Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회지)

The Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consumers' Acceptance of Smart Clothing -A Comparison between Perceived Group and Non-Perceived Group-

  • Received : 2010.05.10
  • Accepted : 2010.07.02
  • Published : 2010.06.06
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explains the consumer acceptance of smart clothing using the extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); in addition, it compares the difference in the path hypotheses of the perceived group and nonperceived group from the aspect of the extended TAM. A total of 815 copies of questionnaire were collected from a web-based survey in March 2009. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the entire pattern of intercorrelations among the constructs and to test related propositions using an AMOS 5.0 package. The fitness of the extended TAM explains the process of the adaptation of smart clothing. Technology Innovation (TI) and Clothing Involvement (CI) were confirmed as antecedent variables to affect TAM. In the perceived group, Technology Innovation (TI) and Clothing Involvement (CI) showed significant impacts on the Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) while Technology Innovation (TI) did not influence the Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) in the non-perceived group. Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) influenced the Perceived Usefulness (PU) and indirectly influenced Attitude (A) through the Perceived Usefulness (PU) in both groups. In addition, Perceived Usefulness (PU) did not influence Acceptance Intention (AI) but indirectly affected Acceptance Intention (AI) through Attitude (A). Therefore, Attitude (A) was found to be an important parameter in the adaptation of smart clothing in both groups. This finding implies that consumers first perceive the usefulness of smart clothing, then take favorable attitudes towards the smart clothing, and finally have the intention to adopt it. Strategies for publishing and informing consumers of the functions of smart clothing and usefulness in life are necessary; in addition, understanding what useful values they expect from the clothing is also crucial.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Hansung University

References

  1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, & usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2),227-247. https://doi.org/10.2307/249577
  2. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quartly, 24(4), 665-694. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250951
  3. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.x
  4. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concept, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Inc.
  5. Chae, J. M. (2009). Extending the technology acceptance model for smart clothing. Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association, 47(5), 99-110.
  6. Chattopadhyay, A., & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 466-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172631
  7. Chen, L. D. (2000). Consumer acceptance of virtual stores: A theoretical model and critical success factors for virtual stores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis, Memphis.
  8. Chen, L. D., Gillenson, M. L., & Sherrell, D. L. (2002). Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Information & Management, 39(8), 705-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00127-6
  9. Cho, H. K., Lee, J. H., Lee, C. K., & Lee, M. H. (2006). An exploratory research for development of design of sensor-based smart clothing: Focused on the healthcare .clothing based on bio-monitoring technology. Korean Journal of the Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 9(2), 141-150.
  10. Davis, E D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  11. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  12. Engel, J. E, Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer behaviour (8th ed.). Forth Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.
  13. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302
  14. Foxall, G. R. (1988). Consumer innovativeness: Novelty seeking, creativity, and Cognitive style. Research in Consumer Behavior, 3, 79-113.
  15. Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 849-867. https://doi.org/10.1086/209021
  16. Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726497
  17. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/249498
  18. Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 357-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x
  19. Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology of clothing (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
  20. Kang, K. Y., & Jin, H. J. (2007). A study on consumers' clothing buying intention adopted by the technology acceptance model. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 31(8), 1211-1221. https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2007.31.8.1211
  21. Kim, S. H. (1999). A study on the structure of clothing consumption value and the relation between clothing consumption, clothing involvement, and fashion leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  22. Lee, H. M. (2008). The study on the acceptance of wearable computers and consumer segmentation: Based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  23. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173
  24. McFarland, D. J. (1999). The particularization of computer efficacy and its influence on the technology acceptance model: Afield study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia.
  25. Midgley, D. E, & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1086/208701
  26. Mittal, B. (1989). A theoretical analysis of two recent measures of involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 697-702.
  27. Park, S. H.,& Lee J. H. (2001). An exploratory research for design of digital fashion product based on the concept of "Wearable Computer" (1). Journal of Fashion Business, 5(3), 111-128.
  28. Revenues from Digital Home Health Services to Top $2.1 Billion in 2010. (2006, March 2). Parks Associates. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://www.parksassociates.com
  29. Running Computer Adds New Dimension to Training And Competing. (2006, September 4). Polar Electro. Retrieved October 18,2009, from http://www.polar.fi/en
  30. Ruth, C. (2000). Applying a modified technology acceptance model to determined factors affecting behavioral intention to adopt electronic shopping on the world wide web: A structural equation modeling approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia.
  31. Szajna, B. (1994). Software evaluation and choice: Predictive validation of the technology acceptance instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(3), 319-324.
  32. Tan, M., & Teo, T. (2000). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the Association for Information System, 1(5), 1-42.
  33. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.2307/249633
  34. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integration control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
  35. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x
  36. Venkatesh, V.,& Morris, M. G (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981
  37. Venture Development Corporation. (2005). Wearable systems: Global market demand analysis (2nd ed.). Natick, MA: VDC Research Group, Inc.
  38. Vijayasarathy, L,. R. (2004). Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 41(6), 747-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.011

Cited by

  1. A study on acceptance of smart fashion products- An empirical test of an extended technology acceptance model - vol.24, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7741/rjcc.2016.24.2.263