abstract

The WEAR Scale: Developing a Measure of the Social Acceptability of a Wearable Device

Authors:

Stephen GilbertAuthors Info & Claims

CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Pages 2864 - 2871

https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892331

Published: 07 May 2016 Publication History

Abstract

The factors affecting the social acceptability of wearable devices are not well understood, yet they have a strong influence on whether a new wearable succeeds or fails. Factors uniquely affecting wearable acceptability as compared to other technology include manners, moral codes, the symbolic communication of dress, habits of dress, fashion, context of use, form, and aesthetics. This paper describes the development of the WEarable Acceptability Range (WEAR Scale), designed to predict acceptance of a particular wearable. First, the construct "social acceptability of a wearable" was defined using literature and an interview study. Second, the WEAR Scale's item pool was composed, and reviewed by experts. Third, the resulting scale was administered to sample respondents along with validation measures. The data will be evaluated for reliability and validity, and the scale's length will be adjusted, culminating in a validated WEAR Scale useful to both industry and academia.

References

[1]

Bill Wasik. Jan. 2014. Try it on. Wired: 90--99.

[2]

C. Edwards. 2003. Wearable computing struggles for social acceptance. IEEE Review, 49, 9: 24--25.

[3]

Lucy E. Dunne, Halley Profita, Clint Zeagler, James Clawson, Scott Gilliland, Ellen Do, and Jim Budd. 2014, August. The social comfort of wearable technology and gestural interaction. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE: 41594162. IEEE.

[4]

Robert F. DeVellis. 2012. Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.

[5]

Katherine Regan Sterba, Robert F. DeVellis, Megan A. Lewis, Donald H. Baucom, Joanne M. Jordan, and Brenda DeVellis. 2007. Developing and testing a measure of dyadic efficacy for married women with rheumatoid arthritis and their spouses. Arthritis Care & Research, 57, 2: 294--302.

[6]

Everett M. Rogers. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.

[7]

Fred D. Davis. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[8]

Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly: 319--340.

Digital Library

[9]

Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: 425--478.

[10]

Patricia A. Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab. 1991. Understanding dress and popular culture. In Dress and popular culture, Patricia A. Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab (eds.). Bowling Green State University: 5--18.

[11]

Hajo Adam and Adam D. Galinsky. 2012. Enclothed cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 4: 918--925.

[12]

Steve W. Edison and Gary L. Geissler. 2003. Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12, 2: 137--156.

[13]

Heather C. Lum, Valerie K. Sims, Matthew G. Chin, Mand Nicholas C Lagattuta. Oct. 2009. Perceptions of humans wearing technology. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53, 13: 864--868. Sage Publications.

[14]

V.R. Manoj and Jayapaul Azariah. 2001. Cybofreecyborgs, fantasy, reality, ethics and education. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, 11: 178--184.

[15]

Omer Tene and Jules Polonetsky. 2013. A theory of creepy: Technology, privacy and shifting social norms. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 16: 59102.

[16]

Susan B. Van Hemel and Richard W. Pew (Eds.). (2004). Technology for adaptive aging. National Academies Press.

[17]

Paul E. Spector. 1992. Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Sage Publications.

[18]

Kim K.P. Johnson, Jeong-Ju Yoo, Minjeong Kim, and Sharron J. Lennon. 2008. Dress and human behavior: A review and critique. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26(1), 3--22.

[19]

Lee Anna Clark and David Watson. 1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 3: 309.

[20]

Erving Goffman. 1990. The presentation of the self in everyday life. Penguin.

[21]

Steve Mann. 2014. Wearable computing. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam (eds.) The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved August 16, 2014 from https://www.interactiondesign.org/encyclopedia/wearable_computing.html

[22]

Julie Rico and Stephen Brewster. 2010. Usable gestures for mobile interfaces: Evaluating social acceptability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 887--896. ACM.

Digital Library

[23]

Wearable Devices Magazine. 2014. Introduction to wearable technology. Retrieved August 16, 2014 from http://www.wearabledevices.com/what-is-awearable-device/

[24]

Gregory T. Smith and Denis M. McCarthy. 1995. Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 300--308.

