This study explores whether screen shape influences smartwatch adoption by proposing an extended technology acceptance model that integrates an empirical comparison between round and square screens with utilitarian and hedonic motivations for higher usage intention. To verify the statistical validity of the proposed model, a structural equation modeling analysis is conducted on data collected from a between-subjects experiment (N = 200) in which participants trialed a smartwatch with either a round or square screen to retrieve health information cumulated from the physical activity during the experiment. Results indicate that a round screen, compared with a square screen, is more effective in promoting smartwatch adoption by enhancing the device's hedonic qualities. However, a round screen is found to reduce the controllability of the device, although such a utilitarian quality still positively influences the adoption process. Implications of the study findings and directions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DanovaT. (2014) The wearable computing market report: growth trends, consumer attitudes, and why smartwatches will dominate. www.businessinsider.com/the-wearable-computing-market-report-2014-10 (accessed Feb.10, 2016).
2.
XuaC, RyanaR, PrybutokaV, et al.It is not for fun: an examination of social network site usage. Information & Management, 2012; 49:210–217.
3.
GuJ-C, FanL, SuhYH, et al.Comparing utilitarian and hedonic usefulness to user intention in multipurpose information systems. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 2010; 13:287–297.
4.
KimKJ, ShinD. An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 2015; 25:527–541.
5.
DavisFD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989; 13:319–340.
6.
DavisFD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1993; 38:475–487.
7.
ParkN, RhoadsM, HouJ, et al.Understanding the acceptance of teleconferencing systems among employees: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 39:118–127.
8.
KimKJ, SundarSS. Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014; 17:466–473.
9.
JungJ, Chan-OlmstedS, ParkB, et al.Factors affecting e-book reader awareness, interest, and intention to use. New Media and Society, 2011; 14:204–224.
10.
NysveenH, PedersenPE, ThorbjørnsenH. Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2005; 22:247–256.
11.
ParkE, KimKJ. An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 2014; 31:376–385.
12.
ParkSY, NamM-W, ChaS-B. University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2012; 43:592–605.
13.
PinnaB. What is the meaning of shape?. Gestalt Theory, 2012; 33:383–422.
EvelandWP, DunwoodyS. An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the Web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2002; 46:34–53.
16.
KangH, SundarSS. When self is the source: effects of media customization on message processing. Media Psychology [Epub ahead of print] www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121829
17.
KoufarisM. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 2002; 13:205–223.
18.
LeeTM, ParkC. Mobile technology usage and B2B market performance under mandatory adoption. Industrial Marketing Management, 2008; 37:833–840.
19.
VenkateshV. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 2000; 11:342–365.
20.
BanduraA. (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman.
21.
BhagatR. (2015) The circle of life: Samsung bets on new shape to help win the smartwatch war. www.cnet.com/news/the-circle-of-life-why-samsung-is-betting-a-new-shape-will-help-it-win-the-wearable-wars/ (accessed Feb.14, 2016).
22.
BajarinT. (2014) 3 things smartwatches need to be ready for prime time. http://time.com/6545/3-things-smartwatches-need-to-be-ready-for-prime-time (accessed Feb.10, 2016).
23.
SundarSS, TamulD, WuM. Capturing “cool”: measures for assessing coolness of technological products. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2014; 72:169–180.
24.
KimKJ, ShinD, ParkE. Can coolness predict technology adoption? Effects of perceived coolness on user acceptance of smartphones with curved screens. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2015; 18:528–533.
25.
McAlisterL, PessemierE. Variety seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 1982; 9:311–322.
26.
TianKT, BeardenWO, HunterGL. Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 2001; 28:50–66.
27.
ArboreA, SosciaI, BagozziRP. The role of signaling identity in the adoption of personal technologies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2014; 15:86–110.
28.
IrmakC, VallenB, SenS. You like what I like, but I don't like what you like: uniqueness motivations in product preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 2010; 37:443–455.
29.
SnyderCR, FromkinHL. Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977; 86:518–527.
30.
ZhangP, LiN. The importance of affective quality. Communications of the ACM, 2005; 48:105–108.
31.
ForgasJP. Mood and judgment: the Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 1995; 117:39–66.
32.
SchenkmanBN, JonssonFU. Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2000; 19:367–377.
33.
ZhangP, LiN, SunH. (2006) Affective quality and cognitive absorption: extending technology acceptance research. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Washington, DC: IEEE, p. 207a.
34.
Sanchez-FrancoMJ. WebCT—the quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 2010; 54:37–46.
35.
PreacherKJ, CoffmanDL. (2006) Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA. www.quantpsy.org (accessed Feb.10, 2016).
36.
MacCallumRC, BrowneMW, SugawaraHM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1996; 1:130–149.
37.
BlakewayL. (2014). A growing role in health care for smartwatches. www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/fashion/a-growing-role-in-health-care-for-smartwatches.html?_r=2 (accessed Feb.16, 2016).
38.
RyuYS, Smith-JacksonTL. Reliability and validity of the mobile phone usability questionnaire (MPUQ). Journal of Usability Studies, 2006; 2:39–53.
39.
BollenKA. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Willey.
BentlerPM, BonettDG. Significance tests and goodness-of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1980; 88:588–606.
42.
HoelterDR. The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 1983; 11:325–344.
43.
BentlerPM. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 1990; 107:238–246.
44.
HuL, BentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999; 6:1–55.
45.
HairJF, BlackWC, BabinBJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
46.
LinC. Exploring the relationship between technology acceptance model and usability test. Information Technology and Management, 2013; 14:243–255.
47.
LevyS. (2006) The perfect thing: how the iPod shuffles commerce, culture, and coolness. New York: Simon & Schuster.
48.
KimKJ, SundarSS. Mobile persuasion: can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust?. Human Communication Research, 2016; 42:45–70.
49.
JacksonLA, ZhaoY, Kolenic IIIA, et al.Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:437–442.
50.
SunderSS, MaratheSS. Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research, 2010; 36:298–322.
