Understanding the social adoption of smart TVs: the key role of product coolness

  • Eunil ParkEmail author
Long Paper


This study introduces a user adoption model for smart TVs and investigates how the components of the coolness concept contribute to user adoption in order to clarify the social diffusion of smart TVs. The results of a confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling of a sample of more than 1100 people indicate that all components of coolness except subcultural appeal lead to users’ intentions to utilize smart TVs based on their positive attitude toward them. The results of this study validate the role of the components of the coolness concept as effective and appropriate motivations for the intention to use. The paper also presents the implications of the results and the accompanying limitations of the study.


Smart TV Diffusion Coolness Adoption Originality 



This research was supported by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the National Program for Excellence in SW supervised by the IITP (Institute for Information and communications Technology Promotion) (2015-0-00914) and by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government (NRF-2017R1C1B5017437).


  1. 1.
    Alam, I., Khusro, S., Naeem, M.: A review of smart TV: Past, present, and future. In: 2017 International Conference on Open Source Systems & Technologies (ICOSST), pp. 35–41. IEEE (2017, December)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W.: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103(3), 411–423 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F., Arnold, T.J.: Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 29(4), 551–565 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodine, K., Gemperle, F.: Effects of functionality on perceived comfort of wearables. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, p. 57. IEEE Computer Society (2003, October)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, London (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan, M., Estève, D., Escriba, C., Campo, E.: A review of smart homes—present state and future challenges. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 91(1), 55–81 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colborne, G.: Simple and Usable Web, Mobile, and Interaction Design. New Riders, San Francisco (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davcik, N.S.: The use and misuse of structural equation modeling in management research: a review and critique. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 11(1), 47–81 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Digital Times: Smart TV in China and Korea (2017). Retrieved from
  12. 12.
    Filieri, R., Chen, W., Lal Dey, B.: The importance of enhancing, maintaining and saving face in smartphone repurchase intentions of Chinese early adopters: an exploratory study. Inf. Technol. People 30(3), 629–652 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franke, N., Schreier, M.: Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization. Mark. Lett. 19(2), 93–107 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerbing, D.W., Hamilton, J.G.: Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 3(1), 62–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience—a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holbert, R.L., Stephenson, M.T.: Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995–2000. Hum. Commun. Res. 28(4), 531–551 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Im, S., Bhat, S., Lee, Y.: Consumer perceptions of product creativity, coolness, value and attitude. J. Bus. Res. 68(1), 166–172 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keil, F.C.: Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kettanurak, V.N., Ramamurthy, K., Haseman, W.D.: User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 54(4), 541–583 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, K.J.: Round or square? How screen shape affects utilitarian and hedonic motivations for smartwatch adoption. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 19(12), 733–739 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, K.J., Shin, D.H.: An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Res. 25(4), 527–541 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, K.J., Shin, D.H., Park, E.: Can coolness predict technology adoption? Effects of perceived coolness on user acceptance of smartphones with curved screens. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18(9), 528–533 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, M., Park, J.: Demand forecasting and strategies for the successfully deployment of the smart TV in Korea. In: 2011 13th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), pp. 1475–1478. IEEE (2011, February)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim, S.Y., Lee, S.H., Hwang, H.S.: A study of the factors affecting user acceptance of smart TVs. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 14(4), 1652–1662 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, K.J., Sundar, S.S.: Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 17(7), 466–473 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kline, R.B.: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications, New York (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Korunka, C., Hoonakker, P.: The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life. Springer, Dordrecht (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kwon, S.J., Park, E., Kim, K.J.: What drives successful social networking services? A comparative analysis of user acceptance of Facebook and Twitter. Soc. Sci. J. 51(4), 534–544 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leron, U., Hazzan, O.: Intuitive vs analytical thinking: four perspectives. Educ. Stud. Math. 71(3), 263–278 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin, C., Ha, L.: Subculture, critical mass, and technology use. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 50(3), 72–80 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mitomo, H., Fuke, H., Bohlin, E. (eds.): The Smart Revolution Towards the Sustainable Digital Society: Beyond the Era of Convergence. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park, E., Baek, S., Ohm, J., Chang, H.J.: Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: an application of extended technology acceptance model. Telemat. Inform. 31(1), 3–15 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park, E., Cho, Y., Han, J., Kwon, S.J.: Comprehensive approaches to user acceptance of Internet of Things in a smart home environment. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(6), 2342–2350 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Park, E., Kim, K.J.: User acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services: an application of extended technology acceptance model. Program 47(2), 188–205 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park, E., Kim, K.J.: An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telemat. Inform. 31(3), 376–385 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Park, E., Kim, S., Kim, Y., Kwon, S.J.: Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 17(1), 175–190 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Park, E., Ohm, J.: Factors influencing users’ employment of mobile map services. Telematics Inform. 31(2), 253–265 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park, J.H., Kim, M.K.: Factors influencing the low usage of smart TV services by the terminal buyers in Korea. Telematics Inform. 33(4), 1130–1140 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rahman, K.: “Wow! It’s cool”: the meaning of coolness in marketing. Mark. Intell. Plan. 31(6), 620–638 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 45(2), 185–213 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shang, R.A., Chen, Y.C., Shen, L.: Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations for consumers to shop on-line. Inf. Manag. 42(3), 401–413 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shin, D.H., Hwang, Y., Choo, H.: Smart TV: are they really smart in interacting with people? Understanding the interactivity of Korean Smart TV. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32(2), 156–172 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sundar, S.S., Kim, J.: Interactivity and persuasion: influencing attitudes with information and involvement. J. Interact. Advert. 5(2), 5–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sundar, S.S., Tamul, D.J., Wu, M.: Capturing “cool”: measures for assessing coolness of technological products. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 72(2), 169–180 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, A., Kirschenbaum, M., Sharfi, T.: Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web pages. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 64(11), 1071–1083 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tractinsky, N., Shoval-Katz, A., Ikar, D.: What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 13(2), 127–145 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Woodson, W.E., Tillman, B., Tillman, P.: Human Factors Design Handbook: Information and Guidelines for the Design of Systems, Facilities, Equipment, and Products for Human Use. McGraw-Hill, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yu, E., Hong, A., Hwang, J.: A socio-technical analysis of factors affecting the adoption of smart TV in Korea. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 89–102 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhou, T.: Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective. Internet Res. 21(1), 67–81 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhou, K.Z., Nakamoto, K.: How do enhanced and unique features affect new product preference? The moderating role of product familiarity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 35(1), 53–62 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interaction Science, 90312, International HallSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations