Understanding Tablet Consumers

Abstract

This exploratory study surveyed 379 undergraduate students at a southeastern university to investigate the factors that contribute to the consumer ownership of tablets, iPads, and dual adoption of both a tablet and smartphone. It also examines the factors that may predict a consumer’s likelihood to own a tablet in the future, given their current status as a non-owner. The findings consistently demonstrate the importance of perceived tablet usefulness, microblogging social media usage, and computer commerce in affecting tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership.

Keywords

adoption diffusion iPad smartphone tablet

Introduction

Tablets as Media Platforms

Connected mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones continue to experience high rates of adoption while coexisting in a marketplace populated by competing platforms like television, radio, print, and computers (Gillett, 2012; Hamblen, 2013). Tablets, specifically, have seen a much faster rate of adoption than many competing technologically converged devices, including smartphones (Heggestuen, 2013). In 2015, global tablet shipments reached 206.8 million units shipped, surpassing both laptops at 163.1 million and desktops at 113.6 million (International Data Corporation, 2015, 2016). Among all tablet brands, iPad claims the majority of users, reaching 25% of the U.S. population and half of all U.S. tablet users, despite experiencing a decline in sales at the end of 2014 (eMarketer, 2014; Rogowsky, 2014). It took smartphones four years to reach a 6% penetration rate globally; tablets did it in 2 years (Heggestuen, 2013). Tablets are increasingly being utilized for entertainment purposes. For example, tablet users spend 50% of their screen time on entertainment such as video, games, and music (Richter, 2013). The growth of tablets raises numerous questions regarding consumers’ perceived complementarity and substitutability of these devices in the context of other competing media.

Although existing research has explored tablet adoption from productivity (Moran, 2006; Nguyen & Chaparro, 2012) and information system management perspectives (K. Lee, Suh, & Park, 2012), limited communication research exists on what media consumers perceive and expect from this platform moving forward. Moreover, existing media-specific tablet studies address tablet adoption in relation to a single competing media platform (e.g., television), as opposed to exploring the potential cross-platform relationships that exist as a result of tablets offering aggregated access to content that would traditionally be found on television, radio, print, computers, and the Internet (Greer & Ferguson, 2015). As tablets have the capabilities of delivering a variety of media content that was previously only available through other communication platforms, understanding the factors that lead to their adoption will likely reveal practical implications for media practitioners looking to integrate this converged device into their product portfolios. Although competition between media platforms is inevitable, a thorough assessment of tablet adoption will also recognize the argument that consumers often perceive media platforms to be additive (Jenkins, 2008). Accordingly, this study will consider whether a consumer who chooses to own multiple converged media devices perceives the factors that lead to tablet adoption differently.

Dual Device Owners

A study of tablet adoption would be incomplete without addressing the role of smartphones. Industry reports have shown that 87% of connected mobile devices will be tablets and smartphones by 2017 (Columbus, 2013). Although not all smartphone users own tablets, almost all tablet users also own smartphones, demonstrating that dual device owners may have some unique media characteristics. For example, Pew Research found that smartphone–tablet users cumulatively spend more time with news content, and are more inclined to using news apps on their tablets (Mitchell, Rosenstiel, Santhanam, & Christian, 2012). Smartphones represent a natural frame of comparison by which to test the adoption differences of tablet owners who perceive the device to be substitutable or complementary as a result of their similarities in form and function.

Within the context of mass communication, tablets are converged media platforms that functionally provide aggregated access to content that would traditionally be found on television, radio, print, computers, and the Internet (Gillett, 2012; Hamblen, 2013). The form by which they provide this content is via a portable touch-screen display that generally ranges in screen size from 8.37 to 12 inches diagonal. Smartphones, with a smaller display, serve the same aggregated functional access to content but have the additional communication capabilities of a cellular telephone (Komando, 2015). Although it is worth noting that the increased physical screen size of a tablet is intended to facilitate superior ergonomics and the smaller screen size of a smartphone favors portability, the similarities these devices share in form and function imply that a consumer who chooses to own both a smartphone and tablet likely perceive the devices to be complementary. Although both devices can be adopted to consume content, they are frequently used in different settings. For instance, smartphones are more for personal consumption but tablets are more likely to be communal; tablets are used more often for games but smartphones are used more for social networking (Farago, 2012). The differences further support the notion that dual mobile device owners may have a different perspective on the factors that lead to tablet adoption than a consumer who substitutes one for the other.

Is the iPad Unique?

Consideration should also be given as to whether consumers who adopt an Apple iPad tablet device facilitate further variance in the factors that lead to tablet adoption. The Apple iPad represents a pioneer brand that facilitated the creation of new demand in previously uncontested marketspace (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). Apple sold 300,000 units during the iPad’s first day on the market, and in 2011 alone it sold more than 9 million units allowing it to achieve a market share of over 80% (Apple, 2011; Walsh, 2011). Although later entrants to the tablet market included well-established competitors like Samsung, Microsoft, and Amazon, the Apple iPad managed to achieve early market dominance with year over year sales growth through 2010 to the end of 2013 (eMarketer, 2013a; Holt, 2013). In fact, iPad users generated over 77% of North American tablet-based Web traffic in 2014 (Richter, 2014). Although the iPad reported its first decline in sales at year end 2014, the aforementioned early market dominance was the cross-sectional window in which this study was conducted, and therefore presented a fortuitous moment to consider the unique adoption factors that may encourage a consumer to purchase the pioneering tablet brand over other competing tablets. Furthermore, as tablet penetration during this timeframe was in the growth phase of the product life cycle (60% of American adults did not own a tablet), the additional opportunity to assess the factors that affect non-owner’s likelihood to adopt a tablet in the future presented itself (Clabaugh, 2013). As diffusion scholars have long recommended that future exploratory research on new media platforms target non-adopters (Brown, 2003), the decision was made for this exploratory study to investigate the factors that contribute to the consumer ownership of tablets from various aspects, including dual mobile device ownership, general tablet and specific iPad ownership, and likelihood to adopt from current non-owners.

Theoretical Framework for Examining Tablet Adoption

To conduct a comprehensive exploratory examination of the factors affecting tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership, a theoretical framework is proposed that examines and considers numerous conceptual and empirical perspectives regarding technology adoption. Not including a diverse array of relevant theories on innovation could ultimately amount to ignoring potentially significant factors, and tablet research within the context of a competing media platform is not a corpus established enough to draw conceptual conclusions. Accordingly, the theoretical framework of this study examines the concepts of relative advantage and compatibility as outlined by diffusion theory, and how those concepts pertain to the level of perceived substitutability of tablets. The role an individual consumer plays within the context of adoption is addressed through an examination of consumer demographics and media perceptions. Although Sparkes and Kang (1986) have suggested that the demographic differences between adopters and non-adopters are leveling off, Lin and Jeffres (1998) have argued that their inclusion in exploratory new media adoption studies is useful and pragmatic as it allows for researchers to address their contribution in relation to pre-existing literature. Drawing from the technology acceptance model (TAM), the framework is expanded to include the technology-based factors’ utility and ease of use. Finally, the uses and gratifications (U&G) framework is used to reconcile the perceived usefulness concept with specific tablet functions related to social media, e-commerce, entertainment, and productivity tasks in which mobile media consumers typically engage. As this study seeks to address a deficiency in mass communication scholarship, as well as expand our general knowledge on the relationship between audiences and tablet adoption, an exploratory approach is justified in hopes that future research efforts can be explanatory and inferential in nature. Ultimately, the purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that contribute to consumer ownership of tablets, iPads, and dual mobile devices.

