All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

From Stereoscopy to 3D HD Image:A Review of 3D HDTV Diffusion from the Perspective of Technology Adoption
Unformatted Document Text:  8 According to Rogers’ (2003) discussion about socio-economic status of adopters, adopters generally have a higher socio-economic status in terms of income than non-adopters. Watching 3D content in one’s living room is expensive and not all consumers can afford to buy 3D HDTV for their homes (Costa, 2010). Therefore, family income should be a good predictor for the adoption of 3D HDTV. Awareness-Knowledge In the knowledge stage of the innovation-decision process, an individual is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions (Rogers, 2003). According to their interests, needs, existing attitudes, existing beliefs, existing values, past experiences and other prior conditions, individuals might expose themselves to the messages about the innovation, become aware of the innovation, and gain awareness-knowledge about the innovation either actively or passively (Rogers, 2003). Previous research has found that the perceived awareness- knowledge about digital TV had impact on the adoption. Higher knowledge led to higher usefulness perceptions of HDTV (Baaren, Wijingaert & Huizer, 2008). Low knowledge about DTV was a threat to the adoption (Atkin et al., 2003). Chan-Olmsted and Chang (2006) found the knowledge of the DTV was significantly related to the DTV adoption intention. Awareness-knowledge about 3D HDTV could influence consumers’ adoption decision, especially when consumers hold many misperceptions about 3D HDTV. For example, 3D HDTV sets can be used to watch regular 2D HD content (Dickson, 2010), but some consumers may assume that 3D HDTV sets can be only used to watch 3D content. Although consumers’ knowledge about 3D HDTV remains low, their awareness of 3D HDTV is probably better than it was for HDTV at the similar point in that technology’s life cycle (Dickson, 2010). However, such an assumption needs to be tested.

Authors: Song, Xu.
first   previous   Page 9 of 25   next   last

background image
According to Rogers’ (2003) discussion about socio-economic status of adopters, adopters
generally have a higher socio-economic status in terms of income than non-adopters. Watching
3D content in one’s living room is expensive and not all consumers can afford to buy 3D HDTV
for their homes (Costa, 2010). Therefore, family income should be a good predictor for the
adoption of 3D HDTV.
In the knowledge stage of the innovation-decision process, an individual is exposed to an
innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions (Rogers, 2003). According
to their interests, needs, existing attitudes, existing beliefs, existing values, past experiences and
other prior conditions, individuals might expose themselves to the messages about the innovation,
become aware of the innovation, and gain awareness-knowledge about the innovation either
actively or passively (Rogers, 2003). Previous research has found that the perceived awareness-
knowledge about digital TV had impact on the adoption. Higher knowledge led to higher
usefulness perceptions of HDTV (Baaren, Wijingaert & Huizer, 2008). Low knowledge about
DTV was a threat to the adoption (Atkin et al., 2003). Chan-Olmsted and Chang (2006) found
the knowledge of the DTV was significantly related to the DTV adoption intention.
Awareness-knowledge about 3D HDTV could influence consumers’ adoption decision,
especially when consumers hold many misperceptions about 3D HDTV. For example, 3D HDTV
sets can be used to watch regular 2D HD content (Dickson, 2010), but some consumers may
assume that 3D HDTV sets can be only used to watch 3D content. Although consumers’
knowledge about 3D HDTV remains low, their awareness of 3D HDTV is probably better than it
was for HDTV at the similar point in that technology’s life cycle (Dickson, 2010). However,
such an assumption needs to be tested.

All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.