Using the Wearable Acceptability Range (WEAR) Scale to Rate Social Acceptability of Mixed Reality and AI Enabled Head-Mounted Wearables

As head-mounted wearable technologies, including those featuring augmented reality (AR) capabilities and other integrated technologies, gain popularity, social acceptability emerges as a critical factor for their adoption. Unlike less visible tech products such as smart phones, tablets, laptops, and smart home devices, head-mounted wearables are also considered to be fashion accessories, serving as an extension of personal style and identity. Furthermore, head-mounted wearable technologies, such as AR devices, are often perceived to pose privacy and security concerns for both users and bystanders due to their ability to record, track, or display information in real-time. If a wearable device is perceived to be intrusive, unsecure, or unappealing, widespread adoption of the technology could be hindered despite its technical utility as demonstrated by several product failures ranging from earlier attempts at AR hardware to personal transportation devices.Quantifying social acceptance presents significant challenges. Unlike technical performance, social acceptability is a very subjective and nuanced metric that is influenced by factors including social norms and individual preferences. To address this challenge, the Wearable Acceptability Range (WEAR) Scale was utilized for this study to assess the social acceptability of different commercially available AR devices. Originally developed by Gilbert and Kelly (2016), the WEAR Scale measures four key factors: Design and Aesthetics, Self Expression, Consequence, and Reflection by Others. The original 50-item WEAR Scale has since been revised by Nam and Lee (2020) to a 15-item version focusing specifically on smart technology, streamlining the assessment process while maintaining comprehensive coverage of both aesthetic and functional wear across a broader range of products including wearable technology.For this study, a group of 29 participants were each introduced to four of six popular AR devices: Ray-Ban Meta, Engo 2, Xreal Air2, TCL Rayneo X2, Even Realities G1 and Apple Vision Pro. For each device, participants were walked through key device features and tasks followed by a survey using the WEAR scale to gauge their perceptions on social acceptability. Overall, the results indicated varying levels of social acceptability across the devices. The Ray-Ban Meta glasses received the highest ratings across all factors, despite being the only device that did not feature a digital display, due to its compact size and resemblance to traditional eyewear. Bulkier devices such as the Apple Vision Pro and the Xreal Air2 received lower social acceptability scores, particularly in areas related to design and their perceived impact on social interactions.The WEAR Scale proved to be an effective tool for quantitatively evaluating the social acceptability of popular head-mounted wearables. The scores for each device were highly correlated with the product size, weight, and its resemblance to traditional prescription glasses. Further research opportunities include using the WEAR Scale to evaluate products and prototypes with more subtle differences in form factor, to better understand its applicability in contexts where variations between devices are less pronounced.