IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v176y2022ics0040162522000178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy calculus theories

Author

Listed:
  • Attié, Elodie
  • Meyer-Waarden, Lars

Abstract

In today's digitalized world, technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart connected objects (SCOs) are moving to the forefront and have given rise to fundamental changes in consumers’ daily lives. During the context of COVID-19, the IoT and SCOs enabled people to better deal with the pandemic situation (e.g., control their health or use fitness indicators) (Gupta et al., 2021). The purpose of this study is to explain the acceptance and usage of SCOs and therefore extend the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, 1989) with other theories (i.e., uses and gratification, diffusion of innovation, privacy calculus), and thus new antecedents adapted to the SCO context. More specifically, in addition to the TAM's main variables (i.e., perceived usefulness, ease of use, intention to use, real use), we investigate the roles of concepts rarely investigated in innovation and new technology research, such as well-being, social image, privacy concerns, and innovativeness. We also study the differences in the adoption of SCOs between different user adoption stages, such as the early adopters, early majority, and late majority (Rogers, 1983). The data come from 702 respondents surveyed in a longitudinal study over three years of their acceptance and real usage. Structural equation modeling shows that the TAM variables remain relevant in the SCO context. The results show that utilitarian benefits are the main reasons leading to SCO technology acceptance, and well-being and social image lead to higher usage in the long term. However, privacy concerns are the main obstacles to the adoption of SCOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:176:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522000178
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522000178
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121485?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cui, Yongfeng & Liu, Wei & Rani, Pratibha & Alrasheedi, Melfi, 2021. "Internet of Things (IoT) adoption barriers for the circular economy using Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA-CoCoSo decision-making approach in the manufacturing sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. John R. Hauser & Patricia Simmie, 1981. "Profit Maximizing Perceptual Positions: An Integrated Theory for the Selection of Product Features and Price," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 33-56, January.
    3. Carola Stryja & Gerhard Satzger, 2019. "Digital nudging to overcome cognitive resistance in innovation adoption decisions," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(15-16), pages 1123-1139, December.
    4. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    5. Peter Schmuck & Tim Kasser & Richard Ryan, 2000. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals: Their Structure and Relationship to Well-Being in German and U.S. College Students," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 225-241, May.
    6. Tsou, Hung-Tai & Hsu, Sheila Hsuan-Yu, 2015. "Performance effects of technology–organization–environment openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: The case of the IT industry," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-14.
    7. Dorothy Leonard-Barton & Isabelle Deschamps, 1988. "Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(10), pages 1252-1265, October.
    8. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    9. Martin, Kelly D. & Kim, Jisu J. & Palmatier, Robert W. & Steinhoff, Lena & Stewart, David W. & Walker, Beth A. & Wang, Yonggui & Weaven, Scott K., 2020. "Data Privacy in Retail," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 474-489.
    10. Markus Blut & Cheng Wang, 2020. "Technology readiness: a meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 649-669, July.
    11. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 243-243, December.
    12. Verhoef, Peter C. & Stephen, Andrew T. & Kannan, P.K. & Luo, Xueming & Abhishek, Vibhanshu & Andrews, Michelle & Bart, Yakov & Datta, Hannes & Fong, Nathan & Hoffman, Donna L. & Hu, Mandy Mantian & No, 2017. "Consumer Connectivity in a Complex, Technology-enabled, and Mobile-oriented World with Smart Products," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-8.
    13. Morwitz, Vicki G & Johnson, Eric J & Schmittlein, David C, 1993. "Does Measuring Intent Change Behavior?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 46-61, June.
    14. Munzel, Andreas & Meyer-Waarden, Lars & Galan, Jean-Philippe, 2018. "The social side of sustainability: Well-being as a driver and an outcome of social relationships and interactions on social networking sites," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 14-27.
    15. Ritu Agarwal & Jayesh Prasad, 1998. "A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 204-215, June.
    16. Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Davidson, Rosemary & Bicket, Martha & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 363-374.
    17. Ritu Agarwal & Michelle Dugas & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & P. K. Kannan, 2020. "Emerging technologies and analytics for a new era of value-centered marketing in healthcare," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 9-23, January.
    18. Muk, Alexander & Chung, Christina, 2015. "Applying the technology acceptance model in a two-country study of SMS advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 1-6.
    19. Jahanmir, Sara F. & Cavadas, Joana, 2018. "Factors affecting late adoption of digital innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 337-343.
    20. Inès Chouk & Zied Mani, 2017. "Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products," Post-Print hal-02980400, HAL.
    21. Nawel Ayadi & Corina Paraschiv & Eric Vernette, 2017. "Increasing consumer well-being: risk as potential driver of happiness," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(43), pages 4321-4335, September.
    22. Cassie Mogilner & Jennifer Aaker & Sepandar D. Kamvar, 2012. "How Happiness Affects Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(2), pages 429-443.
    23. Mary C. Gilly & Mary Wolfinbarger Celsi & Hope Jensen Schau, 2012. "It Don't Come Easy: Overcoming Obstacles to Technology Use Within a Resistant Consumer Group," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 62-89, March.
    24. Dolan, Paul & Peasgood, Tessa & White, Mathew, 2008. "Do we really know what makes us happy A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 94-122, February.
    25. Kieran Mathieson, 1991. "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    26. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 129-130, November.
    27. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    28. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    29. Thomas P. Novak & Donna L. Hoffman, 2019. "Relationship journeys in the internet of things: a new framework for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 216-237, March.
    30. Davis, Brennan & Pechmann, Cornelia, 2013. "Introduction to the Special Issue on transformative consumer research: Developing theory to mobilize efforts that improve consumer and societal well-being," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(8), pages 1168-1170.
    31. Laukkanen, Tommi, 2016. "Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2432-2439.
    32. Kim, Jiyeon & Forsythe, Sandra, 2008. "Adoption of Virtual Try-on technology for online apparel shopping," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 45-59.
    33. Rauschnabel, Philipp A. & He, Jun & Ro, Young K., 2018. "Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look at privacy risks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 374-384.
    34. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E M & Gielens, Katrijn, 2003. "Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Probability of New Consumer Packaged Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 368-384, December.
    35. Thomas P. Novak & Donna L. Hoffman & Yiu-Fai Yung, 2000. "Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 22-42, May.
    36. Marikyan, Davit & Papagiannidis, Savvas & Alamanos, Eleftherios, 2019. "A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 139-154.
    37. Kelly D. Martin & Patrick E. Murphy, 2017. "The role of data privacy in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-155, March.
    38. Midgley, David F & Dowling, Grahame R, 1978. "Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 4(4), pages 229-242, March.
    39. Huh, Young Eun & Kim, Sang-Hoon, 2008. "Do early adopters upgrade early? Role of post-adoption behavior in the purchase of next-generation products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 40-46, January.
    40. Lu, Yang & Papagiannidis, Savvas & Alamanos, Eleftherios, 2018. "Internet of Things: A systematic review of the business literature from the user and organisational perspectives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 285-297.
    41. Hong, Areum & Nam, Changi & Kim, Seongcheol, 2020. "What will be the possible barriers to consumers’ adoption of smart home services?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2).
    42. Wilson, Charlie & Hargreaves, Tom & Hauxwell-Baldwin, Richard, 2017. "Benefits and risks of smart home technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 72-83.
    43. Porter, Constance Elise & Donthu, Naveen, 2006. "Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 999-1007, September.
    44. Sheppard, Blair H & Hartwick, Jon & Warshaw, Paul R, 1988. "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 325-343, December.
    45. Donald L. Amoroso & Scott Hunsinger, 2009. "Measuring the Acceptance of Internet Technology by Consumers," International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA), IGI Global, vol. 1(3), pages 48-81, July.
    46. Jang, Hyeong Yu & Noh, Mi Jin, 2011. "Customer acceptance of IPTV service quality," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 582-592.
    47. Andreas Munzel & Lars Meyer-Waarden & Jean-Philippe Galan, 2018. "The social side of sustainability: Well-being as a driver and an outcome of social relationships and interactions on social networking sites," Post-Print halshs-01698619, HAL.
    48. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & James Agarwal, 2004. "Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 336-355, December.
    49. Nawel Ayadi & Corina Paraschiv & Eric Vernette, 2017. "Increasing consumer well-being: risk as potential driver of happiness," Post-Print halshs-01698318, HAL.
    50. Jun, Seung-Pyo & Yeom, Jaeho & Son, Jong-Ku, 2014. "A study of the method using search traffic to analyze new technology adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 82-95.
    51. Hsiao, Chun Hua & Yang, Chyan, 2011. "The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 128-136.
    52. Andreas Munzel & Lars Meyer-Waarden & Jean-Philippe Galan, 2018. "The social side of sustainability: Well-being as a driver and an outcome of social relationships and interactions on social networking sites," Post-Print hal-02423575, HAL.
    53. Dekimpe, Marnik G., 2020. "Retailing and retailing research in the age of big data analytics," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 3-14.
    54. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    55. Shin, Jungwoo & Park, Yuri & Lee, Daeho, 2018. "Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 246-253.
    56. Donna L Hoffman & Thomas P Novak & Eileen FischerEditor & Robert KozinetsAssociate Editor, 2018. "Consumer and Object Experience in the Internet of Things: An Assemblage Theory Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(6), pages 1178-1204.
    57. Sirgy, M. Joseph, 1985. "Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 195-206, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jabbar, Abdul & Geebren, Ahmed & Hussain, Zahid & Dani, Samir & Ul-Durar, Shajara, 2023. "Investigating individual privacy within CBDC: A privacy calculus perspective," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elodie Attié & Lars Meyer-Waarden, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Post-Print hal-04065165, HAL.
    2. Meyer-Waarden, Lars & Cloarec, Julien, 2022. "“Baby, you can drive my car”: Psychological antecedents that drive consumers’ adoption of AI-powered autonomous vehicles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Lars Meyer-Waarden & Julien Cloarec, 2022. "“Baby, you can drive my car”: Psychological antecedents that drive consumers’ adoption of AI-powered autonomous vehicles," Post-Print hal-03385891, HAL.
    4. Chen, Yanyan & Mandler, Timo & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2021. "Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 179-197.
    5. Gao, Tao (Tony) & Rohm, Andrew J. & Sultan, Fareena & Pagani, Margherita, 2013. "Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2536-2544.
    6. Huang, Dan & Jin, Xin & Coghlan, Alexandra, 2021. "Advances in consumer innovation resistance research: A review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    7. Gansser, Oliver Alexander & Reich, Christina Stefanie, 2021. "A new acceptance model for artificial intelligence with extensions to UTAUT2: An empirical study in three segments of application," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    8. El Barachi, May & Salim, Taghreed Abu & Nyadzayo, Munyaradzi W. & Mathew, Sujith & Badewi, Amgad & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph, 2022. "The relationship between citizen readiness and the intention to continuously use smart city services: Mediating effects of satisfaction and discomfort," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Pal, Debajyoti & Zhang, Xiangmin & Siyal, Saeed, 2021. "Prohibitive factors to the acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT) technology in society: A smart-home context using a resistive modelling approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    10. Paolo Franco, 2023. "Older consumers and technology: A critical systematic literature review," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 13(1), pages 92-121, June.
    11. Christopher R. Plouffe & John S. Hulland & Mark Vandenbosch, 2001. "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions—Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 208-222, June.
    12. Zied Mani & Inès Chouk, 2018. "Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services," Post-Print hal-03700875, HAL.
    13. Małecka, Agnieszka & Mitręga, Maciej & Mróz-Gorgoń, Barbara & Pfajfar, Gregor, 2022. "Adoption of collaborative consumption as sustainable social innovation: Sociability and novelty seeking perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 163-179.
    14. Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats – findings from a multi-country survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Birgul Basarir-Ozel & Hande Bahar Turker & Vesile Aslihan Nasir, 2022. "Identifying the Key Drivers and Barriers of Smart Home Adoption: A Thematic Analysis from the Business Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    17. Lucia-Palacios, Laura & Pérez-López, Raúl, 2021. "Effects of Home Voice Assistants' Autonomy on Instrusiveness and Usefulness: Direct, Indirect, and Moderating Effects of Interactivity," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 41-54.
    18. Seok Chan Jeong & Beom-Jin Choi, 2022. "Moderating Effects of Consumers’ Personal Innovativeness on the Adoption and Purchase Intention of Wearable Devices," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, November.
    19. Hong, Areum & Nam, Changi & Kim, Seongcheol, 2020. "What will be the possible barriers to consumers’ adoption of smart home services?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2).
    20. Laukkanen, Tommi, 2016. "Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2432-2439.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:176:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522000178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.