Technology Acceptance of Augmented Reality and Wearable Technologies

  • Fridolin WildEmail author
  • Roland Klemke
  • Paul Lefrere
  • Mikhail Fominykh
  • Timo Kuula
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 725)


Augmented Reality and Wearables are the recent media and computing technologies, similar, but different from established technologies, even mobile computing and virtual reality. Numerous proposals for measuring technology acceptance exist, but have not been applied, nor fine-tuned to such new technology so far. Within this contribution, we enhance these existing instruments with the special needs required for measuring technology acceptance of Augmented Reality and Wearable Technologies and we validate the new instrument with participants from three pilot areas in industry, namely aviation, medicine, and space. Findings of such baseline indicate that respondents in these pilot areas generally enjoy and look forward to using these technologies, for being intuitive and easy to learn to use. The respondents currently do not receive much support, but like working with them without feeling addicted. The technologies are still seen as forerunner tools, with some fear of problems of integration with existing systems or vendor-lock. Privacy and security aspects surprisingly seem not to matter, possibly overshadowed by expected productivity increase, increase in precision, and better feedback on task completion. More participants have experience with AR than not, but only few on a regular basis.


Augmented reality Wearable Technologies Technology acceptance 



This work was supported by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020), as part of WEKIT (grant agreement no. 687669).


  1. 1.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teo, T., Beng, L.C.: Explaining the intention to use technology among student teachers: an application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 27(2), 60–67 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schulze, K., Krömker, H., #246, mker: A framework to measure user experience of interactive online products. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Law, E.L.-C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Kort, J.: Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Law, E.L.-C., Hassenzahl, M., Karapanos, E., Obrist, M., Roto, V.: Tracing links between UX frameworks and design practices: dual carriageway. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of HCI Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langlotz, T., Grubert, J., Grasset, R.: Augmented reality browsers: essential products or only gadgets? Commun. ACM 56(11), 34–36 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yano-Research: Global Wearable Device Market: Key Research Findings 2016. Yano Research Institute Ltd., 16 May 2016.
  10. 10.
    Inbar, O.: Opening keynote augmented world expo 2016. Augmented World Expo (2016).
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Scavo, G., Wild, F., Scott, P.: The GhostHands UX: telementoring with hands-on augmented reality instruction. In: Workshop Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Environments. Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, vol. 19, pp. 236–243 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diekmann, A.: Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Vollst. überarb. und erw. Neuausg., 18. Aufl. = (1. Aufl. der Neuausg.) edn. Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl., Reinbek bei Hamburg (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olsson, T., Lagerstam, E., Kärkkäinen, T., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of shopping centres. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(2), 287–304 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wei, T., Simko, V.: Corrplot: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix (2016).
  17. 17.
    R-Development-Core-Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2016).
  18. 18.
    Law, E.L.-C., Wild, F.: A multidimensional evaluation framework for personal learning environments. In: Kroop, S., Mikroyannidis, A., Wolpers, M. (eds.) Responsive Open Learning Environments: Outcomes of Research from the ROLE Project, pp. 49–77. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fridolin Wild
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roland Klemke
    • 2
  • Paul Lefrere
    • 3
  • Mikhail Fominykh
    • 4
  • Timo Kuula
    • 5
  1. 1.Performance Augmentation LabOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CCA Ltd.Milton KeynesUK
  4. 4.Europlan UK Ltd.LondonUK
  5. 5.VTTEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations