Take it Personally - The Role of Consumers' Perceived Value of Personalization on Cross-Category Use in a Smart Home Ecosystem

The establishment of a smart home ecosystem – an assemblage of smart technologies across segments in private households – generates value for both companies and customers. However, the complexity of a smart home ecosystem based on data sharing and personalization as a necessity for value perception also generates tensions between the value created by data sharing and the value of privacy. Therefore, this study, based on a survey of 1049 consumers, investigates the acceptance and use of smart home devices and smart home ecosystems by observing drivers of personalization, trust, privacy components and technology acceptance. The empirical analyses show that especially consumers’ perceived value from personalization plays a significant role in smart home ecosystem acceptance. This research offers results for theory development and practical implications by extending existing technology acceptance models to ecosystems and by showing the need for a focus on sophisticated personalized applications within a smart home ecosystem.

[1]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Technology infusion in service encounters , 2000 .

[2]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[3]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Heikki Karjaluoto,et al.  How value and trust influence loyalty in wireless telecommunications industry , 2012 .

[5]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares , 2019, European Journal of Marketing.

[6]  D. Hoffman,et al.  Relationship journeys in the internet of things: a new framework for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects , 2018, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

[7]  M. Holbrook,et al.  The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty , 2001 .

[8]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research , 2014 .

[9]  Heng Xu,et al.  Information Privacy Concerns: Linking Individual Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Ned Kock,et al.  Lateral Collinearity and Misleading Results in Variance-Based SEM: An Illustration and Recommendations , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Lei Yang,et al.  Security and Privacy in the Internet of Things , 2017 .

[12]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[13]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[14]  Hangjung Zo,et al.  User acceptance of smart home services: an extension of the theory of planned behavior , 2017, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[15]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[16]  Christy M. K. Cheung,et al.  How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intentions: The Case of IS Continuance , 2007 .

[17]  Daniel R. Horne,et al.  The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors , 2007 .

[18]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Chechen Liao,et al.  Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT) , 2009, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[20]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  Modeling Consumers’ Adoption Intentions of Remote Mobile Payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with Innovativeness, Risk, and Trust , 2015 .

[21]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Research Note - Two Competing Perspectives on Automatic Use: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Markus Blut,et al.  Acceptance of Smartphone-Based Mobile Shopping: Mobile Benefits, Customer Characteristics, Perceived Risks, and the Impact of Application Context , 2017 .

[23]  N. Kock.  Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach , 2015, Int. J. e Collab..

[24]  Andreas Jacobsson,et al.  A risk analysis of a smart home automation system , 2016, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[25]  Yuan Li,et al.  The impact of disposition to privacy, website reputation and website familiarity on information privacy concerns , 2014, Decis. Support Syst..

[26]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to be Profiled Online for Personalization , 2006, MIS Q..

[28]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[30]  Ardi Kolah.  ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism — The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power’ , 2019 .

[31]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Model of Adoption and Technology in Households: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle , 2005, MIS Q..

[32]  Ramnath K. Chellappa,et al.  Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma , 2005, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[33]  Ioanna D. Constantiou,et al.  Changing information retrieval behaviours: an empirical investigation of users’ cognitive processes in the choice of location-based services , 2014, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[34]  C. Hoffmann,et al.  The role of privacy concerns in the sharing economy , 2017 .