547 46033 22761270. Chae, R. L., H. Lee, and E. Kim. 2025. “The Effects of Avatar HumanLikeness on Psychological Closeness in VirtualReality.” Psychology and Marketing 42, no. 4: 1132–1145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mar. 22168 . Cheung, F., and W.- F. Leung. 2021. “Virtual Influencer as Celebrity Endorsers.” In Advances in Global Services and Retail Management, edited by C. Cobanoglu and V. Della Corte, 1–7. USF M3 Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5038/ 97819 55833035. Cheung, M.- L., W. Leung, L. Chang, E. Aw, and R. Wong. 2024. “Immersive Time in the Metaverse and Visits to the Physical World: Why Not Both? A Holistic Customer Engagement Framework.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 36, no. 11: 3674–3703. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJCHM - 0720230999. Choi, J. J., and S. S. Kwak. 2017. “Who Is This?: Identity and Presence in RobotMediated Communication.” Cognitive Systems Research 43: 174–189. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cogsys. 2016. 07. 006. Cova, B., A. Carù, and J. Cayla. 2018. “ReConceptualizing Escape in Consumer Research.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 21, no. 4: 445–464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ QMR0120170030. 2616 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 Dabiran, E., S. Farivar, F. Wang, and G. Grant. 2024. “Virtually Human: Anthropomorphism in Virtual Influencer Marketing.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 79: 103797. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretc onser. 2024. 103797. Deloitte. 2023. “While We Wait for the Metaverse to Materialize, Young People Are Already There.” https:// www2. deloi tte. com/ us/ en/ insig hts/ i ndus t ry/ techn ology/ g enzandmi lle nn ia l s - aremet a v er seearly - adopt ers. html. Dondapati, A., and R. K. Dehury. 2024. “Virtual vs. Human Influencers: The Battle for Consumer Hearts and Minds.” Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 2, no. 1: 100059. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chbah. 2024. 100059. Draper, J. 2004. “The Relationship Between Research Question and Research Design.” In Research Into Practice: Essential Skills for Reading and Applying Research in Nursing and Health Care, edited by I. C. Patrick and D. Sue, 69–84. Bailliere Tindall. Eisingerich, A. B., A. Marchand, M. P. Fritze, and L. Dong. 2019. “Hook vs. Hope: How to Enhance Customer Engagement Through Gamification.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 36, no. 2: 200–215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijres mar. 2019. 02. 003. Epley, N. 2018. “A Mind Like Mine: The Exceptionally Ordinary Underpinnings of Anthropomorphism.” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 3, no. 4: 591–598. Ferraro, C., S. Sands, N. ZubcevicBasic, and C. Campbell. 2024. “Diversity in the Digital Age: How Consumers Respond to Diverse Virtual Influencers.” International Journal of Advertising 43: 1–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02650 487. 2023. 2300927. Francis, J. J., M. Johnston, C. Robertson, et al. 2010. “What Is an Adequate Sample Size? Operationalising Data Saturation for TheoryBased Interview Studies.” Psychology and Health 25, no. 10: 1229–1245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08870 44090 3194015. Franke, C., A. GröppelKlein, and K. Müller. 2023. “Consumers' Responses to Virtual Influencers as Advertising Endorsers: Novel and Effective or Uncanny and Deceiving?” Journal of Advertising 52, no. 4: 1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00913 367. 2022. 2154721. Fraser, A. D., I. Branson, R. C. Hollett, C. P. Speelman, and S. L. Rogers. 2022. “Expressiveness of RealTime Motion Captured Avatars Influences Perceived Animation Realism and Perceived Quality of Social Interaction in Virtual Reality.” Frontiers in Virtual Reality 3: 981400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ frvir. 2022. 981400. Freeman, G., and D. Acena. 2021. “Hugging From a Distance: Building Interpersonal Relationships in Social Virtual Reality.” Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences 1: 84–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 34529 18. 3458805. Freeman, G., D. Acena, N. J. McNeese, and K. Schulenberg. 2022. “Working Together Apart Through Embodiment: Engaging in Everyday Collaborative Activities in Social Virtual Reality.” Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction 6: 1–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 3492836. Frischknecht, R. 2021. “A Social Cognition Perspective on Autonomous Technology.” Computers in Human Behavior 122: 106815. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2021. 106815. Gawer, A., and M. A. Cusumano. 2014. “Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31, no. 3: 417–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12105 . Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Erlbaum. Gioia, D. A., K. G. Corley, and A. L. Hamilton. 2013. “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology.” Organizational Research Methods 16, no. 1: 15–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28112 452151. Gray, H., R. Dolan, D. C. H. Wilkie, J. Conduit, and A. Burgess. 2024. “Social Purpose Branding Approaches: A Typology of How Brands Engage With a Social Purpose.” European Journal of Marketing 58, no. 5: 1207–1240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJM0820220588. Guest, G., A. Bunce, and L. Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough?” Field Methods 18, no. 1: 59–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15258 22X05 279903. Gutuleac, R., G. Baima, C. Rizzo, and S. Bresciani. 2024. “Will Virtual Influencers Overcome the Uncanny Valley? The Moderating Role of Social Cues.” Psychology and Marketing 41, no. 7: 1419–1431. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mar. 21989 . Hadi, R., S. Melumad, and E. S. Park. 2023. “The Metaverse: A New Digital Frontier for Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 34, no. 1: 142–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jcpy. 1356. Han, D.- I. D., Y. Bergs, and N. Moorhouse. 2022. “Virtual Reality Consumer Experience Escapes: Preparing for the Metaverse.” Virtual Reality 26, no. 4: 1443–1458. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1005 502200641 - 7. Harzing, A., and M. Maznevski. 2002. “The Interaction Between Language and Culture: A Test of the Cultural Accommodation Hypothesis in Seven Countries.” Language and Intercultural Communication 2, no. 2: 120–139. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14708 47020 8668081. Hein, A., M. Schreieck, T. Riasanow, et al. 2020. “Digital Platform Ecosystems.” Electronic Markets 30, no. 1: 87–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1252 501900377 - 4. HennigThurau, T., D. Aliman, A. Herting, G. Cziehso, M. Linder, and R. Kübler. 2022. “Social Interactions in the Metaverse: Framework, Initial Evidence, and Research Roadmap.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 51: 1–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1174 702200908 - 0. HennigThurau, T., A. M. Herting, and D. Jütte. 2024. “Adoption of Virtual Reality Headsets: The Role of Metaverse Trials for Consumers' Usage and Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 59: 145–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10949 96824 1263353. Hennink, M. M., B. N. Kaiser, and V. C. Marconi. 2017. “Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?” Qualitative Health Research 27, no. 4: 591–608. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10497 32316 665344. Herhausen, D., K. Kleinlercher, P. C. Verhoef, O. Emrich, and T. Rudolph. 2019. “Loyalty Formation for Different Customer Journey Segments.” Journal of Retailing 95, no. 3: 9–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretai. 2019. 05. 001. Hiken, A. 2023. “Roblox Is Testing Video Portal Ads in Ongoing Bid for Brands.” https:// adage. com/ artic le/ digit almarke tingadtechnews/ roblo xtesti ngvideo - porta ladsongoi ngbidbrands/ 2529676. Hofeditz, L., A. Nissen, R. Schütte, and M. Mirbabaie. 2022. “Trust Me, I'm an Influencer!—A Comparison of Perceived Trust in Human and Virtual Influencers.” ECIS 2022 Research-in-Progress Papers, 27. https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ ecis2 022_ rip/ 27. Kang, S.- H., and J. H. Watt. 2013. “The Impact of Avatar Realism and Anonymity on Effective Communication via Mobile Devices.” Computers in Human Behavior 29, no. 3: 1169–1181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2012. 10. 010. Karahanna, E., S. Xu, Y. Xu, and A. Zhang. 2018. “The Needs– Affordances–Features Perspective for the Use of Social Media.” MIS Quarterly 42, no. 3: 737–756. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25300/ MISQ/ 2018/ 11492 . Kaur, J., E. Mogaji, M. Paliwal, S. Jha, S. Agarwal, and S. A. Mogaji. 2024. “Consumer Behavior in the Metaverse.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 23, no. 4: 1720–1738. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 2298. Ki, C.- W., and Y.- K. Kim. 2019. “The Mechanism by Which Social Media Influencers Persuade Consumers: The Role of Consumers' Desire to Mimic.” Psychology and Marketing 36, no. 10: 905–922. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mar. 21244 . 2617 Kim, E., D. Kim, E. Zihang, and H. Shoenberger. 2023. “The Next Hype in Social Media Advertising: Examining Virtual Influencers' Brand Endorsement Effectiveness.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1089051. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2023. 1089051. Kim, M., H. J. Oh, J. H. Choi, and Y. Jung. 2025. “Decoding Millennials and Generation Z Consumers' Brand Behaviors in the Metaverse: The Relationships Among Avatar Identification, SelfPresence, and Psychological Dynamics.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 24, no. 1: 44–57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 2405. Koles, B., A. Audrezet, J. G. Moulard, N. Ameen, and B. McKenna. 2024. “The Authentic Virtual Influencer: Authenticity Manifestations in the Metaverse.” Journal of Business Research 170: 114325. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2023. 114325. Kumar, A., and A. Shankar. 2024. “Investigating the Role of Metaverse Influencers' Attributes for the Next Generation of Services.” Journal of Services Marketing 38: 816–838. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JSM0920230320. Lee, U.- K. 2022. “Tourism Using Virtual Reality: Media Richness and Information System Successes.” Sustainability 14, no. 7: 1–17. Leidner, D. E., E. Gonzalez, and H. Koch. 2018. “An Affordance Perspective of Enterprise Social Media and Organizational Socialization.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 27, no. 2: 117– 138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsis. 2018. 03. 003. Li, H., Y. Lei, Q. Zhou, and H. Yuan. 2023. “Can You Sense Without Being Human? Comparing Virtual and Human Influencers Endorsement Effectiveness.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 75: 103456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretc onser. 2023. 103456. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. “Naturalistic Inquiry.” SAGE. Liu, F., and R. Wang. 2024. “Fostering Parasocial Relationships With Virtual Influencers in the Uncanny Valley: Anthropomorphism, Autonomy, and a Multigroup Comparison.” Journal of Business Research 186: 115024. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2024. 115024. Liyanaarachchi, G., M. Mifsud, and G. Viglia. 2024. “Virtual Influencers and Data Privacy: Introducing the MultiPrivacy Paradox.” Journal of Business Research 176: 1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2024. 114584. Lou, C., S. T. J. Kiew, T. Chen, T. Y. M. Lee, J. E. C. Ong, and Z. Phua. 2023. “Authentically Fake? How Consumers Respond to the Influence of Virtual Influencers.” Journal of Advertising 52, no. 4: 540–557. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00913 367. 2022. 2149641. Luo, X., J. Zhang, and W. Duan. 2013. “Social Media and Firm Equity Value.” Information Systems Research 24, no. 1: 146–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 1120. 0462. LVMH. 2022. “Livi, LVMH's New Face of Innovation Unveils the Startups That Will Join the LVMH Lab at Viva Technology and Competing for the LVMH Innovation Award.” https:// www. lvmh. com/ newsdoc u m ents/ ne ws/ livifa ceofi n no v at ion - lvmhunv ei l s - the21start upsthatwilljointhelvmhlabelabatvivatechn ology/ . Ma, Y., and J. Li. 2024. “How Humanlike Is Enough?: Uncover the Underlying Mechanism of Virtual Influencer Endorsement.” Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 2, no. 1: 100037. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chbah. 2023. 100037. Majchrzak, A., and M. Markus. 2012. “Technology Affordances and Constraints in Management Information Systems (MIS).” In Encyclopedia of Management Theory, edited by E. H. Kessler, 832–835. Sage Publications. Maloney, D., G. Freeman, and D. Y. Wohn. 2020. ““Talking Without a Voice”: Understanding NonVerbal Communication in Social Virtual Reality.” Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction 4: 1–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 3415246. Mansoor, S., S. M. Rahman, and J. L.- H. Bowden. 2024. “Purchase Spillovers From the Metaverse to the Real World: The Roles of Social Presence, Trialability, and Customer Experience.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 23, no. 5: 2501–2552. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 2353. McDowell, M. 2024. “Influencer Marketing Has Arrived on Roblox.” https:// www. vogue busin es s . c om/ story/ tech n ology/ influ encer - ma rke tinghasarriv edonroblox. Meng, L., Y. Bie, M. Yang, and Y. Wang. 2024. “Watching It Motivates Me to Become Stronger: Virtual Influencers' Impact on Consumer SelfImprovement Product Preferences.” Journal of Business Research 178, no. 3: 114654. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2024. 114654. Merriam, S. B., and R. S. Grenier. 2019. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Meske, C., I. Amojo, and D. Thapa. 2023. “A Conceptual Model of Feedback Mechanisms in Adjusted Affordances—Insights From Usage of a Mental Mobile Health Application.” International Journal of Information Management 69: 102597. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2022. 102597. Miao, F., I. V. Kozlenkova, H. Wang, T. Xie, and R. W. Palmatier. 2022. “An Emerging Theory of Avatar Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 86, no. 1: 67–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 42921 996646. Mirowska, A., and J. Arsenyan. 2023. “Sweet Escape: The Role of Empathy in Social Media Engagement With Human Versus Virtual Influencers.” International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 174, no. 3: 103008. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhcs. 2023. 103008. Mogaji, E., Y. K. Dwivedi, and R. Raman. 2024. “Fashion Marketing in the Metaverse.” Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 15, no. 1: 115–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 20932 685. 2023. 2249483. Mogaji, E., J. Wirtz, R. W. Belk, and Y. K. Dwivedi. 2023. “Immersive Time (ImT): Conceptualizing Time Spent in the Metaverse.” International Journal of Information Management 72: 102659. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2023. 102659. Mori, M., K. F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki. 2012. “The Uncanny Valley [From the Field].” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19, no. 2: 98–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ MRA. 2012. 2192811. Mouritzen, S., V. Penttinen, and S. Pedersen. 2023. “Virtual Influencer Marketing: The Good, the Bad and the Unreal.” European Journal of Marketing 58, no. 4: 410–440. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJM1220220915. Mrad, M., Z. Ramadan, Z. Tóth, L. Nasr, and S. Karimi. 2024. “Virtual Influencers Versus Real Connections: Exploring the Phenomenon of Virtual Influencers.” Journal of Advertising 54: 1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00913 367. 2024. 2393711. Muniz, F., K. Stewart, and L. Magalhães. 2024. “Are They Humans or Are They Robots? The Effect of Virtual Influencer Disclosure on Brand Trust.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 23, no. 3: 1234–1250. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 2271. Park, H. E., and S.- F. Yap. 2024. “Technology Affordances and Social Withdrawal: The Rise of Hikikomori.” Psychology and Marketing 41, no. 7: 1469–1488. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mar. 21991 . Park, S., X. Wei, and H. Lee. 2024. “Revisiting the Elaboration Likelihood Model in the Context of a Virtual Influencer: A Comparison Between Highand LowInvolvement Products.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 23, no. 4: 1638–1652. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 2290. Peer, E., D. Rothschild, A. Gordon, Z. Evernden, and E. Damer. 2022. “Data Quality of Platforms and Panels for Online Behavioral Research.” Behavior Research Methods 54, no. 4: 1643–1662. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s1342 802101694 - 3. Pethig, F., H. Hoehle, K.- L. Hui, and A. Lanz. 2024. “Behavior Toward Newcomers and Contributions to Online Communities.” MIS Quarterly 49: 731–758. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 3936971. Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.- Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review 2618 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5: 879–903. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 88.5. 879. Porsche. 2022. “Virtual Figures With Real Influence: Porsche and Virtual Influencer.” https:// medium. com/ nextlevel - germa nengin eering/ virtu alfigur eswithrealinflu ence493d1 5fbc370. Ryan, G. W., and H. R. Bernard. 2003. “Techniques to Identify Themes.” Field Methods 15, no. 1: 85–109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15258 22X02 239569. Sands, S., C. Ferraro, V. Demsar, and G. Chandler. 2022. “False Idols: Unpacking the Opportunities and Challenges of Falsity in the Context of Virtual Influencers.” Business Horizons 65, no. 6: 777–788. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bushor. 2022. 08. 002. Schlosser, A. 2003. “Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: The Role of Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes Versus Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Consumer Research 30, no. 2: 184–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 376807. Schöbel, S., and J. M. Leimeister. 2023. “Metaverse Platform Ecosystems.” Electronic Markets 33, no. 12: 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1252 502300623 - w. Schüll, N. D. 2012. Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ 97814 00834655. Shin, D. 2022. “The Actualization of Meta Affordances: Conceptualizing Affordance Actualization in the Metaverse Games.” Computers in Human Behavior 133, no. 6: 107292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2022. 107292. Shin, J., and S. Lee. 2020. “Intimacy Between Actual Users and Virtual Agents: Interaction Through Likes and Comments.” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM) 14: 1–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ IMCOM 48794. 2020. 9001810. Songailiene, E., H. Winklhofer, and S. McKechnie. 2011. “A Conceptualisation of SupplierPerceived Value.” European Journal of Marketing 45, no. 3: 383–418. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 56111 1107249. Stein, J.- P., P. Linda Breves, and N. Anders. 2024. “Parasocial Interactions With Real and Virtual Influencers: The Role of Perceived Similarity and HumanLikeness.” New Media and Society 26, no. 6: 3433–3453. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44822 1102900. Szolin, K., D. J. Kuss, F. M. Nuyens, and M. D. Griffiths. 2023. ““I Am the Character, the Character Is Me”: A Thematic Analysis of the UserAvatar Relationship in Videogames.” Computers in Human Behavior 143: 107694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2023. 107694. Taylor, A., M. Hook, T. Carlyle, and J. Carlson. 2024. “Creating a MetaverseMe: Exploring the Consumer Avatar Creation Process.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 23, no. 6: 2846–2861. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 2378. Tingelhoff, F., S. Klug, and E. Elshan. 2024. “The Diffusion of the Metaverse: How YouTube Influencers Shape Metaverse Mass Adoption and What This Means for Organizations.” California Management Review 66, no. 4: 23–50. Tingelhoff, F., and J. J. Marga. 2025. “Avoiding Virtual Dystopia: A Design Theory for Emancipatory Participatory Immersive Platforms.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 34: 101910. Tingelhoff, F., R. Schultheiss, S. M. Schöbel, and J. M. Leimeister. 2025. “Qualitative Insights Into Organizational Value Creation: Decoding Characteristics of Metaverse Platforms.” Information Systems Frontiers 27, no. 2: 467–486. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079 602410494 - x. Valenzuela, D., and P. Shrivastava. 2002. “Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research.” Southern Cross University and the Southern Cross Institute of Action Research (SCIAR). Verhulst, I., A. Woods, L. Whittaker, J. Bennett, and P. Dalton. 2021. “Do VR and AR Versions of an Immersive Cultural Experience Engender Different User Experiences?” Computers in Human Behavior 125: 106951. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2021. 106951. von der Pütten, A. M., N. C. Krämer, J. Gratch, and S.- H. Kang. 2010. ““It Doesn't Matter What You Are!” Explaining Social Effects of Agents and Avatars.” Computers in Human Behavior 26, no. 6: 1641–1650. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2010. 06. 012. Wang, G., and C. Shin. 2022. “Influencing Factors of Usage Intention of Metaverse Education Application Platform: Empirical Evidence Based on PPM and TAM Models.” Sustainability 14, no. 24: 24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su142 417037. Watson, R. T. 2023. “Decentraland Metaverse Fashion Week Attendance Plummets 76% Amid “worrisome” Trading Volume.” https:// www. thebl ock. co/ post/ 225104/ decen trala ndmetav ersefashi onweek. Wongkitrungrueng, A., and L. Suprawan. 2024. “Metaverse Meets Branding: Examining Consumer Responses to Immersive Brand Experiences.” International Journal of Human Computer Interaction 40, no. 11: 2905–2924. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10447 318. 2023. 2175162. Wu, D.- Y., J.- H. T. Lin, and N. D. Bowman. 2022. “Watching VR Advertising Together: How 3D Animated Agents Influence Audience Responses and Enjoyment to VR Advertising.” Computers in Human Behavior 133: 107255. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2022. 107255. XieCarson, L., P. Benckendorff, and K. Hughes. 2023. “Not So Different After All? A Netnographic Exploration of User Engagement With NonHuman Influencers on Social Media.” Journal of Business Research 167, no. 5: 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2023. 114149. Xun, Y., and X. Zheng. 2023. “Exploring Metaverse Addiction: Lenses of Technology Affordance and Compensatory Actualization.” Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 1–9. Yang, D., J. Zhang, Y. Sun, and Z. Huang. 2024. “Showing Usage Behavior or Not? The Effect of Virtual Influencers' Product Usage Behavior on Consumers.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 79, no. 20: 103859. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretc onser. 2024. 103859. Yoo, J. W., J. Park, and H. Park. 2024. “How Can I Trust You if You're Fake? Understanding HumanLike Virtual Influencer Credibility and the Role of Textual Social Cues.” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 19, no. 4: 730–748. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JRIM0220240092. Yoo, K., R. Welden, K. Hewett, and M. Haenlein. 2023. “The Merchants of Meta: A Research Agenda to Understand the Future of Retailing in the Metaverse.” Journal of Retailing 99, no. 2: 173–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretai. 2023. 02. 002. Zhang, Y., H. W. Nguyen, Y. H. Jung, and I. Y. Ren. 2024. “The Social Media Industry: Where Is It Heading?” Journal of Business Strategy 45, no. 2: 81–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JBS1220220209. Zhang, Y., W. Shao, S. Quach, P. Thaichon, and Q. Li. 2025. “VR Retailing: When and Why Immersion Pays Off.” Journal of Retailing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jretai. 2025. 04. 004. Zhou, X., X. Yan, and Y. Jiang. 2024. “Making Sense? The SensorySpecific Nature of Virtual Influencer Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing 88, no. 4: 84–106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 42923 1203699. 2619 Appendix A Summary of Relevant Literature on Immersive Time Author(s) Research design Focus Summary of findings Cheung etal.(2024) Empirical, quantitative study (n = 267) Data from Asian consumers using VR technologies to participate in MICE (meetings, incentives, conferences, and exhibitions) activities on immersive platforms Investigated mechanisms driving consumer participation in MICE activities on immersive platforms through the lenses of media richness, perceived realism, and engagement, as well as the impact on consumers' ImT and future visit intention Found that media richness dimensions, such as multiple cues, immediate feedback, and personal focus, enhance perceived immersive platform realism, which in turn drives consumer engagement in MICE activities Demonstrated that higher levels of perceived realism and engagement increase consumers' ImT and future visit intention Showed that among consumer engagement dimensions, participation had the strongest impact on ImT, followed by affection and absorption Kaur etal.(2024) Empirical, qualitative study (n = 63) Indepth, semistructured interviews with Generation Z Indian consumers Examined consumer behavior on immersive platforms, using the EngelKollatBlackwell model as a theoretical framework Revealed that consumer behavior on immersive platforms follows the stages of awareness, information search, evaluation of alternatives, engagement, and postengagement evaluation, as outlined by the EngelKollatBlackwell model Found that positive experiences extend ImT, while negative experiences reduce it, prompting exploration of alternatives Quantified aspects of ImT, highlighting behaviors like avatar customization, NFT trading or creation, and interacting with brands and other consumers Mogaji etal.(2023, 2024)Conceptual Introduced the concept of immersive time (ImT) as the conscious time consumers spend using immersive devices like VR headsets to engage with their environment on immersive platforms continually Emphasized that understanding the importance of ImT has implications for researchers, practitioners, technology developers, brand managers, and policymakers who are involved in developing strategies for immersive platforms and ensuring consumer safety within these environments Wongkitrungrueng and Suprawan(2024) Empirical, quantitative study (n = 702) Data from Thai consumers of Asia's largest immersive platform Examined consumer responses to brand experiences on immersive platforms Demonstrated that consumers who enjoy the branded virtual environment are likely to spend more time exploring it Concluded that longer engagement helps consumers gain a deeper understanding of both the functional and symbolic value of the virtual environment 2620 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 Appendix B Summary of Relevant Literature on Virtual Influencers Author(s) Research design Focus Design Elements/ functions Summary of findings Arsenyan and Mirowska(2021) Empirical, qualitative study (netnography) Analyzing 48.827 comments from three VIs' Instagram posts over 11 months Examined posting behavior and audience reactions to HIs and VIs (humanlike and animelike) on social media, focusing on text and emojibased interactions Design element: Appearance Found that humanlike VIs receive fewer positive reactions compared to animated VIs and HIs, highlighting differences in audience engagement across these personas Audrezet and Koles(2023) Empirical, qualitative study (n = 42) Indepth, semistructured interviews from Italy and France Explored young consumers' overall perceptions of VIs, emphasizing insights particularly relevant to brand strategies Exploring various functions Identified three consumer personas—passive bystanders, active community members, and devoted contributors—based on VI following behaviors, providing segmentation insights Determined parasocial relationships and community building as important VI functions Cheung and Leung(2021) Empirical, quantitative study (n = 105) Data collected from consumers aged between 18 and 27 years old active on Instagram Assessed consumer perceptions of VIs, focusing on their attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise Design element: Appearance Found that cartoonishdesigned VIs are perceived as more attractive and credible than humanlike VIs Dabiran etal.(2024) Empirical, quantitative study (n = 430) Data from Instagram users aged 18 and older who follow at least one VI Evaluated the effects of four types of anthropomorphism— appearance, moral virtue, cognitive experience, and conscious emotionality—on followers' perceptions of VI credibility, parasocial relationships, and purchase intention Design element: Appearance Function: Parasocial relationships Found that moral virtue and cognitive experience positively affect both credibility and parasocial relationships, while appearance impacts only parasocial relationships, and conscious emotionality shows no significant effect Credibility and parasocial relationships both enhance purchase intention, with parasocial relationships having a stronger impact Influencer–product congruence moderates the effect of credibility on purchase intention Linked appearance to parasocial relationships Dondapati and Dehury(2024) Empirical, quantitative study (n = 624) Data from university students from various academic disciplines Examined whether perceived homophily and parasocial relationships mediate the effect of influencer type (HI vs. VI) on purchase intent, and analyzed the moderating role of perceived authenticity Function: Parasocial relationships Found that perceived homophily and parasocial relationships mediate the effect of influencer type (HI vs. VI) on purchase intent, with perceived authenticity moderating this pathway The indirect effect via parasocial relationships and perceived homophily was stronger for HIs than VIs