Literature Review

Perceived Importance, Demographics, and Consumer Innovativeness

Successful forecasting of the diffusion patterns of tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership is possible only after a careful examination of the consumers making up the market. Diffusion of Innovations theory (IDT) argues that, ultimately, the consumer factors that are most effective in determining technology ownership or ownership likelihood are perceived importance/need of an innovation (e.g., perceived importance of television, radio, print, computers, the Internet), socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race, income), and personality traits (e.g., consumer innovativeness; Rogers, 2003). The conceptual assertion that the perceived importance of existing media platforms could play a role in the adoption or intended future ownership of a tablet device has been empirically substantiated by a number of new media platform diffusion studies including research on platform adoption for mobile news (author citation withheld for peer review) and for online gaming (B. Chang, Lee, & Kim, 2006).

Empirical findings in exploratory new media adoption research have also substantiated that socio-demographic profiles are closely related to media platform selection and allow for researchers to address their contribution in relation to pre-existing literature via IDT’s five distinct adoption categories (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards; S. Lee, Brown, & Lee, 2011; Lin, 2009; Wei, 2001; Wei & Lo, 2006). Gender is a particular important demographic factor, because male and female users tend to consider innovation use for achieving different ends (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002; R. Chang, Kennedy, & Petrovic, 2008). IDT further explains that the rate at which an individual adopts a new technology runs along a continuum where those who are innovative and have a high tolerance for risk will adopt a technologically converged product in less time (Rogers, 2003). Accordingly, the inclusion of consumer innovativeness is supported both conceptually and empirically by previous studies on the acceptance of converged consumer products (Hur, Yoo, & Chung, 2012), competing gaming platforms (Hsu & Lu, 2004), and substitutable video platforms (author citation withheld for peer review). It is of particular importance to note that recent studies have shown that tablets in general and iPads in particular have been widely adopted across different consumer segments, implying that innovativeness might not play as large a role in the adoption of this particular technology (Adobe, 2012).

Substitutability

IDT would also support the notion that tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership, as well as tablet ownership likelihood, is affected by the technological attributes of the innovation itself (Rogers, 2003). Although this could include a tablet’s complexity, observability, and trialability, the innovation attributes of prominent concern in this study are relative advantage and compatibility. Relative advantage refers to the degree to which a tablet is perceived as better than what it supersedes, while compatibility refers to the degree a tablet appears consistent with the desired needs and expectations of the consumers (Rogers, 2003). Should both relative advantage and compatibility of tablets and smartphones be high, then the platforms may be substitutable in nature. A substitutive device is one that is considered to serve the same functionality as an existing technology, can be used in the same situations, and ultimately can be viewed as a replacement product (L. Ha & Ganahl, 2004). For a tablet, this would mean offering the same content, in the same way, and in the same situations, as a smartphone or other existing media platforms (e.g., television, radio, print, and computers). Recent studies on the relative advantages of online video and television (author citation withheld for peer review), as well as the substitutability of digital and physical newspapers (Flavian & Gurrea, 2007), have demonstrated the importance of perceived substitutability in media platform adoption. As tablets deliver a variety of functionalities that are traditionally being fulfilled by television, radio, print, and computers (ComScore, 2011), the tablet and iPad adoption decisions are likely to be influenced by a high perceived substitutability between tablets and the aforementioned traditional media platforms whereas the decision to be a dual mobile device owner is likely a result of a low perceived substitutability between tablets and smartphones.

Media and Multiplatform Usage

Should two media platforms with differing degrees of relative advantage and compatibility not be substitutable in nature, then they may be complementary. A device is complementary in nature when it provides enhanced or additional functionality when used in collaboration with an existing technology (L. Ha & Ganahl, 2004). For media audiences, this can take the form of multiplatform usage: the simultaneous engagement of multiple media platforms such as listening to the radio while reading print media, using the Internet on a computer while watching television, or watching television while reading print media (Nielsen, 2009; Pew, 2012). Accordingly, audiences’ willingness to engage in multiplatform usage has the potential to augment their perspective on tablet adoption and future media consumption habits (LaRose, 2010). Courtois and D’heer’s (2012) study on multiplatform usage among tablet users demonstrated that the development of applications designed to extend the functionality of the primary screen experience onto a second screen is increasing the likelihood of audiences combining tablet usage with their television viewing activities (Courtois & D’heer, 2012). An example of such an application would be social networks that enable the digital sharing of opinions during a live television broadcast (e.g., Twitter).

The U&G framework establishes that consumers’ conscious decision to utilize a tablet in a complementary or substitutable capacity is heavily dependent on their intended uses in relation to their desired gratifications (Baran & Davis, 2012; Rubin, 2009). Accordingly, the U&G approach enables this study to address tablet users’ various goals and motivations when engaging with media content in a single-screen or multiplatform capacity (Chen, 2011; Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011). As limited tablet U&G studies are currently available, predominant smartphone usage provides a window into the typical gratifications associated with mobile device usage. A 2013 Nielsen study of mobile media device usage showed that 85% of American smartphone owners are regular users of social networking applications such as Facebook and Twitter, 65% are regularly engaging with video/movies apps, 53% are regular users of shopping and retail applications, and 74% are regularly engaging with productivity applications (Nielsen, 2013). Accordingly, it is plausible that the use of communication devices for entertainment (e.g., online streaming videos/movies), social networking (e.g., use of Facebook and Twitter), productivity (e.g., doing work), and commerce (e.g., shopping online) purposes might also affect the ownership of tablets. Another factor to consider is that contemporary consumers have the opportunity to achieve the aforementioned uses and gratifications by owning multiple platforms from the same technology cluster (Jenkins, 2008; Napoli, 2011).

Technologies considered to be in the same cluster are functionally similar, are compatible with each other, possess comparable attributes, serve the same underlying needs, and can influence the adoption of other innovations within the same cluster (Atkin & LaRose, 1994; Rogers, 2003). Recent studies on multiplatform usage have demonstrated a high willingness to engage in dual mobile device ownership (i.e., smartphone and tablet) among students (Song & Lee, 2012), as well as an increased desire to engage in platform migration from computer to smartphone to tablet among the general populous (Hollander, 2008; Jenkins 2008; Napoli 2011). This raises questions on the similarities and differences between tablets, personal computers, and smartphone usage. Ozok, Benson, Chakraborty, and Norcio (2008) compared the differences between laptops and tablets, finding that the preferred functionalities of a tablet more closely mimicked those of a smartphone than a laptop, which despite its mobility was preferred for more stationary and concentrated tasks like schoolwork. This further supports the idea that smartphone usage may be a good reflection of a consumer’s expectations of a tablet’s functionalities. Ultimately, the acceptance of general tablets or iPads as a complementary device to traditional media (e.g., television, radio, print, and computers), or smartphones (i.e., dual mobile device ownership), is a conscious decision on the part of the users based on the perceived usefulness of extending their existing media experience onto tablet devices.

Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use

Perceived usefulness is a measure of the degree to which users believe a tablet will help them perform their task (Davis, 1989). It is a component of the TAM and is used to determine an individual’s intention to use a technological device. TAM also identifies perceived ease of use as another factor that can have a direct effect on an individual’s behavior or attitude toward tablet adoption (Davis, 1989). TAM explains that should tablet users believe the device will assist them in their daily activities, there would be a high level of perceived usefulness and intention to use; however, should the tablet then prove difficult to use, the effort required to utilize the device could mitigate the perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989). Although a low perceived ease of use can negatively affect tablet ownership likelihood, tablets have consistently proven to have a high perceived ease of use (Robinson & Burk, 2013). Accordingly, it would be reasonable to consider that the initial high level of perceived usefulness of tablet devices is a good indicator of tablet ownership likelihood. Further support for the inclusion of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can be drawn from recent studies regarding the adoption of e-commerce (S. Ha & Stoel, 2009), online music (Sukhi, 2011), and smartphones (K. Lee et al., 2012), all of which demonstrated the significance perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can have on the rate of adoption of technologically converged products. Based on the theories of IDT, U&G, and TAM, as well as previous empirical findings, the current study explored the impacts of eight sets of independent constructs, including perceived importance of media platforms, demographics, innovativeness, substitutability, media usage, multiplatform usage, usefulness, and ease of use, on the dependent constructs of tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership, and likelihood of tablet ownership. Accordingly, the following exploratory research questions are proposed:

RQ1: What factors contribute to the adoption of tablets and the adoption of iPads?

RQ2: What factors predict a consumer’s likelihood to own a tablet in the future, given his or her current status as a non-owner?

RQ3: What factors contribute to the dual adoption of both a tablet and smartphone?

Method

Procedure

An online questionnaire was developed to identify the factors that may affect tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership, as well as tablet ownership likelihood. The survey was administered during the summer of 2013 to a convenience sample of undergraduate students at a southeastern university in the United States. After receiving approval from the local institutional review board, subjects from various large and small undergraduate classes across different colleges were emailed a survey link by their respective professors. A total of 379 students completed the survey and received extra credit for their participation. Digital informed consent was obtained from all participants. The use of college students for this study is justified as it is more likely for a college graduate to own a tablet, and young adults are more likely to use multiple mobile platforms. Pew Research Center reports that close to 50% of the tablet owners have a college degree (Zickuhr, 2013), and the average individual owns 3.5 media devices, while among young adults aged 18 to 29, the average increases to four devices (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Note that the questions asked of tablet owners and non-owners were identical, except non-owners had one additional question: “How likely are you to purchase a tablet in the near future?”

Discriminant analysis was used to analyze tablet, iPad, and dual mobile device ownership.¹ Regression analysis was performed to analyze the predictors of tablet ownership likelihood for non-tablet owners (n = 216). In an effort for this exploratory study to comprehensively examine the eight sets of independent constructs discussed in the theoretical framework, an exploratory correlation analysis was conducted. Each dimension of the independent constructs measured was tested for a relationship with the dependent variables. Only those with significant correlation coefficients (p < .05) were included in the final list of independent variables for the discriminant and regression analyses.² Their operational measures are presented in the following section.

Although the exploratory nature of this study warranted treating all independent variables equally through their simultaneous entry into the models used (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), the sample’s gender distribution skewing female introduced a need to triangulate the results. Accordingly, hierarchical multiple regression was used to specifically test for the potential effect of gender on the relationship of independent variables and dependent variables. The hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that gender may contribute to dual mobile device ownership (F = 3.959, p < .05) in an antedated fashion, but the same was not the case for tablet ownership, iPad ownership, and tablet ownership likelihood. This triangulates the simultaneous models described within the results, as they too revealed that gender may only have a relationship with dual mobile device ownership. It is important to note that though gender is only discussed with regard to its potential significance in dual mobile device scenarios, it was included as an independent variable in both the primary simultaneous models and the triangulated hierarchical models, yet no additional effects were found.

Dependent Measures

Tablet ownership

Ownership of any tablet brand, ownership of an iPad tablet (any model), and ownership of both a smartphone and a tablet (any brand) were assessed by a dichotomous scale (yes = 1 and no = 0).

Tablet ownership likelihood

Potential tablet ownership was measured among non-owners on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 5 meant very likely and 1 meant very unlikely.

Independent Measures

Consumer demographics

Gender was assessed by a dichotomous scale (male = 0 and female = 1). Race was assessed using the categories of White, Latino/Hispanic, African American, Asian, and other. Income was assessed using 15 categories that ranged from under $20,000 to $150,000 or more.

Consumer innovativeness

The multidimensional construct of consumer innovativeness measured whether the respondent considered themselves to be innovative (Hur et al., 2012) and was assessed across six dimensions: (a) I am a techie, (b) It is easy for me to understand and use new functions on devices, (c) I have no difficulty in handling new devices, (d) I am always seeking new ideas and experiences, (e) I like to experience novelty and change in my daily routine, and (f) I prefer to adopt innovative products or services earlier than others (Hur et al., 2012). Each dimension was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 5 meant strongly agree and 1 meant strongly disagree. An overall, composite index score was generated by taking the average of the mean measurements from the aforementioned dimensions (α = .825).

Media usage

The aspects of media and social media usage that were assessed in this study were selected based on their inclusion in Nielsen’s 2013 report titled, “The Mobile Consumer: A Global Snapshot.” In an effort to reduce response error, avoid double-barreled questions, and facilitate proper operationalization, all activities measured were expressed in their simplest form.

Smartphone usage activities included taking pictures, taking videos, playing games, surfing the Internet, watching TV shows/movies, watching short video clips, social networking, texting, and listening to music.

Computer usage activities included news (consumption), emailing, reading, social networking, playing games, doing work/schoolwork, surfing (non-work), messaging, watching TV via the Internet, watching YouTube, posting video, downloading music, using online radio, and shopping.

Social media usage activities included blogging, microblogging, RSS feeds use, widgets use, message board use, chat room use, photo sharing, video sharing, and social networking on any device.

All activities were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 5 meant very frequently and 1 meant never (Wei & Lo, 2006). The same 5-point scale was used to explore the different types of smartphone and computer usage; these activities were further grouped into the categories of entertainment/leisure (e.g., video and music), social/communication (e.g., microblogging and texting), utility (e.g., work), and commerce (e.g., shopping). Also, a respondent’s current use of a paid online streaming video service (e.g., Netflix) was assessed by a dichotomous scale (yes = 1 and no = 0).

Multiplatform usage

To assess the impact of multiplatform usage on tablet adoption, this study also measured how often the respondents used a combination of media at the same time. It is important to note that the multiplicity offered by tablets as a converged device is different from the concept of multiplatform usage. Although the former addresses the variety of uses and gratifications offered by a single tablet, what was examined in this study was the behavior of consuming media from multiple platforms simultaneously. The multiplatform usage measured includes all possible two platform combinations of the following media (except the two forms of Internet access): television, radio, print media, Internet via a computer, and Internet via a smartphone or tablet (e.g., radio and print, radio and television, radio and Internet on a computer, radio and Internet on a smartphone or tablet). All usage was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 5 meant very frequently and 1 meant never (Wei & Lo, 2006).

Perceived ease of use and usefulness

To measure the degree of perceived usefulness, how much the respondent agreed that tablets would (a) help their life, (b) increase the quality or output of their work/life, and (c) increase the productivity of their work/life was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 5 meant strongly agree and 1 meant strongly disagree (K. Lee et al., 2012). A composite score was generated to assess respondents’ perceptions on tablets’ overall usefulness (α = .937). To measure the degree of perceived ease of use, how much the respondents agreed that (a) learning how to use a tablet would be easy for them, (b) whether it would be easy for them to become skillful in using a tablet, and (c) how much they agreed that tablets are easy to use was measured on the same 5-point Likert-type scale (K. Lee et al., 2012). A composite score was also generated (α = .936).

Perceived importance of various media platforms

This study examines the perceived importance of various media platforms in affecting tablet adoption. How important traditional television (offline), radio (offline), print newspapers, print magazines, Internet, social media, online newspaper, online video, online music/radio, wireless Internet, and mobile apps are to the respondent’s daily life was measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 5 meant extremely important and 1 meant not important at all (B. Chang et al., 2006). A composite index score of media importance was generated to assess respondents’ perceived importance of media in their daily lives by taking average of the mean measurements from the aforementioned dimensions (α = .783). When reporting sample characteristics (see Table 1), a decision was made to include only the perceived importance of these media in respondents’ daily life and not their usage levels as the two sets of values are highly correlated.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (N = 379).

	No.	%
Demographics
Gender
Male	112	29.5
Female	267	70.5
Race
White	227	60
Latino/Hispanic	95	25
African American	38	10
Asian	19	5
Tablet and smartphone ownership
Tablet
Own a tablet (iPad or generic)	164	43.2
Do not own a tablet	215	56.8
iPad
Own an iPad	101	26.6
Do not own an iPad	278	73.4
Smartphone
Own a smartphone	367	96.8
Do not own a smartphone	12	3.2
Dual mobile device ownership
Own both a tablet and smartphone	158	41.8
Do not own both a tablet and smartphone	221	58.2
	M	SD
Tablet ownership likelihooda
Likelihood to purchase a tablet	2.60	1.149
Baseline perceived importance of media platforms^a
Importance of television sets	3.0816	1.19196
Importance of radio	2.2289	1.09337
Importance of print newspaper	1.9395	0.98486
Importance of print magazines	1.9816	0.99719
Importance of the Internet	4.6632	0.67540
Importance of social media	3.9053	1.12608
Importance of online newspapers	2.7289	1.24672
Importance of online video	3.2474	1.17891
Importance of online music or radio	3.4895	1.18138
Importance of mobile Internet	4.3000	1.00369
Importance of mobile apps	3.8263	1.10472

A 5-point Likert-type scale was used where 5 meant strongly agree and 1 meant strongly disagree.

Substitutability

The multidimensional construct, substitutability, measured whether the respondent agreed that a tablet is substitutable for a television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or computer (Flavian & Gurrea, 2007; author citation withheld for peer review). It was assessed across five dimensions: (a) content substitutability—how much the respondents agree they can get the same content; (b) delivery substitutability—how much the respondents agree they can get content in the same way; (c) needs substitutability—how much the respondents agree they satisfy the same needs; (d) usage substitutability—how much the respondents agree that they are used in the same situations; and (e) product substitutability—how much the respondent agree they can be considered the same product. Each dimension was measured on the same 5-point Likert-type where 5 meant strongly agree and 1 meant strongly disagree. Note that an overall, composite index score was generated for each platform comparison to assess respondents’ perceptions on overall tablet substitutability with television (α = .766), radio (α = .808), newspaper (α = .794), magazine (α = .793), and computers (α = .825).

Sample Characteristics

Approximately 70.5% of the respondents were female (see Table 1). About 60% were White. Approximately 43.2% owned a tablet, about 26.6% owned an iPad, approximately 96.8% owned a smartphone, and about 41.8% of respondents owned both a smartphone and a tablet. For the 216 respondents who indicated they did not own a tablet at the time of this study, the mean (with standard deviation in parentheses) for tablet ownership likelihood was 2.60 (1.149).

Results

Factors Affecting Tablet and iPad Ownership

Tablet ownership

To address RQ1, a discriminant analysis was performed to identify the factors that play a role in differentiating tablet owners from non-owners (see Note 2). One valid discriminant function was obtained (Wilks’ λ = .796, χ² = 81.949, df = 37, p < .001; see Table 2). Specifically, perceived tablet usefulness was the most significant variable, followed by media usage of shopping/commerce (via computer), microblogging level (i.e., Twitter usage), and video sharing level (inverse). The structure matrix indicated a discriminant function that drew from perceived tablet usefulness and media usage in the areas of commerce and social media usage. Demographics, innovativeness, multiplatform usage, online video usage, and perceived importance of other media did not contribute to the ownership of tablets.

Table 2.

Summary of Discriminant Analysis for Significant Variables Differentiating Tablet Ownership (N = 379).

	Non-ownership		Ownership		Standardized coefficients	Structure matrix	Wilks’ λ	F	Significance
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Standardized coefficients	Structure matrix	Wilks’ λ	F	Significance
Frequency of microblogging	2.4306	1.48004	2.8344	1.56451	.454	.261	.983	6.583	.011
Frequency of video sharing	1.9722	1.21967	1.7117	1.08710	−.529	−.219	.988	4.651	.032
Frequency of shopping/commerce use (computer)	3.1481	1.12737	3.4663	1.15621	.379	.273	.981	7.235	.007
Perceived tablet usefulness	3.2130	.94550	3.5460	.99506	.415	.337	.972	11.017	.001

Note. Test of function: Wilks’ λ = .796, χ² = 81.949, df = 37, p < .001.

The significant role of microblogging and online shopping/commerce on mobile devices is consistent with Nielsen’s finding regarding app usage among American smartphone owners; as many as 85% and 53% of Americans regularly use social networking and shopping applications on their smartphones, respectively (Nielsen, 2013). The high level of significance found for perceived tablet usefulness (p < .01) is consistent with the TAM model discussed earlier. The video sharing level had an inverse relationship with tablet ownership, suggesting that not all social media discriminate tablet owners from non-owners in the same way. It is also worth mentioning that one aspect of substitutability, the perception that television and tablets offer content in the same way, was nearly significant (p = .05) in affecting tablet ownership.

iPad ownership

To assess the factors that influence the adoption of the iPad (RQ1), a discriminant analysis was performed.² One valid discriminant function was obtained (Wilks’ λ = .794, χ² = 82.596, df = 37, p < .001; see Table 3). Tablet usefulness continues to show the most prominent relationship, followed again by media usage of shopping/commerce (computer), and then differing from the discriminant function for overall tablet ownership, the remaining variables in order of sensitivity were TV–tablet delivery substitutability (i.e., the perception that television and tablets offer content in the same way); microblogging level, and media usage of work/schoolwork via computer (both had a structure matrix value of 0.208); magazine–tablet content substitutability (i.e., the perception that magazines and tablets offer similar content); and the perceived importance of mobile apps. Three factors differentiate iPad ownership from the overall tablet ownership: perceived importance of mobile apps, perceived substitutability between TV–tablet and magazine–tablet, and level of work usage on computers.

Table 3.

Summary of Discriminant Analysis for Significant Variables Differentiating iPad Ownership (N = 379).

	Non-ownership		Ownership		Standardized coefficients	Structure matrix	Wilks’ λ	F	Significance
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Standardized coefficients	Structure matrix	Wilks’ λ	F	Significance
Frequency of microblogging	2.5072	1.47358	2.8713	1.64720	.285	.208	.989	4.242	.040
Frequency of shopping/commerce use (computer)	3.1583	1.11930	3.6337	1.16381	.385	.366	.966	13.082	.000
Frequency of work/schoolwork (computer)	4.4137	.76811	4.5941	.72358	.212	.208	.989	4.212	.041
Perceived importance of mobile apps	3.7554	1.11012	4.0099	1.07233	.332	.201	.990	3.964	.047
Perceived tablet usefulness	3.2302	.94862	3.7030	.98534	.446	.430	.954	18.023	.000
Delivery substitutability—TV and tablet	2.4424	.96618	2.7129	1.10758	.271	.234	.986	5.357	.021
Delivery substitutability—magazine and Tablet	2.8633	1.13812	3.1287	1.08317	.264	.206	.989	4.132	.043

Note. Test of function: Wilks’ λ = .794, χ² = 82.596, df = 37, p < .001.

As found in the overall tablet ownership analysis, the variable clusters of demographics, innovativeness, multiplatform usage, online video usage, and perceived importance of media (except for apps) did not contribute to the ownership of an iPad. There was an increase in the total number of significant variables, perhaps demonstrating that more factors are necessary to determine branded tablet ownership than general tablet ownership.

Predictors of Tablet Ownership

This study also explores the predictors of tablet ownership (see Note 2) from current non-owners (n = 216) using a regression analysis (RQ2). A significant regression equation was obtained (R² = 0.291, df1 = 37, df2 = 178, p < .05; see Table 4). Four variables were found to be statistically significant at the .05 level. Specifically, the best single predictor of tablet ownership likelihood was overall substitutability for computer and tablet (β = .402), followed by perceived tablet usefulness (β = .378), frequency of video sharing (β = −.200), and paid online streaming video (β = .172). The model continues to highlight the importance of usefulness and substitutability. Demographics, consumer innovativeness, perceived importance of media, and multiplatform usage did not predict tablet ownership.

Table 4.

Summary of Regression Analysis for Significant Variables Predicting Tablet Ownership Likelihood (N = 216).

Variable	B	SE B	β	Significance
Paid subscription for online streaming video	.407	.205	.172	.048
Frequency of video sharing	−.188	.077	−.200	.015
Perceived tablet usefulness	.459	.087	.378	.000
Overall substitutability—computer and tablet	.492	.203	.402	.017

Note. R² = .291; adjusted R² = .144 (p < .05), df1 = 37, df2 = 178.

Factors Affecting Dual Mobile Device Ownership

Finally, to assess the factors that affect the dual ownership of both a smartphone and tablet (RQ3), a discriminant analysis was performed.² One valid discriminant function was obtained (Wilks’ λ = .786, χ² = 86.195, df = 37, p < .001; see Table 5). Perceived tablet usefulness was once again the most important variable, followed by the media usage of shopping/commerce and frequency of microblogging (both had a structure matrix value at 0.262), perceived importance of online video (inverse), frequency of video sharing (inverse), content substitutability between TV and tablet, and gender.

Table 5.

Summary of Discriminant Analysis for Significant Variables Differentiating Dual Mobile Device Ownership (N = 379).

	Non-ownership		Ownership		Standardized coefficients	Structure matrix	Wilks’ λ	F	Significance
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Standardized coefficients	Structure matrix	Wilks’ λ	F	Significance
Gender	0.6652	0.47301	0.7595	0.42875	.108	.197	.990	3.959	.047
Frequency of microblogging	2.4299	1.48655	2.8481	1.55648	.429	.262	.982	7.012	.008
Frequency of video sharing	1.9683	1.22989	1.7089	1.06660	−.497	−.211	.988	4.573	.033
Frequency of shopping/commerce use (computer)	3.1538	1.12567	3.4684	1.16023	.357	.262	.982	7.010	.008
Perceived importance of online video	3.3529	1.13312	3.0886	1.22282	−.296	−.214	.988	4.692	.031
Perceived tablet usefulness	3.2172	0.94766	3.5506	0.99391	.409	.327	.972	10.950	.001
Content substitutability—TV and tablet	3.1493	1.10386	3.3797	1.02583	.286	.204	.989	4.256	.040

Note. Test of function: Wilks’ λ = .786, χ² = 86.195, df = 37, p < .001.

The variable clusters of consumer innovativeness and multiplatform usage did not affect the ownership of dual mobile devices at all. The significance found in perceived tablet usefulness, microblogging, and shopping/commerce is consistent with both previous discriminant functions for tablet ownership and iPad ownership, demonstrating the importance of all three variables in differentiating owners from non-owners of tablets, branded tablets, and dual mobile devices. When comparing between the predictors for tablet ownership and dual mobile device ownership, this study found additional variables play a role when adding the smartphone to the mobile mix. For example, female consumers who had a lower perceived importance of online video but also saw a high content substitutability between TV and tablets were more likely to own both devices.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study utilized a combination of IDT, TAM, and U&G frameworks to test the significance of consumer demographics, innovativeness, media usage, multiplatform usage, perceived importance of media, usefulness, ease of use, and substitutability in the adoption of tablets, iPads, and dual mobile device ownership, as well as tablet ownership likelihood. The findings demonstrate the importance of perceived tablet usefulness, frequency of microblogging, and computer commerce usage, which consistently affected all three types of ownership studied.

Substitutability also played a role in iPad ownership, which was affected by perceived delivery substitutability of television and magazines. Dual mobile device ownership was also affected by perceived content substitutability between television and tablets. It was surprising to see that the frequency of video sharing and perceived importance of online video had a negative effect on the ownership of both mobile devices. Finally, four predictor variables were identified to influence the likelihood of tablet ownership: overall substitutability of tablets and computers, perceived tablet usefulness, video sharing infrequency, and paid online video subscription. Interestingly, this study found tablets to be different from other innovations in regard to consumer innovativeness or perceived ease of use, as neither played a significant role in the adoption process, despite the mean (with standard deviation in parentheses) for consumer innovativeness being 3.7158 (0.76759) and for tablet ease of use being 4.4263 (0.74956). This raises some theoretical implications regarding the deterministic nature of technology adoption frameworks like IDT and TAM suggesting that they do not account for the full continuum of adoption behaviors that have manifested as a result of user-friendly converged devices like tablets, which can serve as inexpensive functional alternatives relative to traditional media platforms (Eveland, 1986; McMaster & Wastell, 2005). It is also worth noting that multiplatform usage and the perceived importance of most media platforms were not significant factors in the tablet adoption examined.

Despite the deterministic limitations of technology adoption frameworks, using the TAM model did procure some crucial insights as perceived tablet usefulness played an important role in all three discriminant functions. “Usefulness” appears to be the dominant aspect of TAM for appliance-like media devices marketed for their ease of use and targeted at cross-generational market segments. It is important to note that tablet usefulness is not a measure of how well the tablet functions for specific individual tasks, but the perceived ability of the tablet to serve various functions that enhances one’s life. The utility of this multiplicity might be a major attraction of tablet devices; accordingly, marketers could benefit from advertising the product as a truly converged media device and ensure its usefulness in multiple life situations is observable and demonstrable. Competing platforms will need to pursue a similar strategy to remain competitive. This is already happening as e-readers are becoming more like tablets and video game consoles are extending the TV experience to tablet-like devices (e.g., Xbox One; Oliver, 2013). The findings of this study make a strong case that perceived utility, not innovativeness or ease of use, is the number one factor affecting tablet ownership among young adults.

The importance of microblogging in all three discriminant functions is a timely reflection of Twitter’s increasing popularity, especially via mobile devices. Twitter penetration reached over 15% of Internet users in the United States by mid-2013, and while Twitter’s penetration of the general population is still relatively low, its usage among smartphone owners is substantial, at a 28% penetration rate (eMarketer, 2013b). Changes in social networking facilitated by Web 2.0 platforms like Twitter perhaps organically enhanced the desirability of tablet devices, which are designed with more intuitive interfaces for dealing with microblogging (e.g., iOS alerts).

The importance of computer-based commerce in all types of tablet ownership is an intriguing finding, as it raises the question of whether certain consumers or transactions are more tablet/mobile device friendly. For example, online shoppers may be more innovative and therefore more comfortable with the ubiquitous nature of mobile commerce. As tablet interfaces become more intuitive, the act of shopping has been simplified; the device remembers your username, password, and credit card, so little effort is needed to make a purchase (e.g., Apple Pay). This means there is tremendous potential for e-commerce on tablets, but at the same time the innovativeness of the shopper is likely to moderate this relationship. Further research should assess the platform preferences of e-consumers to see if there are any behavioral consistencies that play a role in predicting their preferred mobile device in e-commerce scenarios.

It was surprising to see that consumers’ perceived importance of online video in their daily lives and their tendency to share videos played a somewhat negative role in the tablet adoption process, albeit apps like Periscope and Meerkat that are designed for livestreaming daily activities were both released in 2015, and therefore were not available when this study was conducted. It appears that dual mobile device owners see tablets as a platform for productivity, commerce, and social networking functions at this point of the adoption cycle, while smartphones facilitate easy access for the quick viewing and sharing of short videos. Although future tablet designs could work to provide a superior video recording experience through apps like Periscope and Meerkat, there is a possibility for the device to progress into an entertainment platform for consuming commercial streaming video. The findings of this study demonstrate that paid streaming video subscriptions have a significant relationship with the likelihood of tablet adoption. Current market trends demonstrate that 15% of Internet users watched videos on tablets at least three to five times a week (Accenture, 2013a, 2013b). As usage of paid streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video increases, we may see a simultaneous increase in tablet adoption, but given that the effect in this study is relatively weak, future research should be conducted to substantiate the order of an implied causal relationship.

The substitutability of tablets in relation to television, radio, newspaper, magazines, and computers was assessed to identify respondents’ perceived substitutability of the platforms, and whether or not those perceptions differentiate tablet owners from non-owners. The findings showed that the most substitutable media for tablets are televisions, magazines, and computers. As the Millennial generation has shown an increased level of cord cutting, never cording, and platform migration (Edwards, 2013), the acceptance of tablets as a substitute for television is consistent with face validity. In regard to print media, sales of offline magazine subscriptions are decreasing, while acceptance of e-readers is increasing (Fung, 2014). Although the magazine content being offered on tablets is a direct replication of what is available offline, there are additional interactive, search, and supplemental content functionalities. Finally, as the sales of personal computers continue to drop (Arthur, 2013), the issue of substitutability between laptops and tablets is nearing the forefront of many consumer electronics discourses. Current market analysts argue that although computers will remain an important productivity device, their usage will be reduced because of tablets, as tablets offer an alternative device that is light, efficient, and provides both productivity and superior entertainment consumption value (Smith, 2013).

The differences between the factors that affected tablet ownership versus iPad ownership enrich the study by identifying the potential unique selling propositions associated with iPads that resulted in their early market dominance (eMarketer, 2013a). iPad ownership was affected by productivity behavior (i.e., work frequency), while tablets in general were not. This finding might be explained by the cross-integration of Apple’s product line, as those who are Mac users would likely find it easy to integrate an iPad into their work flow seamlessly through iCloud, iTunes, and other Apple systems. iPad ownership was also affected by the importance of mobile apps, while tablets in general were not; this could be attributed to Apple pioneering the app store concept and therefore being associated with the latest apps (Apple, 2008). However, as Apple faces increased competition from Android and Microsoft, this trend may change. Future research may look to cross-analyze the brand equity of the Apple, Android, and Microsoft app stores to see if any have established a competitive advantage. Other potential studies could look to address the role productivity behavior and importance of apps play for a consumer deciding between an iPad, iPhone, or an iPhone+, as industry reports attribute vertically integrated cannibalization as one of the reasons for the sale of iPads being down 12% at the close of 2014 (Rogowsky, 2014).

There were also important differences between the factors that affected dual mobile device ownership versus general tablet ownership. Gender was a factor for dual mobile device ownership but not for tablet ownership; although there were more females in this sample than males, it does challenge the stigma that male consumers are more innovative or require ownership of more gadgets (Catling, 2013). Future research should consider comparing the ownership and uses of multiple devices across genders. Another important contrast was the perception that television and tablets offer the same content. This was a significant factor for dual mobile device ownership, but not for tablet ownership. It is possible that those who own both a smartphone and tablet highly value mobility and see less importance in fixed-line, home devices. In addition, for this group of adopters, the gratifications delivered by television can be largely fulfilled by mobile devices. Both the aforementioned gender and substitutability findings show the increasing complexities involved in understanding mobile device platform selection. As tablets and other mobile device penetration increase, it will no longer suffice to look at adoption factors from a macro level, but steps will have to be taken to make micro-consumer analyses that factor in individual nuances in demographics and psychographics.

The different factors that influence tablet ownership among adopters versus likelihood of tablet ownership among non-adopters reflect a consumer’s preconceived notions of what a tablet can achieve versus its actual usage functionalities after purchase. These differences could be attributed to early versus late adopters and the influence of technology clusters. The tablet owners at the time of this study were most likely early adopters who relate to technologies on the basis of early realization of their functional interdependence and shared infrastructure. Their tablet adoption might have been more driven by the complementarity among tablets and other related technologies. However, the potential tablet adopters surveyed likely represent late adopters who tend to focus on tablets’ established mass functional merits and their substitutability or redundancy with other technologies that they currently own. For example, subscription to paid streaming video was a predictor for future tablet ownership, but not a significant differentiator between current tablet owners and non-owners. As paid streaming video represents a service that is more substitutive than complementary in nature, this could be a result of the technology clusters proposition. Another important finding was the overall substitutability of computers and tablets being a predictor for future tablet ownership, but not a significant differentiator for existing tablet ownership. It is possible that early adopters adopted tablets under the consideration that they complement the functions provided by personal computers, whereas late adopters evaluate the attractiveness of tablets based on how they are more likely to substitute for a computer. As IDT explains that those who adopt innovations at a faster pace are usually more innovative, of higher social status, and with excess levels of disposable income (Rogers, 2003), perhaps innovators and early adopters are finding complementary and multiplatform utilities at a faster pace than the average consumer, as these functionalities are unobservable without product trial. This would explain why late adopters and laggards tend to view tablets as substitutable, as their resistance to adoption may be a reflection of their lack of knowledge on the enhanced complementary and multiplatform functionalities they could have access to.

Although the convenience student sample limits the generalizability of the findings, the exploratory nature of this study warranted using a sample that based on the IDT framework is most likely to have already made a decision about whether to accept or reject the innovation. As tablet penetration increases, future studies should look to test the aforementioned findings on a random national sample to both confirm whether these trends are evident in non-student populations, and to enable future tablet adoption research to be inferential in nature. Future research should also look to examine and fulfill areas relevant to the discussion above, including a longitudinal assessment of tablet substitutability perspectives pre- and post-adoption, the relationship between paid online streaming video and likelihood to purchase a tablet, and multiplatform usage across genders. Ultimately, the findings of this study imply that the high rates of adoption experienced by tablets, iPads, and smartphones are less a result of their substitutability for traditional media platforms and more likely a result of the individual consumer’s perceived importance of online media. Activities that heavily influenced adoption like microblogging, work/school-related productivity, and app usage demonstrate that it is possible for consumers to have a low importance for traditional media, yet simultaneously have such a high importance for new media that they are willing to become dual mobile device owners. The overarching implication for media practitioners is that integrating tablets into their product portfolios and delivery systems (e.g., TV everywhere) is more likely to have an additive effect than attempting to pull tablet and smartphone owners toward traditional platforms, as they ultimately perceive the content activities of converged new media devices to be of superior importance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sylvia Chan-Olmsted received her PhD from Michigan State University with an emphasis in media economics and marketing. She is the author of the book Competitive Strategy for Media Firms, which won the Most Significant Contribution to Media Management and Economics Award from Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC). She also is the co-editor of two books, Media Management and Economics Handbook and Global Media Economics. She has published over 57 refereed articles in peer-reviewed journals including several in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, along with over 100 refereed paper presentations. Her research focuses on digital/mobile media consumers, as well as brand and strategic management in emerging media industries.

Ronen Shay received his PhD in mass communication from the University of Florida. His research is focused on contemporary challenges in the field of media management and includes papers written on windowed distribution strategies, pure play distribution, and the relationship between social media metrics and brand equity. He has presented his research at AEJMC, Broadcast Education Association (BEA), and International Communication Association (ICA) national conferences, the University of Zurich’s media branding symposium, and the 11th World Media Economics and Management Conference. He has received top paper awards from the Management, Marketing and Programming Division of BEA (2015) and the Media Management, Economics and Entrepreneurship division of AEJMC (2013-2015). In September 2015, he joined the faculty of the Department of Media and Communication at St. John Fisher College, in Rochester, New York.

References

Accenture. (2013a). Frequency of watching video content over the Internet worldwide in 2013, by device. Available from http://www.statista.com

Accenture. (2013b). Which of the following electronic devices do you use regularly while simultaneously watching TV, and for what do you use it? Available from http://www.statista.com

Adobe. (2012). Adobe 2012 mobile consumer survey results. Retrieved from http://success.adobe.com/assets/en/downloads/whitepaper/20860_mobile_consumer_survey_white_paper_ue_v5.pdf

Apple. (2008). Apple introduces the new iPhone 3G. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09Apple-Introduces-the-New-iPhone-3G.html

Apple. (2010). Apple sells over 300,000 iPads first day. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/05Apple-Sells-Over-300-000-iPads-First-Day.html

Apple. (2011). Apple reports third quarter results. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/19Apple-Reports-Third-Quarter-Results.html

Arthur

(2013, December 19). My iPad has Netflix, Spotify, Twitter-everything: Why tablets are killing PCs. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/19/why-tablets-killing-pc-ipad-apple-microsoft

Atkin

LaRose

(1994). Profiling call-in poll users. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38, 217-228. doi:10.1080/08838159409364258

Baran

S. J.

Davis

D. K.

(2012). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

10.

Bartholow

B. D.

Anderson

C. A.

(2002). Examining the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-290. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1502

11.

Brown

(2003). Bringing non-adopters along: The challenge facing the PC industry. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 76-80. doi:10.1145/641205.641208

12.

Catling

(2013). Are men more innovative than women? Think Global Innovation Management. Retrieved http://www.thethinkteam.com/blog/are-men-more-innovative-than-women-does-this-have-an-effect-on-abilities-to-run-your-own-innovation-management-consultancy-business-from-h

13.

Chang

Lee

Kim

(2006). Exploring factors affecting the adoption and continuance of online games among college students in South Korea: Integrating uses and gratification and diffusion of innovation approaches. New Media & Society, 8, 295-319. doi:10.1177/1461444806059888

14.

Chang

Kennedy

Petrovic

(2008). Web 2.0 and user-created content: Students negotiating shifts in academic authority. Melbourne, Australia: Proceedings of Ascilite 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/chang.pdf

15.

Chen

G. M.

(2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 755-762. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023

16.

Clabaugh

(2013). Tablet ownership reaches 40%. Washington Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/techflash/2013/04/tablet-ownership-reaches-40.html

17.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences (3rd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Columbus

(2013, September 12). IDC: 87% of connected devices sales by 2017 will be tablets and smartphones. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2013/09/12/idc-87-of-connected-devices-by-2017-will-be-tablets-and-smartphones/

19.

ComScore. (2011). Digital Omnivores: How tablets, smartphones and connected devices are changing U.S. digital media consumption habits. Retrieved from http://www.ipmark.com/pdf/Omnivoros.pdf

20.

Courtois

D’heer

(2012). Second screen applications and tablet users: Constellation, awareness, experience, and interest. Gent, Belgium: IBBT-MICT-Ghent University. doi:10.1145/2325616.2325646

21.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/249008

22.

Edwards

(2013, November). TV is dying, and here are the stats that prove it. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11

23.

eMarketer. (2013a). Mobile user bases at Facebook and Twitter keep growing. Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-User-Bases-Facebook-Twitter-Keep-Growing/1010135

24.

eMarketer. (2013b). With more models on the market, how are tablets stacking up? Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/With-More-Models-on-Market-How-Tablets-Stacking-Up/1009982

25.

eMarketer. (2014). Is the iPad market saturated? Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/iPad-Market-Saturated/1011313

26.

Eveland

J. D.

(1986). Diffusion, technology, transfer, and implementation: Thinking and talking about change. Science Communication, 8, 303-322. doi:10.1177/107554708600800214

27.

Farago

(2012, October). The truth about cats and dogs: Smartphone vs tablet usage differences. Flurry. Retrieved from http://www.flurry.com/bid/90987/The-Truth-About-Cats-and-Dogs-Smartphone-vs-Tablet-Usage-Differences#.VSV_4PnF98E

28.

Flavian

Gurrea

(2007). Perceived substitutability between digital and physical channels: The case of newspapers. Online Information Review, 31, 793-813. doi:10.1108/14684520710841775

29.

Fung

(2014, February 7). Top 25 magazines of 2013 by circulation. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/top-magazines-circulation-2013_n_4745082.html

30.