[25]

LG Tone+ HBS-730. 2015. Retrieved October 18, 2015 from http://vapingunderground.com/threads/lg-tonehbs-730-wireless-bluetooth-stereo-headsetneckband-style-hbs730.73983/

[26]

LG Tone Plus Headphone Review. Retrieved October 18, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucFnZS8sOww

[27]

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

Cited By

Stefani OMarek RSchwarz JPlate SZauner JSchrader B(2024)Wearable Light Loggers in Field Conditions: Corneal Light Characteristics, User Compliance, and AcceptanceClocks & Sleep10.3390/clockssleep60400426:4(619-634)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/clockssleep6040042
Kaviani FLyall BKoppel S(2024)Exploring social perceptions of everyday smartglass use in AustraliaPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.031300119:11(e0313001)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313001
Jiang YKleinau JEckroth THoggan EMueller SWessely M(2024)MouthIO: Fabricating Customizable Oral User Interfaces with Integrated Sensing and ActuationProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676443(1-16)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676443
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The WEAR Scale: Developing a Measure of the Social Acceptability of a Wearable Device
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

Development and Validation of Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users

Although various scales have been developed with the aim of measuring students' social anxiety in a variety of settings, none of the studies has addressed the measurement of social anxiety in social media platforms. This study describes the process of ...
Development of a scale to measure skepticism toward electronic word-of-mouth

In recent years, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has become an influential factor affecting Internet users' perceptions and behaviors (Chatterjee 2001; Lee et al. 2009). However, as more evidence demonstrating the utilization of fake eWOM has been ...
Smartwatch Wearing Behavior Analysis: A Longitudinal Study

Smartwaches are the representative wearable or body-worn devices that provide convenient and easy information access. There is a growing body of research work on enabling novel interaction techniques and understanding user experiences of smartwatches. ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

May 2016

3954 pages

ISBN:9781450340823

DOI:10.1145/2851581

General Chairs:
Jofish Kaye
Yahoo
,
Allison Druin
University of Maryland / National Park Service
,
Program Chairs:
Cliff Lampe
University of Michigan
,
Dan Morris
Microsoft
,
Juan Pablo Hourcade
University of Iowa

Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 May 2016

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Abstract

Conference

CHI'16

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI'16: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

May 7 - 12, 2016

California, San Jose, USA

Acceptance Rates

CHI EA '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 1,000 of 5,000 submissions, 20%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CHI '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

35
Total Citations
View Citations
844
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)116
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16

Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Stefani OMarek RSchwarz JPlate SZauner JSchrader B(2024)Wearable Light Loggers in Field Conditions: Corneal Light Characteristics, User Compliance, and AcceptanceClocks & Sleep10.3390/clockssleep60400426:4(619-634)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/clockssleep6040042
Kaviani FLyall BKoppel S(2024)Exploring social perceptions of everyday smartglass use in AustraliaPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.031300119:11(e0313001)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313001
Jiang YKleinau JEckroth THoggan EMueller SWessely M(2024)MouthIO: Fabricating Customizable Oral User Interfaces with Integrated Sensing and ActuationProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676443(1-16)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676443
Zulfikar WPierce CMaes P(2024)MeMic: Towards Social Acceptability of User-Only Speech Recording WearablesExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650872(1-9)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650872
Lakhdhir S(2024)Creating Positive Social Experiences Through the Design of Custom WearablesExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3638190(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3638190
Khan YMauriello MNowruzi PMotani AHon GVitale NLi JKim JFoudeh ADuvio DShols EChesnut MLanday JLiphardt JWilliams LSudheimer KMurmann BBao ZParedes P(2024)On Stress: Combining Human Factors and Biosignals to Inform the Placement and Design of a Skin-like Stress SensorProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3643473(1-13)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3643473
Cocchia LVergari MKojić TVona FMöller SGarzotto FVoigt-Antons J(2024)The Impact of Social Environment and Interaction Focus on User Experience and Social Acceptability of an Augmented Reality Game2024 16th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX61742.2024.10598279(160-166)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX61742.2024.10598279
Siedl SMara MStiglbauer B(2024)The Role of Social Feedback in Technology Acceptance: A One-Week Diary Study with Exoskeleton Users at the WorkplaceInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2406119(1-14)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2406119
Pröbster MMarsden N(2023)The Social Perception of Autonomous Delivery Vehicles Based on the Stereotype Content ModelSustainability10.3390/su1506519415:6(5194)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065194
Villa SNiess JSchmidt AWelsch R(2023)Society's Attitudes Towards Human Augmentation and Performance Enhancement Technologies (SHAPE) ScaleProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36109157:3(1-23)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610915
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents