Given the growing interest in combinations of fashion and digital innovations, it is critical for both researchers and retailers to understand how consumers respond to new technologies, especially artificial intelligence (AI). The purpose of the study was to examine consumers’ attitudes and purchase intention toward an AI device. By adapting the technology acceptance model, a conceptual model was constructed and tested related to consumers’ attitudes and purchase intention toward an AI device—Echo Look. A total of 313 subjects (61% female) between 18 and 65 years old in the top 10 metropolitan areas in the United States participated in the study. The results indicated that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and performance risk were significant in consumers’ attitude toward AI. Positive attitudes toward technology positively influenced the purchase intention. Based on these results, theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
4.
ApplinS. (2017). Amazon’s Echo Look: Harnessing the power of machine learning or subtle exploitation of human vulnerability?IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 6, 125–127.
BaronR. A.ByrneD. (1987). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
BatraR.AhtolaO. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159–170.
8.
BelleauB.SummersT.XuY.PinelR. (2007). Theory of reasoned action: Purchase intention of young consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25, 244–257.
9.
BrillT. M. (2018). Siri, Alexa, and other digital assistants: A study of customer satisfaction with Artificial Intelligence applications (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromhttp://digitalcommons.udallas.edu/edt/1/
10.
BrowneB. A.KaldenbergD. O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 31–44.
11.
BuesM.SteinerM.StafflageM.KrafftM. (2017). How mobile in-store advertising influences purchase intention: Value drivers and mediating effects from a consumer perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 34, 157–174.
CelikH.KocamanR. (2017). Roles of self-monitoring, fashion involvement and technology readiness in an individual’s propensity to use mobile shopping. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 19, 166–182.
14.
ChoH.FioritoS. S. (2009). Acceptance of online customization for apparel shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37, 389–407.
15.
CurranJ.MeuterM.SurprenantC. (2003). Intentions to use self-service technologies: A confluence of multiple attitudes. Journal of Service Research, 5, 209–224.
16.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
17.
DavisF. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.
18.
DavisF. D.BagozziR.WarshawP. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
19.
DavisF. D.BagozziR.WarshawP. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111–1132.
20.
DoddsW.MonroeK.GrewalD. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307–319.
FairhurstA. E.GoodL. K.GentryJ. W. (1989). Fashion involvement: An instrument validation procedure. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7, 10–14.
23.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
24.
GrewalD.GotliebJ.MarmorsteinH. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 145–153.
25.
HagerG.BryantR.HorvitzE.MataricM.HonavarV. (2017). Advances in artificial intelligence require progress across all of computer science. A white paper prepared for the Computing Community Consortium Committee of the Computing Research Association. Retrieved fromhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.04352.pdf
26.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
HwangC.ChungT. L.SandersE. A. (2016). Attitudes and purchase intentions for smart clothing: Examining US consumers’ functional, expressive, and aesthetic needs for solar-powered clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 34, 207–222.
28.
KimH. (2008). The impact of body image self-discrepancy on body dissatisfaction, fashion involvement, concerns with fit and size of garments, and loyalty intentions in online apparel shopping (Retrospective theses and dissertations). Iowa State University, Ames. Retrieved fromhttps://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16721&context=rtd
29.
KimH.-Y.LeeJ. Y.MunJ.JohnsonK. (2017). Consumer adoption of smart in-store technology: Assessing the predictive value of attitude versus beliefs in the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 10, 26–36.
30.
KimJ.ForsytheS. (2007). Hedonic usage of product virtualization technologies in online apparel shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35, 502–514.
31.
KimJ.ForsytheS. (2009). Adoption of sensory enabling technology for online apparel shopping. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 1101–1120.
32.
KimM.CheeyongK. (2015). Augmented reality fashion apparel simulation using a magic mirror. International Journal of Smart Home, 9, 169–178.
33.
KlineR. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
LeeH.-H.ChangE. (2011). Consumer attitudes toward online mass customization: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 171–200.
35.
LeeH.-H.MoonH. (2015). Perceived risk of online apparel mass customization: Scale development and validation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33, 115–128.
36.
LeeJ.-H.ImJ.-E. (2008). The effect of perceived justice on postcomplaint behavior in the internet open market—Focused on the moderating effect of fashion involvement. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 32, 1427–1437.
37.
LeongL. W.IbrahimO.Dalvi-EsfahaniM.ShahbaziH.NilashiM. (2018). The moderating effect of experience on the intention to adopt mobile social network sites for pedagogical purposes: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 2477–2498.
38.
LiY.-H.HuangJ.-W. (2009). Applying theory of perceived risk and technology acceptance model in the online shopping channel. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 53, 919–925.
39.
LinJ. S. C.HsiehP. L. (2006). The role of technology readiness in customers’ perception and adoption of self-service technologies. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17, 497–517.
40.
LunneyA.CunninghamN. R.EastinM. S. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114–120.
41.
MacCallumR.BrowneM.SugawaraH. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130.
42.
MathiesonK. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 173–191.
NaderiI. (2013). Beyond the fad: A critical review of consumer fashion involvement. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37, 84–104.
45.
O’CassA. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: Antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 869–882.
46.
ParkE. J.KimE. Y.ForneyJ. C. (2006). A structural model of fashion-oriented impulse buying behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10, 433–446.
47.
ParkJ.StoelL. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33, 148–160.
48.
RosenL. D.WhalingK.CarrierL. M.CheeverN. A.RokkumJ. (2013). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers and Human Behavior, 29, 2501–2511.
ShimS.MorrisN. J.MorganG. A. (1989). Attitudes toward imported and domestic apparel among college students: The Fishbein model and external variables. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7, 8–18.
51.
ShimS. I.KwonW. S.ChattaramanV.GilbertJ. E. (2012). Virtual sales associates for mature consumers: Technical and social support in e-retail service interactions. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30, 232–248.
52.
ShinE.BaytarF. (2014). Apparel fit and size concerns and intentions to use virtual try-on: Impacts of body satisfaction and images of models’ bodies. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 32, 20–33.
53.
SprengR. A.OlshavskyR. W. (1992). A desires-as-standard model of consumer satisfaction: Implications for measuring satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5, 45–54.
WuL.-H.WuL.-C.ChangS.-C. (2016). Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383–392.
59.
YangY.WangX. (2019). Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 133, 116–126.
60.
YanshuS. U. N.GuoS. (2017). Predicting fashion involvement by media use, social comparison, and lifestyle: An interaction model. International Journal of Communication, 11, 4559–4582. ISSN: 1932-8036.