Gillett

(2012, April).Why tablets will become our primary computing device. Forrester. Retrieved from http://blogs.forrester.com/frank_gillett/12-04-23-why_tablets_will_become_our_primary_computing_device

31.

Greer

C. F.

Ferguson

D. A.

(2015). Tablet computers and traditional television (TV) viewing: Is the iPad replacing TV? Convergence, 21, 244-256. doi:10.1177/1354856514541928

32.

Ganahl

(2004). Webcasting business models of clicks-and-bricks and pure-play media: A comparative study of leading webcasters in South Korea and the United States. The International Journal on Media Management, 6, 74-87. doi:10.1080/14241277.2004.9669384

33.

Stoel

(2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62, 565-571. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.06.016

34.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Hamblen

(2013). Computer world. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9239600/3_reasons_why_tablets_thrive_while_PCs_dive

36.

Heggestuen

(2013, December). One in every 5 people in the world own a smartphone, one in Every 17 own a tablet. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/smartphone-and-tablet-penetration-2013-10#ixzz2o6qP6Brk

37.

Hollander

B. A.

(2008). Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998 to 2006. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 23-40. doi:10.1177/107769900808500103

38.

Holt

(2013, March 28). Tablets to outsell PCs for the first time this year. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9958851/Tablets-to-outsell-PCs-for-the-first-time-this-year.html

39.

Hsu

C. L.

H. P.

(2004). Why do people play on-line game(s)? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inform Manage, 41, 853-868. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014

40.

Hur

Yoo

Chung

(2012). The consumption values and consumer innovativeness on convergence products. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112, 688-706. Retrieved from doi:10.1108/02635571211232271

41.

International Data Corporation. (2015). Worldwide PC shipments will continue to decline in 2016 as the short-term outlook softens, according to IDC. Retrieved from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS40704015

42.

International Data Corporation. (2016). Worldwide shipments of slate tablets continue to decline while detachable tablets climb to new high. Retrieved from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS40990116

43.

Jenkins

(2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

44.

Kim

W. C.

Mauborgne

(2005). Blue ocean strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

45.

Komando

(2015). Tablet comparison chart—Full size tablets. Kim Komando America’s Digital Goddess. Retrieved from http://www.komando.com/charts/242385/tablet-comparison-chart

46.

LaRose

(2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20, 194-122. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01360.x

47.

Lee

Suh

Park

(2012). A study on determinant factor to purchase for tablet PC and smartphone by a comparative analysis. Pohang, South Korea: Pohang University of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://space.postech.ac.kr/korms/2012_fall/sessionA/A4-4.pdf

48.

Lee

Brown

J. S.

Lee

(2011). A cross-country analysis of fixed broadband deployment: Examination of adoption factors and network effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 581-596. doi:10.1177/107769901108800307

49.

Lenhart

Purcell

Smith

Zickuhr

(2010). Gadget ownership and wireless connectivity. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/part-2-gadget-ownership-and-wireless-connectivity/

50.

Lin

C. A.

(2009). Exploring the online radio adoption decision-making process: Cognition, attitude, and technological fluidity. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 884-899. doi:10.1177/107769900908600410

51.

Lin

C. A.

Jeffres

L. W.

(1998). Factors influencing the adoption of multimedia cable technology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 341-352. doi:10.1177/107769909807500209

52.

McMaster

Wastell

(2005). Diffusion—Or delusion? Challenging an IS research tradition. Information Technology & People, 18, 383-404. doi:10.1108/09593840510633851

53.

Mitchell

Rosenstiel

Santhanam

L. H.

Christian

(2012). Tablet only, smartphone only, or both—Digital divides. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2012/10/01/tablet-only-smartphone-only-or-both-digital-divides/

54.

Moran

M. J.

(2006). College student’s acceptance of tablet personal computers: A modification of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning Company. (UMI No. 3226792)

55.

Napoli

P. M.

(2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences.New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

56.

Nguyen

Chaparro

(2012, August 23). College students are using the iPad, but not for schoolwork. Usability News, 14(1), 1-9. Retrieved from http://usabilitynews.org/college-students-are-using-the-ipad-but-not-for-schoolwork/

57.

Nielsen. (2009). Television, Internet and mobile usage in the U.S: A2/M2 three screen report. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/newswire/uploads/2009/09/ThreeScreenReport_US_2Q09REV.pdf

58.

Nielsen. (2013). The mobile consumer: A global snapshot. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2013%20Reports/Mobile-Consumer-Report-2013.pdf

59.

Oliver

(2013, December). Best tablets for gaming in 2013. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.co.uk/reviews/tablets/2013-12/android-tablets-for-gaming

60.

Ozok

A. A.

Benson

Chakraborty

Norcio

A. F.

(2008). A comparative study between tablet and laptop PCs: User satisfaction and preferences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24, 329-352. doi:10.1080/10447310801920524

61.

Pew. (2012). One-in-ten “dual-screened” the presidential debate. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-11-12%20Debate%20Media%20Release.pdf

62.

Poulsen

French

(2008). Discriminant function analysis. San Francisco State University. Retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/efc/classes/biol710/discrim/discrim.pdf

63.

Richter

(2013, September). Tablets are used mainly for entertainment. Gartner. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/chart/1482/activities-conducted-on-tablets/

64.

Richter

(2014, May). The iPad still dominates tablet usage. StatistaCharts. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/chart/2307/top-8-tablet-brands-in-north-america/

65.

Robinson

R. L.

Burk

M. S.

(2013). Tablet computer use by medical students in the United States. Journal of Medical Systems, 37(4), 9959. doi:10.1007/s10916-013-9959-y

66.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

67.

Rogowsky

(2014, May). The iPad is dying? Long live the iPhab! Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/11/30/the-ipad-is-dying-long-live-the-iphab/

68.

Rubin

A. M.

(2009). Uses and gratifications: An evolving perspective of media effects. In Nabi

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 147-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

69.

Smith

(2013, June). Can a tablet replace your laptop? We used an iPad for three months to find out. Digital Trends. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/can-a-tablet-replace-your-laptop/

70.

Smock

A. D.

Ellison

N. B.

Lampe

Wohn

D. Y.

(2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratifications approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2322-2329. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011

71.

Song

Lee

(2012). Mobile device ownership among international business students; a road to the ubiquitous library. References Services Reviews, 40, 574-588. doi:10.1108/00907321211277378

72.

Sparkes

V. M.

Kang

(1986). Public reactions to cable television: Time in the diffusion process. Journal of Broadcast & Electronic Media, 30, 213-229. doi:10.1080/08838158609386620

73.

Sukhi

N. M.

(2011). Modelling factors influencing early adopters’ purchase intention towards online music. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 7(4), 46-61. doi:10.4018/jthi.2011100104

74.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

75.

University of Texas. (2013). Logistic regression. Retrieved from http://slideplayer.com/slide/5770972/

76.

Walsh

(2011, May 5). Tablets change media behavior, iPad still king. Online Media Daily. Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/149962/tablets-change-media-behavior-ipad-still-king.html?edition

77.

Wei

(2001). From luxury to utility a longitudinal analysis of cell phone laggards. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 702-719. doi:10.1177/107769900107800406

78.

Wei

(2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8, 52-72. doi:10.1177/1461444806059870

79.

Zickuhr

(2013). Tablet ownership 2013. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/10/tablet-ownership-2013/