The Role of Utilitarian and Hedonic Value on Purchase Intention of Wearable Technologies: The Mediation Effect of Consumer Innovativeness

Abstract

Wearable technology products are becoming increasingly prevalent gradually. Noticeably, with the development of artificial intelligence technologies, the importance of machine learning has increased and wearable technologies play a key role in feeding the big data that needed for this process. Recognizing the ever-increasing market volume, examining the behavior of consumers using wearable technological products is important for technology companies and marketing managers, and to understanding the behavior of consumers using these products to market activities. Besides that, it considered that the effective role of innovation in the factors that affect the intention of consumers using wearable technological products to continue using or purchase these products is a crucial topic. Related to this context, in this study, the effect of hedonic and utilitarian product value, which is thought to influence consumers’ intention to purchase wearable technological products, on direct purchase intention and the moderating role of consumer innovativeness in this interaction investigated. In this study, 314 samples collected, for analysis process of research data validity and research assumptions, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling techniques employed. In addition, the study examined the mediation role of the consumer innovativeness with the SPSS Process Macro software. The findings show that hedonic, utilitarian and perceived product value have a direct effect on consumers’ intention to purchase wearable technological products. Besides, consumer innovativeness has mediation role in between hedonic and utilitarian value and purchase intention. These results show that the effect of hedonic and utilitarian value on purchase intention is greater when consumer innovativeness is high.

Keywords

• Wearable Technologies
• Consumer Innovativeness
• Hedonic Value
• Utilitarian Value
• Mediation Effect

Giyilebilir Teknoloji Ürünlerinde Faydacı ve Hedonik Değerin Satın Alma Niyeti Üzerindeki Rolü: Tüketici Yenilikçiliğinin Düzenleyici Etkisi

Abstract

Giyilebilir teknolojik ürünler her geçen gün giderek daha popüler hale gelmektedir. Özellikle yapay zeka teknolojilerinin de gelişimi ile makine öğrenmesinin önemi artmış ve bu süreç için ihtiyaç duyulan büyük verinin temininde giyilebilir teknolojiler kilit bir rol üstlenmektedir. Sürekli artan pazar hacmi göz önüne alındığında giyilebilir teknolojik ürünleri kullanan tüketicilerin davranışlarının incelenmesi teknoloji firmaları ve pazarlama yöneticileri açısından önem arz ettiği gibi genel olarak pazarlama faaliyetleri açısından da bu ürünleri kullanan tüketicilerin davranışlarının anlaşılması önem taşımaktadır. Diğer taraftan giyilebilir teknolojik ürünleri kullanan tüketicilerin bu ürünleri kullanmaya devam etme veya satın alma niyetlerini etkileyen unsurlar üzerinde yenilikçiliğin etkin rolünün de incelenmesi gereken konulardan biri olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. Bu kapsamda ele alınan bu çalışmada tüketicilerin giyilebilir teknolojik ürün satın alma niyetleri üzerinde etkisi olduğu düşünülen hedonik, faydacı ve algılanan ürün değerinin doğrudan satın alma niyeti üzerindeki etkisi ile tüketici yenilikçiliğinin bu etkileşimdeki düzenleyici rolü araştırılmıştır. 314 örneklemden elde edilen veri kullanılarak araştırmanın varsayımları doğrulayıcı faktör analizine tabi tutularak yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca tüketici yenilikçinin düzenleyici rolü ise SPSS Process Macro programı ile incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular tüketicilerin giyilebilir teknolojik ürün satın alma niyetleri üzerinde hedonik, faydacı ve algılanan ürün değerinin doğrudan etkisi olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Diğer taraftan bu etki üzerinde tüketici yenilikçiliğinin düzenleyici rolüne bakıldığında ise hedonik ve faydacı değer ile satın alma niyeti arasındaki ilişkinin tüketici yenilikçiliği tarafından düzenlendiği değerlendirilebilir. Elde edilen bu sonuç tüketici yenilikçiliğinin yüksek olması durumunda hedonik ve faydacı değerin satın alma niyetine etkisinin daha fazla olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

• Giyilebilir Teknoloji
• Tüketici Yenilikçiliği
• Hedonik Değer
• Faydacı Değer
• Düzenleyici Etki

References

1. Aaker, D. A. & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
2. Abraham, M. & Annunziata, M. (2017). Augmented reality is already improving worker performance. Harvard Business Review, 13, 1-5.
3. Ahn: J. & Lee: H. (2019). The effect of consumers’ perceived value on acceptance of an internet-only bank service. Sustainability, 11(17), 4599.
4. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888.
5. Aroganam, G., Manivannan, N. & Harrison, D. (2019). Review on wearable technology sensors used in consumer sport applications. Sensors, 19(9), 1983.
6. Ashton, A. S., Scott, N., Solnet, D. & Breakey, N. (2010). Hotel restaurant dining: The relationship between perceived value and intention to purchase. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(3), 206-218.
7. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R. & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.
8. Baig, M. M., GholamHosseini, H., Gutierrez, J., Ullah, E. & Lindén, M. (2021). Early detection of prediabetes and t2dm using wearable sensors and internet-of-things-based monitoring applications. Applied Clinical Informatics, 12(01), 1-9.

9. Batra, R. & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
10. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 351-370.
11. Brady, M. K. & Robertson, C. J. (1999). An exploratory study of service value in the USA and ecuador. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(5), 469-486. 10.1108/09564239910289003.
12. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications, New York, NY.
13. BusinessWire. (2021). Global smart wearable market. Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210208005342/en/Global-Smart-Wearable-Market---Market-to-Grow-by-19.48-from-2021---2026---ResearchAndMarkets.com
14. Chen, H. (2012). The influence of perceived value and trust on online buying intention. Journal of Computers, 7(7), 1655-1662.
15. Citrin, A. V., Sprott, D. E., Silverman: N. & Stem, D. E. (2000). Adoption of internet shopping: The role of consumer innovativeness. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(7), 294-300. 10.1108/02635570010304806.
16. Clark, R. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006a). Global innovativeness and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(4), 275-285.
17. Clark, R. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006b). Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(1), 34-43.
18. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.
19. Dhar, R. & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
20. Downs, J. G. W. & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700-714.
21. Eggert, A. & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107-118. 10.1108/08858620210419754.
22. Fisher, R. J. & Price, L. L. (1992). An investigation into the social context of early adoption behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 477-486.
23. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
24. Foxall, G. R. (1988). Marketing new technology: Markets, hierarchies, and user‐initiated innovation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 9(3), 237-250.
25. Foxall, G. R. (1994). Consumer initiators: Adaptors and innovators. British Journal of Management, 5, 3-12.
26. Foxall, G. R. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1994). Consumer psychology for marketing. Routledge, New Fetter Lane, London.
27. Gan, C. & Wang, W. (2017). The influence of perceived value on purchase intention in social commerce context. Internet Research, 27(4), 772-785.
28. Godfrey, A., Hetherington, V., Shum, H., Bonato, P., Lovell, N. & Stuart: (2018). From a to z: Wearable technology explained. Maturitas, 113, 40-47.
29. Goldsmith, R. E. ve Flynn, L. R. (1992). Identifying innovators in consumer product markets. European Journal of Marketing, 26(12), 42-55.
30. Goldsmith, R. E., Freiden, J. B. & Eastman, J. K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15(10), 601-612.
31. Goldsmith, R. E. & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209-221.
32. Gounaris: P., Tzempelikos, N. A. & Chatzipanagiotou, K. (2007). The relationships of customer-perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and behavioral intentions. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 6(1), 63-87. 10.1300/J366v06n01_05.
33. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. & Borin, N. A. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
34. Griffin, A. (1997). Modeling and measuring product development cycle time across industries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(1), 1-24.
35. Gürbüz: & Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
36. Hanzaee, K. H. & Taghipourian, M. J. (2012). Attitudes toward counterfeit products and generation differentia. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 4, 1147-1154.
37. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
38. Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283-295.
39. Hirunyawipada, T. & Paswan, A. K. (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: Implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4), 182-198. 10.1108/07363760610674310.
40. Hong, J.-C., Lin, P.-H. & Hsieh, P.-C. (2017). The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 264-272.
41. Hultink, E. J., Griffin, A., Hart: & Robben, H. S. (1997). Industrial new product launch strategies and product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4), 243-257.
42. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K. & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
43. Hwang, J., Kim, H. & Kim, W. (2019). Investigating motivated consumer innovativeness in the context of drone food delivery services. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 38, 102-110.
44. Im, S., Bayus, B. L. & Mason, C. H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 61-73.
45. Jiang, X., Deng, N., Fan, X. & Jia, H. (2022). Examining the role of perceived value and consumer innovativeness on consumers’ intention to watch intellectual property films. Entertainment Computing, 40, 100453.
46. Kalantari, M. (2017). Consumers' adoption of wearable technologies: Literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 12(3), 274-307.
47. Kardes, F. R., Posavac: S. & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer psychology, 14(3), 230-256.
48. Kaushik, A. K. & Rahman, Z. (2014). Perspectives and dimensions of consumer innovativeness: A literature review and future agenda. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 239-263.
49. Kim, C., Zhao, W. & Yang, K. H. (2008). An empirical study on the integrated framework of e-crm in online shopping: Evaluating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and trust based on customers' perspectives. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO), 6(3), 136-150.
50. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (T. Edition Ed.). Guilford Publications, London.
51. Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H. & Setiawan, I. (2021). Marketing 5.0: Technology for humanity. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
52. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. (2016). A framework for marketing management. Pearson, Harlow, Essex.
53. Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C. & Lassar: S. (2005). The relationship between consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and online banking adoption. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23(2), 176-199. 10.1108/02652320510584403.
54. Li, G., Zhang, R. & Wang, C. (2015). The role of product originality, usefulness and motivated consumer innovativeness in new product adoption intentions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 214-223.
55. Li, L., Wang, Z., Li, Y. & Liao, A. (2021). Impacts of consumer innovativeness on the intention to purchase sustainable products. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 774-786.
56. Liao, Y.-K., Wu, W.-Y. & Pham, T.-T. (2020). Examining the moderating effects of green marketing and green psychological benefits on customers’ green attitude, value and purchase intention. Sustainability, 12(18), 7461.
57. Lim, E. A. C. & Ang: H. (2008). Hedonic vs. Utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 225-232.
58. Lu, Y., Zhou, T. & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring chinese users’ acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.002.
59. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M. & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
60. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., vd. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute.
61. Martelo Landroguez, S., Barroso Castro, C. & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2013). Developing an integrated vision of customer value. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 234-244. 10.1108/08876041311330726.
62. Midgley, D. F. & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229-242.
63. Midgley, D. F. & Dowling, G. R. (1993). A longitudinal study of product form innovation: The interaction between predispositions and social messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 611-625.
64. Moon, J.-W. & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Extending the tam for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6.
65. Olshavsky , R. W. (1985). Perceived quality in consumer decision making an integrated theoretical perspective. J. Jacoby ve J. C. Olson (Ed.). Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise içinde (ss. 3-30). D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachussetts/Toronto.
66. Park, S., Chung, K. & Jayaraman: (2014). Wearables: Fundamentals, advancements, and a roadmap for the future. E. Sazonov ve M. R. Neuman (Ed.). Wearable sensors içinde (ss. 1-23). Academic Press, Oxford.
67. Patterson, P. G. & Spreng, R. A. (1997). Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business‐to‐business, services context: An empirical examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(5), 414-434. 10.1108/09564239710189835.
68. Pericleous, P. & van Staa, T. P. (2019). The use of wearable technology to monitor physical activity in patients with copd: A literature review. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 14, 1317.
69. Persaud, A. & Schillo: R. (2017). Purchasing organic products: Role of social context and consumer innovativeness. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
70. Pham, L., Williamson, S., Lane, P., Limbu, Y., Nguyen, P. T. H. & Coomer, T. (2020). Technology readiness and purchase intention: Role of perceived value and online satisfaction in the context of luxury hotels. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 19(1), 91-117.
71. Rauschnabel, P. A., Hein, D. W., He, J., Ro, Y. K., Rawashdeh: & Krulikowski, B. (2016). Fashion or technology? A fashnology perspective on the perception and adoption of augmented reality smart glasses. I-Com, 15(2), 179-194.
72. Reinhardt, R. & Gurtner: (2015). Differences between early adopters of disruptive and sustaining innovations. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 137-145.
73. Robertson, T. S. (1967). The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 14-19.
74. Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 671-677.
75. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovation (3rd Edition Bs.). The Free Press, New York: NY.
76. Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. The Free Press., New York.
77. Simonson, I. & Nowlis: M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49-68.
78. Statista. (2021). Number of connected wearable devices worldwide from 2016 to 2022. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/487291/global-connected-wearable-devices/
79. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. & Geyskens, I. (2006). How country characteristics affect the perceived value of web sites. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 136-150.
80. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Ter Hofstede, F. & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 55-69.
81. Strombach, T., Strang, S., Park: Q. & Kenning, P. (2016). Chapter 1 - common and distinctive approaches to motivation in different disciplines. B. Studer ve S. Knecht (Ed.). Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 229) içinde (ss. 3-23). Elsevier.
82. Summers, J. O. (1971). Generalized change agents and innovativeness. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 313-316.
83. Sun, A., Ji, T., Wang, J. & Liu, H. (2016). Wearable mobile internet devices involved in big data solution for education. International Journal of Embedded Systems, 8(4), 293-299.
84. Sweeney, J. C. & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
85. Tornatzky, L. G. & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (1), 28-45.
86. Tran-Dang, H., Krommenacker, N., Charpentier, P. & Kim, D.-S. (2020). Toward the internet of things for physical internet: Perspectives and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(6), 4711-4736.
87. van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704. 10.2307/25148660.
88. Vandecasteele, B. & Geuens, M. (2010). Motivated consumer innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 308-318.
89. Venkatesh, V. & Brown: A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly, 71-102.
90. Venkatraman, M. P. (1991). The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption. Journal of Retailing, 67(1), 51.
91. Venkatraman, M. P. & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business Research, 20(4), 293-315.
92. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R. & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320.
93. Wright, R. & Keith, L. (2014). Wearable technology: If the tech fits, wear it. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(4), 204-216.
94. Yu, B., Vahidov, R. & Kersten, G. E. (2021). Acceptance of technological agency: Beyond the perception of utilitarian value. Information & Management, 58(7), 103503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103503.
95. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.