Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE‐TAM): A multiple‐group structural model comparison
Identifieur interne : 004F40 ( Main/Merge ); précédent : 004F39; suivant : 004F41Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE‐TAM): A multiple‐group structural model comparison
Auteurs : Jiyeon Kim ; Sandra ForsytheSource :
- Psychology & Marketing [ 0742-6046 ] ; 2008-09.
Abstract
Sensory enabling technology (SET) can deliver product information that is similar to the information obtained from direct product examination, thus reducing product risk. In addition, the interactivity and customer involvement created by sensory enabling technologies can enhance the entertainment value of the online shopping experience. The proposed model examined this dual role of sensory experience enablers in the online soft goods shopping process for three types of sensory enabling technologies that are widely applied in online retail sites. The results provided empirical support for perceived usefulness and perceived entertainment value as strong predictors of consumers' attitudes toward using all three of the sensory enabling technologies tested in this study. The impact of perceived ease of use differed by technology. Attitudes toward using sensory enabling technologies had a significant impact on the actual use of all three SETs; however, the impact of technology anxiety and innovativeness on the use of SET also appeared to differ by technology. Virtual try‐on played a strong hedonic role, increasing the entertainment value of the online shopping process, whereas 2D views (larger view and alternate views) showed a strong functional role. The 3D rotation view served both functional and hedonic roles. The results indicate that each sensory enabling technology makes a unique contribution to online shopping—either by reducing product risk perceptions or by increasing perceived entertainment value. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20245
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 001C54
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 001C54
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 001321
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:587C89A2C2CBAB909142533D10284F796C314763Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE‐TAM): A multiple‐group structural model comparison</title><author><name sortKey="Kim, Jiyeon" sort="Kim, Jiyeon" uniqKey="Kim J" first="Jiyeon" last="Kim">Jiyeon Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Forsythe, Sandra" sort="Forsythe, Sandra" uniqKey="Forsythe S" first="Sandra" last="Forsythe">Sandra Forsythe</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:587C89A2C2CBAB909142533D10284F796C314763</idno><date when="2008" year="2008">2008</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/mar.20245</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/587C89A2C2CBAB909142533D10284F796C314763/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001C54</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">001C54</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">001321</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0742-6046:2008:Kim J:sensory:enabling:technology</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">004F40</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE‐TAM): A multiple‐group structural model comparison</title><author><name sortKey="Kim, Jiyeon" sort="Kim, Jiyeon" uniqKey="Kim J" first="Jiyeon" last="Kim">Jiyeon Kim</name><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">University of South Carolina</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Forsythe, Sandra" sort="Forsythe, Sandra" uniqKey="Forsythe S" first="Sandra" last="Forsythe">Sandra Forsythe</name><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">Auburn University</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Psychology & Marketing</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Psychology & Marketing</title><idno type="ISSN">0742-6046</idno><idno type="eISSN">1520-6793</idno><imprint><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>Hoboken</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008-09">2008-09</date><biblScope unit="volume">25</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">9</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="901">901</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="922">922</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0742-6046</idno></series><idno type="istex">587C89A2C2CBAB909142533D10284F796C314763</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/mar.20245</idno><idno type="ArticleID">MAR20245</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0742-6046</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Sensory enabling technology (SET) can deliver product information that is similar to the information obtained from direct product examination, thus reducing product risk. In addition, the interactivity and customer involvement created by sensory enabling technologies can enhance the entertainment value of the online shopping experience. The proposed model examined this dual role of sensory experience enablers in the online soft goods shopping process for three types of sensory enabling technologies that are widely applied in online retail sites. The results provided empirical support for perceived usefulness and perceived entertainment value as strong predictors of consumers' attitudes toward using all three of the sensory enabling technologies tested in this study. The impact of perceived ease of use differed by technology. Attitudes toward using sensory enabling technologies had a significant impact on the actual use of all three SETs; however, the impact of technology anxiety and innovativeness on the use of SET also appeared to differ by technology. Virtual try‐on played a strong hedonic role, increasing the entertainment value of the online shopping process, whereas 2D views (larger view and alternate views) showed a strong functional role. The 3D rotation view served both functional and hedonic roles. The results indicate that each sensory enabling technology makes a unique contribution to online shopping—either by reducing product risk perceptions or by increasing perceived entertainment value. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</div></front></TEI></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/Main/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 004F40 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 004F40 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= HapticV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Merge
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:587C89A2C2CBAB909142533D10284F796C314763
|texte= Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE‐TAM): A multiple‐group structural model comparison
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23. |  |