Wearable Continuance Intention: The Role of Consumption Value and Country of Origin

Abstract

With the rapid development of technology, human life has undergone profound transformations across many areas, ranging from everyday practices to consumption habits. In particular, the increasing number of technology-based applications targeting consumers has made it necessary to examine in greater detail the variables that motivate individuals to accept, adopt, and continue using new technologies in the long term. In this context, this study aims to examine continuance intention toward wearable technologies in a developing market by jointly considering the theoretical framework of consumption values and the country-of-origin variable. This study was conducted through an online survey administered to Generation Z consumers, and the analyses were carried out based on data obtained from 251 participants. The findings indicate that the country of origin does not have a statistically significant effect on brand attitude. However, wearable technology brands of Chinese origin were found to exhibit higher perceived performance compared to American and Korean brands. Moreover, an examination of demographic variables reveals that women and consumers in younger age groups demonstrate a higher intention to continue using wearable technologies. In addition, both hedonic and utilitarian consumption values were found to significantly and positively predict continuance intention. The findings reveal that wearable technology brands operating particularly in emerging markets must integrate consumer value perception and demographic variances into their strategic decision-making processes. Accordingly, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior within the context of wearable technologies and provides significant implications for the development of marketing strategies.

Keywords

• wearable technology
• country of origin
• theory of consumption values
• hedonic vs. utilitarian values
• continuance intention

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval for this study was obtained pursuant to the decision issued by the Istanbul Aydın University Ethics Committee for Social and Human Sciences at its meeting dated July 7, 2023, and numbered 2023/06.

Giyilebilir Teknolojilerde Kullanımı Sürdürme Niyeti: Tüketim Değeri ve Menşe Ülkenin Rolü

Abstract

Teknolojinin hızla gelişmesiyle birlikte insan yaşamı, gündelik pratiklerden tüketim alışkanlıklarına kadar pek çok alanda köklü dönüşümler yaşamaktadır. Özellikle tüketici odaklı teknolojik uygulamaların artışı, yeni teknolojilerin benimsenmesini ve sürdürülebilir kullanımı etkileyen faktörlerin daha ayrıntılı incelenmesini gerekli kılmıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı, gelişmekte olan bir pazarda giyilebilir teknolojilerin devamlı kullanım niyetini, tüketim değerleri kuramsal çerçevesini ve menşe ülke değişkenini birlikte ele alarak incelemektir. Araştırma, Gen Z tüketicilerinden çevrim içi anket yöntemiyle toplanan veriler üzerinden yürütülmüş olup, analizler 251 katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, menşe ülkenin marka tutumu üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisinin bulunmadığını göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, Çin menşeli giyilebilir teknoloji markalarının, Amerikan ve Kore menşeli markalara kıyasla daha yüksek performans algısı sergilediği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca demografik değişkenler incelendiğinde, kadınların ve daha genç yaş grubundaki tüketicilerin giyilebilir teknolojileri kullanmaya devam etme niyetlerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte hedonik ve faydacı tüketim değerlerinin, devamlı kullanım niyetini anlamlı ve pozitif yönde yordadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bulgular, özellikle gelişmekte olan pazarlarda faaliyet gösteren giyilebilir teknoloji markaları açısından tüketici değer algısının ve demografik farklılıkların stratejik karar süreçlerinde dikkate alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, giyilebilir teknolojiler bağlamında tüketici davranışlarının daha kapsamlı biçimde anlaşılmasına katkı sunmakta ve pazarlama stratejilerinin geliştirilmesine yönelik önemli çıkarımlar sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• giyilebilir teknoloji
• menşe ülke
• tüketim değerleri kuramı
• hedonik ve faydacı değer
• kullanıma devam etme niyeti

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Etik Komisyonu'nun 07.07.2023 tarihli ve 2023/06 numaralı toplantısında verilen karar ile etik kurul onayı alınmıştır.

References

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
2. Akdeniz, A.A., & Kara, A. (2014). Emerging market consumers’ country of production image, trust and quality perceptions of global brands made-in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(7), 491-503.
3. Alvaredo, F., Assouad, L., & Piketty, T. (2019). Measuring lnequality in the Middle East 1990–2016: The World’s Most Unequal Region? Review of Income and Wealth, 65(4), 685-711.
4. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 644-656.
5. Bahrinizadeh, M., Esmaiilpoor, M., & Haraghi, M. (2014). Brand equity and country of origin model in pharmaceutical industry. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Kuwait Chapter), 3(6), 137-146.
6. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
7. Beldad, A. D., & Hegner, S. M. (2018). Expanding the technology acceptance model with the inclusion of trust, social influence, and health valuation to determine the predictors of German users’ willingness to continue using a fitness app: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(9), 882-893.
8. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model1. MIS quarterly, 25(3), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921

9. Canalys (2025) Global wearable band market up 13% in Q1 2025 as Xiaomi takes top spot, İstanbul. 12 Mart tarihinde https://www.canalys.com/analysis/wearable-band.
10. Canhoto, A. I., & Arp, S. (2017). Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1-2), 32-60.
11. Cebeci, H., & Ari, O. (2021) Transformation of made in China perception in Turkey: An evaluation based on sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Interdisciplinary Applications of Artificial Intelligence (ICIDAAI’21); 2021. Yalova, 21 Ocak tarihinde https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384240504.
12. Cheung, M. L., Chau, K. Y., Lam, M. H. S., Tse, G., Ho, K. Y., Flint, S. W., ... & Lee, K. Y. (2019). Examining consumers’ adoption of wearable healthcare technology: The role of health attributes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2257.
13. Cheung M, Leung WK, & Chan H (2021) Driving healthcare wearable technology adoption for Generation Z consumers in Hong Kong. Young Consumer 22(1):10–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-04-2020-1123
14. Choi M, Kim Y, & Choi H (2015) Comparison of the traits and online activities of smartphone addiction-prone and non-addiction-prone users. Internet Research. 25(1):3–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0126
15. Choi, J., & Kim, S. (2016). Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 777-786.
16. Choi J, & Kim, S (2020) The moderating effects of personal innovativeness and gender on the acceptance of wearable healthcare devices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 155:119966. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119966
17. Conner, M., McEachan, R., Lawton, R., & Gardner, P. (2016). Basis of intentions as a moderator of the intention–health behavior relationship. Health Psychology, 35(3), 219.
18. Cruz-Cárdenas, J., Guadalupe-Lanas, J., Ramos-Galarza, C., & Palacio-Fierro, A. (2021). Drivers of technology readiness and motivations for consumption in explaining the tendency of consumers to use technology-based services. Journal of Business Research, 122, 217-225.
19. Çetinkaya, C., & Özceylan, E. (2017). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yeşil satın alma tutumlarının incelenmesine yönelik bir araştırma: Gaziantep Üniversitesi örneği. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 289-302.
20. Dehghani, M., Kim, K. J., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 480-490.
21. El-Gayar, O., & Elnoshokaty, A. (2023). Factors and design features influencing the continued use of wearable devices. Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, 7(3), 359-385.
22. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
23. Godin, G., Conner, M., & Sheeran, P. (2005). Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: The role of moral norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 497-512.
24. Grand View Research (2025) Wearable Technology Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report, 2025–2030. Istanbul. 11 Ocak 2026 tarihinde https://www. grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/wearable-technology-market.
25. Hameed, F., Malik, I. A., Hadi, N. U., & Raza, M. A. (2023). Brand awareness and purchase intention in the age of digital communication: A moderated mediation model of celebrity endorsement and consumer attitude. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(2), e202309.
26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis.
27. Hien, N. N., Phuong, N. N., Tran, T. V., & Thang, L. (2020). The effect of country-of-origin image on purchase intention: The mediating role of brand image and brand evaluation. Management Science Letters, 10(6), 1205-1212.
28. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.
29. 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.
30. Hossain M.A., & Kim, M (2018) Consumers’ preference and acceptance for wearable health monitoring devices: An empirical study. Computer Human Behavior. 87:424–35. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.054
31. Hwang, C., Chung, T. L., & Sanders, E. A. (2016). Attitudes and purchase intentions for smart clothing: Examining US consumers’ functional, expressive, and aesthetic needs for solar-powered clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 34(3), 207-222.
32. International Data Corporation (IDC). (n.d.) (2025) Worldwide quarterly wearable device tracker. https://www.idc.com/promo/wearablevendor. Accessed August 4 2025
33. Ipsos (2025) Who are the World’s Biggest Wearable Tech Buyers?. Istanbul, 26 Nisan 2025 tarihinde https://www.ipsos.com/en/who-are-worlds-biggest-wearable-tech-buyers.
34. Islam, T., & Hussain, M. (2023). How consumer uncertainty intervene country of origin image and consumer purchase intention? The moderating role of brand image. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(11), 5049-5067.
35. Kalicharan, H. D. (2014). The effect and influence of country-of-origin on consumers' perception of product quality and purchasing intentions. The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), 13(5), 897.
36. Kang, M. J., & Hwang, Y. C. (2022). Exploring the factors affecting the continued usage intention of IoT-based healthcare wearable devices using the TAM model. Sustainability, 14(19), 12492.
37. Kim, K. J., & Shin, D. H. (2015). An acceptance model for smart watches: Implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 25(4), 527-541.
38. Kim, S. (2024). Functional Mechanism of Wearable Devices based on the Consumption Value of Generation MZ. Journal of Fashion Business, 28(4), 167-178.
39. Ko, E., Kim, K. H., Kim, S. H., Li, G., Zou, P., & Zhang, H. (2009). The relationship among country of origin, brand equity and brand loyalty: comparison among USA, China and Korea. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), 47-58.
40. Kulviwat, S., Bruner II, G. C., & Al-Shuridah, O. (2009). The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: The moderating effect of public/private consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 706-712.
41. Lunney A, Cunningham NR, & Eastin, M.S, (2016) Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computer Human Behavior. 65:114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007
42. Meena, R., & Sarabhai, S. (2023). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivators for usage continuance of hedonic mobile apps. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 71, 103228.
43. Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T., & Tam, C. (2018). Wearable technology: What explains continuance intention in smartwatches?. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 157-169.
44. O’Shaughnessy, J., & Jackson O’Shaughnessy, N. (2002). Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 524-547.
45. Pangarkar, T. (2025) Smartwatch statistics 2025 by wearables, technology, devices [Internet]. Istanbul, 13 0cak 2025 tarihinde Market.us. https://scoop.market.us/ smartwatch-statistics/.
46. Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., & Ivens, B. S. (2015). 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.
47. Russo, A.C., & Ferrara, M. (2017). Smart solutions,“smart aesthetics”?. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S342-S353.
48. Saadé R, & Bahli, B (2005) The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management. 42(2):317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013
49. Saygılı, M., & Yalçıntekin, T. (2021). The effect of hedonic value, utilitarian value, and customer satisfaction in predicting repurchase intention and willingness to pay a price premium for smartwatch brands. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 26(2), 179-195.
50. Shajari, S., Kuruvinashetti, K., Komeili, A., & Sundararaj, U. (2023). The emergence of AI-based wearable sensors for digital health technology: a review. Sensors, 23(23), 9498.
51. Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. & Gross, B.L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 2(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8.
52. Song, J., Kim, J., & Cho, K. (2018). Understanding users’ continuance intentions to use smart-connected sports products. Sport Management Review, 21(5), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.09.002 Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing research.International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30-44.
53. Şahin, D., & Doruk, S. K. (2023). Comprehending Behaviors of the Consumer in Industry 4.0 Revolution: A Research On Smartphone Brands. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, (62), 1-12.
54. Şahin, F., & Söylemez, C. (2022). Giyilebilir teknoloji ürünlerinde faydacı ve hedonik değerin satın alma niyeti üzerindeki rolü: Tüketici yenilikçiliğinin düzenleyici etkisi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 21(3), 1244-1269.
55. Şahin, D. (2026). The Relationship Between FOMO, Social Media Use, and Impulsive Buying: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Turkey and Germany. Selçuk İletişim, 19(1), 192-213. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.1680668
56. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 481-498). Boston, MA: pearson.
57. Taşdelen, B., & Aydın, C. (2021). Genç tüketicilerin sosyal medya reklamlarına yönelik satın alma davranışlarının teknoloji kabul modeli ile incelenmesi: Gümüşhane Üniversitesi örneği. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(4), 1741-1756.
58. Tsai, W. S., Yoo, J. J., & Lee, W. N. (2013). For love of country? Consumer ethnocentrism in China, South Korea, and the United States. Journal of Global Marketing, 26(2), 98-114.
59. Wang, W. H., & Hsu, W. S. (2023). Integrating artificial intelligence and wearable IoT system in long-term care environments. Sensors, 23(13), 5913.
60. Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: an attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12(1), 1-42.
61. Wu, L. H., Wu, L. C., & Chang, S. C. (2016). Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383-392.
62. Yu, P. (2022). Diffusion of Innovation theory. In Implementation Science (pp. 59-61). Routledge.
63. Yüce, A., Aydogdu, V., Katirci, H., & Yüce, S. G. (2020). Wearable technological sports products perception scale: a scale adaptation study. The Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 18(4), 113-124.
64. Zimmermann, S. K., Wagner, H. T., Rössler, P., Gewald, H., & Krcmar, H. (2021). The role of utilitarian vs. Hedonic factors for the adoption of AI-based smart speakers.