Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Impact of Individual Differences on the Adoption of Smart Homes

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
HCI International 2022 – Late Breaking Posters (HCII 2022)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1655))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1709 Accesses

Abstract

With the advancement of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, the concept of Smart homes has become widely common. Smart Homes act as an intelligent house with the ability to acquire knowledge about inhabitants to adapt and meet the goals of efficiency and automation. However, with this wide advancement in Smart Home technologies, there is a gap between early adopters and the mass market. Prior research on IoT has focused on the technical functionalities of the IoT, the communication standards, and the security protocols. Some previous attempts have used established adoption models to analyze the user acceptance and adoption of IoT and Smart Home Technologies. However, none of them have studied the individual differences between users as antecedents impacting the intention to adopt and use smart home technologies. This research explores and integrates the level of importance of different tasks at home to form a positive factor named Perceived Task Necessity. In addition, drawing from previously validated research, Privacy & Security Risk, and Trust are introduced as antecedents of perceived behavioral control. Then integrated with the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Big-Five Factors personality model to propose a theoretical model to explain the users’ intention to adopt and use Smart Home Technologies. A 32-item survey measure is built to test the proposed model and validate the hypotheses. The instrument is being tested in an online survey. The results of the survey will be used to verify the validity of the proposed model and show the relationship between the individual differences, the perceived task necessity, and their attitude with the intention to adopt and use Smart Home Technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vailshery, L.S.: Forecast end-user spending on IoT solutions worldwide from 2017 to 2025 (2021). https://www.statista.com/

  2. Greenough, J.: The US smart home market has been struggling—here’s how and why the market will take off. Business Insider (2016). http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-smart-home-marketreport-adoption-forecasts-top-products-and-the-cost-and-fragmentation-problems-that-could-hindergrowth-2015-9. Accessed 26 May 2017

  3. Yang, H., Lee, H., Zo, H.: User acceptance of smart home services: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thatcher, J.B., Perrewe, P.L.: An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Q., 381–396 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  5. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Jr.: Rotation to maximize the construct validity of factors in the NEO Personality Inventory. Multivar. Behav. Res. 24(1), 107–124 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McCrae, R.R., John, O.P.: An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60(2), 175–215 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ning, H., Hu, S.: Technology classification, industry, and education for Future Internet of Things. Int. J. Commun. Syst 25(9), 1230–1241 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Madakam, S., et al.: Internet of Things (IoT): a literature review. J. Comput. Commun. 3(05), 164 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alaa, M., et al.: A review of smart home applications based on Internet of Things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 97, 48–65 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carcary, M., Maccani, G., Doherty, E., Conway, G.: Exploring the determinants of iot adoption: findings from a systematic literature review. In: Zdravkovic, J., Grabis, J., Nurcan, S., Stirna, J. (eds.) BIR 2018. LNBIP, vol. 330, pp. 113–125. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99951-7_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E.: A systematic review of the smart home literature: a user perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 138, 139–154 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Balta-Ozkan, N., Boteler, B., Amerighi, O.: European smart home market development: public views on technical and economic aspects across the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 65–77 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan, M., et al.: A review of smart homes-present state and future challenges. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 91(1), 55–81 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Peek, S.T., et al.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int. J, Med. Inf. 83(4), 235–248 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Czaja, S.J.: Long-term care services and support systems for older adults: the role of technology. Am. Psychol. 71(4), 294 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kun, L.G.: Telehealth and the global health network in the 21st century. From homecare to public health informatics. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 64(3), 155–167 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tarabasz, A.: The Internet of Things-digital revolution in offline market. Opportunity or threat? Handel Wewn?trzny 363(4), 325–337 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weber, R.H.: Internet of Things-new security and privacy challenges. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 26(1), 23–30 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Yang, Y., et al.: A survey on security and privacy issues in Internet-of-Things. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(5), 1250–1258 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shin, J., Park, Y., Lee, D.: Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 134, 246–253 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Park, E., et al.: Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 17(1), 175–190 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davis, F.D.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 319–340 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Venkatesh, V., et al.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 425–478 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nikou, S.: Factors driving the adoption of smart home technology: an empirical assessment. Telematics Inform. 45, 101283 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Simon and Schuster (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. 12, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bentler, P.M., Speckart, G.: Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychol. Rev. 86(5), 452 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R.: Four ways five factors are basic. Pers. Individ. Differ. 13(6), 653–665 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R.: Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54(5), 853 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Digman, J.M.: Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41(1), 417–440 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Barnett, T., et al.: Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24(4), 374–390 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhou, T., Lu, Y.: The effects of personality traits on user acceptance of mobile commerce. Intl. J. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 27(6), 545–561 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  36. DeCharms, R.: Personal causation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2(2), 95–113 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  37. White, R.W.: Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol. Rev. 66(5), 297 (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Moore, M.G.: Three Types of Interaction. Taylor & Francis (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shropshire, J., Warkentin, M., Sharma, S.: Personality, attitudes, and intentions: predicting initial adoption of information security behavior. Comput. Secur. 49, 177–191 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Conner, M., Abraham, C.: Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27(11), 1547–1561 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bauer, H.H., et al.: Driving consumer acceptance of mobile marketing: a theoretical framework and empirical study. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 6(3), 181 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zhou, L., Dai, L., Zhang, D.: Online shopping acceptance model-a critical survey of consumer factors in online shopping. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 8(1), 41 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kranz, L., Gallenkamp, J., Picot, A.O.: Exploring the role of control-smart meter acceptance of residential consumers (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J.C.-C.: An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things services: network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 516–527 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hu, P.J.-H., Clark, T.H., Ma, W.W.: Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study. Inf. Manag. 41(2), 227–241 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S., Ajzen, I.: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18(1), 3–9 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(2), 144–176 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Deng, Z., Mo, X., Liu, S.: Comparison of the middle-aged and older users' adoption of mobile health services in China. Int. J. Med. Inf. 83(3), 210–224 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kim, B.: An empirical investigation of mobile data service continuance: incorporating the theory of planned behavior into the expectation-confirmation model. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(10), 7033–7039 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lu, M.-T., et al.: Exploring mobile banking services for user behavior in intention adoption: using new hybrid MADM model. Serv. Bus. 9(3), 541–565 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Karim, N.S.A., Zamzuri, N.H.A., Nor, Y.M.: Exploring the relationship between internet ethics in university students and the big five model of personality. Comput. Educ. 53(1), 86–93 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shropshire, J., et al.: Personality and IT security: an application of the five-factor model. In: AMCIS 2006 Proceedings, p. 415 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Warkentin, M., et al.: The role of individual characteristics on insider abuse intentions (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Thompson, V.A.: Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Mem. Cogn. 22(6), 742–758 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lee, M.: An empirical study of home IoT services in South Korea: the moderating effect of the usage experience. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 35(7), 535–547 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Padyab, A., Ståhlbröst, A.: Exploring the dimensions of individual privacy concerns in relation to the Internet of Things use situations. Digit. Policy Regul. Governance (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P.: An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J. Mark. 61(2), 35–51 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power (John A. Wiley and Sons, Chichester), NewYork (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7(3), 101–134 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ring, P.S., Van de Ven, A.H.: Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19(1), 90–118 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gefen, D.: E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28(6), 725–737 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mathieson, K.: Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 173–191 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Goldberg, L.R.: The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4(1), 26 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Agarwal, J.: Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 15(4), 336–355 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jarvis College of Computing and Digital Media, DePaul University, 243 S Wabash Avenue, Suite 806, Chicago, IL, 60604, USA

    Badar H. Al-Lawati & Xiaowen Fang

Authors
  1. Badar H. Al-Lawati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaowen Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badar H. Al-Lawati .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Constantine Stephanidis

  2. Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Margherita Antona

  3. Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Stavroula Ntoa

  4. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Gavriel Salvendy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Al-Lawati, B.H., Fang, X. (2022). Impact of Individual Differences on the Adoption of Smart Homes. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S., Salvendy, G. (eds) HCI International 2022 – Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1655. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19682-9_58

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19682-9_58

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19681-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19682-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics