Validation of the wearable acceptability range scale for smart apparel
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The wearable acceptability range (WEAR) Scale has been a useful tool used in consumer behaviour and product development research to better identify the social acceptance of wearable devices. In this study, we aimed to introduce an extended WEAR Scale to the apparel field by (a) refining existing measurement items and (b) validating this scale for use with smart apparel. Using a quantitative research method, an online survey was conducted with a convenience sample of US consumers aged 18 years old and over. Total 663 usable data were obtained and used for the data analysis. NVivo, SPSS, and AMOS programs were used to perform (a) a content analysis of the open-ended questions to identify recurring phrases, (b) basic descriptive statistics, and (c) a structural equation model testing, here validating the WEAR Scale, respectively. A 4-factor, 15-item WEAR Scale validated for examining consumers’ acceptance of smart apparel. The four WEAR dimensions are smart apparel in relation to: (a) design and aesthetics (four items), (b) self-expression (four items), (c) consequences (three items), and (d) reflection (four items). The findings of this study show the importance of these dimensions for the social acceptance of smart apparel. Therefore, this scale will be useful for the practical application in the apparel industry by providing better understanding of various aspects that smart apparel should consider during the product design and development stage. The scale can also be integrated with other consumer behavioural concepts to develop an emerging theoretical framework for the studies on smart apparel. Limitations and implications for future research were also discussed.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Consumer Retail Behavior Studies · Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification · Environmental Sustainability in Business
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Enclothed cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48(4), 918–925.10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.008 ↗
2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031930.10.1037/h0031930 ↗
3. Bernstein, D. A., Alison, C. S., Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., & Wickens, C. D. (1994). Psychology (3rd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Houghton Mifflin Co.
4. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research,29(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1086/346250.10.1086/346250 ↗
5. Bodine, K., & Gemperle, F. (2003). Effects of functionality on perceived comfort of wearables. In: 7thIEEE International Symposium, Wearable Computers Proceedings, 1–4.10.1109/ISWC.2003.1241394 ↗
6. Carson, R. C., & Butcher, J. N. (1992). Abnormal psychology and modern life (9th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
7. Chen, M., Ma, Y., Song, J., Lai, C. F., & Hu, B. (2016). Smart clothing: Connecting human with clouds and big data for sustainable health monitoring. Mobile Networks and Applications,21(5), 825–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-016-0745-1.10.1007/s11036-016-0745-1 ↗
8. Davis, L. L. (1984). Clothing and human behavior: A review. Home Economics Research Journal,12(3), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X8401200308.10.1177/1077727X8401200308 ↗
9. Davis, L. L., & Lennon, S. J. (1988). Social cognition and the study of clothing and human behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,16(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1988.16.2.175.10.2224/sbp.1988.16.2.175 ↗
10. Davis, L. L., & Miller, F. G. (1983). Conformity and judgments of fashionability. Home Economics Research Journal,11(4), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X8301100403.10.1177/1077727X8301100403 ↗
11. Dickinger, A., Arami, M., & Meyer, D. (2008). The role of perceived enjoyment and social norm in the adoption of technology with network externalities. European Journal of Information Systems,17(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000726.10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000726 ↗
12. Dickson, M. A., & Pollack, A. (2000). Clothing and identity among female in-line skaters. Clothing and Textile Research Journal,18(2), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0001800201.10.1177/0887302X0001800201 ↗
13. Douty, H. I. (1963). Influence of clothing on perception of persons. Journal of Home Economics,55(3), 197–202.
14. Dunne, L. (2010). Smart clothing in practice: Key design barriers to commercialization. The Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry,2(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.2752/175693810X12640026716393.10.2752/175693810X12640026716393 ↗
15. Duval, S., Hoareau, C., & Hashizume, H. (2010). Humanistic needs as seeds in smart clothing. In G. Cho (Ed.), Smart clothing: Technology and applications (pp. 153–188). New York, NY: CRC Press.
16. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using Power 31: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.11.10.3758/BRM.41.4.11 ↗
17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.10.1177/002224378101800104 ↗
18. Fortmann, J., Heuten, W., & Boll, S. (2015). User requirements for digital jewellery. British HCI Conference, ACM, 119-125.10.1145/2783446.2783573 ↗
19. Forty, A. (1986). Objects of desire. New York, NY: Pantheon.
20. Gartner Inc. (2017, August 24). Gartner says worldwide wearable device sale to grow 17 percent in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3790965.
21. Gepperth, J. (2012). Smart Things: Wearables & Clothing. In M. Karnz, E. Steinbach, S. Diewald, A. Moller, & L. Roalter (Eds.), Advance in media technology (pp. 41–48). Distributed Multimodal Information Processing Group: Munich, Germany.
22. Gerhardt, R (2013, February 15). Touchscreen T-shirts only a few years away. Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2013/02/15/armour39/.
23. Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of the self in everyday life. London, England: Penguin.
24. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
25. Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science,48(2), 157–172.
26. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.10.1080/10705519909540118 ↗
27. Jones, E. C., & Chung, C. (2008). RFID in Logistics: A practical introduction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
28. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika,35(4), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817.10.1007/BF02291817 ↗
29. Kelly, N. (2016). The WEAR scale: Development of a measure of the social acceptability of a wearable device (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15230/.
30. Kleijnen, M., Ruyter, K. D., & Wetzels, M. (2004). Consumer adoption of wireless services: discovering the rules, while playing the game. Journal of Interactive Marketing,18(2), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20002.10.1002/dir.20002 ↗
31. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
32. Kuru, A., & Erbug, C. (2013). Exploration of perceived qualities of on-body interactive products. Ergonomics,56(6), 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.788737.10.1080/00140139.2013.788737 ↗
33. Lilley, D. (2009). Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design Studies,30(6), 704–720.10.1016/j.destud.2009.05.001 ↗
34. Miller, M. J. (2016, January 5). CES 2016: Smart footwear is the newest form of wearable tech. Retrieved from https://www.brandchannel.com/2016/01/05/smart-footwear-010516/.
35. Moan, I., & Rise, J. (2006). Predicting smoking reduction among adolescents using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior. Psychology and Health,21(6), 717–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/14768320600603448.10.1080/14768320600603448 ↗
36. Nieroda, M. E., Mrad, M., & Solomon, M. R. (2018). How do consumers think about hybrid products? Computer wearables have an identity problem. Journal of Business Research,89, 159–170.10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.024 ↗
37. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38. Pal, D., Vanijja, V., Arpnikanondt, C., Zhang, X., & Papasratorn, B. (2019). A Quantitative approach for evaluating the quality of experience of smart-wearables from the quality of data and quality of information: An end user perspective. IEEE Access,7, 64266–64278.10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2917061 ↗
39. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science,23(3), 184–188.10.1177/0963721414531598 ↗
40. Perry, A., Malinin, L., Sanders, E., Li, Y., & Leigh, K. (2017). Explore consumer needs and design purposes of smart clothing from designers’ perspectives. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education,10(3), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2016.1278465.10.1080/17543266.2016.1278465 ↗
41. Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., Andrews, S., & Joinson, A. (2016). The rise of consumer health wearables: Promises and barriers. PLOS Medicine,12(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953.10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953 ↗
42. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
43. Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York, NY: The Free Press.
44. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Oxford, England: Harper.
45. Solomon, M. R., & Panda, T. K. (2011). Consumer behavior, buying, having, and being. Bengaluru, India: Pearson Education India.
46. Stritch, J. M., Pedersen, M. J., & Taggart, G. (2017). The opportunities and limitations of using Mechanical Turk (Mturk) in public administration and management scholarship. International Public Management Journal,20(3), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1276493.10.1080/10967494.2016.1276493 ↗
47. Suh, M., Carroll, K., & Cassill, N. (2010). Critical review on smart clothing product development. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management,6(4), 1–18.
48. Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2013). A theory of creepy: Technology, privacy and shifting social norms. Yale Journal of Law & Technology,16(1), 59–102.
49. Vanclay, F. (2003). Social impact assessment: International principles. International Association for Social Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,21, 3–4.
50. Wasik, B. (2014). Try it on. Wired,22(1), 90–99.