2018
DOI: 10.1177/1541931218621237
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Wearer, the Device, and Its Use: Advances in Understanding the Social Acceptability of Wearables

Abstract: The WEAR Scale was used to collect data on the social acceptability of three wearable devices from 1,387 participants from the US Midwest and Silicon Valley. The most notable result was that a head-worn “medical device” was rated as more socially acceptable ( d=0.78) than the same device described as a “brain fitness tool,” which was the opposite of what was hypothesized. Also, as hypothesized, Silicon Valley participants found the wearables more socially acceptable than Midwestern U.S. participants. The Scale… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because mHealth in PD is a recently expanding form of technology, studies analysing the social acceptability of mHealth in PD are limited and existing measures of acceptability are insufficient. For example, factors that uniquely affect mHealth technologies, such as wearable devices, compared to those not worn on the body, include manners, moral codes, the symbolic communication of dress, habits of dress, fashion, context of use, form, and aesthetics [23,44]. Therefore, a new design approach, one that is inclusive and responsive to the needs of PwP, must be developed to understand the factors affecting the social acceptability of mHealth in PD and to improve its acceptance [45,46].…”
Section: Financial Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because mHealth in PD is a recently expanding form of technology, studies analysing the social acceptability of mHealth in PD are limited and existing measures of acceptability are insufficient. For example, factors that uniquely affect mHealth technologies, such as wearable devices, compared to those not worn on the body, include manners, moral codes, the symbolic communication of dress, habits of dress, fashion, context of use, form, and aesthetics [23,44]. Therefore, a new design approach, one that is inclusive and responsive to the needs of PwP, must be developed to understand the factors affecting the social acceptability of mHealth in PD and to improve its acceptance [45,46].…”
Section: Financial Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Social acceptability of lifelogging devices can be situational [21], where certain contexts such as during sports and meetings can be more permissive to it as compared to intimate conversations and in healthcare settings. Cultural beliefs and user stereotypes could also shape the social perceptions of wearables and user-worn recording devices [30,35,63]. Bystander considerations also play a role in social acceptability where interactions that provide an explanation [71] are likely to be better acceptable than fully hidden interactions.…”
Section: Privacy and Social Acceptabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further investigation with "invisible spectral flicker" [2] could reveal it to be an effective and comfortable way to give rhythmic light stimulation. Social acceptability and social comfort could be improved if the wearable is perceived as helping people and if there is a medical need [30].…”
Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%