Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of IoT Smart Home Services on Psychological Well-Being

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Smart home services are a new generation of consumer services. Supported by the Internet of Things (IoT) technology, they deliver security, comfort, entertainment, assisted living, and efficient management of the home to improve the quality of life of consumers. As the availability of smart home services expands, there is still a lack of understanding of what motivates their continuing use and how the penetration of smart devices and services in the home environment affects individual well-being. We develop a research model combining hedonic and eudaimonic motivations with the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT 2) to evaluate the impacts on well-being. The model is estimated using partial least squares based on a sample of 260 survey responses. The results show that hedonic motivation associated with the adoption of some smart home services moderates continuing use. Additionally, the results suggest a positive relationship between the use of IoT smart home services and well-being. Furthermore, hedonic and eudaimonic motives have a substantial effect on the use behavior of smart home services and ultimately on well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABI. (2018). Smart Home Ecosystem. Retrieved from https://www.abiresearch.com/market-research/service/smart-home/:

  • Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M., & Whitmarsh, L. (2013). Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy, 63, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balta-Ozkan, N., Boteler, B., & Amerighi, O. (2014). European smart home market development: Public views on technical and economic aspects across the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. Energy Research and Social Science, 3, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2016). A weight and a meta-analysis on mobile banking acceptance research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee, & Sanford. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly., 30, 805. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 29(3), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bujacz, A., Vittersø, J., Huta, V., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2014). Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., Marcelin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 9–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotten, S. R., Ford, G., Ford, S., & Hale, T. M. (2012). Internet use and depression among older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 496–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, S. J. (2018). Smart technology in the home: Time for more clarity. Building Research and Information, 46(1), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1301707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, S., Lee, M, K., Yiu, C., Zimmerman, J., & Dey, A, K. (2006). Principles of smart home control. In International conference on ubiquitous computing. Berlin: Heidelberg.

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies 9(1), 1–11.

  • Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being (37 ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • European-Commission. (2015). Towards an integrated strategic energy technology (SET) plan: Accelerating the European energy system transformation EN. Communication from the Commission C(2015) 6317final. Retrieved from https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Communication_SET-Plan_15_Sept_2015.pdf

  • Ha, J. H., Kim, S. Y., Bae, S. C., Bae, S., Kim, H., Sim, M., Lyoo, I. K., & Cho, S. C. (2007). Depression and internet addiction in adolescents. Psychopathology, 40(6), 424–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L., & Knight, T. (2012). Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand wellbeing and pathways to wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 196–221. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic behaviour. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.803596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkemans, B., Alpay, A, O., Laurence, L., & Adrie, D. (2010). Aging in place: Self-care in smart home environments. In (pp. 194–194): InTech.

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20(2009), 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of internet of things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 516–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huta, V. (2018). Eudaimonia versus Hedonia: What is the difference? And is it real? International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7(2), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 744–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, F. Hair, Jr., Hult, G, T, M., Christian, R., & Marko, S. (2016). A Primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.): SAGE Publications.

  • Ke, W., Liu, H., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2009). How do mediated and non-mediated power affect electronic supply chain management system adoption? The mediating effects of trust and institutional pressures. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Park, Y., & Choi, J. (2017). A study on the adoption of IoT smart home service: Using value-based adoption model. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(9–10), 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1310708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristjánsson, K. (2018). The flourishing–happiness concordance thesis: Some troubling counterexamples. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 541–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuebel, H., & Zarnekow, R. (2015). Exploring platform adoption in the smart home case. International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.

  • Li, S., Da Xu, L., & Zhao, S. (2015). The internet of things: A survey. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(2), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W, M. (2018). Dialectic antidotes to critics of the technology acceptance model: Conceptual, methodological, and replication treatments for Behavioural Modelling in technology-mediated environments. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22, 1–11.

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. B., Gaskin, J., Twyman, N., Hammer, B., & Roberts, T. L. (2013). Proposing the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM) to increase understanding of adoption of hedonically motivated. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(11), 617–671. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. B., Gaskin, J. E., & Moody, G. D. (2014). Proposing the multimotive information systems continuance model (MISC) to better explain end-user system evaluations and continuance intentions. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 16(7), 515–579. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, M. M., & Remus, W. (2014). Uses and gratifications and acceptance of web-based information services: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macedo, I. M. (2017). Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication technology by older adults: An empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2020). Cognitive dissonance in technology adoption: A study of smart home users. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–23.

  • McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Hey Alexa … examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 99(January), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A concise guide to market research: The process, data and methods using IBM SPSS statistic. New York: Springer Publication.

  • Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, E., Kim, S., Kim, Y. S., & Kwon, S. J. (2018). 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, 17(1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0533-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C., Becker, J., & Wende, S. (2014). SmartPLS3. Handbook of Market Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1.

  • Seligman, M, E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being: Simon and Schuster.

  • Seligman, M. E. P., Parks, A. C., & Steen, T. (2004). A balanced psychology and a full life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1379–1381. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., & Ziegler, F. V. (2018). The technology integration model (TIM). Predicting the continued use of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statista (2018). Smart Home - Europe | Statista Market Forecast. Available at https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/smart-home/europe. Accessed Feb 2021.

  • Tam, C., Santos, D., & Oliveira, T. (2020). Exploring the influential factors of continuance intention to use mobile apps: Extending the expectation confirmation model. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(1), 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamilmani, K., Rana, N, P., & Dwivedi, Y, K. (2020). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: A meta-analytic evaluation of UTAUT2. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–19.

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmore, A., Agarwal, A., & Da Xu, L. (2015). The internet of things—A survey of topics and trends. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(2), 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Lee, H., & Zo, H. (2017). User acceptance of smart home services: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Industrial Management and Data Systems., 117, 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Campolide, 1070-312, Lisbon, Portugal

    Helder Sequeiros & Tiago Oliveira

  2. The University of Sydney Business School, Rm 4047, Abercrombie Bldg H70, Darlington, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Manoj A. Thomas

Authors
  1. Helder Sequeiros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiago Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manoj A. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manoj A. Thomas.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix – Survey items

Appendix – Survey items

Performance Expectancy adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

PE1 I find IoT Smart Home service useful in my household.

PE2 Using IoT Smart Home service increases my chances of achieving things that are important to me.

PE3 Using IoT Smart Home service helps me to accomplish domestic tasks more quickly.

PE4 Using IoT Smart Home service increases my productivity.

Social Influence adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

SI1 People who are important to me think that I should use the IoT smart home service.

SI2 People who influence my behavior think that I should use the IoT smart home service.

SI3 People whose opinions I value prefer that I use the IoT smart home service.

Facilitating Conditions adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

FC1 I have the resources necessary to use the IoT smart home service.

FC2 I have the knowledge necessary to use the IoT smart home service.

FC3 The IoT smart home service is compatible with the technologies that I use.

FC4 I can get help from others when I have difficulties using the IoT smart home service.

Price Value adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

PV1 The IoT smart home service is reasonably priced.

PV2 The IoT smart home service is a good value for the money.

PV3 At the current price, the IoT smart home service provides good value.

Habit adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

Ha1 The use of the IoT smart home service has become a habit for me.

Ha2 I am addicted to using the IoT smart home service.

Ha3 I must use the IoT smart home service.

Ha4 Using the IoT smart home service has become natural to me.

Hedonic Motivation adapted from Huta and Waterman (2014).

I use the IoT smart home service in my home when I start an activity with the intention of:

  • HM1 Seeking relaxation.

  • HM2 Seeking pleasure.

  • HM3 Seeking enjoyment.

  • HM4 Seeking to take it easy.

  • HM5 Seeking fun.

  • HM6 Seeking to make things comfortable.

Eudaimonic Motivation adapted from Huta and Waterman (2014).

I use the IoT smart home service in my home activities when I am:

  • EM1 Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something.

  • EM2 Seeking to do what I believe in.

  • EM3 Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal.

  • EM4 Seeking to use the best in myself.

  • EM5 Seeking to contribute to others or the surrounding world.

Behavior Intention adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

BI1 I intend to continue using the IoT smart home service in the future.

BI2 I will always try to use the IoT smart home service in my daily life.

BI3 I plan to continue to use the IoT smart home service frequently.

Use Behavior adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012).

Please choose your usage frequency for each of the following features of the IoT smart home service at your home:

  • a) ambiance control (temperature, lighting, sound, etc.)

  • b) security and safety (video surveillance, presence detection, fire alarm, gas leak alarm, flood alarm, etc.)

  • c) energy efficiency (reduce energy waste, schedule use of appliances outside tariff peak hours, etc.)

  • d) automation (allow the service to learn my preferences by tracking my movements and activity schedules at home)

  • f) e-health (collecting health data from wrist bands or other sensors to monitor health status or telemedicine purposes)

  • g) assisted living (allow autonomy or independence at overcoming a disability or handicap in activities at home)

  • h) media content consumption (distribute digital media through devices at home or access online music, movies, games, etc.)

  • i) communications (establish a remote connection to home, connect to social platforms, shop or perform online transactions)

Note: Frequency ranged from “never” to “many times per day.”

Well-Being adapted from Huta and Waterman (2014).

All things considered, to which degree has the IoT Smart Home service been useful in your domestic routines when you’re:

  • WB1 Seeking relaxation?

  • WB2 Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something?

  • WB3 Seeking to do what you believe in?

  • WB4 Seeking pleasure?

  • WB5 Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal?

  • WB6 Seeking enjoyment?

  • WB7 Seeking to take it easy?

  • WB8 Seeking to use the best in yourself?

  • WB9 Seeking fun?

  • WB10 Seeking to contribute to others or the surrounding world?

  • WB11 Seeking to make things comfortable?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sequeiros, H., Oliveira, T. & Thomas, M.A. The Impact of IoT Smart Home Services on Psychological Well-Being. Inf Syst Front 24, 1009–1026 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10118-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10118-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation