User Acceptance of the Intelligent Fridge: Empirical Results from a Simulation

  • Matthias Rothensee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4952)


The smart fridge has often been considered a prototypical example of applications of the Internet of Things for the home. However, very little research has been conducted on functions desired by prospective users, and how users will eventually use the fridge. A simulation of a smart fridge was developed and tested within a controlled laboratory between-subjects experiment with 105 participants. Four different assistance functions were tested. It was found that generally a smart fridge is evaluated as moderately useful, easy to use and people would tend to buy it, if it was already available. Emotional responses differed between the assistance functions. Displaying information on durability of products, as well as giving feedback on nutrition health and economics are the most appreciated applications. Structurally, overall usefulness ratings of the device are the strongest predictors for the intention to use a smart fridge, but the emotional response to the product was also an important explanatory variable. Results are not influenced by technical competence, gender, or sense of presence in the simulation. Regression models confirmed that the simulation-based results explained 20% more variance in product acceptance than written scenarios. An outlook is given on future questions to be answered using the simulation.


Virtual World Smart Home User Acceptance Prospective User Spatial Presence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Edwards, W., Keith; Grinter, R.E.: At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In: Abowd, G.D., Brumitt, B., Shafer, S. (eds.) UbiComp 2001. LNCS, vol. 2201, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venkatesh, A.: New technologies for the home−development of a theoretical model of household adoption and use. Advances in Consumer Research 24, 522–528 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mateas, M., Salvador, T., Scholtz, J., Sorensen, D.: Engineering ethnography in the home. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, pp. 283–284 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swan, L., Taylor, A.: Notes on fridge surfaces (2005). In: Proceedings of: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 631–639 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanson-Smith, V., Wimalasuriya, D., Fortier, A.: NutriStat: Tracking young child nutrition (2006). In: Proceedings of: CHI 2006 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1831–1836 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ju, W., Hurwitz, R., Judd, T., Lee, B.: Counteractive: an interactive cookbook for the kitchen counter (2001). In: Proceedings of: CHI 2001 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 269–270 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauer, J., Streefkerk, K., Varick, R.R.: Fridgets: digital refrigerator magnets (2005). In: Proceedings of: CHI 2005 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2060–2064 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    LG electronics: Grd-267dtu - digital multimedia side-by-side fridge freezer with LCD display (2007), (retrieved: 9/15/2007)
  9. 9.
    Roemer, K., Schoch, T., Mattern, F., Duebendorfer, T.: Smart identification frameworks for ubiquitous computing applications. Wirel. Netw. 10(6), 689–700 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roussos, G., Tuominen, J., Koukara, L., Seppala, O., Kourouthanasis, P., Giaglis, G., Frissaer, J.: A case study in pervasive retail. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Mobile commerce, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 90–94 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wandke, H.: Assistance for human-machine interaction: A conceptual framework and a proposal for a taxonomy. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 6(2), 129–155 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, P., Li, N.: The importance of affective quality. Communications of the ACM 48(9), 105–108 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., Lehner, K.: Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. In: CHI 2000 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, Amsterdam, ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, J., Lee, J., Choi, D.: Designing emotionally evocative homepages: An empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59(6), 899–940 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design - Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sun, H., Zhang, P.: The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 53–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown, S., Venkatesh, V.: Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly 29(3), 399–426 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moon, J.W., Kim, Y.G.: Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information and Management 38, 217–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lederer, A., Maupin, D., Sena, M., Zhuang, Y.: The technology acceptance model and the world wide web. Decision Support Systems 29(3), 269–282 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Heijden, H.: User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly 28(4), 695–704 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Terrenghi, L.: Sticky, smelly, smoky context: experience design in the kitchen. In: Proceedings of the international workshop in conjunction with AVI 2006 on Context in advanced interfaces, Venice, Italy, ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regan, D.T., Fazio, R.: Consistency between attitudes and behavior - look to method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(1), 28–45 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loewenstein, G., Schkade, D.: Wouldn’t it be nice?: Predicting future feelings. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N. (eds.) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, Sage, New York, pp. 85–105 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robinson, M., Clore, G.: Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin 128(6), 934–960 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Axelrod, R.: Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences. In: Conte, R., Hegselmann, R., Terna, P. (eds.) Simulating Social Phenomena, Berlin, pp. 21–40. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: Implications for software project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51(1), 31–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonanni, L., Lee, C.-H., et al.: Attention-based design of augmented reality interfaces. In: CHI 2005 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, USA, ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hamada, R., Okabe, J., et al.: Cooking navi: assistant for daily cooking in kitchen. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, Hilton, Singapore, ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silva, J.M., Zamarripa, S., et al.: Promoting a healthy lifestyle through a virtual specialist solution. In: CHI 2006 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mick, D.G., Fournier, S.: Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 25(2), 123–143 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A.: An approach to environmental psychology. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (1974)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollueberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik (Control beliefs in exposure to technology). Report Psychologie 24(9), 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schubert, T.: The sense of presence in virtual environments: A three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness. Zeitschrift fuer Medienpsychologie (Journal of Media Psychology) 15, 69–71 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cronbach, L.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–333 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rijsdijk, S.A., Hultink, E.J.: Honey, Have you seen our Hamster? Consumer Evaluations of Autonomous Domestic Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20, 204–216 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weiser, M., Brown, J.: The coming age of calm technology (1996), (retrieved on: 9/15/2007)
  40. 40.
    Riecke, B.E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Avraamides, M.N., von der Heyde, M., Buelthoff, H.H.: Scene consistency and spatial presence increase the sensation of self-motion in virtual reality. In: APGV 2005: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization, pp. 111–118. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Urban, G.L., Weinberg, B.D., Hauser, J.R.: Premarket forecasting of really-new products. Journal of Marketing 60, 47–60 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moreau, C., Markman, A., Lehmann, D.: what is it?: Categorization flexibility and consumers responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research 27, 489–498 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rothensee, M.: A high-fidelity simulation of the smart fridge enabling product-based services. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Environments. IET, pp. 529–532 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rothensee, M., Spiekermann, S.: Between extreme rejection and cautious acceptance: Consumer’s reactions to RFID-based information services in retail. Social Science Computer Review 26(1) (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Rothensee
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt University Berlin 

Personalised recommendations