Internet Research

How functional and emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption: The moderating
role of consumer innovativeness and extraversion
Nina Krey, Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah, T. Ramayah, Philipp A. Rauschnabel,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nina Krey, Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah, T. Ramayah, Philipp A. Rauschnabel, (2019) "How functional
and emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption: The moderating role of consumer innovativeness and
extraversion", Internet Research, [Link]
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

[Link]
Downloaded on: 26 February 2019, At: 08:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 96 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@[Link]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:191537 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit [Link]/authors for more information.
About Emerald [Link]
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

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

Smartwatch
How functional and emotional ads adoption
drive smartwatch adoption
The moderating role of consumer
innovativeness and extraversion
Nina Krey Received 30 December 2017
Rohrer College of Business, Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey, USA Revised 23 April 2018
16 June 2018
Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah and T. Ramayah 6 September 2018
Accepted 8 September 2018
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia, and
Philipp A. Rauschnabel
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

College of Business, Universitat der Bundeswehr München,

Neubiberg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine advertising strategies’ (functional vs emotional) influence
on consumers’ evaluation and adoption of smartwatches by drawing on the elaboration likelihood model and
the schema incongruity theory. Moderating effects of consumer characteristics (personal innovativeness and
extraversion) on the value assessment and attitude relationship are also tested.
Design/methodology/approach – The model was assessed using partial least squares-structural equation
modeling with a sample of 999 non-smartwatch users.
Findings – Results show that functional ads elicit higher levels of hedonic than functional (usefulness) and
ergonomic values (ease of use), whereas emotional ads produce higher levels of functional (usefulness) in
comparison to hedonic value (enjoyment). Collectively, functional, ergonomic, hedonic and symbolic values
shape consumers’ attitude and their subsequent behavior. In addition, findings demonstrate that extraversion
positively moderates the symbolic value–attitude relationship, whereas personal innovativeness negatively
moderates the functional value–attitude relationship.
Originality/value – Smartwatch sales have floundered despite substantial investments in ad campaigns. This
study provides novel insights into managing non-users’ value perceptions of smartwatches with the optimal use of
ad strategies. Furthermore, it is also one of the first studies to validate the moderating role of extraversion on the
symbolic value–attitude link, thus contributing to the emerging literature on wearable technology.
Keywords Technology adoption, ELM, Wearable technology, Consumer innovativeness, Extraversion,
Smartwatch, Advertising strategy, Fashnology
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Smartwatch manufacturers are failing to convey the benefits of their products in their marketing
and communications. (Woody Scal, former Chief Revenue Officer of Fitbit, Inc.)
Wearable technologies, the converging point of the Internet of Things and quantifiable self, are
poised to become “the next big thing” that will revolutionize the way we live (Cecchinato et al.,
2015). Examples of wearable devices include smartwatches, smart clothing and smart glasses,
among others (Chuah et al., 2016). Recent polls by Tractica (2017) forecast continuous growth
for wearable devices at a compound annual growth rate of 24.1 percent from 118m units in
2016 to 430m units by 2022. Smartwatches – i.e. computerized wristwatches – are expected to
dominate the wearable device market, followed by fitness trackers and body sensors.

The authors are indebted to the anonymous reviewers and guest editors for their fruitful comments Internet Research
and suggestions. The authors would also like to express great appreciation to Yide Liu and Mostafa © Emerald Publishing Limited
1066-2243
Rasoolimanesh for their help and inspiration. DOI 10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0534
 INTR Smartwatches fulfill multiple functions beyond time telling (Chuah et al., 2016), allowing users
not only to check and to respond to notifications but also to use applications for health and
fitness monitoring (Hong et al., 2017).
Despite analysts’ optimistic smartwatch adoption forecasts, skepticism prevails as
evident in recent smartwatch shipment drops by 51 percent to 2.7m units from 2015 to
2016 (IDC, 2016; Jung et al., 2016). Indeed, smartwatch market penetration faces challenges
in adopting existing strategies commonly applied to new technology products, ranging
from aggressive pricing, bundling, product differentiation, to advertising (Gong, 2017).
Especially the lack of appropriate ad strategies can erroneously position smartwatches
among consumers as unnecessary luxury accessories rather than value-added, cutting-
edge devices (Passary, 2016). This “lack of something special” perception fosters adoption
resistance; for example, Samsung’s Galaxy Gear smartwatch performed short of
expectations despite heavy promotional campaigns. Apart of limited functionality and
bulky design, Samsung’s challenges relate to poor product launch ad strategy criticized by
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

many reviewers as not effectively communicating superior value to potential users

(Kleinman, 2013; Reed, 2013).
Smartwatches embody elements of IT innovation and fashion, a unique blend of
fashnology (Choi and Kim, 2016; Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Due to this fashnology nature,
adoption of smartwatches hinges not only on technological functions but also on design
aesthetics (Adapa et al., 2018; Choi and Kim, 2016); thus, necessitating distinctive product
positioning and strategies to revive the smartwatch market (Rauschnabel et al., 2016).
However, prior research has not provided sufficient guidance on creating effective ad
strategies for wearable technologies as evident by the previously discussed poor
market performance of these devices. Furthermore, an emerging stream of research has
questioned the applicability of established theories – such as the technology acceptance
model (TAM) – to wearable technologies since these fail to capture unique facets of this
device. Instead, to fully capture characteristics of wearables, these scholars propose hybrid
frameworks grounded in technology acceptance and social psychology literatures that
highlight the importance of both technology (e.g. functional, ergonomic and hedonic values)
and fashion attributes (e.g. symbolic value) in stimulating adoption intention (e.g. Adapa
et al., 2018; Choi and Kim, 2016; Chuah et al., 2016; Rauschnabel et al., 2016).
The current study follows this research stream and suggested theoretical approach by
merging established technology acceptance frameworks with new theoretical premises
grounded in ad research – elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986)
and schema incongruity theory (Mandler, 1982). The new model of smartwatch adoption
positions functional and emotional ad strategies as antecedents to value assessment
(functional, ergonomic, hedonic and symbolic) that drive attitude toward using and
ultimately adoption intention of smartwatches. Furthermore, consumer innovativeness and
extraversion are proposed moderators; two characteristics that tech-savvy fashionistas
possess and have yet to be assessed within the smartwatch adoption and ad exposure
context (Chae, 2009; Rauschnabel and Ro, 2016; Rauschnabel et al., 2015). This model is
tested using partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and thus
addresses the special issue topic by incorporating an original perspective in smartwatch
adoption behavior while merging technology acceptance research and ad strategies. By
doing so, the current study responds to two theoretically and managerially relevant gaps
(see Table I): first, while prior research examines favorable user attitude for wearable
technologies, effective ad strategies’ influence on consumers’ evaluation of smartwatches
remains unknown; second, most studies implicitly assume that all consumers react similarly
to wearable technologies and neglect individual variations.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, an extensive literature review
provides the foundation of our conceptual model. Next, we provide an overview of the
 Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Functional/ Symbolic/
Research Managerial ergonomic Hedonic aesthetic
Study Technology Main theory design factors factors factors factors Moderators Key findings

Adapa et al. SW TAM n ¼ 25 (USA), – Functionality – Look-and-feel – ARGS: look-and-feel is the most
(2018) ARSG UTAUT laddering Image mentioned factor for adoption.
technique SW: availability of fitness apps is
the deciding factor
Canhoto and HFWD – n ¼ 20 – Utilitarian Hedonic – – Adoption intention: technology
Arp (2017) (Germany), benefits benefits features that signal a device’s
focus group ability to satisfy utilitarian and
hedonic needs are crucial.
Sustained use: device portability
and resilience are important
Chae (2009) OWD TAM n ¼ 815 – Usefulness – – Technology Consumers with high technology
(South Korea), Ease of use innovation and fashion innovation perceive
SEM fashion smart clothes as easy to use and
innovation useful
Choi and Kim SW TAM n ¼ 562 – Usefulness Enjoyment Self- – Intention to use: both utilitarian
(2016) (South Korea), Ease of use expressiveness and non-utilitarian factors.
SEM Fashion attributes: an
individual’s desire for
uniqueness
Chuah et al. SW TAM n ¼ 226 – Usefulness – Visibility – Adoption intention: Perceived
(2016) (Malaysia), Ease of use usefulness and visibility
SEM
Dehghani SW TAM n ¼ 326 – Usefulness – Fashnology – Continuance intention: perceived
(2018) UTAUT (USA), Ease of use usefulness, ease of use, enabling
nethnography technologies, functionality,
compatibility, fashnology,
healthtology, and
complementary goods
Gao et al. HFWD UTAUT2 n ¼ 462 – Performance Hedonic – Product type Adoption decision: technology,
(2015) (China), SEM expectancy motivation health, and privacy-related
factors. Effects vary across

(continued )
Smartwatch
adoption

technology research
Table I.
Prior wearable
 Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

INTR

Table I.
Functional/ Symbolic/
Research Managerial ergonomic Hedonic aesthetic
Study Technology Main theory design factors factors factors factors Moderators Key findings

wearable types (fitness vs

medical)
Hong et al. SW TAM n ¼ 276 – Utilitarian Hedonic – – Continuance intention: value
(2017) IDT (Taiwan), value value perceptions (hedonic and
SEM utilitarian), influenced by
consumer innovativeness
Hsiao (2017) SW Task n ¼ 341 – Relative – Design – Relative advantage: strongest
technology fit (Taiwan), advantage esthetics impact on adoption intention.
IDT SEM Antecedents of Apple SWs and
non-Apple SWs impacts the
relationships
Hwang et al. OWD TAM n ¼ 720 – Usefulness – Esthetic – Perceived compatibility and
(2016) (USA), SEM Ease of use attributes comfort determine the
Comfort usefulness, ease of use, and
performance risk of smart
clothing. Perceived performance
risk, esthetic attributes, and
environmental concern
significantly affect consumers’
attitudes toward smart clothing
Jeong et al. WD IDT n ¼ 312 – Relative – Social image – Perceived attributes (relative
(2017) (South Korea), advantage Esthetics advantage, social image,
SEM esthetics, and novelty) of
wearable devices: Information
processing has a stronger effect
than product-processing on these
attributes
Kim (2016) SW TAM n ¼ 200 (East – Usefulness Affective Attractiveness – Adoption process: Round screen
Asia), SEM Ease of use quality Subcultural reduces perceived controllability,
appeal but utilitarian quality still
impacts adoption. Non-utilitarian

(continued )
 Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Functional/ Symbolic/
Research Managerial ergonomic Hedonic aesthetic
Study Technology Main theory design factors factors factors factors Moderators Key findings

quality: Round screen is more

effective than square screen in
promoting these qualities
Kim and Shin SW TAM n ¼ 363 – Usefulness – Subcultural – Perceived usefulness: affective
(2015) (South Korea), Ease of use appeal quality and relative advantage.
SEM Perceived ease of use: mobility
and availability. User attitude
and adoption intention: devices’
subcultural appeal and cost
Kwee-Meier OWD TAM n ¼ 2,086 – Usefulness – – – Intention to use wearable
et al. (2016) UTAUT (Germany), location system: expected
SPSS usefulness, trust, social
influence, privacy concern, and
perceived security risk. Mostly
determined by passengers’ age
and need for safety
Nascimento SW Expectation- n ¼ 574 – Usefulness Enjoyment – Habit Continuance intention: user
et al. (2018) confirmation (USA), SEM satisfaction (driven by perceived
model usefulness and enjoyment) and
habit (also a moderator between
satisfaction and continuance
intention)
Rauschnabel ARSG Uses and n ¼ 206 – Life Enjoyment Self- – Intention to use in private:
(2018) gratifications (USA), SEM efficiency expression consumers’ life efficiency,
theory enjoyment, and desired
enhancement of reality. Intention
to use in public: wearable
comfort, socializing, and self-
expression

(continued )
Smartwatch
adoption

Table I.
 Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

INTR

Table I.
Functional/ Symbolic/
Research Managerial ergonomic Hedonic aesthetic
Study Technology Main theory design factors factors factors factors Moderators Key findings

Rauschnabel ARSG TAM n ¼ 201 – Functional – – Self- Adoption intention: functional

and Ro (2016) IDT (Germany), benefits presentation benefits, ease of use, individual
regression Ease of use benefits differences variables, brand
and attitudes, and social norms
mediation
analyses
Rauschnabel ARSG Big five n ¼ 146 – Functional – – Openness Adoption intention: potential for
et al. (2015) personality (Germany), benefits Neuroticism high functional benefits and
traits SEM Extraversion social conformity. Strength of
these effects is moderated by
consumers’ individual
personality
Reyes- HFWD UTAUT n ¼ 363 – Performance – – – Current users: follow a
Mercado (Mexico), expectancy streamlined path to adoption.
(2018) SEM and Non-adopters: Follow a number
fsQCA of paths to intention to use
through performance expectancy
effort expectancy or facilitating
conditions
tom Dieck OWD TAM n¼5 – Usefulness – – – Tourists’ acceptance of mobile
and Jung (Ireland), Alternative AR: information and system
(2018) focus group, convenience quality, costs of use,
thematic Ease of use recommendations and personal
analysis Instructions innovativeness, risk, and
Costs of facilitating condition
effort
Turhan OWD TAM n ¼ 1,412 – Usefulness – – – Attitude toward using smart
(2013) TPB (Turkey), bras and t-shirt: perceived
SEM usefulness is influenced by ease
of use

(continued )
 Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Functional/ Symbolic/
Research Managerial ergonomic Hedonic aesthetic
Study Technology Main theory design factors factors factors factors Moderators Key findings

Wu et al. SW TAM n ¼ 212 – Relative Enjoyment – Gender Attitude: relative advantage and
(2016) IDT (Taiwan), advantage age enjoyment. Gender has no
UTAUT SEM Ease of use significant effect on smartwatch
acceptance
Yang et al. WD – n ¼ 375 – Usefulness Enjoyment Social image – Adoption intention: perceived
(2016) (South Korea), Functionality Visual benefits (usefulness, enjoyment,
SEM attractiveness and social image) have a greater
impact than perceived risks
(performance, financial).
Perceived usefulness: Driven by
functionality and compatibility.
Perceived enjoyment and social
image: Influenced by visual
attractiveness
Current SW TAM n ¼ 999 Functional Usefulness Enjoyment Visibility Personal New model includes ad
study ELM (Malaysia), ads Ease of use Self- innovativeness strategies, value drivers,
Schema PLS-SEM Emotional expressiveness Extraversion attitude, and adoption intention.
incongruity ads Personal innovativeness and
theory extraversion serve as
moderators
Notes: SW, smartwatch; ARGS, augmented reality smart glass; HFWD, health and fitness wearable device; OWD, other wearable devices; WD, wearable device in
general; TAM, technology acceptance model; UTAUT, unified theory of acceptance and use of technology; UTAUT2, unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2;
IDT, innovation diffusion theory; TPB, theory of planned behavior; ELM, elaboration likelihood model; fsQCA, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis

Table I.
Smartwatch
adoption
 INTR empirical study, followed by a summary of the results. The paper concludes by providing a
discussion of the findings, an overview of key theoretical and practical implications, an
outline of limitations and an agenda for future research.

2. Theoretical background: wearable technologies

Understanding individuals’ adoption motivations for new technologies remains a core
scholarly interest in IS/IT, marketing and related disciplines. Here, the first parsimonious
framework introduced is the technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1989) that bases
users’ IS acceptance on functional and ergonomic factors (e.g. perceived usefulness and ease
of use). Nevertheless, scholars agree that these two factors are not sufficient to explain
consumers’ reaction to new technologies. Consequently, the initial TAM has been extended
(e.g. TAM2; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) or has incorporated additional factors from
numerous theories, including theory of planned behavior (Shiau and Chau, 2016), unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT; Miltgen et al., 2013), uses and
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

gratifications theory ( Joo and Sang, 2013) and fashion theory (Tzou and Lu, 2009) to
broaden theoretical applicability to professional and personal contexts.
Kalantari (2017) reviewed existing literature on wearable technologies and classified
factors influencing individuals’ adoption decision into five categories: perceived benefits,
technology characteristics, social influences, individual characteristics and perceived risks.
Table I summarizes prior research on wearable technologies and identified factors. Most
studies have applied established frameworks, such as TAM, UTAUT and innovation
diffusion theory (IDT). Apart from functional and ergonomic values (e.g. how useful a
technology is in one’s daily life or how easy the technology is to be operated), these studies
have also approached value of wearable technologies from hedonic (e.g. how much “fun”
using a technology is) and symbolic aspects (e.g. how the technology reflects their status
and sense of style). Table I also clearly depicts that consumer characteristics (e.g. moderator
analysis) are under-researched. In fact, Kim (2016) called for investigations into the
moderating effects of individual differences (e.g. personality traits and demographic
variables) since consumers often display diverging predispositions in adopting wearable
technologies. Another area that has received little attention within wearable research is
managerially relevant variables or theoretical premises, such as firms’ marketing actions.
The lack of consideration of firms’ communication strategies is somewhat surprising
considering that “ads can increase the adoption rate when firms diffuse their new products”
(Zhang et al., 2011, p. 113).
ELM and schema incongruity theory provide a suitable theoretical framework to
position ad strategies as external stimuli influencing information elaboration, which in turn
impact value perceptions of wearables. According to ELM, a persuasive message can take
two distinctive routes to change a consumer’s attitude and these routes differ in the level of
required cognitive elaboration: central route and peripheral route (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986;
Petty et al., 1981). Whereas the central route incorporates a critical assessment of
issue-related arguments, the peripheral route involves simple cues and heuristic inferences
(e.g. one’s affinity toward the endorser) to judge a message (Bhattacherjee and Sanford,
2006; Lee and O’Connor, 2003). Building on ELM, Lee and O’Connor (2003) proposed that
functional ads objectively illustrating product features and using rational or factual content
are more likely processed via the central route. In contrast, emotional ads promoting
subjective and symbolic benefits of the product using affect-based stimuli (e.g. love, joy,
humor and pride) are more likely processed via the peripheral route. Furthermore, Lee and
Schumann (2004) observed that creative ads often contain incongruity – a mismatch
between a stimulus element and a related schema – to capture the audiences’ attention.
However, previous ad studies drawing on schema incongruity theory reveal mixed results
regarding attitude and behavioral outcomes. For example, prior research links incongruent
 messages to detailed processing and to positive ad responses (e.g. Goodstein, 1993; Smartwatch
Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). Yet other findings indicate more favorable responses after adoption
exposure to congruent rather than incongruent messages (e.g. Kamins and Gupta, 1994;
Misra and Beatty, 1990). These conflicting results, in turn, motivate the assessment of
consumers’ reaction to ad appeals that are congruent (incongruent) with existing schemas.
The last row of Table I depicts how the current study complements prior wearable
research by incorporating ad strategies (functional vs emotional) drawing on ELM and
schema incongruity theory as well as individual difference variables (personal
innovativeness and extraversion) to explain smartwatch adoption.

3. Model overview and hypotheses development

Prior to developing the individual hypotheses, we introduce a three-stage smartwatch
adoption model illustrated in Figure 1. Stage 1 introduces ad strategies containing
functional and emotional elements applicable to smartwatch manufacturers. Stage 2 builds
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

on prior wearable adoption research and proposes that these ad strategies influence
consumers’ evaluations of smartwatches. Therefore, this study incorporates established and
novel value drivers. Stage 3 outlines value perceptions as consumers’ adoption intention
drivers, varying based on individual differences.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Advertising strategies Consumer perceptions Consumer reactions

Consumers’ adoption
decision is driven by
Consumers evaluate
Smartwatch value assessment.
Explanation

smartwatches based on
manufacturers launch ad Different consumers
multiple criteria. These
strategies to influence emphasize different
criteria intercede
consumers’ perceptions values. These
between ad strategies
of their devices relationships are
and consumer reactions
moderated by consumer
characteristics

● Elaboration likelihood
Research

Technology and fashion Attitude-behavior link

domain

model
relevant evaluative and individual
● Schema incongruity factors differences
theory

Functional and
● Functional advertising ergonomic values Consumer responses
● Emotional advertising ● Expected usefulness ● Attitude toward using
● Expected ease of use ● Adoption intention
Construct

Hedonic value
● Expected enjoyment Moderator/consumer
Symbolic value characteristics
● Personal Figure 1.
● Expected visibility Three-stage
innovativeness
● Expected self- smartwatch
expressiveness ● Extraversion adoption model
 INTR 3.1 Advertising strategies
Research and development (R&D) and ads are arguably the keys to new product success
and extension acceptance. While R&D creates distinct value for consumers through product
improvements or innovations, ads communicate these values to various stakeholders
(e.g. consumers and investors) and build awareness (Zhang et al., 2011).
Ads can be broadly classified into two types: functional and emotional ads. Functional
ads deliver information on technically relevant utilitarian product attributes. In contrast,
emotional ads focus on visual representations of pleasant, natural scenery (Matthes et al.,
2014). An ongoing debate and conflicting evidence prevail regarding which ad strategy
works best. Rossiter et al. (1991) contended that functional ads are more effective (than
emotional ads) for utilitarian vs hedonic products and for high vs low involvement products
due to congruity between product nature and benefit claim type. However, Lim and Ang
(2008) found that consumers like utilitarian products more when the ads contain hedonic
rather than functional benefits. These effects are driven by minimal incongruity that
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

heightens customer delight, is perceived as novel, and stimulates elaboration. Because

functional and emotional ads are not always mutually exclusive (Calder and Gruder, 1989),
we assume that both ads have crossover effects on complementary value, in addition to
direct effects on congruent value. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Functional ads have a direct effect on the expected (a) usefulness and (b) ease of use
of smartwatches.
H2. Functional ads have a crossover effect on the expected (a) enjoyment, (b) visibility
and (c) self-expressiveness of smartwatches.
H3. Emotional ads have a direct effect on the expected (a) enjoyment, (b) visibility
and (c) self-expressiveness of smartwatches.
H4. Emotional ads have a crossover effect on the expected (a) usefulness and (b) ease of
use of smartwatches.

3.2 Evaluation factors of smartwatches

3.2.1 Functional and ergonomic values. A product’s functional value is related to its
utilitarian function, whereas ergonomic value is the ease of operation (Creusen et al., 2010).
These value perceptions are grounded in two established technology acceptance constructs,
namely, expected usefulness and ease of use (Tzou and Lu, 2009). In the wearables context,
Chuah et al. (2016) redefined usefulness as “the extent to which a consumer believes that
using smartwatches increases his or her personal efficiency, such as being more organized
and more productive” (p. 278). Ease of use, the degree to which consumers believe that using
smartwatches is effortless, is influenced by complexity and friendliness of user interface as
well as the users’ self-efficacy (Choi and Kim, 2016). Replicating prior TAM research, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H5. (a) Expected usefulness and (b) expected ease of use positively impact attitude
toward using smartwatches.
H6. Expected ease of use positively impacts expected usefulness of smartwatches.
H7. Attitude toward using smartwatches positively impacts intention to adopt
smartwatches.
3.2.2 Hedonic value. Hedonic value is the “fun or pleasure derived from using a
technology” (Venkatesh et al., 2012, p. 161), and is conceptualized as “perceived
enjoyment” in IS research. Davis et al. (1992) defined perceived enjoyment as “the extent to
 which the activity of using the computer is perceived to be enjoyable in its own right, Smartwatch
apart from any performance consequences that may be anticipated” (p. 113). For example, adoption
when using experiential-related apps (e.g. music streaming and gaming), smartwatch
owners are motivated by hedonic benefits of the app itself, such as entertainment and
relaxation, but not by outcomes as rewards. Wu et al. (2016) demonstrated that enhanced
hedonic features of smartwatches lead to more favorable user attitudes. Thus, we
postulate the following hypothesis:
H8. Expected enjoyment positively impacts attitude toward using smartwatches.
3.2.3 Symbolic value. Smartwatches can be perceived as a symbol of fashion and social
status, therefore scholars emphasize the need to incorporate symbolic factors, such as
visibility and self-expressiveness, into existing TAMs (Choi and Kim, 2016; Chuah et al.,
2016). Visibility is a core element of IDT referring to the degree to which a technology is
apparent in the sense of sight or observable to others (Moore and Benbasat, 1996).
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

A person’s self-expressiveness is the expectation that using a particular technology will

display his or her own identity and value (Thorbjørnsen et al., 2007). Especially in today’s
status-oriented society, people consume products visible to others in hope of appearing in
a desirable manner (Hollenbeck and Kaikati, 2012). Comparable to traditional watches,
smartwatches are worn on the wrist and are easily noticed by others. Therefore,
the more visible a smartwatch is, the better a person can express or elevate his or her
self- and social-image. Although the relationship between perceived visibility and
self-expressiveness of smartwatches has not been substantiated yet, empirical research
shows these two symbolic factors as influential in driving attitude toward using
smartwatches (e.g. Choi and Kim, 2016; Chuah et al., 2016). Consequently, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H9. (a) Expected visibility and (b) expected self-expressiveness positively impact
attitude toward using smartwatches.
H10. Expected visibility positively impacts expected self-expressiveness of
smartwatches.

3.3 Individual differences

Prior TAM research acknowledges the relevance of individual differences, such as
innovativeness, self-efficacy and novelty seeking, in new media or technology adoption (e.g.
Kim et al., 2010; Tseng and Teng, 2014). For wearable technologies, the moderating effects of
individual characteristics remain largely neglected and only a few studies attempt to assess
these traits (e.g. Chae, 2009; Rauschnabel et al., 2015); however, consensus prevails that
individuals could express heterogeneous personality traits (e.g. Hong et al., 2017). Therefore,
the current study explores consumer variations in smartwatch adoption via the moderating
effects of personal innovativeness and extraversion.
3.3.1 Personal innovativeness. Personal innovativeness is a trait reflecting “the
willingness of an individual to try out any new IT” (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998, p. 206).
Given the same level of perceived compatibility, individuals with higher innovativeness
exhibit stronger intentions to use new technologies. Within the wearable context, Hong
et al. (2017) demonstrated that perceived utilitarian and hedonic values of smartwatches
increase with consumers’ innovativeness. Value perceptions, in turn, determine users’
continuance intention. Yi et al. (2006) identified innovators as having the ability to
imagine, comprehend and appreciate benefits associated with a new technology. Not only
are they active seekers of new ideas, but also risk takers with more advanced technical
knowledge. Based on this technical competence, highly innovative individuals cope with
 INTR the uncertainties of new technologies, possess more favorable attitudes toward new
technologies, and higher perceived value. Thus, we postulate the following hypothesis:
H11. Personal innovativeness positively moderates the relationship between (a) expected
usefulness, (b) expected ease of use, (c) expected enjoyment and attitude toward
using smartwatches.
3.3.2 Extraversion. Extraversion, one of the big five personality traits, is an individual
who is sociable, active, assertive, gregarious and ambitious (Terzis et al., 2012). Zmud
(1979) revealed that extraverts have a more positive attitude toward technologies that
enable self-presentation. Extroverts also exhibit high levels of fashion consciousness
(Casidy, 2012). Not surprisingly, Rauschnabel et al. (2015) reported extraverts to be
predisposed to adopt smart glasses as a means to interact with other users and to express
an ideal-self through style or fashion portrayed by the technology itself. As smartwatches
are luxury fashion products that can be consumed conspicuously, these devices satisfy
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

self-expressiveness and prestige needs of extraverts. Therefore, we expect extraverts to

weigh symbolic value higher compared to introverts. Accordingly, the following
hypothesis are proposed:
H12. Extraversion positively moderates the relationship between (a) expected visibility
and attitude toward using smartwatches, and (b) expected self-expressiveness and
attitude toward using smartwatches.

4. Research method
All measurement scales adapted from previous empirical studies were evaluated on a
seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). Specifically, three items
adapted from Zhang et al. (2016) assessed functional and emotional ads, respectively. Four
items based on Yang et al. (2016) measured expected enjoyment, while six items based on
Morrison and Johnson (2011) measured self-expressiveness. Three items from John et al.
(1991) captured extraversion and five items from Yang (2005) conceptualized personal
innovativeness. Expected usefulness, ease of use, visibility, attitude and adoption intention
were all adapted from Chuah et al. (2016). An overview of the constructs, items and sources
are provided in Table AI.
Data were collected through a paper-based survey at a Malaysian University. Malaysia
represented a qualified context for this study since smartwatch market penetration is
extremely low (7 percent), making it imperative for smartwatch manufacturers to
understand adoption intention factors among non-users to accelerate market penetration
(Ernst and Young, 2016). The survey began with a brief description of the research’s
purpose and assured participants of their anonymity. Then, a definition of smartwatches
was provided (“Smartwatches are small wearable computers that are worn like traditional
watches on a user’s wrist. Smartwatches can run mobile apps and have similar features
like smartphones. Examples: Apple Watch, LG G Watch, and Samsung Gear Live”).
All participants were aware of smartwatches, but no one owned one. Since not all
participants were previously exposed to smartwatch ads or were persuaded by ads to
purchase a smartwatch, participants responded to questions regarding their expectations
toward ads. Afterwards, participants imagined smartwatch ads to successfully meet their
expectations prior to rating anticipated value, attitude and adoption intention. Finally, the
individual characteristics of participants were assessed.
Data collection were completed over a one-month period. After removing incomplete
responses, the final sample consisted of 999 non-smartwatch users (64.3 percent females),
with an average age of 21.3 years (SD ¼ 2.1).
 5. Data analysis and results Smartwatch
This study uses PLS-SEM through SmartPLS 3.0 to test the proposed model (Ringle et al., adoption
2015). We choose a variance-based SEM approach over a covariance-based SEM (CBSEM)
since the former is better suited for explanatory, highly complex and incremental models
(Hair et al., 2011; Sarstedt et al., 2014).
The current research is explanatory in nature as it seeks to explain smartwatch adoption.
In explanatory modeling, the outcome variable is affected by a set of underlying factors, and
statistical models are applied to data in order to test causal hypotheses (Henseler, 2018;
Shmueli, 2010). Rigdon (2012) promulgated the new goal to emancipate composite-based
SEM (e.g. PLS-SEM) as an approach for estimating complex cause–effect relationship
models. To estimate the model parameters, PLS draws on composites formed from
indicators and applies a series of ordinary least squares regressions to maximize the
explained variance of the endogenous variables (Hair, Hult, Ringle, Sarstedt and Thiele,
2017; Rigdon et al., 2017).
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Furthermore, PLS is a suitable option when the underlying data population are difficult
to be determined, which is a widespread phenomenon in social sciences research. However,
fit indices such as the standardized root mean square residual may provide an indication of
the nature of the data. An SRMR value of 0.13 does not meet the required level (i.e. ≤0.08)
(Hu and Bentler, 1998), suggesting that a composite model is more optimal for the data of
this study (Sarstedt et al., 2016). Results from Sarstedt et al.’s (2016) simulation study
showed that PLS contains practically no bias when estimating data from a composite model
population, regardless of the measurement model specification (e.g. reflective or formative).
In contrast, the bias is somewhat higher when CBSEM is used to estimate reflectively
measured constructs with composite model population data, thus rendering the use of
CBSEM inappropriate in this instance.
Finally, PLS is preferred as the focus of this research is to extend established TAMs
rather than confirm them (Hair et al., 2011; Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2017).
As previously mentioned, this study combines established technology premises with ELM
and schema incongruity theory while adding new marketing- (ad strategies), fashion-
(symbolic value) and individual-related constructs (personal innovativeness and extraversion).

5.1 Common method bias

As the collected data are of self-reported nature, common method bias (CMB) might be a
threat to the findings’ validity. Harman’s single-factor test is conducted to determine
whether one general factor accounts for the variance majority. Results from the principal
component factor analysis suggest that the first factor accounts for 26 percent of the
63 percent explained variance, thus CMB does not pose a validity threat. In addition, we
perform a full collinearity test to determine whether any constructs reflect variance inflation
factor (VIF) values of equal to or greater than 3.3 (Kock and Lynn, 2012). Results indicate
that pathological VIFs for all constructs range from 1.21 to 1.82, confirming again that CMB
was not a serious concern in this study.

