A Conceptual Uses & Gratification

Framework on the Use of Augmented

Reality Smart Glasses

Philipp A. Rauschnabel

Abstract Augmented Reality (AR), the integration of virtual objects into the
physical world, is about to become real. Microsoft Hololens and other devices
termed as ‘augmented reality smart glasses’ (ARSG), allow its users to augment
their subjective perceptions of the reality. However, not much is known about
consumers react to this new form of wearable media technology. Against this
background, this article reviews the scarce body of ARSG literature, supplements it
with established findings from Uses & Gratification Theory (U&GT) and related
research streams to propose a conceptual model. In doing so, this article enhances
our understanding of AR, and ARSGs in particular, by proposing the role of
existing and novel constructs to the stream of U&GT and AR research. The chapter
closes with a discussion of promising avenues for future research on ARSGs and
other head-mounted displays.

Keywords Augmented reality smart glasses Head-mounted displays
Uses and



gratifications theory (U&GT) Fashnology Wearable technology

1 Introduction

Smart mobile technologies and continuous access to the Internet have become an
integral part of our daily lives. Popular apps allow us to check in on Facebook, to
tag friends, or to ‘instantly’ upload photos on Instagram and other mobile social
media services. All of these activities are examples of how recent technologies
move the virtual world and the real world closer together.

P.A. Rauschnabel (&)

College of Business, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, USA
e-mail: prausch@umich.edu

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 211

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,
Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_15
212 P.A. Rauschnabel

However, the next groundbreaking technology is right around the corner:

media-technologies that integrate virtual holographic objects realistically into a
user’s perception of the real world, often discussed as “Augmented Reality” or
“Mixed Reality”. These holograms can be used on basically any recent smart
mobile device. The new technology of “augmented reality smart glasses” (ARSGs)
offers users the opportunity to integrate virtual 3D-elements even more realistically
into their field of vision (Ernst et al. 2016; Rauschnabel et al. 2016a). While prior
research has provided important contributions both to augmented reality and
wearable technologies (e.g., Chuah et al. 2016; Javornik 2016a, b), ARSGs remain
an under-researched but relevant area. For example, Google, Alibaba, and other
firms have recently invested $800 million of venture capital into a startup called
Magic Leap, which specializes in ARSGs. Likewise, other companies including
Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Samsung have announced or already launched their
ARSGs. Market research reports confirm the game-changing potential of this
development with promising numbers. For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers
recently concluded that a life-changing wearable future is “right around the corner,”
(PWC 2014, p. 4) and a Goldman Sachs (2016, p. 4) research study determined
realistic chances that AR would become “the next big computing platform, and as
we saw with the PC and smartphone, we expect new markets to be created and
existing markets to be disrupted.” Google Glass was one example of a famous
ARSG with little success, but prior research lacks providing any potential expla-
nations as to why consumers did not adopt it as expected. Indeed, Stockinger’s
(2016), Delphi-Study and Javornik’s (2016) research agenda conclude that AR, for
consumer markets, is highly relevant but challenging.
This conceptual article1 suggests Uses & Gratification Theory (U&GT) as a
promising starting point to understand AR, and ARSGs in particular. Based on this
proposition and taking into account prior research on ARSGs and related fields, I
propose a theoretical framework to study the adoption and use of ARSGs. The
objective therefore is to conceptualize how ARSGs can address fundamental human
needs, and which factors need to be incorporated in understanding the psycho-
logical mechanisms that explain consumers’ reactions to them. As a result, this
proposed model provides scholars and other ARSGs enthusiasts a comprehensive
overview of potentially relevant factors that can explain how and when consumers
react to ARSGs. By doing so, this chapter also intends to inspire future research in
this still futuristic topic.

1
Please note that this conceptual article is part of a project from which an empirical paper was
presented at the 3rd international AR/VR conference in Manchester, UK, Feb 23, 2017. The
empirical paper is currently under review in an academic journal. Although distinct, the empirical
paper builds on this chapter and thus might share similarities.
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 213

2 Theory and Prior Research

2.1 Augmented and Virtual Reality

AR aims to integrate virtual elements, such as holograms or other information, into

a user’s perception of the real-world (Javornik 2016a, b). For example, virtual
mirrors are large screens in stores in which customers can see themselves wearing
different clothes in different contexts (Anderson et al. 2013). Likewise, AR apps
such as Pokémon Go for mobile devices allow users to experience AR independent
from their location (tom Dieck and Jung 2015; Rauschnabel et al. 2017). However,
pretending that virtual elements (e.g., Pokémon) are ‘really existing’ is potentially
unrealistic when looking “through” a screen of a mobile device. ARSGs, however,
are worn like regular glasses and integrate virtual information realistically into the
user’s field of vision (Rauschnabel et al. 2016; Rauschnabel et al. 2015). This
allows a hands-free use which makes the AR experience more realistic than AR
among mobile hand-held devices. To operate, various sensors (e.g., laser, gyro-
scope, cameras, microphone, GPS, etc.) capture the real world, and an integrated
computer module processes this information and integrates virtual information.
Figure 1 shows schematically the functionality of AR, and ARSGs in specific.
Here, a woman is wearing an ARSG-device and looks at a carpet. The device
processes the environment and realistically integrates a 3D hologram—a cat. Thus,
the users ‘sees’ a cat sitting on the carpet.

2.2 Fashnology: Wearable Devices

ARSGs are, as any wearable device, not just ‘used’ but also ‘worn’, and thus, share
several psychological similarities with fashion accessories. In fact, many wearables
share prototypical similarities with ‘non-smart’ counterparts. For example, a
smartwatch is worn like a regular watch, and some of them even look very similar
to prototypical ‘traditional watches’ (e.g., Samsung Gear 3), whereas others look
distinct (e.g., Apple Watch). To study wearables in general more effectively,
research has discussed the term “fashnology,” a combination of fashion and tech-
nology, as an overarching study concept (Rauschnabel et al. 2016). For example,
Chuah et al. (2016) show that people who perceive smartwatches as a technology
(vs. fashion) evaluate them as more useful (vs. visible). Likewise, Rauschnabel
et al. (2016) propose that consumers who mentally categorize ARSGs as a fashion
accessory tend to evaluate them more based on visible aspects, whereas those who
categorize them as a technology incorporate usefulness judgements more. In
addition, a finite mixture model among a large-scale US sample shows that about
three quarters of the American population are ‘fashnologists’, and thus incorporate
both fashion and technology criteria to assess ARSGs.
214 P.A. Rauschnabel

Fig. 1 Schematic characteristics of ARSGs: gray = real, black = virtual (Source http://www.
connectedscience.de/reprint with permission)

In sum, it is important to note that ARSGs are a combination of Augmented

Reality (i.e., reality plus virtuality), and fashnology (i.e., fashion plus technology).
Figure 2 summarizes these specific ARSG characteristics schematically.

2.3 Uses and Gratification Theory (U&GT)

Traditionally, media researchers proposed that mass media are powerful and
influential, whereas consumers are passive. U&GT scholars took a different
approach. Rooted in media and communication science, U&GT addresses the
central question: Why do people use particular media? U&GT is based on various
assumptions, such as that audiences behave in a goal-oriented manner and proac-
tively choose the media to consume in order to address particular human needs
(Katz et al. 1973; Rubin 2002). Although individuals’ needs often vary based on
their individual characteristics (e.g., demographics, personality, etc.), Katz et al.
(1973) provide a systematization of five broad categories of media-related needs:
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 215

Fig. 2 ARSGs combine fashion and technology as well as the real-world with the virtual world

(1) cognitive needs, such as information gathering and understanding of particular

phenomena,
(2) tension-release needs, such as escapism or diversion,
(3) affective needs, such as emotional experiences,
(4) social integrative needs, such as creating new and maintaining existing social
relationships, and finally
(5) personal integrative needs, such as enhancing once status, confidence, or
credibility (e.g., confidence building, credibility).
Despite the fact that U&GT is not without criticism (Ruggiero 2000), it remains one
of the most widely applied theories in media research (Rubin 2002). For example,
scholars have applied its framework to study various forms of media and tech-
nologies, including social media (Leung 2013) and online games (Wu et al. 2010).
In addition, the flexibility of U&GT has allowed researchers to link it with other
theories to investigate other innovative devices and services (Nysveen et al. 2005),
such as ARSGs (Rauschnabel et al. 2016a). Certainly, many of the studied U&GT
variables have counterparts in other domains. For example, what technology
acceptance scholars term “usefulness” or “performance expectancies” (e.g.,
Venkatesh et al. 2012; King and He 2006; Ratten 2009) describes the extent to
which a user of a technology believes that the use of a particular technology
improves his or her task-performance. U&GT scholars use similar constructs that
reflect utilitarian gratifications (Katz et al. 1973). Likewise, ‘enjoyment’ in the
TAM domain describes how much “fun” a person experiences from using a
216 P.A. Rauschnabel

technology (King and He 2006). Enjoyment is an example of a hedonic gratification

in U&GT research that addresses tension-release needs (Rubin 2002).

3 Literature Review

Not many studies have investigated the adoption of ARSGs. Most of them build on
prior technology acceptance research. These studies showed that factors such as
perceived usefulness, enjoyment (Rauschnabel et al. 2016), social norms (e.g.,
Rauschnabel and Ro 2016; Weiz et al. 2016), image-related factors (Rauschnabel
and Ro 2016; Rauschnabel et al. 2016), or the potential to substitute real physical
objects through holograms (Ernst et al. 2016) are impactful in shaping consumers’
reactions to ARSGs. Eisenmann et al.’s (2014) Harvard Business case study pro-
vides a comprehensive overview of factors that influence consumers’ reactions to
Google Glass. Findings of this case study also include “practical” factors such as
specific display characteristics or battery. Likewise, other publications have dis-
cussed the potential of data leaks and thus, threats to a user’s privacy (Hein and
Rauschnabel 2016); however, most these early studies did not identify any sig-
nificant risk factors, except Rauschnabel et al. (2016) who found that people tend to
care more about the privacy of the people that surround them rather than about their
own self privacy. Few studies have also investigated other potential risk factors
(Rauschnabel et al. 2016; Stock et al. 2016), and discussed topics such as dis-
traction, information overload, health risks and so forth. However, most of these
studies conclude that risks factors, at least in the current stage of the lifecycle, are
less important. As with smartwatches and other wearable devices, ARSGs also
include a substantial amount of ‘fashion’. A study by Rauschnabel and colleagues
(2016) has investigated why and when consumers perceive ARSGs as fashion,
technology, or both (‘fashnology’). Finally, Hein et al. (2017) took a different
approach and studied the role of ARSGs from a society perspective. A core finding
is that people tend to associate various societal risks (e.g., public privacy, loss of
social cohesion) and societal benefits (e.g., social progress potential), which impact
the anticipated success (i.e., whether people think that ARSGs will be successful)
and the desired success (i.e., whether people want that ARSGs are successful in the
future).

4 A Conceptual Model for Augmented Reality Smart

Glasses

U&GT, as outlined above, is based on the assumption that an individual’s personal

motivational factors drive his or her media usage behavior. Katz et al.’s (1973)
proposed five broad categorizations of needs that are linked to media use. Based on
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 217

Fig. 3 Conceptual model

that, I propose a conceptual model (see Fig. 3) to theorize specific factors related to
ARSG usage. The model starts on the left side with an overview of the five
categorizations of needs (e.g., cognitive), where each of them is conceptually linked
to a broader category of gratifications (e.g., utilitarian) consisting of examples of
several specific factors (e.g., life efficiency). These gratifications can be predomi-
nantly obtained from the device itself (upper factors) or from the medium (i.e., AR;
bottom factors). In addition, the model proposes that the strengths of these effects
might differ based on the usage context (existence of other people or not), the
device (fashion, technology, or fashnology), and the user/consumer (e.g.,
self-presentation). In addition, the model proposes that the degree to which a human
need is satisfied determines the importance of specific gratifications.

4.1 Cognitive Needs and the Role of Utilitarian

Gratifications

One reason people consume particular media, such as newspapers, is to gratify their
cognitive needs. These can include various specific gratifications such as finding
relevant information or organizing one’s lives. This idea is conceptually linked to
the broad construct of perceived usefulness in the literature on technology accep-
tance (Venkatesh et al. 2012) which reflects workers or users’ evaluations of a
technology in terms of increasing their (work/life) efficiency. Once more apps are
available, ARSGs can offer numerous utilitarian benefits. The current overview
provides some examples of promising utilitarian gratifications:
• Work and life efficiency are utilitarian gratifications similar to performance
expectancy (Venkatesh et al. 2012) or perceived usefulness (King and He 2006)
218 P.A. Rauschnabel

that cover the degree to which a user believes that using ARSGs can help him or
her accomplish certain personal or job-related tasks more efficiently. Both of
these constructs are typically increased by access to real-time information. For
example, Hein and Rauschnabel (2016) discuss the idea that ARSGs can support
workers with information from Enterprise Social Networks. Consumers can
have access to anything they need, such as emails, chats or navigation systems.
Likewise, police officers could use face recognition or lie detector apps to
identify suspicious people. Salespeople could use emotion scanner apps to learn
more about a negotiation partner’s preferences in real-time.
• Information gathering and education cover the potential to use ARSGs for
learning and decision making purposes. For example, a user can learn new
languages. Users can also explore museums, buildings and cities using ARSGs.
Whenever a user looks at a particular object, the app can integrate relevant
information for him or her.

4.2 Tension-Release Needs and Hedonic Gratifications

People often use media to satisfy a variety of tension-related needs. These tech-
nologies are typically associated with a particularly high “hedonic value”—that is,
media that delivers what people in everyday language term as “fun.” Psychological
research has shown that hedonic gratifications are associated with various positive
outcomes such as the reduction of boredom or pleasure (Close and Kukar-Kinney
2010; Klinger 1971). Therefore, it is not surprising that research on the use of media
and technology concludes that hedonic factors are an important determinants of use
(Nysveen et al. 2005; Taylor et al. 2011; Venkatesh et al. 2012). Examples of
specific hedonic gratifications associated with ARSGs are:
• Enjoyment, an established construct in U&GT research but also in the technology
acceptance literature (Venkatesh et al. 2012), is defined as “the extent to which the
activity of using a specific system is perceived to be enjoyable in its own right,
aside from any performance consequences resulting from system use” (Venkatesh
2000, p. 351). Enjoyment reflects the potential that a user can distract him/herself
from everyday activities, particularly through the use of ARSGs in general. AR
scholars have studied and shown the importance of AR in various settings (Leue
et al. 2015; Jung et al. 2015; tom Dieck and Jung 2015).
• Related to that, Gaming is a construct that describes the use of (AR) games on
ARSGs (Rauschnabel et al. 2015). For example, Robo Raid is a game that can
be played on HoloLens where virtual robots attack a user who has to shoot them.
• Entertainment, on a broader level, also includes examples of watching movies
or performing various tasks to be entertained. For example, a YouTube app
could offer access to millions of clips, or a Netflix app access to a large database
of movies. These examples show that ARSGs can potentially address several
needs which traditionally TV or Radio have addressed. In contrast to enjoyment,
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 219

entertainment is focused more on a particular task associated with a particular

app, whereas enjoyment can also result just from the use of the device alone.

4.3 Affective Needs and Sensual Gratifications

“Sensual gratifications” cover all benefits that users experience from the stimulation
of various human senses. As ARSGs are worn and used, these gratifications can
derive from wearing or using. Whereas wearing is solely mostly linked to feeling,
the use—depending on the app—can stimulate visual and acoustic senses, too.
Some examples include:
• Wearable comfort (sense: touch), which is based on the assumption that
consumers react more positively to ARSGs when wearing them feels comfort-
able. This evaluation of the overall wearable comfort is influenced by physical
characteristics of the device, such as the size, the weight, pressure, temperature,
and so forth. Most readers will probably have a favorite pullover or pants that
just ‘feels good’. The same might be true for ARSGs. Some people might like
the feeling of wearing them, whereas others might feel it distracting, impractical
and uncomfortable. Most likely, this wearable comfort is driven by physical
characteristics of the device itself.
• ARSGs can allow users to alter their environment in a desired way (sense:
seeing). For example, they can place art and other things that users cannot have
in real-life (e.g., expensive luxury accessories or things that do not exist in
reality, such as fantasy creatures). For example, a user could alter his/her home
into a ‘Harry Potter-like’ environment where ‘magic’ furniture and other
objects/creatures from the movies can be virtually integrated.

4.4 Social Integrative Needs and Social Gratifications

Social factors are influential drivers in explaining various forms of human behavior,
including consumption, technology use and media choice. In this article, social
gratifications explain various factors that are associated with social relationships.
• Socializing, such as using ARSGs in order to get in touch with other people, is one
example of a social gratification. It is very likely that within the next few years,
dating apps will appear and other apps that can connect individuals to each other.
Prior research has linked this and similar gratifications with the use of social media
and other technologies (Sheldon 2008). Another possible way is that ARSG users
can connect to each other in community-like organizations (Felix 2012; Muniz and
Schau 2005). Especially in the very early stage (i.e., now), there are already online
communities where users with similar interests share their experiences with
ARSGs—for example, Hololens groups on Facebook.
220 P.A. Rauschnabel

• Visible consumption objects, especially new technologies such as ARSGs,

might have the potential to serve as a “conversation starter.” As in the early
age of smartphones (i.e., the iPhone 1), owning a new device stimulated interest
(and thus, questions) from people unfamiliar with the new technology. The
difference between this factor and the aforementioned socializing construct is
that ‘conversation starter’ results more from owning the device and happens
predominantly in the ‘real-world,’ whereas socializing arises from particular
apps and thus happens in the ‘augmented world’.
• Related to that, the management of existing relationships is a promising area for
ARSG-apps. For example, there are videos on YouTube in which base jumpers
document their ‘view’ of the jump, probably with the intention to share these
moments with friends. Sharing moments with friends is something people always
want to do (e.g., showing photos from a holiday trip), and ARSGs facilitate the
integration of friends into one’s view in real-life. It is also likely that online social
networks will be extended into AR, where ARSGs can make thi experience more
realistic than other mobile devices. Just recently, Mark Zuckerberg (the founder
and CEO of Facebook) stated: “One day, we believe this kind of immersive,
augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people.”

4.5 Personal Integrative Needs and Impression

Management

Most people have a keen interest to present themselves in a positive manner to

others. Researchers from numerous disciplines have shown that this motivation
drives their behavior in various ways. ARSGs are worn like regular spectacles,
which makes them even more visible and self-defining than many other con-
sumption objects. In social interactions, faces play an especially important role
(Bloch and Richins 1992) so that “even simple changes to a face, such as wearing
different types of eyeglasses or removing them, might influence how someone is
perceived” (Forster et al. 2013, p. 1).
• Impression management is one of the main factors why many people use
particular media and technologies for symbolic reasons, such as reassuring their
societal status or power, and/or to gain credibility among others (Hollenbeck
and Kaikati 2012; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Specific examples include fol-
lowing brands on social media (Hollenbeck and Kaikati 2012) or check in on
social media for image building (Luarn et al. 2015). Innovative technologies that
are highly visible to others are thus generally associated with many positive
attributes (e.g., ‘innovative’). For example, Chuah et al. (2016) show that
consumers prefer smartwatches that are visible to others. This impression
management can also be applicable to more specific images, such as a partic-
ularly popular or even cool and trendy image (“coolness”) or a high social
status.
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 221

• It is also important to consider normative factors in the acceptance of ARSGs.

The technology acceptance literature in general (e.g., Venkatesh et al. 2012),
and on ARSGs specifically (e.g., Rauschnabel and Ro 2016), have studied
injunctive norms. These type of norms describe normative expectations about a
user’s peers. A similar construct are descriptive norms. Descriptive norms
describe the idea that people are more likely to adopt ARSGs when they expect
that it will grow in popularity and eventually become commonly ubiquitous
(Rauschnabel et al. 2015). Our recent research suggests that descriptive norms,
at least in the current stage in the product lifecycle, are more influential than
injunctive norms.
• ‘Fashion Match’ is a novel term in this research that addresses the matching
potential of ARSGs to a user’s typical clothing style. For example, sporty
ARSGs (such as the sporty Everysight Raptor Glasses) might not be preferred in
everyday life by a person with a more elegant or conservative clothing style.
However, it is likely that fashion match needs to be studied in future research
through the lens of fit (i.e., similarity) and complementarity (i.e., an ARSG
device complements particular fashion items in a way that the user’s overall
appearance is enhanced).

4.6 Boundary Conditions

The aforementioned list provides a systematization of factors that can be used in

ARSG research. However, it is important to note that these effects might differ
when particular boundary conditions exist. Methodologically speaking, these effects
could be moderated by various variables. The model is based on the idea that
several categories of moderators exist, such as usage context, individual, and
technology related factors.
• Usage context factors are about the specific context in which ARSGs are used.
For example, it is likely that the presence of other people matters. That is, people
might incorporate symbolic factors more when they are in public than in situa-
tions where they are alone. Similarly, when using ARSGs in a work-related
context, utilitarian gratifications might matter more than symbolic ones.
• Individual factors are factors that describe the user itself. Beside demographic
variables, personality traits, needs, (other) motives, attitudes and other
individual-level factors might determine the weight of each of the factors on
evaluations. This might also include the cultural background of a user (Gong
and Stump 2016). For example, more individualistic personalities might focus
more on self-expressive gratifications, whereas collectivistic individuals might
value the socializing benefits more.
222 P.A. Rauschnabel

• Technology related moderators are another relevant moderator in the proposed

framework. For example, as stated in Rauschnabel et al. (2016), the design of a
device might impact consumers’ in terms of ‘fashnology’, which can then serve
as a moderator in the propose model.

4.7 Risk Factors

Although the focus of U&GT (and thus also this chapter) are gratifications, it is
important to note that people also integrate various risk factors in their decision
making. With regards to ARSGs, our research has identified numerous risk factors,
and some of them are:
• Privacy, as people are afraid of threatening their own, as well as other peoples’
privacy. Research has shown that both risks are highly salient among con-
sumers. Recent research did not confirm that when it comes to ARSGs, people
care about their privacy, but care about public privacy (Rauschnabel and Ro
2016; Hein et al. 2017).
• Another risk factor is related to health risks in general. This includes the fear
that ARSGs can hurt a user’s eyes, electro smog that can cause brain cancer, that
distraction could lead to physical injuries, and finally, that seeing and interacting
with objects that do not exist can impact a user’s psychological well-being. It is
important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, the actual risk of these
factors has not yet been determined in the academic literature. Similarly, not
much research has been done to investigate how the perception of these risks
impacts consumers’ decision making.
• Especially in the very early beginning of a product lifecycle, consumers have
very little information about the future of a technology. In addition, prices are
usually very high (e.g., the first version of HoloLens was sold for more than
$3,000). Therefore, financial risks are potential factors that decrease the
favorability of consumers’ evaluations. In interviews, many consumers shared
their fear that the HoloLens and other devices might not work properly, and that
new standards would be established in a few years so that current devices would
be useless in a few years. Likewise, wearing a novel device—especially in
public contexts—can be associate with very high social risks, e.g., the fear that
other people react negatively (which is related to the normative factors discussed
above).
• Another category of risks that we identified in qualitative, yet unpublished,
research are society consequences. As discussed in Hein et al. (2017), con-
sumers associate ARSGs with various positive and negative consequences for
societies. Consumers tend to integrate these factors also into their personal
decision making. For example, in a qualitative study in the US, one respondent
stated that a risk of ARGSs is the “distinguishing the rich from the poor,” and
others criticized that societies are already too technology-focused. These quotes
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 223

imply that consumers are likely to avoid ARSGs because—in their view—
adopting them would support a negative societal trend. On the contrary, it is
worth noting that other consumers also discussed positive societal conse-
quences, such as help for visually impaired people, the reduction of crime and
new jobs.

4.8 Control Variables

Robust models typically include control variables, such as age and gender. For
ARSGs, additional control variables could increase the robustness and generaliz-
ability of a model, if sample size allows. Examples include whether respondents are
used to wearing any form of glasses or wearable devices, their knowledge about and
attitude towards new technologies in general, but also specifically about ARSGs.
Another control variable could be a proxy for user friendliness (e.g., perceived ease
of use).

4.9 Dependent Variables

Depending on the studied context, the proposed model allows researchers to study a
variety of different variables. Adaptions of established constructs include the atti-
tude towards ARSGs or towards using them, purchase intention, or usage intention.
Models can be refined by incorporating various types of these variables and their
interplay, but also usage intention in different contexts. This is an alternative to the
inclusion of moderators (as proposed in this article) and might be particularly
relevant if respondents might or might not use the same ARSG in different contexts
—such as at home, in public, or at the workplace.

5 Discussion

As shown in the Introduction section, ARSGs are very likely to become the next
major step in the evolution of smart wearable technologies. While market research
predictions are highly promising, scant research attempting to understand the
people that end up using it (i.e., consumers) exists. Taking into account the
established U&GT framework (Katz et al. 1973), I address this fundamental
research gap by proposing a conceptual model that links basic human needs to
gratifications associated with ARSGs.
224 P.A. Rauschnabel

The proposed framework includes various examples of specific gratifications

that scholars can implement in empirical studies. Does it thus make sense to include
each of these gratifications in a questionnaire? Definitely not. Restrictions of the
survey length as well as a study focus on a specific application might impact the
consideration set of gratifications. In addition, too many similar constructs in a
model can lead to estimation problems because of multicollinearity or
cross-loadings of items. On the other hand, the proposed framework should also be
more seen as a systematic source of inspiration. It is likely that additional gratifi-
cations exist that are of particular relevance for a specific research context.
Therefore, additional exploratory research, such as netnography (Bartl et al. 2016)
or other forms of qualitative research, can be beneficial. For example, as marketers
have a keen interest in using innovative media to place their brand messages (Wang
et al. 2009), brand-related measures might need to be incorporated.
It is also important that ARSGs are a very novel form of device and thus, the
wording of items might need to be adjusted to the study context. This means that
established statements need to be revised and/or extended. Pre-studies with con-
sumers (e.g., factor analyses based on survey data, or card sorting tasks) and experts
are a useful approach to validating adopted scales.
Finally, the challenge of ARSG research in the current stage of the product
lifecycle is whether scholars should expose respondents to real devices, or work
with a fictitious context. There are several pros and cons to both approaches. Using
a fictitious context can be explained quite realistically and can at least be used to
measure consumers’ general interests in ARSGs. The existence of useful videos,
descriptions and photos of ARSGs can provide users a realistic picture of the
processes, and implementing them in (online) surveys allows to survey a large
amount of people. On the contrary, evaluating a technology solely based on an
explanation might be biased and less realistic. However, having respondents
actually use ARSGs for a sufficient amount of time before surveying them, is time
consuming and thus might limit the sample size.
The proposed model can serve as a source of inspiration for managers in several
ways. App developers can be guided by the proposed needs and factors to identify
specific needs and expected gratifications that their apps can satisfy. In other words,
the proposed framework can serve as a source of inspiration in the idea generation
phase of app developers. For manufacturers of ARSG devices, the proposed model
highlights the role of the fashion-related factors, and the importance of emphasizing
particular aspects in their market communication (e.g., focus on design or func-
tionality). In line with this, this article echoes the idea that a context-specific tar-
geting might be an effective strategy (e.g., one device for work and one device for
leisure). This is already reflected in various existing real-life examples. For
example, Epson positions their Moverio glasses as a manufacturing device, whereas
Everysight Raptor are positioned for cycling.
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 225

6 Concluding Remarks

Many scholars from various disciplines including communication science, human–

computer interaction, marketing, MIS, engineering, and others conclude that
ARSGs are a highly relevant and interesting study object. However, one crucial
success factor (maybe even the most crucial one) is that people accept and use
them. In this chapter, I introduce and propose U&GT as a starting point for further
contributions in this field. Scholars, educators and managers are inspired to consider
the proposed framework when addressing one or several of the questions:
• How can businesses benefit from ARSGs? In particular, how can ARSGs
improve internal processes (e.g., logistics, marketing) but also communication
with external audiences (e.g., customers)?
• How could branded apps for ARSGs look like?
• How can business models for free ARSG apps (‘freemium’) look like?
• How can ARSGs solve major societal problems, such as poverty, obesity or
social isolation?
• What laws and government decisions are needed to reduce the risks of ARSGs?

Acknowledgements I thank Young Ro for feedback on this article, as well as the conference
chairs, reviewers and participants of the 3rd International AR VR conference, Manchester. In
addition, I thank Christina Philipp and www.connectedscience.de for additional feedback and
support.

References

Anderson, F., Grossman, T., Matejka, J., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2013, October). YouMove: enhancing
movement training with an augmented reality mirror. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM
symposium on User interface software and technology, (311–320). ACM.
Bartl, M., Kannan, V. K., & Stockinger, H. (2016). A review and analysis of literature on
netnography research. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2), 165–196.
Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1992). You look “mahvelous”: The pursuit of beauty and the
marketing concept. Psychology & Marketing, 9(1), 3–15.
Chuah, S. H. W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016).
Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 65(5), 276–284.
Close, A. G., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2010). Beyond buying: Motivations behind consumers’ online
shopping cart use. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 986–992.
Eisenmann, T., Barley, L., & Kind, L. (2014). Google Glass. Harvard Business School Case
Study.
Ernst, C. P. H., Stock, B., & dos Santos Ferreira, T. (2016). The Usage of Augmented Reality
Smartglasses: The Role of Perceived Substitutability. AMCIS2016 Proceedings.
Felix, R. (2012). Brand communities for mainstream brands: the example of the Yamaha R1 brand
community. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(3), 225–232.
Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2013). The Glasses Stereotype Revised. The Jury Expert,
25(2), 1–6.
226 P.A. Rauschnabel

GoldmanSachs (2016). Virtual & augmented reality. Retrieved March, 2016, from http://
goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/technology-driving-innovation-folder/virtual-and-
augmented-reality/report.pdf.
Gong, W., & Stump, R. L. (2016). Cultural values reflected in the adoption of social networking
sites. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(3), 360–378.
Hein, D. W., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2016). Augmented Reality Smart Glasses and Knowledge
Management: A Conceptual Framework for Enterprise Social Networks. In: Rossmann, A,
Stei, G. & M. Besc, (Eds.) Enterprise Social Networks (pp. 83–109). Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden.
Hein, D. W., Jodoin, J. L., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ivens, B. S. (2017). Are wearables good or bad
for society?: An exploration of societal benefits, risks, and consequences of augmented reality
smart glasses. In Mobile Technologies and Augmented Reality in Open Education (1–25). IGI
Global.
Hollenbeck, C. R., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Consumers’ use of brands to reflect their actual and
ideal selves on Facebook. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 395–405.
Javornik, A. (2016a). ‘It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’Consumer affective, cognitive and
behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. Journal of Marketing Management,
32(9–10), 987–1011.
Javornik, A. (2016b). Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media
characteristics on consumer behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30,
252–261.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use
augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49,
75–86.
Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important
things. American sociological review, 164–181.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management, 43(6), 740–755.
Klinger, E. (1971). Structure and functions of fantasy.
Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google glass augmented reality: Generic learning
outcomes for art galleries. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015
(463–476). Springer International Publishing.
Leung, L. (2013). Generational differences in content generation in social media: The roles of the
gratifications sought and of narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 997–1006.
Luarn, P., Yang, J. C., & Chiu, Y. P. (2015). Why people check into social network sites.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(4), 21–46.
Muniz Jr, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2005). Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand
community. Journal of consumer research, 31(4), 737–747.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005). Intentions to use mobile services:
Antecedents and cross-service comparisons. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33
(3), 330–346.
PWC. (2014). The Wearable Future. PWC Consumer Intelligence Series: Research Report. https://
www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/wearable-technology.html
Ratten, V. (2009). Adoption of technological innovations in the m-commerce industry.
International Journal of Technology Marketing, 4(4), 355–367.
Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A. & Ro, Y. K. (2015a). Augmented Reality Smart Glasses: Definition,
Conceptual Insights, and Managerial Importance. Working Paper, The University of
Michigan-Dearborn, MI, USA.
Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., & Ivens, B. S. (2015b). 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, 49, 635–647.
Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart glasses: an investigation of
technology acceptance drivers. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2),
123–148.
A Conceptual Uses & Gratification Framework on the Use … 227

Rauschnabel, P. A., Hein, D. W., He, J., Ro, Y. K., Rawashdeh, S., & Krulikowski, B. (2016).
Fashion or Technology? A Fashnology Perspective on the Perception and Adoption of
Augmented Reality Smart Glasses. i-com: Journal of Interactive. Media, 15(2), 179–194.
Rauschnabel, P.A.; He, J.; Ro, K. Krulikowski, B. (2016): Drivers and Barriers of Augmented
Reality Smart Glasses, Working Paper, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Flint.
Rauschnabel., Rossmann., & tom Dieck. (2017). An Adoption Framework for Mobile Augmented
Reality Games: The Case of Pokémon Go, Computers in Human Behavior, forthcoming.
Rubin, A. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 525–548).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass communication &
society, 3(1), 3–37.
Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’
Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67–75.
Stock, B., dos Santos Ferreira, T. P., & Ernst, C. P. H. (2016). Does Perceived Health Risk
Influence Smartglasses Usage?. In The Drivers of Wearable Device Usage, (13–23). Springer
International Publishing.
Stockinger, H. (2016). The future of augmented reality-an Open Delphi study on technology
acceptance. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(1), 55–96.
Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on
social networks? Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 258–275.
tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2015). A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance
in urban heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 1:1–21.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly,
36(1), 157–178.
Wang, Y., Wang, K. L., & Yao, J. T. (2009). Marketing mixes for digital products: a study of the
marketspaces in China. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 4(1), 15–42.
Weiz, D., Anand, G., & Ernst, C. P. H. (2016). The Influence of Subjective Norm on the Usage of
Smartglasses. In The Drivers of Wearable Device Usage (1–11). Springer International
Publishing.
Wu, J. H., Wang, S. C., & Tsai, H. H. (2010). Falling in love with online games: The uses and
gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1862–1871.