The Adoption and Diffusion of Wearables

  • Ton A. M. SpilEmail author
  • Björn Kijl
  • Vincent Romijnders
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 558)


Although the sales of wearables are increasing in the last few years, it is still unknown how wearables are actually adopted and being used in everyday life by consumers. In this study, we try to identify the adoption and diffusion patterns of wearables by performing a sentiment analysis on 97 semi-structured interviews with wearables owners/users focused on relevance and requirements of and resources and resistance related to wearables. Based on this analysis we conclude that developers and manufacturers of wearables should make their devices more relevant, more reliable and easier to use. They should also address privacy issues and foster habit (using it all and every day) in order to speed up the adoption and diffusion of wearables. The theoretical contribution of this paper is that habit should be studied as a potential dependent variable for intention to use.


Wearables Adoption of IT Diffusion 


  1. Barcena, M.B., Wueest, C., Lau, H.: How safe is your quantified self. Symantech, Mountain View, CA, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Benbunan-Fich, R.: An affordance lens for wearable information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1–16 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. Buchwald, A., Urbach, N., von Entreß-Fürsteneck, M.: Insights into personal ICT use: understanding continuance and discontinuance of wearable self-tracking devices (2018)Google Scholar
  4. Canhoto, A.I., Arp, S.: Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. J. Mark. Manag. 33(1–2), 32–60 (2017). Scholar
  5. Chuah, S.H.W., Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., Lade, S.: Wearable technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 276–284 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coorevits, L., Coenen, T.: The rise and fall of wearable fitness trackers. In: Academy of Management (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Delone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9–30 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M.R., Schneberger, S.L. (eds.): Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, vol. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  10. Dwivedi, Y.K., et al.: Research on information systems failures and successes: status update and future directions. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(1), 143–157 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M.D., Clement, M.: An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Govern. Inf. Q. 34(2), 211–230 (2017a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., Williams, M.D.: Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 1–16 (2017b).
  13. Endeavour Partners: Inside wearables - part 2, July 2014. Accessed 5 July 2018
  14. Epstein, D.A., Caraway, M., Johnston, C., Ping, A., Fogarty, J., Munson, S.A.: Beyond abandonment to next steps: understanding and designing for life after personal informatics tool use. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1109–1113. ACM, May 2016Google Scholar
  15. Fors, V., Pink, S.: Pedagogy as possibility: health interventions as digital openness (2017). Accessed 25 June 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritz, T., Huang, E.M., Murphy, G.C., Zimmermann, T.: Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 487–496. ACM, April 2014Google Scholar
  17. Huberman, A.M., Miles, M.B.: Data management and analysis methods (1994)Google Scholar
  18. Hutchison, E.D.: Essentials of Human Behavior: Integrating Person, Environment, and the Life Course. Sage Publications, London (2016)Google Scholar
  19. Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Raman, K.R.: Smart cities: advances in research—an information systems perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 47, 88–100 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalantari, M.: Consumers’ adoption of wearable technologies: literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Int. J. Technol. Mark. 12(3), 274–307 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kapoor, K.K., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D.: Rogers’ innovation adoption attributes: a systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Inf. Syst. Manag. 31(1), 74–91 (2014a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kapoor, K.K., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D.: Innovation adoption attributes: a review and synthesis of research findings. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 17(3), 327–348 (2014b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kari, T., Koivunen, S., Frank, L., Makkonen, M., Moilanen, P.: Critical experiences during the implementation of a self-tracking technology. In: PACIS 2016: Proceedings of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, ISBN 9789860491029. Association for Information Systems (2016)Google Scholar
  24. Kenny, G., Connolly, R.: Drivers of health information privacy concern: a comparison study (2016)Google Scholar
  25. Kovach, S.: Wearables are dead, 11 December 2016. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
  26. Landeweerd, M., Spil, T., Klein, R.: The success of Google search, the failure of Google health and the future of Google plus. In: Dwivedi, Y.K., Henriksen, H.Z., Wastell, D., De’, R. (eds.) TDIT 2013. IAICT, vol. 402, pp. 221–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  27. Ledger, D.: Inside wearables - Part 2, July 2014. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
  28. Lee, L., Lee, J., Egelman, S., Wagner, D.: Information disclosure concerns in the age of wearable computing. In: NDSS Workshop on Usable Security (USEC), vol. 1 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G., Cheung, C.M.: How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance. MIS Q. 31, 705–737 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lupton, D., Pink, S., Heyes LaBond, C., Sumartojo, S.: Personal data contexts, data sense, and self-tracking cycling. Int. J. Commun. 12, 647–666 (2018)Google Scholar
  31. Maher, C., Ryan, J., Ambrosi, C., Edney, S.: Users’ experiences of wearable activity trackers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 17(1), 880 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Motti, V.G., Caine, K.: Users’ privacy concerns about wearables. In: Brenner, M., Christin, N., Johnson, B., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2015. LNCS, vol. 8976, pp. 231–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar
  33. Myers, M.D., Newman, M.: The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Inf. Organ. 17(1), 2–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T., Tam, C.: Wearable technology: what explains continuance intention in smartwatches? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 43, 157–169 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prasopoulou, E.: A half-moon on my skin: a memoir on life with an activity tracker. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 26(3), 287–297 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfeiffer, J., von Entress-Fuersteneck, M., Urbach, N., Buchwald, A.: Quantify-me: consumer acceptance of wearable self-tracking devices. In: ECIS, p. ResearchPaper99, June 2016Google Scholar
  37. Polites, G.L., Karahanna, E.: Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q. 36, 21–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter, E., Heppelmann, E.: How smart, connected products are transforming competition, 17 March 2017. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
  39. Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Lal, B., Williams, M.D., Clement, M.: Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view. Inf. Syst. Front. 19(3), 549–568 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D., Weerakkody, V.: Adoption of online public grievance redressal system in India: toward developing a unified view. Comput. Hum. Behav. 59, 265–282 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rauschnabel, P.A., Brem, A., Ivens, B.S.: 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. Comput. Hum. Behav. 49, 635–647 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogers, E.M.: Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Joint Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 21(7), 324–328 (1995)Google Scholar
  43. Salah, H., MacIntosh, E., Rajakulendran, N.: Wearable tech: leveraging Canadian innovation to improve health. MaRS Discovery District, March 2014. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
  44. Shih, P.C., Han, K., Poole, E.S., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M.: Use and adoption challenges of wearable activity trackers. In: IConference 2015 Proceedings (2015)Google Scholar
  45. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. 35(4), 989–1016 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spil, T., Sunyaev, A., Thiebes, S., Van Baalen, R.: The adoption of wearables for a healthy lifestyle: can gamification help? (2017)Google Scholar
  47. Stragier, J.: Physical activity in the digital age: an empirical investigation into the motivational affordances of online fitness communities. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University (2017).
  48. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Use of ‘Habit’ is not a habit in understanding individual technology adoption: a review of UTAUT2 based empirical studies. In: Elbanna, A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Bunker, D., Wastell, D. (eds.) TDIT 2018. IAICT, vol. 533, pp. 277–294. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  49. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vliet, M.: Bezit wearables gestegen, maar nog verre van mainstream, 11 January 2017.–1179136. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
  52. Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., Wilderom, C.P.: Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 45–55 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jang Yul, K.: Determinants of users intention to adopt mobile fitness applications: an extended technology acceptance model approach (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ton A. M. Spil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Björn Kijl
    • 1
  • Vincent Romijnders
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations