Critically analyzing the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Wearable Technologies among

college students.

Abstract
The rise of technology has brought about changes, in consumer technology including devices like
smart glasses, smartwatches and more. These gadgets have the potential to transform peoples
lifestyles improve their well being guide their decision making process and influence their
behaviors. However despite their potential wearables have been adopted at a pace compared to
mainstream technologies such as smartphones. As a result manufacturers and designers are
actively exploring the factors that drive the adoption of technologies in order to enhance their
features and appeal to consumers. Researchers from various fields have conducted investigations
on technology adoption using different theories and methodologies.
This research paper aims to provide a synthesis of existing studies and future oriented research
on consumers adoption of wearable technologies. It explores the underlying theories of
technology diffusion and adoption reviews studies conducted in this area identifies factors that
influence the decision to adopt wearables and offers guidance for future research endeavors. The
keywords associated with this study include technology, wearable devices, wearables, smart
glasses, smartwatches, smart clothing fashion industry trends, technology usage patterns,
adoption rates literature review, college students, well, as future research prospects.

Keywords
Wearable technology, adoption, college students, health tracking, academic assistance, fitness
motivation, quantitative research

Introduction
Wearable technologies have emerged as a category of devices that hold great promise for
transforming various aspects of our daily lives. These innovative gadgets, which include smart
glasses, smartwatches, and other wearable devices, have attracted considerable attention due to
their potential to revolutionize how we interact with technology. Unlike mainstream technologies
like smartphones, however, the adoption of wearables has not yet reached its full potential. This
discrepancy in adoption rates highlights a fascinating area of study, one that delves into the
intricate factors that influence the acceptance and utilization of wearable technologies.
Understanding these factors is crucial, especially in the context of enhancing consumer
engagement and satisfaction with these devices. In pursuit of this understanding, this paper aims
to provide a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted factors that impact the adoption of
wearable technologies. To achieve this, we will draw upon a diverse range of theoretical
frameworks and empirical studies.
Literature review
College students lead fast-paced lives, often managing a delicate balance between academics,
social engagements, and health-related goals. In this demanding environment, wearable
technologies, such as fitness trackers, smartwatches, and productivity-enhancing devices, can
serve as valuable tools for improving various aspects of their daily routines.

One key factor that drives the adoption of wearables among college students is the perception
that these devices can significantly enhance their daily performance. Wearable technologies offer
features like fitness tracking, health monitoring, and time management that can empower
students to better manage their multifaceted lives. This notion aligns seamlessly with the Theory
of Planned Behavior proposed by Ajzen in 1985, which posits that individuals are more inclined
to adopt technologies when they perceive them as beneficial for their daily lives.

College life is often characterized by a hectic schedule with classes, assignments, exams, and
extracurricular activities. For college students, effectively managing their academic
commitments is paramount. Wearable devices equipped with intelligent features can play a
pivotal role in this regard.
According to Davis (1989), perceived usefulness and ease of use are fundamental factors
influencing technology adoption. In the case of wearables, students perceive them as valuable
tools for enhancing their academic performance. These devices offer multifunctional capabilities,
such as managing schedules, setting reminders, and maintaining digital calendars, all of which
can be particularly beneficial in an academic context.

Wearable devices enable students to efficiently manage their daily schedules. By syncing their
class timetables and extracurricular activities with their wearables, students can receive timely
notifications and reminders. This proactive approach helps them stay on top of their
commitments, reducing the risk of missing classes, deadlines, or important meetings (Venkatesh
et al., 2003).

In the fast-paced world of academia, college students are constantly bombarded with
assignments, projects, and exams. Keeping track of these multiple deadlines can be a significant
challenge. This is where wearable devices play a crucial role. Wearables, such as smartwatches
and fitness trackers, offer a unique advantage by sending timely alerts and reminders for
impending assignment due dates and exam schedules.

As noted by Kim et al. (2016), this feature is a game-changer. It transforms wearables into
personal academic assistants that tirelessly monitor deadlines and ensure students are
well-prepared. Students can input their academic calendar into the wearable, and the device takes
care of the rest. As deadlines approach, wearables discreetly vibrate or display notifications,
prompting students to take action. This proactive approach to deadline management is
particularly valuable as it prevents last-minute cramming and the associated stress.

The integration of digital calendars and wearables minimizes the cognitive load on college
students. Instead of relying on memory or sifting through numerous schedules, students have all
their commitments neatly displayed on their wrist. This not only reduces the risk of forgetting
important events but also frees up mental space for more focused and productive academic work.

Zeithaml's research (1988) on visual aids and organizational efficiency aligns with this concept.
By providing a clear and visually appealing representation of their schedules, digital calendars on
wearables empower students to make informed decisions about how to allocate their time wisely.
This efficiency extends beyond academics and contributes to a well-rounded college experience
where students can excel in their studies while also enjoying social and personal pursuits.

Typing on electronic devices during lectures can sometimes lead to distraction, both for the
student taking notes and those sitting nearby. The rhythmic tapping of keys and the visual focus
on a screen can disrupt the flow of the lecture. However, wearables with voice command
capabilities minimize these distractions. Students can discreetly and silently issue voice
commands to record important information, all while maintaining eye contact with the instructor
and staying engaged in the lecture.

Moreover, this hands-free note-taking approach aligns with Gu et al.'s research (2021) on
technology acceptance in the context of wearables. When students perceive that using these
devices enhances their learning experience by reducing distractions and improving engagement,
they are more likely to embrace this technology as a valuable tool for academic success.
Voice command capabilities in wearables also promote accessibility and inclusivity in
educational settings. They cater to students with diverse needs, including those with physical
disabilities or conditions that may make traditional note-taking challenging. This technology
ensures that all students have equal opportunities to access lecture content and excel in their
studies. It aligns with the principles of inclusive education, where technology is harnessed to
create an equitable learning environment for everyone.

Many college students prioritize maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Wearable fitness trackers are
instrumental in supporting this goal. These devices provide real-time data on physical activity,
sleep patterns, and heart rate, enabling students to make informed decisions about their health
and fitness routines. The ability of wearables to contribute to improved health and fitness
outcomes can be a compelling reason for their adoption among this demographic (Gao et al.,
2015). Wearable fitness trackers empower college students to make informed decisions about
their health. By continuously monitoring physical activity and sleep patterns, these devices
provide valuable insights into daily habits. Students can use this data to adjust their routines,
ensuring they get sufficient exercise and rest. In essence, wearables act as personalized health
advisors, guiding students toward healthier choices.

Wearable fitness trackers also serve as sources of motivation and accountability. They encourage
students to set fitness goals and track their progress over time. The gamification elements often
present in these devices, such as step challenges and rewards, make the journey to better health
engaging and fun. Additionally, the social features of some wearables allow students to connect
with friends and compete in fitness challenges, fostering a sense of accountability and
camaraderie.

Wearables extend their influence beyond academics and health by fostering enhanced social
connectivity among college students. These devices offer a suite of features that cater to the
modern student's desire to stay connected and engaged within their social circles. Messaging
functionalities, social media notifications, and the ability to seamlessly share fitness
achievements with friends are just a few examples of how wearables facilitate social interaction
(Hoffman et al., 2017). The integration of messaging apps on wearables allows students to stay
in touch with friends and classmates without the need to frequently check their smartphones.
Incoming messages are conveniently displayed on the wearable's screen, enabling quick
responses during lectures or while on the move. This not only keeps students connected but also
enhances their efficiency in managing social interactions. Additionally, wearables can provide
discreet notifications from popular social media platforms, ensuring that students remain
up-to-date with the latest posts, messages, and events in their virtual social spheres. The seamless
flow of information from wearables to smartphones or laptops ensures that students can
effortlessly transition between their devices, maintaining an uninterrupted connection with their
online communities.

Moreover perceived "coolness" and aesthetic appeal play a pivotal role in influencing the
adoption of wearables, especially among college students who often seek technology that not
only serves a functional purpose but also resonates with their personal style and preferences.
This demographic places a premium on technology that aligns with current trends and is
considered fashionable. Wearable devices that embody these characteristics are more likely to
captivate the interest and enthusiasm of college students (Sundar et al., 2014). College students
are part of a generation that values self-expression through technology. They perceive their
gadgets as extensions of their personalities and fashion choices. Hence, wearables that possess a
sleek and modern design, vibrant color options, and customizable features are more likely to
resonate with the fashion-conscious college crowd. These devices are seen as accessories that not
only provide functionality but also contribute to one's overall image and style. This notion aligns
with the "coolness" factor, where wearables are considered cool and appealing when they blend
seamlessly into one's daily attire and reflect the latest fashion trends (Sundar et al., 2014).
Wearable technologies, including fitness trackers, smartwatches, and productivity-enhancing
devices, hold immense potential to enhance various aspects of college students' lives. These
devices offer features that improve academic performance by assisting in time management,
deadline tracking, and note-taking during lectures. Additionally, wearable fitness trackers
empower students to make informed decisions about their health and fitness routines, fostering
motivation and accountability. Wearables promote social connectivity through messaging and
social media notifications. Perceived "coolness" and aesthetic appeal also play a significant role
in attracting college students to these gadgets. As we embark on our research, we will leverage
this comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing wearable technology adoption
among college students to inform our investigation and contribute to the advancement of this
exciting field.

Research Objectives

1. Analyzing the key factors influencing the adoption of wearable technology among
college students
2. Understanding the role of health tracking capabilities in driving acceptance of wearables
3. Examining the impact of academic assistance features on adoption decisions
4. Assessing the importance of fitness motivation and gamification for wearable acceptance
5. Identifying adoption inhibitors that hinder mainstream penetration among students

Research Methodology

Brief Overview
Type of Research: Quantitative correlational research
Sample Size: 70 college students
Questionnaire Details: Structured survey questionnaire with 5-point Likert scale ratings and
single-item adoption intent measure. Adapted from validated instruments used in prior scholarly
studies.
Sampling Technique: Convenience sampling
Analysis: Descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis & multiple linear regression
analysis.

Research Design
This quantitative empirical research implemented a descriptive correlational design using a
structured questionnaire survey method to collect primary data on wearable technology adoption.
The correlational aspects entails analyzing statistical relationships between adoption driver
factors and consumer acceptance of wearables as advanced tech products. Descriptive statistics
also provide summaries of user perceptions.
Survey Instrument
A structured questionnaire designed by previous scholarly studies was adapted. It had 3 sections:
1. Demographic attributes: Age, gender, occupation, family income
2. Wearable technology perceptions: 17 statements on a 5-point Likert agreement scale
across 4 dimensions:
Adoption
Health and Fitness Motivation
Academic Aid
Social Interaction & Appeal
3. Adoption intent: Single-item scale for intent to adopt wearables
The survey instrument demonstrates good construct and criterion validity as well as internal
consistency reliability based on past empirical assessments.

Data Collection
The online questionnaire was administered to collect responses after obtaining necessary
permissions from university authorities and informed consent of participants confirming
anonymity and confidentiality. Data preparation in terms of screening, coding and tabulation was
done before statistical analysis using SPSS software.

Frequencies
 Statistical Analysis

Factor Analysis Test

The KMO value of 0.570 indicates moderate sampling adequacy, suggesting challenges for
factor analysis. Bartlett's Test is significant (p = 0.001), supporting the presence of correlations
between variables. The data are not multivariate normal, as Bartlett's test of sphericity is
significant (p = 0.001).

Communalities
The communalities of all except one item was greater than 0.5. A common guideline is that
communalities should ideally be greater than 0.5 for each item, indicating that at least half of the
variance in each variable is accounted for by the factors. In our case, all items except one have
communalities greater than 0.5. This suggests that most variables are well-represented by the
factors extracted, indicating a good fit.

Factors
On the basis of our questionnaire we were primarily testing 4 factors from our respondents
clubbed together via various similar questions. The 4 factors are:

1. Adoption
2. Health and Fitness Motivation
3. Academic Aid
4. Social Interaction & Appeal
Correlation
The Pearson correlation shows several noteworthy relationships:

Gender has a weak positive correlation with Adoption Factor (r = .199) and Academic Aid
Factor (r = .202), indicating that females may be slightly more likely to adopt wearables and use
them for academic assistance compared to males. However, these correlations are not statistically
significant (p > .05) so we cannot make definitive conclusions.

Annual Family Income has a weak negative correlation with Academic Aid Factor (r = -.166),
suggesting those from lower income families see slightly more value of wearables for academic
help. But again this is statistically non-significant.

Adoption Factor and Academic Aid Factor have a weak positive correlation (r = .145) implying
those who intend adopting wearables also somewhat recognize their academic usefulness, though
not to a major degree.
Academic Aid Factor has a moderately strong positive correlation with Social Interaction &
Appeal Factor (r = .354), which is statistically significant (p < .01). This indicates students' who
perceive wearables as helpful for college work also value their versatility for social connectivity
and style appeal.

The correlations provide initial evidence that academic assistance features have some influence
on wearable adoption among college students, and this is linked to their interest in wearables for
social/lifestyle purposes. But most relationships are fairly weak in magnitude.
Hypothesis Testing using Correlation

Hypothesis 1 - Association between Gender and Adoption Factor

Null Hypothesis (H01): There is no association between a student's gender and their intention to
adopt wearable technology.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha1): There is an association between a student's gender and their
intention to adopt wearable technology.
Based on the Pearson chi-square test result (p = .284 > .05), we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
There is insufficient evidence of an association between gender and adoption intentions.

Hypothesis 2 – Association between Gender and Academic Aid Perceptions

Null (H02): A student's gender has no relation to their view of wearables as an academic aid.
Alternative (Ha2): A student's gender impacts their perspective on the academic usefulness of
wearables.
Pearson chi-square significance value of .344 (> .05) indicates we cannot reject the null
hypothesis. No detectable association appears between gender and academic assistance
viewpoint.

Hypothesis 3 - Correlation between Academic Aid and Social Appeal Factors

Null (H03): Students' perception of wearables for academic help is unrelated to their view of
social/lifestyle appeal.
Alternative (Ha3): Students recognizing academic aid benefits also value social
connectivity/appeal aspects, indicating an association between the factors.
The statistically significant Pearson correlation (r = .354, p = .003 < .01) allows rejection of the
null hypothesis. Perceptions related to use for college work and social/style appeal are positively
correlated.

Summary Table:
Hypothesis Factors Related Test Result Interpretation Result

H01 Gender & Adoption p = .284 No evidence of Fail to reject

association null

H02 Gender & Academic p = .344 No evidence of Fail to reject

Aid association null

H03 Academic Aid & r = .354, p = Significant positive Reject null

Social Appeal .003 correlation
To conclude, the hypothesis testing analysis shows that demographics like gender have no
bearing on adoption orientations among college students. However, those valuing academic
assistance functionalities also perceive merits of wearables for lifestyle needs, suggesting an
interlinkage between the adoption factors.

Chi-Squared Tests
The chi-square test allows us to examine relationships between categorical variables. Key
observations:

➢ Gender vs. Adoption Factor: Chi-square test result is not significant (p = .284), implying
there is no evidence of an association between gender and intentions to adopt wearables.
➢ Gender vs. Academic Aid Factor: Again, the chi-square test is not statistically significant
(p = .344), indicating no detectable relationship between gender and view of wearables as
academic aids.
➢ Similar non-significant chi-square tests are seen between Gender & other factors like
Social Interaction and Health Motivation. Annual Family Income, when cross-tabulated
with the various adoption factors like Academic Aid, Social Appeal etc. also yields
statistically non-significant chi-squared tests in all cases.

The chi-squared analyses do not reveal any substantial associations between the demographic
attributes of college students and their perspectives on different wearable adoption factors. But
based on current evidence, demographics may not strongly determine wearable adoption
orientations among students.

Bayesian ANOVA Tests for Annual Family Income

Adoption Factor
There is no significant difference in adoption factor across income groups as the 95% credible
intervals overlap substantially. Most income segments have an estimated mean adoption
orientation between 3.0 to 3.6 on the Likert scale.
Only the over 10 lakh income segment has a lower adoption mean score of 3.16 but the credible
interval still overlaps indicating negligible variance.

Health Motivation Factor

Again the Bayesian ANOVA does not reveal major differences between income categories
regarding perceived relevance of health tracking features. The average factor scores range from
2.7 to 3.37 which signifies most students recognize wearable health benefits regardless of family
income status.
Academic Aid Factor
Interest in academic assistance wearable functionalities appears consistent across income
segments based on the Bayesian analysis. None of the income sections display divergence from
the overall mean perspective of around 3.3 to 3.5. Overlapping credible intervals confirm
negligible variation across groups.

Social Interaction/Appeal
Orientation related to social connectivity and style aspects mirror earlier patterns. Income
category does not substantially influence appeal factor with mean ratings displaying minimal
deviation from overall average.

The Bayesian ANOVA tests indicate family income or affordability has little bearing on how
college students view different aspects of wearable adoption. This aligns with the negligible
correlations and non-significant chi-squared test results between income and adoption factors
discussed previously.

Bayesian ANOVA Tests for Gender

The tests revealed results for Gender and Academic Aid Factor. There were no significant results
for Gender with other factors. The posterior mean score is higher for females (3.217) compared
to males (2.864). The credible intervals have some overlap. Therefore there may be a difference.

Result Discussion & Analysis

The results reveal several notable findings regarding wearable adoption among college students.
While demographics like gender and income status have negligible impact, the interlinkages
between functional and social/lifestyle aspects are more salient adoption drivers.

Students recognizing academic assistance benefits of wearables also value their versatility for
social connectivity and style appeal. The moderately strong correlation (r = .354) between the
Academic Aid and Social Interaction factors underscores this relationship. This implies
marketing wearables as productivity tools for college alone may not suffice. Accentuating their
lifestyle merits can potentiate adoption.

The factor analysis uncovered the four hypothesized dimensions of Adoption, Health/Fitness,
Academic Help, and Social Appeal as latent constructs explaining students’ orientation.
However, sampling adequacy for clear factor differentiation was only moderate. This suggests
wearable perceptions among students are still evolving without clearly defined decision drivers.
Adoption inhibitors like affordability constraints or data privacy concerns also need examination.
Notably, family income showed negligible bearing across all adoption factors, contradicting
assumptions that affordability determines technology acceptance. With students across economic
backgrounds displaying receptivity, manufacturers should calibrate wearable pricing accordingly
without exclusion.

While the current student sample did not reveal major gender differences, conflicting scholarly
evidence warrants further investigation. Qualitative studies might uncover decision nuances
between male and female students missed by structured surveys.

Insights for manufacturers, application developers, marketers and college administrators.

For device manufacturers, college students emerge as an attractive target segment with
receptivity towards both pragmatic and aesthetic aspects of wearables. However, positioning
them squarely as productivity tools might inhibit adoption. Integrating lifestyle-centric
capabilities related to music, messaging, social media alongside academic utilities can broaden
appeal. Varied use cases should manifest in hardware design - sleek and personalized yet durable
and functional. Pricing requires calibration to ensure affordability for students across economic
backgrounds. Subsidized and discounted academic pricing plans could be explored. Data privacy
and battery life are other areas needing focus to address inhibition factors.

Application developers can enhance acceptance by conceiving academic assistance apps

purpose-built for student workflows. Features like lecture note transcription, personalized
reminders for assignments, paper drafting tools and citation management would be tremendously
useful. Gamifying fitness tracking and enabling competition or collaboration within class cohorts
might better incentivize usage. Allowing customization of app interfaces and notifications to
match individual preferences grants a sense of control while accommodating diverse needs.
Integration with widely used education platforms like Blackboard, Google Classroom etc. opens
additional channels for student engagement.

For marketers, positioning messaging requires balancing both functional aspects and aspirational
lifestyle facets in a relatable manner. Using student brand ambassadors and on-campus activities
offers authentic engagement. Highlighting versatility to aid hectic student life yet reflect personal
style allows dual targeting. Both device retailers and educational institutions can foster trials via
lending libraries and open house demos. Social media campaigns centered on use cases like
all-day health tracking, simplified group projects, or campus event coordination make benefits
tangible. University tech stores should showcase a diversity of models catering to varied
preferences.

College administrators have opportunities to incorporate wearables within academic initiatives

on two fronts - providing support resources for students adopting the technology while also
promoting skill-building. Dedicated help guides/webinars facilitating optimal usage for tasks like
scheduling and note organization enables self-sufficiency. Curating recommended apps aligning
with campus technologies assists selection. Technical writing or design electives where students
conceive their own wearable solutions directly cultivates interest. Partnering with industry for
hackathons or incubators around wearables nets synergistic benefits.

Scope for future research

Capturing wider geographical variations and cross-cultural differences through multi-country
investigations could expose contextual distinctions around pragmatism versus identity expression
via wearables. Contrasting technology orientations between Indian, Western and East Asian
students might uncover societal influences that quantitative correlations overlook.
The role of changing life stages deserves scrutiny as well. Studying whether early-stage high
school students differ from graduating college seniors could determine lifecycle effects, as
responsibilities and worldviews evolve over time even within student cohorts.
While the current work focused narrowly on students, subsequent comparative analyses against
other demographic segments like working professionals and retirees can highlight generational
peculiarities versus universal technology relationships.
Analyzing multi-country datasets could reveal geographical differences in adoption priorities.
Contrasting developing vs developed nations might highlight whether pragmatic aspects or style
considerations dominate depending on economic contexts. Using wearable analytics to segment
college students based on actual usage patterns can offer a more empirical perspective. Cluster
analysis of usage data related to fitness tracking, stress monitoring or social app usage can reveal
novel user classes.

Wearable usage among college students remains at a fluid stage where researchers can still
discover new narratives through a diversity of research lenses and empirical approaches. Both
advancing statistical corroboration and seeking subjective insights can contribute to a more
holistic understanding that guides the future.

Shortcomings
While the current analysis provides valuable observations into wearable acceptance, some
limitations temper the conclusions. The small sample size of 70 respondents makes findings
indicative rather than definitive regarding a college population. Larger-scale surveys can
improve result robustness through greater statistical power. Convenience sampling methodology
limits result generalizability as respondents do not sufficiently represent all students. Probability
sampling approaches can enhance sample representativeness. Self-reported data is prone to
biases like selective memory recall, context influence, and social desirability effects.
Multi-modal data could increase accuracy. Cross-sectional one-shot design restricts insights into
evolutions in user sentiments over time. Longitudinal approaches can reveal dynamic changes.
Narrow demographic focus on students overlooks similarities and differences across other groups
like employees, homemakers etc. causing analytical gaps.
Conclusion
The present analysis of 70 Indian college students offers preliminary confirmation that wearable
adoption among this cohort is shaped by both functional and social considerations intertwined
together rather than isolated factors. Students recognizing assistance for academic activities also
value wearables for enhancing lifestyle aspects, suggesting well-rounded orientation spanning
multiple needs. With perceptions still evolving, expanded research using more representative
sampling and additional theoretical lenses would strengthen insights.

In a domain marked by continuously emerging device innovations and shifting consumer digital
lifestyles, wearable technology landscape among students remains dynamically fluid. There
remains ample scope for extending explorations across multiple dimensions – both surveys with
analytic generality and ethnographies illuminating subjective narratives - to advance a holistic
perspective that meaningfully guides future progress.

References:
1. Icek Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Volume 50, Issue 2, 1991, Pages 179-211, ISSN 0749-5978,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/074959789190020T
2. Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, Paul R. Warshaw, (1989) User Acceptance of
Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science
35(8):982-1003.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
3. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
4. Yoonhyuk Jung, Seongcheol Kim, Boreum Choi, Consumer valuation of the wearables:
The case of smartwatches, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 63, 2016, Pages
899-905, ISSN 0747-5632, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.040
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321630468X
5. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302
6. Zhongwei Gu & June Wei (2021) Empirical Study on Initial Trust of Wearable Devices
Based on Product Characteristics, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 61:6,
520-528, DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2020.1779150
7. Gao, Y., Li, H. and Luo, Y. (2015), "An empirical study of wearable technology
acceptance in healthcare", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 9, pp.
1704-1723. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0087
8. Donna L Hoffman, Thomas P Novak, Consumer and Object Experience in the Internet of
Things: An Assemblage Theory Approach, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 44,
Issue 6, April 2018, Pages 1178–1204, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx105
9. S. Shyam Sundar, Daniel J. Tamul, Mu Wu, Capturing “cool”: Measures for assessing
coolness of technological products, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Volume 72, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 169-180, ISSN 1071-5819,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.008
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581913001328
Correlations

Correlations

Annual Family Adoption

Gender income Factor
Gender Pearson Correlation 1 -.039 .199 .202
Sig. (2-tailed) .750 .104 .099
N 68 68 68 68
Annual Family income Pearson Correlation -.039 1 .173 -.166
Sig. (2-tailed) .750 .158 .177
N 68 68 68 68
Adoption Factor Pearson Correlation .199 .173 1 .145
Sig. (2-tailed) .104 .158 .238
N 68 68 68 68
Academic Aid Factor Pearson Correlation .202 -.166 .145 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .099 .177 .238
N 68 68 68 68
Health &amp; Fitness Pearson Correlation -.024 -.050 .167 .180
Motivation Factor
Sig. (2-tailed) .846 .688 .175 .141
N 68 68 68 68
Social Interaction &amp; Pearson Correlation .041 -.091 -.011 .354 * *
Appeal Factor
Sig. (2-tailed) .737 .461 .930 .003
N 68 68 68 68

Correlations
Health &amp; Social
Fitness Interaction
Academic Aid Motivation &amp; Appeal
Factor Factor Factor
Gender Pearson Correlation .202 -.024 .041
Sig. (2-tailed) .099 .846 .737
N 68 68 68
Annual Family income Pearson Correlation -.166 -.050 -.091
Sig. (2-tailed) .177 .688 .461
N 68 68 68
Adoption Factor Pearson Correlation .145 .167 -.011
Sig. (2-tailed) .238 .175 .930
N 68 68 68
Academic Aid Factor Pearson Correlation 1 .180 .354 * *
Sig. (2-tailed) .141 .003
N 68 68 68
Health &amp; Fitness Pearson Correlation .180 1 .218
Motivation Factor
Sig. (2-tailed) .141 .075
N 68 68 68
Social Interaction &amp; Pearson Correlation .354 * * .218 1
Appeal Factor
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .075
N 68 68 68

Page 1
 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Crosstabs

Gender * Adoption Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 10.877 9 .284
Likelihood Ratio 13.986 9 .123
Linear-by-Linear 2.644 1 .104
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 15 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .35.

Bar Chart
12 Adoption
Factor
1.67
2.33
10 2.67
3.00
3.33
3.67
8 4.00
4.33
Count

4.67
5.00
6

0
Male Female
Gender

Gender * Academic Aid Factor

Page 2
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 18.735 17 .344
Likelihood Ratio 22.954 17 .151
Linear-by-Linear 2.725 1 .099
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 34 cells (94.4%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .35.

Bar Chart
8 Academic
Aid Factor
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
6 2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Count

2.8
3.0
4 3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
2 4.4
4.6

0
Male Female
Gender

Gender * Social Interaction &amp; Appeal Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 7.073 11 .793
Likelihood Ratio 9.281 11 .596
Linear-by-Linear .115 1 .734
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 20 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .35.

Page 3
 Bar Chart
8 Social
Interaction
&amp;
Appeal
Factor
2.25
6 2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
Count

3.50
3.75
4 4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00

0
Male Female
Gender

Gender * Health &amp; Fitness Motivation Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 9.063 11 .616
Likelihood Ratio 10.585 11 .479
Linear-by-Linear .039 1 .844
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 19 cells (79.2%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .35.

Page 4
 Bar Chart
10 Health
&amp;
Fitness
Motivation
Factor
8
2.2
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
6
Count

3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4 4.2
4.4
4.8

0
Male Female
Gender

Annual Family income * Adoption Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 35.610 36 .487
Likelihood Ratio 35.005 36 .516
Linear-by-Linear 2.004 1 .157
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 48 cells (96.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .10.

Page 5
 Bar Chart
Adoption
Factor
1.67
6 2.33
2.67
3.00
3.33
3.67
4.00
4.33
Count

4 4.67
5.00

0
1,00,000 or 1,00,001 to 3,00,001 to 5,00,001 to 10,00,001
below 3,00,000 5,00,000 10,00,00 or more
Annual Family income

Annual Family income * Academic Aid Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 57.600 68 .812
Likelihood Ratio 66.164 68 .540
Linear-by-Linear 1.841 1 .175
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 90 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .10.

Page 6
 Bar Chart
4 Academic
Aid Factor
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
3
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Count

2.8
2
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
1 4.2
4.4
4.6

0
1,00,000 or 1,00,001 to 3,00,001 to 5,00,001 to 10,00,001
below 3,00,000 5,00,000 10,00,00 or more
Annual Family income

Annual Family income * Social Interaction &amp; Appeal Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 36.567 44 .779
Likelihood Ratio 42.287 44 .545
Linear-by-Linear .553 1 .457
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 60 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .10.

Page 7
 Bar Chart
5 Social
Interaction
&amp;
Appeal
Factor
4
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3 3.25
Count

3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
2
4.50
4.75
5.00

0
1,00,000 or 1,00,001 to 3,00,001 to 5,00,001 to 10,00,001
below 3,00,000 5,00,000 10,00,00 or more
Annual Family income

Annual Family income * Health &amp; Fitness Motivation Factor

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 42.773 44 .524
Likelihood Ratio 44.882 44 .435
Linear-by-Linear .164 1 .685
Association
N of Valid Cases 68
a. 59 cells (98.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .10.

Page 8
 Bar Chart
Health
&amp;
Fitness
6
Motivation
Factor
2.2
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
Count

4 3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
2 4.8

0
1,00,000 or 1,00,001 to 3,00,001 to 5,00,001 to 10,00,001
below 3,00,000 5,00,000 10,00,00 or more
Annual Family income

Bayesian ANOVA

Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender = Male 3.334 3.334 .010 3.133 3.534
Gender = Female 3.612 3.612 .019 3.341 3.883
a. Dependent Variable: Adoption Factor
b. Model: Gender
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .430 .457 .007 .324 .644
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Page 9
 Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c
Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender = Male 3.641 3.641 .006 3.494 3.788
Gender = Female 3.617 3.617 .010 3.417 3.816
a. Dependent Variable: Health &amp; Fitness Motivation Factor
b. Model: Gender
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .232 .247 .002 .175 .348
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender = Male 2.864 2.864 .016 2.613 3.114
Gender = Female 3.217 3.217 .030 2.878 3.556
a. Dependent Variable: Academic Aid Factor
b. Model: Gender
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .671 .713 .016 .505 1.005
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender = Male 3.403 3.403 .010 3.210 3.597
Gender = Female 3.458 3.458 .018 3.197 3.720
a. Dependent Variable: Social Interaction &amp; Appeal Factor
b. Model: Gender
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Page 10
 Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea
Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .401 .426 .006 .301 .599
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Annual Family income = 3.296 3.296 .052 2.846 3.745
1,00,000 or below
Annual Family income = 3.097 3.097 .067 2.587 3.607
1,00,001 to 3,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.297 3.297 .052 2.847 3.746
3,00,001 to 5,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.588 3.588 .019 3.318 3.857
5,00,001 to 10,00,00
Annual Family income = 3.482 3.482 .026 3.164 3.800
10,00,001 or more
a. Dependent Variable: Adoption Factor
b. Model: Annual Family income
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .441 .470 .007 .330 .668
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Page 11
 Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c
Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Annual Family income = 3.667 3.667 .028 3.335 3.998
1,00,000 or below
Annual Family income = 3.571 3.571 .037 3.196 3.947
1,00,001 to 3,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.733 3.733 .028 3.402 4.065
3,00,001 to 5,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.648 3.648 .010 3.449 3.847
5,00,001 to 10,00,00
Annual Family income = 3.567 3.567 .014 3.332 3.801
10,00,001 or more
a. Dependent Variable: Health &amp; Fitness Motivation Factor
b. Model: Annual Family income
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .240 .256 .002 .180 .363
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Annual Family income = 3.222 3.222 .082 2.661 3.784
1,00,000 or below
Annual Family income = 2.886 2.886 .105 2.249 3.522
1,00,001 to 3,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.267 3.267 .082 2.705 3.828
3,00,001 to 5,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.040 3.040 .029 2.703 3.377
5,00,001 to 10,00,00
Annual Family income = 2.700 2.700 .041 2.303 3.097
10,00,001 or more
a. Dependent Variable: Academic Aid Factor
b. Model: Annual Family income
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Page 12
 Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea
Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .689 .734 .018 .516 1.042
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian ANOVA

Bayesian Estimates of Coefficientsa,b,c

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Annual Family income = 3.500 3.500 .049 3.065 3.935
1,00,000 or below
Annual Family income = 3.464 3.464 .063 2.971 3.957
1,00,001 to 3,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.444 3.444 .049 3.010 3.879
3,00,001 to 5,00,000
Annual Family income = 3.470 3.470 .018 3.209 3.731
5,00,001 to 10,00,00
Annual Family income = 3.292 3.292 .024 2.984 3.599
10,00,001 or more
a. Dependent Variable: Social Interaction &amp; Appeal Factor
b. Model: Annual Family income
c. Assume standard reference priors.

Bayesian Estimates of Error Variancea

Posterior 95% Credible Interval
Parameter Mode Mean Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound
Error variance .413 .440 .007 .309 .625
a. Assume standard reference priors.

Page 13