The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1328-7265.htm

The role of perceived attributes Adoption of

of innovations in the adoption smartwatches

of smartwatches
Colleen Carraher Wolverton, Brandi N. Guidry Hollier
407
and Ignatius Cahyanto
Department of Management, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Received 23 March 2021
Louisiana, USA, and Revised 27 June 2021
5 August 2021
David P. Stevens 22 September 2022
Accepted 4 October 2022
Department of Marketing, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the adoption of smartwatches.
Specifically, the robustness of the perceived characteristics of innovation (PCI) model in predicting such
adoption is demonstrated. Previous smartwatch research has not used this same technology adoption
model.
This research demonstrates the value of examining the adoption of wearables and other new technologies
(i.e. smartwatches) with the new approach of PCI while avoiding some of the limitations of previous studies.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 178 respondents was conducted, and the data was
analyzed using structured equation modeling and partial least squares. The model described here extends the
models used in extant smartwatch research by identifying additional factors.
Findings – The results show that three factors (compatibility, trialability and relative advantage)
significantly impact behavioral intention to adopt the technology.
Originality/value – With the escalation of remote work, the increase in wearable technology and
the widespread use of Wi-Fi technology, the way that employees adopt and use their technology must
be reassessed. Therefore, a new approach was sought with an established theoretical base to evaluate the
adoption of smartwatches under these evolving circumstances. Specifically, Moore and Benbasat’s
characterization of the PCI was selected, which is rooted in Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory.
Keywords SEM, Technology adoption, Smartwatch, Diffusion of innovations (DOI),
Optional innovations decision, Perceived characteristics of innovation (PCI),
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Many adoption models were developed to measure technology implemented within the
walls of an organization. However, technology no longer remains within the walls of an
organization (Choudhury et al., 2020). With the escalation of remote work (Choudhury,
2020; Choudhury et al., 2020), the increase in wearable technology (Kang and Jung, 2020;
Ogbanufe and Gerhart, 2020) and the ubiquity of Wi-Fi technology (Zhang et al.,
2020), employees can and will work from anywhere (Fuller et al., 2020; Choudhury, 2020;
Choudhury et al., 2020). Journal of Systems and
Information Technology
Therefore, the adoption of technology is reassessed under these evolving Vol. 24 No. 4, 2022
pp. 407-438
circumstances. © Emerald Publishing Limited

A determination is made regarding whether extant adoption models still function effectively 1328-7265
DOI 10.1108/JSIT-03-2021-0047
when dealing with this new future of work (Jacobides and Reeves, 2020; Blount and Gloet,
JSIT 2020) as users shift to wearable technologies such as smartwatches in their quest for
24,4 more mobile work environment. Thus, a new approach with an established theoretical
base is sought for this study.
Specifically, Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) characterization of the perceived
characteristics of innovating (PCI) is selected, which is rooted in Rogers’ diffusion of
innovation (DOI) theory. PCI has been used in extant studies of voluntary technology
408
adoption (Kapoor et al., 2014; Poong et al., 2009), which Rogers (2003) refers to as optional
innovations decisions. It is postulated here that wearable adoption typically constitutes an
optional innovations decision. However, PCI has not been examined in the adoption of
wearables, although the argument is made that it may be important to the voluntary
adoption decision regarding wearable technologies. As PCI focuses on perceived
characteristics of using an innovation, the claim is made that the perceived characteristics of
a wearable technology comprise important elements in evaluating smartwatch adoption.
A smartwatch is a type of smart wearable technology. It is formally defined as:
A wrist-worn device with computational power, that can connect to other devices via short-
range wireless connectivity; provides alert notifications; collects personal data through a range
of sensors and stores them; and has an integrated clock (Cecchinato et al., 2015).
Smartwatches allow for frequent and short communications and can serve as an
alternative to smartphones for such interactions. The integrated connectivity that is
possible between smartphones and smartwatches allows for shared access to
notifications and services on both devices (Bub et al., 2018). Moreover, smartwatches include
elements of both technology and fashion: a unique combination of innovation and aesthetics
(Adapa et al., 2018; Choi and Kim, 2016).
The study of smartwatch adoption is significant because sales have grown from $20bn in
2016 (Hsiao and Chen, 2018). Demand for smartwatches has grown an average of 24%
yearly since 2016 (Krey et al., 2019), with sales of 18.7 million units in 2016 and 80.5 million
units in 2020. The use of smartwatch technologies in various fields continues to grow. In
fact, according to a recent market research report, the wearable devices market is set to
reach US$62.82bn by 2025 (Bombe, 2019). Individuals have widely used these
technologies to track personal communications, identify health-related information and
for sporting reasons. They are increasing in importance across a variety of industries. In
the mining industry, for example, systems that provide safety alerts and monitoring
capabilities are of paramount importance for individuals working in underground mines
(Adjiski et al., 2019). Alert notifications regarding health and location are necessary
precautions for workers in this industry (Barro-Torres et al., 2012) and others. Such
alerts can also be tremendously beneficial in caring for the elderly (Nascimento et al.,
2018).
The primary objective of this paper is to provide a better understanding of the adoption
of smartwatches. To that end, the research question is explained as follows: what is the
role of perceived attributes of innovations in the adoption of smartwatches? Specifically,
this study focuses on the robustness of the PCI model in predicting the adoption of a
smartwatch. Therefore, a contribution to the literature is made by implementing the
novel lens of PCI to examine the burgeoning wearable devices adoption decision. The
value of examining the adoption of wearables and other new technologies (i.e.
smartwatches) with PCI (a model previously not used for this purpose) is demonstrated.
This paper continues by providing a review of the literature and presenting the
methodology and analysis. Discussion, conclusions and recommendations for future
research follow.
Literature review and background
Perceived characteristics of innovating Adoption of
Over the years, various theoretical models have been developed to test the adoption of smartwatches
new technologies. An example is the innovation diffusion model (Rogers, 1962) and some
varying interpretations and extensions thereof (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). Rogers (1962)
defined various PCI that can influence technology adoption decisions. Although Moore
and Benbasat (1991) relied heavily on the initial constructs proposed by Rogers (1962),
they
409
proposed two additional characteristics and chose to “recast” the PCIs in terms of “using the
innovation” (Moore, 1987) instead of focusing on the perception of the innovation itself.
As Moore and Benbasat (1991) suggest:
Innovations diffuse because of the cumulative decision of individuals to adopt them. Thus, it is
not the potential adopters’ perceptions of the innovation itself, but rather their perceptions of
using the innovation that are key to whether the innovation diffuses (p. 196).
Many other scholars have also chosen to incorporate the PCI concepts into their studies of
technology adoption (Akturan and Tezcan, 2010; Liao et al., 1999).
The PCI model is comprising of a rich set of constructs (Plouffe et al., 2001) that have
been shown to influence adoption decisions. The variables and their definitions are included
in Table 1.
Scholarly work on adoption decisions has sought to validate and further extend the
seminal work of Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) PCI theory (Compeau et al., 2007; Kapoor et al.,
2014) in various settings. For example, in studying merchant adoption of a smart card-based
electronic payment system, Plouffe et al. (2001) tested and compared variables from both the
PCI model and the technology acceptance model (TAM). The results of this investigation
suggest that the PCI antecedent constructs have a higher explanatory power than those of
the TAM. In a similar study of technology acceptance, Jebeile and Reeve (2007) also
carried out an empirical comparison of the PCI model and the TAM. Specifically, the
effectiveness of these two models in explaining the intention to use an information
technology innovation in learning and teaching was examined. The results of the study also
reveal that the PCI model had greater explanatory power than the TAM (Jebeile and
Reeve, 2007). As shown in Table 1 and pointed out by Jebeile and Reeve (2007), this is
because the PCI model contains the same (or slight variations of) the perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness variables used in the TAM and also integrates additional
constructs (e.g. compatibility, image, visibility, result demonstrability, voluntariness and
trialability).

Related work
Scholarly interest in the factors influencing the adoption of new technologies has existed for
some time and includes studies focused both on individual adoptions and those in
organizational and educational settings. The various adoption models have been used as a
theoretical base in studying the adoption of an array of technologies, such as tablets in
secondary schools (Reychav et al., 2016), collaborative commerce (C-commerce) in Malaysian
companies (Chong et al., 2009), virtual banking by individuals (Liao et al., 1999), smart
glasses by individuals (Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016), mobile cloud services (Park and Kim,
2014) and others. However, the extant literature related to the adoption of wearable
technologies is somewhat limited. Several scholars in this domain have focused on the
adoption of smartwatches in their studies (Chuah et al., 2016; Hsiao, 2017; Kim and Shin,
2015), but still, much remains unknown. A brief review of this existing and somewhat
fragmented research follows.
 410

24,4
JSIT
Construct definitions
Table 1.

Construct Definition Source

Trialability (PCI) The extent to which it is possible to try using a smartwatch Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
Image (PCI) The extent to which the use of a smartwatch enhances Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
one’s status or image
Compatibility (PCI) The extent to which use of a smartwatch is compatible Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
with the way one lives
Ease of use (PCI) The extent to which a smartwatch is perceived as being Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
easy to learn and use
Result demonstrability (PCI) The extent to which the benefits of using a smartwatch is Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
communicable to others
Visibility (PCI) The extent to which one perceives that using a smartwatch Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
is visible by others
Voluntariness (PCI) The extent to which the use of a smartwatch is perceived Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
as being voluntary
Relative advantage (PCI) The extent to which one perceives that using a smartwatch is Adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991)
better than using other technologies

Behavioral intention (BI) The extent to which one intends to use a smartwatch Adapted from Venkatesh and Davis (2000);
Davis et al. (1989)
Kim and Shin (2015) use the TAM as the basis for their research on the adoption of
smartwatches. This was one of the first empirical studies conducted in this area. The Adoption of
authors integrated key psychological determinants of smartwatch adoption within the smartwatches
TAM framework to develop an extension of the model. Confirmatory factor analysis
and structural equation modeling were used to analyze 363 survey responses. Findings
indicate subcultural appeal and cost of the smartwatch as important antecedents to user
attitude and intention to use the technology. The authors also identified several antecedents to
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Kim and Shin, 2015). 411
Chuah et al. (2016) conducted a survey of business students at a Malaysian university
to investigate the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. An empirical
analysis of the results indicates that perceived usefulness and visibility are significant
factors that drive adoption intention. Additionally, most survey participants view
smartwatches as a blend of both technology and fashion. This is consistent with the model
proposed by Rauschnabel and Ro (2016) in their study of the adoption of smart glasses.
Specifically, the authors state that wearables, such as smart glasses, are now considered
fashion accessories. Choi and Kim (2016) developed a model showing much the same as it
relates to luxury smartwatches. The results of these studies emphasize the role of social
factors in wearing such devices, as they can be symbolic of fashion and social status (Krey
et al., 2019).
Hsiao (2017) studied factors that influence the adoption of Apple versus non-Apple
smartwatches. The results of an online survey questionnaire were analyzed using partial
least squares (PLS) methods. Results indicated that the perception of product attributes,
compatibility, design and relative advantage has a strong effect on smartwatch adoption
(Hsiao, 2017). A different study conducted by the same author (with co-author) (Hsiao
and Chen, 2018) investigated the antecedents of smartwatch purchase intention using the
theory of reasoned action (TRA) and other perceived values related to hardware,
software, design and value. Using PLS techniques to analyze responses from an online
survey, the authors found that attitudes toward using smartwatches have a strong direct
effect on purchase intention. Furthermore, the study revealed that all attributes of the
smartwatch had a strong positive effect on the perceived values under investigation
(emotional value, social value, performance/quality value and price/value for money) (Hsiao
and Chen, 2018).
Kranthi and Ahmed (2018) also studied constructs that influence smartwatch
adoption. However, the sample was composed of information technology (IT)
professionals. Also, in this study, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT2) model was extended to include various other constructs such as self-efficacy,
personal innovativeness, social media influence, social image and aesthetics. Results
suggested that hedonic motivation, internal social influence, aesthetics, personal
innovativeness and price strongly influence adoption decisions.
Ghazali et al. (2020) used constructs from numerous sources to compare two groups
of Malaysians: those with high satisfaction with the status quo and those with low
satisfaction, and found differing factors influenced their adoption intentions. The low
satisfaction group was strongly impacted by the ease of use and trialability, and their
attitude toward innovation was also significant. For the highly satisfied group, social
impact was a factor. They also perceived a greater disruption due to an innovation than
did the group with low satisfaction. A more recent study (Al-Emran et al., 2022) sought
to understand the determinants impacting the adoption of wearable technologies (including
smartwatches) for educational purposes. Using a proposed model combining constructs
from the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and protection motivation theory (PMT),
results indicated that perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, self-efficacy, response
efficacy, subjective norm,
JSIT attitude and perceived behavioral control positively influence adoption intention of
24,4 smartwatches by students for learning purposes (Al-Emran et al., 2022).
Han et al. (2021) completed a smartwatch adoption literature review to produce a
cumulative list of relevant factors studied. They then used text mining technology with
sentiment analysis to locate these terms in consumer reviews of smartwatches posted at
412 Amazon.com. Two new factors were identified: relative superiority and consumer rights. An
additional contribution of this study was the identification of factors relevant to the
purchase of a smartwatch compared to those relevant to continued usage of the device. More
recently, Chotiyaputta and Shin (2022) also studied consumer adoption of smartwatches.
Results indicated that the main predictors of smartwatch adoption were performance
expectancy, habit and perceived aesthetic. Also, innovativeness was found to directly
impact consumer adoption and effort expectancy (Chotiyaputta and Shin, 2022).
Several scholars have chosen to study the adoption and use of smartwatches and other
wearable devices (e.g. smart wristbands) for the specific purpose of monitoring health
and fitness. For example, Talukder et al. (2019) developed an innovative model that
included constructs from the UTAUT2 and DOI to study the adoption of and intention to
recommend fitness wearable technology (FWT). Results indicated that performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, habit, compatibility and innovativeness
significantly influence the adoption of and the intention to recommend FWT, both directly
and indirectly. Further, Rubin and Ophoff (2018) used the UTAUT2 model and also
found that performance expectancy and habit are important factors of adoption.
Additionally, the study found that hedonic motivation does not positively influence the
intention to adopt smartwatches and smart wristbands (Rubin and Ophoff, 2018). More
recently, Beh et al. (2019) proposed a research model to examine constructs that
influence the intention to use smartwatches for health and fitness monitoring. This model
combined the UTAUT2 with two other context- specific factors (i.e. perceived
vulnerability and perceived severity) as moderators. The results of the PLS analysis
revealed that four factors (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating
conditions and hedonic motivation) positively influence behavioral intention (BI) to adopt
smartwatches for health and fitness purposes. This finding regarding hedonic motivation is
inconsistent with the research results of Rubin and Ophoff (2018). Beh et al. (2019) also
indicated that perceived vulnerability moderates the relationship between effort expectancy
and BI, while perceived severity was found to moderate the relationship between social
influence and BI.
In addition to work-related specifically to the adoption of smartwatches, there is a
growing body of literature pertaining to the continuation of the use of smartwatches once
adoption has taken place (Dehghani et al., 2018; Hong et al., 2017). Other authors (Dutot et al.,
2019) compare the factors that influence smartwatch adoption across various countries. It is
evident that the literature specific to the area of smartwatch adoption is still emerging
and will likely continue to be so until diffusion has taken place and the technology becomes
more ubiquitous.
Table 2 summarizes the models used in the previous research discussed in this
section, together with significant predictors found, methods used and comments and/or
limitations regarding each study. For the sake of brevity, only those studies
investigating smartwatches are included, rather than studies on other technologies.
The studies cited in Table 2 using TAM (Kim and Shin, 2015; Chuah et al., 2016) use a
subset of the factors examined in the present study and found no common significant
predictors. The study using TRA (Hsiao and Chen, 2018) found that buyer attitudes and
watch attributes were significant predictors for smartwatch users in Taiwan who
intended to purchase an Apple watch. The present study does not consider those attributes
and is not
Study/model Significant predictors Method(s) Comments/limitations

Kim and Shin (2015)/TAM Subcultural appeal, cost Confirmatory factor analysis, SEM Investigated five psychological
determinants (affective quality, relative
advantage, mobility, availability and
subcultural appeal)
Chuah et al. (2016)/TAM with refined Perceived usefulness, visibility Confirmatory factor analysis Business students at Malaysian university
“usefulness”
Hsiao (2017) Product attributes, compatibility, design, PLS Investigated Apple versus non-Apple
relative advantage watches
Hsiao and Chen (2018)/TRA Attitudes, watch attributes Smart PLS 2.0 Smartphone users in Taiwan who intend to
purchase Apple watch
Kranthi and Ahmed (2018)/UTAUT2 Hedonic motivation, internal social Smart PLS 2.0 Focus is on IT professionals
plus additional variables influence, aesthetics, personal
innovativeness and price
Adapa et al. (2018)/qualitative Availability of fitness apps, image Laddering approach Study of wearable devices: Google Glass and
research Sony Smart Watch 3
Rubin and Ophoff (2018)/ UTAUT2 Use of watch for monitoring fitness
Beh et al. (2019)/UTAUT2 plus Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, PLS Use of watch for monitoring fitness
additional variables facilitating conditions and hedonic
motivation
Talukder et al. (2019)/UTAUT2 and Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, PLS Use of fitness wearable technology
DOI social influence, habit, compatibility and
innovativeness
Ghazali et al. (2020)/DOI with For low satisfaction group: Perceived ease PLS SEM Compared two groups: those with high
modifications of use, trialability and attitude about and low satisfaction with status quo
innovation For
high satisfaction group: social influence,
disruption of innovation
Han et al. (2021)/text mining with (Not directly applicable, as 12 factors are Text mining with Latent Dirichlet Produced a set of factors which should be
sentiment analysis identified from customer reviews) allocation (LDA) topic modelling considered in future research, based on
customer reviews found on Amazon.com
Al-Emran et al. (2022) theory of Perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, machine learning classification Use of smartwatch for educational purposes
planned behavior (TPB) and self-efficacy, response efficacy, subjective algorithms
protection motivation theory (PMT) norm, attitude and perceived behavioral
control
Chotiyaputta and Shin (2022)/TAM Performance expectancy, habit and PLS From the ASEAN perspective
and innovations diffusion theories perceived aesthetic and innovativeness
Summary of models,

smartwatches
Adoption of
predictors and

Table 2.
methods

413
JSIT limited to a specific vendor’s product. Hsiao (2017) also investigated Apple versus non-
24,4 Apple watches and identified characteristics that help differentiate the two groups. The
relative advantage was a significant predictor also investigated in the present
study. A similar study by Ghazali et al. (2020) compared adoption criteria for low
versus high satisfaction groups and found trialability and ease of use significant among
414 the low satisfaction group and other non-PCI factors (social influence and disruption of
innovation) significant for the high satisfaction group. Another group of studies (Kranthi
and Ahmed,
2018; Rubin and Ophoff, 2018; Beh et al., 2019) used the extended model of UTAUT2 and
found significant predictors not considered in the present study. Those included social
influences, price, performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Hedonic motivation was
a common significant predictor among the UTUAT2 studies.
Other studies cited in Table 2 used other techniques. Qualitative research (Adapa et al.,
2018) found the availability of fitness apps and images were significant for those
considering Google and Apple wearables. Text mining with sentiment analysis (Han et al.,
2021) identified factors from consumer product reviews on Amazon and then proposed
human “desire categories” that are important for such decision-making. Several of the
categories are analogous to attributes of PCI, such as usability and usefulness, while
others (“healthology,” “protection” as related to privacy and security and “hedonic
motivation”) are not.
As shown in Table 2, there are no other studies that use the PCI model to investigate
smartwatch adoption. In their comparison of TAM and DOI to PCI, Gounaris and Koritos
(2008) report that the PCI model is superior in predicting the adoption of internet banking. In
addition, the present study is not limited by any of the following:
●
a particular vendor’s product, such as Sony, Google or Apple;
●
a particular target audience, such as IT professionals;
●
a particular use for the device, such as fitness;
●
individuals who have or have not already used a smartwatch; or
●
a subset of the characteristics used in PCI.

