Smartwatch: Exploring the Intersection of Fashion and Technology

This report examines the evolving role of smartwatches, investigating whether consumers perceive them as primarily fashion accessories or technological devices. The study, based on a survey of business students at Michigan State University, explores the factors influencing smartwatch adoption, utilizing the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Key findings reveal that perceived usefulness and visibility significantly impact attitudes toward smartwatch use, subsequently affecting adoption intention. The research also highlights that consumers' perceptions of smartwatches as either fashion or technology products influence their evaluation of these factors. The report contributes to the understanding of consumer behavior in the wearable technology market, offering theoretical and managerial implications for product development and marketing strategies. It emphasizes the importance of considering both the fashion and technological aspects of smartwatches to enhance their appeal and adoption rates. The study also points out the value of visibility as a determinant of intention and attitude.

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 1
SMARTWATCH- FASHION OR TECHNOLOGY
Student’s Name
Professors Name
College
Course
Date

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 2
SMARTWATCH- FASHION OR TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The last few years have marked tremendous success regarding the use of smart watches.
Technically, smart watches have increasingly gained popularity in the mobile device market that
has been considered to be rapidly saturated. Smart watches have numerous functions beneath its
perception as a micro-computer. Also, it is important to point out that smart watches encompass
the attributes of both fashion characteristics as well as mobile computing (Schirra & Bentley
2015). True to say, smart watches among the many wearable factors form important starting
points for the dissemination of wearable devices. Not only can the product be categorized as a
fashion product but is also regarded to as an IT product (Choi & Kim 2016). Simply put, smart
watches are not only an IT innovation but a primary fashion product. In relation, self-
expressiveness and enjoyment are the two most influential predictors of the intentions behind the
use of smartwatches. On the other hand, individuals with high need for uniqueness will in most
occurrences use the smartwatch. In summary, the smartwatch is not yet a luxury product since it
still needs to overcome several roadblocks before it can be classified as one. Results from the
empirical scope reveal perceived usefulness and visibility as crucial factors that influence
intention. Consequently, the magnitide of the antecedents is driven by the person’s perception of
viewing smartwatches as either an IT product or as a fashion accessory. Theoretical as well as
managerial implications will also be comprehensively discussed.
Project Objective
In relation, related academic research on watches is rapidly becoming a vital component.
Consequently, the paper will explore the attributes of smartwatches while analysing it in either a
technological or fashion angle. Also, the paper will focus on identifying key smartwatches

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 3
attribute and also analyse its effects on users. Through utilizing the technology acceptance model
(TAM), the study will explain whether the factors that germane to the characteristics of fashion
product may implicate the intention to use smartwatches effectively. The model’s primary aim is
to incorporate perceived enjoyment and self-expressiveness influenced by an individual need for
uniqueness as well as vanity (Pitzer et. al 2013). Findings from the research conducted on
participants show that the characteristics of smartwatches as fashion products explain the
intention to use smartwatches with particular regards for the individual to be unique. Theoretical
as well as practical implications of the study are further discussed. Although still in the pioneer
stages of diffusion, smartwatches represent the most virally used type of wearable devices.
However, little information explains why some people are most likely to adopt the use of
smartwatches as compared to others. To account for this phenomenon, the paper will ground its
arguments on the theoretical model to deepen the understanding of factors promoting adoption
behaviour. Also, the theoretical model will extensively define technological acceptance as well
as social psychology literature.
Project Scope
The market for wearable devices is proliferating saves by the rising internet and
smartphone penetration. The growing focus on fitness can also be credited to the rapid growth of
used appliances. According to the statistics released by International Data Corporation (IDC
2015), the worldwide market for wearables was to reach more than 110 million units in 2016.
Subsequently, this is concerning an increase of 44% as compared to the figures in 2015. In
relation, approximately seventy percent of the devices were to be worn on the wrist; this points
out that products such as smart wristbands and smartwatches top the list of wearable devices
(Pearson, Robinson & Jones, 2015). The smartwatch, also referred to as minicomputers have

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 4
numerous functions and are considered one of the most impactful developments in the evolution
of Information Technology. As a result of its enhanced features, a smartwatch is viewed as a
luxury good purchased to impress others. In simple terms, fashion and technology in the case of
smartwatch merge to become a prominent part of a user’s self (Rauschnabel, Brem & Ro 2015).
However, despite the increased demand for the smartwatch in the future, the estimates of current
sales are still very low. In relation, the primary question remains unanswered: what drives the
adoption of smartwatches and how the challenge can be mitigated. Relatively, research is
desperately needed to address this existing gap of technology while it is still in the adoption
stages of its product life. Regarding management, managers need to understand what contributes
to the enactment of an innovation hence aid in the establishment of highly rated successful
products. The paper will analyse its main points through answering three significant questions:
 What influences adoptions intention of smartwatches
 Do the consumers of the device classify it as a fashion accessory, an IT tool or as
both
 How does the perception of fashion accessory or technology impact antecedents
of the smartwatch adoption?
Literature Review
TAM is amongst the most widely accepted models used in understanding the individual
acceptance of emerging information and communication technologies. Consequently, it has been
successfully applied in related mobile as well as wearable technology studies (Page 2015).
According to TAM, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can be classified as two
cognitive belief dimension that directly impacts user attitude which then directs the intention of
use. Perceived usefulness has a more broad defination, simply, it is defined as the extent to

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 5
which an individual believes that the use of a particular technology will automatically enhance
job performance (Wright & Keith 2014). However, in this context, the definition is more
appropriate to the extent to which the consumer of a smartwatch believes that using the
smartwatch increases the individual’s personal efficiency such as through being more organized
and productive (Kim & Shin 2015). Perceived ease of use is also defined as the degree to which
an individual believes that using technology will be free from effort. In relation, the concept
reflects an aspect of technology and high levels of user’s level of efficacy. Additionally, TAM
proposes that technologies are sophisticated and are perceived as more useful if they are easy to
use and that usefulness directly impacts usage intention. In respect to arguments initiated by
TAM, the research proposes that:
 Perceived usefulness has a positive relation to the attitudes towards using
smartwatches
 Perceived ease of use is positively related to adopted attitudes regarding using
smartwatches
 Attitude has a positive relation with intention to adopt smartwatches
 Perceived usefulness is positively associated with the intention to adopt
smartwatches
As in previous discussions, smartwatches come in the form of a technology that a user
wears on the wrist and hence can be recognized by third parties. Visibility is hence defined as an
individual believes of the extent to which smartwatches are noticed by other people (Hurford
2009). In contemporary societies, characterization by fashion aspects, social contracts, trinkets
and make up vital form aspects in an individual’s impression as well as formation. It is also true
that first person judgements are crucial as immediate responses during the first encounters and

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 6
hence visible components are a stronger influence on impression formation than the less visible
cues. Simply put, consumers tend to purchase high status products just as smart watches for
primarily symbolic reasons as compared to other causes.
The methodology used and the research design
To effectively collect sufficient results, a survey was administered to business students at
Michigan State University in September 2015. The university was a compelling case study of the
penetration of smart watches is still relatively small. A total of 200 usable paper pencil
questionaries were used. The sample of respondents was a representation of the student’s
population of 77% females with an average age of 21 years (Pizza, Brown, McMillan &
Lampinen 2016). The survey began with a short outline of the purpose of the survey then a brief
description of the terms to be used in the project. Respondents addressed various measures that
represent their constructs of interest. An overview of the research constructs sources, measures
and scales were represented in the questionnaires. We also ensured to survey demographic
variables and also thanked the participating respondents for their contribution.
According to figure one in the appendix, in order to analyse the data, we applied a two
steps procedure. First, the model of measurement was assessed using Mplus 7.2. In general, the
results demonstrated satisfactory levels of convergent validly, internal reliability and also
discriminant validity (Rauschnabel et al. 2016). The obtained values exceeded the suggested
threshold which was at 7.0 just as in figure 1 in the appendix. In relation, although the direct
effect on the perceived ease is not significant, the results from an additional analysis points out
that the indirect effect of perceived ease of use on one’s attitude through perceived usefulness is
very essential. In relation, the new construct shows visibility is positively associated with
adoption intention.

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 7
Technology or fashion
Technology vs. fashion score was created to actually categorise the results of the key
question. The score was created by subtracting the consumer fashion score from the technology
score. The values below zero was an indication that a customer perceives a smartwatch as a
fashion an, on the other hand, the value of zero was an indication that a consumer regards both
aspects equally. From an analysis of the respondents, only 8% of them considered smartwatches
to be a fashion accessory. On the contrary, 49.5% of the interviewees identified smartwatches as
predominantly technology while 43.9 of the respondents valued both concepts of fashion and
technology equally.
Conclusion
Building on the findings of TAM research, it is confirmed that perceived usefulness and
visibility directly impacts attitudes towards the use of smartwatches which in return translate to
adoption intention. Also, two hypotheses relationships did not efficiently reach significance:
perceived ease of use is indirectly related to the adopted attitudes towards the use of
smartwatches, and second the perceived usefulness is not an important indicator of adoption
intention (Dolgin 2014). However, it is important to point out that the new construct visibility is
significantly related to both attitudes and adoption intention behind the use of smart watches. A
further analysis of the issue also pointed out that consumers who perceive the smartwatch as a
fashion accessory define its visibility as more valuable than the usefulness of the device.
Consequently, these substantial effects are estimated while controlling for several various
counters or alternative explanatory variables. As a result, the findings lead to numerous

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 8
important theoretical as well as managerial implications with particular regards to new
technologies like the smartwatch. Regarding theoretical contributions, the results are in three-
fold: first, the research on the topic study which is the smartwatch is still scared hence the study
adds to the limited research body. In particular, it points out the usefulness and visibility as the
components of adoption and attitude towards the approval and use of smartwatches.
Subsequently, this is influenced by the perceived ease to use as well as the general consumer
perception of the new technology (Narayanaswami & Raghunath 2000). The second contribution
is a deeper understanding of what smartwatches are regarded as from a cognitive and
psychological perspective. In this case, most of the respondents perceived smartwatches from
both a fashion and technological perspective. It is also true that the visibility of the smartwatch is
the primary determinant of intention as well as attitude (Chuah 2016). On the contrary, TAM is
yet to address the visibility effect of the smartwatch although it touches on related aspects such
as an image in some cases. The study, however, supports the notion that consumers perceive as
well as process wearables on two scopes: fashion and technology. The fashion component might
explain why not all TAM effects were replicated and hence may require more fashnological
thinking of wearables devices. Subsequently, fashion adoption theories may be perceived as
more appropriate in this case. The third component, on the other hand, touches on results from
TAM. Some of the previously established TAM hypotheses is impossible to replicate
(Rauschnabel & Ro 2016). There is also direct effect between the ease of use and the attitude
towards using the device. However, this direct effect is not taken into accountability in the
current study. However, several arguments support the immediate effect for users of technology
but excluding potential users. Also, the relationship between perceived usefulness and ease of the
use is stronger for the non-users as compared to users (Xiao, Laput & Harrison 2014).

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 9
The use of the non-brand accurate description of smartwatches gave room to respondents
to freely express the influences on attitude formation without being biased by a particular
product. The irony, however, is that the advantage corresponds with a limitation (Lee, Bojanova
& Suder 2015). The limitation is that brand related factors like attitude and loyalty could not be
effectively accounted for. In relation, future research should incline more towards addressing
such a restriction. The functionality of smartwatches should also be explored in a more in-depth
analysis to enhance perceived usefulness.
Generally, with the ever-growing advancement of the technology industry, understanding
the perception of consumers towards smartwatches and other wearables is a vital component to a
better understanding of technology use and media. Consequently, this study is a significant
milestone in the development of this unique literature stream (Xu & Lyons 2015).

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 10
Reference List
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, 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, 65, pp.276-284.
Dolgin, E., 2014. Technology: dressed to detect. Nature, 511(7508), pp.S16-S17.
Hurford, R.D., 2009. Types of smart clothes and wearbale technology. Smart clothes and
Weara-ble Technology, by J McCann and D Bryson, pp.25-44.
Kim, K.J. and Shin, D.H., 2015. An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the
adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 25(4), pp.527-541.
Lee, M.R., Bojanova, I. and Suder, T., 2015. The New Wearable Computing Frontier. IT
Professional, 17(5), pp.16-19.
Narayanaswami, C. and Raghunath, M.T., 2000, October. Application design for a smart watch
with a high resolution display. In Wearable Computers, The Fourth International
Symposium on (pp. 7-14). IEEE.
Page, T., 2015. Barriers to the Adoption of Wearable Technology. i-Manager's Journal on
Information Technology, 4(3), p.1.
Pearson, J., Robinson, S. and Jones, M., 2015, April. It's about time: Smartwatches as public
displays. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 1257-1266). ACM.

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 11
Pitzer, J., Garcha, K., Buss, C., Ju, S. and Carver, R., 2013. The next big thing: wearables are in
fashion. Americas.
Pizza, S., Brown, B., McMillan, D. and Lampinen, A., 2016, May. Smartwatch in vivo.
In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 5456-5469). ACM.
Rauschnabel, P.A. and Ro, Y.K., 2016. Augmented reality smart glasses: An investigation of
technology acceptance drivers. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2),
pp.123-148.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Brem, A. and Ro, Y., 2015. Augmented reality smart glasses: definition,
conceptual insights, and managerial importance. Unpublished Working Paper, The
University of Michigan-Dearborn, College of Business.
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, 15(2), pp.179-194.
Schirra, S. and Bentley, F.R., 2015, April. It's kind of like an extra screen for my phone:
Understanding Everyday Uses of Consumer Smart Watches. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 2151-2156). ACM.
Wright, R. and Keith, L., 2014. Wearable technology: If the tech fits, wear it. Journal of
Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(4), pp.204-216.
Xiao, R., Laput, G. and Harrison, C., 2014, April. Expanding the input expressivity of
smartwatches with mechanical pan, twist, tilt and click. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 193-196). ACM.

Smartwatch-Fashion or Technology 12
Xu, C. and Lyons, K., 2015, January. Shimmering smartwatches: Exploring the smartwatch
design space. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 69-76). ACM.