Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Smart Clothing

This research extends the technology acceptance model with apparel design attributes and examines factors influencing consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions of smart clothing, specifically, solar-powered clothing. A random sample of college students and faculty (N = 720) participated in this study. Results from structural equation modeling reveal that perceived usefulness is the strongest predictor of attitude and purchase intention. Perceived compatibility is the strongest predictor of perceived usefulness, and along with perceived comfort, it determines perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and performance risk. Perceived performance risk, aesthetic attributes, and environmental concern are significant predictors of attitude. This research validates the technology acceptance model in explaining new technology adoption in clothing and confirms the importance of multiple dimensions of smart clothing. Retailers can emphasize the shift from a technical concern to a user-centered one by highlighting utilitarian aspects of clothing and providing compatible and aesthetically appealing design features that interconnects functionality, expressiveness, and aesthetics (FEA) consumer needs.

[1]  John H. Antil.  Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Public Policy , 1984 .

[2]  Jin-Mie Chae.  Consumer Acceptance Model of Smart Clothing according to Innovation , 2009 .

[3]  Mohammad Chuttur,et al.  Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and Future Directions , 2009 .

[4]  Mary Lynn Damhorst,et al.  Environmental Concern and Apparel Consumption , 1998 .

[5]  Lisa A. Shanley,et al.  Military Protective Clothing: Implications for Clothing and Textiles Curriculum and Research , 1993 .

[6]  Catherine Black,et al.  Application of the Functional, Expressive and Aesthetic Consumer Needs Model: assessing the clothing needs of adolescent girls with disabilities , 2012 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[8]  Lucy E. Dunne,et al.  Expanding garment functionality through embedded electronic technology , 2005 .

[9]  Jane M. Lamb,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for Apparel Design , 1992 .

[10]  Jengchung V. Chen,et al.  Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone , 2007, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[11]  J. McCann.  End-user based design of innovative smart clothing , 2009 .

[12]  H. Frith,et al.  Clothing and embodiment: men managing body image and appearance , 2004 .

[13]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[14]  Andreas Sonderegger,et al.  Smart garments -- the issue of usability and aesthetics , 2013, UbiComp.

[15]  Veena Chattaraman,et al.  Preferences for Aesthetic Attributes in Clothing as a Function of Body Image, Body Cathexis and Body Size , 2006 .

[16]  F. Al-Shamali,et al.  Author Biographies. , 2015, Journal of social work in disability & rehabilitation.

[17]  Younghee Kim,et al.  Protective overalls: evaluation of garment design and fit , 1997 .

[18]  L. Stoel,et al.  On-line product presentation: Effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention , 2005 .

[19]  Karen H. Hyllegard,et al.  Marketing eco-fashion: The influence of brand name and message explicitness , 2012 .

[20]  M. Malmivaara.  The emergence of wearable computing , 2009 .

[21]  Lucy E. Dunne.  THE DESIGN OF WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: ADDRESSING THE HUMAN-DEVICE INTERFACE THROUGH FUNCTIONAL APPAREL DESIGN , 2004 .

[22]  J. Gotlieb,et al.  The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship , 1994 .

[23]  Mary Lynn Damhorst,et al.  In Search of a Common Thread: Classification of Information Communicated Through Dress , 1990 .

[24]  L. Sjöberg,et al.  Factors in risk perception. , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[26]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations: , 1986 .

[27]  Gilsoo Cho.  Fundamentals of and Requirements for Solar Cells and Photovoltaic Textiles , 2009 .

[28]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[29]  Nancy L. Cassill,et al.  Critical Review on Smart Clothing Product Development , 2010 .

[30]  Sun K. Yoo,et al.  Electro-Textile Interfaces : Textile-Based Sensors and Actuators , 2009 .

[31]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[32]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[33]  Edward Shiu,et al.  Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate modelling approach , 2003 .

[34]  Amanda B. Bower,et al.  Is Beauty Best? Highly versus Normally Attractive Models in Advertising , 2001 .

[35]  M. Suzanne Sontag,et al.  Comfort Dimensions of Actual and Ideal Insulative Clothing for Older Women , 1985 .

[36]  L. Stoel,et al.  Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase , 2005 .

[37]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[38]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[39]  Darko Ujević,et al.  ANALYSIS OF ARTIFICIAL LEATHER WITH TEXTILE FABRIC ON THE BACKSIDE , 2009 .

[40]  Ahmet Çakir.  Smart clothing – technology and applications , 2011, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[41]  Chang Liu,et al.  Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet , 2003, Internet Res..

[42]  Molly Eckman,et al.  Toward a Model of the In-Store Purchase Decision Process: Consumer Use of Criteria for Evaluating Women's Apparel , 1990 .

[43]  Eunju Ko,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Purchase Intentions Toward Smart Clothing Between Korean and U.S. Consumers , 2009 .

[44]  Ingoo Han,et al.  The impact of the online and offline features on the user acceptance of Internet shopping malls , 2004, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[45]  Elizabeth K Bye,et al.  An analysis of apparel industry fit sessions , 2005 .

[46]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[47]  A. Fiore,et al.  The role of the technology acceptance model in explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses , 2006 .