Advertisement

A Study on the Adoption of Smart Home Devices: PLS Structural Equation Modeling

  • Abdurrahman Can
  • Umut AsanEmail author
Conference paper
  • 17 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)

Abstract

In this study, the adoption of smart home devices that offer comfort, security, and energy-saving to users has been examined. The technology acceptance model (TAM) is extended by integrating Domain Specific Innovativeness, Perceived Compatibility, Perceived Data Reliability, Perceived System Reliability, Variety Seeking and Laziness into the model. Different from the existing studies in the literature, the present study introduces the constructs Variety Seeking and Laziness the first time. In addition, Personal Innovativeness is replaced by the construct Domain Specific Innovativeness. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is used to test the proposed model. This statistical technique does not require the data to be normally distributed and is well suited for testing large and complex models including moderating effects. According to the results, the relationship between Domain Specific Innovativeness and Perceived Usefulness is not supported. On the other hand, a positive weak relation is found between Domain Specific Innovativeness and Perceived Ease of Use. Although the analysis also reveals a weak positive relationship between Laziness and Attitude, the moderating effect of Laziness on the relationship between Attitude and Perceived Usefulness as well as Attitude and Perceived Ease of Use is not supported. Finally, a weak positive relationship between Variety Seeking and Attitude is found.

Keywords

Smart home devices Technology Acceptance Model PLS structural equation modeling Moderator analysis 

References

  1. Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q 24(4):665–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balta-Ozkan N et al (2013) Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy 63:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bansal HS, Taylor SF, James YS (2005) “Migrating” to new service providers: toward a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. J Acad Mark Sci 33(1):96–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartels J, Reinders M (2011) Consumer innovativeness and its correlates: a propositional inventory for future research. J Bus Res 64:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baudier P, Ammi C, Deboeuf-Rouchon M (2018) Smart home: highly-educated students’ acceptance. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 119355 (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Bhattacherjee A (2000) Acceptance of e-commerce services: the case of electronic brokerages. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Part A: Syst Hum 30(4):411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q 25(3):351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan M et al (2008) A review of smart homes present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 91(1):55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang MK (1998) Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. J Bus Ethics 17:1825–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng TE, Lam DY, Yeung AC (2006) Adoption of internet banking: an empirical study in Hong Kong. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1558–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chou SY, Shen GC, Chiu HC, Chou YT (2016) Multichannel service providers’ strategy: understanding customers’ switching and free-riding behavior. J Bus Res 69(6):2226–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collan M (2007) Lazy user behaviour. MPRA Paper No. 4330. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4330/
  14. Daneels E, Kleinsmith EJ (2001) Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. J Prod Innov Manage 18(6):357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:318–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Featherman MS, Pavlou PA (2003) Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum Comput Stud 59(4):451–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  19. Gatignon H, Robertson TS (1985) A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. J Consum Res 11(4):849–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF (1991) Measuring consumer innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 19:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hair JF, Hult G, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2014) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). SAGE, Los AngeleszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirschman EC (1980) Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. J Consum Res 7(3):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffmann S, Soyez K (2010) A cognitive model to predict domain-specific consumer innovativeness. J Bus Res 63(7):778–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hou AC, Chern CC, Chen HG, Chen YC (2011) Migrating to a new virtual world: exploring MMORPG switching through human migration theory. Comput Hum Behav 27(5):1892–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hubert M, Blut M, Brock C, Zhang R, Koch V, Riedl R (2019) The influence of acceptance and adoption drivers on smart home usage. Eur J Mark 53(6):1073–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurley RF, Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 62(3):42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Islam AN (2016) E-learning system use and its outcomes: moderating role of perceived compatibility. Telemat Inform 33(1):48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeong SC, Kim S, Park JY, Choi B (2017) Domain-specific innovativeness and new product adoption: a case of wearable devices. Telematics Inform 34(5):399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahn BE (1995) Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services. J Retail Consum Serv 2(3):139–148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karahanna E et al (2006) Reconceptualizing compatability beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Q 30:781–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Midgley DF, Dowling GR (1978) Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. J Consum Res 4:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park E, Cho Y, Han J, Kwon SJ (2017) Comprehensive approaches to user acceptance of internet of things in a smart home environment. IEEE Internet Things J 4(6):2342–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Park E, Kim S, Kim Y, Kwon SJ (2018) Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Univ Access Inf Soc 17:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pauwels K, Silva-Risso J, Srinivasan S, Hanssens DM (2004) New products, sales promotions, and firm value: the case of the automobile industry. J Mark 68:142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Porter M, Heppelmann J (2015) How smart, connected products are transforming companies. HBR Managing OrganizationsGoogle Scholar
  36. Roehrich G (2004) Consumer innovativeness concepts and measurements. J Bus Res 57:671–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Saha S, Jamtgaard M, Villasenor J (2001) Bringing the wireless Internet to mobile devices. Computer 34(6):54–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon B (2001) Wissensmedien im Bildungssektor. Eine Akzeptanzuntersuchung an Hochschulen (Knowledge media in the education system: acceptance research in universities).WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wien, Austria, no. 179Google Scholar
  40. Srinivasan S, Pauwels K, Silva-Risso J, Hanssens DM (2009) Product innovations, advertising, and stock returns. J Mark 73:24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steenkamp JE, Baumgartner H (1992) The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. J Consum Res 19(3):434–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tornatzky LG, Klein KJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 29(1):28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsao W-Y (2018) Understanding lazy usage success based on expectation confirmation model and technology acceptance model. Int Rev Manag Bus Res 7(4):896–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46(2):186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q 36(1):157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wong KKK (2013) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark Bull 24(1):1–32Google Scholar
  47. Yang H, Lee H, Zo H (2017) User acceptance of smart home services: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Ind Manag Data Syst 117(1):68–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yi MY, Fiedler KD, Park JS (2006) Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT-based innovations: comparative analyses of models and measures. Decis Sci 37(3):393–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.R&D Directorate, Technology Management and R&D Incentives Management DepartmentArcelikIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering Department, Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations