Applying The Technology Acceptance Model in A Three-Countries

Journal of High Technology Management Research 30 (2019) 1–14
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of High Technology Management Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hitech
Applying the technology acceptance model in a three-countries

T
study of smartwatch adoption
⁎
Vincent Dutota, Veera Bhatiasevib, , Nadim Bellallahomc
a
Head of Learning Lab, IPAG Business School, 184 Boulevard Saint-Germain, 75006 Paris, France
b
Mahidol University International College, 999 Phutthamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhonpathom 73170, Thailand
c
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), France
A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT
Keywords: The purpose of this study is to explore differences of adoption of smartwatches in China, France,
Smartwatch adoption and Thailand. We propose an analytical framework aggregating the technology acceptance model
Perceived affective quality (TAM) elements, perceived affective quality (PAQ), mobility, availability, and trust. A quanti-
Cross-cultural study tative approach with Smart-PLS software is used. Results show significant differences (1) between
China
France and Thailand for availability - perceived ease of use (PEOU) and PEOU - perceived use-
France
Thailand
fulness (PU) links; (2) between France and China, for PEOU - PU and trust – PU links; and finally,
(3) for trust – PU, and PAQ - PEOU links between China and Thailand. The results give practi-
tioners insights on how to successfully propose their devices in three countries, using both
general strategies and specific communication systems. In China, practitioners should focus on
PAQ, mobility, and trust. In Thailand, on PAQ, mobility, while differentiating based on the age
and sex of their targets. In France, PAQ should be the focus, with a concern about gender with
regard to communication strategies.
1. Introduction
Wearable technology has been identified as one of the most dynamic Internet of things (IoT) technologies (Charlton & Poslad,
2016; Khakurel, Melkas, & Porras, 2018). Growing enthusiasm has encouraged academics to examine the opportunities and chal-
lenges posed by such technologies (Pitt et al., 2017), the potential for which has been demonstrated in sectors such as health and
fitness (Pantelopoulos & Bourbakis, 2010), quality of life (Lee, Kim, Ryoo, & Shin, 2016), and education (Demir, Demir, Odabaşı, &
Odabaşı, 2016).
China, the country with the highest smartwatch sales in the world, behaves differently than other markets. Wilson (2015) and
Perez (2016) note that the dramatic rise of the wearables market is already slowing across the US and Europe, whereas the Chinese
market is still experiencing significant growth. In fact, on a global scale, China generated the most revenue in wearables sales in 2018,
totaling $2927 million (Statista, 2018a). Even though the European market is slowing, revenue from the wearables market in France
amounted to $183 million in 2018, and the user penetration rate is expected to increase from 7.3% in 2018 to 11.9% in 2022
(Statista, 2018b). Thailand is a smaller market than China and France, with wearables revenue amounting to $29 million in 2018 and
user penetration expected to increase from 2.1% in 2018 to 3.0% in 2020 (Statista, 2018c).
The study proposes that cultural differences among these three countries play an important role in understanding why users adopt
smartwatches. Culture determines how people use technology, since they might have different perceptions about it and use it in
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: v.dutot@ipag.fr (V. Dutot), veera.bha@mahidol.ac.th (V. Bhatiasevi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2019.02.001
Available online 20 February 2019

