Social Acceptability in Context: Stereotypical Perception of Shape, Body Location, and Usage of Wearable Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is titled – “Social Acceptability in Context: Stereotypical Perception of Shape, Body Location, and Usage of Wearable Devices”. It aligns with the scope of the special issue. In the two studies presented in this paper, the authors investigate if and how the shape and body location of a body-worn mobile device as well as the activity in which the device is being used can systematically influence stereotypical ratings. The results suggest that this is evident in some but not all cases. The work seems novel which is supported by the results and the associated discussions. However, the presentation of the paper needs improvement. It is suggested that the authors make the necessary changes/updates to their paper as per the following comments:

1. In Section 3.5, please provide information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the recruitment of participants. In surveys, sometimes certain recruited participants provide irrelevant and/or incomplete responses to survey questions leading to the elimination of their responses. Please provide information on what percentage of the recruited participants completed the survey with acceptable responses.

2. On line 448, the authors state about Greenhouse-Geisser correction. Please provide a brief explanation of this process as all readers might not be aware of this approach.

3. In Figure 3, the graph shown represents the WEAR score on the Y-Axis. Please elaborate on how this score is computed.

4. In Section 2.1, the authors review the recent works that focused on “where to locate wearable devices for best interaction”. However, some of the papers that are cited here are not recent ones. For instance, [33] was published 13 years ago. Consider citing this recent paper - https://doi.org/10.3390/info13080363 that reports that the chest is the optimal location for an accelerometer-based sensor for fall detection. Similarly, consider updating some of the old references with recent papers.

5. A proper comparison (both quantitatively and quantitatively) of the results with prior works should be presented to highlight the novelty of the findings. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

we are thankful for your positive feedback and comments for further improving the paper. We will revised the paper according to your and the other reviewers recommendations. The revision will include the following changes:

1. Regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria. The only inclusion criteria were current location (Northern and Central Europe) and that a participant completed the survey. Not all participants completed all conditions (70 of 169 in the 1st, 150 of 203 in the 2nd survey). The details have been added in the revision. No participants were further excluded from the study. 

2. Regarding Greenhouse-Geisser: Parametric ANOVAs assume equal variances between the conditions ("sphericity"). If the variances are not equal, the degrees of freedem of the ANOVA should be adjusted. We performed automatic correction (and thus GG where necessary) using the rstatix-package in R. Details on the statistical procedure are now being referenced in the paper.

3. The score of the WEAR scale: The score is the average of the two subscales "absence of social fears" and "spirational desires". The score has been computed as suggested by original work. Original work and details on its computation are now mentioned and referenced in the text (3.3 and 3.6)

4. Thanks for the excellent reference regarding the chest-worn sensor for fall detection. The references has been added into the related work to highlight that device functionality as contextual information can be important for social acceptance.

5. We further highlighted the novelty of the findings in the introduction (also desired by R2).

We again, thank you for your feedback, would be very pleased if you would be available again as a reviewer.

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective of this study was to investigate how the shape and body location of a body-worn device, as well as the activity in which the device is being worn, impact stereotypical perceptions. The research is of interest to a broader audience, both end users and manufacturers of wearable devices and innovative solutions.

Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, reading the manuscript raised some issues that need to be clarified.

The theoretical backgrounds and existing research are well presented, and the reader is introduced to this field's related research. In the introduction, I propose that the authors explicitly state the novelty of their study. The authors have explained the main contribution; however, in the introduction part, the novelty of the study is not completely clear. Instead of explaining both studies and their results (paragraph starting in Line 71), I would recommend clarifying how and why this study is novel in relation to the existing research.

In the studies' procedures, maybe a little more should be explained about how the experiments were conducted. All steps should be explained better to improve the repeatability of the study. How were participants given the tasks, and how did the participants provide answers? What tool was used for the implementation of the steps? Was this a controlled experiment, and were they instructed or provided with help if needed? A diagram that would provide a graphical description of the experiment would be beneficial.

From the text I've read, it is unclear why the manuscript reports the procedures and results of two independent studies. The authors must explain why they conducted two independent studies instead of one joined.

In the limitations section, the authors state that the main limitation is in lack of qualitative data analysis. What about the sample size and the sampling method? There seems to be no random sampling, which raises some concerns regarding the generalizability of the results. Moreover, is the sample size adequate for the statistics used in the data analysis? In the discussion part of the manuscript, I would also recommend adding a short discussion on threats to internal and external validity, reliability of the data acquired and results provided with the used statistical methods.

Because some minor grammar mistakes or types can be found in the text, I also recommend proofreading the final version of the manuscript. For example, typos can be found in the following lines:

Line 32: ""…, while being ins a…"" ins->in

Line 186: ""… A method that take aspects…" " take -> takes

Line 248: ""… combination, We used…"" We ->we

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

we are thankful for your positive feedback and comments for further improving the paper. We will revised the paper according to your and the other reviewers recommendations. The revision will include the following changes:

Novelty in the introduction part: In line with your suggestion and R1's one we highlighted the novelty contrasted with previous work in the introduction.

Details on the experiments: Rationale and tool for conducting an online survey are now in 3. More details about the procedure can be found in 3.4. 

Two independent studies: The studies have been separated to keep their overall length reasonable and the design of the conditions understandable. We were also concerned about obtaining sequencing effects or biases when the studies were performed by the same participants after each other. Rationale can now be found in 2.3.

Limitations: We are now highlighting (5.2) that the sample was drawn from participants in Central and Northern Europe and a number of other limitations. We are now emphasizing aspects threatening internal and external validity and a lacking framework to assess related contextual factors.

Minor feedback has been incorporated, too.

We again, thank you for your feedback, we would be very pleased if you would be available again as a reviewer.

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the paper as per all my comments and feedback. I do not have any additional comments at this point. I recommend the publication of the paper in its current form. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments from the first review. The manuscript can be accepted for publishing.