The Journal of The Textile Institute

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjti20

Social acceptability and product attributes of

smart apparel: their effects on consumers’
attitude and use intention

Sonia Bakhshian & Young A. Lee

To cite this article: Sonia Bakhshian & Young A. Lee (2021): Social acceptability and product
attributes of smart apparel: their effects on consumers’ attitude and use intention, The Journal of
The Textile Institute, DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2021.1898138

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2021.1898138

Published online: 11 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 123

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjti20
THE JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2021.1898138

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Social acceptability and product attributes of smart apparel: their effects on

consumers’ attitude and use intention
Sonia Bakhshian and Young A. Lee
Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

We aimed to investigate the influence of social acceptability along with functional, expressive, aes- Received 28 October 2020
thetic, and tracking attributes on consumers’ attitude and intention of using smart apparel. An online Accepted 26 February 2021
survey was conducted with a nationwide convenience sample of 563 U.S. men and women whose age
KEYWORDS
was 18 years old and over. Participants first watched a short video clip of introducing a smart apparel
Smart apparel; social
prototype and then completed the survey. SPSS 26 and Mplus 8.3 were used to run the data analysis. acceptability; product
The results demonstrated the importance of considering social acceptability of smart apparel along attributes; user intention
with functional and expressive attributes to predict consumers’ attitude and intention of its use. Social
acceptability along with expressive and tracking attributes were the most significant determinants for
predicting consumers’ attitude and intention of using smart apparel. This study assists future research-
ers to gain better insights into social acceptability for predicting consumers’ expectations of wear-
able technology.

Introduction smart apparel in the market. Thus, companies must consider

Wearable technology, interchangeably called as ‘wearables’,
refers to “many different forms of body-mounted technol-
ogy, including wearable computers, smart clothing, and
functional clothing” (Dunne, 2004, p.5). Within a short
time, it has gone from being nonexistent to being every-
where for different purposes such as fitness and wellness,
safety and security, fashion, and lifestyle (Chae, 2010; Eike
& Bakhshian, 2018; Ghahremani Honarvar & Latifi, 2017).
According to MarketsandMarkets (2019), the market value
of wearable technology is expected to grow with the rate of
11.2% from 2016 to 2025 and will reach to 56.8 billion dol-
lars by 2025. Smart apparel is a subcategory of wearable
technology, which integrates information technology such as
sensors into fashion (Ariyatum et al., 2005; Chae, 2010).
The smart apparel market has tremendously grown during
the last few years and significantly influenced individuals’
lifestyles by shaping their decision-making patterns and pur-
chase behavior. According to the Research and Markets’
(2019) report, the smart apparel market will grow from $1.6
billion in 2019 to 5.3 billion dollars by 2024, which is
26.2% increase.
Due to the co-existence of technology and fashion within
smart apparel, social acceptability is one of the distinctive
challenges of such products (Wasik, 2014). Smart apparel
will not be socially acceptable if the product is opposed to
social standards and is discerned as a disruptive and annoy-
ing item causing disorders in an ordinary human interaction
(Baraniuk, 2015). This will eventually lead to the failure of
social acceptability of smart apparel as a key factor when it
comes to design and develop new products embedding
wearable technology (Narayanaswami & Raghunath, 2002).
It is also essential for industry professionals to fully under-
stand the interplay between the product attributes and its
social acceptability (Wasik, 2014). For wearables, the techno-
logical side is required to be fashionable and deliver wearers’
personal message (Kelly, 2016).
Despite the immense popularity of wearable technology
and ongoing studies focusing on the key characteristics of
smart apparel such as functional, expressive, and aesthetic
attributes, little attention has been given to examine the
social acceptance of smart apparel and its relationship with
consumers’ wearing intention. Thus, the overall purpose of
this study was to examine consumers’ attitude and intention
of using smart apparel by investigating the effects of their
social acceptability and four perceived attributes of func-
tional, expressive, aesthetic, and tracking on their attitude
and intention of using smart apparel.
Literature review
This study used a modified theoretical framework integrat-
ing theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980),
technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989), and functional,
expressive, aesthetic (FEA) consumer needs model (Lamb &
Kallal, 1992). The framework in this study also incorporated
two other constructs: (a) tracking dimension of wearables
followed by Bakhshian and Lee (2018) holistic framework

CONTACT Sonia Bakhshian szb0158@auburn.edu Department of Consumer and Design Sciences, 308 Spidle Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL,
36849 USA
ß 2021 The Textile Institute
2 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
towards wearables and (b) social acceptability of wearable
devices introduced by Kelly (2016). The major concepts
from these frameworks were used for developing a proposed
research model, which was used to examine the influence of
social acceptability along with functional, aesthetic, expres-
sive, and tracking attributes on consumers’ attitude and
intention of using smart apparel.
Social acceptability of smart apparel
Social acceptability is recognized as one of the most distinct-
ive challenges of smart apparel because of coexisting fashion
and technology within the product (Wasik, 2014). The inte-
gration of fashion and technology in smart apparel can cre-
ate a new type of self-identity consisting of aesthetic,
functional, and expressive elements (Wasik, 2014). Smart
apparel is not socially acceptable if it is negatively disrup-
tive, is perceived as annoying, confounds ordinary human
interaction, and/or runs against social norms (Baraniuk,
2015; Ogle et al., 2013; Rogers, 2003).
Social acceptability construct, named as the wearable
acceptability range (WEAR) scale, was developed and intro-
duced by Kelly (2016). Her WEAR Scale was originally con-
structed based on statements derived from relevant
literature, expert reviews, and consumer interviews, reflect-
ing the fundamentals of several theories (i.e. technology
acceptance model (Davis, 1989), theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The scale originally included mul-
tiple dimensions with 97 items (i.e. aesthetics/design, avail-
able/ordinary, consequences, ergonomics, functionality,
judgment, norms, others’ reactions, others’ thoughts, self-
identity, qualities of the device or the wearer). After two
rounds of expert reviews, 49 items were confirmed for the
further use. Kelly’s final scale contained 14 items and was
validated for the use of wearable devices (Apple watch,
Google glasses, and Bluetooth headsets). No items in this
14-item scale were related to aesthetics or functional attrib-
utes which are important features of smart apparel. Thus, in
this study, we started with the 49 items of the WEAR scale,
revalidated this scale with the use of smart apparel, and
used the validated scale to examine the influences of differ-
ent product attributes (functional, expressive, aesthetic, and
tracking) on social acceptability and its influence on con-
sumers’ adoption of smart apparel.
Narayanaswami and Raghunath (2002) argued that social
acceptability is a critical component for designers and prod-
uct developers to be considered when developing wearables.
The technological aspects of smart apparel need to convey a
wearer’s personal message while simultaneously being fash-
ionable (Wasik, 2014). Thus, it is crucial that designers
understand the interrelationship of symbolic aspects of
wearables for users along with their social acceptability
(Dunne et al., 2014). To clarify the importance of consider-
ing this dynamic interrelationship, Profita et al. (2013) rec-
ommended that designers avoid placing wearable devices on
the suggestive part of the body since users may feel embar-
rassed or awkward.
Social acceptability is one of the important determinants
of consumers’ adoption of wearable technology (Kelly,
2016). Lee (2016) addressed the positive influence of social
acceptability of smart bikewear on consumers’ attitudes
toward its use. Nam and Lee (2020) reassured the import-
ance of social acceptability when using smart apparel and
suggested future researchers conduct further research using
this concept relating to other consumer behavioral concepts
and product attributes. Hypotheses linking social acceptabil-
ity with product attributes and other key variables used in
this study were presented under the relevant sections below.
Functional attributes
Functionality, referring to the physical comfort and utilitarian
aspects of the apparel (Lamb & Kallal, 1992), is one of the
most important attributes of wearables technology. Physical
comfort defines as “a mental state of physical well-being
expressive of satisfaction with physical attributes of a garment
such as air, moisture, heat transfer properties, and mechanical
properties such as elasticity, flexibility, bulk, weight, texture,
and construction” (Sontag, 1985, p.10). Previous studies
reported the significant effect of functional attributes on con-
sumers’ perceptions of using wearable devices (Buenaflor &
Kim, 2013; Salahuddin & Romeo, 2020), their adoption atti-
tude (Rauschnabel et al., 2015), and purchase intention of
smart apparel (Hwang et al., 2016; Lee, 2016). Bakhshian and
Lee (2019) reported a significant positive influence of func-
tional attributes of wearables on consumers’ perception of pur-
chasing wearables. Hwang et al. (2016) also reported the
positive significant influence of functional attributes on con-
sumers’ attitude and purchase intention of solar-powered
clothing. Limited study is available to examine the potential
relationship among functional attributes of smart apparel and
its social acceptability. Based on previous findings, the follow-
ing hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1a. Functional attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
Hypothesis 1b. Functional attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
Hypothesis 1c. Functional attributes of smart apparel positively
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
Expressive attributes
Expressive aspects are considered as one of the important
clothing attributes (Stokes & Black, 2012), which refer to
the symbolic and communicative aspects of clothing and
basically associate with its psychological and social-cultural
aspects (Lamb & Kallal, 1992, p.43). Few studies addressed
the influence of expressive attributes on consumers’ adop-
tions of wearables (Bakhshian & Lee, 2019; Hwang et al.,
2016; Lee, 2016). Bakhshian and Lee (2019) found the
importance of expressive attributes, along with functional,
aesthetic, and tracking dimensions when predicting consum-
ers’ attitude and intention of using wearables. There is still
lack of studies to address the possible influence of expressive

attributes of smart apparel on its social acceptability. Thus,
in this study, the following hypotheses were postulated:
Hypothesis 2a. Expressive attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
Hypothesis 2b. Expressive attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
Hypothesis 2c. Expressive attributes of smart apparel positively
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
Aesthetic attributes
Wearable technology can be considered as fashion items, so
consumers tend to select and purchase them based on its aes-
thetic criteria such as color, design, shape, and texture and
these high-tech products can be a means of visual communica-
tion (Chattaraman & Rudd, 2006; Coorevits & Coenen, 2016;
Page, 2015). It is crucial to consider aesthetic attributes as one
of the main determinants of consumers’ decision making
because aesthetic attributes can influence consumers’ emotions
and cognitive attention and consequently impact their con-
sumption patterns (Jeong et al., 2016).
Previous studies discussed the influence of aesthetic
attributes on consumers’ adoption of wearable technology
(e.g. Dehghani et al., 2018) as well as smart clothing (e.g.
Bakhshian & Lee, 2020). Hwang et al. (2016) reported the
positive influence of aesthetic attributes of smart solar-
power jacket on consumers’ attitude and purchase intention.
This finding was assured by the findings from Lee’s Lee
(2016) study using smart bike jacket. Bakhshian and Lee
(2019) also reported aesthetic attributes as one of the deter-
minants that positively influences consumers’ attitude and
intention of using wearables. The potential influence of aes-
thetic attributes of smart apparel on its social acceptability
has not been fully examined by previous studies. Thus, the
following hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 3a. Aesthetic attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
Hypothesis 3b. Aesthetic attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
Hypothesis 3c. Aesthetic attributes of smart apparel positively
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
Tracking attributes
Tracking attributes of wearables make consumers be able to
track their fitness, mental (e.g. sleep pattern), and physical con-
dition (e.g. heart rate) (Koo et al., 2018). This tracking ability
distinguishes wearable technology-embedded products from
other devices in the market. There are number of studies
which considered tracking attributes of wearables as an exter-
nal factor which impact perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use (Gao et al., 2015; Koo, 2017). Although the effect
of tracking attributes on perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness has been investigated for some types of wearables,
limited research is available on examining relationships among
tracking attributes, consumers’ social acceptability, attitude,
and intention towards using wearables.
THE JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE 3
To date, limited research is available to investigate the
influence of tracking attributes on consumers’ adoption of
using wearables. Koo (2017) explained that individuals who
use wearables for tracking their physical conditions and
gaining a healthier lifestyle mostly consider wearables as
easy to use and useful products. Bakhshian and Lee (2019)
reported the positive significant influence of tracking attrib-
utes along with functional, aesthetic, and aesthetic dimen-
sions, on consumers’ perception of using wearables. There is
still a lack of research to reassure the influence of tracking
attributes on consumers’ attitude and intention of using
smart apparel and its social acceptability. Thus, the follow-
ing hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 4a. Tracking attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
Hypothesis 4b. Tracking attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
Hypothesis 4c. Tracking attributes of smart apparel positively
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
Social acceptability, attitude, and intention towards
using smart apparel
Attitude refers to an individual’s favorable or unfavorable
reaction to their surrounded environment which is exhibited
in their beliefs, feeling, or behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980). Intention defines as the willingness to perform or not
to perform a behavior expected by attitude (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) provided a
more specific definition of attitude and intention of using
new technology. They defined attitude as any negative or
positive individual’s feeling towards applying new technol-
ogy and intention as an individual’s conscious plan about
doing or not doing a specific behavior in the future
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Lederer et al. (2000) described
attitude as a determinant to evaluate an individual’s desir-
ability of using new technology.
Numerous studies reported the significant positive influ-
ence of attitude on consumers’ intention of using wearable
technology (e.g. Bakhshian & Lee, 2019; Kim & Shin, 2015;
Koo, 2017; Rauschnabel et al., 2017; Rauschnabel & Ro,
2016). The significant influence of attitude on consumers’
intention of purchasing smart apparel is also reported in the
studies by Chae (2010), Hwang et al. (2016), Lee (2016),
and Turhan (2013). The positive influence of social accept-
ability on consumers’ attitude of using smart apparel was
proved by Lee (2016); however, limited research has been
done to examine the potential influence of social acceptabil-
ity on consumers’ intention of using smart apparel. Based
on the previous findings, we proposed the follow-
ing hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5a. Social acceptability of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
Hypothesis 5b. Social acceptability of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
Hypothesis 6. Attitude towards smart apparel positively affects
intention of using smart apparel.
4 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
Method
A quantitative research methodology was employed for this
study. University’s Institutional Review Board approval was
obtained before the data collection.
Sample and data collection procedure
Using a convenience sampling method, both female and
male consumers aged 18 years old and over living in U.S.
were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online sur-
vey marketplace. The survey questionnaire, using the
Qualtrics platform, was first pre-tested by a few disciplinary
experts in fashion to make sure about the clarity and con-
sistency of the content. The online survey started with an
informed consent letter, describing the study purpose, the
survey procedure and incentive, eligibility to be a study par-
ticipant, and a participant’s right when participating in
the survey.
To control diverse spectrum of participants’ understand-
ing for smart apparel, we provided the following definition
of smart apparel at the beginning of the survey, “a garment
incorporating a body mounted wearable device that provides
interactions for users through sensing signals, information
processing, and arousing response.” Participants also were
asked to watch a 2-minute video clip presenting a prototype
of smart apparel developed by one of the researchers. The
clip introduced the variety of design features (e.g. trans-
formability) of smart apparel. Then, participants were
guided to respond the survey questions based on this
defined term and video clip they watched. Participants took
approximately 10–15 min to complete the survey and
received the incentive of 50 cents as their compensation.
Survey instrument
The survey questionnaire consisted of four sections: (a)
open-ended questions asking participants’ own definition on
the words, “wearable technology” and “smart apparel,” their
experience of using any type of smart apparel, and their
willingness of its use in the future; (b) a short video clip
introducing the features of smart apparel; (c) close-ended
questions including the measurement items of the main
constructs; and (d) demographic characteristics (e.g. age,
gender, ethnicity, education, income).
All seven constructs (social acceptability, functional
attributes, expressive attributes, aesthetic attributes, tracking
attributes, attitude, intention), validated and reported as reli-
able, were adapted and modified from previous studies (see
Table 1) and measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, rang-
ing from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).
Measurement items of social acceptability for smart apparel
were derived from Kelly’s (2016) work on developing a
measure of the social acceptability of a wearable device
(WEAR Scale). Her WEAR Scale items were modified based
on the nature of this study. Total 49 items of WEAR Scale
were used for this study. Four items of attitude and three
items for intention measures were adopted and modified
from Kim and Shin (2015) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000),
respectively. Functional, expressive, and aesthetic attributes,
consisting of seven items for each construct, were derived
from Chae (2010). Four items of tracking dimension were
adopted from Koo and Fallon (2017).
Data analysis
SPSS 26 and Mplus 8.3 were used to analyze the quantitative
data; specifically, SPSS 26 for frequency and descriptive ana-
lysis, reliability check, and correlations among all constructs
and Mplus 8.3 for testing the measurement model fit and
hypothesized paths. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
first conducted to examine whether the 49 items of the
extended WEAR Scale measure a single construct of social
acceptability of smart apparel. After EFA of social accept-
ability measure, each measurement model for all constructs
was validated by running confirmatory factor ana-
lysis (CFA).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was then followed to
test research hypotheses (H1-H6) using the maximum likeli-
hood (ML) estimation method. The following fit indices
were used to examine the model fit: Tucker Lewis index
(TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI), where greater than
.90 or .95 indicates “reasonable or good fit” (Hu & Bentler,
1999). Also, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR), with equal to or less than .08 demonstrated “good
fit,” were examined. Convergent validity and discriminant
validity were checked at the stage of performing CFA.
TagCrowad software was used for the data analysis of open-
ended questions, especially for identifying the most fre-
quently occurring keywords in the text. The word cloud tool
assists researchers to narrow down unnecessary information
and quickly and visually understand the most repetitive and
significant keywords of the text source (Park et al., 2012).
Results and discussion
Sample characteristics
A total of 563 usable responses was used for data analyses.
The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 80 years with the
mean age of 34. Fifty-seven percent of the participants were
belonged to the generation Y (born between 1980 to 1996),
followed by 19% of the baby boomer generation (born
between 1946 and 1964), 17% of generation X (born
between 1965 and 1979) and 7% of generation Z (born after
1997). Of the participants, 56% were females and 44% were
males. Seventy-one percent of the participants held bache-
lor’s degrees or higher and the rest had some college educa-
tion with no degree. The majority was White/European
American (71%), followed by Asian (11%), Black/African
American (7%), and others (e.g. Hispanic American/Latino,
American Indian/Alaska Native).
 THE JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE 5

Table 1. Results of the final measurement model.

Standardized Cronbach’s
Constructs/items factor loading a AVE ITC
Social Acceptability .92 .77
Design/ Aesthetics .93
1. This smart apparel is aesthetically pleasing. .88 .84
2. This smart apparel is stylish. .96 .91
3. This smart apparel is fashionable. .87 .83
Others’ Thoughts and Reactions .91
1. This smart apparel would be generally accepted by the vast majority of people. .88 .84
2. The wearer of this smart apparel would get a positive reaction from others. .84 .77
3. The majority of people probably think this smart apparel is ok to wear in public. .81 .78
4. I think my peers would find this smart apparel acceptable to wear. .83 .77
Functional attributes .91 .72
1. Comfortability .83 .76
2. Fit-ability .85 .78
3. Protectability .67 .64
4. Ventilation quality .75 .74
5. Insulation quality .77 .75
6. Not bulky .70 .65
7. Convenient to wear and transport .81 .77
Expressive attributes .88 .68
1. Helping me to perform an appropriate gender role .67 .65
2. Helping with my self-image a confident individual .79 .75
3. Being able to positively impact my commitment to my job .88 .74
4. Conveying the importance of my job to others .89 .81
Aesthetic attributes .89 .70
1. Style feature .81 .73
2. Color .81 .71
3. Texture .82 .72
4. Uniqueness .61 .62
5. Unique design feature .69 .71
6. Sleekness .77 .71
Tracking attributes .93 .73
1. Tracking my physical health condition .91 .86
2. Tracking my mental health condition .88 .85
3. Tracking my healthy lifestyle .91 .86
4. Tracking and managing my productivity .81 .78
Attitude .95 .79
1. Using smart apparel is a good idea. .88 .87
2. I generally have favorable attitude to smart apparel. .94 .90
3. I like the idea of using smart apparel. .93 .89
4. Using smart apparel is a good idea. .88 .87
Intention .97 .81
1. I predict I will use smart apparel in future. .95 .92
2. I plan to use smart apparel in future. .96 .93
3. I expect my use of smart apparel to continue on the future. .96 .93
Note. AVE ¼ average variance extracted. ITC ¼ item-total correlation.
 p < .001.

Exploratory factor analysis results of social
acceptability measure
EFA, using the ML estimation method with Promax rotation
(Corner, 2009), was first conducted to examine whether the
49 items of the extended WEAR Scale measure a single con-
struct of social acceptability of smart apparel, or whether
multiple constructs underlie it. A total of 11 factors, includ-
ing 49 items with Cronbach’s a of .94 for the extended
WEAR Scale, were initially structured and evaluated by the
following criteria: Kaiser’s criterion, eigenvalue above 1, and
factor loadings above .70 (Matsunaga, 2010). Among the 49
items, EFA resulted in eliminating 34 items with a factor
loading lower than .70 (Matsunaga, 2010), which yielded a
three-factor, 15-item WEAR Scale (see Table 2).
As shown in Table 2, a three-factor component with each
Cronbach’s a value consists of 15 items: (a) 3 items regard-
ing aesthetic attributes of smart apparel (.93); (b) 5 items
derived from norms, others’ thoughts, and reactions (.91);
and (c) 7 items derived from consequence, judgment, and
ergonomics (.90). Factor loadings of all 15 items were above
.70, which is within the range of the acceptable and good
cut-off value (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Measurement model testing results
To test the construct validity, the proposed model shown in
Figure 1, consisting of the seven constructs (15-item social
acceptability including 3-item of design/aesthetics, 5-item of
norms, others’ thoughts, and reactions, and 7-item of conse-
quences, judgement, and ergonomics; 7-item functional; 7-
item expressive; 7-item aesthetic; 4-item tracking; 4-item
attitude, and 3-item intention), was tested through CFA
using the ML estimation method. The final measurement
model with 35-item seven constructs resulted in an accept-
able model fit: v2 (839) ¼ 1946.51, p < .001, TLI of .91,
CFI of .92, RMSEA of .06, and SRMR of .06 (Hair et al.,
2010) after deleting the following 12 items (3 items of
expressive, 1 item of aesthetic, and 8 items of social
6 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE

Table 2. EFA results of smart apparel: three factors with 15 items.

Component
Dimensions Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Cronbach’s a
Consequences rude (R) .79 –.05 –.09 .90
socially stigmatizing (R) .79 .01 –.09
embarrassment (R) .78 .10 .00
privacy issue (R) .74 –13 –.09
annoying (R) .74 .04 .13
Ergonomics movement restriction (R) .71 .00 .10
Judgement undesirable (R) .72 .04 .05
Norms interested .02 .74 .01 .91
Reactions publicly acceptable –.05 .94 –.04
positive .00 .90 –.10
Thoughts Ok in public –.04 .76 .12
acceptable to wear .07 .72 .12
Design/Aesthetics pleasing –.00 –.03 .99 .93
stylish .00 .02 .86
fashionable –.03 .06 .82
Note. R ¼ reverse coding.

Figure 1. Overall research model and structural path testing results (N ¼ 563).
Note. R2 ¼ Variance explained. Values of standardized path coefficient in parenthesis. Solid lines for supported hypothesis and dotted lines for non-supported hypothesis.
 p < .05;  p < .01;  p < .001

acceptability. Removal of these items resulted item-total cor-
relations all over .30 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Standardized factor loadings ranged from .61 to .96 (see
Table 1). This re-specification of the measurement model
was based on the theoretical grounds while considering the
values of standardized factor loading, standardized residuals,
item correlation, and modification indices (Hair et al., 2010;
Kline, 2005). Table 3 presents the improvement in fit from
the initial measurement model to the final measurement
model along with the recommended fit values by Hu and
Bentler (1999).
As shown in Table 1, Cronbach’s a values were all higher
than .70 (Hair et al., 2010), ranging from .88 to .97.
Convergent validity and internal consistency were also satis-
fied (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity of each con-
struct was tested using the average variance extracted (AVE)
and ranged from .68 to .81. The AVE for each construct
was higher than its correlations with any other construct at
p < .01. As shown in Table 4, the AVE for all constructs
were higher than cut off value of .50 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981).
Structural model and hypothesis testing results
SEM was performed to test the research hypotheses (H1-
H6). The results of SEM showed v2 of 1946.51 (df ¼ 839, p
< .001), TLI of .91, CFI of .92, RMSEA of .06, and SRMR
of .06, confirming an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler,
1999). The value of R2 proved the adequate model fit of the
proposed model of this study, where 71% of consumers’
intention of using smart apparel was explained by the fol-
lowing determinants: functional, expressive, tracking, social
acceptability, and attitude. The results also revealed that
86% of attitude and 31% of social acceptability were
 THE JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE 7

Table 3. Goodness of fit summary: initial measurement model versus final measurement model (N ¼ 563).
Measurement Model
Fit Index Initial Model Final Model Recommendation by Hu and Bentler (1999)
Chi-square (v2) 4126.184 1946.51 p  .001
df ¼ 1010 df ¼ 839
p < .001 p < .001
v2/df 4.08 2.32 < 3.0 good
CFI .85 .92 > .90 reasonable
TLI .84 .91 > .90 reasonable
RMSEA .07 .06 < .06 great
SRMR .10 .06 < .06 great
Note. v2/df ¼ normed fit chi-square; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; TLI ¼ Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR ¼ standardized root mean
square residual; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation.

Table 4. Correlation coefficient among latent constructs.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Intention 3.86 1.88 1
2. Attitude 5.03 1.50 .70 1
3. Social Acceptability 4.61 1.31 .69 .77 1
4. Functional 5.80 1.01 .23 .41 .31 1
5. Expressive 4.19 1.46 .50 .37 .38 .20 1
6. Aesthetic 5.21 1.15 .39 .47 .37 .67 .41 1
7. Tracking 4.91 1.54 .42 .43 .30 .38 .36 .41 1
 p < .01.

explained by their determinants including functional,
expressive, and tracking attributes. Figure 1 presents the
overall research model and structural path testing results of
this study.
As shown in Figure 1, SEM analysis supported the fol-
lowing ten hypotheses: H1c, H2a, H2b, H2c, H4a, H4b,
H4c, H5a, H5b, and H6. The rest of hypotheses (H1a, H1b,
H3a, H3b, and H3c) were not supported. H1 was partially
supported. No significant influence of functional attributes
on consumers’ attitudes was found (H1a; b ¼ .025, p ¼
.639), which aligns with Hwang et al. (2016) finding. H1b
was not supported, demonstrating the negative influence of
functional attributes on consumers’ intention of using smart
clothing (b ¼ .202, p < .01). This result may be related
with the participants’ limited experience of smart apparel
use; around 60% of the participants had experience of using
wearable devices such as smartwatch but only 25% had
experience of using smart apparel. Lack of experience of
using smart apparel might potentially impact individuals’
perceptions and evaluations regarding functionality aspects
of such products. H1c was supported, demonstrating the
positive influence of functional attributes of smart apparel
on its social acceptability (b ¼ .156, p < .05).
H2 was fully supported. Expressive attributes of smart
apparel have a positive significant influence on social
acceptability, attitude, and intention of using smart apparel
(b ¼ .363, p < .001; b ¼ .081, p < .05; and b ¼ .144, p <
.01, respectively). This result demonstrates that the symbolic
and psychological aspect of smart apparel, which reflects the
wearer’s self-image and identity to others, can be a signifi-
cant determinant of consumers’ social acceptability, attitude
and use intention of smart apparel. None of H3a, H3b, and
H3c were supported, demonstrating no influence of aes-
thetic attributes on attitude (b ¼ .082, p ¼ .144), social
acceptability (b ¼ .106, p ¼ .230), and intention of using
smart apparel (b ¼ .114, p ¼ .069). This can be interpreted
as aesthetic characteristics of smart apparel may not play a
significant role on predicting consumers’ attitude, intention,
and social acceptance of its use.
H4 was fully supported. Tracking attributes of smart
apparel have a strong positive influence on social acceptability,
attitude, and intention of using smart apparel (b ¼ .101, p <
.05; b ¼ .155, p < .001; and b ¼ .170, p < .001, respectively),
which align with previous research findings about the positive
influence of tracking dimension on consumers’ attitude and
intention of using wearables (Bakhshian & Lee, 2019; Hwang
et al., 2016; Lee, 2016). The outcome of this study demon-
strates the positive significant influence of tracking dimension
on social acceptability, which has not been reported before.
The potential interpretation of this result can originate in the
nature of tracking attributes of smart apparel. When it comes
to using smart apparel by individuals, it is not just about wear-
ing it as a usual piece of garments, but it is more about
actively engaging with their clothing through using tracking
options. Thus, we may interpret as the more tracking features
smart apparel has, the more social acceptability it can receive
from the public.
H5 was fully supported. Social acceptability has positive sig-
nificant influence on both consumers’ attitude (H5a; b ¼ .847,
p < .001) and intention of using smart apparel (H5b; b ¼
.717, p < .001). The results were partially aligned with Lee’s
(2016) finding, where she reported the positive significant effect
of social acceptability on consumers’ attitude of using smart
apparel. It can be interpreted as consumers naturally have
more favorable attitude and intention towards using smart
apparel when they get confirmation from their surrounded peo-
ple through accepting smart apparel they wear. H6, proposing
the positive influence of consumers’ attitude on their intention
of using smart apparel, was also supported (b ¼ .021, p <
.001). This result is well aligned with the previous study find-
ings in terms of using wearables (Bakhshian & Lee, 2019;
Hwang et al., 2016; Kim & Shin, 2015; Koo, 2017; Lee, 2016).
8 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
Conclusion
Summary
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of
social acceptability along with functional, expressive, aes-
thetic, and tracking attributes on consumers’ attitude and
intention of using smart apparel. The results of this study
demonstrate the positive influence of expressive and track-
ing attributes as well as social acceptability on consumers’
attitude towards smart apparel. The positive impact of func-
tional, expressive, and tracking attributes on social accept-
ability of smart apparel was found. The intention of using
smart apparel was also positively influenced by attitude,
social acceptability, functional, expressive, and track-
ing attributes.
Among all factors, social acceptability, expressive, and
tracking attributes are the most significant determinants for
predicting consumers’ attitude and intention of using smart
apparel. This clarifies that industry professionals (e.g.
designers, developers, manufacturers, marketers) must con-
sider social acceptability of smart apparel along with other
product attributes, especially expressive and tracking, during
the product design and development stage. This also assures
that smart apparel needs to be accepted by its users and met
their needs, expectations, and perceptions, which will lead
to the success of smart apparel in the market.
The original conceptual framework of this study was
developed addressing the importance of all five dimensions
(functional, expressive, aesthetic, tracking, social acceptabil-
ity) holistically together when it comes to studying consum-
ers’ attitude and intention of using smart apparel as well as
designing or developing smart apparel. However, the find-
ings of this study demonstrate that not all product attributes
have significant influences on social acceptability, attitude,
and intention of using smart apparel. It is interesting to
note that functional attributes of smart apparel influence its
social acceptability; on the other hand, social acceptability is
not influenced by aesthetic attributes of smart apparel. This
result may be because of the items that represent the aes-
thetic attributes variable (e.g. color, texture, masculine/fem-
inine design, sleekness, uniqueness) in this study. These
specific aesthetic features may not be important determi-
nants of predicting social acceptability of smart apparel,
especially for individuals with the minimal experience of its
use. It is noteworthy that social acceptability construct has
an aesthetic/design dimension including style, fashionable,
and pleasing features. Thus, it can be interpreted that being
stylish, fashionable, and pleasant would be more important
criteria when it comes to evaluate social acceptability of
smart apparel.
Implications
The findings of this study have implications for both aca-
demia and the apparel industry. This study used a modified
theoretical framework integrating the key concepts within
different theories and models adapted from various fields
such as consumer behavior, product development, and
human computer interaction. The proposed research model
was validated in this study, which assists future researchers
to gain better insights into social acceptability for predicting
consumers’ expectations of wearable technology. This pro-
posed model also considers as a roadmap when future
researchers conduct similar consumer behavioral research
on smart apparel or wearables in general, or while product
designers plan to develop new wearables. Future research
can apply and expand this model by focusing on other key
determinants that influence the behavioral patterns of using
smart apparel.
In the fashion discipline, little research has been done to
develop a measure of social acceptability of smart apparel.
In this study, Kelly’s (2016) WEAR scale, the only theory-
based measure available for wearable devices, was adopted
and revalidated for its use on smart apparel. The revalidated
WEAR scale items in this study can be applicable for
researchers in the fashion discipline to adopt and use in
their research on examining consumers’ social acceptability
of smart apparel. This scale also can be a useful tool for
industry professionals to evaluate social acceptability of a
newly proposing smart apparel because the scale provides
essential criteria for evaluating these products from the
wearer’s perspective.
Limitations and future research
The findings of this study should be considered in light of
the following limitations. First, the data were collected by
distributing an online survey using MTurk. Although utiliz-
ing MTurk enabled us to obtain the study sample from
diverse U.S. geographical locations, the sampling pool was
restricted to those who only had access to MTurk. Thus, it
is recommended for future researchers to conduct a similar
study with the U.S. representative sample to obtain more
comprehensive data. Only 25% of the participants had prior
experience of using smart apparel. It is suggested to conduct
this study again with the sample of smart apparel users and
revalidate the findings of this study. The study sample was
skewed towards the individuals who obtained a high educa-
tion; thus, another model test is recommended with the
sample consisting of a wide education range.
Although the quantitative research methods allowed to
examine the influence of key determinants (e.g. social
acceptability, product attributes) on consumers’ attitude and
intention towards using smart apparel, it has limitations to
provide the underlying reasons for non-supporting hypothe-
ses. In this regard, a qualitative research approach is useful
to explore detail reasons underlying the relationships among
variables in terms of using smart apparel. Despite the limita-
tions, this study is unique in a way to introduce the social
acceptability scale of wearables to the fashion discipline and
further examine its relationship with other variables such as
product attributes, attitude, and intention.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was provided by the author(s).

ORCID
Sonia Bakhshian http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8155-4691
Young A. Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8900-4387
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Ariyatum, B., Holland, R., Harrison, D., & Kazi, T. (2005). The future
design direction of smart clothing development. Journal of the
Textile Institute, 96(4), 199–210.
Bakhshian, S., & Lee, Y. A. (2019). The role of functional-expressive-
aesthetic-tracking dimension on consumers’ perception of wearable
technology. International Textile and Apparel Association Annual
Conference Proceedings, 76(1). https://doi.org/10.31274/itaa.8786
Bakhshian, S., & Lee, Y. A. (2020). Influence of social acceptability and
product attributes on consumers’ attitude and intention of using
smart apparel. International Textile and Apparel Association Annual
Conference Proceedings, 77(1). https://doi.org/10.31274/itaa.11849
Bakhshian, S., Lee, Y. A. (2018). Holistic integration of product attrib-
utes with consumer behavioral aspects for the use of wearable tech-
nology. International Textile and Apparel Association Annual
Conference Proceedings, 16. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/itaa_proceed-
ings/2018/presentations/16/
Baraniuk, C. (2015). Google Glass: Why the gadget faces its biggest test.
BBC. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140504-the-biggest-flaw-of-
google-glass
Buenaflor, C., & Kim, H. C. (2013). Six human factors to acceptability
of wearable computers. International Journal of Multimedia and
Ubiquitous Engineering, 8(3), 103–114.
Chae, J. M. (2010). Clothing and textiles: Consumer acceptance model
of smart clothing according to innovation., International Journal of
Human Ecology, 10(1), 23–33.
Chattaraman, V., & Rudd, N. A. (2006). Preferences for aesthetic
attributes in clothing as a function of body image, body cathexis
and body size. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(1), 46–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0602400104
Coorevits, L., & Coenen, T. (2016). The rise and fall of wearable fitness
trackers. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 17305.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.17305abstract
Corner, S. (2009). Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and
EFA. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 13(3), 20–25.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3),
319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dehghani, M., Kim, K. J., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Will smart-
watches last? Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart
wearable technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 480–490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.007
Dunne, L. E., Profita, H., Zeagler, C., Clawson, J., Gilliland, S., Do,
E. Y. L., Budd, J. (2014). The social comfort of wearable technology
and gestural interaction. Proceedings from 36th Annual International
Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology. IEEE.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6944540
Dunne, L. (2004). The design of wearable technology: addressing the
human-device interface through functional apparel design Cornell
University Library. [Master Thesis, Cornell University] http://ecom-
mons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/150/2/Lucy%20E%20Dunne-Masters%
20Thesis.pdf
Eike, R. J., & Bakhshian, S. (2018). Review of fashion, technology, and
health: Future directions of the apparel industry. Trends in Textile
Engineering and Fashion Technology, 4(3), 504–507.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224378101800104
Gao, Y., Li, H., & Luo, Y. (2015). An empirical study of wearable tech-
nology acceptance in healthcare. Industrial Management & Data
THE JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE 9
Systems, 115(9), 1704–1723. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-
0087
Ghahremani Honarvar, M., & Latifi, M. (2017). Overview of wearable
electronics and smart textiles. The Journal of the Textile Institute,
108(4), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2016.1177870
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. (7th ed.)Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alter-
natives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hwang, C., Chung, T. L., & Sanders, E. A. (2016). Attitudes and pur-
chase intentions for smart clothing: Examining U.S. consumers’
functional, expressive, and aesthetic needs for solar-powered cloth-
ing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 34(3), 207–222. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0887302X16646447
Jeong, S. C., Byun, J. S., & Jeong, Y. J. (2016). The effect of user
experience and perceived similarity of smartphone on acceptance
intention for smartwatch. ICIC Express Letters, 10(7), 1613–1619.
Kelly, N. (2016). The WEAR Scale: Development of a measure of the
social acceptability of a wearable device Graduate Theses and
Dissertations. 15230. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-4835
Kim, K. J., & Shin, D. H. (2015). An acceptance model for smart
watches. Internet Research, 25(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IntR-05-2014-0126
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ling. (3rd ed.). Guilford.
Koo, S. H. (2017). Consumer differences in the United States and
India on wearable trackers. Family and Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, 46(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12230
Koo, S. H., & Fallon, K. (2017). Preferences in tracking dimensions for
wearable technology. International Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology, 29(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCST-03-2016-0021
Koo, S. H., & Fallon, K. (2018). Explorations of wearable technology
for tracking self and others. Fashion and Textiles, 5(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-017-0123-z
Lamb, J. M., & Kallal, M. J. (1992). A conceptual framework for
apparel design. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(2), 42–47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9201000207
Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The
technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decision
Support Systems, 29(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
9236(00)00076-2
Lee, K. E. (2016). Female bike riders’ clothing needs with the incorpor-
ation of wearable technology: Design and evaluation of wearers’ per-
ception of smart clothing within the cradle-to-cradle design
framework Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16089. https://doi.org/
10.31274/etd-180810-5718
MarketsandMarkets (2019). Wearable technology market worth $56.8
billion by 2025 with a growing CAGR of 11.28%. https://www.mar-
ketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/wearable-electronics.asp
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s,
don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research,
3(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854
Nam, C., & Lee, Y. A. (2020). Validation of the wearable acceptability
range scale for smart apparel. Fashion and Textiles, 7(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-019-0203-3
Narayanaswami, C., & Raghunath, M. T. (2002). Designing a new form
factor for wearable computing. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 1(4),
42–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2002.1158277
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3rd
ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Ogle, J., Tyner, K., & Schofield-Tomschin, S. (2013). The role of
maternity dress consumption in shaping the self and identity during
the liminal transition of pregnancy. Journal of Consumer Culture,
13(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540513480161
Page, T. (2015). Barriers to the adoption of wearable technology. i-
Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 4(3), 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.26634/jit.4.3.3485
10 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
Park, S., Griffin, A., & Gill, D. (2012). Working with words: Exploring
textual analysis in medical education research. Medical Education,
46(4), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04184.x
Profita, H. P., Clawson, J., Gilliland, S., Zeagler, C., Starner, T., Budd,
J., & Do, E. Y. L. (2013). Don’t mind me touching my wrist: A case
study of interacting with on-body technology in public < SE-END>
[Paper presentation].</SE-END>Proceedings from the 17th
International Symposium on Wearable Computers’ 2013,. ACM
Digital Library. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2493988.2494331
https://doi.org/10.1145/2493988.2494331
Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., & Ivens, B. S. (2015). Who will buy
smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on
the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adop-
tion of Google Glass wearables. Computers in Human Behavior, 49,
635–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.003
Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart
glasses: An investigation of technology acceptance drivers.
International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2), 123–148.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2016.075690
Rauschnabel, P. A., Rossmann, A., & Tom Dieck, M. C. (2017). An
adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case
of Pokemon Go. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 276–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.030
Research and Markets (2019). November 26). Analysis on the
world’s smart clothing market 2019-2024 - high cost of products
& technical complications hamper growth potential. PR
newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analysis-
on-the-worlds-smart-clothing-market-2019-2024–-high-cost-of-pro-
ducts–technical-complications-hamper-growth-potential-300964477.
html
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press.
Salahuddin, M., & Romeo, L. (2020). Wearable technology: Are prod-
uct developers meeting consumer’s needs? International Journal of
Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 13(1), 58–67. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17543266.2020.1723713
Sontag, M. S. (1985). Comfort dimensions of actual and ideal insulative
clothing for older women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
4(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X8500400102
Stokes, B., & Black, C. (2012). Application of the functional, expressive
and aesthetic consumer needs model: Assessing the clothing needs
of adolescent girls with disabilities. International Journal of Fashion
Design, Technology and Education, 5(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17543266.2012.700735
Turhan, G. (2013). An assessment towards the acceptance of wearable
technology to consumers in Turkey: The application to smart bra
and t-shirt products. Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(4),
375–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2012.736191
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the
technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.
46.2.186.11926
Wasik, B. (2014). Try It on. Wired, 22(01), 90–99.