1047-8310/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
V. Dutot, et al. Journal of High Technology Management Research 30 (2019) 1–14
different cultural circumstances (Hsu et al., 2017). Therefore, it is important to conduct a cross-cultural study of smartwatch
adoption. Even though culture plays an important role in the adoption of technology, not much research has been conducted in the
context of smartwatch adoption. Most studies, as discussed in the next section of this paper, have examined a single country's
adoption of smartwatches.
The objective of this study is to define what drives the adoption of smartwatches in China, France, and Thailand. Wearable
technology is a recent consumption trend. Thus, there are very few studies regarding this subject from a customer point of view and
even fewer in Thailand. Moreover, the wearables industry is currently redefining itself across markets and planning its future by
attempting to understand consumers' interests. This approach is the only way for the sector to maintain substantial growth in the
upcoming years. By gaining a better understanding of this technology and its acceptance in the three countries, this research proposes
identifying key adoption factors and insights for professionals so that they can tailor their products and communication campaigns.
China and Thailand are interesting markets to explore and study because it is estimated that in the next few years, Asia-Pacific
will be the region with the fastest growth in smartwatch adoption because of the increase in people's income and the increased
penetration of the Internet (Digital Journal, 2017). China will give this study an understanding of the larger Asian market, because,
from a global perspective, the most revenue generated from smartwatch sales is in China (Statista, 2018a), while Thailand gives this
study an understanding of the Southeast Asian market, as Thailand is the second biggest market in terms of revenue generated by
smartwatch sales in Southeast Asia, behind Indonesia (Statista, 2018c). Although France does not have higher revenue generated
from smartwatch sales than big economies in Europe, such as Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK), France's
smartwatch revenue is expected to grow at an annual rate of 8.3% by 2022, which is more than the rate of 0.8% for Germany, 0.5%
for Italy, 3.1% for Spain, and 5.6% for the UK (Statista, 2018b). The abovementioned arguments constitute the rationale for choosing
the three countries for this study, namely, China, France, and Thailand.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to fill a gap in the literature by identifying the main factors driving customers to acquire and use
smartwatches in a cross-cultural context. We ask the following research question:
Research question (RQ): What are the factors influencing the adoption of smartwatches in China, Thailand, and France?
Sub-RQ: To what extent can perceived affective quality be a determinant factor of smartwatch adoption for Chinese, French, and Thai
consumers?
The wearables industry is currently redefining itself across markets and planning its future by attempting to understand con-
sumers' interests. This step is the only way for the sector to maintain substantial growth in the upcoming years. By gaining a better
understanding of this technology and its acceptance, this research can provide insights for professionals so that they can tailor their
products and communication campaigns. Furthermore, for professionals, it would be relevant both to understand the three markets
and to examine the main factors involved in adopting smartwatch technology. Additionally, from an academic point of view, the
question of what drives individuals to adopt a specific technology has been gaining importance over recent years and across dis-
ciplines. This importance is attributable primarily to technology's influence on business, education and daily life. Recent studies
focusing on the adoption of mobile technology (Dutot, 2015), coupled with the development of modern wireless communication
technology, have driven the emergence of new behaviors (Kim & Shin, 2015), specifically e-commerce and mobile commerce, for
both enterprises and consumers (Comin & Hobijn, 2008; Wu & Wang, 2005).
The following section discusses several adoption models, the smartwatch technology context, and smartwatch adoption in China
France, and Thailand, followed by a description of the research model. Thereafter, the performed quantitative analysis and its results
are presented, leading to a discussion of the crucial roles of perceived affective quality (PAQ), mobility (MB), availability (AV) and
trust. Finally, implications for both academics and managers are detailed, and possibilities for future research are discussed.
2. Literature review
2.1. Smartwatch adoption in China, France, and Thailand
China has proven capable of very rapid adoption: the country was among the first to adopt mobile payments, including the
exchange of money from one mobile device to another, and China has the highest smartphone ownership in the world (> 500
million) (Kissonergis, 2015).
Chinese industry itself makes this market singular. Indeed, the Chinese wearables market began by relying on shipments of
wearables from the US and Europe, but then, the local market began to grow. At the same time, the rise of Chinese wearables brands
such as Xiaomi allowed the country to ship smartwatches and other connected devices to Europe. As mentioned earlier, China is the
biggest global market for wearables in terms of revenue generated in 2018, with the average revenue per user (ARPU) of $18.37, and
the current user penetration rate is 11.5% and expected to increase to 14.8% in 2022. The age group with the largest user base is
25–34 years old, with a share of 41.9% (Statista, 2018a).
France does not have the same technology adoption rate as China and even appears to lag behind other European countries,
particularly the UK, in regard to technology adoption, according to a study by Forrester. In fact, France lags in the adoption curve for
consumer technology and devices, as well as equipment purchases. The number of French consumers who own connected devices is
below the average for European countries (BNP Paribas, 2013). Currently, in terms of wearables, revenue is expected to grow at an
annual rate of 8.3%, which would result in a market volume of $251 million in 2022. Compared to China, the current ARPU in France
is higher, amounting to $37.04. The age group with the largest user base is 35–44 years old, with a share of 28.6% (Statista, 2018b).
Compared to China and France, Thailand is usually not the first to adopt technology, but does not lag behind other countries in
the region; rather, Thailand is considered to be in the middle of the pack. By 2021, Internet traffic is expected to triple, and the usage
2
per person per month is expected to increase at least fourfold. The number of devices adopted per person will increase from 1.5 to 1.9,
with the average Internet traffic per person expected to increase from 5.5 GB to 18.9 GB (Leesa-Nguansuk, 2017). Wearables revenue
is expected to grow at an annual rate of 5.6%, which will result in a market volume of $37 million in 2022. Thailand's ARPU is slightly
higher than that of China, at $20.64, but much lower than that of France ARPU (Statista, 2018c).
2.2. The first adoption models
Established by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) at the intersection of the consumer behavior and social
psychology fields, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) explains the adoption of individual behaviors. More precisely, TRA attempts to
predict consumer intentions and behavior by providing a model to identify where and how to target consumers' attempts at beha-
vioral change (Mathieson, 1991; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Hartwick and Barki (1994) used TRA to explain in-
formation technology adoption in an organizational context. The authors acknowledged the distinction between a goal intention and
a behavioral intention and explained it with the theory limitations. Therefore, a third factor was later added to the original model:
perceived behavioral control. Accordingly, Ajzen (1991) proposed the theory of planned behavior (TPB).
TPB posits that the decision to adopt a behavior is the result of the individual's intention regarding the adoption of this behavior.
The intention variable refers to the idea that individuals consider the consequences of their actions before engaging (or not) in a
behavior. This variable relies on three conceptual determinants: (1) attitude toward a behavior, defined as the degree to which a
person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior studied (Ajzen, 1991); (2) the subjective norm, known
as the influence of others' behavior, which has an influence on each individual (Harding, Mayhew, Finelli, & Carpenter, 2007), and
(3) perceived behavioral control, which considers discrepancies between intentions and behavior, such as when individuals perceive
constraints on intended behaviors (Stone, Jawahar, & Kisamore, 2009). Early TPB studies focused on replication and generalizability
for various behaviors to assess the consistency and efficacy of this theoretical model (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). It was
applied to technology adoption by Pavlou and Fygenson (2006), who integrated trust, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease
of use (PEOU).
Whereas TRA and TPB focus on human behavior, Davis (1989) proposed an alternative to these models: the technology accep-
tance model (TAM). Built upon social psychology research, TAM integrates diverse theoretical perspectives with a technological
approach. TAM has been widely recognized for its simplicity and parsimony. It has been applied and validated for a wide range of
new technologies and information systems, such as the adoption of electronic commerce (Pavlou, 2003), e-health systems (Wilson &
Lankton, 2004), m-gaming (Liu & Li, 2011), smartphones (Joo & Sang, 2013; Kim & Sundar, 2014), mobile cloud computing (Park &
Kim, 2014), and mobile-based technologies (Sanakulov & Karjaluoto, 2015).
By using TAM as the basic framework for the user adoption of smartwatches, this study predicts that the following variables will
present strong correlations when applied to the smartwatch context: PEOU, PU, attitude toward smartwatches (ATT) and intention to
use the technology (IU). The first four hypotheses are established as follows:
H1. PEOU has positive effects on PU.
H2. PEOU has positive effects on ATT.
H3. PU has positive effects on ATT.
H4. ATT has positive effects on IU.
A general critique of TAM is its ‘need for additional variables to enhance its predictive power’ (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 187;
Tarhini, El-Masri, Ali, & Serrano, 2016). Most of the variables that were later added to the model were focused on information
systems, new technology and organizations – not the use of a new technology in everyday life. A second critique is the lack of
acknowledgment of individual differences (Agarwal & Prasad, 1999), which underlines the fact that the TAM did not originally
include control variables such as age, gender or experience, all of which influence attitudes toward technology (Straub, 2009) and,
therefore, the perception of it. Both criticisms reveal the need to adapt the TAM to different contexts and technologies, which would
allow the model to maintain its relevance for evolving technology.
2.3. The smartwatch technology context
In recent years, studies have begun to explore wearable technology, specifically smartwatches, with respect to the market's
emergence and global expansion. For example, Kim and Shin (2015) studied the adoption of smartwatches under an extended TAM.
They examined key psychological factors, such as affective quality, relative advantage, MB, AV, subcultural appeal and cost, which
they mentioned were associated with wearable technology, and determined whether these factors could explain user acceptance of
smartwatches if integrated with the TAM. Table 1 below summarizes other previous studies on smartwatches.
Zhang and Li (2005) showcased the importance of affective quality: ‘users aren't always rational logical beings – emotion plays an
often overlooked role in user acceptance of technology.’ Indeed, individual perceptions and behaviors are shaped by affect (emotions
and feelings). Currently, user experience has become a decisive aspect of new devices and interfaces and explains why technology's
hedonic components (e.g., affective quality) have gained importance (Kim & Shin, 2015). This study embraces the willingness to
more consistently evaluate the influence of affective quality on technology adoption, following the extension of the TAM model
established by Zhang, Li, and Sun (2006), who explored the influence of PAQ on cognitive absorption. They defined PAQ as two
3
V. Dutot, et al.
Table 1
Summary of previous studies on smartwatches.
Authors Topic Methods Country Findings
Adapa, Nah, Hall, Siau, and Factors influencing the adoption of smart wearable Qualitative (n = 25) Midwestern Key factors of adoption for google glasses and smart watch (Sony
Smith (2018) devices smartwatch 3) are look-and-feel, compatibility, availability of specific
apps
Dehghani, Kim, & Dangelico, Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to Quantitative survey Not specified Key factors that play a role in user behavior of smartwatches are
2018 intention to keep using smart wearable technology (n = 383) (European and North complementary goods, healthology, aesthetic appeal and hedonic
PLS-SEM American respondents) motivation
Hsiao & Chen, 2018 What drives smartwatch purchase intention? Quantitative survey Taiwan Attitude toward the use of smartwatches, as well as design aesthetics, had
Perspectives from hardware, software, design, and value (n = 260) the strongest direct effect
PLS-SEM
Hong, Lin, & Hsieh, 2017 The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived Quantitative survey Taiwan Customer innovativeness was positively related to continuance intention,
value and continuance intention to use smartwatches (n = 246) which was mediated by both hedonic and utilitarian value. Usefulness was
SEM found to be more satisfying for consumers than enjoyment/joy
4
Chuah et al., 2016 Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and Quantitative survey Malaysia The key factors of smartwatch adoption are visibility and usefulness.
visibility in smartwatch adoption (n = 246) Smartwatches are perceived by consumers as fashnology (fashion and/or
SEM technology)
Choi & Kim, 2016 Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A Quantitative survey Korea The key predictors of smartwatch use intention are enjoyment and self-
study on factors affecting the intention to use (n = 562) expressiveness. People who value uniqueness are more likely to use
smartwatches PLS-SEM smartwatches
Hsiao, 2016 What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing Quantitative survey Taiwan Perceived product attributes, particularly relative advantage, have a
Apple and non-Apple watches (n = 341) strong influence on the intention to adopt smartwatches, while for Apple
PLS-SEM Watch and other brands, personality traits are important antecedents
Kim, 2016 Round or Square? How Screen Shape Affects Utilitarian Quantitative survey Hong Kong To enhance the device's hedonic qualities, a round screen is more effective
and Hedonic Motivations for Smartwatch Adoption (n = 200) in promoting smartwatch adoption than a square screen
SEM
Wu, Wu, & Chang, 2016 Exploring consumers' intention to accept smartwatches Quantitative survey Taiwan In the intention to accept, attitude toward smartwatches were significant,
(n = 212) as well as result demonstrability, which has a high effect on attitude
PLS-SEM
Journal of High Technology Management Research 30 (2019) 1–14
dimensions with four types of qualities: aroused, sleepy, pleasant and unpleasant (Russel and Pratt, 1980).
The decision to study PAQ instead of affective quality is based on this study's focus on user perceptions of smartwatch technology
and the inclusion of potential users that might not already use a wearable device. PAQ refers to an individual's perception and
impression of an object prior to any other cognitive appraisal and evaluation of its consequences or their potential interactions with it
(Zhang & Li, 2004). In the context of technology adoption, it is ‘users’ primitive reaction to Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) that has an impact on their subsequent reactions' (Sanchez-Franco, 2010, p.39). When an individual perceives a
technology to be pleasant and interesting, he or she will also have a heightened perception of that technology's ease of use. Therefore,
PAQ is expected to positively influence PEOU (Zhang et al., 2006). Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5a. PAQ will have a positive effect on the PU of smartwatches.
H5b. PAQ will have a positive effect on the PEOU of smartwatches.
The strength of wearable technology is its ability to offer full MB to its users. The MB aspect refers to three elements: convenience,
expediency and immediacy (Seppälä & Alamäki, 2003). MB allows users to access information without the constraints of time or
space (Shin, 2012). MB eliminates the constraints of being in a fixed space and refers to the degree to which users believe they can
navigate freely with their devices in different locations and during transit periods (Kim & Shin, 2015). MB is linked to AV, but the
second notion refers to time constraints. AV is defined by the degree to which users believe their devices give them real-time
connectedness to information and services (Kim & Shin, 2015; Shin, 2012). MB and AV have been key variables for the adoption of
recent technologies, such as wireless Internet (Shin, 2007). This study includes both variables in the research model since they also
represent the key strengths of wearable technology in that they offer users the ability to quantify themselves anywhere at any time.
Wearable technology is portable and adapted to users' permanent search for freedom from and accessibility to their devices. Thus, we
state the following:
H6a. MB will have a positive effect on the PU of smartwatches.
H6b. MB will have a positive effect the PEOU of smartwatches.
H7a. AV will have a positive effect on the PU of smartwatches.
H7b. AV will have a positive effect on the PEOU of smartwatches.
In the field of ICT, trust can be considered an essential prerequisite for the collection of information about individuals (Liu,
Marchewka, Lu, & Yu, 2005). Trust is a cornerstone of specific services, such as mobile payment systems and e-commerce (Aljifri,
Pons, & Collins, 2003; Dutot, 2015; Srivastava, Chandra, & Theng, 2010). Trust has been defined in many ways, including from a
benevolence or empathy perspective (Flavian, Guinaliu, & Torres, 2006; Gefen, 2002) and from a behavioral perspective (Md Nor,
Barbuta-Misu, & Stroe, 2011). This study's definition of trust embraces the “willingness to rely” on the partner, which, in this case, is
the smartwatch brand (Flavian et al., 2006). The correlation between trust and PU has previously been defined as positive (Gefen,
Karahanna, & Straub, 2003), similar to the correlation between trust and PEOU (Dutot, 2015; Reid & Yair, 2008). Thus, the following
hypotheses are presented:
H8a. Trust will have a positive effect on the PU of smartwatches.
H8b. Trust will have a positive effect on the PEOU of smartwatches.
Therefore, the following conceptual model and hypotheses are proposed in Fig. 1.
Perceived affective
quality H5a
H5b
Perceived
H6a usefulness H3
Mobility
H6b
H1 H4
Attitude Intention to use
H7a
Availability H7b
H2
Perceived ease
of use
H8a
H8b
Trust
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
5
3. Methodology
An empirical study in a classroom setting and an online questionnaire survey were administered in a cross-national environment.
3.1. Data collection
3.1.1. Pre-test
The questions were tested before the questionnaire was administered. Two professors specializing in technology adoption per-
formed the pre-test. Both the design of the questionnaire and a few vague or unclear wordings were adjusted, taking into con-
sideration that language proficiency could lower the quality of the responses. From the feedback gathered, the choice was made to
organize the survey into 8 thematic categories, which were introduced with a simple clarifying sentence about upcoming questions.
The demographic questions were placed at the end of the questionnaire to prevent a decrease in response quality (Tarran, 2010). The
questionnaire was originally written in English, and a back translation process was utilized (Brislin, 1986) for the Chinese, Thai and
French versions.
3.1.2. Data collection

The data were collected using two main methods. First, we deployed a web survey in in-person classes (at Fudan University in
China, at PSB Paris School of Business in France). The respondents were told the subject of the questionnaire and its approximate
duration and were asked to answer based on their own perception, even if they had never used a smartwatch. As part of the
introduction, pictures of smartwatches were shown to represent the diversity of wearable devices and to ensure a clear understanding
of the object of the study. After the introduction, students were given a link to the survey.
Second, an online questionnaire was administered through online platforms (SoGoSurvey for China, Sphinxonline for France, and
Google Forms for Thailand) for a ten-day period (from February 20 to March 1, 2017). We chose to use an online survey because it is
recognized as a useful and accurate research tool (Vehovar & Lozar Manfreda, 2008). It also offers the advantage of being a fast,
inexpensive and easy means of receiving responses to a questionnaire (Llieva, Baron, & Healey, 2002). Finally, instructions can be
given alongside the questionnaire to add information or to establish the subject of the survey (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014).
All data collected were usable, with no missing responses. The samples consist of 124 Chinese students, 206 Thai students and 116
French students, for a total of 446 respondents.
3.2. Measures
The survey relied on a questionnaire created from items tested in previous studies (Baumard, Donada, Ibert, & Xuereb, 2007). The
reliability and validity of the selected measures were confirmed, and their relevance for the research model was accepted according to
the literature review. PAQ was based on Zhang and Li (2005), while MB was measured using 3 items from Huang, Lin, and Chuang
(2007) and Kim and Shin (2015). AV was based on Shin (2012) and Kim and Shin (2015) (4 items), and trust was defined using Liu
et al. (2005) and Dutot (2015) (4 items). The remaining constructs—PU (4 items), PEOU (4 items), ATT (4 items), and IU (3
items)—were extracted from the original TAM (Davis, 1989) and adapted to the smartwatch technology context.
The items were measured across the questionnaire with Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
(Weijters, Cabooter, & Schillewaert, 2010). Closed-ended questions were chosen for questions about constructs in order to decrease
measurement error (Vehovar & Lozar Manfreda, 2008).
3.3. Descriptive statistics
The respondent population for each country is presented in Table 1. The main differences between countries are the repartition
between males and females (with females dominating in China – 73.4%, while males are more strongly represented in France and
Thailand), age (all students were younger than 25 years old in China, compared to larger age ranges in France and Thailand). In terms
of smartwatch usage, 30% of our Chinese respondents possessed one or more devices, compared to an average of 6% for China as a
whole (Tochen, 2016), while in France and Thailand, all respondents possessed at least one device (Table 2).
4. Results
4.1. Choice of statistical analysis for path models
We used the component-based partial least squares (PLS) method and structural equation modeling (SEM) to assess the research
model. This method was deemed more appropriate than covariance-based SEM methods such as LISREL because the current research
aims to predict key target constructs (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). The analysis approach followed Anderson and Gerbing (1988).
First, construct validity was assessed through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and then, the structural model was run to test the
research hypotheses.
6
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of respondents.
China Percentage Thailand Percentage France Percentage
Sex Male 33 26.6% 135 65.5% 82 70.6%

Female 91 73.4% 71 34.5% 34 29.4%
Age 15–25 124 100% 39 18.9% 48 41.4%
26–35 – 0% 101 49% 44 37.9%
36–45 – 0% 49 23.8% 16 13.8%
Older than 45 – 0% 17 8.3% 8 6.9%
Smartwatch Yes 38 30.6% 206 100% 116 100%
No 86 69.4% – 0% – 0%
Smartwatch brand owned Apple 17 13.7% 59 42
Xiaomi 13 10.5% 30 – 0%
Fitbit 2 1.6% 33 28
Huawei 4 3.2% 3 – 0%
Movboi 1 0.8% – 0% – 0%
Garmin – 0% 34 34
Tomtom – 0% 1 6
Samsung – 0% 30 16
Amazfit – 0% 29 2
Other 4 3.2% 24 4
None 83 66.9% – 0% – 0%
4.2. Assessment of construct validity
The sample data were analyzed using SPSS 24 and SmartPLS 3 software. We first used CFA to assess the validity of the dimensions
of the research model for each country (PAQ, MB, AV, trust, PEOU, PU, ATT and IU). As a result, the model was re-specified by
deleting an item that did not load sufficiently (λ > 0.5) on its associated dimension (Tables 3 to 5). This second analysis allows us to
Table 3
Assessment of construct validity (China).
Construct Indicator Mean SID Standardized loading AVE Cronbach alphas Composite reliability
Perceived affective quality PAQ1 4.01 0.68 0.774 0.767 0.965 0.970
PAQ2 4.22 0.56 0.890
PAQ3 4.24 0.62 0.905
PAQ4 4.14 0.61 0.893
PAQ5 3.95 0.68 0.710
PAQ11 4.35 0.63 0.924
PAQ12 4.18 0.60 0.927
PAQ13 3.80 0.72 0.932
PAQ14 4.19 0.64 0.883
PAQ15 4.35 0.64 0.895
Mobility MB1 4.64 0.94 0.947 0.891 0.939 0.961
MB2 4.55 0.88 0.944
MB3 4.72 0.75 0.941
Availability AV1 4.02 0.71 0.935 0.934 0.977 0.983
AV2 4.07 0.74 0.945
AV3 4.29 0.70 0.932
AV4 4.39 0.79 0.927
Trust TR1 3.99 0.61 0.885 0.796 0.872 0.921
TR2 3.79 0.53 0.920
TR3 4.06 0.69 0.871
PEOU PEOU1 4.07 0.69 0.964 0.920 0.971 0.979
PEOU2 4.07 0.62 0.940
PEOU3 4.17 0.68 0.957
PEOU4 4.27 0.72 0.975
PU PU1 4.09 0.75 0.940 0.894 0.961 0.971
PU2 4.28 0.69 0.955
PU3 3.96 0.56 0.951
PU4 4.14 0.56 0.937
Attitude ATT1 4.55 0.64 0.964 0.935 0.977 0.983
ATT2 4.60 0.70 0.961
ATT3 4.58 0.63 0.973
ATT4 4.68 0.79 0.971
Intention to use IU1 4.75 0.65 0.949 0.909 0.950 0.968
IU2 4.31 0.83 0.959
IU3 4.52 0.89 0.952
7
Table 4
Assessment of construct validity (Thailand).
PAQ4 4.05 0.67 0.795
PAQ5 3.86 0.70 0.795
PAQ6 3.89 0.70 0.796
PAQ7 4.19 0.60 0.783
PAQ8 4.17 0.75 0.772
PAQ9 4.07 0.75 0.798
PAQ10 4.14 0.76 0.809
PAQ12 4.27 0.63 0.756
PAQ13 4.27 0.67 0.701
PAQ14 4.04 0.82 0.729
Mobility MB1 4.70 0.47 0.753 0.627 0.701 0.834
MB2 4.53 0.64 0.869
MB3 4.34 0.75 0.746
Availability AV1 3.43 1.02 0.743 0.686 0.846 0.897
AV2 3.87 0.86 0.852
AV3 4.01 0.85 0.862
AV4 3.74 0.93 0.850
Trust TR1 3.79 0.85 0.934 0.860 0.919 0.949
TR2 3.74 0.85 0.925
TR3 3.80 0.80 0.923
PEOU PEOU1 4.27 0.67 0.844 0.715 0.867 0.909
PEOU2 4.22 0.60 0.857
PEOU3 4.20 0.68 0.826
PEOU4 4.34 0.63 0.855
PU PU1 4.22 0.74 0.764 0.689 0.849 0.89
PU2 4.12 0.75 0.835
PU3 3.80 0.85 0.875
PU4 3.67 0.92 0.844
Attitude ATT1 4.18 0.69 0.842 0.714 0.866 0.909
ATT2 4.43 0.58 0.833
ATT3 4.29 0.65 0.863
ATT4 4.44 0.64 0.841
IU2 4.53 0.58 0.896
IU3 4.29 0.72 0.755
confirm the reliability (ρ > 0.7) and convergent validity (AVE > 0.5) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) of the constructs' dimensions so that
each of these dimensions could then be treated as a single value when testing the research model (Hair et al., 2011).
4.3. Assessment of the measurement model
The SmartPLS method simultaneously assesses the theoretical propositions and properties of the underlying measurement model.
The internal consistency of the measures (i.e., the measures' unidimensionality and reliability) must first be verified. The observable
variables measuring a reflective construct must be unidimensional in order to be considered unique values (Gefen, Straub, &
Boudreau, 2000). As shown in Tables 3 to 5, unidimensionality was confirmed by retaining variables whose loadings were above 0.5.
Satisfactory reliability and the constructs' convergent validity are typically determined by an alpha (ρ) exceeding the value of 0.7
and an average variance extracted (AVE) exceeding the value of 0.5, respectively (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gefen et al., 2000). In this
study, the AVEs and alphas exceeded the recommended values, showing acceptable reliability and convergent validity.
The fourth property that must be verified is discriminant validity, which indicates the extent to which each construct in the
research model is unique and different from the other constructs. The shared variance between a construct and other constructs must
be less than the average variance, which was the case for all eight constructs, as shown in Tables 6 to 8, indicating good discriminant
validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
We also controlled the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) to prove the discriminant validity of the model. The HTMT value must
be below 0.85 (the most conservative criterion) to fit this test (Hair et al., 2011). Because all HTMT values are below this threshold,
we can conclude the presence of discriminant validity is established. Finally, we checked for the HTMT inference criteria by per-
forming the bootstrapping routine and controlling the upper confidence interval limit. The results show that all values are com-
fortably below the value of 1 (Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014). Therefore, discriminant validity can be established.
4.4. Assessment of the structural model
To test the research hypotheses, we assessed the direction, strength and significance level of the path coefficients (betas) (figures
8
Table 5
Assessment of construct validity (France).
PAQ2 3.07 1.13 0.704
PAQ3 2.97 1.14 0.801
PAQ4 2.57 1.12 0.717
PAQ6 3.66 0.97 0.703
PAQ7 3.29 1.13 0.806
PAQ10 3.84 1.08 0.808
PAQ11 3.79 0.83 0.806
Mobility MB1 4.09 0.86 0.721 0.623 0.705 0.831
MB2 3.86 1.09 0.825
MB3 3.72 1.05 0.816
Availability AV1 3.78 0.97 0.757 0.577 0.761 0.845
AV2 3.55 1.10 0.776
AV3 3.60 1.02 0.754
AV4 3.19 1.04 0.751
Trust TR1 2.67 1.12 0.857 0.757 0.848 0.903
TR2 2.66 1.09 0.897
TR3 3.19 0.92 0.856
PEOU PEOU1 4.02 0.80 0.893 0.610 0.808 0.861
PEOU2 3.69 0.95 0.788
PEOU3 4.29 0.70 0.744
PEOU4 3.86 0.84 0.704
PU PU1 3.16 1.19 0.768 0.676 0.840 0.893
PU2 3.00 1.14 0.881
PU3 2.72 1.11 0.820
PU4 2.95 1.12 0.816
Attitude ATT1 3.47 0.99 0.914 0.840 0.904 0.940
ATT2 3.67 1.14 0.952
ATT3 3.36 1.06 0.883
ATT4 3.53 0.98 0.875
IU2 3.22 1.15 0.892
IU3 3.40 1.50 0.875
Table 6
Discriminant validity of the constructs (China).
Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1. Perceived affective quality 0.88

