Exploring technology acceptance patterns of users of the mixed-reality sport technology Zwift: antecedents and consequences of technology acceptance
-
Published:2024-03-02
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1615-5289
-
Container-title:Universal Access in the Information Society
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Univ Access Inf Soc
Author:
Methlagl MichaelORCID, Mairhofer Samuel, Michlmayr Friederike
Abstract
AbstractThe use of digital technologies in sports is increasing. The current paper deals with the technology acceptance of users of a mixed-reality sport technology called Zwift. The purpose of this study is to identify distinct profiles of Zwift users based on indicators of technology acceptance. Latent profile analysis (n = 877) identified three distinct latent profiles representing subgroups characterized by moderate, high and very high acceptance indicators. Results of the multinomial regression show that individuals with higher perceptions of the basic psychological need for autonomy and relatedness as well as individuals with high data privacy perceptions are more likely to be classified in the very high and high acceptance profiles than in the moderate acceptance profile. The results also show that older individuals are more likely to be classified in the moderate acceptance profile than in the very high acceptance profile even though odds ratio is rather low. The high and very high acceptance profiles also show higher behavioural intention to use Zwift in the future than the moderate acceptance profile.
Funder
University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference78 articles.
1. Xiao, X., Hedman, J., Tan, F.T.C., Tan, C.-W., Lim, E., Clemmensen, T., et al.: Sports digitalization sports digitalization: an overview and a research agenda. In: ICIS 2017 Proceedings, Seoul. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/General/Presentations/6/ (2017) 2. Hamari, J., Sjöblom, M.: What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Res. 27(2), 211–232 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085 3. Shin, G., Jarrahi, M.H., Fei, Y., Karami, A., Gafinowitz, N., Byun, A., et al.: Wearable activity trackers, accuracy, adoption, acceptance and health impact: a systematic literature review. J. Biomed. Inform. 93, 103153 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103153 4. Neumann, D.L., Moffitt, R.L., Thomas, P.R., Loveday, K., Watling, D.P., Lombard, C.L., et al.: A systematic review of the application of interactive virtual reality to sport. Virtual Real 22(3), 183–198 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-017-0320-5 5. Akbaş, A., Marszałek, W., Kamieniarz, A., Polechoński, J., Słomka, K.J., Juras, G.: Application of virtual reality in competitive athletes—a review. J. Hum. Kinet. 69, 5–16 (2019)
|
|