5.2 Measurement model

Assessment of the reflective model entails validity and reliability examination for constructs
of interest. We first evaluate convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability by means
of internal consistency. Results presented in Table II illustrate that of the 36 indicators,
31 loadings are greater than 0.70 and 5 loadings are between 0.40 and 0.70 (Hair, Hult, Ringle
and Sarstedt, 2017), with average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeding the 0.50
threshold (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). These results support convergent validity.
Table II also shows the assessment of internal consistency of measures. Cronbach’s α
values for all constructs exceed the acceptable level of 0.60 (Robinson et al., 1991).
 INTR Convergent validity Internal consistency reliability
Constructs Indicators Loadings AVE Cronbach’s α CR Dijkstra–Henseler’ ρ

Adoption intention AI1 0.91 0.82 0.79 0.90 0.79

AI2 0.90
Attitude toward using ATT1 0.93 0.86 0.83 0.92 0.83
ATT2 0.92
Emotional advertising EADS1 0.56 0.58 0.65 0.80 0.73
EADS2 0.84
EADS3 0.86
Expected enjoyment EENJOY1 0.85 0.73 0.88 0.92 0.88
EENJOY2 0.89
EENJOY3 0.86
EENJOY4 0.83
Expected ease of use EEOU1 0.84 0.72 0.81 0.89 0.81
EEOU2 0.86
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

EEOU3 0.85
Expected self-expressiveness ESE1 0.81 0.59 0.86 0.89 0.88
ESE2 0.84
ESE3 0.82
ESE4 0.87
ESE5 0.63
ESE6 0.60
Expected usefulness EUSE2 0.92 0.82 0.78 0.90 0.79
EUSE3 0.90
Expected visibility EVIS1 0.85 0.75 0.83 0.90 0.84
EVIS2 0.87
EVIS3 0.87
Extraversion EXTRA1 0.64 0.63 0.71 0.84 0.79
EXTRA2 0.85
EXTRA3 0.88
Functional advertising FADS1 0.81 0.68 0.77 0.87 0.77
FADS2 0.84
FADS3 0.82
Personal innovativeness PI1 0.75 0.53 0.77 0.84 0.83
PI2 0.51
PI3 0.80
Table II. PI4 0.77
Measurement model PI5 0.74

Composite reliability values are well above 0.70 (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2017),
providing support for construct reliability. In addition, Dijkstra-Henseler’s ρ values – the
most important and consistent measure of internal consistent reliability – for all constructs
are greater than 0.70 (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015).
Discriminant validity is assessed by employing the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio
of correlations fixed cut-offs and inferential tests. As evident in Table III, HTMT ratios are
all below the conservative threshold of 0.85 and confidence intervals do not contain the
value of 1 (i.e. rejecting the null hypothesis; H0: HTMT ⩾ 1), thus discriminant validity is
supported (Franke and Sarstedt, 2019). Overall, a series of statistical tests on the outer
model confirms valid and reliable construct measures.

5.3 Structural model

Structural model assessment encompasses an inspection of collinearity among predictors,
significance of hypothesized relationships, coefficient of determinant (R2), effect size ( f2) and
predictive relevance (Q2). First, we examine the structural model for collinearity. Results
 Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

AI ATT EADS EENJOY EEOU ESE EUSE EVIS EXTRA FADS PI

AI
ATT 0.62 (0.55, 0.67)
EADS 0.25 (0.17, 0.31) 0.34 (0.28, 0.41)
EENJOY 0.50 (0.43, 0.55) 0.58 (0.52, 0.63) 0.43 (0.36, 0.50)
EEOU 0.48 (0.42, 0.54) 0.57 (0.51, 0.62) 0.32 (0.24, 0.39) 0.58 (0.52, 0.63)
ESE 0.53 (0.47, 0.59) 0.47 (0.41, 0.52) 0.28 (0.21, 0.35) 0.41 (0.35, 0.47) 0.42 (0.35, 0.47)
EUSE 0.48 (0.42, 0.54) 0.53 (0.46, 0.59) 0.51 (0.44, 0.57) 0.56 (0.50, 0.62) 0.54 (0.47, 0.60) 0.47 (0.40, 0.53)
EVIS 0.38 (0.31, 0.44) 0.37 (0.29, 0.44) 0.29 (0.22, 0.36) 0.36 (0.28, 0.42) 0.29 (0.21, 0.36) 0.55 (0.49, 0.61) 0.28 (0.20, 0.35)
EXTRA 0.41 (0.33, 0.48) 0.23 (0.15, 0.30) 0.21 (0.13, 0.29) 0.24 (0.16, 0.31) 0.26 (0.18, 0.33) 0.34 (0.26, 0.41) 0.32 (0.25, 0.40) 0.20 (0.12, 0.27)
FADS 0.26 (0.19, 0.34) 0.34 (0.27, 0.41) 0.53 (0.44, 0.61) 0.43 (0.37, 0.49) 0.33 (0.26, 0.39) 0.19 (0.13, 0.26) 0.34 (0.27, 0.41) 0.28 (0.21, 0.34) 0.25 (0.18, 0.32)
PI 0.41 (0.34, 0.48) 0.60 (0.52, 0.67) 0.39 (0.31, 0.47) 0.47 (0.40, 0.54) 0.49 (0.43, 0.55) 0.41 (0.34, 0.47) 0.48 (0.41, 0.54) 0.43 (0.36, 0.50) 0.37 (0.29, 0.43) 0.30 (0.22, 0.38)
Notes: AI, adoption intention; ATT, attitude toward using; EADS, emotional advertising; EENJOY, expected enjoyment; EEOU, expected ease of use; ESE, expected
self-expressiveness; EUSE, expected usefulness; EVIS, expected visibility; EXTRA, extraversion; FADS, functional advertising; PI, personal innovativeness. Shaded boxes are the
standard reporting format for HTMT ratios. Square brackets are 90% confidence intervals
Smartwatch
adoption

(HTMT0.85 criterion)
Discriminant validity
Table III.
 INTR show the VIF values of all predictor variables are below the conservative threshold of
3.3 (ranged from 1.00 to 1.65), suggesting the absence of multicollinearity issues
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006).
Next, the significance of direct relationships is evaluated by applying 5,000 bootstrap
subsamples. Findings of the analysis suggest that with the exception of one (i.e. H2c:
FADS→ESE), all structural relationships are significant as the bootstrap critical t-values are
greater than ±1.65 (one-tailed test). Thus, H1 through H10 are supported except for H2c
(see Table IV for all results). Regarding ad strategies, functional ads have the strongest
effect on expected enjoyment (H2a: β ¼ 0.26, p o0.01), whereas emotional ads elicit the
strongest effect on expected usefulness (H4a: β ¼ 0.27, p o0.01).
With respect to value drivers, hedonic value (expected enjoyment) exerts the strongest
effect on user attitude (H8: β ¼ 0.24, p o0.01), followed by ergonomic (expected ease of use)
(H5b: β ¼ 0.22, p o0.01), functional (expected usefulness) (H5a: β ¼ 0.15, p o0.01), and
symbolic values (expected self-expressiveness H9b: β ¼ 0.14, p o0.01; expected visibility
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

H9a: β ¼ 0.08, p o0.05). Attitude, in turn, determines adoption intention (H7: β ¼ 0.50,
p o0.01). In addition, expected ease of use is the antecedent of expected usefulness
(H6: β ¼ 0.34, p o0.01), whereas expected visibility is the antecedent of expected
self-expressiveness (H10: β ¼ 0.44, p o0.01).
Second, we employ the orthogonalizing approach as recommended by Little et al. (2006)
to analyze the moderating effect of individual difference traits on the relationship between
value assessment and attitude. Results show that personal innovativeness neither
moderates the relationship between expected ease of use and attitude (H11b: β ¼ 0.11,

Hypothesis and path Path coefficient t-value p-value f2 90% confidence intervals

Direct effect
H1a: FADS → EUSE 0.07 2.12 0.020 0.01 (0.02, 0.13)
H1b: FADS → EEOU 0.19 5.37 0.000 0.03 (0.13, 0.25)
H2a: FADS → EENJOY 0.26 7.44 0.000 0.07 (0.21, 0.32)
H2b: FADS → EVIS 0.16 3.96 0.000 0.02 (0.09, 0.22)
H2c: FADS → ESE 0.01 0.33 0.370 0.00 (−0.05, 0.07)
H3a: EADS → EENJOY 0.24 6.19 0.000 0.06 (0.18, 0.30)
H3b: EADS → EVIS 0.16 4.32 0.000 0.02 (0.10, 0.22)
H3c: EADS → ESE 0.12 3.10 0.000 0.01 (0.06, 0.18)
H4a: EADS → EUSE 0.27 8.18 0.000 0.08 (0.21, 0.32)
H4b: EADS → EEOU 0.17 4.49 0.000 0.03 (0.10, 0.23)
H5a: EUSE → ATT 0.15 3.71 0.000 0.03 (0.08, 0.22)
H5b: EEOU → ATT 0.22 5.95 0.000 0.05 (0.16, 0.28)
H6: EEOU → EUSE 0.34 10.46 0.000 0.15 (0.29, 0.40)
H7: ATT → AI 0.50 15.62 0.000 0.33 (0.44, 0.55)
H8: EENJOY → ATT 0.24 6.30 0.000 0.06 (0.18, 0.31)
H9a: EVIS → ATT 0.08 2.28 0.010 0.01 (0.02, 0.14)
H9b: ESE → ATT 0.14 3.71 0.000 0.02 (0.07, 0.19)
H10: EVIS → ESE 0.44 13.57 0.000 0.24 (0.38, 0.49)
Moderating effect
H11a: EUSE × PI → ATT −0.11 3.11 0.000 0.02 (−0.14, −0.06)
H11b: EEOU × PI → ATT 0.11 1.24 0.110 0.02 (−0.12, 0.17)
H11c: EENJOY × PI → ATT 0.09 1.11 0.130 0.01 (−0.16, 0.14)
H12a: EVIS × EXTRA → ATT 0.16 4.08 0.000 0.03 (0.11, 0.24)
H12b: ESE × EXTRA → ATT 0.13 3.15 0.000 0.02 (0.08, 0.21)
Notes: AI, adoption intention; ATT, attitude toward using; EADS, emotional advertising; EENJOY, expected
Table IV. enjoyment; EEOU, expected ease of use; ESE, expected self-expressiveness; EUSE, expected usefulness; EVIS,
Structural model expected visibility; EXTRA, extraversion; FADS, functional advertising; PI, personal innovativeness
 p W0.05), nor the relationship between expected enjoyment and attitude (H11c: β ¼ 0.09, Smartwatch
p W0.05). Contrary to our expectation, a statistically significant but negative moderating adoption
effect is evident between expected usefulness and attitude (H11a: β ¼ −0.11, p o0.01). Thus,
H11 is not supported. In line with our hypothesis, extraversion positively moderates the
relationship between expected visibility and attitude (H12a: β ¼ 0.16, p o0.01) as well as the
relationship between expected self-expressiveness and attitude (H12b: β ¼ 0.13, p o0.01).
These results validate H12.
Third, given the explanatory-nature of this research, it is essential to ensure that R2 values,
or the amount of explained variance in the endogenous variable, is maximized (Hair, Hult,
Ringle and Sarstedt, 2017). R2 values of all endogenous variables are greater than the
suggested threshold of 0.02 (ranged from 0.07 to 0.37), supporting good predictive accuracy of
the model (Cohen, 1988). In addition to examining R2 value, we also assess whether omission
of a particular exogenous construct leads to a change in R2 by calculating the f2 effect size. To
measure the magnitude of f2, we use Cohen’s (1988) guideline for exogenous variables, where
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 represent small, medium and large effects, respectively. The
majority of exogenous variables have effect sizes ranging from small to medium.
Interestingly, despite being statistically significance, effects of three hypotheses (H1a, H3c
and H9a) are trivial in size ( f2 ¼ 0.01). These results suggest that higher t-values do not
necessarily translate to larger or more important effects, because “even a very tiny effect size
can lead to a large expected t if very large samples are used” (Cohen, 2008, p. 228). Fourth,
we apply the blindfolding procedure with a pre-specified distance of seven to obtain the
Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). The Q2 values of all endogenous
variables are above zero (ranged from 0.05 to 0.35), thus indicating predictive relevance of the
model. The results of the structural model are outlined in Table IV and visualized in Figure 2.

6. Discussion and implications

Smartwatches are a promising wearable technology, yet little is still known about why these
devices experience limited market success. This study strives to develop a comprehensive

Functional and ergonomic values

2 2
R = 0.27; Q = 0.21 Personal
–0.11**
Expected innovativeness
usefulness 0.11ns
0.15**
0.34** 0.09ns
0.07*
0.19** Expected ease
Functional of use 0.22**
advertising 0.26**
2 2
0.16** R = 0.09; Q = 0.06
0.01ns Hedonic value 2 2
R = 0.37; Q = 0.35 2 2
R = 0.25; Q = 0.19
2 2
R = 0.18; Q = 0.12
Expected 0.24** Attitude 0.50** Adoption
enjoyment toward using intention
0.27**
0.17**
0.24** Symbolic value
Emotional
2 2
advertising 0.16** R = 0.07; Q = 0.05 0.13**
0.12** Expected 0.08* 0.16**
visibility
0.44**
0.14** Extraversion
Expected self-
expressiveness
2 2
R = 0.24; Q = 0.13
Figure 2.
Stage 1: Advertising strategies Stage 2: Consumer perceptions Stage 3: Consumer reactions Drivers of
smartwatch adoption
Notes: ns, non-significant. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
 INTR framework that incorporates managerially relevant variables (ad strategies), combines
established and novel value drivers (functional, ergonomic, hedonic and symbolic) and
introduces individual difference traits as moderating variables (personal innovativeness and
extraversion) to help explain this phenomena.
Several significant findings emerge from this research. In accordance with schema
incongruity theory, our results reveal that functional ads rather than emotional ads elicit
higher levels of hedonic value (enjoyment) in comparison to functional (usefulness) and
ergonomic values (ease of use). Likewise, emotional ads prompt higher levels of functional
value compared to hedonic value. Findings also acknowledge that smartwatches are
“fashnology” products, in that fashion (symbolic value) and technology attributes
(functional, ergonomic and hedonic values) jointly determine consumers’ attitude and
subsequent behavior. Although the direct effect of expected visibility on attitude appears to
be minimal, it still indirectly impacts users’ attitude through expected self-expressiveness.
Such findings suggest that users’ attitude can only be strengthened when visibility of
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

smartwatches is perceived as helping consumers express their identities. While the effects of
expected visibility and self-expressiveness on user attitude have previously been explored
in the wearable context, the current study is the first to provide empirical evidence that
extraversion moderates these relationships.
Interestingly, although personal innovativeness significantly moderates the relationship
between expected usefulness and attitude, the direction of moderation is negative. This could
be because innovative individuals are greater risk takers, thereby requiring lower level of
positive perceptions (e.g. usefulness) of smartwatches (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998). The lack of
a significant moderating effect of personal innovativeness on expected ease of use and attitude
introduces the possibility of self-efficacy moderating this relationship. Self-efficacy concerns
not only an individual’s willingness to try out an innovation, but also an individual’s judgment
of his or her capability to perform a task based on perceived skill level (Shu et al., 2011). In
addition, the moderating effect of personal innovativeness on the expected enjoyment-attitude
link does not reach significance in this study. One plausible explanation is that most of the
respondents are cognitive innovators who search for new experiences that stimulate the mind
(e.g. problem solving) rather than the senses (e.g. fun and playfulness). These findings provide
several implications to theory and managerial practice.

6.1 Implications for theory and practice

From a theoretical perspective and given the substantial amount of resources invested in ad
campaigns, this study sought to understand the role of ad strategies in influencing
consumer adoption of smartwatches. Specifically, building on prior empirical works of Choi
and Kim (2016) and Chuah et al. (2016), this research examines the effect of ad strategies
(functional vs emotional), grounded in ELM and schema incongruity theory, on consumers’
value assessment of smartwatches. Although previous researchers (e.g. Rossiter et al., 1991)
believed that functional ads may be more effective in forming utilitarian value compared to
hedonic value, no known study has examined this relationship in the wearable context.
Interestingly, our results suggest that functional ads (emotional ads) exert the strongest
impact on hedonic value (functional value). As such, the current research not only
contributes to technology acceptance studies by theoretically specifying and empirically
demonstrating the relevance of ad strategies in smartwatch adoption, but also by validating
ad incongruity’s influence in enhancing consumers’ value perceptions.
Second, representing a type of “fashnology” product, the symbolic aspect of
smartwatches is increasingly appreciated by both academics and practitioners alike (Choi
and Kim, 2016; Kim and Shin, 2015). Chuah et al. (2016) discovered perceived visibility,
resulting from the aesthetic workmanship and elegant design, engenders consumers’
favorable attitudes toward smartwatches. Current findings show that this visibility is tied to
 self-expressiveness. Therefore, news insights into the fashion-related mechanisms of Smartwatch
wearable adoption are offered. adoption
Third, most of prior wearable research implicitly assumes homogenous consumer behavior
across the value–attitude link without considering individual differences (e.g. Choi and Kim,
2016; Kim and Shin, 2015). Extending this stream of literature and responding to Kim’s (2016)
call, the present study explicitly examines the moderating role of individual difference traits.
Current findings show that extraversion positively moderates the symbolic value–attitude
relationship, whereas personal innovativeness negatively moderates the functional value–
attitude relationship. Such findings offer novel insights into the role individual variations play
in the relationship between value assessment and attitude within the wearable context.
From a practical perspective, while previous studies provided insights into favorable
user attitude creation through the provision of superior value (e.g. Choi and Kim, 2016;
Chuah et al., 2016), our study introduces ad strategies as a means to enhance these value
perceptions. Such empirical investigations are imperative given that sales of smartwatches
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

fail to meet analysts’ estimations and managers struggle to justify their ad investments.
Findings indicate that neither functional nor emotional ads are sufficient to promote the
value of smartwatches – given that it is more than just a functional technology. Indeed, it is
a hybrid of “moodtech” and “fashtech.” Interestingly, we find that functional ads are less
effective in stimulating functional value compared to emotional ads. Thus, managers need
to apply strategic tools with regard to ad strategies. A study by Kantar Worldpanel revealed
that 29 percent of respondents did not buy smartwatches because functions were perceived
as useless (Billington, 2015). To change the “less-than-useful” perceptions, new schemas
need to be built through incongruent ad stimuli. For example, when individuals are exposed
to ads describing technical details of smartwatches, cognitive responses might include “it is
nothing more than mini-smartphone wrapped around the wrist.” However, when ads convey
the idea that wearing smartwatch can make people feel happier and healthier – possibly
through sleep-, health-, and mood-monitoring apps – cognitive reasoning might include “it is
a useful hedonic product that could improve my well-being.” Therefore, in addition to
improving functionality, marketers and advertisers should design ads that incorporate the
optimal level of incongruity to maximize positive responses toward smartwatches.
Furthermore, marketers should consider personal innovativeness and extraversion as
potential segmentation variables.

7. Limitations and future research

Despite important contributions, this study is subject to several limitations. First, a student
sample from a single country may limit generalizability of findings. Second, while this study
examined positive evaluative factors of smartwatch adoption, adoption barriers were out of
the scope of this research. Third, only a limited number of consumer characteristics were
considered in this study. Besides adding more personal characteristics, future research
could also employ finite-mixture partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS) to uncover unobserved
heterogeneity. Future studies should also extent the current research to assess actual
smartwatch user responses to ads to identify potential differences.

References
Adapa, A., Nah, F.F.H., Hall, R.H., Siau, K. and Smith, S.N. (2018), “Factors influencing the adoption of
smart wearable devices”, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 399-409.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness
in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 204-215.
 INTR Bhattacherjee, A. and Sanford, C. (2006), “Influence processes for information technology acceptance:
an elaboration likelihood model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 805-825.
Billington, J. (2015), “The reasons why people don’t want to buy a smartwatch revealed”, available at:
[Link]/reasons-why-people-dont-want-buy-smartwatch-revealed-1526855 (accessed
April 13, 2017).
Calder, B.J. and Gruder, C.L. (1989), “Emotional advertising appeals”, in Cafferata, P. and Tybout, A.M.
(Eds), Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA,
pp. 278-285.
Canhoto, A.I. and Arp, S. (2017), “Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of
health and fitness wearables”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 32-60.
Casidy, R. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between personality traits, prestige
sensitivity, and fashion consciousness of generation Y in Australia”, Australasian Marketing
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 242-249.
Cecchinato, M.E., Cox, A.L. and Bird, J. (2015), “Smartwatches: the good, the bad and the ugly?”,
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New
York, NY, pp. 2133-2138.
Chae, J.M. (2009), “Consumer acceptance model of smart clothing according to innovation”,
International Journal of Human Ecology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Choi, J. and Kim, S. (2016), “Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on factors
affecting the intention to use smartwatches”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63,
pp. 777-786.
Chuah, S.H.W., Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T. and Lade, S. (2016), “Wearable
technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 276-284.
Cohen, B.H. (2008), Explaining Psychological Statistics, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Creusen, M.E., Veryzer, R.W. and Schoormans, J.P. (2010), “Product value importance and consumer
preference for visual complexity and symmetry”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44
Nos 9/10, pp. 1437-1452.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132.
Dehghani, M. (2018), “Exploring the motivational factors on continuous usage intention of
smartwatches among actual users”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 145-158.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-282.
Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent partial least squares path modeling”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Ernst & Young (2016), “Decoding the Malaysian digital DNA from smart to savvy”, available at: www.
[Link]/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-decoding-the-malaysian-digital-dna/$FILE/ey-decoding-
[Link] (accessed July 6, 2017).
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franke, G. and Sarstedt, M. (2019), “Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing:
a comparison of four procedures”, Internet Research (forthcoming).
 Gao, Y., Li, H. and Luo, Y. (2015), “An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in Smartwatch
healthcare”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 9, pp. 1704-1723. adoption
Geisser, S. (1974), “A predictive approach to the random effects model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 101-107.
Gong, G. (2017), “Struggles of smartwatches in penetrating wearable market”, available at: www.
[Link]/pulse/struggles-smartwatches-penetrating-wearable-market-yinshuang-gong
(assessed March 4, 2018).
Goodstein, R.C. (1993), “Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more
extensive ad processing”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 87-99.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Thiele, K.O. (2017), “Mirror, mirror on the wall: a
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods”, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 616-632.
Henseler, J. (2018), “Partial least squares path modeling: quo vadis?”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Hollenbeck, C.R. and Kaikati, A.M. (2012), “Consumers’ use of brands to reflect their actual and ideal
selves on Facebook”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 395-405.
Hong, J.C., Lin, P.H. and Hsieh, P.C. (2017), “The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived
value and continuance intention to use smartwatch”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 67,
pp. 264-272.
Hsiao, K.L. (2017), “What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing Apple and non-Apple
watches”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 186-206.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Hwang, C., Chung, T.L. and Sanders, E.A. (2016), “Attitudes and purchase intentions for
smart clothing: examining US consumers’ functional, expressive, and aesthetic needs for
solar-powered clothing”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
IDC (2016), “Smartwatch market declines 51.6% in the third quarter as platforms and vendors
realign, IDC find”, available at: [Link]/[Link]?containerId=prUS41875116 (accessed
May 15, 2017).
Jeong, S.C., Kim, S.H., Park, J.Y. and Choi, B. (2017), “Domain-specific innovativeness and new product
adoption: a case of wearable devices”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 399-412.
John, O.P., Donahue, E.M. and Kentle, R.L. (1991), The ‘Big Five’ Inventory – Versions 4a and 54,
University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research, Berkeley, CA.
Joo, J. and Sang, Y. (2013), “Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: an integrated model of the
technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2512-2518.
Jung, Y., Kim, S. and Choi, B. (2016), “Consumer valuation of the wearables: the case of smartwatches”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 899-905.
Kalantari, M. (2017), “Consumers’ adoption of wearable technologies: literature review, synthesis,
and future research agenda”, International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 274-307.
Kamins, M.A. and Gupta, K. (1994), “Congruence between spokesperson and product type: a matchup
hypothesis perspective”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 569-586.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M. and Lee, I. (2010), “An empirical examination of factors influencing the
intention to use mobile payment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 310-322.
 INTR Kim, K.J. (2016), “Round or square? How screen shape affects utilitarian and hedonic motivations for
smartwatch adoption”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 19 No. 12,
pp. 733-739.
Kim, K.J. and Shin, D.H. (2015), “An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption
of future wearable technology”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 527-541.
Kleinman, J. (2013), “Galaxy gear a failure with just 50,000 units sold, report says”, available at: www.
[Link]/2013/11/18/galaxy-gear-a-failure-with-just-50000-units-sold-report-says/
(accessed June 16, 2017).
Kock, N. and Lynn, G. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an
illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 546-580.
Kwee-Meier, S.T., Bützler, J.E. and Schlick, C. (2016), “Development and validation of a technology
acceptance model for safety-enhancing, wearable locating systems”, Behaviour & Information
Technology, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 394-409.
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Lee, E.J. and Schumann, D.W. (2004), “Explaining the special case of incongruity in advertising:
combining classic theoretical approaches”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-90.
Lee, Y. and O’Connor, G.C. (2003), “The impact of communication strategy on launching new products:
the moderating role of product innovativeness”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Lim, E.A.C. and Ang, S.H. (2008), “Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: a cross-cultural
perspective based on cultural conditioning”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 225-232.
Little, T.D., Bovaird, J.A. and Widaman, K.F. (2006), “On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and
product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables”, Structural
Equation Modeling, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 497-519.
Mandler, G. (1982), “The structure of value: accounting for taste”, in Margaret, H., Clarke, S. and Fiske, S.T.
(Eds), Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-36.
Matthes, J., Wonneberger, A. and Schmuck, D. (2014), “Consumers’ green involvement and the
persuasive effects of emotional versus functional ads”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67
No. 9, pp. 1885-1893.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989), “Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Miltgen, C.L., Popovič, A. and Oliveira, T. (2013), “Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics:
integrating the ‘Big 3’ of technology acceptance with privacy context”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 56, pp. 103-114.
Misra, S. and Beatty, S.E. (1990), “Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: an assessment of
recall and affect”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 159-173.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1996), “Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action
models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users”, in Kautz, J. and
Pries-Hege, K. (Eds), Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology, Chapman and Hall,
London, pp. 132-146.
Morrison, K.R. and Johnson, C.S. (2011), “When what you have is who you are: self-uncertainty leads
individualists to see themselves in their possessions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 639-651.
Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T. and Tam, C. (2018), “Wearable technology: what explains continuance
intention in smartwatches?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 157-169.
Passary, A. (2016), “Apple rethinks smartwatch strategy after failing to beat Rolex”, available at: www.
[Link]/articles/177233/20160912/apple-rethinks-smartwatch-strategy-after-failing-to-
[Link] (accessed April 16, 2017).
 Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Smartwatch
Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. adoption
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Goldman, R. (1981), “Personal involvement as a determinant of
argument-based persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 847-855.
Rauschnabel, P.A. (2018), “Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: an exploration of
expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses”, Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 557-572.
Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ro, Y.K. (2016), “Augmented reality smart glasses: an investigation of
technology acceptance drivers”, International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 123-148.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Brem, A. and 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
adoption of Google Glass wearables”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 49, pp. 635-647.
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Rauschnabel, P.A., Hein, D.W., He, J., Ro, Y.K., Rawashdeh, S. and Krulikowski, B. (2016), “Fashion or
technology? A fashnology perspective on the perception and adoption of augmented reality
smart glasses”, i-com, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 179-194.
Reed (2013), “Geared for failure: Samsung smartwatch return rate reportedly tops 30%”, available at:
[Link] (accessed June 16, 2017).
Reyes-Mercado, P. (2018), “Adoption of fitness wearables: insights from partial least squares and
qualitative comparative analysis”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 103-127.
Rigdon, E.E. (2012), “Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: in praise of simple methods”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 341-358.
Rigdon, E.E., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2017), “On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM:
five perspectives and five recommendations”, Marketing ZFP, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 4-16.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3”, Bönningstedt, available at: www.
[Link] (accessed November 2, 2017).
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (1991), “Criteria for scale selection and evaluation”, in
Robinson, J.P., Shanver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds), Measures of Personality and Social
Psychological Attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1-16.
Rossiter, J.R., Percy, L. and Donovan, R.J. (1991), “A better advertising planning grid”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 11-21.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2014), “PLS-SEM: looking back and moving forward”, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 132-137.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Thiele, K.O. and Gudergan, S.P. (2016), “Estimation issues
with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies!”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10,
pp. 3998-4010.
Shiau, W.L. and Chau, P.Y. (2016), “Understanding behavioral intention to use a cloud computing
classroom: a multiple model comparison approach”, Information & Management, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 355-365.
Shmueli, G. (2010), “To explain or to predict?”, Statistical Science, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 289-310.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q. and Wang, K. (2011), “The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence
on computer-related technostress: a social cognitive theory perspective”, International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 923-939.
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147.
Terzis, V., Moridis, C.N. and Economides, A.A. (2012), “How student’s personality traits affect
computer based assessment acceptance: integrating BFI with CBAAM”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1985-1996.
 INTR Thorbjørnsen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Nysveen, H. (2007), “ ‘This is who i am’: identity expressiveness
and the theory of planned behavior”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 763-785.
tom Dieck, M.C. and Jung, T. (2018), “A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance in
urban heritage tourism”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 154-174.
Tractica (2017), “Wearable device shipments to reach 430 million units annually by 2022”, available at:
[Link]/newsroom/press-releases/wearable-device-shipments-to-reach-430-million-
units-annually-by-2022/ (accessed August 31, 2017).
Tseng, F.C. and Teng, C.I. (2014), “Antecedents for user intention to adopt another auction site”,
Internet Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 205-222.
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,
Vol. 104 No. 4, pp. 375-395.
Tzou, R.C. and Lu, H.P. (2009), “Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

product on fashion technology acceptance model”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 311-322.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 157-178.
Wu, L.H., Wu, L.C. and Chang, S.C. (2016), “Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 383-392.
Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H. and Choi, M. (2016), “User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended
perspective of perceived value”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 256-269.
Yang, K.C.C. (2005), “Exploring factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in Singapore”,
Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 257-277.
Yi, M.Y., Fiedler, K.D. and Park, J.S. (2006), “Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the
acceptance of IT-based innovations: comparative analyses of models and measures”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 393-426.
Zhang, H., Ko, E. and Taylor, C.R. (2011), “Advertising appeals strategy’s moderating effect on the
relationship between innovation and customer equity drivers in China”, Advances in
International Marketing, Vol. 21, pp. 111-136.
Zhang, H., Liang, X. and Wang, S. (2016), “Customer value anticipation, product innovativeness, and
customer lifetime value: the moderating role of advertising strategy”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 9, pp. 3725-3730.
Zmud, R.W. (1979), “Individual differences and MIS success: a review of the empirical literature”,
Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 966-979.
 Appendix Smartwatch
adoption

Construct Measurement items Source

Adoption intention 1. Given I have the financial resources to afford a smartwatch, I would buy one Chuah et al. (2016)
2. I intend to buy a smartwatch in the near future
Attitude toward 1. Overall, I have a positive attitude toward the smartwatches technology Chuah et al. (2016)
using 2. I like the idea of using a smartwatch
Emotional 1. The ad of the smartwatch manufacturer should persuade consumers by Zhang et al. (2016)
advertising using emotional appeals (e.g. joy, humor, love, pride, etc.)
2. The ad of the smartwatch manufacturer should persuade consumers that
after using the product they will feel better (e.g. less guilt, happier,
healthier, more fashionable)
3. The ad of the smartwatch manufacturer should persuade consumers by
creating a mood or situation
Downloaded by Macquarie University At 08:14 26 February 2019 (PT)

Expected 1. Using smartwatches could be fun Yang et al. (2016)

enjoyment 2. Using smartwatches could be enjoyable
3. Using smartwatches would give me pleasure
4. Using smartwatches would make me feel good
Expected ease of 1. Learning to use smartwatches would be simple Chuah et al. (2016)
use 2. Using smartwatches would be self-explaining
3. Smartwatches would be easy to use
Expected self- 1. Wearing smartwatches would reflect the kind of person I see myself to be Morrison and
expressiveness 2. Wearing smartwatches would help ascertain my self-identify Johnson (2011)
3. Wearing smartwatches would make me feel good about myself
4. Wearing smartwatches could help me establish the kind of person I see
myself to be
5. Smartwatches could be an instrument of my self-expression
6. Smartwatches could play a critical role in defining my self-concept
Expected 1. Smartwatches could make my life more effective (removed) Chuah et al. (2016)
usefulness 2. Smartwatches could help me organize my life better
3. Smartwatches could increase my productivity
Expected visibility 1. Generally speaking, other people would notice if I wear a smartwatch Chuah et al. (2016)
2. Smartwatches are a technology that is very visible to other people
3. Smartwatches are technology that is recognized by people who see me
Extraversion 1. I am a person who is outgoing, sociable John et al. (1991)
2. I am a person who is talkative
3. I am a person who is not shy or inhabited
Functional 1. The ad of the smartwatch manufacturer should emphasize the Zhang et al. (2016)
advertising technological superiority of its product
2. The ad of the smartwatch manufacturer should provide detailed
information about its product attributes
3. The ad of the smartwatch manufacturer should emphasize the
technological competence of its product
Personal 1. I like to be around unconventional people who dare to try new things Yang (2005)
innovativeness 2. I am very curious about how things work
3. I like to experiment with new ways of doing things Table AI.
4. I like to take a chance Measurement items
5. I often seek out information about new products of constructs

Corresponding author
Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]