2. Mobility 0.83 0.94
3. Availability 0.79 0.83 0.94
4. Trust 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.89
5. PEOU 0.72 0.72 0.67 0.46 0.96
6. PU 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.59 0.71 0.95
7. Attitude 0.83 0.81 0.76 0.56 0.77 0.80 0.97
8. Intention to use 0.80 0.81 0.73 0.46 0.75 0.80 0.83 0.95
Note. Diagonal: (average variance extracted)1/2 = (Σλi2/n)1/2.

Sub-diagonals: correlation = (shared variance)1/2.
Table 7
Discriminant validity of the constructs (Thailand).
Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2. Mobility 0.43 0.79
4. Trust 0.55 0.34 0.63 0.93
5. PEOU 0.30 0.48 0.37 0.35 0.85
6. PU 0.59 0.25 0.37 0.42 0.33 0.83
7. Attitude 0.55 0.49 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.66 0.84
8. Intention to use 0.44 0.53 0.32 0.27 0.40 0.52 0.67 0.82

9
Table 8
Discriminant validity of the constructs (France).
Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2. Mobility 0.40 0.79
4. Trust 0.30 0.18 0.48 0.87
5. PEOU 0.40 0.42 0.31 0.27 0.78
6. PU 0.68 0.36 0.56 0.32 0.13 0.82
7. Attitude 0.71 0.32 0.47 0.32 0.29 0.69 0.92
8. Intention to use 0.56 0.36 0.41 0.30 0.38 0.54 0.77 0.88

are presented in Figs. 2, 3, and 4). The proposed model and its constructs (PAQ, MB, AV, trust, PEOU, PU, and ATT) explain a
significant percentage of the variance in IU (R2: 70.8% for China, R2: 45.6% for Thailand, and R2: 59.4% for France), providing
overall support for the research model. Furthermore, the research model test shows that eight out of twelve hypotheses are accepted
for China, 6 out of 12 for Thailand, and 7 out of 12 for France, as summarized in Table 9.
4.5. Tests of difference
To identify differences between countries and differences within countries, we used multi-group analysis (MGA) in SmartPLS 3.0.
These complementary analyses show that significant differences exist between France and Thailand in terms of the links between AV
and PEOU (p < .05) and between PEOU and PU (p < .01). Between France and China, two significant differences exist regarding
the PEOU-PU link (p < .01) and the trust-PU link (p < .05). Two t-tests results indicate significant differences between trust and PU
(p < .05) and between PAQ and PEOU (p < .01) in China and Thailand.
Regarding gender, t-tests indicate that significant differences exist in Thailand regarding the influence of MB on PEOU (p < .05),
and the influences of both AV (p < .05) and trust (p < .05) on PU. In France, only one difference was found between PEOU and PU
(p < .05). No differences were found in China, as females were over-represented in the sample.
Finally, regarding age, no significant differences were found in France or China. Nonetheless, t-tests in Thailand show significant
differences between the youngest groups. More precisely, differences were noticed between MB and PU, PAQ and PU, and between
Fig. 2. Test of the research model (China).
10
Fig. 3. Test of the research model (Thailand).
trust and PEOU (all at the p < .05 level) for the 15–25- and 26–35-year-old groups. Two other differences were identified between
the 15–25-year-old and the 36–45-year-old groups regarding the PAQ-PU and trust-PEOU links (p < .05).
5. Discussion and implications
This study aims to investigate the determinants of the intention to use smartwatches in China, Thailand and France. To analyze
this adoption from a cross-cultural perspective, we proposed an analytical framework aggregating TAM elements (PEOU, PU, and
ATT) and determinants (PAQ, MB, AV, and trust). We also focused on recognizing differences across the three countries.
The findings provide initial evidence to answer the research question and the sub-research question. The intention to use
smartwatches is influenced by a specific number of factors that could vary depending the country. Overall, the results show that PAQ,
MB, and trust are positively related to PU and PEOU and that PEOU, PU and ATT influence the intention to use smartwatches
(confirming our adapted TAM as a relevant theory). There are three important findings.
First, we can conclude that IU differed significantly between countries. As presented, the results of difference tests confirm that
users from each country have different perceptions in terms of smartwatch adoption. However, the results also show two important
similarities between the three countries: (1) the strongest path of influence is PAQ – PU – ATT – IoU (Hsiao & Chen, 2018; Wu et al.,
2016), and (2) PAQ and MB are stronger determinants of influence than AV or trust. These results show that some common strategies
could exist. Indeed, as brands become global, users tend to be more uniform.
Second, each country seems to have its own characteristics. In China, our results show that PAQ and MB have the same level of
influence on smartwatch adoption. More importantly, China is the only country in which trust was significantly related to PU. In
Thailand, PAQ is the most important determinant, followed by MB, while neither AV nor trust plays a significant role. Finally, in
France, PAQ influences both PEOU and PU (this is the only country with this result), with MB being a distant second influencer. These
results suggest that it is necessary to have localized strategies that consider unique cultural characteristics in order to increase
consumers' smartwatch adoption.
Third, our study acknowledges the crucial role of PAU as a determinant of smartwatch adoption. Thus, our sub-research question
is answered, and previous research from Hong et al. (2017), Dehghani et al. (2018) and Zhang and Li (2004) is reinforced thanks to
11
Fig. 4. Test of the research model (France).
Table 9
Summary of hypothesis testing.
Hypothesized relationship Path coefficients T-statistic Results Path coefficients T-statistic Results Path coefficients T-statistic Results
China Thailand France
H1: PEOU - PU 0.266⁎⁎ 3.647 Accepted 0.173⁎ 2.208 Accepted 0.237⁎ 2.110 Accepted
H2: PEOU- ATT 0.413⁎⁎⁎ 4.719 Accepted 0.203⁎⁎⁎ 3.668 Accepted 0.197⁎ 1.998 Accepted
H3: PU - ATT 0.515⁎⁎⁎ 6.251 Accepted 0.594⁎⁎⁎ 10.255 Accepted 0.664⁎⁎⁎ 9.374 Accepted
H4: ATT-IoU 0.843⁎⁎⁎ 24.820 Accepted 0.677⁎⁎⁎ 14.760 Accepted 0.775⁎⁎⁎ 18.036 Accepted
H5a: PAQ-PU 0.399⁎⁎⁎ 4.057 Accepted 0.519⁎⁎⁎ 7.358 Accepted 0.625⁎⁎⁎ 6.087 Accepted
H5b: PAQ-PEOU 0.338⁎ 2.414 Accepted 0.015 0.166 Rejected 0.341⁎ 1.996 Accepted
H6a: MOB-PU 0.041 0.443 Rejected -0.111 1.353 Rejected 0.135 1.059 Rejected
H6b: MOB-PEOU 0.358⁎⁎ 2.767 Accepted 0.380⁎⁎⁎ 5.368 Accepted 0.398⁎ 2.253 Accepted
H7a: AVAI-PU 0.109 0.908 Rejected 0.086 1.009 Rejected 0.089 0.564 Rejected
H7b: AVAI-PEOU 0.093 0.796 Rejected 0.118 1.268 Rejected -0.257 1.081 Rejected
H8a: TR-PU 0.142⁎ 2.037 Accepted 0.057 0.722 Rejected 0.134 1.184 Rejected
H8b: TR-PEOU 0.047 0.699 Rejected 0.136 1.373 Rejected 0.224 1.1480 Rejected
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
our results. The relevancy of PAQ in three distinct countries emphasizes the importance of its inclusion in communication strategies
in order to influence future smartwatch users.
This study also provides noteworthy implications for both academics and practitioners in the information systems field. For
academics, the research investigates smartwatch adoption from a cultural perspective. This study is a first attempt to verify the
differences in customers' intention to use smartwatches. Second, it highlights the importance of PAQ as a key determinant, calling for
more research about this construct. Third, it confirms the roles of MB and trust in a less important way. Fourth and finally, because it
was developed and tested in three different countries, the measurement model offered in our research is a reliable one to study
smartwatch adoption.
From a managerial perspective, the results give practitioners insights on how to successfully present their devices in three
12
different countries, using both general strategies and specific communication systems. Indeed, in China, practitioners should focus on
three main criteria: PAQ, MB and trust. In Thailand, they should also focus on PAQ and MB, while differentiating based on the age
and sex of their targets. Young males tend to be more willing to use such technologies. In France, PAQ should be the main focus, with
a real (but small) concern about gender with regard to communication strategies.
Limitations and further research
This study is not free from limitations. By considering the classification of constructs based on Davis (1989), we may have over-
simplified the adoption process. Thus, replications of the study are necessary. Second, measuring cultural sensitivity and cultural
differences on scales rather than adopting a country-only vision is a stronger approach that could be used in future replications of this
research. Finally, future research may choose to evaluate countries other than those examined here.
References
Adapa, A., Nah, F. F. H., Hall, R. H., Siau, K., & Smith, S. N. (2018). Factors influencing the adoption of smart wearable devices. International Journal of
Human–Computer Interaction, 34(5), 399–409.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Aljifri, H. A., Pons, A., & Collins, D. (2003). Global e-commerce: A framework for understanding and overcoming the trust barrier. Information Management and
Computer Security, 11(3), 130–138.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Baumard, P., Donada, C., Ibert, J., & Xuereb, J. M. (2007). La collecte de données et la gestion de leurs sources. Méthodes de Recherche en Management, 228–262.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In R. W. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Vol. Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: . Vol. 8.
Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Charlton, P., & Poslad, S. (2016). “A sharable wearable maker community IoT application”, 12th International Conference on intelligent environments. Proceedings of
the IEEE.
Choi, J., & 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, 63, 777–786.
Chuah, S., Rauschnabel, P., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 276–284.
Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2008). An exploration of technology diffusion. SSRN Electronic Journalhttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1116606.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dehghani, M., Kim, K. J., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology. Telematics and
Informatics, 35(2), 480–490.
Demir, E. B. K., Demir, K., Odabaşı, S., & Odabaşı, F. (2016). A challenge for higher education: Wearable technology for fashion design departments. World Journal on
Educational Technology, 8(1), 69–77.
Digital Journal (2017). Global smartwatch market 2018 – Industry analysis, size, share. Strategies and Forecast to 2022. Available at: http://www.digitaljournal.com/
pr/3640401, Accessed date: 18 May 2018.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dutot, V. (2015). Factors influencing near field communication (NFC) adoption: An extended TAM approach. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,
26(1), 45–57.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research (1st ed.). Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley etc.
Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M., & Torres, E. (2006). How bricks-and-mortar attributes affect online banking adoption. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24(6),
406–423.
Fornell, P. H., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 33(3), 38–53.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Inexperience and experience with online stores: The importance of tam and trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 50(3), 307–321.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 4(7), 1–76.
Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) an emerging tool in business
research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
Harding, T., Mayhew, M., Finelli, C., & Carpenter, D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities
undergraduates. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 255–279.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440–465.
Hong, J. C., Lin, P. H., & Hsieh, P. C. (2017). The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch. Computers in
Human Behavior, 67, 264–272.
Hsiao, K. L. (2016). What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing apple and non-apple watches. Library Hi Tech, 35(1), 186–206.
Hsiao, K. L., & Chen, C. C. (2018). What drives smartwatch purchase intention? Perspectives from hardware, software, design, and value. Telematics and Informatics,
35(1), 103–113.
Hsu, C., Lin, Y. T., & Wang, T. (2015). A legitimacy challenge of a cross-cultural interorganizational information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(3),
278–294.
Huang, J. H., Lin, Y. R., & Chuang, S. T. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning. Electronic Library, 25(5), 585–598.
Joo, J., & Sang, Y. (2013). Exploring Koreans' smartphone usage: An integrated model of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2512–2518.
Khakurel, J., Melkas, H., & Porras, J. (2018). Tapping into the wearable device revolution in the work environment: A systematic review. Information Technology &
People, 31(3), 791–818.
Kim, K., & Shin, J. (2015). An acceptance model for smart watches implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 25(4), 527–541.
Kim, K., & Sundar, S. (2014). Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and Social Networking, 17(7), 466–473.
Kim, K. J. (2016). Round or square? How screen shape affects utilitarian and hedonic motivations for smartwatch adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
13
Networking, 19(12), 733–739.

Kissonergis, P. (2015). Smartphone ownership, usage and penetration by country. http://thehub.smsglobal.com/smartphone-ownership-usage-and-penetration (consulted
march, 5th, 2017).
Lee, J., Kim, D., Ryoo, H. Y., & Shin, B. S. (2016). Sustainable wearables: wearable technology for enhancing the quality of human life. Sustainability, 8(5), 466–482.
Leesa-Nguansuk, S. (2017). Cisco: Thailand adopting systems at middling speed. Available at: https://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/local-news/1364839/cisco-thailand-
adopting-systems-at-middling-speed, Accessed date: 20 May 2018.
Liu, C., Marchewka, J. T., Lu, J., & Yu, C. S. (2005). Beyond concern—A privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information and Management,
42(2), 289–304.
Liu, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Exploring the impact of use context on mobile hedonic services adoption: An empirical study on mobile gaming in China. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(2), 890–898.
Llieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361–376.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3),
173–191.
Md Nor, K., Barbuta-Misu, N., & Stroe, R. (2011). A model for analysing the determinant factors of adoption e-banking services by Romanian customers. Academic
Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 45(4), 1–18.
Pantelopoulos, A., & Bourbakis, N. G. (2010). A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics Part C (Applications and Reviews), 40(1), 1–12.
Paribas, B. N. P. (2013). France lagging behind in consumer ICT adoption. Available at: https://atelier.bnpparibas/en/smart-city/article/france-lagging-consumer-ict-
adoption, Accessed date: 16 May 2018.
Park, E., & 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, 31(3), 376–385.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly,
30(1), 115–143.
Perez, B. (2016). Smartwatch market hits record 211 million sales. http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2067481/smartwatch-market-hits-record-211-million-sales-
2016-apple-pulls-ahead-samsung (consulted, June 1st, 2017).
Pitt, L., Kietzmann, J., Robson, K., Plangger, K., Treen, E., Paschen, J., & Hannah, D. (2017). Understanding the opportunities and challenges of wearable technology.
Creating marketing magic and innovative future marketing trends (pp. 139–141). Springer.
Reid, M., & Yair, L. (2008). Integrating trust and computer self-efficacy with TAM: An empirical assessment of customers' acceptance of banking information systems
(BIS) in Jamaica. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(3), 1–18.
Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311–322.
Sanakulov, N., & Karjaluoto, H. (2015). Consumer adoption of mobile technologies: A literature review. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 13(3),
244–275.
Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). WebCT– The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending technology acceptance mode. Computers and
Education, 54(1), 37–46.
Seppälä, P., & Alamäki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 330–335.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (1st ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sheppard, B., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.
Shin, D. (2007). User acceptance of mobile internet: Implication for convergence technologies. Interacting with Computers, 19(4), 472–483.
Shin, D. (2012). What makes consumers use VoIP over mobile phones? Free riding or consumerization of new service. Telecommunications Policy, 36(4), 311–323.
Srivastava, S., Chandra, S., & Theng, Y. (2010). Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption of mobile payment systems: An empirical analysis. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, 27, 561–588.
Statista (2018a). Wearables, China. Available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/319/117/wearables/china, Accessed date: 12 May 2018.
Statista (2018b). Wearables, France. Available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/319/136/wearables/france, Accessed date: 12 May 2018.
Statista (2018c). Wearables, Thailand. Available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/319/126/wearables/thailand, Accessed date: 12 May 2018.
Stone, T., Jawahar, I., & Kisamore, J. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. Career Development
International, 14(3), 221–241.
Straub, E. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M., & Serrano, A. (2016). Extending the UTAUT model to understand the customers' acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon: A
structural equation modeling approach. Information Technology & People, 29(4), 830–849.
Tarran, B. (2010). Respondent engagement and survey length: The long and the short of it. Researchlive. Retrieved from https://www.research-live.com/article/news/
respondent-engagement-and-survey-length-the-long-and-the-short-of-it/id/4002430.
Tochen, D. (2016). Wearable devices adoption poised to hit the mainstream. YouGov: What the world thinks. Retrieved 12 March 2017, from https://today.yougov.com/
news/2016/08/15/wearable-devices-adoption-poised-growth-despite-la/.
Vehovar, V., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2008). Overview: Online surveys. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp.
177–194). London: SAGE (978-1-4129-2293-7).
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category
labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247.
Wilson, E. V., & Lankton, N. K. (2004). Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(4),
241–248.
Wilson, S. (2015). Wearables market to be worth $25 billion by 2019. CSS Insight Reporthttp://www.ccsinsight.com/images/images/CCSInsight_Wearables_forecast_
August2015.pdf (consulted June 1st, 2017).
Wu, J., & Wang, S. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? Information and Management, 42(5), 719–729.
Wu, L. H., Wu, L. C., & Chang, S. H. (2016). Exploring consumers' intention to accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383–392.
Zhang, P., & Li, N. (2004). Love at first sight or sustained effect? The role of perceived affective quality on Users' cognitive reactions to information technology. ICIS
Proceedings, Paper, 22.
Zhang, P., & Li, N. (2005). The importance of affective quality. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 105–108.
Zhang, P., Li, N., & Sun, H. (2006). Affective quality and cognitive absorption: Extending technology acceptance research. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 8.
14

Applying The Technology Acceptance Model in A Three-Countries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applying The Technology Acceptance Model in A Three-Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of High Technology Management Research 30 (2019) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of High Technology Management Research

Applying the technology acceptance model in a three-countries

Available online 20 February 2019

2.1. Smartwatch adoption in China, France, and Thailand

2.2. The ﬁrst adoption models

2.3. The smartwatch technology context

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

3.1. Data collection

3.1.2. Data collection

3.3. Descriptive statistics

4.1. Choice of statistical analysis for path models

Sex Male 33 26.6% 135 65.5% 82 70.6%

4.2. Assessment of construct validity

4.3. Assessment of the measurement model

4.4. Assessment of the structural model

1. Perceived aﬀective quality 0.88

Note. Diagonal: (average variance extracted)1/2 = (Σλi2/n)1/2.

1. Perceived aﬀective quality 0.73

Note. Diagonal: (average variance extracted)1/2 = (Σλi2/n)1/2.

1. Perceived aﬀective quality 0.76

Note. Diagonal: (average variance extracted)1/2 = (Σλi2/n)1/2.

4.5. Tests of diﬀerence

Fig. 2. Test of the research model (China).

Fig. 3. Test of the research model (Thailand).

5. Discussion and implications

Fig. 4. Test of the research model (France).

Limitations and further research

Networking, 19(12), 733–739.

You might also like