Advertisement

Exploring the Early Adopters of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses: The Case of Microsoft HoloLens

  • Mahdokht KalantariEmail author
  • Philipp Rauschnabel
Chapter
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

Not much research has been done to understand how consumers react to wearable technologies that mix virtual and real worlds in glasses-like wearable devices. Drawing up on various technology acceptance and media theories, the authors develop a model to understand how people react to Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSGs) using the example of Microsoft HoloLens. Results show that consumer’s adoption decision is driven by various expected benefits including usefulness, ease of use, and image. However, hedonic benefits were not found to influence the adoption intention. In addition, this research shows that the influence of the descriptive norms on the adoption intention outperforms the influence of the injunctive norms, which are established drivers of technology acceptance research. Theoretical and managerial implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Hololens Augmented reality smart glasses Mixed reality Head mounted display Acceptance TAM 

References

  1. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 3.Google Scholar
  2. Behzadan, A. H., Timm, B. W., & Kamat, V. R. (2008). General-purpose modular hardware and software framework for mobile outdoor augmented reality applications in engineering. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 22(1), 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CCS Insight (2016). Wearables Momentum Continues. Retrieved Janurary, 2017. from http://www.ccsinsight.com/press/company-news/2516-wearablesmomentum. continues.
  4. Craig, A. B. (2013). Understanding augmented reality: concepts and applications. Newnes.Google Scholar
  5. Chau, P. Y., & Lai, V. S. (2003). An empirical investigation of the determinants of user acceptance of internet banking. Journal of organizational computing and electronic commerce, 13(2), 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chi, H. L., Kang, S. C., & Wang, X. (2013). Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Automation in construction, 33, 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuah, S. H. W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behaviour, 65, 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319–340.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenmann, T., Barley, L., & Kind, L. (2014). Google Glass. Harvard Business School Case Study Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, C. P. H., & Stock, B. (2016). & dos Santos Ferreira, T. The Role of Perceived Substitutability: The Usage of Augmented Reality Smartglasses.Google Scholar
  13. Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hein, D. W. E., Jodoin, J., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ivens, B. S. (2017). Are Wearables Good or Bad for Society? An Exploration of Societal Benefits, Risks and Consequences of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses. In Kurubacak, G. & Altinpulluk, H. (Eds.) Mobile Technologies and Augmented Reality in Open Education,. …….:IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
  15. Hein, D. W., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2016). Augmented Reality Smart Glasses and Knowledge Management: A Conceptual Framework for Enterprise Social Networks. In Enterprise Social Networks (83–109). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  16. Javornik, A. (2016a). Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Javornik, A. (2016b). It’s an illusion, but it looks real!’Consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(9–10), 987–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jung, T. H., & Han, D. I. (2014). Augmented Reality (AR) in Urban Heritage Tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research.Google Scholar
  19. Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, H. M. (2009). A study on the acceptance of wearable computers based on the extended technology acceptance model. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 17(6), 1155–1172.Google Scholar
  22. Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google Glass augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015, (463–476). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Leue, M., & Jung, T. H. (2014). A theoretical model of augmented reality acceptance. e-Review of Tourism. Research, 5, 1–5.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 1, 657–678.Google Scholar
  25. Lu, H. P., Hsu, C. L., & Hsu, H. Y. (2005). An empirical study of the effect of perceived risk upon intention to use online applications. Information Management & Computer Security, 13(2), 106–120.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ratten, V. (2009). Adoption of technological innovations in the m-commerce industry. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 4(4), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart glasses: an investigation of technology acceptance drivers. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2), 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rauschnabel, P. A., Hein, D. W., He, J., Ro, Y. K., Rawashdeh, S., & Krulikowski, B. (2016a). Fashion or Technology? A Fashnology Perspective on the Perception and Adoption of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses. i-com15(2):179–194.Google Scholar
  31. Rauschnabel, P. A.; He, J.; Ro, K. Krulikowski, B. (2016b): Expected Benefits and Perceived Risks of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses, Working Paper, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Flint.Google Scholar
  32. Rese, A., Baier, D., Geyer-Schulz, A., & Schreiber, S. (2016). How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: A comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. ……..Google Scholar
  33. Scholz, J., & Smith, A. N. (2016). Augmented reality: Designing immersive experiences that maximize consumer engagement. Business Horizons, 59(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spreer, P., & Kallweit, K. (2014). Augmented reality in retail: assessing the acceptance and potential for multimedia product presentation at the PoS. Transactions on Marketing Research, 1(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
  35. Stock, B., dos Santos Ferreira, T. P., & Ernst, C. P. H. (2016). Does Perceived Health Risk Influence Smartglasses Usage?. In The Drivers of Wearable Device Usage (pp. 13–23). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Stockinger, H. (2016). The future of augmented reality-an Open Delphi study on technology acceptance. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(1), 55–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2015). A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 1:1–21.Google Scholar
  38. tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T., & Han, D. I. (2016). Mapping requirements for the wearable smart glasses augmented reality museum application. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology7(3): 230–253Google Scholar
  39. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 1, 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 1, 425–478.Google Scholar
  42. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.Google Scholar
  43. Weiz, D., Anand, G., & Ernst, C. P. H. (2016). The Influence of Subjective Norm on the Usage of Smartglasses. In The Drivers of Wearable Device Usage (pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityMichiganUSA
  2. 2.University of Michigan DearbornMichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations