Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MASTER'S THESIS
Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptanceof New Technology
A Case Study of Smartwatches
Robin EnérLinus Knutsbo
2015
Master of Science in Business and Economics (Civilekonom)Business and Economics
Luleå University of TechnologyDepartment of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences
Factors influencing consumer acceptance of new
technology
- A case study of smartwatches
Abstract
Wearables are becoming more commercially used among consumers around the world.
Fernandez (2014) defined wearables to “…include all forms of computational or sensory
electronic devices that can be worn with clothing or on the body…” Smartwatches are one
of the wearables that are becoming a current trend. The smartwatch can ease people’s
everyday life with improved information- and communicative tools. A report by Risen
(2014) revealed American citizens had a negative attitude towards the future of wearables.
The purpose of this study is to find out how smartwatches could gain acceptance by
millennials on the Swedish market. The theory of reasoned action laid the foundation of the
theoretical frame of reference, which then culminated into the TRAM model and external
variables, perceived playfulness and perceived visual attractiveness. A qualitative research
approach was chosen, where focus groups was conducted in order to collect millennials’
opinions regarding smartwatches. The results suggest that a there is a potential future for
smartwatches, if they provide useful features along with a descent design.
Key words: Acceptance behaviour, technology acceptance, smartwatch, millennials,
intention to use smartwatches
Acknowledgements
This final thesis was conducted during the spring semester of 2015, and marks an end to
our time as students of Luleå University of Technology. As this is the final work of our
education in Master of Science in Business and Economics, we consider it a privilege to
credit the people that have made it possible to accomplish this achievement.
We would like to give our most sincere gratitude towards our friends and family that has
supported and encouraged us all along during these four years at LTU. We would like to
express a special gratefulness to our supervisor, Mana Farshid, as she has been helpful in
guiding and giving constructive input to this project.
Finally, we would like to thank our colleagues and especially respondents for essential
input and valuable opinions.
Luleå, June 2015
________________________ ________________________
Robin Enér Linus Knutsbo
Table of content
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem discussion ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research purpose ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Research questions ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Delimitation ................................................................................................................. 3
2. Literature overview ......................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Theory of reasoned action ........................................................................................... 4
2.2 The diffusion of innovations theory ............................................................................ 5
2.3 The theory of planned behaviour ................................................................................. 7
2.4 Technology acceptance model..................................................................................... 9
2.4.1 Extension of the technology acceptance model .................................................. 10
2.5 Perceived playfulness ................................................................................................ 11
2.6 Perceived visual attractiveness .................................................................................. 12
2.7 Technology readiness acceptance model ................................................................... 13
2.8 Frame of reference ..................................................................................................... 14
2.9 Proposed research model ........................................................................................... 18
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Research design ......................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Sampling .................................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Data analysis .............................................................................................................. 22
3.6 Quality of research..................................................................................................... 23
3.6.1 Construct validity ............................................................................................... 23
3.6.2 Internal validity .................................................................................................. 23
3.6.3 External validity ................................................................................................. 23
3.6.4 Reliability ........................................................................................................... 24
3.7 Summary of methodology ......................................................................................... 25
4. Data presentation ........................................................................................................... 26
5. Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 35
6. Conclusions and implications ....................................................................................... 41
6.1 Research question 1 ................................................................................................... 41
6.2 Research question 2 ................................................................................................... 44
6.3 Implications of the study ........................................................................................... 46
6.3.1 Theoretical implications ..................................................................................... 46
6.3.2 Managerial implications ..................................................................................... 46
6.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 47
6.5 Future research .......................................................................................................... 47
References........................................................................................................................... 49
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A: Interview guide............................................................................................ 52
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The accelerating rate of new technology products being released on the market has changed
how people perform tasks in their working and everyday life. When new technology is
introduced a challenge appears for companies whether or not this new product will gain
social acceptance from consumers (Leyton, Pino & Ochoa, 2014).
New trends come and go and in the meantime, wearables are a hot topic on the market
(Martini, 2014). Fernandez (2014) defined wearables to “… include all forms of
computational or sensory electronic devices that can be worn with clothing or on the body.
In the broadest sense, any computer device that is carried with a person to assist them could
conceivably be called a wearable.” Wearable technology is providing individuals with
more efficient ways of performing tasks and communicating, making humans’ everyday
life more convenient (Employee Benefit News, 2014).
Wearable computing is a concept that has been around for a while, but a certain pioneer in
the field called Steve Mann, also known as “the world’s first cyborg” (Fernandez, 2014),
has been experimenting with this since the 1960s. Mann (1999) developed a wearable
computer series during the 1970s called WearComp0, which was further developed and
enhanced later on.
The use of wearable technology has been explored in several fields, including
entertainment, education, finance, gaming, and music (Wright & Keith, 2014). During the
beginning of the twenty-first century, healthcare was the more prominent area of wearables
which provided beneficial products for the health care providers. The design of wearables
has gone from large and hefty devices to become easily ubiquitous in form of being lighter,
leaner, and more fashionable (Wright & Keith, 2014). By this constant improvement of the
design, products has become more appealing to the consumer market, and as a result,
opened up new opportunities of development. Markets such as fitness and technological
appliances for everyday life has been explored and progressed in the area of wearable
technology.
An example of a wearable initiative can be seen from Disney’s MagicBand. This wearable
device allows customers of Disney to make their experience more enjoyable by integrating
the several systems in the theme park, by the use of Bluetooth technology and radio
frequency. The MagicBand enable Disney to collect and transmit data to extract customer
preferences while the customers are able to perform certain self-services, such as
reservation for a ride and to charge meals on their hotel rooms. The implementation by
2
Disney displays how successful it can be to create a more pleasant experience for customers
while also gaining useful benefits to themselves (Fernandez, 2014).
The fitness tracker is another device that has become increasingly more popular as result of
a more customer-oriented direction of wearables. The fitness tracker allows consumers to
track their movements and realization throughout the day based on the goals of the
individual (Fernandez, 2014). This feature of tracking movements is one of the more
popular traits consumers currently desire in wearable products (Employee Benefit News,
2014). As tracking of people’s movements and the collection of data overall is increasing,
issues with privacy have been disputed. Consumers are worried about the data collected and
how it is being used and the level of security in how it is being stored. Even though the use
of Bluetooth technology provides consumers with certain advantages in wearables, it might
also cause problems as it makes it easy to transfer data between devices. It is also easy to
hack information by the use of this technology (Fernandez, 2014).
When new wearables are introduced to the market other questions remained to be
answered. Since wearables are considered as a new technology in the mind of consumers,
the social acceptance of new technology is important to explore (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis,
& Davis, 2003).
1.2 Problem discussion
From the introductory chapter it is safe to say that wearables have been around for a while,
both as a concept and in a more industrialized context. Although, it is not until more
recently it has become a familiar term in consumers markets, as new technology devices are
introduced to the market. Wearables will provide advantages in people’s everyday life,
simplifying their information- and communicative resources. Disadvantages with new
technologies are existing as well, where privacy issues has been identified, but also the
concerns of what new technological innovations will bring to the future and how it will be
accepted. Risen (2014, April 21) wrote about a survey conducted by Pew Research Center
and Smithsonian magazine. Approximately a thousand Americans had responded to
questions concerning the future of technology. In the study, nearly 53 % of the respondents
in various age groups believed the future will be worse off by the use of wearable electronic
devices.
Previous research within the field of wearables is slim, yet research has been conducted in
the area of smart clothing for different purposes, whether it be fashion apparel (Fox, 2014)
or healthcare (Park & Jayaraman, 2003). Previous research exists within smart clothing but
Hong et al. (2007) believe further research is needed to further elaborate on the frames of
acceptance of new technology. This is why further exploration regarding the social
acceptance of new technology is interesting. In this study it is concentrated to
3
smartwatches. Smartwatches is an ongoing new trend that is predicted to take a large
portion within the wearable technology market in the consumer market (Sheehy, 2015,
January 16).
Acceptance theory has been extensively studied and from a technology perspective it has
been primarily explored in a web context and its impacts on e-commerce. As wearable
technology is becoming more commercialized, it is necessary to investigate how previous
research regarding the factors of acceptance theory can be used in the context of wearable
technology. Consequently, it is vital to examine the factors influencing consumers’
acceptance of new technology. This has been studied in other areas of the literature but has
not yet been answered with a specialization on wearables, such as smartwatches.
1.3 Research purpose
The purpose of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the topic wearables. It is
interesting to go deeper into a specific product within this technology. The aim is to
identify the factors that influence consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches, and how large
the intentions are to use a smartwatch. Ultimately, this thesis is going to explore, from a
perspective of millennials, the current possibilities of how a smartwatch could gain
acceptance on the Swedish market.
1.3.1 Research questions
Based on the background, problem discussion, and purpose of the study, the following
research questions have been formulated to guide the objectives of this thesis.
RQ1: Which factors influence consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches?
This research question aims to explore which factors are important to consumers’
acceptance of smartwatches.
RQ2: How do these factors influence consumers’ intention of using smartwatches?
The second research question seeks to determine how the factors of acceptance influence
consumers’ intention to use smartwatches.
1.4 Delimitation
Due to a limited time frame and resources this study has had access to, the scope of the
study has been influenced. This thesis is delimited to only focus on the topic of
smartwatches where millennials has been the examined target group.
4
2. Literature overview
This chapter provides an overview of relevant theories and models to give an enhanced
understanding and knowledge of the problem area. Established theories related to
acceptance behaviour such as the TRA, TPB, TAM, and the TRAM model will be presented.
Perceived playfulness and perceived visual attractiveness are other factors that will be
discussed in a technology context. Finally, the most relevant theories for each research
question will be put into a frame of reference with a proposed research model in the end.
2.1 Theory of reasoned action
When studying adoption of new technology, one of the most featured models in literature is
the theory of reasoned action, TRA (Venkatesh et al., 2003). It was developed by Martin
Fishbein and Icek Ajzen (1975). This model is a generally accepted model for predicting
human behaviour in a broad context (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In their book they start off
from the assumption that “...human beings are usually quite rational and make systematic
use of the information available to them” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p.5). From there they
continue with this statement in mind and argue for when humans engage in an action, a
process of pondering the implications of the action takes place before engagement is
preceded to (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The authors suggest that to understand behaviour
one must first identify intentions of performing a behaviour. They argue that in order to
predict intention, the underlying factors of intention must be understood. From here, the
conceptual framework is being shaped. The authors report the first determinant factor of
intention as attitude (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
Thomas and Znaniecki (1918-1920) regarded attitude as individual mental processes that
define a person’s actual and potential responses. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) put attitude in
a behavioural context called attitude towards behaviour. This term aims to explain an
individual’s assessment of taking action on this behaviour, which is observed from an
individuals’ standpoint, to be good or bad. The second factor determining intention is called
subjective norm. It implies that social pressure is involved in humans’ perception of
behaviour. When people behave in a certain way it is very likely social influences will
affect a person’s intention to perform the behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). To get a
better understanding of intentions it is necessary to take a step back in the TRA model. The
authors speak for the need of studying why individuals consume certain attitudes and
subjective norms. It originates from where beliefs are the foundation to attitudes and
subjective norms. Hence, attitudes stem from what is called behavioural beliefs, while
subjective norms are derived from normative beliefs. Behavioural beliefs could be
described as if an individual is positive towards a behaviour, it will accelerate the process
of performing the behaviour, while the opposite happens if anything negative concerns the
5
behaviour. Normative beliefs refer to the motivation from others that would be supporting
of a particular behaviour, and the opposite reaction if they would disapprove (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980).
