Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Social Acceptability and Product Attributes of Smart Apparel: Their Effects On Consumers' Attitude and Use Intention
Social Acceptability and Product Attributes of Smart Apparel: Their Effects On Consumers' Attitude and Use Intention
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
Article views: 51
RESEARCH ARTICLE
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 Social acceptability is one of the important determinants
devices introduced by Kelly (2016). The major concepts of consumers’ adoption of wearable technology (Kelly,
from these frameworks were used for developing a proposed 2016). Lee (2016) addressed the positive influence of social
research model, which was used to examine the influence of acceptability of smart bikewear on consumers’ attitudes
social acceptability along with functional, aesthetic, expres- toward its use. Nam and Lee (2020) reassured the import-
sive, and tracking attributes on consumers’ attitude and ance of social acceptability when using smart apparel and
intention of using smart apparel. suggested future researchers conduct further research using
this concept relating to other consumer behavioral concepts
and product attributes. Hypotheses linking social acceptabil-
Social acceptability of smart apparel ity with product attributes and other key variables used in
Social acceptability is recognized as one of the most distinct- this study were presented under the relevant sections below.
ive challenges of smart apparel because of coexisting fashion
and technology within the product (Wasik, 2014). The inte- Functional attributes
gration of fashion and technology in smart apparel can cre-
ate a new type of self-identity consisting of aesthetic, Functionality, referring to the physical comfort and utilitarian
functional, and expressive elements (Wasik, 2014). Smart aspects of the apparel (Lamb & Kallal, 1992), is one of the
apparel is not socially acceptable if it is negatively disrup- most important attributes of wearables technology. Physical
tive, is perceived as annoying, confounds ordinary human comfort defines as “a mental state of physical well-being
interaction, and/or runs against social norms (Baraniuk, expressive of satisfaction with physical attributes of a garment
2015; Ogle et al., 2013; Rogers, 2003). such as air, moisture, heat transfer properties, and mechanical
Social acceptability construct, named as the wearable properties such as elasticity, flexibility, bulk, weight, texture,
acceptability range (WEAR) scale, was developed and intro- and construction” (Sontag, 1985, p.10). Previous studies
duced by Kelly (2016). Her WEAR Scale was originally con- reported the significant effect of functional attributes on con-
structed based on statements derived from relevant sumers’ perceptions of using wearable devices (Buenaflor &
Kim, 2013; Salahuddin & Romeo, 2020), their adoption atti-
literature, expert reviews, and consumer interviews, reflect-
tude (Rauschnabel et al., 2015), and purchase intention of
ing the fundamentals of several theories (i.e. technology
smart apparel (Hwang et al., 2016; Lee, 2016). Bakhshian and
acceptance model (Davis, 1989), theory of planned behavior
Lee (2019) reported a significant positive influence of func-
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The scale originally included mul-
tional attributes of wearables on consumers’ perception of pur-
tiple dimensions with 97 items (i.e. aesthetics/design, avail-
chasing wearables. Hwang et al. (2016) also reported the
able/ordinary, consequences, ergonomics, functionality,
positive significant influence of functional attributes on con-
judgment, norms, others’ reactions, others’ thoughts, self-
sumers’ attitude and purchase intention of solar-powered
identity, qualities of the device or the wearer). After two
clothing. Limited study is available to examine the potential
rounds of expert reviews, 49 items were confirmed for the relationship among functional attributes of smart apparel and
further use. Kelly’s final scale contained 14 items and was its social acceptability. Based on previous findings, the follow-
validated for the use of wearable devices (Apple watch, ing hypotheses were proposed:
Google glasses, and Bluetooth headsets). No items in this
14-item scale were related to aesthetics or functional attrib- Hypothesis 1a. Functional attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
utes which are important features of smart apparel. Thus, in
this study, we started with the 49 items of the WEAR scale, Hypothesis 1b. Functional attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
revalidated this scale with the use of smart apparel, and
used the validated scale to examine the influences of differ- Hypothesis 1c. Functional attributes of smart apparel positively
ent product attributes (functional, expressive, aesthetic, and influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
tracking) on social acceptability and its influence on con-
sumers’ adoption of smart apparel.
Narayanaswami and Raghunath (2002) argued that social Expressive attributes
acceptability is a critical component for designers and prod- Expressive aspects are considered as one of the important
uct developers to be considered when developing wearables. clothing attributes (Stokes & Black, 2012), which refer to
The technological aspects of smart apparel need to convey a the symbolic and communicative aspects of clothing and
wearer’s personal message while simultaneously being fash- basically associate with its psychological and social-cultural
ionable (Wasik, 2014). Thus, it is crucial that designers aspects (Lamb & Kallal, 1992, p.43). Few studies addressed
understand the interrelationship of symbolic aspects of the influence of expressive attributes on consumers’ adop-
wearables for users along with their social acceptability tions of wearables (Bakhshian & Lee, 2019; Hwang et al.,
(Dunne et al., 2014). To clarify the importance of consider- 2016; Lee, 2016). Bakhshian and Lee (2019) found the
ing this dynamic interrelationship, Profita et al. (2013) rec- importance of expressive attributes, along with functional,
ommended that designers avoid placing wearable devices on aesthetic, and tracking dimensions when predicting consum-
the suggestive part of the body since users may feel embar- ers’ attitude and intention of using wearables. There is still
rassed or awkward. lack of studies to address the possible influence of expressive
THE JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE 3
attributes of smart apparel on its social acceptability. Thus, To date, limited research is available to investigate the
in this study, the following hypotheses were postulated: influence of tracking attributes on consumers’ adoption of
Hypothesis 2a. Expressive attributes of smart apparel positively
using wearables. Koo (2017) explained that individuals who
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel. use wearables for tracking their physical conditions and
gaining a healthier lifestyle mostly consider wearables as
Hypothesis 2b. Expressive attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
easy to use and useful products. Bakhshian and Lee (2019)
reported the positive significant influence of tracking attrib-
Hypothesis 2c. Expressive attributes of smart apparel positively utes along with functional, aesthetic, and aesthetic dimen-
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
sions, on consumers’ perception of using wearables. There is
still a lack of research to reassure the influence of tracking
Aesthetic attributes attributes on consumers’ attitude and intention of using
smart apparel and its social acceptability. Thus, the follow-
Wearable technology can be considered as fashion items, so ing hypotheses were proposed:
consumers tend to select and purchase them based on its aes-
Hypothesis 4a. Tracking attributes of smart apparel positively
thetic criteria such as color, design, shape, and texture and influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
these high-tech products can be a means of visual communica-
Hypothesis 4b. Tracking attributes of smart apparel positively
tion (Chattaraman & Rudd, 2006; Coorevits & Coenen, 2016;
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
Page, 2015). It is crucial to consider aesthetic attributes as one
of the main determinants of consumers’ decision making Hypothesis 4c. Tracking attributes of smart apparel positively
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
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 Social acceptability, attitude, and intention towards
attributes on consumers’ adoption of wearable technology using smart apparel
(e.g. Dehghani et al., 2018) as well as smart clothing (e.g. Attitude refers to an individual’s favorable or unfavorable
Bakhshian & Lee, 2020). Hwang et al. (2016) reported the reaction to their surrounded environment which is exhibited
positive influence of aesthetic attributes of smart solar- in their beliefs, feeling, or behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein,
power jacket on consumers’ attitude and purchase intention. 1980). Intention defines as the willingness to perform or not
This finding was assured by the findings from Lee’s Lee to perform a behavior expected by attitude (Ajzen &
(2016) study using smart bike jacket. Bakhshian and Lee Fishbein, 1980). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) provided a
(2019) also reported aesthetic attributes as one of the deter- more specific definition of attitude and intention of using
minants that positively influences consumers’ attitude and new technology. They defined attitude as any negative or
intention of using wearables. The potential influence of aes- positive individual’s feeling towards applying new technol-
thetic attributes of smart apparel on its social acceptability ogy and intention as an individual’s conscious plan about
has not been fully examined by previous studies. Thus, the doing or not doing a specific behavior in the future
following hypotheses were proposed: (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Lederer et al. (2000) described
Hypothesis 3a. Aesthetic attributes of smart apparel positively attitude as a determinant to evaluate an individual’s desir-
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel. ability of using new technology.
Numerous studies reported the significant positive influ-
Hypothesis 3b. Aesthetic attributes of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel. ence of attitude on consumers’ intention of using wearable
technology (e.g. Bakhshian & Lee, 2019; Kim & Shin, 2015;
Hypothesis 3c. Aesthetic attributes of smart apparel positively
Koo, 2017; Rauschnabel et al., 2017; Rauschnabel & Ro,
influence social acceptability of smart apparel.
2016). The significant influence of attitude on consumers’
intention of purchasing smart apparel is also reported in the
Tracking attributes studies by Chae (2010), Hwang et al. (2016), Lee (2016),
and Turhan (2013). The positive influence of social accept-
Tracking attributes of wearables make consumers be able to
ability on consumers’ attitude of using smart apparel was
track their fitness, mental (e.g. sleep pattern), and physical con-
proved by Lee (2016); however, limited research has been
dition (e.g. heart rate) (Koo et al., 2018). This tracking ability
done to examine the potential influence of social acceptabil-
distinguishes wearable technology-embedded products from
ity on consumers’ intention of using smart apparel. Based
other devices in the market. There are number of studies
on the previous findings, we proposed the follow-
which considered tracking attributes of wearables as an exter-
ing hypothesis:
nal factor which impact perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use (Gao et al., 2015; Koo, 2017). Although the effect Hypothesis 5a. Social acceptability of smart apparel positively
influence consumers’ attitude towards smart apparel.
of tracking attributes on perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness has been investigated for some types of wearables, Hypothesis 5b. Social acceptability of smart apparel positively
limited research is available on examining relationships among influence consumers’ intention of using smart apparel.
tracking attributes, consumers’ social acceptability, attitude, Hypothesis 6. Attitude towards smart apparel positively affects
and intention towards using wearables. intention of using smart apparel.
4 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
Method from Kim and Shin (2015) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000),
respectively. Functional, expressive, and aesthetic attributes,
A quantitative research methodology was employed for this
consisting of seven items for each construct, were derived
study. University’s Institutional Review Board approval was
from Chae (2010). Four items of tracking dimension were
obtained before the data collection.
adopted from Koo and Fallon (2017).
Exploratory factor analysis results of social ergonomics (.90). Factor loadings of all 15 items were above
acceptability measure .70, which is within the range of the acceptable and good
cut-off value (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
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- Measurement model testing results
struct of social acceptability of smart apparel, or whether
multiple constructs underlie it. A total of 11 factors, includ- To test the construct validity, the proposed model shown in
ing 49 items with Cronbach’s a of .94 for the extended Figure 1, consisting of the seven constructs (15-item social
WEAR Scale, were initially structured and evaluated by the acceptability including 3-item of design/aesthetics, 5-item of
following criteria: Kaiser’s criterion, eigenvalue above 1, and norms, others’ thoughts, and reactions, and 7-item of conse-
factor loadings above .70 (Matsunaga, 2010). Among the 49 quences, judgement, and ergonomics; 7-item functional; 7-
items, EFA resulted in eliminating 34 items with a factor item expressive; 7-item aesthetic; 4-item tracking; 4-item
loading lower than .70 (Matsunaga, 2010), which yielded a attitude, and 3-item intention), was tested through CFA
three-factor, 15-item WEAR Scale (see Table 2). using the ML estimation method. The final measurement
As shown in Table 2, a three-factor component with each model with 35-item seven constructs resulted in an accept-
Cronbach’s a value consists of 15 items: (a) 3 items regard- able model fit: v2 (839) ¼ 1946.51, p < .001, TLI of .91,
ing aesthetic attributes of smart apparel (.93); (b) 5 items CFI of .92, RMSEA of .06, and SRMR of .06 (Hair et al.,
derived from norms, others’ thoughts, and reactions (.91); 2010) after deleting the following 12 items (3 items of
and (c) 7 items derived from consequence, judgment, and expressive, 1 item of aesthetic, and 8 items of social
6 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
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- was higher than its correlations with any other construct at
relations all over .30 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). p < .01. As shown in Table 4, the AVE for all constructs
Standardized factor loadings ranged from .61 to .96 (see were higher than cut off value of .50 (Fornell &
Table 1). This re-specification of the measurement model Larcker, 1981).
was based on the theoretical grounds while considering the
values of standardized factor loading, standardized residuals,
Structural model and hypothesis testing results
item correlation, and modification indices (Hair et al., 2010;
Kline, 2005). Table 3 presents the improvement in fit from SEM was performed to test the research hypotheses (H1-
the initial measurement model to the final measurement H6). The results of SEM showed v2 of 1946.51 (df ¼ 839, p
model along with the recommended fit values by Hu and < .001), TLI of .91, CFI of .92, RMSEA of .06, and SRMR
Bentler (1999). of .06, confirming an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler,
As shown in Table 1, Cronbach’s a values were all higher 1999). The value of R2 proved the adequate model fit of the
than .70 (Hair et al., 2010), ranging from .88 to .97. proposed model of this study, where 71% of consumers’
Convergent validity and internal consistency were also satis- intention of using smart apparel was explained by the fol-
fied (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity of each con- lowing determinants: functional, expressive, tracking, social
struct was tested using the average variance extracted (AVE) acceptability, and attitude. The results also revealed that
and ranged from .68 to .81. The AVE for each construct 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.
explained by their determinants including functional, as aesthetic characteristics of smart apparel may not play a
expressive, and tracking attributes. Figure 1 presents the significant role on predicting consumers’ attitude, intention,
overall research model and structural path testing results of and social acceptance of its use.
this study. H4 was fully supported. Tracking attributes of smart
As shown in Figure 1, SEM analysis supported the fol- apparel have a strong positive influence on social acceptability,
lowing ten hypotheses: H1c, H2a, H2b, H2c, H4a, H4b, attitude, and intention of using smart apparel (b ¼ .101, p <
H4c, H5a, H5b, and H6. The rest of hypotheses (H1a, H1b, .05; b ¼ .155, p < .001; and b ¼ .170, p < .001, respectively),
H3a, H3b, and H3c) were not supported. H1 was partially which align with previous research findings about the positive
supported. No significant influence of functional attributes influence of tracking dimension on consumers’ attitude and
on consumers’ attitudes was found (H1a; b ¼ .025, p ¼ intention of using wearables (Bakhshian & Lee, 2019; Hwang
.639), which aligns with Hwang et al. (2016) finding. H1b et al., 2016; Lee, 2016). The outcome of this study demon-
was not supported, demonstrating the negative influence of strates the positive significant influence of tracking dimension
functional attributes on consumers’ intention of using smart on social acceptability, which has not been reported before.
clothing (b ¼ .202, p < .01). This result may be related The potential interpretation of this result can originate in the
with the participants’ limited experience of smart apparel nature of tracking attributes of smart apparel. When it comes
use; around 60% of the participants had experience of using to using smart apparel by individuals, it is not just about wear-
wearable devices such as smartwatch but only 25% had ing it as a usual piece of garments, but it is more about
experience of using smart apparel. Lack of experience of actively engaging with their clothing through using tracking
using smart apparel might potentially impact individuals’ options. Thus, we may interpret as the more tracking features
perceptions and evaluations regarding functionality aspects smart apparel has, the more social acceptability it can receive
of such products. H1c was supported, demonstrating the from the public.
positive influence of functional attributes of smart apparel H5 was fully supported. Social acceptability has positive sig-
on its social acceptability (b ¼ .156, p < .05). nificant influence on both consumers’ attitude (H5a; b ¼ .847,
H2 was fully supported. Expressive attributes of smart p < .001) and intention of using smart apparel (H5b; b ¼
apparel have a positive significant influence on social .717, p < .001). The results were partially aligned with Lee’s
acceptability, attitude, and intention of using smart apparel (2016) finding, where she reported the positive significant effect
(b ¼ .363, p < .001; b ¼ .081, p < .05; and b ¼ .144, p < of social acceptability on consumers’ attitude of using smart
.01, respectively). This result demonstrates that the symbolic apparel. It can be interpreted as consumers naturally have
and psychological aspect of smart apparel, which reflects the more favorable attitude and intention towards using smart
wearer’s self-image and identity to others, can be a signifi- apparel when they get confirmation from their surrounded peo-
cant determinant of consumers’ social acceptability, attitude ple through accepting smart apparel they wear. H6, proposing
and use intention of smart apparel. None of H3a, H3b, and the positive influence of consumers’ attitude on their intention
H3c were supported, demonstrating no influence of aes- of using smart apparel, was also supported (b ¼ .021, p <
thetic attributes on attitude (b ¼ .082, p ¼ .144), social .001). This result is well aligned with the previous study find-
acceptability (b ¼ .106, p ¼ .230), and intention of using ings in terms of using wearables (Bakhshian & Lee, 2019;
smart apparel (b ¼ .114, p ¼ .069). This can be interpreted Hwang et al., 2016; Kim & Shin, 2015; Koo, 2017; Lee, 2016).
8 S. BAKHSHIAN AND Y.-A. LEE
Park, S., Griffin, A., & Gill, D. (2012). Working with words: Exploring newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analysis-
textual analysis in medical education research. Medical Education, on-the-worlds-smart-clothing-market-2019-2024–-high-cost-of-pro-
46(4), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04184.x ducts–technical-complications-hamper-growth-potential-300964477.
Profita, H. P., Clawson, J., Gilliland, S., Zeagler, C., Starner, T., Budd, html
J., & Do, E. Y. L. (2013). Don’t mind me touching my wrist: A case Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press.
study of interacting with on-body technology in public < SE-END> Salahuddin, M., & Romeo, L. (2020). Wearable technology: Are prod-
[Paper presentation].</SE-END>Proceedings from the 17th uct developers meeting consumer’s needs? International Journal of
International Symposium on Wearable Computers’ 2013,. ACM Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 13(1), 58–67. https://doi.
Digital Library. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2493988.2494331 org/10.1080/17543266.2020.1723713
https://doi.org/10.1145/2493988.2494331 Sontag, M. S. (1985). Comfort dimensions of actual and ideal insulative
Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., & Ivens, B. S. (2015). Who will buy clothing for older women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on 4(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X8500400102
the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adop- Stokes, B., & Black, C. (2012). Application of the functional, expressive
tion of Google Glass wearables. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, and aesthetic consumer needs model: Assessing the clothing needs
635–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.003 of adolescent girls with disabilities. International Journal of Fashion
Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart Design, Technology and Education, 5(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.
glasses: An investigation of technology acceptance drivers. 1080/17543266.2012.700735
International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2), 123–148. Turhan, G. (2013). An assessment towards the acceptance of wearable
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2016.075690 technology to consumers in Turkey: The application to smart bra
Rauschnabel, P. A., Rossmann, A., & Tom Dieck, M. C. (2017). An and t-shirt products. Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(4),
adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2012.736191
of Pokemon Go. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 276–286. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.030 technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Research and Markets (2019). November 26). Analysis on the Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.
world’s smart clothing market 2019-2024 - high cost of products 46.2.186.11926
& technical complications hamper growth potential. PR Wasik, B. (2014). Try It on. Wired, 22(01), 90–99.