Determinants of Users Intention to Use IoT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/r37wth79Keywords:
- Internet of things, TAM, User Acceptance, Perceived Usefulness,, PrivacyAbstract
The Internet of things (IoT) is realised as a potentially effective means of integrating multiple technologies to improve the quality of people’s life and offering interesting and advantageous new services to individuals. However, it has emerged that consumers’ acceptance of IoT is currently low despite its huge economic potentials and impacts, as well as high investment from the private and public sectors. Yet, few studies have investigated the perspectives of the users on IoT. Specifically, only a few empirical researches had examined the determinants of IoT service adoption from the user's perspective and research model were still not fully developed. Hence, there is a dearth of empirical research on IoT adoption in Malaysia. Therefore, this research aims to develop an integrative model of factors influencing users’ acceptance of IoT. The research applied an integrated technology acceptance model (TAM). The research hope to provide useful insight into the key driving factors with regard to understanding consumers’ behavioural intention to use the IoT.
Downloads
References
1. Internet Live Stats. Internet Users. 2017a [cited 2017 5 March]; Available from: http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/malaysia/.
2. Statista. number of connected devices worldwide 2012-2020. 2017 [cited 2017 6 March]; Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/.
3. Cisco, Internet of Things: Connected Means Informed. 2016: Cisco. p. 3.
4. Fantana, N., et al., IoT applications–value creation for industry. Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems, 2013: p. 153.
5. Lim, J.H., Antedecents And Outcome Of Internet Of Things Adoption: A Perspective Of Public Listed Companies On Main Market Board Of Bursa Malaysia. 2015, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
6. Verizon, State of the Market: Internet of Things 2016: Verizon.com.
7. Lund, D., et al., Worldwide and regional internet of things (IoT) 2014–2020 forecast: A virtuous circle of proven value and demand. International Data Corporation (IDC), Tech. Rep, 2014.
8. Gao, L. and X. Bai, A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 2014. 26(2): p. 211-231.
9. Chong, A.Y.-L., et al., Predicting RFID adoption in healthcare supply chain from the perspectives of users. International Journal of Production Economics, 2015. 159: p. 66-75.
10. Gubbi, J., et al., Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future generation computer systems, 2013. 29(7): p. 1645-1660.
11. Rose, K., S. Eldridge, and L. Chapin, The internet of things: An overview. The Internet Society (ISOC), 2015:
p. 1-50.
12. Botta, A., et al., Integration of Cloud computing and Internet of Things: A survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2016. 56: p. 684-700.
13. ISO, Internet of Things: Preliminary Report 2014. 2015: Switzerland. p. 1-11.
14. Mimos, National Internet of Things Strategic Roadmap: A Summary. 2015: Malaysia. p. 1-24.
15. Venkatesh, V., et al., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 2003: p. 425-478.
16. Venkatesh, V., F.D. Davis, and M.G. Morris, Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2007. 8(4): p. 267-286.
17. Hsu, C.-L. and J.C.-C. Lin, An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016. 62: p. 516-527.
18. Chong, A.Y.-L., F.T. Chan, and K.-B. Ooi, Predicting consumer decisions to adopt mobile commerce: Cross country empirical examination between China and Malaysia. Decision Support Systems, 2012. 53(1): p. 34- 43.
19. Kim, K.J. and D.-H. Shin, An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 2015. 25(4): p. 527-541.
20. Alolayan, B., Do i really have to accept smart fridges? an empirical study. 2014.
21. Dahlberg, T., et al., Past, present and future of mobile payments research: A literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2008. 7(2): p. 165-181.
22. Tu, M., An exploratory study of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption intention in logistics and supply chain management: A mixed research approach. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 2018. 29(1):
p. 131-151.
23. Kamble, S.S., et al., Modeling the internet of things adoption barriers in food retail supply chains. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2019. 48: p. 154-168.
24. Hsu, C.-L. and J.C.-C. Lin, Exploring factors affecting the adoption of Internet of Things services. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2018. 58(1): p. 49-57.
25. Mani, Z. and I. Chouk, Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products. Journal of Marketing Management, 2016: p. 1-22.
26. Kowatsch, T. and W. Maass, Critical privacy factors of internet of things services: an empirical investigation with domain experts, in Knowledge and Technologies in Innovative Information Systems. 2012, Springer. p. 200-211.
27. Shin, D.-H., Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. Information & Management, 2017.
28. Liew, C.S., et al., Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance of Internet of Things Technology. Handbook of Research on Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Customer Engagement. 2016: IGI Global, 2016. 186.
29. Mital, M., et al., Adoption of Internet of Things in India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017.
30. Dong, X., et al., Understanding usage of Internet of Things (IOT) systems in China: Cognitive experience and affect experience as moderator. Information Technology & People, 2017. 30(1).
31. Balaji, M., et al., User acceptance of IoT applications in retail industry, in Technology Adoption and Social Issues: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. 2018, IGI Global. p. 1331-1352.
32. Jayashankar, P., et al., IoT adoption in agriculture: the role of trust, perceived value and risk. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2018. 33(6): p. 804-821.
33. Abushakra, A. and D. Nikbin. Extending the UTAUT2 Model to Understand the Entrepreneur Acceptance and Adopting Internet of Things (IoT). in International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations. 2019. Springer.
34. Lee, W. and S. Shin, An Empirical Study of Consumer Adoption of Internet of Things Services. International Journal of Engineering and Technology Innovation, 2019. 9(1): p. 1.
35. The Acquity Group, Igniting Growth in Consumer Technology. 2016: United States.
36. Accenture, The The Internet of Things: The Future of Consumer Adoption. 2014: USA. p. 1-12.
37. Arpaci, I., Understanding and predicting students' intention to use mobile cloud storage services. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016. 58: p. 150-157.
38. Keong, W.E.Y. The determinants of mobile shopping mall apps adoption intention in Malaysia: An empirical investigation. in Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2016 11th International Conference on. 2016. IEEE.
39. Hew, T.-S., et al., Predicting drivers of mobile entertainment adoption: A two-stage SEM-artificial-neural- network analysis. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2016. 56(4): p. 352-370.
40. Chiyangwa, T.B. and P.T. Alexander, Rapidly co-evolving technology adoption and diffusion models. Telematics and Informatics, 2016. 33(1): p. 56-76.
41. Ramayah, T., et al., Explaining the adoption of Internet stock trading in Malaysia: comparing models. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 2014. 22(1): p. 131-151.
42. Makki, A.M., A.B. Ozturk, and D. Singh, Role of risk, self-efficacy, and innovativeness on behavioral intentions for mobile payment systems in the restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 2016. 19(5): p. 454-473.
43. Hsu, C.-L. and J.C.-C. Lin, Exploring Factors Affecting the Adoption of Internet of Things Services. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2016: p. 1-9.
44. Chuah, S.H.-W., et al., Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016. 65: p. 276-284.
45. Khalilzadeh, J., A.B. Ozturk, and A. Bilgihan, Security-related factors in extended UTAUT model for NFC based Mobile Payment in the Restaurant Industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017.
46. Ooi, K.-B. and G.W.-H. Tan, Mobile technology acceptance model: An investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Systems with Applications, 2016. 59: p. 33-46.
47. Zailani, S., et al., Determinants of RFID adoption in Malaysia’s healthcare industry: occupational level as a moderator. Journal of medical systems, 2015. 39(1): p. 172.
48. Moore, G.C. and I. Benbasat, Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 1991. 2(3): p. 192-222.
49. Davis, F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 1989: p. 319-340.
50. Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 1989. 35(8): p. 982-1003.
51. Al-Momani, A.M., M.A. Mahmoud, and M. Sharifuddin, Modeling the adoption of internet of things services: A conceptual framework. IJAR, 2016. 2(5): p. 361-367.
52. Di Pietro, L., et al., The Integrated Model on Mobile Payment Acceptance (IMMPA): An empirical application to public transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2015. 56: p. 463- 479.
53. Hanafizadeh, P., et al., Mobile-banking adoption by Iranian bank clients. Telematics and Informatics, 2014.
31(1): p. 62-78.
54. Luarn, P. and H.-H. Lin, Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in human behavior, 2005. 21(6): p. 873-891.
55. Sathye, M., Adoption of Internet banking by Australian consumers: an empirical investigation. International Journal of bank marketing, 1999. 17(7): p. 324-334.
56. Hanafizadeh, P., et al., Mobile-banking adoption by Iranian bank clients. Telematics and Informatics, 2014.
31(1): p. 62-78.
57. Park, E., et al., Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2017: p. 1-16.
58. Abrahão, R.d.S., S.N. Moriguchi, and D.F. Andrade, Intention of adoption of mobile payment: An analysis in the light of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 2016. 13(3): p. 221-230.
59. Hongxia, P., X. Xianhao, and L. Weidan. Drivers and barriers in the acceptance of mobile payment in China. in E-Business and E-Government (ICEE), 2011 International Conference on. 2011. IEEE.
60. Yu, J., et al., User acceptance of media tablets: An empirical examination of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics, 2017. 34(4): p. 206-223.
61. Kapoor, K.K., Y.K. Dwivedi, and M.D. Williams, Examining the role of three sets of innovation attributes for determining adoption of the interbank mobile payment service. Information Systems Frontiers, 2015. 17(5): p. 1039-1056.
62. Bao, H., et al., Are Chinese consumers ready to adopt mobile smart home? An empirical analysis. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 2014. 12(5): p. 496-511.
63. Chong, A.Y.-L., et al., Determinants of 3G adoption in Malaysia: A structural analysis. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2010. 51(2): p. 71-80.
64. Oliveira, T., et al., Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016. 61: p. 404-414.
65. Phonthanukitithaworn, C., C. Sellitto, and M.W. Fong, An investigation of mobile payment (m-payment) services in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2016. 8(1): p. 37-54.
66. Teo, A.-C., et al., Why consumers adopt mobile payment? A partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 2015. 13(5): p. 478-497.
67. Pham, T.-T.T. and J.C. Ho, The effects of product-related, personal-related factors and attractiveness of alternatives on consumer adoption of NFC-based mobile payments. Technology in Society, 2015. 43: p. 159- 172.
68. Chen, C.-f., X. Xu, and L. Arpan, Between the technology acceptance model and sustainable energy technology acceptance model: Investigating smart meter acceptance in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 2017. 25: p. 93-104.
69. Wang, W.-T., Y.-S. Wang, and E.-R. Liu, The stickiness intention of group-buying websites: The integration of the commitment–trust theory and e-commerce success model. Information & Management, 2016. 53(5):
p. 625-642.
70. Winston, T.G., S. Paul, and L. Iyer. A Study of Privacy and Security Concerns on Doctors' and Nurses' Behavioral Intentions to Use RFID in Hospitals. in System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on. 2016. IEEE.
71. Slettemeås, D., RFID—the “Next Step” in Consumer–Product Relations or Orwellian Nightmare? Challenges for Research and Policy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 2009. 32(3): p. 219.
72. Wuenderlich, N.V., et al., “Futurizing” smart service: implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Services Marketing, 2015. 29(6/7): p. 442-447.
73. Sicari, S., et al., Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead. Computer Networks, 2015.
76: p. 146-164.
74. Li, H., et al., Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: An empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2016. 88: p. 8-17.
75. Hallam, C. and G. Zanella, Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017. 68: p. 217-227.
76. Sun, Y., et al., Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015. 52: p. 278-292.
77. Balta-Ozkan, N., et al., Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy, 2013. 63: p. 363-374.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