All those factors results in a chain, starting from the foundations of beliefs into an actual
behaviour being the outcome. This is illustrated in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Theory of Reasoned Action
Source: Adapted from Ajzen & Fishbein (1980, p. 8)
In a study written by Lee, Ham, and Kim (2013) they used the TRA model to predict and
understand consumers’ pass-along behaviour of online video ads. The authors were able to
examine how the attitude towards pass-along behaviour affected this particular behaviour.
Their findings concluded, as participants had more positive attitudes toward passing along
online video ads, the subjective norm influenced their intention to pass on the ads.
Additionally, participants with more positives attitudes and social pressure from essential
sources resulted in larger intentions of passing-along ads.
2.2 The diffusion of innovations theory
To enrich the perspective of user adoption Rogers (1995) developed the diffusion of
innovations framework. His intention with the model was to find out “how properties of
innovations affect their rate adoption” (Rogers, 1995, p. 204). Adoption was defined as “a
decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available” (Rogers,
1995, p. 21). The diffusion of innovations is an acknowledged model in the literature of
information systems.
The framework consists of a variety of different variables, all connecting to the rate of
adoption of innovations. Rogers (1995) explains that the rate of adoption can be viewed as
how fast an innovation is adopted by individuals in a social construct. Rogers argues that
“49 to 87 percent of the variance in rate of adoption can be explained by five attributes”
(Rogers, 1995, p. 206). The main attributes are relative advantage, compatibility,
6
complexity, trialability, and observability. Other factors affecting the rate of adoption are
the type of innovation-decision, communication channels, the existing social system, and
the extent of change agents’ promotion efforts.
Figure 2: The diffusion of innovations framework
Source: Adapted from Rogers (1995, p. 207)
To get a more profound understanding of this model, the perceived attributes of innovations
has to be defined. The first attribute is relative advantage, which explains how the
perception of an innovation is exceeding the previous idea it builds on. In this context,
relative advantage can be shown through “economic profitability, social prestige, or other
benefits” (Rogers, 1995, p. 212). The second attribute is compatibility, which Rogers
define as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with existing values,
past experiences and needs of potential adopters” (Rogers, 1995, p. 224). Compatibility
examines how an innovation fits into an individual’s certain lifestyle. The more compatible
an innovation is, the more likely it is for an innovation to be adopted in a higher rate. The
third attribute is complexity, described as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as relatively difficult to understand and use” (Rogers, 1995, p. 242). The complexity of a
product has been stated to affect the adoption negatively or positively, which has been
illustrated by Rogers, Daley, and Wu (1980). In their research, the effect of complexity of
home computers was observed during the early 1980s. Results indicated that the perceived
7
complexity of the product had a negative impact on adoption, and it took up to six to eight
weeks of severe frustration for a new adopter to adopt the computer.
Trialability has proved to be an interesting attribute in this model. Rogers explains it as “the
degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis” (Rogers,
1995, p. 243). By allowing an individual to try out an innovation on a limited basis, it
enables them to explore the personal meaning with the innovation and how it would work
on their own terms. Rogers (1995) concluded this factor had a positive effect on
adoption. The last attribute of this model is observability, which is defined as “the degree
to which results of an innovation are visible to others” (Rogers, 1995, p. 244).
Observability is also claimed to have a positive influence on rate of adoption.
Communication channels are an important variable in determining rate of adoption. It
allows an innovation to be diffused, but it also impacts the rate of adoption. For example,
mass media channels may speed the rate of adoption for new adopters, while interpersonal
channels may slow down the rate of adoption for late adopters as it creates knowledge
awareness (Rogers, 1995).
Furthermore, the innovation decision process specifies that “the more people involved in
making an innovation decision, the slower the rate of adoption” (Rogers, 1995, pp. 206-
207). In accordance with Rogers’ model, the construct of our social system, the norms of
which we abide to and how our communication network is interconnected, affects an
innovations adoption rate.
Weigel, Hazen, Cegielski, & Hall (2014) used the common characteristics of the diffusion
of innovations theory, and the framework of planned behaviour in a meta-analytic study in
an attempt to provide a model of innovation adoption-behaviour. By reviewing previous
research within the field of adoption behaviour they were able to examine and validate the
hypotheses of the two models. The authors evaluated the past thirty years of information
systems research that empirically had studied the effects of the variables of innovation
adoption. The results suggested and validated that all five of Roger’s attributes of
innovation were positively correlated to adoption. Besides, they draw the conclusion that
the two models are relevant even today when analysing adoption behaviour. However,
complexity was the one attribute that had the least significant correlation with adoption
behaviour (Weigel et al., 2014).
2.3 The theory of planned behaviour
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) was conceived by Ajzen (1991) and became an
extension of the TRA model, trying to explain specific individual behaviour. It can be
distinguished from the TRA model by the implementation of the perceived behavioural
8
control variable affecting intention to use. The major focus in this model is the intention
that leads to behaviour, but within this model Ajzen (1991) added the variable called
perceived behavioural control. He argues for that “behavioural intention can find
expression in behaviour only if the behaviour in question is under volitional control”
(Ajzen, 1991, p. 181). By volitional control he implies that an individual at will can decide
to perform this behaviour or not. The decision is determined by requisites as if an
individual has resources to perform this behaviour. Resources in this context are defined as
“time, money, skills, cooperation of others” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 182). These fundamentals can
be correlated to the perceived risk of performing behaviour. Ajzen (1991) provides an
example to strengthen the correlation between perceived behavioural control and
behavioural intention. If two individuals try to master the art of skiing, and both individuals
having the intention of doing so, the individual with most belief in that he will control the
skill of skiing, will be the one who is more plausible to master this activity.
Figure 3: Theory of planned behaviour
Source: Adapted from Ajzen (1991, p. 182)
The TPB model has served as the theoretical basis in a previous research by Pavlou and
Fygenson (2006), where they investigated e-commerce adoption of consumers by the use of
the TPB model to explain and predict the process. The authors concluded that the power of
the TPB model in predicting behaviour was valid. The researchers also proposed an
extended model of TPB by applying technology variables that are familiar from the TAM
model, such as perceived ease of use and usefulness. Other variables such as technological
characteristics, PBC resources (time, skills etc.), and product characteristics were used to
enhance the predictive and explanatory power of this framework.
9
A recently published study from Kroll (2015) examined how public managers made use of
performance information. The researcher conducted a survey addressed to middle managers
in Germany where the basis of the study was to utilize the theory of planned
behaviour. The results of this study indicated an approval of the TPB model by explaining
76% of the variation in performance information use.
2.4 Technology acceptance model
In 1986, Fred D. Davis proposed a new alternative based on the TRA model. The model is
called the technology acceptance model (TAM). It was developed with the intention of
explaining and predicting individuals’ acceptance behaviour of a new technological
innovation. Davis (1986) restructured the model to be applicable from a more technological
view. He stated that the social influences of TRA, the subjective norms mentioned earlier,
does not fit into a technological context of acceptance and adoption. This is what separates
this model from the TRA model. Instead of using the subjective norm, Davis (1986) uses
the concept of external variables and breaks it down into two concepts. These two concepts
are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which are intended to explain the
technological adoption of a new IT system. Davis defines perceived usefulness as “the
degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would enhance his or
her job performance” (Davis, 1986, p. 26). Perceived ease of use was defined as “the
degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would be free of
physical or mental effort” (Davis, 1986, p. 26). Furthermore, he claimed that when a system
is easier to use, the overall job performance will be improved. This is a statement that
legitimates the idea of that perceived ease of use has a direct effect on the perceived
usefulness. When comparing both determinants, perceived usefulness has been shown by
previous research (Davis, 1989, p. 333) to be the leading factor in determining intention to
use. Both of these concepts relate to attitude towards use by examining the model, but
perceived usefulness has a direct correlation to intention to use.
Figure 4: Technology acceptance model
Source: Adapted from Davis (1986, p. 24)
10
Previous research from Gentry and Calantone (2002) focused on a comparison of TRA,
TPB, and TAM to examine behavioural intention to use shopbots on the web. The results
indicated that the TAM model exceeded the other two models by displaying a variance of
81.2 % of the explanation in behavioural intention, while TRA explained 43.2 %, and TPB
were in between the other two. This study confirms the statement of TAM explaining
behavioural intent more accurately in a technology environment.
Another study made by Ashraf, Thongpapanl, and Auh (2014) explains the adoption of e-
commerce across cultures with the utilization of the TAM framework. Perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness was the most critical factors when examining consumers’
intention to shop online.
2.4.1 Extension of the technology acceptance model
The distinguishing factor between the TRA and TAM model is the incorporation of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and the lack of social norms within TAM.
In 2000 Venkatesh and Davis developed an extension of the original TAM model called the
technology acceptance model 2, TAM2. The model was extended by the use of social
influences and cognitive instrumental variables. The social influences are subjective norm,
image, and voluntariness. These are illustrated in figure 5 below.
Subjective norm suggests that an individual is influenced by the people that are considered
to be important in one’s social environment, and if they are approving of you as an
individual performing a certain behaviour. This variable is gathered from previous research
of the TRA model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and the TPB model from Ajzen (1991).
Voluntariness can be defined as the “degree to which the use of innovation is perceived to
be voluntary or by free will” (Žvanut et al., 2011). The last construct in social influences is
the incorporation of image. The variable image found in the model of Venkatesh and Davis
(2000) can be defined as “the degree to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance
one’s image or status in one’s social system.” (Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 195).
Venkatesh and Davis (2000) also added cognitive instrumental constructs into their model.
Those were job relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability. These constructs have
been drawn from different areas to fit into their context. Job relevance is defined as “an
individual’s perception regarding the degree to which the target system is applicable to his
or her job.” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 191). Job relevance is considered to have a direct
effect on perceived usefulness. This is based on the assumption that an individual knows
what tasks are needed for an innovation or system to perform, to connect with their job
situation. The second cognitive variable is output quality. It can be explained by an
individual’s views on what a system is capable of doing, their job situation, and by
11
overviewing how good the system performs certain tasks (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). The
third variable is result demonstrability. It is directly correlated to perceived usefulness and
is defined as “tangibility of the results of using the innovation.” (Moore and Benbasat,
1991, p. 203). If the results of an innovation are more tangible, individuals are more likely
to positively perceive the usefulness of the innovation. Finally, the authors chose to use a
moderator variable, which is the experience factor.
Figure 5: TAM 2-model
Source: Adapted from Venkatesh & Davis (2000, p. 188)
The results of this study with the utilization of this model were descent, and were able to
explain 37% and 52% of the variance in usage intentions. It also explained the variance in
perceived usefulness up to 60 %.
In a more recent study, user acceptance of procedural learning by the use of YouTube was
investigated. Lee and Lehto (2013) used the extended TAM model (TAM2) and integrated
other variables to find out how acceptance is influenced in a YouTube context. The results
of their study validate that the TAM2 model still is in current use, and is reliable when
investigating acceptance and intention to use (Lee & Lehto, 2013).
2.5 Perceived playfulness
Perceived playfulness is a concept that has been broadly used in previous research, studying
user acceptance of innovations. It has been used in different settings, but was described by
Moon and Kim (2001) as an intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as “the
performance of an activity for no apparent reason other than the process of performing it”
(Moon and Kim, 2001, p. 218). The authors split the concept into three components. The
first level is concentration. In this state, the individual becomes absorbed with the
12
performance of the activity. He or she put great focus on the interaction and shuts out
eventual irrelevant perceptions. Curiosity is the second component within the concept. It
implies that an individual could be affected by certain tools that can arouse sensory
curiosity or cognitive curiosity. If that is the case, the individual can be motivated to gain
more competence within the technology and explore it further by the use of simple tools,
such as multimedia effects and bookmarks. The last piece of the concept is enjoyment.
Basically, it can be concluded that individuals “are involved in the activity for pleasure and
enjoyment rather than for extrinsic rewards.” (Moon and Kim, 2001, p. 220)
The authors found out that perceived playfulness had a significant relevance to users’
acceptance behaviour of a website. Previous research by Ahn, Ryu, and Han (2007)
confirmed the significance of perceived playfulness. They scrutinized web quality and
playfulness as variables affecting user acceptance. Their results revealed that playfulness
had a major effect on users’ acceptance in an online retailing context. Consumers were
more likely to use an online retailer if they perceived the experience to be more playful
(Ahn et al., 2007).
Figure 6: Perceived playfulness
Source: Adapted Moon & Kim (2007, p. 220)
In a study about in-game purchase intentions by Han and Windsor (2013), it was
investigated how perceived playfulness had an effect on purchase intentions. Their results
discovered that perceived playfulness has a positive effect on intention to purchase, and it
strongly works as a motivational factor (Han & Windsor, 2013).
2.6 Perceived visual attractiveness
In 2003 Van der Heijden (2003) proposed a different direction of the original TAM model.
In the study the author wanted to explore how aesthetics affect consumers’ intention to use
a website. To modify the TAM model the researcher included a new variable called
perceived visual attractiveness (Van der Heijden, 2003). The author described the new
concept as “the degree to which a person believes that the website is aesthetically pleasing
13
to the eye” (Van der Heijden, 2003, p. 544.). The author constructed three hypothesises
regarding the visual attractiveness. It was hypothesised that perceived visual attractiveness
had a positive connection to perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived
enjoyment. All of these were confirmed, in a consumer context, to have a positive impact
on the user acceptance of a web portal (Van der Heiden, 2003).
Figure 7: Perceived visual attractiveness
Source: Adapted from Van der Heijden (2003, p. 542)
The effects of attractiveness on a product have been previously studied. In 2010,
Sonderegger and Sauer (2010) examined how perceived visual attractiveness among other
variables affected the usability of mobile phones. Their results suggested that perceived
visual attractiveness of a mobile phone, versus a visually unattractive mobile phone, had a
positive impact on usability and overall perceived performance.
2.7 Technology readiness acceptance model Lin, Shih, and Sher (2007) composed the technology readiness acceptance model (TRAM)
model, which builds on the TAM model, with an additional component taken into
consideration. Instead of exploring the prediction of technology-adopting behaviour in a
work setting, the authors wanted to test its applicability in a consumer environment. To
rework the TAM model more suitable to consumers, the authors added the concept of
technology readiness (TR) (Lin et al., 2007). This term was described as “people’s
propensity to embrace and use new technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and
at work” (Parasuraman, 2000, p. 308). It can be divided into four sub-levels, affecting the
overall technology readiness. The first sub-process is optimism, which relates to a general
positive overview of technology adoption and the benefits in form of flexibility and control
it brings to consumers. The second dimension refers to innovativeness. It summarizes how
consumers like to be thought of as a pioneer in adoption of technology. The third sub-level
is discomfort. It illustrates how consumers do not feel in control when adopting a new
technological innovation. The last dimension is insecurity. It corresponds to how
consumers are insecure about how technological innovations actually will function
14
properly, illustrating a general negative view of technology adoption overall. The first two
sub-levels are positively related to consumers’ technology adoption, while the last two are
negatively associated (Lin et al., 2007).
Figure 8: TRAM-model
Source: Adapted from Lin et al. (2007, p. 646)
Lin et al. (2007) discuss the correlation between technology readiness, perceived ease of
use, and perceived usefulness in their research. They validate the connection between the
concepts, where perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were mediating effects
between TR and usage intention. Technology readiness verified a more clear understanding
of individual technology acceptance behaviour.
Jin (2013) examined factors that affect consumers’ acceptance of Facebook, with the bases
of the theory in the TRAM model. The results concluded significant information, validating
both positive and negative TR are critical in the formation of perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness, and perceived playfulness. Nevertheless, negative TR had no impact
on perceived playfulness.
2.8 Frame of reference
From the literature overview, a theoretical model has been selected that relates to
acceptance theory and behaviour. In this section, a frame of reference has been conducted,
to summarize the literature that is intended to provide answers to the stated research
questions. To end the literature chapter, a proposed research model will be presented to
give a rough picture of how the research problem will be addressed.
RQ1: Which factors influence consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches?
The first research question aims to explore which factors are central to consumers’
acceptance of smartwatches. The theoretical model that will be used the TRAM model. It
15
has been selected due to its applicability in a consumer context, which is suitable to the
purpose of this study. The added concept of technology readiness in the TRAM model
illustrates consumers’ tendency to adopt new technologies that intends to improve their
work and everyday life. This is why the authors think the TRAM model is the most suitable
option, since smartwatches also intends to provide people with more convenient solutions.
Besides from the TRAM model, two external variables will be used to further explain the
first research question. These variables have been identified to have a connection to
technology acceptance and adoption behaviour. The first external factor is perceived
playfulness, which has been studied in different areas, exploring user acceptance of
innovations. Since smartwatches is a fairly new product category, it might be considered as
an innovation. Furthermore, earlier research has shown that perceived playfulness has
played a major role when accepting new technology. The second factor is perceived visual
attractiveness, which importance has been displayed to have a positive correlation to user
acceptance. In the study from Sonderegger and Sauer (2010), the authors came to the
conclusion that in mobile phone context, a visually attractive mobile phone would be
perceived as more useful than an unattractive mobile phone. As smartwatches are a closely
related technology, the authors believe the design of a smartwatch could have an impact on
the acceptance of it.
Table 1: Conceptualization of the factors central to consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches
Concept Sources Operational definition References (concept)
Optimism Jin (2013), Lin
et al. (2007)
General positive
overview of technology
adoption
Technology gives
control
Prefer to use the
most advanced
technology
Confidence in that
technology will
perform as
instructed
16
Innovativeness Jin (2013), Lin et
al. (2007)
Degree of how to be
thought of as a pioneer in
technology adoption
Early adopter of
new technology
Keep up with
technology
development
Enjoyment of
figuring out high-
tech gadgets
Discomfort Jin (2013), Lin et
al. (2007)
Degree of how
consumers do not feel in
control when adopting a
new technological
innovation
New technology
is difficult to
understand
Extraction of
personal data
Insecurity Jin (2013), Lin et
al. (2007)
Level of how consumers
are insecure of how a
technological innovation
will have the ability to
function properly
Privacy issues
with new
technology
It is easy use
explain how to
use new
technology
Perceived ease
of use
Davis (1986)
Lai & Li (2005),
Lin et al. (2007)
Degree to which an
individual believes that
using a particular system
would be free of physical
or mental effort
How to use new
technology is
clear
It is easy to
explain how to
use new
technology
Perceived
usefulness
Davis (1986)
Lai & Li (2005),
Lin et al. (2007)
Degree to which an
individual believes that
using a particular system
would enhance his or her
job performance
Acquiring useful
information from
new technology
Using acquired
information with
satisfying results
Enjoyment
Moon and Kim,
(2001)
Degree of involvement in
an activity for pleasure
and enjoyment
Enjoyment of
using new
technology
Curiosity Moon and Kim
(2001)
Degree of curiosity to
gain more competence
within the technology
Stimulation of
curiosity in using
new technology
17
Perceived
visual
attractiveness
Van der Heijden
(2003)
The degree to which a
person believes that the
website is aesthetically
pleasing to the eye
Attractiveness of
new technology
RQ2: How do these factors influence consumers’ intention of using smartwatches?
The second research question seeks to examine how the different factors influence
consumers’ intention to use a smartwatch. To answer this question, the TRAM model will
be used to explore consumers’ intention to use. This thesis will rely heavily on this model
since it has accumulated positive results from earlier research in explaining acceptance of
new technological innovations. Nonetheless, the external variables perceived playfulness
and perceived visual attractiveness will be used as well. In the study from Ahn et al. (2007)
the authors concluded that consumers were more likely to use an online retailer if they
perceived their experience to be more playful. This is why perceived playfulness will be
examined in this research question. The study from Sonderegger & Sauer (2010) showed
that consumers perceived an attractive product as more useful. When reviewing the TRAM
model, it displays that perceived usefulness has a direct relation to intention to use.
Consequently, it would be interesting to examine this factor to determine if the design has
an impact on perceived usefulness, and thus consumers’ intention to use the smartwatch.
Table 2: Conceptualization of the factors influencing individuals’ intention of using smartwatches
Concept Source Definition References
(questions)
Usage intention Davis (1986)
Jin (2013)
Degree of intention to
use Tendency of
using new
technology
Tendency to
recommend
new
technology
18
2.9 Proposed research model
Figure 9: The proposed research model
This proposed research model aims to visualize how to address both research questions.
The model is derived from the TRAM model, where perceived playfulness and perceived
visual attractiveness are added. The TRAM model will be used since it is a relatively new
acceptance model, more designed for technological innovations in a consumer context. As
the theory suggests, both positive and negative technology readiness should have an impact
on perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intention to use of smartwatches.
Previous research suggests that perceived ease of use should have a connection to perceived
usefulness, and both of these variables can have an impact on the intention to use.
Perceived playfulness has been shown to have an impact on intention to use new
technology. The perceived attractiveness variable has been verified to have an impact on
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Since this is a new field of study where
limited research exists, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the connections and
impact of those variables in the proposed research model. Hence, these have been left with
no connection to later on be analysed how they influence consumers’ acceptance and
intention to use smartwatches.
19
3. Methodology
This chapter explains the research methodology used for this paper, including the research
approach, research purpose, tools used for data collection and analysis. Finally, measures
used for ensured validity and reliability of the study will be addressed.
3.1 Research purpose
A research purpose can be divided into three different categories; exploratory, descriptive,
or an explanatory research purpose (McGivern, 2013). An exploratory purpose implies that
the research seek to explore an issue or a specific subject. A descriptive purpose aims to
identify, describe, and answer defined research questions. Finally, explanatory studies seek
to answer the “why” questions and understand causal connections between different
variables. This thesis is descriptive with the purpose of examining consumers’ acceptance
of smartwatches, but it also contains elements of exploration in order to clarify how the
factors influence consumers’ intention to use smartwatches.
3.2 Research approach
According to McGivern (2013) there are two types of research approaches, and these are
quantitative, respectively qualitative research. A quantitative research approach involves
gathering large data samples which can be collected through sample surveys or panels. The
intention with a quantitative study is to examine conclusive research enquires which is
descriptive or explanatory. With a qualitative research approach there is not a need of the
same sample sizes. The data can be collected through the use of in-depth interviews, focus
groups, and workshops. This method intends to give a clear description and understanding
of the problem that has been stated (McGiven, 2013).
Additionally, a researcher has to decide whether to use an inductive or a deductive
approach with the study. Inductive research originates from empirical data, while not
intending to test hypotheses or existing theories. Meantime, a deductive approach serves to
use existing theory as a foundation to answer a stated research problem (McGivern, 2013).
This study applied a deductive approach since the theoretical framework stems from
previously known models in order to answer the research questions.
A qualitative research approach was used in this study, to test the conceptual framework
and to gather in-depth knowledge about which factors are central to consumers’ acceptance
of smartwatches and how these influence intentions to use this technology. The approach
was applied due to its effectiveness of finding out about people’s experiences, attitudes,
knowledge, and also because the authors thought it was the best way of approaching the
research problem (McGivern, 2013).
20
3.3 Research design
Researches have to structure a study in an appropriate manner in order to plan the best route
of successfully answering a research problem. Ultimately, there are four main types of
research designs; a cross-sectional study, a longitudinal study, an experiment, or a case
study (McGivern, 2013). In this thesis, a case study of smartwatches was approached. The
aim of the study was to get detailed understanding of individuals’ attitudes and behavioural
patterns when it comes to the acceptance of smartwatches, which is why this research
design was the most appropriate to apply. Another advantage with this design includes its
ability to generate detailed answers to the research questions of this study, because it
provides an understanding of how-, what-, and why- questions (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2012).
3.4 Sampling
A sampling unit holds the elements of the sample, which are the people that are intended to
be studied in a research (McGivern, 2013). In this study, so called millennials, was used as
the sample unit. Gurau (2012, p. 103) defines millennials as “people born between 1980
and 2000”. Tyler (2007) on the other hand, categorizes millennials as individuals born
between 1980 and 2002 and described them as “...technologically sophisticated
multitaskers...” Since this generation has grown up with technology it was a suitable target
group to study. The sample of the study was composed of three focus groups, with each
group consisting of 5-6 participants. The survey population was determined by the authors
and controlled by one single element; respondents to be categorized as millennials. The
sample included students on the campus of Luleå University of Technology that was
geographically residing in the county of Luleå. The authors reached out to respondents,
regardless of gender, only to be defined as a millennial. The age range of the participants
varied from twenty-three and twenty-nine.
A sampling technique illustrates the way a survey population is chosen (McGivern, 2013).
In this thesis, a non-probability sampling was used to choose participants. The technique
used to fit this study is a quota sampling method. There are two different designs of a quota
sample, independent and interlocking quota (McGivern, 2013). The independent quota
sample design was chosen in this thesis. This design was most appropriate as the authors
were able to freely select participants that fulfilled the criteria of the study.
3.4 Data collection
The sources for data collection can be gathered through either primary or secondary data, or
both. The primary research does not exist prior to the data collection, meaning it has to be
21
collected for the specific problem (McGivern, 2013). Furthermore, the author refers
primary data as to collecting data out on the field. Secondary data, on the other hand,
involves gathering existing data and theories from sources such as books, journal articles,
documents, reports, and etcetera.
Conducted focus groups were the pivotal source for the primary data collection of this
study. McGivern (2013) describes a standard group discussion or focus group consisting of
8-10 people. The researcher, also called the moderator, guides the discussion between the
respondents. Three focus groups of 5 to 6 respondents in each group, and sixteen
respondents in total, were used in this study as it allowed the authors to collect more
profound discussions from each individual of the groups (McGivern, 2013). Even though
this study was conducted in English, the authors chose to conduct the focus group
interviews in Swedish. It was determined since Swedish was the native language of the
participants, and to reduce possible language barriers that might have occurred.
The researchers had different roles during the interviews. One was the moderator, with the
intention of guiding the discussion, while the other researcher was sitting a bit further away
from the table, taking notes while observing and carefully listening to what was being said.
The focus groups took place in a central location at Luleå University of Technology. Each
focus group session lasted for approximately sixty to seventy-five minutes. The moderator
started off the discussion by introducing the respondents to each other, and made sure a
short small talk was held in order to make all respondents feel comfortable in the group.
Afterwards, the subject of smartwatches was presented by viewing a short compilation
video of smartwatches to illustrate how the smartwatches look and performs. After viewing
the video, an overall discussion of the topic was initiated by the respondents until the
moderator guided the conversation from the designated interview guide.
The moderator led the conversation by the help of a designed questionnaire. The
respondents were allowed to freely express their opinions that was not relevant to the
discussion, to make sure all opinions and experiences were heard. To find out whether or
not respondents agreed with each other, whenever a statement was made, the participants
were asked if they agreed or thought differently. The purpose with this strategy was
twofold. It was done to clarify all statements, since opinions might be influenced by others.
Moreover, it eliminates risks of incorrect generalizations of the focus groups.
When designing an interview guide there are several steps that must be followed to ensure
that the collected data is reliable and suitable to the purpose of the study. First of all, the
research problem was defined, to continuing with the type of evidence that was needed to
address the research problem (McGivern, 2013). Since this study is descriptive and to some
extent exploratory, the questions had to be formulated with this taken into consideration.
Later on, the authors had to decide on the variables that were to be measured. The variables
22
were derived from the frame of reference, allowing the questions to be designed from those
concepts, in order to provide answers to the research questions. When designing the
questions, interview guides from other researchers were examined to find studies with
similar research problems, which eventually was adapted to the objectives of this
study. The responses from the focus groups were captured by the use of audio recording to
facilitate the data analysis and to make sure nothing was forgotten or left out. The total
audio recording amount added up to 191 minutes. The last step according is to decide how
the responses were to be analysed. The authors chose to use a manual technique of
analysing the data as they possess larger experience within that particular technique, rather
than using a computer based analysis. (McGivern, 2013)
Secondary data involved scientific articles and books in order to explore and explain the
background to acceptance theory. These articles and books also laid the foundation to the
conceptual framework developed to explore consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches.
Journal articles were used to help develop the interview guide for the focus groups. Data
bases used when finding articles were PRIMO, Business Source Premier, Emerald, Google
Scholar, and Web of Science. Different combinations of keywords was used; “wearable
computing”, “wearable technology”, “technology acceptance model”, and “acceptance of
new technology”.
3.5 Data analysis
When conducting a qualitative analysis it is important to choose a data analysis strategy
(Yin, 2009). The author proposes four possible strategies that can be applied, but the one
used in this study was relying on theoretical propositions. This strategy allowed the
researchers to guide the study’s material to be reflected on theoretical propositions. The
literature review enabled the ability to suggest a theoretical proposed model that allowed
research questions and data collection process to follow a clear structure. It empowered the
authors to focus on relevant data.
After settling on a qualitative data analysis approach, a specific data analysis technique was
chosen. The technique chosen was pattern matching. In this way, the authors were able to
match and compare the data with the theoretical framework that was constructed (Yin,
2009). To start the process of analysing, a transcription process was held immediately after
the focus groups were completed. This strategy was utilized to ensure that no important
data would be forgotten, and to also get a more detailed transcription process. After the
transcription process was done, the data was translated to English.
When conducting a qualitative data analysis several difficulties may occur. To reduce the
risks of these, the authors conducted a data reduction process, comparing theories and
models to the collected data to determine the most relevant information to the study. The
23
data was then analysed by coding it into categories based on the frame of reference, in
order to present the data in a more manageable and logic way. After the presentation of the
empirical data, conclusions were made on the results found.
3.6 Quality of research
There are two common concepts in the research terminology assessing the quality of
research. These are reliability and validity. Within the broad concept of validity other
components include construct validity, internal validity, and external validity applied to the
quality of a research in a case study. Yin (2009) suggests several tests that need to be made
within a case study in order to prevent poor validity and reliability.
3.6.1 Construct validity
There are three tests that can be used to ensure good validity (Yin, 2009). These are using
multiple sources of evidence, establish a chain of evidence, and let key informants review a
draft of the case study report. To ensure multiple sources of evidence, three focus groups
were conducted to gather a large collection of data. The tools used for increased validity
was audio recording, observing participants’ responses, and transcripts. Furthermore, the
frame of reference has been presented with all sources that were used to formulate the
interview guide. The interview guide is included in appendices. Finally, the supervisor of
this study has continuously reviewed drafts and provided feedback to the authors.
Meanwhile, discussions have been held with the supervisor to assure the study was going in
the right direction.
3.6.2 Internal validity
The internal validity is mainly related to an explanatory research design. While this study is
both descriptive and exploratory, each measurement is not applicable to this study. To
enhance internal validity Yin (2009) states that pattern matching, explanation building,
addressing rival explanations, and using logic models are descent procedures to ensured
validity. In this study, explanation building, addressing rival explanation and the use of
logic models are not applicable. To increase the internal validity, pattern matching has been
used by coding data into categories and matching patterns with the frame of reference.
3.6.3 External validity
This construct analyses the possibility of whether or not this study’s findings can be
generalized beyond this single case study’s context. According to Yin (2009) external
validity often poses a problem in single case studies as the study must have the ability to be
reproduced several times in different contexts, in order to make generalizations. The author
24
suggests one measurement to increase external validity. That is to connect theory to a single
case study. Within this study, theory was connected and compared to the findings in the
data presentation which increases the validity. Something to consider is that the findings of
this study may not be generalized over an entire population, since the collected data only
focused on one target group, millennials within one country, meaning the results may differ
across other countries with the same target groups. The authors were aware of this and the
intention with this study was not to generalize all the findings, but rather to give an input
for companies in the current situation for smartwatches in Sweden.
3.6.4 Reliability
Reliability examines the possibility of how another researcher conducting the same case
study again will reach the same conclusions as the original case study. To obtain high
reliability Yin (2009) propose two measures that can be used. One is to develop a case
study protocol and the other is to make a case study database. This study established a case
study protocol in form of an interview guide, with guidelines and rules for moderators of
how the discussions should be held, which ensured high reliability in this study. Both case
study notes and case study documents will be saved for future research if anyone would be
interested in reproducing this study. Moreover, a detailed method chapter enables future
researchers the possibility of reproducing this study.
Saunders et al. (2012) claims there are four issues threatening the reliability of a project.
These four are participant error, participant bias, researcher error, and researcher bias. A
participant error would mean that a factor exists which would change the way a participant
performs in the focus group. Examples that might change how participants perform are a
non-suitable time or a non-geographically fitting location of the focus group discussion. To
prevent the risk of this, the focus groups took place on a weekend when everyone had free
time. The location was fitting to almost all participants as it took place not far from each
participant’s home. When it comes to participant bias Saunders et al. (2012) claims that if a
factor would exist in a focus group, participant bias may induce a false response, whether it
is positive or negative.
When reviewing the focus groups, it can be recognised that since a couple of the
respondents knew the moderators well, they could have had a hunch on what the
researchers were looking for. Although, this did not stop the respondents from expressing
their opinions without restrictions, and when and reviewing the focus groups a conclusion
can be made that they were not bias in their responses.
The third threat of the reliability of a study is researcher error. Various factors may
influence how a researcher interprets a response. For instance, if the researcher is tired
during the session or made a mistake in presenting the case. To make sure a high reliability
25
was established, the authors was well prepared by showing a video explaining how a
smartwatch works, and operated from an arranged interview guide. The last test of
reliability is researcher bias. Researcher bias can be explained as when a researcher is
partial in a question, and allows his or her views to reflect the interpretation of respondents’
answers. All audio recording in this study was transcribed and a data reduction process was
made where irrelevant information has been removed. The authors have made sure trying to
reflect the respondents’ answers as fair as possible to ensure no bias from the authors was
allowed.
3.7 Summary of methodology Table 3: Summary of the chosen methodology
Summary of methodology
Research purpose - Descriptive
- Exploratory
Research approach - Qualitative
- Deductive
Research design - Case study
Sampling - Non-probability sampling
Quota sampling
Data collection - Primary data
Focus groups
- Secondary data
Scientific articles
Books
Data analysis - Case study analysis
Pattern matching
Quality of research - Validity:
Multiple sources of evidence
Data coding
Theory connected to case study
- Reliability:
Case study protocol
26
4. Data presentation
This chapter presents the collected data from the focus group interviews. The data will be
presented in themes that stems from the frame of reference. The data will not be presented
individually from each focus group, but instead all responses will be summarized in each
category. Any quote mentioned will be deduced from the correct data of where it originates
from.
Optimism
Before each focus group discussion started, the respondents were shown a five minutes
long video clip, illustrating smartwatches from four major competitors in the smartwatch
market. This was motivated to give the participants a basic insight of the various designs
and features a smartwatch could have.
After the demonstration of the video clip participants were asked to give their opinions
about how they think smartwatches could change peoples’ everyday life. A few
respondents thought it was too early to say, but definitely believed there was potential for
it. Other respondents thought the GPS function could be impactful and convenient. A
female respondent also believed the navigation on the smartwatch could be quicker and
beneficial. A few respondents believed the technology could be a breakthrough if any
health-related aspect would be invented and focused in the smartwatch.
“…It is difficult to know beforehand… how people will make use of it.”
“…the thing I reacted the most to, was the GPS function you saw in the video. I believe that
will be impactful…”
Many respondents thought it is more fun and interesting to buy and use the latest
technology. Nevertheless, a majority of the respondents were not interested in using the
most advanced technology as possible. A few respondents thought people would miss out
on too much if not possessing new technology. Other respondents believed they might buy
a smartwatch in the future, after a couple of years when more people have acquired the
technology.
“Perhaps in a couple of years, people will be saying like this; ‘oh god, do not you own a
smartwatch?’, and in the end you will buy a smartwatch.”
A few respondents were confident that the smartwatch will work as instructed. The reasons
to this are because they trust the technology, and if they have paid a considerable amount of
money for it they expect it to work. Respondents also believed the technology builds on the
27
technology of smartphones. A few respondents trusted the smartwatch technology since
they trust their smartphones. Other respondents did not believe the smartwatch would work
as instructed. A motive to this was they did not trust the voice-control feature. They believe
Swedish people would have a hard time formulating correct English sentences. A couple of
respondents mentioned the smartwatch would lose a purpose if the automated pre-set
messages had to be customized through the smartphone, instead of being able to use the
smartwatch for that reason.
Innovation
Some respondents were occasionally the first in their respective circle of friends to acquire
new technology. That was especially the case when it concerned a field of interest to them.
Although, a majority of the respondents claimed they were not the first to buy new
technology. When those respondents purchase new technology, they do not purchase the
products because it is new, but rather to replace an older unit due to malfunction. Other
reasons included that respondents preferred to wait for a while to see how people react to
new technology.
Even though not all respondents were first to acquire new technology, many were aware
and stayed updated about the technological development in their fields of interest. To keep
up with the rapid development respondents browse through websites, blogs, watch
advertisements, and read newspapers. A few respondents agreed it was difficult to miss out
on any new releases on the market, since most companies are skilled in promoting their
new products. Many respondents claimed the smartwatches are too expensive.
“I would like an Apple Watch but they are too expensive. But then I would rather buy it
because it is a fun thing, but the fun thing is too expensive…”
When respondents were asked about how they learn to use new technology most of them
said they learn-by-doing. They believed it is fun to sit around and play with new devices
and they learn as they go along. Another aspect discussed was that new products released
tend to build on previous products or software, meaning it is rarely something completely
new to learn.
“But, you do not really have to learn…you have used a smartphone for so many years, so it
is basically the same…”
“I would take for granted that you learn, that there is a logical thinking… You take for
granted that you figure out the smartwatch once you get it in your hand.”
28
Discomfort
The first topic discussed concerning this factor was if the respondents had experienced any
difficulties with any technology device. Several respondents had experienced minor issues
with new technology. Examples of struggles included transitions into other brands and
software-related issues. Most respondents agreed it is easy to find solutions for minor
difficulties.
“I mean, we are living in the information age. There is Google, YouTube… there is
everything. You can find anything if you want to.”
Most respondents were not worried about the governments’ and companies’ possibilities of
extracting personal data from smartwatches. The participants believed the same risk apply
to smartphones, thus not making any difference in the context of smartwatches.
“I feel just as confident with a smartwatch like I do with a smartphone…”
Insecurity
The following discussion was closely related to the previous subject of negative confidence
towards smartwatches. A majority of the participants were not worried that information
sent through the smartwatch could be seen by others. An explanation to this was they
trusted the same technology applies to both smartwatches and smartphones, of which they
were equally confident in.
Most participants were confident that information sent through a smartwatch would be
delivered to the intended receiver. The proposed arguments were that the technology
already exists in smartphones, making it illogical if it would not count for the smartwatch.
Additionally, a few respondents claimed the margin of errors tend to lie within the user
rather than the product itself.
Electro-magnetic radiation was brought up as a worrisome issue by a few respondents. As a
comparison to smartphones, the smartwatch would be worn on the wrist all day long which
they thought legitimated the possible results of negative health impact.
Perceived ease of use
When the discussions lead into the user friendliness of a smartwatch, the first aspect
discussed was about the display. A majority of the respondents felt the display of a
smartwatch is too small. Because it is too small, it makes it difficult to navigate with. It also
makes it more severe to read on the smartwatch. Many respondents believe the limited size
29
of the screen would be impractical when writing text messages. When it comes to the
software and interface of the smartwatch, most participants assumed it would be easy to
manage. They argued smartwatches most likely builds on existing operating systems from
smartphones. This perception also resulted in that many respondents thought smartwatches
manufactured from the same developer as their smartphones would be easier to use.
According to several respondents, some features would be more convenient and easier to do
with the smartwatch than with a smartphone. Examples included reading and sending pre-
set messages and also checking incoming calls, as you only had to turn your wrist instead
of grabbing the smartphone from your pocket.
“…Being able to read at the same time too. It feels like… I would think it is too small…”
“I think they strive to imitate cells and those units and if it works the same way. Let’s say I
buy, that I have an Apple smartphone and I buy an Apple watch, then I would assume it
works the same way so I can imagine it would be easy to get into it.”
Most of the participants thought it was easy to understand how the smartwatches work.
They comprehended the basic functions. A couple of respondents discussed if a smartwatch
has a good design and layout, you are not supposed to need any instructions for it, at least
not younger people who are accustomed to new technology.
The views differed when respondents were asked if they could explain to friends and
relatives how a smartwatch works. A majority of the participants agreed it was simple to
describe the basics of a smartwatch. Those respondents said the smartwatch does not
possess any new outstanding functions, making it easy to explain how it works. Other
respondents wanted to test the product in order to describe its functionality.
30
Perceived usefulness
The most discussed subject in all focus groups was about the range of use of a smartwatch.
The respondents provided both benefits and disadvantages with the smartwatch. Initially,
some respondents agreed about one aspect of the watch; wearing a watch could be
perceived as a status symbol. They believed if you purchase a smartwatch, that particular
aspect would be decreased. All respondents thought the smartwatch could be useful and
convenient in different situations, but considered it difficult identifying any need that the
smartphone does not already cover.
“But I do not know, everything that I can come up with for the smartwatch, you can do with
your smartphone as well, so I do not know really.”
“It fills no function really.”
“I am just wondering what, if you think about it… you have got a computer, perhaps an
iPhone, and even a tablet… what purpose does a smartwatch fulfil that is not included in
the other devices… I mean, what is the problem? I cannot see it now really.”
When different ranges of use were discussed, a majority of the respondents felt the
smartwatch did not serve any purpose. They agreed it had a limited range of use. A
background to those expressions was they thought it was annoying being forced to also
bring the smartphone at all times, when wearing smartwatch. At first, the respondents
believed the smartwatch could be a substitute to the smartphone, but eventually came to the
conclusion it was more of a complimentary product.
“…I believe it already exists solutions for everything… they are trying to design a product
there is no need for.”
A recurrent theme when the range of use was debated was that many respondents thought
the smartwatch could be beneficial when exercising and performing/measuring other
health-related activities. Examples included when exercising at the gym, going for a run,
and walking. They viewed gadgets included in the smartwatch to be of good use for those
interested in measuring and monitoring results and performance.
Another argument mentioned in two of the focus groups was that respondents felt it would
be strange to undergo a transition from a large screen to a smaller display. They described it
as a step backwards in the technology.
“The smartphones are just getting bigger and bigger so it feels weird to go back to
something small, and use that…”
31
“The day you have to go backwards in technology to make something work it feels like
something is wrong.”
One feature that impressed several respondents was the function of pre-set text messaging.
A couple of respondents argued it could be convenient in certain circumstances, especially
if it would work accurately.
Many respondents realized a potential use of the smartwatch in certain jobs. They believed
a smartwatch could be useful for people attending meetings, receiving many incoming
calls, and for train/bus conductors that could utilize a scanning function in order to register
tickets.
“I am trying to think about, if there may be anyone in a particular field or suchlike, that
spends much time in meetings… someplace where you are working with something, where
a smartwatch would have been practical.”
An aspect of the smartwatch discussed by the respondents was the ability to use your
smartwatch as a remote control. Many participants agreed it would be a minor but joyful
gadget that could be used in your everyday life. They argued many technology brands are
manufacturing products in many different categories, making the smartwatch useful as a
remote, synchronizing all units together along with a few amusing features.
Since there were a lot of comparisons between smartwatches and smartphones, the aspect
of battery life was discussed. Some respondents viewed the battery life as an important
factor when considering using a smartwatch. Generally, they thought the battery life of the
smartwatches were too short. They were not pleased with the thought of having to recharge
the smartwatch on a daily basis.
“It would be a pain in the ass to recharge the watch, in contrast to a regular watch. It would
just be lame to…”
A constant theme throughout the focus groups was that the use of a smartwatch only
marginally could improve their everyday life. If certain processes would work properly, the
respondents thought it would be slightly more convenient to make use of a smartwatch.
Afterwards, the participants were asked to give their opinions on how they believe the
smartwatch would perform. Each focus group had different opinions on whether or not the
smartwatch would deliver satisfying results. Respondents of the first focus group all agreed
the smartwatch would perform satisfactory. They viewed the smartwatch as a
complimentary product, relying on that it would work without any problems. The second
group thought it depends on their expectations and what companies promise to deliver. The
32
third focus group thought the next generation smartwatches would be improved since the
current smartwatches still feels fresh.
“You have confidence in technology, but I am like, give it some time.”
Perceived playfulness
When asked about how important enjoyment of using a smartwatch is, several respondents
thought enjoyment of smartwatches was an essential factor in the beginning stages of
usage, but loses its importance as they get familiar with it. A few other respondents did not
view enjoyment as important. Instead, they preferred the smartwatch to be more practical to
use.
The vast majority of the respondents had not considered learning more about the
smartwatch technology, or buying the product. According to several participants, they
believed it would have been fun to use, but it is too expensive to match their expectations.
The opinion of most respondents was that smartwatches would have been more interesting
if they were cheaper.
Perceived visual attractiveness
A few participants preferred a circular, more classic design of a smartwatch. Others
believed the design was descent and had no objection to it. They thought the watch was
appropriate to be worn with an overall sporty style.
“I do not have anything against the design actually, I think it is alright. It is pretty good-
looking.”
All female participants discussed the lack of femininity in the smartwatches. They argued
the smartwatches of being too large and bulky as they preferred to wear smaller and neater
watches on their wrists. They also thought the smartwatch was missing soft shapes and it
would be difficult learning the habit of always wearing a smartwatch, as they often switch
between various accessories.
“Perhaps this is only the case for women, but I do not wear a watch all the time. You switch
between a bracelet one day and a watch another day… Perhaps, I would not wear it if I was
attending a prom, to have a giant screen on your arm. I would not wear it then, it would be
like, I wear this today because it is appropriate.”
33
Other respondents expressed similar views. For instance, some respondents would not wear
a smartwatch with formal dressing. On the contrary, several male respondents advocated
they would wear a smartwatch to formal occasions as an accessory.
In one of the focus groups, technological design was discussed. Respondents believed
technological products, design-wise, are limited. They thought it exist few brands that
succeed in creating a product that exceeds your expectations when it comes to the design of
it. Furthermore, they felt smartwatches did not tell anything about the time or place of
creation. The corresponding history of the craftsmanship is missing.
A majority of the respondents believed the design of smartwatches is important. When the
participants were asked to put design and functionality into comparison with each other,
most of them thought the functionality was the determining factor.
“You are supposed to wear the smartwatch all the time so you want it to be good-looking.”
“I think it is a combination between the design and functionality… it should allure me
functionally while still looking good on my wrist.”
“More functionality I believe, but I would not walk around with a brick around my wrist.”
Intention to continue using
After viewing the introduction video and discussing the topic of smartwatches thoroughly,
the participants were asked if they feel a strong urge to use or purchase a smartwatch.
Almost all respondents were reluctant to the thought of purchasing a smartwatch in today’s
situation. A mutual reasoning of those respondents was they did not feel the smartwatch
could serve any purpose that the smartphone already holds. Many respondents claimed their
interest towards smartwatches would have been increased if it was not a requirement to also
carry a smartphone in order to make full use of the smartwatch. Many respondents were
interested and positive to the idea of trying the smartwatch.
“…It is also interesting to see how you would use it. It feels difficult to talk about it before
you have tried it. I would probably not use it that much but I want to try it. There are
probably a lot of unspoken needs in the smartwatch that you are not aware of…”
“But I have not bought an iPad, and I still would like to since it feels fun and it is
convenient to bring for lectures, but it has too few functions to be worth the price in today’s
situation and I would feel the same way with this watch…I do not think it has sufficient
functions that is equivalent to the price.”
34
Many participants said they would not recommend a smartwatch to other people. Several
respondents wanted to try it out themselves before recommending it to other people. The
other respondents recommended the smartwatch to active people.
Most respondents believed technologically interested individuals are the most eager people
of using a smartwatch. Respondents from two focus groups agreed the main target group of
smartwatches would be people between twenty and thirty-five years of age. In all focus
groups, participants raised a concern about ordinary watch-enthusiasts. They claimed this
target group would not enjoy the current development of smartwatches.
“But it feels like those ‘watch-enthusiasts’, those who are just into the watch itself, it feels
like it is rather difficult to make them like the smartwatches.”
“…smartwatches are a concern to many mechanical watch manufacturers. And they are
considering manufacturing smartwatches, but for me who loves regular watches, it is a use.
What do I need more than a watch on my wrist?”
35
5. Data analysis
The structure of this chapter will be the following; first off, the analysis will be divided into
categories similar to the construction of the frame of reference. Each concept will be
analysed and compared against the theory. An explanation will be expressed to why it
turned out as it did. Finally, the research questions will be addressed to see how the
analysed content fits into the proposed research questions.
Throughout all discussions, many opinions were consistently brought up by the
respondents. When comparing the focus groups to each other, there was no group radically
different from another, regarding opinions or topics of the discussion. Each participant was
actively engaged during the interviews. Naturally, there were differences in opinions, which
can be explained by their different interests and attitudes towards new technology.
Optimism
As mentioned in the data presentation, several respondents said it was too early predicting
the future of smartwatches, but their responses indicated high potential. It was a recurrent
theme reflecting the entire section. Respondents are positive towards smartwatch
technology and new technology in general. From the discussions, there is a clear potential
in the features offered in a smartwatch. What if these features could be improved to the
same extent in smartphones? Would it be worth the cost of a smartwatch, only to save a few
seconds and an extra movement of picking up the smartphone from the pocket?
By referring to both useful functions and confidence in the technology, it implies there is a
stable foundation to build something useful on. The question is what it takes to distinguish
the smartwatch from the smartphone. From an exercising perspective, the smartwatch could
fill many active people’s need of measuring performance. This could be the useful
distinguishing factor a smartwatch needs to become independent from other products in
similar areas. To contradict the confidence in smartwatch technology, some respondents
thought the smartwatch would not work properly when using the voice control feature. This
displayed a negative tendency in confidence for the technology, as their previous
experiences with voice functions were negative. Almost all of these respondents claimed
they would miss out on too much if not possessing modern technology. A possible
explanation is they would feel a social pressure to stay current in the technological
development, and socially would be left out of what is happening around them within their
social circle.
According to (Lin et al., 2007) optimism reviews people’s positive attitude towards
technology adoption. It suggests people gaining benefits in form of flexibility and control
when adopting a new technology. When comparing theory to the collected data, it is
36
possible to claim that respondents generally have a positive attitude towards adopting
smartwatches in the future. They believe certain utilities could make their everyday life
easier and provide more control in later generations of smartwatches. To conclude,
optimism has an impact on the acceptance of smartwatches, even though they are not
completely convinced yet.
Innovation
When examining the innovation factor different responses came to light. A few respondents
thought the smartwatches was too expensive. What would happen with their attitude
towards the technology if the price tag was decreased? Would they feel a stronger intention
to purchase a smartwatch, or would a low price induce a negative confidence towards the
technology, making people reject the smartwatch?
Even though a majority of the respondents are not among the first to acquire new
technology they remain updated in technology development. Moreover, respondents
embrace the challenge of figuring out a new product on their own instead of using manuals
or requesting for help, in the first sense. The responses indicate an interest to be aware of
current progress within technology and it also shows positivism towards technology
adoption. This could be explained by the fact that millennials’ have grown up with cell
phones to smartphones, and perhaps now smartwatches. Nonetheless, it is not possible to
generalize the responses to draw any conclusions regarding the innovation aspect. Even
though participants appeared to be interested in acquiring new technology, the interview
questions were not designed in the correct manner in order to answer these questions marks
when it comes to smartwatches. If the questions would have been more directed towards
smartwatches, the responses might have given an indication on whether or not the
innovation factor has an impact on the acceptance of smartwatches.
Discomfort
The discussions regarding the discomfort aspect was briefly covered. It can be explained by
that respondents had clear responses to the questions asked and did not feel uncomfortable
when using new technology. As pointed out earlier, many respondents had experienced
minor issues with new technology but did not view it as a major concern. They agreed
minor issues are easy to solve on your own. This could be an indication that they do not
back down from a challenge, but rather endorse it since it is easy to solve the problem by
the use of Google or YouTube. It suggests products are easy to use and minor issues do not
have any negative impact. Nevertheless, the first question about respondents’ earlier
experiences with technology was not directly related to smartwatches. This complicates the
process of drawing any conclusions from the responses of this factor. For that reason, this
factor cannot be generalized and applied in the acceptance of smartwatches.
37
When it comes to the second question of discomfort, most respondents did not worry about
the risk that companies and the government can extract personal information from
smartwatches. As the respondents believed the same risks apply to smartphones, it is
possible to conclude this risk is not a concern, and thereby this aspect of discomfort will not
affect how the respondents would accept the technology. If the respondents would have had
a negative attitude towards security concerns it might have influenced their likeliness to
accept the smartwatch.
Earlier research states if people feel they do not maintain control when adopting new
technology, it results in negative technology readiness which will influence technology
adoption in a negative manner (Lin et al., 2007). The results from the collected data are
reversely scored in this case. The respondents are positive that technology is easy to use
and they can solve their problems on their own. However, due to lack of accurate data it is
not possible to draw any conclusions related to the smartwatch acceptance of this factor.
Insecurity
In respect of the insecurity factor, a majority of the respondents showed no worries about
the risk of information sent through a smartwatch could be hacked or seen by others. A
definite confidence in the technology was pervading with the argument the same
technology exists within the smartphone, thus not making a difference. This confidence
indicates optimism towards technology adoption of smart watches as they are not afraid of
information being intercepted, or not being delivered to the intended receiver. As the
respondents are using their smartphones on a daily basis, it is possible to conclude, due to
their opinion that the technologies are the same, their confidence in the smartwatch
technology will not be any different. It does not affect their attitude towards smartwatches
negatively.
Lin et al. (2007) said if people are insecure that new technology will not work properly, it
might result in a negative attitude towards the adoption of it. When applying the findings
with previous research, respondents expressed an overall positive confidence in that the
smartwatch technology will function accurately. This indication of strong confidence in the
smartwatch technology implies that confidence in the technology is required to consumers’
acceptance of smartwatches.
Perceived ease of use
When user friendliness of smartwatches was discussed, both positive and negative aspects
were highlighted. The most dominant response was that screens of smartwatches are too
small, making it difficult to read, navigate, and write text messages on. As this is a
38
frequently mentioned issue, it is something that needs to be corrected into a simpler and
friendlier way of enabling those features. This makes perceived ease of use an important
factor when striving to reach acceptance of smartwatches. If the smartwatch would have
been easier to use, they would have regarded the features as more useful, thus increasing
their intentions of using the smartwatch.
When respondents were asked about user friendliness, a majority thought if the smartwatch
was developed by the same developer as their smartphone, they would find the smartwatch
more easy to use. This statement declares respondents are more comfortable with systems
they have used before, hence displaying a positive attitude towards their brand of
smartphones.
Davis (1986) stated when systems are free of mental or physical effort, people will perceive
a product as more useful. During the discussions many respondents claimed a smartwatch
would be easy to use and had no problems in describing how it works. This indicates a
correlation between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, proving the importance
of both factors of acceptance. To confirm this statement Ashraf et al. (2014) verified
perceived ease of use has a direct connection to perceived usefulness and intention to use.
That outcome supports this by the previous reasoning. However, due to the limited size of
the display, the perceived user-friendliness of smartwatches was decreased.
Perceived usefulness
Many opinions were related to the perceived range of use of smartwatches. All respondents
agreed the smartwatch would be a convenient device to possess in certain situations. Most
respondents believed it was difficult addressing any purpose with the smartwatch. Using
the GPS, quicker text messaging, and as an exercise tool was the mentioned areas of use. A
possible conclusion is that respondents find the smartwatch unnecessary to use since their
smartphones already cover those tasks. The various features of the smartwatch do not
appeal strongly enough to make the participants desire the smartwatch. This suggests
perceived usefulness is an important factor when considering purchasing a smartwatch. The
smartwatch has to offer something unique that the smartphone does not include. This would
add valid purposes of using a smartwatch.
Earlier research argues perceived usefulness enable individuals to enhance their job
performance when using a particular system (Davis, 1986). The opinions of the respondents
indicated there is no clear purpose of the smartwatch, thus negatively influencing their
intention to use a smartwatch. In the study from Ashraf et al. (2014), perceived usefulness
was considered to be a critical factor in determining intention to use. This was verified in
this study as well since respondents did not identify any major useful features reflecting the
price of the smartwatch.
39
Perceived playfulness
Perceived playfulness did not have any significant effect from the respondents’ point of view.
A majority of the respondents had not even thought about purchasing the smartwatch or
learning more about it. Several participants believed playfulness was an important part in
the beginning of a purchase, while others preferred the smartwatch it to be more functional
overall instead. This can be explained by reviewing the previous concept. As respondents
did not find the smartwatch useful, they did not consider perceived playfulness to be an
important factor.
Previous studies by both Han & Windsor (2013) and Ahn et al. (2007) presented a positive
correlation between perceived playfulness and intention to use. The findings of this study
contradict this relationship as perceived playfulness was not a determining factor in
acceptance of smartwatches. It did not have any positive correlation towards intention to
use. If the respondents would have identified more useful areas of the smartwatch the case
might have been different, and perceived playfulness would possibly have had a larger
impact than it currently did.
Perceived visual attractiveness
When the design of smartwatches was discussed, the responses were divided into different
sets of statements. Some respondents preferred a classical design, while others regarded the
design as generally descent. The general population of the respondents thought the design
was good looking since there were different alternatives suiting various needs. Femininity
was discussed by all female respondents. Their attitudes indicated a clear urge for a more
feminine version of a smartwatch. The lack of feminine attributes of the smartwatch could
influence their intention to use a smartwatch for the worse.
Previous studies performed by Sonderegger & Sauer (2010) showed a positive relation
between visual attractiveness and perceived usefulness. In this study, many respondents
thought design was an important factor when considering using it. When asked what is
most important between functionality and design, many respondents favoured functionality.
Design was essential too, and has a positive connection to perceived usefulness and
intention to use. To conclude, visual attractiveness has a positive effect on the acceptance
of smartwatches.
“You are supposed to wear the smartwatch all the time so you want it to be good-looking.”
40
Intention to use
When it comes to examining the respondents’ intention to use, almost no respondent felt
any urge to purchase a smartwatch in today’s situation. An explanation to this is they do not
realize any purpose that cannot be fulfilled by a smartphone. To conclude, perceived
usefulness is a dominant factor towards intention to use a smartwatch. Moreover, many
participants claimed they would not recommend a smartwatch to others, which can be
explained by many respondents’ curiosity of trying it out before recommending it to
another person. This display signs of curiosity as they experience an interest to play around
with, in order to identify functions that the respondents were not aware of. They were
looking for a reason to own a smartwatch and wanted to search for functions that could be
useful.
Price was a factor discussed to why respondents were reluctant to the idea of purchasing a
smartwatch. Since all respondents were students this could be explained by the fact they
have a limited income, which could cloud their judgement when determining a reasonable
price for the technology.
The study from Ashraf et al. (2014) confirms perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use are dominant factors influencing the intention to use a product. When reviewing the
data, perceived usefulness is a major influencing aspect when considering using a
smartwatch. There are also influences of perceived ease of use in the entire discussion
showing a positive significance to that respondents thought the smartwatch would be easy
to use and would intend to use it if it were developed from their smartphone manufacturer.
41
6. Conclusions and implications
This chapter will present the conclusions of the findings in this thesis. It will feature
answers to the stated research questions in order to fulfil the research purpose of this
study: To explore the current possibilities, from the perspective of millennials, how the
smartwatch could gain acceptance on the Swedish market. Furthermore, a discussion will
follow about the implications of the study, limitations of the research, and suggestions to
further research.
6.1 Research question 1
RQ1: Which factors influence consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches?
The data presented displayed some interesting findings. When reviewing the aspects of
technology readiness, included in the TRAM model, connections to technology acceptance
was apparent in almost all different aspects. The importance of whether or not they are
central is arguable. Optimism indicated a clear correlation to the acceptance of
smartwatches. The respondents were positive to the potential of smartwatches in the future.
Meanwhile, they mentioned different functions that could have an impact in their everyday
life. When comparing those findings with previous research, it was confirmed that this
factor is a central part of acceptance.
There are indications suggesting that innovation could have an impact on consumers’
acceptance of smartwatches. In this study, however, it is not possible to make any
statements based on the data collected. The responses indicated that respondents had an
interest for new technology but the interview questions were not directly connected to their
opinions on smartwatches, which is why it is impossible to draw any conclusions
concerning this factor.
The factor of discomfort concluded that respondents did not view possible issues arising
with new technology as a problem. Many of the respondents agreed that if any problem
occurs, it is easy to solve by themselves. Hence, minor difficulties with technology are not
an issue. Although, the interview questions were not directed to smartwatches which in turn
did not provide adequate content in order to address the importance of this factor in the
consumer acceptance of smartwatches.
When analysing the aspect of insecurity, it displayed that a majority of the respondents had
confidence in that the technology would work as expected. Generally, a positive attitude
was pervading among the respondents towards confidence in smartwatch technology. This
indicates a positive correlation to the acceptance of smartwatches.
42
The results of the data presentation displayed that perceived ease of use was an intense
topic of smartwatches. Almost all respondents believed text handling on a limited display,
to be an issue. The importance shone through as they wanted to handle text messaging and
navigation of the smartwatch in a convenient way. The smartwatch has to be as user-
friendly as possible, in order to make use of the various features offered. This means
perceived ease of use has an effect on how consumers’ would accept smartwatches.
Perceived usefulness was another critical factor in the perception of smartwatches.
Throughout the entire discussions of the focus groups, the lack of purpose with a
smartwatch was mentioned. The participants did not view current functions enough
satisfying that translated to the price charged for smartwatches. They argued that the
smartphone have all the qualities that a smartwatch currently does, making the smartwatch
useless as of right now, in certain aspects. Consequently, perceived usefulness is significant
to the acceptance of smartwatches.
Surprisingly, perceived playfulness did not have a central role in technology acceptance in
this sense. Since the respondents had difficulties identifying any purpose with the
smartwatch, they preferred its functionality instead of elements of playfulness within it.
This also confirms the importance of perceived usefulness as a major factor in acceptance.
When it came to the design of the smartwatches, the variable of perceived visual
attractiveness revealed a strong connection to perceived usefulness. By asking the
respondents what is more important between function and design, most respondents
expressed functionality as the more vital attribute. At the same time, they wanted the
smartwatch to be attractive enough to wear it on a daily basis. To conclude, this factor has a
strong influence on consumers’ acceptance of the smartwatch.
43
Table 5: Conclusion of research question 1
Acceptance
factors
Important Less important Not measurable
Optimism - Positive potential of
smartwatches in the
future.
- Certain features could
have an impact in
people’s everyday life.
Innovation - Lack of accurate
data.
Discomfort - Lack of accurate
data.
Insecurity - Respondents are
confident in the
smartwatch technology.
Perceived
ease of use
- The limited size of the
display decreases the
usability.
- User-friendliness is
important.
Perceived
usefulness
- Lack of purposes of the
smartwatches.
- Current features not
satisfying enough.
Perceived
playfulness - Functionality is
more important than
elements of
playfulness.
Perceived
visual
attractiveness
- Design is important
when wearing a
smartwatch.
44
6.2 Research question 2
RQ 2: How do these factors influence individuals’ intention of using smartwatches?
When reviewing connections between the central factors of acceptance and intention to use,
it is conceivable to draw the conclusion that optimism has a direct relation to intention to
use. For instance, respondents believed if any revolutionary training aspect would be
invented, it could be a triumph in their everyday life. Moreover, a majority of the
respondents saw potential in future usability of the smartwatch.
Since the aspects of innovation and discomfort could not be determined to have a central
role in millennials’ acceptance of smartwatches, it is not possible to conclude how it affects
consumers’ intention to use the smartwatch. This is why these are not discussed in the
second research question.
Overall, the respondents had high confidence in technology. As they are confident in the
technology of smartphones, which they are using every day, a viable conclusion can be
drawn that their intention to use smartwatches would not differ from their attitude towards
the use of smartphones. This implies that insecurity has an influence on respondents’
intention to use smartwatches.
The small display of smartwatches was a frequently mentioned issue, and this obstacle
reflects to the respondents’ intention to use a smartwatch. This issue was so significant, to
the degree that many respondents would not use it for certain purposes, proving that
perceived ease of use relates to respondents’ intention to use a smartwatch.
The participants claimed their smartphones already has the various features that the
smartwatch offers. It is not tempting enough to make the respondents want it. This was the
main element that pervaded the entire discussion regarding the usefulness of the
smartwatch. To conclude, perceived usefulness is a determining factor to respondents’
intention to use a smartwatch.
Since the factor of perceived playfulness did not have a central role in millennials’
acceptance of smartwatches, it will not affect their intention to use the smartwatch either,
which is why it is not discussed in the second research question.
Finally, the participants voiced their opinion that the functionality is more important than
the design of the smartwatch, even though design still remained vital to the user. If the
smartwatch was supposed to be worn every day, the respondents wanted it to look good on
their wrist. This concluded that perceived visual attractiveness has a central role in
respondents’ intention to use a smartwatch.
45
The findings of this research established a positive correlation of the factors determining
the acceptance of smartwatches, and consumers’ intention to use them.
Table 6: Conclusions of research question 2
Intention to use Important Less important Not measurable
Optimism - A training aspect within
the smartwatch could
influence how people
exercise in the future.
Innovation - Lack of
accurate data.
Discomfort - Lack of
accurate data.
Insecurity - Intention to use
smartwatches does not
differ from the use of
smartphones, which is
used on a daily basis.
Perceived ease of
use
- The smartwatch would
not be used for certain
purposes due to its
improper user-friendliness.
Perceived
usefulness
- The smartwatch has to
offer distinguishing
features that smartphones
does not possess.
Perceived
playfulness - Perceived
playfulness has
little or no
influence on
intention to use
smartwatches
Perceived visual
attractiveness
- When wearing a
smartwatch on a daily
basis, the design has an
influential role in intention
to use it.
46
6.3 Implications of the study
6.3.1 Theoretical implications
The findings of this study were able to confirm that some of the theoretical connections
within the TRAM model are applicable to the context of smartwatches. Perceived ease of
use turned out to be an important aspect in the acceptance of smartwatches. Respondents
thought that it was important to view the functions as useful and easy to manage. The size
of the display was a concerning issue since it limited the features of a smartwatch. This
established a clear connection between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, as
the findings displayed an indication on functionality being impaired by the limited display
size. The results showed that a smartwatch was currently lacking the functionality
consumers sought after, making it non-desirable to use or purchase in today’s situation. All
this indicated that the respondents’ intention to use a smartwatch is currently low. If any of
the useful functions could be improved, the smartwatch could be successful in the future.
The external variables used, perceived playfulness and perceived visual attractiveness, have
not been studied integrated with the TRAM model in earlier research. In contrast to what
Moon & Kim (2001) claimed, perceived playfulness had no huge impact on respondents’
acceptance and intention to use smartwatches. Perceived visual attractiveness proved to
have an impact on perceived usefulness and intention to use a smartwatch. This is aligned
with theory from previous research, which has been verified in other contexts (Van der
Heijden, 2003). This is a contribution that can be used in the field of smartwatches, as
perceived visual attractiveness has a major relevance in acceptance of new technology
products.
There are two factors within the TRAM model that were not measured due to a lack of
accurate data. These are Innovation and discomfort.
This study examined a relatively new field of research within wearables and is in need of
more exploration. To conclude, this thesis contributed to an understanding of the
correlation between the acceptance factors and the intention to use a smartwatch.
6.3.2 Managerial implications
The findings of this research also provide suggestions to how manufacturers can focus their
future development of smartwatches, based on current perception of consumers. A lack of
feminine designs of smartwatches is something that was apparent among the female
respondents in this study. It provides suggestions to how developers can attract more
47
female consumers to buy the smartwatch. For instance, a preferred design was a neater
smartwatch with gentle shapes.
Another recommendation is to market the functionality of smartwatches more aggressively,
as respondents viewed it as problematic to identify the usability of it. There is a need for
more practical features that conveniently can ease people’s everyday life, while also filling
the purpose of a stylish accessory. Text handling and navigation were aspects that
respondents believe has to be improved.
6.4 Limitations
This study includes several limitations, meaning there are certain areas that could be
improved. First of all, this study was delimited to only examine millennials. This makes it
bothersome to draw generalizations of the conclusions, since the factors affecting
acceptance of smartwatches might influence other target groups differently. Furthermore,
this study only investigates the acceptance of smartwatches in Sweden, meaning opinions
might differ in other cultural contexts. Hence, a replication of this study in other countries
might offer other perspectives.
The reliability of this study would have been increased if the sample was randomly
selected. As the authors’ was present during the data collection, it might have affected the
subjects’ responses. A majority of the respondents turned out to be Apple users, which
might address a negative perception towards other brands. Thus, a decreased bias would
have been achieved through random sampling, also containing various age groups.
Previous research about acceptance behaviour has been extensively studied, but in the area
of smartwatches, there are few contributions to challenge the findings of this study. This
makes it severe in terms of comparing findings with other studies, providing a limitation of
enhanced reliability of the outcome in this study.
6.5 Future research
Suggestions for future research are based on the conclusions of this study and the
limitations previously stated. A recommendation is to test the findings of this thesis with a
quantitative approach. This would enable collecting data from different target groups, while
also verifying and examine the correlations between the different factors influencing
acceptance of the smartwatch. It would also be interesting to examine this research problem
in various cultures to discover any differences in values and opinions, to eventually
generalize the results of this study.
48
The innovation and discomfort factors were not measurable in this study, which left those
without any answers in the context of smartwatches. The data of the factors would have
been more contributing if the interview questions were adapted to a smartwatch
perspective. If this study is to be reproduced, the interview questions of these two factors
need to be revised in order to collect more accurate data. Suggestions for reformulating the
questions could be;
Innovation
o Would you be among the first in your circle of friends to acquire a
smartwatch?
o Do you keep up with the technological developments in the area of
smartwatches?
Discomfort
o If you would experience a smartwatch too difficult to use, how would you
handle it?
o If you were worried about the governments’/companies’ possibilities of
extracting personal data from your smartwatch, how would you handle it?
As brand loyalty was apparent in the focus groups, it would be interesting to include brand
attachment as a factor, to see how it influence consumers’ acceptance of smartwatches.
49
References
Articles
Employee Benefit News. (2014). “BY THE NUMB3RS”, 28(15), 42. Retrieved 2015-02-06
Fernandez, P. (2014). Wearable technology: beyond augmented reality. Library Hi Tech
News, 31(9). Retrieved 2015-03-09
Mann, S. (1999). Cyborg Seeks Community. Technology Review, 102(3), 36).
Retrieved 2015-03-10
Martini, P. (2014). A secure approach to wearable technology. Network Security, 2014(10),
15-17. Retrieved 2015-03-09
Risen, T. (2014, April 21). Survey: Americans uncertain about wearables. U.S. News.
Retrieved 2015-02-04 from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/21/survey
americans-uncertain-about-wearables
Sheehy, A. (2015, January 16). Smart Watches. TekCarta. Retrieved 2015-02-04 from
http://www.generatorresearch.com/tekcarta/analysis-insight/smart-watches
Tyler, K. (2007). The tethered generation. HR MAGAZINE, 52(5), 40. Retrieved 2015-04
-17
Literature
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (red.) (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
(4.,[rewritten and enlarged] ed.) Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
McGivern, Y. (2013). The practice of market research: an introduction. (Fourth edition.)
Rogers Everett, M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York.
Silverman, D. (red.) (2011). Qualitative research: issues of theory, method and practice. (3.
ed.) London: SAGE.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. (4. ed.) London: SAGE.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students.
(6. ed.) Harlow: Pearson.
Scientific articles
Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2007). The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user
acceptance of online retailing. Information & Management, 44(3), 263-275.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and human
decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N., & Auh, S. (2014). The Application of the Technology
50
Acceptance Model Under Different Cultural Contexts: The Case of Online Shopping
Adoption. Journal of International Marketing, 22(3), 68-93.
Davis Jr, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology).
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction
to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Fox, S. (2014). Addressing the trade-off between style and practicality in wearable
computing. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 26(6), 480-
485.
Gentry, L., & Calantone, R. (2002). A comparison of three models to explain shop‐bot use
on the web. Psychology & Marketing, 19(11), 945-956.
Gurau, C. (2012). A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: comparing Generation
X and Millennial consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 103-113.
Han, B., & Windsor, J. (2013). An investigation of the smartphone user's in-game purchase
intention. International Journal Of Mobile Communications, 11(6), 617-635.
doi:10.1504/IJMC.2013.057818
Hong, J. Y., Chae, H. S., & Han, K. H. (2007). A study on the acceptance factors of the
smart clothing. Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Platforms and Technique,
1106-1112. Springer Berlin
Hsu, C., & Lin, J. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance,
social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information &
Management, 45(1), 65-74
Jin, C. (2013). The perspective of a revised TRAM on social capital building: The case of
Facebook usage. Information & Management, 50(4), 162-168.
Kroll, A. (2013). Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: A
planned behaviour approach. The American Review of Public Administration,
0275074013486180.
Lai, V., & Li, H. (2005). Technology acceptance model for internet banking: An invariance
analysis. Information & Management, 42(2), 373-386
Lee, J., Ham, C. D., & Kim, M. (2013). Why people pass along online video advertising:
From the perspectives of the interpersonal communication motives scale and the
theory of reasoned action. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(1), 1-13.
Leyton, D., Pino, J. A., & Ochoa, S. F. (2014). EBTAM: technology acceptance in e-
Business environments. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 13(2),
211-234.
Lin, C. H., Shih, H. Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into
technology acceptance: The TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 641-657.
Lin, J. S. C., & Hsieh, P. L. (2007). The influence of technology readiness on satisfaction
51
and behavioural intentions toward self-service technologies. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 23(3), 1597-1615.
Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning:
An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61,
193-208.
Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context.
Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems
research, 2(3), 192-222.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to
measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of service research, 2(4),
307-320.
Park, S., & Jayaraman, S. (2003). Enhancing the quality of life through wearable
technology. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE,22(3), 41-48.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour. MIS quarterly, 115-143.
Rogers, Everett M., Hugh Daley, & Thomas Wu. (1980). The diffusion of personal
computers, Stanford, CA, Stanford University, Institute for Communication
Research, Report. C(E)
Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2010). The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing:
Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied ergonomics, 41(3), 403-
410.
Thomas, W.I. & Znaniecki, F. (1918-1920). The Polish peasant in Europe and America:
monograph of an immigrant group. Boston, Mass.: Badger.
Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic
portal in The Netherlands. Information & Management, 40(6), 541-549.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Weigel, F. K., Hazen, B. T., Cegielski, C. G., & Hall, D. J. (2014). Diffusion of
Innovations and the Theory of Planned Behavior in Information Systems Research: A
Metaanalysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 31. Wright, R., & Keith, L. (2014). Wearable Technology: If the Tech Fits, Wear It. Journal of
Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(4), 204-216.
Žvanut, B., Pucer, P., Ličen, S., Trobec, I., Plazar, N., & Vavpotič, D. (2011). The effect of
voluntariness on the acceptance of e-learning by nursing students. Nurse education
today, 31(4), 350-355.
52
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview guide
Introduction
Allow the respondents to say something about themselves (warm-up, let everyone
speak)
Introduce the topic and the purpose of the research
Tell the respondents about how long the interview will be
Explain our role as moderators (we are guiding the discussion and listening to the
respondents)
Tell the respondents how and why they were chosen (fulfilled the researchers’
requirements)
Tell the respondents about the confidentiality/anonymity
Ask about permission to record the session
Inform the respondents about how the information will be used
Inform the respondents about the voluntary participation (free to leave or refuse to
answer a question)
Explain the rules → There are no right or wrong answers, it is the respondents’
opinions, feelings, and experiences we are interested in. The respondents can speak
to each other and do not have to agree with each other.
Optimism - Jin (2013) & Lin et al. (2007)
1. How do you think smartwatch technology affect people’s daily lives?
2. Is it important for you to use the most advanced technology available?
Follow-up: Explain why?
3. Would you feel safe with that a smartwatch will follow through with what you instruct it
to do?
Follow-up: How do you mean then?
Innovation - Jin (2013) & Lin et al. (2007)
1. Are you among the first in your circle of friends to acquire new technology when it
appears?
Follow-up: If yes, can you give an example when it has not happened?
2. Do you keep up with the latest technological developments in your areas of interest?
How are you doing this?
53
3. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say you have acquired a new smartwatch, how do you
learn to use it?
Discomfort (reverse scored) - Jin (2013) & Lin et al. (2007)
1. Have you ever felt like a technological device is too difficult to use?
2. What are your opinions about the governments’/companies’ possibilities of extracting
personal data from a smartwatch?
Insecurity (reverse scored) - Jin (2013) & Lin et al. (2007)
1. Would you be worried that information you send with a smartwatch will be seen by
others?
2. Would you be confident in that the information you provide with a smartwatch will be
delivered to the intended receiver?
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) - Jin (2013), Lai & Li (2005)
1. After you watched the video earlier, how would you describe the ease of use of a
Smartwatch?
Follow-up: Was it clear how it works in the demonstration?
2. Would it be easy for you to explain for friends and relatives how a Smartwatch works?
Perceived usefulness (PU) - Jin (2013), Lai & Li (2005)
1. For which purposes would you use a Smartwatch?
2. How could the use of a Smartwatch influence your everyday life?
Follow-up: Do you believe it could perform your preferred tasks with good results?
Perceived playfulness (PP) – Moon & Kim (2001)
1. How important is enjoyment as a factor when using a smartwatch?
Follow-up: What is your perception of enjoyment a smartwatch could provide to
you?
2. Has anybody ever thought about purchasing a smartwatch or learning more about it?
Follow-up: Why?
Perceived attractiveness - Van der Heijden (2003)
1. What is your general opinion about the design of a Smartwatch?
Follow-up: How important is the design?
Intention to continue using (IU) Facebook - Jin (2013), Lai & Li (2005)
54
1. Now that you have seen the video and we have discussed around the smartwatch, do you
have a strong tendency to use a smartwatch?
Follow up: why?
2. Would you recommend a smartwatch to others?