Hypotheses development
As presented in Table 3, the present study examines a more complete list of attributes
from the PCI model. Supported by literature related specifically to the adoption of
smartwatches or other mobile technologies, hypotheses for the present study are formed and
presented in Table 3. Table 3 also lists the specific constructs used in this study and
provides a listing of extant studies that support the hypotheses. A more detailed
discussion of the hypotheses can be found below.
Trialability As adapted from Moore and Benbasat (1991) for the purposes of this
study, trialability is the extent to which it is possible to try using a smartwatch. Innovation
will be accepted by targeted consumers more quickly if it is possible to try using it as
much as possible before the final adoption decision is made (Sahin, 2006). Scholarly
literature pertaining to the adoption of mobile banking (Mattila, 2003) and mobile internet
(Hsu et al., 2007), for example, also supports this notion. With the smartwatch, consumers
have the opportunity to view and try the watch in various stores that sell technological or
electronic devices. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H1. Trialability will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a
smartwatch.
 EXtant studies on smartwatches or other mobile
Construct name technologies that support the hypothesis Hypothesis

Trialability (PCI) Sahin (2006), Hsu et al. (2007), Mattila (2003) H1: Trialability will have a positive relationship with
the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Image (PCI) Adapa et al. (2018), Gounaris and Koritos (2008), Hsu H2: Image will have a positive relationship with the
et al. (2007) intention to adopt a smartwatch
Compatibility (PCI) Hsiao (2017), Chen (2008), Schierz et al. (2010), Hsu et H3: Compatibility will have a positive relationship
al. (2007), Roach (2009) with the intention to adopt a
Ease of use (PCI) Koenig-Lewis et al. (2010), Lu et al. (2005), Schierz et al. smartwatch H4: Ease of use will have a positive
(2010) relationship with the intention to adopt a
smartwatch
Result Demonstrability Van Slyke et al. (2010), Liao et al. (1999) H5: Result demonstrability will have a positive
(PCI) relationship with the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Visibility (PCI) De Marez et al. (2007), Ho and Lee (2011), Hsu et al. H6: Visibility will have a positive relationship with the
(2007), Chuah et al. (2016) intention to adopt a smartwatch
Voluntariness (PCI) Gounaris and Koritos (2008) H7: Voluntariness will have a positive relationship
with the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Relative Advantage (PCI) Hsiao (2017), Mallat et al. (2008), Schierz et al. (2010) H8: Relative advantage will have a positive relationship
with the intention to adopt a smartwatch
supporting research

smartwatches
Adoption of
Constructs and

415
Table 3.
JSIT Image. In this study, image is the extent to which the use of a smartwatch enhances one’s
24,4 status or image (adapted from Moore and Benbasat, 1991). Rogers (1983) argued that
“undoubtedly one of the most important motivations for almost any individual to adopt
an innovation is the desire to gain social status” (p. 215). Adapa et al. (2018) studied the
adoption of wearable devices, including smartwatches and smart glasses. Findings related
416 to smartwatch adoption suggest that the availability of fitness apps influenced adoption
decisions, and social factors, specifically those related to image, were important across
both
groups under investigation (Adapa et al., 2018). Similar studies related to internet
banking adoption (Gounaris and Koritos, 2008) and mobile internet adoption (Hsu et al.,
2007) also resulted in positive correlations between image and the adoption decision.
Therefore, the following is posited:

H2. Image will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a smartwatch.
Compatibility. Compatibility is the extent to which the use of a smartwatch is compatible
with the way one lives (adapted from Moore and Benbasat, 1991). According to Rogers
(2003), compatibility results in decreased uncertainty regarding the innovation, further
increasing the adoption of that innovation (Rogers, 2003). In studying factors that
influence the adoption of Apple versus non-Apple smartwatches, Hsiao (2017) found
that compatibility has a strong effect on smartwatch adoption (Hsiao, 2017). This
parallels findings related to similar studies on mobile payments (Chen, 2008; Schierz et
al., 2010), mobile internet (Hsu et al., 2007) and mobile marketing (Roach, 2009). Thus,
the following hypothesis is set forth:
H3. The compatibility will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a
smartwatch.
Ease of use. In this study, ease of use is the extent to which a smartwatch is perceived as
being easy to learn and use (adapted from Moore and Benbasat, 1991). Scholarly
literature on technological innovation adoption in the areas of mobile banking (Koenig-
Lewis et al., 2010), wireless internet services via mobile technology (Lu et al., 2005) and
mobile payment services (Schierz et al., 2010) find the ease of use to be a significant
predictor of use intentions. Therefore, the following is posited:

H4. Ease of use will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a
smartwatch.
Result demonstrability. Result demonstrability is the extent to which the benefit of using a
smartwatch is communicable to others (adapted from Moore and Benbasat, 1991). There
is little consensus in the scholarly literature regarding whether result demonstrability
affects the adoption intention of innovation. Some innovation adoption studies did not
find a significant relationship between result demonstrability and adoption intention (Akturan
and Tezcan, 2010; Hsu et al., 2007). However, studies related to e-commerce adoption (Van
Slyke et al., 2010) and virtual banking adoption (Liao et al., 1999) found result
demonstrability to have a positive impact on adoption intention. Further, according to
Zaltman et al. (1973), the
more “amenable to demonstration the innovation is, [and] the more visible its advantages
are [.. .] the more likely it is to be adopted” (p. 39). Therefore, the following hypothesis is
formulated:

H5. Result demonstrability will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt
a smartwatch.
Visibility. In this study, visibility is the extent to which one perceives that using a
smartwatch is visible to others (adapted from Moore and Benbasat, 1991). In studying Adoption of
smartwatch adoption, Chuah et al. (2016) found that visibility is a significant factor that smartwatches
drives adoption intention. The findings of similar studies related to mobile marketing (De
Marez et al., 2007) and mobile internet (Hsu et al., 2007) parallel these results.
Considering this and the fact that the smartwatch’s visibility as a wearable device is
evident, the
following is posited: 417
H6. Visibility will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a smartwatch.
Voluntariness. Voluntariness is the extent to which the use of a smartwatch is perceived as
being voluntary (adapted from Moore and Benbasat, 1991). According to Moore and
Benbasat (1991):
Consideration must be[.. .] given to whether individuals are free to implement personal adoption
or rejection decision. For example, use of a particular innovation within organizations may be
either mandated or discouraged by corporate policy. Such policies take the freedom of choice of
rejection or adoption out of individuals’ hands. (pp. 195,196).
The more innovation is perceived as voluntary, and the more likely individuals are to use
the innovation (Gounaris and Koritos, 2008). Because the use of smartwatches is
voluntary by nature, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H7. Voluntariness will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a
smartwatch.
Relative advantage. Relative advantage is the extent to which one perceives that using a
smartwatch is better than using other technologies (adapted from Moore and Benbasat,
1991). Studies on the impact of relative advantage on the adoption of innovations are
numerous. For example, in studying the influence of the adoption of Apple versus non-
Apple smartwatches, Hsiao (2017) found that relative advantage had a strong effect on
smartwatch adoption. Scholarly work on the adoption of mobile ticketing (Mallat et al., 2008)
and mobile payments (Schierz et al., 2010) also provides support for the positive association
between relative advantage and adoption intentions. And, as smartwatches offer the
opportunity and advantage to access mobile applications that are normally found on
larger mobile phone or tablet devices, the following is posited:

H8. Relative advantage will have a positive relationship with the intention to adopt a
smartwatch.

Methodology
Survey development
The adoption of smartwatches was examined based on the PCI model of adoption. Thus,
based upon Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) characterization of the perceived characteristics of
innovating, constructs were adapted to incorporate smartwatch technology. BI measure was
adapted from Venkatesh and Davis (2000). Thus, items were prepared for all the
constructs to be studied. Table 4 shows the measures used for each construct.
Data collection A student sample, which includes the 18–34-year-old target market
(Lincoln, 2016) for smartwatch users, was selected to test the proposed research model.
While fitness tracker owners are typically 35–54 years old, smartwatches appeal to 18–34-
year-olds (NPD Group Inc, 2015). Moreover, the greatest percentage, 28% of smartwatch
 418

24,4
JSIT
construct
Measures for each
Table 4.

Construct name and definition Measures Source

Trialability (PCI) I have had the opportunity to adequately test a smartwatch

I have been able to experiment with a smartwatch as necessary Adapted from Moore
I had adequate opportunities to try out different things on a Smartwatch and Benbasat (1991)
I have had a great deal of opportunity to try using a Smartwatch
I know where I can go to satisfactorily try out various uses of a
smartwatch
Image (PCI) Using a Smartwatch is a status symbol Adapted from Moore
People who use a smartwatch have more prestige than those who do not and Benbasat (1991)
People who use a smartwatch have a high profile
Using a Smartwatch improves my image to others
Because of my use of a smartwatch, others see me as more innovative
Compatibility (PCI) Using a smartwatch is compatible with the way I live Adapted from Moore
Using a smartwatch is completely compatible with my current and Benbasat (1991)
situation I think that using a smartwatch fits well with the way I like to
live Using a smartwatch fits into my lifestyle
Ease of Use (PCI) I believe that it is easy to get a smartwatch to do what I want it to do Adapted from Moore
Overall, I believe that a smartwatch is easy to use and Benbasat (1991)
Learning to operate a smartwatch is easy for me
I believe that a smartwatch is cumbersome to use
It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using a
smartwatch Using a smartwatch requires a lot of mental
effort Using a smartwatch is often frustrating
Result demonstrability (PCI) I would have no difficulty telling others about the benefits of using a smartwatch Adapted from Moore
I believe I could communicate to others the benefits of using a smartwatch and Benbasat (1991)
The benefits of using a smartwatch are apparent to me
I would have difficulty explaining why using a smartwatch may or may not be beneficial
Visibility (PCI) I have had plenty of opportunities to see a smartwatch being Adapted from Moore
used I have seen smartwatches in use around and Benbasat (1991)
town I have seen what others do using their
smartwatch I have often seen smartwatches in my friends’ homes
Smartwatches are visible around town
I have not seen many of my friends using a smartwatch
(continued)
Construct name and definition Measures Source

Voluntariness (PCI) My friends expect that I am the type of person to have a smartwatch
Using a smartwatch is an expectation that my friends would have of me Adapted from Moore
Although it may be cool, my friends do not expect that I would use a and Benbasat (1991)
smartwatch
Relative Advantage (PCI) Compared to other technologies, smartwatches... Adapted from Moore
Enable me to accomplish tasks more and Benbasat (1991)
quickly give me greater control over my
life keep me more organized
are easier to use
take less time to accomplish tasks
More greatly improve the quality of my life
More greatly improve my performance at
school makes me a more effective student
The advantages of using a smartwatch far outweigh the disadvantages
Behavioral intention (BI) I intend to use a smartwatch in the next siX months Adapted from Venkatesh
I predict I would use a Smartwatch in the next siX and Davis (2000); Davis
months I plan to use a smartwatch in the next siX et al. (1989)
months

smartwatches
Adoption of
Table 4.

419
JSIT users, are in the 18–34 demographic (McCarthy, 2019). Furthermore, 25% of smartwatch
24,4 users have at least some college, while only 15% of smartwatch users have a high school
education or less (Vogels, 2020).
Invitations were sent to 191 students in management information systems courses at a
large four-year public university in the southeastern USA. This study makes no distinction
regarding an individual’s particular stage of technology adoption (innovator, early
420
adopter, early majority, etc.). That is, this study seeks to determine the factors influencing
the use of
the technology, regardless of previous experience using it. In addition, the objective to be
predicted is “intention to use” the technology as opposed to “perception” of the technology.

Data analysis
After receiving the responses from the online survey, the data was examined to ensure a
clean data set (Smith et al., 1986) with no missing responses or discontinued responses.
Responses that were incomplete or had been discontinued were removed. A total of 178
complete responses were received for a response rate of 93%.
Of the respondents, 51% were female, and 49% were male. The average age of the
respondents was 23 years old. Most of the respondents had taken two or three online classes.

Results
The first test conducted was for the normality of data, using skewness and kurtosis as
recommended by Hair et al. (2017). As presented in Table 5, all of the measures fell
within acceptable ranges except for visibility which exhibited minor signs of skewness and
kurtosis (Hair et al., 2017). PLS-structured equation modeling (SEM) was, therefore,
selected to analyze the data. It is a nonparametric statistical method and does not require
data to be normally distributed (Hair et al., 2017). Furthermore, this approach is appropriate
given the small sample size (n = 178) and the corresponding lack of statistical power in
using a covariance-based approach (Hair et al., 2017; Westland, 2010). While the PLS
approach was selected, the specific software used was the Smart PLS (Ringle et al., 2015)
software.
Based on these results, the normality of data does not present any violations of the model.

Measurement model
The first step in a PLS analysis is the analysis of the measurement (or outer) model. Following
the procedures outlined by Wright et al. (2012), the first step was creating a first-order
measurement model. First, the loadings and cross-loadings of all items were analyzed to
ensure that they were each loaded on their respective constructs (Table 6). As some items
exhibited a coefficient alpha below the 0.70 thresholds (Nunnally, 1994), they were removed
from further

Skewness Kurtosis
BI –0.02167535 –1.5466028
COMP –0.44980336 –0.7787716
EOU –0.69969859 0.5111309
IMG 0.02298427 –0.628329
RA 0.01091356 0.2706541
RESULT –0.63169859 –0.1476304
TRIAL –0.15156595 –1.329773
Table 5. VIS –1.10706067 1.4746563
Normality of data VOL 0.0638902 –0.6028471
 Behavioral Ease of Relative Result
intention Compatibility use Image advantage demonstrability Trialability Visibility Voluntariness
BI_1 0.984 0.721 0.533 0.309 0.583 0.566 0.642 0.412 0.54
BI_2 0.987 0.725 0.529 0.308 0.591 0.553 0.629 0.417 0.537
BI_3 0.993 0.728 0.522 0.305 0.588 0.573 0.638 0.426 0.54
COMP_1 0.648 0.934 0.584 0.366 0.594 0.562 0.481 0.427 0.568
COMP_2 0.738 0.952 0.581 0.394 0.631 0.549 0.534 0.393 0.598
COMP_3 0.665 0.949 0.534 0.337 0.57 0.506 0.489 0.411 0.577
COMP_4 0.718 0.949 0.589 0.368 0.572 0.531 0.549 0.45 0.586
EOU_1 0.525 0.549 0.912 0.258 0.526 0.601 0.533 0.634 0.41
EOU_2 0.512 0.55 0.918 0.178 0.46 0.579 0.594 0.534 0.375
EOU_3 0.469 0.543 0.923 0.172 0.499 0.555 0.516 0.501 0.392
EOU_4 0.383 0.52 0.813 0.299 0.491 0.486 0.454 0.414 0.427
IMG_1 0.176 0.29 0.167 0.719 0.32 0.068 0.022 0.144 0.243
IMG_2 0.257 0.254 0.112 0.779 0.329 0.064 0.102 0.052 0.229
IMG_3 0.241 0.261 0.127 0.834 0.358 0.118 0.092 0.011 0.3
IMG_4 0.124 0.259 0.218 0.758 0.402 0.096 0.027 0.114 0.368
IMG_5 0.316 0.399 0.318 0.784 0.447 0.274 0.148 0.201 0.441
RA_1 0.671 0.662 0.549 0.394 0.787 0.554 0.44 0.494 0.541
RA_2 0.519 0.502 0.611 0.327 0.779 0.473 0.352 0.435 0.433
RA_3 0.447 0.478 0.434 0.446 0.86 0.339 0.317 0.285 0.453
RA_4 0.401 0.469 0.404 0.413 0.848 0.301 0.253 0.272 0.386
RA_5 0.513 0.569 0.49 0.377 0.849 0.43 0.339 0.343 0.387
RA_6 0.453 0.458 0.442 0.335 0.794 0.351 0.314 0.284 0.397
RA_7 0.445 0.472 0.318 0.437 0.824 0.31 0.295 0.205 0.478
RA_8 0.288 0.363 0.278 0.381 0.692 0.237 0.231 0.141 0.44
RA_9 0.27 0.309 0.187 0.338 0.672 0.2 0.174 0.116 0.404
RESULT_1 0.558 0.522 0.569 0.168 0.425 0.936 0.505 0.454 0.446
RESULT_2 0.567 0.516 0.597 0.163 0.429 0.957 0.527 0.525 0.443
RESULT_3 0.441 0.541 0.566 0.165 0.48 0.869 0.48 0.506 0.436
TRIAL_1 0.55 0.498 0.521 0.083 0.339 0.466 0.905 0.434 0.415
TRIAL_2 0.612 0.527 0.587 0.101 0.383 0.517 0.958 0.405 0.385
TRIAL_3 0.62 0.524 0.564 0.139 0.409 0.538 0.946 0.368 0.451
TRIAL_4 0.624 0.486 0.535 0.114 0.365 0.521 0.932 0.371 0.411
(continued)
Loadings and cross

smartwatches
Adoption of
Table 6.
loadings

421
 422

24,4
JSIT
Table 6.

Behavioral Ease of Relative Result

intention Compatibility use Image advantage demonstrability Trialability Visibility Voluntariness
VIS_1 0.416 0.439 0.572 0.07 0.37 0.654 0.51 0.76 0.395
VIS_2 0.274 0.326 0.451 0.025 0.238 0.45 0.291 0.814 0.195
VIS_3 0.248 0.286 0.444 0.034 0.221 0.357 0.275 0.74 0.281
VIS_4 0.29 0.34 0.437 0.145 0.341 0.345 0.315 0.841 0.258
VIS_5 0.294 0.306 0.517 0.017 0.258 0.405 0.261 0.849 0.205
VIS_6 0.411 0.362 0.376 0.289 0.378 0.283 0.28 0.768 0.274
VOL_1 0.568 0.643 0.501 0.377 0.544 0.522 0.475 0.401 0.945
VOL_2 0.415 0.467 0.289 0.387 0.466 0.331 0.321 0.214 0.893
analysis. Thus, the model was simplified while ensuring that the sampling domain had
been adequately captured (Churchill, 1979) without including items that make progressively Adoption of
less of an impact on the reliability (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). The loadings and cross- smartwatches
loadings of the items were then reanalyzed, and all loadings were greater on the intended
construct than on any other constructs. Consequently, upon determining that none of the
remaining items loaded higher on any construct other than the intended construct, all the items
were retained.
Next, the reliability, discriminant and convergent validity of the first-order
423
measurement
model were evaluated. Using the item loadings, the internal composite reliability (ICR) was
calculated to evaluate the measure’s reliability, finding that all the dimensions exceeded the
0.70 threshold and were all above 0.88 (Table 7). Moreover, to estimate convergent validity,
each dimension’s average variance extracted (AVE) was evaluated. Using the threshold
value of 0.50 for AVE (Barclay et al., 1995), the findings support convergent validity
(Barclay et al., 1995). The Fornell–Larcker criterion was used as suggested by Hair et al.
(2012) to assess discriminant validity (Table 8). However, Henseler et al. (2015) have
questioned the use of the Fornell–Larcker criterion and recommended instead the
Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Table 9). Therefore, the HTMT approach was also
used to demonstrate discriminant validity, with all the values below the conservative 0.85
threshold (Henseler et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2018). It was thereby
demonstrated that there was adequate reliability, discriminant and convergent validity.
To test for common method bias (CMB) (Schwarz et al., 2017), a full collinearity test
was conducted (Kock and Lynn, 2012). According to Kock (2017), the model is free of
CMB as long as variance inflation factors (VIFs) resulting from the full collinearity test are
lower than 3.3. As Table 10 shows, the VIFs for the model were 3.009 or lower; the model does
not exhibit signs of CMB.

Control variable
A control variable was incorporated to avert spurious explanations for the findings and
increase statistical power (De Battisti and Siletti, 2019). The impact of gender on each of the
PCI constructs was tested. Table 11 presents these results.
The findings indicate that gender impacts visibility and compatibility. Therefore,
gender was held constant.

Structural model
The results indicate that compatibility (b = 0.406, t = 4.601, p < 0.001), trialability
(b = 0.326, t = 5.016, p < 0.001) and relative advantage (b = 0.217, t = 2.812, p < 0.01)

Internal composite Average variance

Cronbach’s alpha reliability extracted (AVE)
Behavioral Intention 0.987 0.992 0.975
Compatibility 0.961 0.971 0.895
Ease of use 0.915 0.94 0.797
Image 0.838 0.883 0.601
Relative advantage 0.927 0.938 0.627
Result demonstrability 0.911 0.944 0.849
Trialability 0.952 0.965 0.875 Table 7.
Visibility 0.885 0.912 0.634 AVE, ICR and
Voluntariness 0.821 0.916 0.845 Cronbach’s alpha
 424

24,4
JSIT
criterion
Fornell–Larcker
Table 8.

Behavioral Ease of Relative Result

intention Compatibility use Image advantage demonstrability Trialability Visibility Voluntariness
Behavioral intention 0.988
Compatibility 0.734 0.946
Ease of use 0.534 0.605 0.893
Image 0.311 0.388 0.249 0.775
Relative advantage 0.595 0.626 0.552 0.481 0.792
Result Demonstrability 0.571 0.568 0.625 0.179 0.478 0.921
Trialability 0.644 0.544 0.59 0.118 0.401 0.547 0.935
Visibility 0.423 0.444 0.591 0.137 0.394 0.535 0.42 0.796
Voluntariness 0.546 0.616 0.446 0.413 0.554 0.478 0.444 0.349 0.919
 Behavioral Ease of Relative Result
intention Compatibility use Image advantage demonstrability Trialability Visibility Voluntariness
Behavioral intention
Compatibility 0.751
Ease of use 0.557 0.646
Image 0.315 0.418 0.282
Relative advantage 0.586 0.634 0.567 0.542
Result demonstrability 0.597 0.61 0.683 0.184 0.492
Trialability 0.663 0.567 0.629 0.113 0.403 0.586
Visibility 0.432 0.467 0.642 0.177 0.38 0.583 0.442
Voluntariness 0.593 0.678 0.499 0.493 0.623 0.537 0.489 0.377
Heterotrait-Monotrait

smartwatches
Adoption of
ratio (HTMT)

Table 9.

425
JSIT demonstrate a significant impact on BI to adopt the technology. However, ease of use
24,4 (b = –0.106, t = 1.448, ns), image (b = 0.021, t = 0.407, ns), result demonstrability (b =
0.113, t = 1.745, ns), visibility (b = 0.027, t = 0.501, ns) and voluntariness (b = –0.031, t =
0.432, ns) were found to not significantly impact BI to adopt the technology. Table 12
summarizes the
results regarding each construct.
426 The results are displayed in the structural model in Figure 1.
We next evaluated the effect size, using f 2 as recommended by Hair et al. (2017) and Hair
et al. (2019). As presented in Table 12, compatibility and trialability exhibited medium effect
sizes, whereas relative advantage displays a small effect size (Cohen, 1988). The value of f 2
is reported for each construct in Table 13.
We next calculated the blindfolded-based predictive accuracy measure Q2. As the metric
exhibited a larger than zero value (0.595), it indicates the predictive accuracy of the
structural model (Hair et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2019).

Discussion
As the interest in smartwatches has increased significantly over the past few years, greater
emphasis has been placed on attributes that enable positive user experiences and increased

Variable VIF

COMP 2.479
EOU 2.459
IMG 1.42
RA 3.009
RESULT 2.049
Table 10. Trial 1.82
VIF values to assess VIS 1.663
multicollinearity VOL 2.3

Female T Statistics P Values

Female ! COMP 2.688 0.007*

Female ! EOU 1.644 0.101
Female ! IMG 0.84 0.402
Female ! RA 1.786 0.075
Female ! RESULT 0.942 0.347
Female ! Trial 0.216 0.829
Female ! VIS 2.804 0.005*
Female ! VOL 1.419 0.157
Male
Male ! COMP 2.876 0.004*
Male ! EOU 1.681 0.093
Male ! IMG 0.814 0.416
Male ! RA 1.893 0.059
Male ! RESULT 0.952 0.342
Table 11. Male ! Trial 0.222 0.825
Gender control Male ! VIS 2.672 0.008*
variables Male ! VOL 1.425 0.155
 Adoption of
Construct name Hypothesis Findings
smartwatches
Trialability H1: Trialability will have a positive relationship with Supported
the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Image H2: Image will have a positive relationship with Not supported
the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Compatibility H3: Compatibility will have a positive relationship Supported
with the intention to adopt a smartwatch 427
Ease of use H4: Ease of use will have a positive relationship Not supported
with the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Result demonstrability (PCI) H5: Result demonstrability will have a positive Not supported
relationship with the intention to adopt a smartwatch
Visibility (PCI) H6: Visibility will have a positive relationship with the Not supported
intention to adopt a smartwatch
Voluntariness (PCI) H7: Voluntariness will have a positive relationship Not supported
with
the intention to adopt a smartwatch

Relative advantage (PCI) H8: Relative advantage will have a positive Supported Table 12.
relationship Hypothesis results
with the intention to adopt a smartwatch

Ease of Use

Relative Advantage ns

Visibility
0.217
ns

Trialability 0.326

ns 0.656

Image
ns Behavioral Intention

0.406
Result Demonstrability

ns

Compatibility
Figure 1.
Results of model
Voluntariness estimation

acceptance of the technology. Eight hypotheses were reviewed to determine if they

could contribute to smartwatch adoption using the PCI model. Out of the eight
hypotheses, three were found to be significant, while five hypotheses were not supported.
These three identified attributes served as this study’s primary contribution that leads
to a positive
JSIT intention to use a smartwatch, namely, (H1) trialability, (H3) compatibility and (H8) relative
24,4 advantage.
The first hypothesis, trialability, was found to be a significant predictor for smartwatch
adoption in this study. The more innovation can be tried, the faster it is accepted by the
target market (Sahin, 2006). What makes the smartwatch appealing is the opportunity to
428 avail oneself of it and explore its features on a trial basis before making a final purchase.
In this case, potential users can go to electronic stores (e.g. Apple Store and BestBuy) or
other
distribution outlets to try the watch before buying it, which eases concerns associated
with adopting a new technological innovation. This is more attractive to consumers. This
is also parallel with previous studies on mobile internet (Hsu et al., 2007) and mobile
banking (Mattila, 2003).
The second hypothesis that was supported was the effect of compatibility on the
intention to use a smartwatch (H3). This echoes findings on other technology adoptions,
such as mobile payments (Chen, 2008; Schierz et al., 2010), mobile internet (Hsu et al., 2007)
and mobile marketing (Roach, 2009). In this context, it supports the argument that if
technological innovation is seen as compatible with the needs of potential users, it will
increase the likelihood of the adoption of the innovation (Rogers, 2003; Sahin, 2006). The
results of this study, therefore, suggest that the more a smartwatch is viewed as
compatible with potential users’ needs, the more likely the individuals are to use the
smartwatch.
The smartwatch’s appeal is related to its functionality for users because it meets multiple
technical needs of individuals, athletes, outdoor enthusiasts, businesspersons and just about
everyone. It extends the function of smartphones. For instance, for individuals who do not
want to be seen staring at a phone in public, a smartwatch lets individuals do everything
by looking at their wrist or by talking to it. For photographers, the smartwatch can show
the sun and moon rise and set time just by lifting the user’s wrist. In addition, it counts down
the hour and minutes remaining until each rise and set, hence, allowing the user to know
where
the individual stands regarding light. A smartwatch records user workouts, sets and
tracks goals and incentivizes individuals to exercise. It also allows users to track and
compete with family and friends and reminds users throughout the day of their progress.
One of the benefits of a smartwatch is that it is compatible with most smartphones, so it is
helpful for those who are in a job where individuals are not allowed to have their phone with
them most of the day, as they can discreetly access information on their phone from the
smartwatch.
The third supported hypothesis was the effect of relative advantage (H8) on the intention
to adopt the smartwatch. A popular smartwatch component is an ability to access mobile
applications without having a mobile phone on hand at any time, from anywhere,
ubiquitously. This is an attractive feature that gives the smartwatch a competitive edge
(Karnati et al., 2020). Consequently, the results of this study support Dillon and Morris (1996)

Construct name f2

Compatibility 0.190
Ease of use 0.011
EXpectation disconfirmation 0.003
Image 0.001
Relative advantage 0.045
Result demonstrability 0.021
Table 13. Trialability 0.152
Effect size by Visibility 0.000
construct Voluntariness 0.002
argument that a technological innovation that offers an improvement over other
currently available tools is a significant advantage for the innovation. The evidence of this Adoption of
argument can be found in several studies across mobile technologies, such as mobile smartwatches
ticketing (Mallat et al., 2008) or mobile payments (Schierz et al., 2010).
In addition, based on the sizes of the standardized coefficients, compatibility is 2.3
times as important as relative advantage, and trialability is 1.8 times as important as
relative advantage. Similarly, the impact of compatibility is appro Ximately 25% more than
that of trialability. These results, together with additional future research, might be the 429
basis for benchmarks regarding BI for smartwatches as well as other similar technologies
and products.
The second contribution of this study is related to the nonsignificance of several
constructs of PCI. In doing so, it contributes to the debate on the robustness of these
constructs in predicting the intention of adopting smartwatches. These include image
(H2), ease of use (H4), result demonstrability (H5), visibility (H6) and voluntariness (H7).
This nonsignificance might be attributed to the fact that this study did not consider where
the participant is in the technology adoption continuum in determining their BI. This
could be addressed by future studies. Nonetheless, such nonsignificance is still worthy of
discussion
regardless of the participant’s adoption stage, as this would expand our understanding of
the utility of the PCI model in predicting intention to adopt new technology.
One likely explanation for the insignificant relationship between image and intention
is that despite being compatible with the users’ needs, wearing a smartwatch does not
necessarily improve the image of users among their peers. The smartwatch has been on
the market for several years, and its ubiquity has resulted in the waning of the “cool” factor of
wearing one. This is particularly true as the sample consisted of college students. This is
parallel with the De Marez et al. (2007) study that also found that late adopters did not
perceive mobile televisions as beneficial to enhancing their image.
This study did not find the ease of use to be a significant predictor of the likelihood to use
a smartwatch, unlike other studies on technological innovation adoption (Koenig-Lewis
et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2005; Schierz et al., 2010). One possible explanation is the
association between compatibility and the ease of use construct, in which compatibility
leads to higher ease of use as it involves less effort (Shin, 2010; Wu and Wang, 2005).
Because the model used in this study only measured the direct paths of each of these
constructs to the intention of adoption, the model did not capture the indirect path of
compatibility through ease of use in predicting the likelihood of technological adoption.
While some studies revealed a demonstrable relationship between the intention to adopt
the innovation and the result demonstrability, this was not consistently the case. For
instance, in studies on e-commerce adoption (Van Slyke et al., 2010) and virtual banking
adoption (Liao et al., 1999), result demonstrability was found to have a positive effect
on adoption intention. The results of this study, however, yielded results similar to
Akturan and Tezcan’s (2010) mobile banking study and Hsu et al.’s (2007) study on
mobile internet
adoption that found that result demonstrability did not affect intention. Kapoor et al. (2014)
explained that inconsistency in findings using this construct was originally derived from
the observability construct. Because it is a co-companion of visibility, result demonstrability
can be seen as being considerably influenced by these two constructs (observability and
visibility). Smartwatch applications may be a potential target of limited visibility, which
may explain the nonsignificance of result demonstrability.
While past studies showed a positive association between visibility and innovation
adoption (De Marez et al., 2007; Ho and Lee, 2011), this study did not find any
significance between visibility and the intention to use the device. One plausible
reason is that the
JSIT construct measures the visibility of the device and not necessarily the content of the
24,4 device. While the smartwatch’s visibility as a wearable device is quite apparent in social
settings, the use of applications on smartwatches is less apparent. In other words, a
smartwatch is typically visible to the individual wearing it, but what the individual does
with it is not always visible to other people in a social setting, hence, the lack of Visibility.
430 Another construct that was found not to be significant is voluntariness. This is an
intriguing finding by itself. Past studies found a significant relationship between
voluntariness and the intention of adopting new technology. The more innovation is
perceived as voluntary, and the more likely individuals are to use the innovation
(Gounaris and Koritos, 2008). Other studies, however, found that voluntariness is not
necessary for innovation adoption, such as in the case of groupware (Van Slyke et al.,
2002). In this study, while the use of the smartwatch by its nature is voluntary,
participants may view that the use of the smartwatch is necessary to access needed
functionality or expected by their social network, rendering this construct to be
insignificant. Perhaps as the innovation becomes more mainstream, more people will be
expected to wear it, which will lead to the diminishing explanatory power of voluntariness.
The third contribution is related to the use of PCI. The results of this study
demonstrate the robustness of the (PCI) model in relation to the TAM. PCI incorporates
constructs from the TAM, in which ease of use and relative advantage in PCI are identical
to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness in TAM. In this study, of these two
identical constructs, only the relative advantage of PCI and the perceived usefulness of the
TAM were found to be significant. It is preferable to use PCI rather than TAM to examine
the intention to use a technological innovation because PCI incorporates more constructs
than TAM. However, this study indicated that not all PCI constructs performed well to
explain the intention to use a smartwatch. Therefore, an alternative finding is proposed to
suggest the potential superiority of Rogers (2003) perceived attributes of innovations,
which includes the significant constructs and a parsimonious number of additional
concepts. Thus, this study is part of the genesis of the research inquiry, and other
researchers are encouraged to continue to examine new models with which to view the
adoption of wearable technology.
Additionally, although the effect of gender on PCI constructs was not a focus of this
study – thus, it was held constant – there were significant relationships between gender and
compatibility and visibility. Table 11 suggests that males have a stronger perception of
compatibility, which influences the adoption of wearable technology. This seems to
suggest that computer-mediated communication, such as the smartwatch is more well-
matched with men’s daily routines and practices of being computer-oriented than females.
However, Ilie et al. (2005) contested that it may not be true as the technology could also
fit females who value relationships and communication. This in itself is an intriguing
question that warrants further examination. On the other hand, the perception of
visibility seems to influence the adoption of wearable technology more strongly for
females than males. This is
parallel with past gender research studies that found that females are more social and
that their communication styles are more network-oriented (Ilie et al., 2005; Wood and
Rhodes, 1992), and as such, we would expect females to value visibility more than males.
Likewise, because the focus of this study was to explore the direct effects of key
attributes of wearable technology on the adoption of the technology, the indirect effects were
not explored fully. This area warrants further examination to test the robustness of the
model. For instance, the intention to adopt the technology could be tracked by the path from
compatibility to ease of use to the intention. In this scenario, users who deem the device to be
compatible with their habits and daily practices may also then consider the ease of use of the
device to determine the likelihood of adopting the technology. This will be explored in the
next phase of this study. Adoption of
smartwatches
Theoretical and practical implications
This paper is an effort to build on the current understanding of the relationship between
several innovation constructs on the BI to adopt wearable devices. Theoretically, the results
of this study, along with past studies on technological innovation, indicate that the
relative 431
effects of individual PCI construct on the intention to use vary considerably across adoption
contexts and would depend on construct choices. This study showed that without
considering where the participants are in their adoption stage, three constructs show
significant effects. These are trialability, compatibility and relative advantage. This leads
to the need to explore the merits of PCI on different wearable innovations. This is
particularly salient given the ubiquitous nature of wearable technology.
Second, while it was found that five constructs did not show significant effects on
technology adoption, this does not mean that these constructs are not essential. These
constructs might affect wearable technology indirectly as the technology gains popularity,
or these constructs may affect individuals differently depending on where they are in the
wearable technology adoption stage.
A practical implication of the findings is that emphasis should be placed on increasing
the compatibility of a product with individual needs, allowing potential customers to try the
device before purchase and providing features that simplify daily life. Toward this end,
investment in engineering (technological aspects), design (aesthetic aspect) and
marketing (affective aspects) will be needed. For example, smartwatch manufacturers
could increase investment in health care monitoring apps and features for different
demographic groups, such as an app that allows individuals to access a mental health
professional.
From a user’s perspective, a more enjoyable smartwatch experience could be a key to
foster the adoption. Given that mobility is the essence of a smartwatch, it is a
relative
advantage that manufacturers and app developers should consider when designing the
product. Providing a platform to alter the design process from a stationary process to a
mobile device is a crucial strategy. This could be achieved by developing a hand-operated
mechanism based on natural human movement and ergonomic principles.

Limitations and future research

The current study investigated how the PCI affects individual BI to adopt a smartwatch.
The findings indicate that compatibility (compatible with work and personal needs),
trialability (opportunity to test the watch and its features) and relative advantage (ability
to accomplish more tasks quickly and with less effort) are useful predictors of smartwatch
adoption. Because the sample consisted of respondents from one geographic region,
participant demographics do not represent the entire population of potential smartwatch
customers. Because of different societal and cultural norms across the globe, such studies
should be replicated in various countries to further generalize the results. For example,
technology adoption in Japan, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the USA would likely be
dependent
on varying sets of characteristics of innovation. The addition of cultural factors in the
model could further improve a model’s overall effectiveness.
This study does not make a distinction regarding an individual’s stage of technology
adoption (Rogers, 2003; Schwarz et al., 2014). EXtant studies on technology adoption have
identified that certain factors (e.g. ease of use) are only relevant in certain stages of adoption
(i.e. postadoption) (Sun et al., 2016; Bhattacharya, 2015; Magsamen-Conrad and Dillon, 2020).
However, other studies have not distinguished between the stages of adoption
JSIT (Lai et al., 2016; Carraher Wolverton and Thomas, 2018). Therefore, we encourage future
24,4 researchers to examine whether a multigroup analysis comparing users versus nonusers
may help to distill the differences between those groups and the relevance of certain
innovation characteristics to them.
In addition, the model used in this study considered only direct effects. Indirect effects
432 could also be examined, such as the effect on compatibility through ease of use, as
discussed earlier. This would allow for more specific comparisons of significant
characteristics of
technology adoption documented in other studies. As SEM is based on explained
variability, additional research could attempt to improve on the PCI model by evaluating
additional characteristics, which have been partially investigated by prior studies. These
characteristics include security and confidentiality, extraversion, hedonic value, symbolic
factors such as self-expressiveness and functional advertising, to name a few. Barriers to
technology adoption could also be considered as part of the model of BI. The linkage
between BI and actual product usage should also be investigated because humans are
notorious for having the intention to do something (diet and exercise, for example) and
failing to follow through with it. Future research could explore this potential relationship
further.
This study also uses college students as its sample. While 28% of smartwatch users are
college-age (McCarthy, 2019), they may also tend to lack the financial resources necessary to
afford this technology. However, as smartwatches decrease in price (Ulmane et al., 2019)
with increased competition, they may tend to become more affordable for college students.
Benchmarks for model parameters for BI, as well as actual use, should be developed to
make comparisons across studies. Identifying such values would also help all
stakeholders better understand which characteristics are most relevant and which values
of the factors lead to the adoption of smartwatches and related technologies. As new
technologies (with adoption rates varying from that of smartwatches) continue to be
developed, further studies and scholarly reflection are needed to determine if existing
theoretical models on user adoption are adequate or if newer models need to be
developed.
Finally, as the entertainment and hospitality industry has recently incorporated
smartwatches into their operation, there is a need to examine these increasing roles of
smartwatches as entertainment and find avenues for smartphones to be used more
effectively in leisure and recreational activities.

Conclusions
This study extends the present understanding of the existing relationship between
various innovation constructs on the behavior intention of using technological innovation.
The results of the study bring to the forefront important aspects of smartwatch adoption
and how such understanding can be of use both theoretically and practically. Researchers in
this area can use these findings to undertake empirical examinations for various wearable
technologies.
With the growing concept of wearable devices, wearables need to be promoted in a
manner that attracts wider adoption. In so doing, a sound understanding of the factors
that direct their diffusion and adoption becomes pivotal. This study provides a solution in
the form of factors that define the relationships that need to be empirically examined to
determine the strongest adoption factors impacting the utilization of wearable devices.
Findings from this study proffer that the managers and implementers of smartwatches
should consider focusing on the compatibility and relative advantage of the smartwatch
when developing marketing strategies. Additionally, providing more opportunities to try
the device will assist in promoting the product. These strategies will, in turn, positively
impact the intention of using smartwatches.
References
Adapa, A., Nah, F.F.-H., Hall, R.H., Siau, K. and Smith, S.N. (2018), “Factors influencing the adoption of
Adoption of
smart wearable devices”, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 34 No. 5, smartwatches
pp. 399-409, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2017.1357902.
Adjiski, V., Despodov, Z., Mirakovski, D. and Serafimovski, D. (2019), “System architecture to bring
smart personal protective equipment wearables and sensors to transform safety at work in
the underground mining industry”, Rudarsko-Geološko-Naftni Zbornik, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 37-
44, doi: 10.17794/rgn.2019.1.4. 433
Akturan, U. and Tezcan, N. (2010), “The effects of innovation characteristics on mobile banking
adoption”, 10th Global Conference on Business and Economics, Rome, Italy, pp. 1-15.
Al-Emran, M., Al-Nuaimi, M.N., Arpaci, I., Mohammed, A. and Al-Sharafi, A.B. (2022), “Towards a
wearable education: understanding the determinants affecting students’ adoption of wearable
technologies using machine learning algorithms”, Education and Information Technologies,
pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11294-z.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Barro-Torres, S., Fern´andez-Caram´es, T.M., P´erez-Iglesias, H.J. and Escudero, C.J. (2012),
“Real-time personal protective equipment monitoring system”, Computer Communications,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 42-50, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2012.01.005.
Beh, P.K., Ganesan, Y., Iranmanesh, M. and Foroughi, B. (2019), “Using smartwatches for fitness and
health monitoring: the UTAUT2 combined with threat appraisal as moderators”, Behaviour
and Information Technology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1685597.
Bhattacharya, M. (2015), “A conceptual framework of RFID adoption in retail using rogers stage
model”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 517-540, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-06-
2014-0047.
Blount, Y. and Gloet, M. (2020), Anywhere Working and the Future of Work, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Bombe, K. (2019), “Wearable devices market worth $62.82 billion by 2025 – exclusive report by
meticulous researchVR ”, GlobeNewswire, Meticulous Market Research, available at:
www. globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/10/31/1938647/0/en/Wearable-Devices-Market-
worth-
62-82-billion-by-2025-EXclusive-Report-by-Meticulous-Research.html
Bub, M., Volynsky, E. and Wö rndl, W. (2018), “User acceptance of proactive recommendations on
smartphone and smartwatch”, Adjunct Publication of the 26th Conference on User Modeling,
Adaptation and Personalization, Association for Computing Machinery, Singapore, Singapore,
pp. 143-150.
Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Vol. 17, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Carraher Wolverton, C. and Thomas, D. (2018), “The development of an integrated model of EMR
adoption: incorporating the organization artifact”, Journal of Information Technology Theory
and Application (JITTA), Paper 4, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 45-81.
Cecchinato, M.E., CoX, A.L. and Bird, J. (2015), “Smartwatches: the good, the bad and the ugly?”,
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, Republic of Korea,
pp. 2133-2138.
Chen, L-D. (2008), “A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment”, International Journal of
Mobile Communications, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 32-52, doi: 10.1504/IJMC.2008.015997.
Choi, J. and Kim, S. (2016), “Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on factors
affecting the intention to use smartwatches”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63
pp. 777-786, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.007.
JSIT Chong, A.Y.-L., Lin, B., Ooi, K.-B. and Raman, M. (2009), “Factors affecting the adoption level of c-
24,4 commerce: an empirical study”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 13-22, doi: 10.1080/08874417.2009.11645380.
Chotiyaputta, V. and Shin, D. (2022), “EXplicating consumer adoption of wearable technologies: a
case of smartwatches from the ASEAN perspective”, International Journal of Technology and
Human Interaction (IJTHI), Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.4018/IJTHI.293195.
434 Choudhury, P. (2020), “Our work-from-anywhere future”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 98 No. 6,
pp. 58-69.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C. and Zepp Larson, B. (2020), “Work-from-anywhere: the productivity effects
of geographic flexibility”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2020 No. 1, p. 21199, doi:
10.5465/AMBPP.2020.225.
Chuah, S., Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T. and Lade, S.H.-W. (2016), “Wearable
technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 276-284, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.047.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, New York, NY.
Compeau, D.R., Meister, D.B. and Higgins, C.A. (2007), “From prediction to explanation:
reconceptualizing and extending the perceived characteristics of innovating”, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 409-439, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00136.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User accep-tance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theo-retical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
De Battisti, F. and Siletti, E. (2019), “On the use of control variables in PLS-SEM”, in Arbia, S.P.G.,
Pini, A. and Rivellini, G. (Eds), Smart Statistics for Smart Applications, Pearson, Milan,
pp. 793-798.
De Marez, L., Vyncke, P., Berte, K., Schuurman, D. and De Moor, K. (2007), “Adopter segments,
adoption determinants and mobile marketing”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and
Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-95, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750057.
Dehghani, M., Kim, K.J. and Dangelico, R.M. (2018), “Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to
intention to keep using smart wearable technology”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 480-490, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.007.
Dillon, A. and Morris, M. (1996), “User acceptance of information technology: theories and models”,
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 3-32.
Dutot, V., Bhatiasevi, V. and Bellallahom, N. (2019), “Applying the technology acceptance model in a
three-countries study of smartwatch adoption”, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1016/j.hitech.2019.02.001.
Fuller, J., Raman, M., Bailey, A. and Vaduganathan, N. (2020), “Rethinking the on-demand workforce”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 98 No. 6, pp. 96-103.
Ghazali, E.M., Mutum, D., Pua, M.H.-J. and Ramayah, T.S. (2020), “Status-quo satisfaction and
smartwatch adoption: a multi-group analysis”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 120 No. 12, pp. 2319-2347, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0576.
Gounaris, S. and Koritos, C. (2008), “Investigating the drivers of internet banking adoption decision:
a comparison of three alternative frameworks”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.
26 No. 5, pp. 282-304, doi: 10.1108/02652320810894370.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-
2018-0203.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Adoption of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433, doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6. smartwatches
Hair, J.F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2018), Advanced Issues in Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Han, M., Lee, S. and Kim, J. (2021), “A hybrid approach to discern customer experience for facilitating
the adoption of smartwatches”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, pp. 1-15, doi:
10.1080/09537325.2021.1912318.
435
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Ho, J.C. and Lee, C.-S. (2011), “Factors underlying personalisation adoption: case of mobile
telephony”, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp.
281-297, doi: 10.1504/IJSTM.2011.040380.
Hong, J.-C., Lin, P.-H. and Hsieh, P.-C. (2017), “The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value
and continuance intention to use smartwatch”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 67,
pp. 264-272, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001.
Hsiao, K.-L. (2017), “What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing apple and non-apple
watches”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 186-206, doi: 10.1108/LHT-09-2016-0105.
Hsiao, K.-L. and Chen, C.-C. (2018), “What drives smartwatch purchase intention? Perspectives from
hardware, software, design, and value”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 103-113,
doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.002.
Hsu, C.-L., Lu, H.-P. and Hsu, H.-H. (2007), “Adoption of the mobile internet: an empirical study of multimedia
message service (MMS)”, Omega, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 715-726, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2006.03.005.
Ilie, V., Van Slyke, C., Green, G. and Lou, H. (2005), “Gender differences in perceptions and use of
communication technologies: a diffusion of innovation approach”, Information Resources
Management Journal (IRMJ), Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 13-31, doi: 10.4018/irmj.200507010.
Jacobides, M.G. and Reeves, M. (2020), “Adapt your business to the new reality”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 98 No. 5, pp. 74-81.
Jebeile, S. and Reeve, R. (2007), “EXplaining intention to use an information technology innovation: an
empirical comparison of the perceived characteristics of innovating and technology acceptance”,
Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 137-151, doi: 10.3127/ajis.v15i1.34.
Kang, H. and Jung, E.H. (2020), “The smart wearables-privacy parado X: a cluster analysis of
smartwatch users”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 40 No. 16, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1080/
0144929X.2020.1778787.
Kapoor, K.K., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Williams, M.D. (2014), “Conceptualising the role of innovation:
attributes for examining consumer adoption of mobile innovations”, The Marketing Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 405-428.
Karnati, Y., Reddy, R.R.K., Thakkar, A., McConnell, M., Mendoza, T., Mardini, M., Manini, T. and
Ranka, S. (2020), “A smartwatch-based framework for real-time and online assessment and
mobility monitoring”, Innovation in Aging, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 798, doi: 10.1093/geroni/igaa057.2895.
Kim, K.J. and Shin, D.-H. (2015), “An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the
adoption of future wearable technology”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 527-541, doi:
10.1108/IntR- 05-2014-0126.
Kock, N. (2017), “Common method bias: a full collinearity assessment method for PLS-SEM”, in Latan, H.
and Noonan, R. (Eds), Partial Least Squares Path Modeling, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 245-257.
Kock, N. and Lynn, G. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an
illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 546-580, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00302.
JSIT Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A. and Moll, A. (2010), “Predicting young consumers’ take up of mobile
24,4 banking services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 410-432, doi:
10.1108/02652321011064917.
Kranthi, A.K. and Ahmed, K.A.A. (2018), “Determinants of smartwatch adoption among IT
professionals – an extended UTAUT2 model for smartwatch enterprise”, International Journal of
Enterprise Network Management, Vol. 9 Nos 3/4, pp. 294-316, doi: 10.1504/IJENM.2018.094669.
436 Krey, N., Chuah, S.H.-W., Ramayah, T. and Rauschnabel, P.A. (2019), “How functional and emotional
ads drive smartwatch adoption: the moderating role of consumer innovativeness and
extraversion”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 578-602, doi: 10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0534.
Lai, V.S., Lai, F. and Lowry, P.B. (2016), “Technology evaluation and imitation: do they have
differential or dichotomous effects on ERP adoption and assimilation in China?”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1209-1251, doi:
10.1080/07421222.2016.1267534.
Liao, S., Shao, Y.P., Wang, H. and Chen, A. (1999), “The adoption of virtual banking: an empirical
study”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 63-74, doi:
10.1016/ S0268-4012(98)00047-4.
Lincoln, J. (2016), “Looking to target millennials? Here is where they spend time online”, Inc, available at:
www.inc.com/john-lincoln/looking-to-target-millennials-here-is-where-they-spend-time-online.html
Lu, J., Yao, J.E. and Yu, C.-S. (2005), “Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of
wireless internet services via mobile technology”, The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 245-268, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003.
McCarthy, J. (2019), “One in five US adults use health apps, wearable trackers”, Gallup, available at:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/269096/one-five-adults-health-apps-wearable-trackers.aspX
Magsamen-Conrad, K. and Dillon, J.M. (2020), “Mobile technology adoption across the lifespan: a mi Xed
methods investigation to clarify adoption stages, and the influence of diffusion attributes”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 112, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106456.
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. and Ö ö rni, A. (2008), “An empirical investigation of mobile
ticketing service adoption in public transportation”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol.
12 No. 1, pp. 57-65, doi: 10.1007/s00779-006-0126-z.
Mattila, M. (2003), “Factors affecting the adoption of mobile banking services”, The Journal of
Internet Banking and Commerce, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Moore, G. (1987), “End user computing and office automation: a diffusion of innovations
perspective”, INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 214-235,
doi: 10.1080/ 03155986.1987.11732040.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting
an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-222.
Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T. and Tam, C. (2018), “Wearable technology: what explains continuance
intention in smartwatches?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 157-169,
doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.017.
NPD Group Inc (2015), “The demographic divide: fitness trackers and smartwatches attracting very
different segments of the market, according to the NPD group”, available at: www.npd.com/wps/
portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2015/the-demographic-divide-fitness-trackers-and-smartwatches-
attracting-very-different-segments-of-the-market-according-to-the-npd-group/
Nunnally, J.C. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Education, London.
Ogbanufe, O. and Gerhart, N. (2020), “The mediating influence of smartwatch identity on deep use
and innovative individual performance”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 977-
1009, doi: 10.1111/isj.12288.
Park, E. and Kim, K.J. (2014), “An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of
key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model”, Telematics and Informatics,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 376-385, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.008.
Plouffe, C.R., Hulland, J.S. and Vandenbosch, M. (2001), “Research report: richness versus parsimony
in modeling technology adoption decisions – understanding merchant adoption of a smart Adoption of
card- based payment system”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 208-222, doi: smartwatches
10.1287/ isre.12.2.208.9697.
Poong, Y.-S., Eze, U.C. and Talha, M. (2009), “B2C e-commerce in Malaysia: perceived characteristics
of innovating and trust perspective”, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol. 7 No.
4, pp. 392-427, doi: 10.1504/IJEB.2009.027267.
Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ro, Y.K. (2016), “Augmented reality smart glasses: an investigation of
technology acceptance drivers”, International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, 437
pp. 123-148, doi: 10.1504/IJTMKT.2016.075690.
Reychav, I., Warkentin, M. and Ndicu, M. (2016), “Tablet adoption with smart school website
technology”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 280-287, doi:
10.1080/ 08874417.2016.1163996.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS GmbH”, Bö nningstedt,
available at: www.smartpls.com.
Roach, G. (2009), “Consumer perceptions of mobile phone marketing: a direct marketing innovation”,
Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 124-138, doi:
10.1108/17505930910964786.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, 1st ed., Free Press of Glencoe, New York,
NY. Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Rubin, A. and Ophoff, J. (2018), “Investigating adoption factors of wearable technology in health and
fitness”, 2018 Open Innovations Conference (OI), pp. 176-186.
Sahin, I. (2006), “Detailed review of rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-
related studies based on Rogers’ theory”, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-
TOJET, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 14-23.
Schierz, P.G., Schilke, O. and Wirtz, B.W. (2010), “Understanding consumer acceptance of mobile
payment services: an empirical analysis”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol.
9 No. 3, pp. 209-216, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2009.07.005.
Schwarz, A., Chin, W.W., Hirschheim, R. and Schwarz, C. (2014), “Toward a process-based view of
information technology acceptance”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 73-
96, doi: 10.1057/jit.2013.31.
Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T., Carraher-Wolverton, C., Rold´an, J.L. and Barrera-Barrera, R.
(2017), “EXamining the impact and detection of the urban legend of common method bias”,
ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 48 No.
1, pp. 93-119, doi: 10.1145/3051473.3051479.
Shin, D.-H. (2010), “MVNO services: policy implications for promoting MVNO diffusion”,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 616-632, doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2010.07.001.
Smith, P.C., Budzeika, K.A., Edwards, N.A., Johnson, S.M. and Bearse, L.N. (1986), “Guidelines for clean
data: detection of common mistakes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 457-
460, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.457.
Sun, H., Fang, Y. and Zou, H.M. (2016), “Choosing a fit technology: understanding mindfulness in
technology adoption and continuance”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 377-412.
Talukder, M.S., Chiong, R., Bao, Y. and Hayat Malik, B. (2019), “Acceptance and use predictors of
fitness wearable technology and intention to recommend: an empirical study”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 170-188, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-01-2018-0009.
Ulmane, Z., Šneidere, K. and Stepens, A. (2019), “Development of retrospective life-long physical
activity questionnaire: first stage”, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, Vol.
7, pp. 153-162.
JSIT Van Slyke, C., Hoa, L. and John, D. (2002), “The impact of perceived innovation characteristics on
24,4 intention to use groupware”, Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 1-12, doi: 10.4018/irmj.2002010101.
Van Slyke, C., Lou, H., Belanger, F. and Sridhar, V. (2010), “The influence of culture on consumer-
oriented electronic commerce adoption”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 30-40.
438 Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204, doi: 10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Vogels, E.A. (2020), “About one-in-five Americans use a smart watch or fitness tracker”, Pew
Research Center, available at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/09/about-one-in-five-
americans- use-a-smart-watch-or-fitness-tracker/
Westland, J.C. (2010), “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 476-487.
Wood, W. and Rhodes, N. (1992), “Sex differences in interaction style in task groups”, Gender,
Interaction, and Inequality, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 97-121.
Wright, R.T., Campbell, D.E., Thatcher, J.B. and Roberts, N. (2012), “Operationalizing
multidimensional constructs in structural equation modeling: recommendations for is
research”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 30 No. 23, pp.
367-412, doi: 10.17705/
1CAIS.03023.
Wu, J.-H. and Wang, S.-C. (2005), “What drives mobile commerce?: an empirical evaluation of the
revised technology acceptance model”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 719-729,
doi: 10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973), Innovations and Organizations, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Zhang, H., Zhou, M., Sun, H., Zhao, G., Qi, J., Wang, J. and Esmaiel, H. (2020), “Que-Fi: a Wi-Fi
deep- learning-based queuing people counting”, IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.
1-12, doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2020.2994062.

Corresponding author
Brandi N. Guidry Hollier can be contacted at: brandi.guidryhollier@louisiana.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com