Journal of Computer Information Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucis20

I Want It Anyway: Consumer Perceptions of Smart

Home Devices

Xuequn Wang, Tanya Jane McGill & Jane E. Klobas

To cite this article: Xuequn Wang, Tanya Jane McGill & Jane E. Klobas (2020) I Want It Anyway:
Consumer Perceptions of Smart Home Devices, Journal of Computer Information Systems,
60:5, 437-447, DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2018.1528486

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1528486

Published online: 21 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2158

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucis20
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
2020, VOL. 60, NO. 5, 437–447
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1528486

I Want It Anyway: Consumer Perceptions of Smart Home Devices

Xuequn Wang , Tanya Jane McGill, and Jane E. Klobas
Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Smart home devices form a significant part of the Internet of Things market and can provide benefits Internet of things; smart
such as convenience and energy efficiency. They also have potential privacy and security risks as they home devices; adoption
collect information constantly. In order to examine how benefit and risk factors influence individuals’ intention; net valance model
intentions to adopt smart home devices, we developed a net valence model that integrates both
positive factors and risk factors. The model was tested using data collected using an online question-
naire. The results show that individuals tend to ignore the potential risks and focus more on potential
benefits resulting from using smart home devices. Performance expectancy and compatibility were
found to be positively related to perceived benefits. However, neither effort expectancy nor image were.
Among the proposed dimensions of risk, only privacy risk, performance risk, and time risk significantly
influenced perceived risk. Security risk and financial risk did not influence it.

Introduction perceptions of benefits and risk influence the intentions of

consumers to adopt smart home devices.
The Internet of Things (IoT) allows devices with unique addres-
sing schemes to share data with one another and has applications
in a wide range of areas including transport, agriculture, health- Literature review and theoretical foundation
care, manufacturing, and home automation. Estimates of the
In a study of 1,150 UK home owners, Wilson, et al.10 found
current numbers of installed interconnected IoT devices vary,
that the four most cited benefits of smart homes were savings
but conservative estimates suggest that in 2018 there are at least
in energy, effort, time, and money. The potential risk of
7 billion,1,2 with Gartner1 predicting growth to 20.4 billion by
adoption of smart home devices has been less studied, but
2020 and Statista2 predicting growth to 31 billion. Many of these
in a 2016 study, upfront costs were most likely considered to
devices are used for consumer applications (e.g., domestic appli-
be a risk (33% of consumers) followed by privacy (24%) and
ances, smartphones, and fitness devices), and these are estimated
security (19%).11 Wilson et al.10 also identified privacy as of
to represent approximately 63% of all IoT devices.1,3 Smart home
concern to potential adopters, along with other risks such as
devices form a significant part of the IoT market, and are mar-
increasing dependence on technology.
keted as providing benefits such as energy efficiency and conve-
How perceived benefits and risk might influence the adoption
nience because they allow remote access to devices and the ability
of consumer IoT devices has been studied using several models/
to schedule tasks.4
theories. Those based on the Technology Acceptance Model
In addition to these benefits, smart home devices have
(TAM)12 include studies by Dong, et al.,13 Gao and Bai,14 and
privacy and security implications for those who are being
Shin, et al.15 Kim, et al.16 used a model that drew upon the Unified
encouraged to adopt them,5 as they collect information con-
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)17 and
stantly and there is evidence that privacy and security have
their own Value-based Adoption Model18 while Yang, et al.19
not been a priority in product design, with a Symantec secur-
extended the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)20 to explore
ity report indicating that many devices do not support two-
explain consumers’ intentions to adopt smart home devices.
factor authentication, enforcement of strong passwords, or
These studies have identified a range of factors as playing a
protection against brute-force attacks6 and a survey by
positive role in influencing consumer smart home device or
Bastos, et al.7 highlighting a large range of security issues.
service adoption either directly or indirectly. These include
To date there has been little research on users’ knowledge
perceived usefulness,13,16,21,22 perceived convenience,13,23 per-
of IoT risk or on the implications of risk perceptions on home
ceived enjoyment,14,16,22 perceived ease of use,13 perceived
users’ adoption of IoT devices. The research described in this
behavioral control,14 perceived compatibility,15,21 perceived
article builds on previous research models that integrate the
interconnectedness,24 facilitating conditions,16 and social
influences of perceived risk into technology adoption, e.g.,8,9
influence.14 In some studies these factors are conceptualized
to address this major gap in knowledge and explore how
as having a direct effect on adoption or intention to use smart

CONTACT Xuequn Wang xuequnwang1600@gmail.com Murdoch University, 90 South St., Perth 6150, Australia
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ucis.
© 2018 International Association for Computer Information Systems
438 X. WANG ET AL.
home devices,14 while in others overall perceived benefits and/
or attitude are included as mediating their effect.16,19,21,22
Less attention has been paid to the risk factors that may
have a negative influence on adoption, and what research
there has been has focused primarily on privacy risk, with
studies finding that factors that have been labelled as per-
ceived privacy risk,13,22 concern for information privacy,21
perceived sacrifice,16 and security/privacy risk19 play either
direct or indirect roles in reducing intentions to adopt smart
home devices or services. Hsu and Lin21 considered four
kinds of privacy issues: collection of data, unauthorized sec-
ondary use, improper access, and errors (in data). However,
no other risk factors were considered beyond privacy risk. The
study by Dong, et al.13 had an even narrower conceptualiza-
tion of privacy risk, measuring it with three items that related
only to stealing of personal information.
In addition to privacy risk, Yang, et al.19 also considered
physical risk and trust of service providers. They found that
potential adopters were not concerned about physical risk, but
that trust in the service provider had a positive effect on
adoption. Gao and Bai14 also included the role of trust, rather
than risk, but found no influence on adoption. Their concep-
tualization of trust did not explicitly address privacy and
security risk – rather confidence in the provider and reliability
of the information from the system.
In a study on adoption of smart home services, Hsu and
Lin22 considered the role of perceived fees of services, but
found that financial cost did not influence adoption inten-
tions. Kim, et al.16 also included perceived fees in their con-
ceptualization of perceived sacrifice but did not have a
separate hypothesis associated with it. So although they
found that perceived sacrifice did have a negative impact on
perceived value, the relative influence of perceived fee relative
to the other risk they considered (technicality) was not deter-
mined. Given the limited research that has been done on
smart home device risk and the apparently inconsistent results
of research that has been reported, further research is needed
to understand the nature of different risk perceptions and
their relative roles in adoption.
Net valence models
As discussed above, previous literature has often used models
such as TAM12 and UTAUT17 to understand individuals’
technology acceptance. The underlying assumption of these
theories is that individuals derive various benefits from using
certain technology. For example, UTAUT states that indivi-
duals’ expectancies of performance and effort, as well as social
influence and facilitating conditions, influence their technol-
ogy acceptance and use. However, using IoT technology may
not necessarily always be beneficial and can result in various
types of risk. For example, individuals may feel concerned
that personal data collected by smart home devices may be
leaked or that their devices may be hacked by criminals.19 To
systematically examine how benefits and risk influence indi-
viduals’ intention to use smart home devices, we develop a net
valance model (NVM).
NVMs drawing on the work of refs.25,26 have been used in
recent technology adoption and continuance studies to
investigate the effect of individuals’ perceptions of opposing
benefit (positive valence) and risk (negative valence) factors on
their decisions.27–29 The basic proposition of these NVMs is that
individuals are more likely to engage in a certain behavior (e.g.,
using smart home devices) if the perceived benefits of the beha-
vior outweigh the perceived risk. These NVMs have been used to
understand intention to continue using social media,27 health
information seeking/sharing,28 and intention to participate in
Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) programs.29
In the context of technology adoption, the perceived ben-
efits of the technology of interest are assigned a positive
valence.30 Since not all perceived benefits can be quantified
objectively, individuals are assumed to rely on their own
subjective evaluations when they make technology and use
decisions. Based on UTAUT17 and attributes of technology
innovations that Moore and Benbasat31 derived from Rogers’
model of adoption and diffusion, we propose performance
expectancy (perceived usefulness), effort expectancy (ease of
use), compatibility, and image as factors relevant to the per-
ceived benefits of smart home usage. Whether individuals are
positive or negative about these potential benefits, the concept
of perceived benefits retains its positive connotation in the
NVM. For example, when perceived usefulness is low, the
technology is perceived to be difficult to use, incompatible
with current technology and activities, or use of the technol-
ogy contributes to a negative rather than a positive personal
image, the value of perceived benefits is low, but the concept
of perceived benefits retains its positive valence.
Perceived risk is the subjective expectation of a possible
loss.32 NVMs of technology adoption assign a negative
valence to perceived risk, which is defined in terms of indivi-
duals’ expectation of negative consequences from adoption or
use of a technology.9,28 Following refs.,33,34 individuals’ per-
ceptions of the risk associated with a behavior are expected to
influence their intention to engage in that behavior.
Following perceived risk theorists34,35 and previous litera-
ture on technology adoption8,9 we propose privacy risk, secur-
ity risk, performance risk, time risk, and financial risk as
perceived risk factors relevant to smart home device adoption.
Research model and hypothesis development
We propose a theoretical NVM to investigate individuals’
intentions to use smart home devices. The model depicted
in Figure 1 proposes that an individual’s intention to use
smart home devices is supported by their benefit perceptions
and is inhibited by their perceptions of the risk associated
with usage. Table 1 lists the dimensions of benefit and risk
that are considered and defines them. Below we discuss our
hypotheses in more detail.
Perceived benefits of using smart home devices
Perceived benefits reflect the positive utility perceived by
individuals when adopting technology.30 Previous literature
has found that perceived benefit is positively related to inten-
tion to use social media27 and BYOD services,29 and in the
context of the IoT, Hsu and Lin22 found that perceived value
influenced intention to adopt IoT services. Hsu and Lin 21
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 439

Performance
Expectancy
H2a

Effort H2b
Expectancy

H2c Perceived
Compatibility
Benefits
H1

Image H2d

Intention to
Privacy Risk Use Smart
H4a Home Devices

H4b
Security Risk

Performance H4c H3
Perceived Risk
Risk

H4d
Time Risk

Finanical Risk H4e

Figure 1. A Net Valence Model (NVM) of intention to use smart home devices.

H1: Perceived benefits of using smart home devices is positively

Table 1. Perceived benefits and risks of smart home devices.
Construct Definition
Perceived Performance The degree to which individuals perceive that
Benefits Expectancy using smart home devices will improve their
performance of household tasks
Effort The degree to which individuals perceive that
Expectancy using smart home devices is easy
Compatibility The degree to which individuals perceive using
smart home devices as being consistent with
the way they live
Image The degree to which using smart home devices
is perceived to enhance the individual’s image
or status
Perceived Privacy Risk The risk that individuals lose control over
Risk personal data stored on smart home devices,
such as when data is retrieved without their
knowledge
Security Risk The risk that using smart home devices is
associated with security breaches
Performance The risk that smart home devices do not meet
Risk individuals’ requirements
Time Risk The risk that using smart home devices takes
too long or wastes too much time
Financial Risk The risk that the costs of buying, running and
maintaining smart home devices are perceived
as excessive
related to intention to use smart home devices.
Based on UTAUT17 and Moore and Benbasat,31 we pro-
pose that the antecedents of perceived benefits include per-
formance expectancy, effort expectancy, compatibility, and
image. Performance expectancy has been found to be posi-
tively related to the perceived benefits associated with using
social networking sites.27 In the IoT domain, Dong, et al.13
found that performance expectancy (i.e., perceived usefulness)
has a positive effect on intention to use the IoT systems and
Hsu and Lin22 found that it influences the perceived value of
IoT services. In the smart home context, for example, indivi-
duals may perceive that smart fridges can provide useful
functionality such as reminding them that certain food is
about to pass a use by date, or that common purchases have
run out, and hence be more likely to perceive using smart
home devices as beneficial. If this is the case, when individuals
expect that using smart home devices will facilitate their
accomplishment of daily tasks, they are more likely to per-
ceive a higher level of benefits associated with using them.
Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H2a: Performance expectancy is positively related to perceived

also argued that perceived benefits are positively related to
continued intention to use IoT services. Therefore, we
hypothesize that as individuals perceive that they will derive
more benefits from using smart home devices, they are more
likely to intend to use these devices in their daily lives:
benefits of using smart home devices.
Individuals can choose from a variety of smart home
devices to meet their requirements.4 Both Dong, et al.13 and
Liew, et al.36 report that effort expectancy (i.e., perceived ease
440 X. WANG ET AL.
of use) has a positive association with intention to use IoT.
Following the literature, we argue that individuals are more
likely to choose those devices that are easier to use and more
user friendly because of the influence of effort expectancy on
perceived benefits. Following UTAUT, we propose that:
H2b: Effort expectancy is positively related to perceived benefits
of using smart home devices.
Compatibility has been defined as “the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing
values, needs, and past experiences of an individual.”31 Hsu
and Lin21 found that perceived compatibility is positively
related to the perceived benefits of IoT services, and Park,
et al.37 found that it is positively related to intention to use
smart home services. Therefore, we proposed that those who
perceive smart home devices as compatible with the way they
live are more likely to perceive the use of smart home devices
as beneficial and hypothesize that:
H2c: Compatibility is positively related to perceived benefits of
using smart home devices.
Image is defined as “the degree to which use of an innova-
tion is perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s
social system,”31 and has been found to play a role in adoption
of electric cars,38 smartphone brand loyalty,39 and in under-
taking home automation projects.40 We propose that potential
users may perceive that using smart home devices will
enhance their image and that this will increase their benefit
perceptions. Therefore, we propose that:
H2d: Image is positively related to perceived benefits of using
smart home devices.
Perceived risk of using smart home devices
Perceived risk has been defined as “the amount that would be
lost (i.e., that which is at stake) if the consequences of an act
were not favorable, and the individual’s subjective feeling of
certainty that the consequences will be unfavorable,”34 and
perceived risk has been shown to influence adoption of innova-
tions such as online banking41 and mobile payment services.42
In the context of smart home devices, we define perceived risk
as individuals’ beliefs about the potential negative outcomes
caused by using smart home devices and hypothesize that:
H3: Perceived risk of using smart home devices is negatively
related to intention to use smart home devices.
Perceived risk has been proposed to be a multi-dimen-
sional construct,33 and the consumer marketing literature34
has proposed risk dimensions that are relevant in different
contexts of technology adoption and have been investigated in
technology adoption studies e.g.,9,29. Based on this relevant
literature, we propose that the risk associated with smart
home devices include: privacy, security, performance, time,
and financial risk.
Privacy risk refers to the “potential loss of control over
personal information.”9 Since individuals need to control
smart home devices through other devices (e.g., smartphones)
over the Internet, using these devices creates the potential for
personal information to be disclosed to providers of devices
without individuals’ consent and knowledge. Individuals may
hence feel concerned about their privacy when using smart
home devices. Previous research has found that perceived
privacy risk has a negative effect on individuals’ attitude
toward using IoT services21 and smart home services.19
Thus, we propose that:
H4a: Privacy risk is positively related to perceived risk of using
smart home devices.
Smart home devices are connected with other devices such
as control panels, smartphones, and computers. Such inter-
connected systems result in the potential for security
breaches.5,6 In a study on customer acceptance of RFID tech-
nology, Müller-Seitz, et al.43 found that security concerns
negatively impacted on acceptance of the technology and
similarly Lee8 found that security risk had a negative influence
on both attitude to internet banking and intention to use it.
We, therefore, propose that if individuals believe that using
smart home devices can cause security breaches that harm
their daily lives, this will influence their overall risk perception
and we hypothesize that:
H4b: Security risk is positively related to perceived risk of using
smart home devices.
Performance risk reflects “how well the product will
perform relative to expectations.”41 Smart home devices
are intended to enhance the convenience of consumers’
daily lives. For example, individuals expect that monitor-
ing systems will allow them to monitor the condition of
their houses when they are traveling. However, it is pos-
sible that selected devices may not meet individuals’
requirements. For example, Wilson, et al.10 identified
that potential consumers are concerned with potential
performance risk such as disruption to daily routines,
and believe that there is a need for devices to be reliable,
be made by credible manufacturers, and come with per-
formance warranties. The impact of performance risk on
overall risk perceptions has not previously been studied,
however Park, et al.37 reported that 11% of their intervie-
wees identified system reliability as a relevant factor in
determining adoption of smart home services, and
included it in their model, and found that it has a weak
impact on perceived usefulness. Yang, et al.19 investigated
the role of potential physical risk from smart home
devices, such as side effects due to malfunctioning or
misuse, and they found that it did not affect users’ atti-
tudes towards them, but did not specifically look at per-
formance. In this study, consistent with Featherman and
Pavlou,9 we propose that:
H4c: Performance risk is positively related to perceived risk of
using smart home devices.

Whilst saving time is a goal of many smart home devices44
using smart home devices may require a substantial amount
of skill and individuals may need to invest substantial
amounts of time in learning how to use these devices
appropriately.44 Our study therefore defines time risk as the
risk that using smart home devices takes too long or wastes
too much time. Lee8 found that the perceived time risk asso-
ciated with adoption of internet banking had a weak negative
effect on attitude towards it. We, therefore, propose that if
individuals perceive that learning how to use smart home
devices or managing their use is too demanding and takes
too much time, they will be more likely to perceive using these
devices as risky. We therefore hypothesize that:
H4d: Time risk is positively related to perceived risk of using
smart home devices.
Financial risk refers to the “potential monetary outlay
associated with the initial purchase price as well as the sub-
sequent maintenance cost.”9 Before using smart home devices,
individuals need to purchase these devices (and may need to
hire someone to install them). They may also need to pay
additional fees for maintenance or ongoing service fees.
Hargreaves, et al.44 also state that smart home devices may
lead to other increased costs, for example more energy use by
creating new forms of energy demand (e.g., pre-warming
rooms). Park, et al.37 found that perceived cost had a weak
negative influence on intention to use smart home services.
We, therefore, hypothesize that:
H4e: Financial risk is positively related to perceived risk of
using smart home devices.
Methodology
Sample and data collection procedures
The target population for the study is (potential) consumers
of smart home devices. Data was collected via an anonymous
online questionnaire. To clarify the concept of IoT and smart
home devices, we included the following statement at the
beginning of our questionnaire:
“The Internet of Things (IoT) allows devices to be connected to
one another across the Internet. IoT devices can send messages
and information to other devices, users and service providers; and
they can receive messages and instructions from other devices,
users and providers. You can control smart devices through a
control panel in your home, an app on your smartphone (via the
cloud), or any Internet-connected computer. Large IoT devices,
such as washing machines and refrigerators, might also have their
own control panels.
A number of everyday household items are already sold as smart
devices. These include security cameras, door locks, light switches
and bulbs, thermostats, air conditioners, washing machines, coo-
kers, coffee machines, radios, and music players. The technology
to connect and control smart devices in your home is already
available.”
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 441
A third party recruiting company was used to recruit partici-
pants from a variety of backgrounds including gender, level of
education, and computer skills. Potential participants were
contacted via email and invited to complete the questionnaire,
which was hosted on Qualtrics. All participants were located
in the United States (US) and aged 18 or over. A total of 351
valid responses (54.1% female and 45.9% male) were obtained.
Table 2 provides background information about them.
Measures
Our items were adapted from previous studies where possible
(see Appendix). All items were measured with 7-point Likert-
type scales ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
The items to measure intention to use smart home devices
were developed specifically for this study to suit the smart
home device context using the guidelines from the reasoned
action approach.45 The items for perceived benefits and per-
ceived risk were adapted from Li, et al.,28 and the items for
performance expectancy were adapted from Venkatesh, et al.17
and Hsu and Lin.21 Three of the items used to measure effort
expectancy were adapted from Venkatesh, et al.17 and two
were newly developed for this study. The items to measure
compatibility and image were adapted from Moore and
Benbasat.31 The items to measure privacy risk were from
Featherman and Pavlou9 and Li, et al.,28 and the items for
security risk were from Featherman and Pavlou.9 Performance
risk was measured using items adapted from Featherman and
Pavlou. 9 The items to measure time risk were developed for
the smart home context based on those used in Featherman
and Pavlou,9 and those to measure financial risk were devel-
oped specifically for this study.
The initial items were pilot tested with several members of
the target population and minor changes were made to the
wording of several items to improve understandability.
Data analysis and results
As all constructs were measured using data collected from one
online questionnaire, we first assessed the potential risk of
common method bias (CMB).46 A Harman one-factor test46
showed six factors explaining 72.10% of the variance, and the
amount of variance explained by the first factor is 36.75%.
Second, the marker variable test47 showed that, after adjusting
for the second smallest positive correlation among the con-
structs, all originally significant correlations remained signifi-
Table 2. Background information about participants (N = 351).
Age Frequency
19–25 12.3%
26–34 18.5%
35–54 39.6%
55–64 12.8%
65+ 16.8%
Education
Less than high school degree 2.0%
High school degree or equivalent 21.1%
Some college but no degree 21.1%
Associate degree 13.4%
Bachelor degree 29.9%
Graduate degree 12.5%
442 X. WANG ET AL.

cant. Therefore, CMB was unlikely to be a serious concern for .90),50 (Table 5). Therefore, our measures demonstrated good
our study. psychometric properties.
Our model was tested with PLS, and SmartPLS was used.48 We then tested the structural paths in our model
The bootstrap resampling method (using 1,000 samples) was (Figure 2). As hypothesized, perceived benefits was positively
applied to determine the significance of the paths. We first related to intention to use smart home devices (ß = .72,
evaluated the measurement model. As shown in Table 3, each p < .001); thus H1 was supported. Among its antecedents,
item loaded significantly on its respective construct and none performance expectancy (ß = .72, p < .001) and compatibility
of the loadings were below .50.49 In addition, the Cronbach’s (ß = .72, p < .001) were found to be positively related to
Alphas and composite reliabilities (CRs) of all constructs were perceived benefits, supporting H2a and H2c, respectively.
over .70, and the average variance extracted (AVE) was over However, neither effort expectancy nor image influenced per-
.50 for all constructs (Table 3). Therefore, convergent validity ceived benefits, so H2b and H2d were not supported.
was supported. Discriminant validity was also confirmed by Surprisingly, perceived risk was not significantly related to
ensuring that for each construct, the square root of its AVE intention to use smart home devices (ß = -.04, p > .05); H3
exceeded all correlations between that construct and any other was therefore not supported. Among its dimensions, privacy
construct (Table 4). We also assessed Heterotrait-Monotrait risk (ß = .35, p < .001), performance risk (ß = .18, p < .05), and
Ratio of Correlations, which were also acceptable (i.e., below time risk (ß = .21, p < .01) were found to contribute to
perceived risk; therefore H4a, H4c, and H4d were supported.
Neither security risk nor financial risk contributed to perceive
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for items.
risk, thus H4b and H4d were not supported. Our model can
Construct Item Mean SD Loading ɑ CR AVE explain 72.7% of the variance in perceived benefits, and 45.1%
Intention to use smart home Int1 4.70 1.63 .94 .95 .96 .87 of the variance in perceived risk. The model accounted for
devices Int2 4.32 1.65 .90
Int3 4.61 1.71 .96 53.5% of the variance in intention to use smart home devices.
Int4 4.84 1.69 .94
Perceived benefits PB1 5.09 1.38 .95 .90 .95 .91
PB2 5.22 1.24 .95
Performance expectancy PE1 5.29 1.26 .89 .92 .87 .80 Discussion
PE2 5.18 1.31 .92
PE3 5.08 1.46 .87 This study aimed to examine how various factors influence
Effort expectancy EE1 4.89 1.35 .83 .91 .94 .74 individuals’ intention to adopt smart home devices. We devel-
EE2 4.93 1.35 76
EE3 5.00 1.45 .91 oped a NVM to identify relevant positive and negative factors.
EE4 5.03 1.44 .91 The model was tested with a US sample, and the results
EE5 4.86 1.38 .89
Compatibility COM1 4.56 1.60 .94 .93 .96 .88
provide partial support of our model. Our study makes
COM2 4.59 1.63 .95 important theoretical and practical implications.
COM3 4.59 1.66 .94
Image Image1 4.17 1.73 .87 .88 .92 .73
Image2 4.29 1.59 .85
Image3 4.46 1.46 .88 Implications for theory
Image4 4.32 1.72 .82
Perceived risk PR1 4.37 1.53 .93 .76 .89 .80 This study has several important theoretical implications.
PR2 4.30 1.54 .86 First, our study uses a NVM to examine individuals’ intention
Privacy risk PriR1 4.65 1.48 .96 .91 .90 .95
PriR2 4.67 1.49 .95 to use smart home devices. Our results show that perceived
Security risk SR1 4.67 1.41 .93 .81 .91 .84 benefits have a strong effect on adoption intention, while
SR2 5.13 1.39 .90
Performance risk PerfR1 4.30 1.46 .90 .91 .94 .79 perceived risk does not have a significant impact. These
PerfR2 4.50 1.46 .92 results show that individuals tend to ignore the potential
PerfR3 4.63 1.44 .88 risk and focus more on the potential benefits resulting from
PerfR4 4.34 1.42 .86
Time risk TR1 3.97 1.57 .90 .89 .93 .82 using smart home devices. Therefore, the theoretical model
TR2 3.85 1.623 92 developed in this study helps clarify the process of smart
TR3 4.21 1.50 .90
Financial risk FR1 5.26 1.37 .79 .83 .90 .74 home device adoption.
FR2 4.84 1.47 .89 Second, our study identifies relevant positive and negative
FR3 4.36 1.46 .90 factors based on previous relevant literature and clarifies how

Table 4. Correlation between constructs and square root of AVEs (on Diagonal).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Intention to use smart home devices .93
2 Perceived benefits .73 .95
3 Performance expectancy .69 .82 .89
4 Effort expectancy .61 .64 .66 .86
5 Compatibility .79 .77 .76 .71 .94
6 Image .46 .46 .49 .47 .53 .86
7 Perceived risk −.23 −.26 −.31 −.21 −.28 −.04 .90
8 Privacy risk −.15 −.19 −.22 −.14 −.24 −.08 .60 .95
9 Security risk −.15 −.19 −.22 −.13 −.22 −.08 .57 .78 .92
10 Performance risk −.17 −.22 −.30 −.30 −.28 −.14 .51 .48 .55 .89
11 Time risk −.23 −.28 −.31 −.43 −.31 −.09 .48 .41 .45 .64 .91
12 Financial risk −.08 −.07 −.13 −.25 −.17 −.06 .35 .39 .44 .62 .61 .86
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 443

Table 5. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations. domain,13,22 and compatibility has previously been identified
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 as relevant in determining the perceived benefits of smart
1 Intention to use home devices.37
smart home Effort expectancy was not, however, significantly related to
devices
2 Perceived benefits 77 perceived benefits, despite the fact that Dong, et al.13 and
3 Performance .74 .88 Liew, et al.36 found that it had a direct effect on intention to
expectancy
4 Effort expectancy .62 .63 .71 use IOT devices. The lack of relationship may be because, as
5 Compatibility .84 .80 .83 .75 individuals increasingly use smartphones and other technol-
6 Image .44 .47 .54 .50 .53 ogy, they assume that using smart home devices will be
7 Perceived risk .23 .25 .33 .20 .27 .07
8 Privacy risk .15 .14 .18 .09 .22 .07 .69 straightforward and hence the effort needed to use these
9 Security risk .14 .15 .20 .09 .20 .08 .69 .89 devices becomes a less important issue. This is consistent
10 Performance risk .16 .18 .33 .29 .27 .16 .54 .46 .58
11 Time risk .27 .32 .38 .50 .36 .15 .51 .39 .49 .67 with previous technology adoption literature17 in that effort
12 Financial risk .12 .10 .19 .27 .23 .12 .41 .43 .54 .70 .67 expectancy is less important in later stages of technology
adoption. However, smart home technologies are relatively
new, and several studies have suggested that rather than
these factors influence individuals’ risk and benefit percep- being easy to use once adopted, consumers often struggle
tions associated with smart home device adoption. To the best with them.44,51
of our knowledge, previous research has not studied such a Image also did not have a significant influence on perceived
full range of potential perceived benefit and risk factors for benefits. It is possible that as individuals increasingly use IoT
smart home device use. Of the four potential antecedents of devices, adopting smart devices in the home, where they are less
perceived benefits identified based on UTAUT17 and attri- visible than other consumer IoT devices such as fitness devices, is
butes of innovations from Moore and Benbasat,31 perfor- not perceived as a major contributor to overall perceived benefits.
mance expectancy and compatibility were found to be Among the proposed five dimensions of risk, only privacy risk,
positively related to perceived benefits. These results show performance risk, and time risk significantly influenced perceived
that when considering the potential benefits related to smart risk. These results show that individuals feel concerned about their
home devices, individuals focus on the extent to which the privacy if they were to adopt smart home devices and do have an
devices will improve their performance of household tasks awareness that these devices may take much time to set up and
and are consistent with their needs. The role of performance successfully operate. The effect of performance risk is consistent
expectancy is consistent with the findings in the broader IoT with that of performance expectancy in that individuals care about

Performance
Expectancy
.55***

Effort .05
Expectancy
R2 = .73

.32*** Perceived
Compatibility
Benefits
.72***

Image -.00
R2 = .54
Intention to
Privacy Risk Use Smart
.35*** Home Devices

.13
Security Risk
R2 = .45

Performance .18* -.04

Perceived Risk * p < .05
Risk ** p < .01
*** p < .001
.21**
Time Risk

Finanical Risk -.09

Figure 2. Model testing results.

444 X. WANG ET AL.
potential performance risk such as disruption to daily routines and
want the devices to come with performance warranties.10
Security risk and financial risk did not have significant effects. It
is possible that as smart home technology is becoming more
mature, individuals perceive smart home devices as less likely to
be hacked, and therefore security does not play an important role
in their risk perceptions, despite the GfK11 finding that security
was the third most common perceived risk of smart home devices.
An alternative explanation may be that some consumers have low
awareness of the potential security risk and their implication.
Future research should explore awareness and knowledge of spe-
cific security risk. The financial cost of smart home devices also
seems to a less important issue in determining overall risk percep-
tions. Whilst Park, et al.37 found that perceived cost had a negative
relationship with intention to use smart home devices, the rela-
tionship was very weak and perceived cost was not considered as a
component of overall perceived risk.
Lastly, our results add to those of previous studies applying a
NVM. Performance expectancy, compatibility and privacy risk
appear to have consistent effects across different technology con-
texts, for example refs.,27,28 whereas the roles of image, perfor-
mance risk and time risk appear to be more context specific.
Overall, our study contributes to the previous literature by
clarifying the effect of positive and negative factors on smart
home device adoption, as well as showing how the effects of
these factors differ from previous literature in other contexts.
Although not all hypotheses were supported, the use of a NVM
proved valuable as about half of the variance for each dependent
variable was explained by our model (72.7% of perceived benefits,
45.1% of perceived risk, and 53.5% of intention to use smart home
devices), providing strong support for our model. Also, our results
provide important insights regarding the effect of positive and
negative factors on smart home device adoption. Here applying
NVM does not mean that every benefit/risk factor should be
significant. For example, when consumers perceive that financial
risk is not an issue when adopting smart home devices, the insig-
nificant effect of financial risk makes sense and is consistent with
consumers’ perceptions. Previous studies applying NVM have also
found insignificant effects for certain benefit/risk factors. For
example, Li, et al.28 found that only psychological risk has a
significant effect in the context of Italians’ health information
seeking.
Implications for practice
This study also has important practical implications. First, our
study shows that perceived benefits currently play the major role in
the adoption of smart home devices, while perceived risk does not
influence intention to use. Therefore, when conducting campaigns
to promote their devices, marketers should focus on benefits
provided by the devices. Our results can provide useful guidance
regarding which benefits to focus on in advertisements and pro-
motions. For example, performance expectancy has a strong effect
on perceived benefit. Therefore, marketers need to emphasize how
smart home devices can make individuals’ lives more convenient.
Further, as compatibility also has a significant effect, they should
emphasize that using (their) smart home devices will be compa-
tible with individuals’ lifestyles.
Although our results show that perceived risk is not signifi-
cantly related to smart home devices adoption, consumers should
be aware that using smart home devices is associated with various
types of risk. In other words, individuals should take these different
types of risk into consideration when deciding whether to use
smart home devices. Therefore, providers of smart home devices
should invest effort in lowering the risk associated with using the
devices. Our results can help providers to decide which risk to
focus on. For example, as our results show that privacy risk,
performance risk and time risk contribute to individuals’ overall
risk perception, to protect individuals’ privacy, providers should
establish privacy policies and inform users how collected informa-
tion (if there is any) will be used. Providers should also focus on
improving their devices so that they do not need much time to set
up and learn to use, thus reducing time risk perceptions.
Limitations and opportunities for future studies
Our study has the limitation that the sample was recruited through
a survey company. Although it includes participants from a variety
of backgrounds, our sample could still be biased as participants
were recruited from the US only, and the results may not hold for
consumers from other cultural backgrounds. As individuals from
different cultural or professional backgrounds may have differing
perceptions of the risks associated with smart hone devices, future
studies are needed to identify and clarify these potential
differences.
Notwithstanding this limitation, our study opens up many
interesting opportunities for future studies. For example, future
studies should examine how other risk factors influence indivi-
duals’ overall perceived risk, as the dimensions identified in this
study explain less than half of the variance. Further, studies could
be conducted into how various factors moderate the relationship
between perceived benefits/risk and adoption intention. Gewald,
et al.29 divided participants into different groups based on culture
and found that the effects of perceived benefits/risk on BYOD
adoption intention were different across groups. It is possible that
individuals from different cultural backgrounds have different
perceptions of benefits and risk, which in turn may influence
their intention to adopt smart home devices. Studies should also
be conducted to examine individuals’ post-adoption satisfaction.
Conclusion
Individuals increasingly use smart home devices in their daily
lives.4 In order to examine how various benefit and risk factors
influence individuals’ intention to adopt smart home devices, we
developed a theoretical NVM that integrates both positive factors
and risk factors. The model was tested with a US sample, and the
results provide partial support for our model.
Funding
This work was supported by the Internal grant School of Engineering
and IT, Murdoch University.
ORCID
Xuequn Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1557-8265

References
1. Gartner. Gartner says 8.4 billion connected “things” will be in use
in 2017, up 31 percent from 2016. Egham (UK): Gartner; 2017.
2. Statista. Internet of Things (IoT) connected devices installed base
worldwide from 2015 to 2025 (in billions); 2018 https://www.
statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-
worldwide/.
3. Statista. The Internet of Things (IoT) units installed base by
category from 2014 to 2020 (in billions); 2018 https://www.sta
tista.com/statistics/370350/internet-of-things-installed-base-by-
category/.
4. McKinsey Global Institute. The internet of things: Mapping the
value beyond the hype. McKinsey & Company; 2015.
5. Fernandes E, Jung J, Prakash A Security analysis of emerging
smart home applications. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP); San Jose, CA; 2016. p
636–54.
6. Barcena MB, Wueest C Security Response: insecurity in the
Internet of Things; 2015 www.symantec.com/content/dam/syman
tec/docs/security-center/white-papers/insecurity-in-the-internet-
of-things-15-en.pdf.
7. Bastos D, Shackleton M, El-Moussa F Internet of Things: a survey
of technologies and security risks in smart home and city envir-
onments. Proceedings of Living in the Internet of Things:
Cybersecurity of the IoT - 2018: IEEE; London (UK); 2018.
8. Lee MC. Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an
integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived
benefit. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2009;8(3):130–41.
doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006.
9. Featherman MS, Pavlou PA. Predicting e-services adoption: a
perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum Comput Stud.
2003;59(4):451–74. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3.
10. Wilson C, Hargreaves T, Hauxwell-Baldwin R. Benefits and risks
of smart home technologies. Energy Policy. 2017;103:72–83.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.047.
11. GfK. Smart home: A global perspective. CES 2016. Las Vegas
(USA): GfK; 2016.
12. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13
(3):319–40. doi:10.2307/249008.
13. Dong X, Chang Y, Wang Y, Yan J. Understanding usage of
Internet of Things (IOT) systems in China: cognitive experience
and affect experience as moderator. Inf Technol People. 2017;30
(1):117–38. doi:10.1108/ITP-11-2015-0272.
14. Gao L, Bai X. A unified perspective on the factors influencing con-
sumer acceptance of Internet of things technology. Asia Pac J Market
Logist. 2014;26(2):211–31. doi:10.1108/APJML-06-2013-0061.
15. 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. 2018;134:246–53. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029.
16. Kim Y, Park Y, Choi J. A study on the adoption of IoT smart
home service: using value-based adoption model. Total Qual
Manag Business Excell. 2017;28(9–10):1149–65. doi:10.1080/
14783363.2017.1310708.
17. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance
of information technology: towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly.
2003;27(3):425–78. doi:10.2307/30036540.
18. Kim HW, Chan HC, Gupta S. Value-based adoption of mobile
internet: an empirical investigation. Decis Support Syst. 2007;43
(1):111–26. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009.
19. 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;117(1):68–89. doi:10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0017.
20. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior.
Action control. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.
21. 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
Human Behav. 2016;62:516–27. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.023.
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 445
22. Hsu C-L, Lin J-C-C. Exploring factors affecting the adoption of
Internet of Things services. J Comput Inf Syst. 2018;58(1):49–57.
doi:10.1080/08874417.2016.1186524.
23. Coskun A, Kaner G, Bostan İ. Is smart home a necessity or a
fantasy for the mainstream user? A study on users’ expectations of
smart household appliances. Int J Des. 2018;12:7–20.
24. Yang H, Lee W, Lee H. IoT smart home adoption: the importance
of proper level automation. J Sensors 2018;2018:Article ID
6464036.
25. Fishbein M. Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New
York (NY): Wiley; 1967.
26. Lewin K, Dembo T, Festinger L, Sears PS. Level of aspiration. In:
Hunt JM, editor. Personality and the behavior disorders. Oxford
(UK): Ronald Press; 1944. p. 333–378.
27. Li Y, Wang X. Online social networking sites continuance inten-
tion: a model comparison approach. J Comput Inf Syst. 2017;57
(2):160–68. doi:10.1080/08874417.2016.1183448.
28. Li Y, Wang X, Lin X, Hajli M. Seeking and sharing health
information on social media: a net valence model and cross-
cultural comparison. Technol Forecasting Soc Change.
2018;126:28–40. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.021.
29. Gewald H, Wang X, Weeger A, Raisinghani MS, Grant G, Sanchez
O, Pittayachawan S. Millennials’ attitudes toward IT consumer-
ization in the workplace. Commun ACM. 2017;60(10):62–69.
doi:10.1145/3144574.
30. Kim D, Olfman L. Determinants of corporate web services adop-
tion: a survey of companies in Korea. Commun Assoc Inf Syst.
2011;29:1–24.
31. Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure
the perceptions of adopting an information technology innova-
tion. Inf Syst Res. 1991;2(3):192–222. doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
32. Stone RN, Gronhaug K. Perceived risk: further considerations for
the marketing discipline. Eur J Mark. 1993;27(3):39–50.
doi:10.1108/03090569310026637.
33. Bauer RA. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Cox DF, editor.
Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior.
Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1967. p. 23–33.
34. Cunningham SM. The major dimensions of perceived risk. In: Cox
DF, editor. Risk taking and information handling in consumer beha-
vior. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1967. p. 82–108.
35. Jacoby J, Kaplan LB. The components of perceived risk. In:
Venkatesan M, editor. Proceedings of the third annual conference
of the association for consumer research. Chicago (IL):
Association for Consumer Research; 1972. p. 382–93.
36. Liew CS, Ang JM, Goh YT, Koh WK, Tan SY, Teh RY. Factors
influencing consumer acceptance of Internet of Things technol-
ogy. In: Association IRM, editor. The internet of things:
Breakthroughs in research and practice. Hershey (PA): IGI
Global; 2017. p. 71–86.
37. Park E, Kim S, Kim Y, Kwon SJ. Smart home services as the
next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the adop-
tion of smart home services. Universal Access Inf Soc. 2018;17
(1):175–90. doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0533-0.
38. Barbarossa C, Beckmann SC, De Pelsmacker P, Moons I,
Gwozdz W. A self-identity based model of electric car adoption
intention: a cross-cultural comparative study. J Environ
Psychol. 2015;42:149–60. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.001.
39. Yeh C-H, Wang Y-S, Yieh K. Predicting smartphone brand loy-
alty: consumer value and consumer-brand identification perspec-
tives. Int J Inf Manage. 2016;36:245–57. doi:10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2015.11.013.
40. Takayama L, Pantofaru C, Robson D, Soto B, Barry M Making
technology homey: finding sources of satisfaction and meaning in
home automation. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on
Ubiquitous Computing; Pittsburgh, (PA) : ACM; 2012. p 511–20.
41. Aldás-Manzano J, Lassala-Navarré C, Ruiz-Mafé C, Sanz-Blas S.
The role of consumer innovativeness and perceived risk in online
banking usage. Int J Bank Marketing. 2009;27(1):53–75.
doi:10.1108/02652320910928245.
446 X. WANG ET AL.
42. Rakhi T, Mala S. Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness,
perceived risk and usage intention across customer groups for
mobile payment services in India. Internet Res. 2014;24(3):369–
92. doi:10.1108/IntR-12-2012-0244.
43. Müller-Seitz G, Dautzenberg K, Creusen U, Stromereder C,
Müller-Seitz G, Dautzenberg K, Creusen U, Stromereder C.
Customer acceptance of RFID technology: evidence from the
German electronic retail sector. J Retailing Consumer Serv.
2009;16(1):31–39. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2008.08.002.
44. Hargreaves T, Wilson C, Hauxwell-Baldwin R. Learning to live in
a smart home. Building Res Inf. 2017;46(1):127–39.
45. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The rea-
soned action approach. New York (NY): Psychology Press; 2010.
46. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP.
Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl
Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
47. Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method var-
iance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol.
2001;86:114–21.
48. Ringle CM, Wende S, Will S. SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg;
2005.
49. Hulland J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic
management research: a review of four recent studies.
Strategic Manag J. 1999;20(2):195–204. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1097-0266.
50. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation mod-
eling. J Acad Marketing Sci. 2015;43(1):115–35. doi:10.1007/
s11747-014-0403-8.
51. Tirado Herrero S, Nicholls L, Strengers Y. Smart home technol-
ogies in everyday life: do they address key energy challenges in
households? Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 2018;31:65–70.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.001.
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 447

APPENDIX: MEASUREMENT

Intention to use smart home devices (developed for this study using the guidelines from Fishbein and Ajzen’s reasoned action approach45)
Int1 I would like to use smart home devices.
Int2 I expect to use smart home devices.
Int3 I hope to use smart home devices.
Int4 I can see myself using smart home devices.
Perceived benefits (adapted from Li, et al.28)
PB1 Using smart home devices offers me a lot of advantages.
PB2 Using smart home devices is beneficial.
Performance expectancy (adapted from Venkatesh, et al.17 and Hsu and Lin21)
PE1 Smart home devices are very useful.
PE2 Smart home devices improve the quality of household management.
PE3 Using smart home devices would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly.
Effort expectancy
EE1 Smart home devices are easy to use (from Venkatesh, et al.17)
EE2 Smart home devices are easy to find in the marketplace (developed for this study).
EE3 It will be quick for me to learn how to use smart home devices (developed for this study).
EE4 It will be easy for me to learn how to use smart home devices (from Venkatesh, et al.17)
EE5 Operation of smart home devices is clear and understandable (from Venkatesh, et al.17)
Compatibility (adapted from Moore and Benbasat31)
COM1 Using smart home devices fits with my approach to managing things at home.
COM2 Using smart home devices fits well with the way I like to live.
COM3 Using smart home devices fits into my lifestyle.
Image (adapted from Moore and Benbasat31)
Image1 People who use smart home devices have a more prestigious image than people who do not.
Image2 People who use smart home devices have a high profile.
Image3 Use of a smart home device presents a positive image to other people.
Image4 Having a smart home device would be a status symbol.
Perceived risk (adapted from Li, et al.28)
PR1 I expect that using smart home devices would present me with problems that I just don’t need.
PR2 The benefits of using smart home devices are unlikely to compensate for the cost, time and effort of using them.
Privacy risk (from Featherman and Pavlou9 and Li, et al.28)
PriR1 If I use a smart home device, I would lose control over the privacy of my personal data.
PriR2 My personal information will be less confidential if I use a smart home device.
Security risk (from Featherman and Pavlou9)
SR1 The security systems built into smart home devices are not strong enough to protect my information.
SR2 Internet hackers (criminals) might take control of my information if I use a smart home device.
Performance risk (adapted from Featherman and Pavlou9)
PerfR1 Smart home devices might not work well.
PerfR2 Smart home devices might create problems in my home.
PerfR3 Smart home devices might not perform as well as promised.
PerfR4 Smart home devices might not meet my requirements.
Time risk (developed for this study based on Featherman and Pavlou9)
TR1 A lot of my time could be wasted in setting up smart home devices.
TR2 I could lose a lot of time learning how to use smart home devices.
TR3 I would need to invest a lot of time to get smart home devices to work well in my home.
Financial risk (developed specifically for this study)
FR1 Smart home devices are expensive to buy.
FR2 Setting up smart home devices costs a lot of money.
FR3 Keeping smart home devices running is a financial burden.