Applying the technology acceptance model in a three-countries study of smartwatch adoption

被引：101
作者：
Dutot V. [1 ]
Bhatiasevi V. [2 ]
Bellallahom N. [3 ]
机构：
[1] Head of Learning Lab, IPAG Business School, 184 Boulevard Saint-Germain, Paris
[2] Mahidol University International College, 999 Phutthamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhonpathom
来源：
Journal of High Technology Management Research | 2019年 / 30卷 / 01期
关键词：
China; Cross-cultural study; France; Perceived affective quality; Smartwatch adoption; Thailand;
D O I：
10.1016/j.hitech.2019.02.001
中图分类号：
TP33 [电子数字计算机（不连续作用电子计算机）];
学科分类号：
081201 ;
摘要：
The purpose of this study is to explore differences of adoption of smartwatches in China, France, and Thailand. We propose an analytical framework aggregating the technology acceptance model (TAM)elements, perceived affective quality (PAQ), mobility, availability, and trust. A quantitative approach with Smart-PLS software is used. Results show significant differences (1)between France and Thailand for availability - perceived ease of use (PEOU)and PEOU - perceived usefulness (PU)links; (2)between France and China, for PEOU - PU and trust – PU links; and finally, (3)for trust – PU, and PAQ - PEOU links between China and Thailand. The results give practitioners insights on how to successfully propose their devices in three countries, using both general strategies and specific communication systems. In China, practitioners should focus on PAQ, mobility, and trust. In Thailand, on PAQ, mobility, while differentiating based on the age and sex of their targets. In France, PAQ should be the focus, with a concern about gender with regard to communication strategies. © 2019
引用
收藏
页码：1 / 14
页数：13
相关论文
共 81 条
[1]  
Adapa A., Nah F.F.H., Hall R.H., Siau K., Smith S.N., Factors influencing the adoption of smart wearable devices, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34, 5, pp. 399-409, (2018)
[2]  
Agarwal R., Prasad J., Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?, Decision Sciences, 30, 2, pp. 361-391, (1999)
[3]  
Ajzen I., The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 2, pp. 179-211, (1991)
[4]  
Ajzen I., Fishbein M., Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (1<sup>st</sup> ed.), (1980)
[5]  
Aljifri H.A., Pons A., Collins D., Global e-commerce: A framework for understanding and overcoming the trust barrier, Information Management and Computer Security, 11, 3, pp. 130-138, (2003)
[6]  
Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W., Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, pp. 411-423, (1988)
[7]  
Baumard P., Donada C., Ibert J., Xuereb J.M., La collecte de données et la gestion de leurs sources, Méthodes de Recherche en Management, pp. 228-262, (2007)
[8]  
Brislin R.W., The wording and translation of research instruments, Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Field methods in cross-cultural research, 8, (1986)
[9]  
Charlton P., Poslad S., “A sharable wearable maker community IoT application”, 12th International Conference on intelligent environments, Proceedings of the IEEE, (2016)
[10]  
Choi J., Kim S., Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches, Computers in Human Behavior, 63, pp. 777-786, (2016)
123456789