While many of our acceptance research studies focus on the quantitative evaluation of (potential) technology acceptance factors, this blog entry describes a qualitative approach to smart home acceptance research. In addition, it integrates the views of two target groups by trying to understand the mutual acceptance of members in a household.
In the broader context of the Internet-of-things (IoT) [1], smart home (SH) refers to a network of multiple components, such as sensors or devices, which can be controlled remotely and present added value to the user through real-time data usage [2,3,4,5]. Use cases include, for instance, smoke or gas detectors aiding in increasing home security, or networked heating systems, which help to optimize energy consumption [6]. Even though the added value may contain increased comfort, money- or time-savings, potential users are still hesitant to adopt SH, because of security concerns or high costs among other reasons [7]. Previous research conducted by Gabriela Salomon and Prof. Dr. Patrick Müller at the University of Applied Science Stuttgart (see blog entry) identified, for example, performance expectancy and effort expectancy as most relevant factors of accepting SH technology. While this research aligns with multiple other quantitative SH acceptance studies [e.g., 8, 9], it fails to consider the possibility of shared SH usage, whereby one person in the household acts as SH driver. This person’s passion for SH necessarily leads to the other household members‘ exposure to the technology.
Throughout her research, Johanna Müller aimed at exploring different SH user groups identified in previous research [10, 11, 12] to find out which factors influence their experience and acceptance of SH technology. The three user groups include home automators, assisters, and passive users.
| User Group | Description |
| Home automators | SH initiators and hobbyists who are responsible for setting up and maintaining the SH network. Are more likely to be male than female. |
| Assisters | Can support the home automators in maintaining the SH network. They are partly involved in decision-making around the SH. |
| Passive users | Solely utilize the SH network and are not involved in decision-making. |
Study design
In cooperation with the Robert Bosch Group‘s Corporate Research Team in Renningen, Johanna utilized multiple qualitative methods in her research. First, social media listening was carried out to gain a general understanding of which topics are essential to home automators, their SH experience and perception of other household members‘ SH acceptance. A sample of 91 threads from four different SH forums were analyzed qualitatively according to Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) [13]. The findings then aided in the development of a semi-structured interview guide. Afterwards, 12 interviews with female SH users were conducted, whose male partners carry out SH as a hobby (home automators). Data was again analyzed via RTA.
Central findings and insights
RTA aids in developing themes, which represent shared meaning across the collected data. Johanna concluded the following themes throughout her research:
Theme 1: Creating a suitable SH is an individual and joined process for each household
Most interview participants were first confronted with SH technology through their partner, meaning it was not a conscious or voluntary decision to begin using it. Although most interviewees were hardly engaged in setting up the SH network, encountering it became challenging at first as established habits got interrupted. This led, according to the participants, to high cognitive load, as they had to change their own behavior and learn new ways to control specific devices. Additionally, many stated their personal boundaries and needs regarding the SH, especially in terms of data protection, privacy and necessity for the household. After some time, planning, strategizing, and sharing information around the SH got established as a shared interest among some couples. However, some mentioned, that they consciously held back during decision-making. Either because the partner is considered the expert surrounding SH, or because the interviewees do not wish to limit their partners‘ passion. Other participants assumed an entirely passive role, leaving all decisions up to their partners.
Theme 2: SH needs to be experienced first-hand to be appreciated
Depending on the level of involvement with the SH, some interviewees begin their own research about SH components. According to the participants, their partners constantly plan further implementations whereas they have to slow down some of them. However, almost all interviewees reported that after some time they appreciate the SH’s functions, specifically the increased comfort. Besides, showing the SH to guests is a positive experience, as it represents the couple as modern. During the installation of new components, the interviewees are typically patient and understanding if this phase takes longer as they perceive their partners‘ work as time-consuming and difficult. Specifically troubleshooting is considered the partners‘ responsibility because the interviewees are either annoyed with it or they are scared to break something, as they do not believe to have the necessary skills to solve an issue in the system.
Theme 3: SH is unevenly beneficial to household members
While the interviewees‘ descriptions suggest that the installed SH technology aids with chores which are rather uncomplicated, more complex or time-consuming tasks are still carried out by the inhabitants manually. Additionally, setting up and maintaining the SH is considered digital housekeeping and therefore a contribution to the household although it also is the partner‘s hobby. Contrarily, the interviewees mentioned that remaining annoying tasks are still their responsibility. While some interviewees engage in building the shared SH, they rather assume the rational voice regarding the usefulness and pricing of components. Yet, some interviewees clearly stated that the SH is a way for the partner to demonstrate his technical skills and interest. Furthermore, the partners are typically the sole persons with all the necessary information to set-up, adapt and troubleshoot the SH. This makes it difficult to receive external support, which further reinforces dependencies and determines distributions of power. Considering that home automators are more likely male than female, this also strengthens the reinforcement of gender roles.
Conclusion
The following conclusions were drawn based on this research regarding SH acceptance in shared households:
- Home automators strongly consider other household members’ acceptance of the SH systems when implementing new components or functions.
- Equating SH with any other hobby positively influences the female partners’ acceptance of it as they want to be supported in their own hobbies as well.
- The importance of acceptance factors changes over the course of a user’s journey with SH, just as relation dynamics change. This may influence the users‘ SH acceptance, e.g., joined accounts are set-up and components are paid for together instead of solely by the home automator.
- The factor self-efficacy is essential in shared SHs as not all household members have the same level of skills, knowledge, and expertise in the technology which influences their perceived ability to set-up, adjust, or troubleshoot the SH.
Overall, relationship dynamics and diverse household constellations, such as partnerships, families, shared apartments etc. need to be considered in the SH design process as all inhabitants and guests of a household are exposed to the SH system, meaning their acceptance of SH is considered in buying decisions as well.
While acceptance research typically focuses on the individual’s technology acceptance, this work contributes to SH acceptance research from a human-centered perspective which considers the shared usage of SH technology and the potential roles users take on in regards to the SH. As IoT devices become increasingly common in households around the globe, SH designers need to prioritize the human aspect and possible relationships between people using the technology together. Hence, not only buyers of SH components should be involved in the design process, but less-involved household members and guests as well.
References
[1] Nikhil Jain, Mitali Desai, and Dipti P. Rana. 2019. Empirical Comparison of IoT Based Smart Home Models. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3355516
[2] Andrea Castillo and Adam D. Thierer. 2015. Projecting the Growth and Economic Impact of the Internet of Things. SSRNElectronic Journal (2015). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2618794 
[3] Kirsten Gram-Hanssen and Sarah J. Darby. 2018. “Home is where the smart is”? Evaluating smart home research and approaches against the concept of home. Energy Research & Social Science 37 (March 2018), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.037
[4] Richard Harper. 2011. From Smart Home to Connected Home. In The Connected Home: The Future ofDomestic Life, Richard Harper (Ed.). Springer, London, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-476-0_1
[5] Frances K. Aldrich. 2003. Smart Homes: Past, Present and Future. In Inside the Smart Home, Richard Harper (Ed.). Springer, London, 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-85233-854-7_2
[6] Pohlmann, N. (2021, 02). Chancen und Risiken von Smart Home. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, 95-101.
[7] Deloitte. (2018). Smart Home Consumer Survey 2018: Ausgewählte Ergebnisse für den deutschen Markt. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/de/de/pages/technology-media-andtelecommunications/articles/smart-home-studie-2018.html
[8] Mobark Q. Aldossari and Anna Sidorova. 2020. Consumer Acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT): Smart Home Context. Journal ofComputer Information Systems 60, 6 (Nov. 2020), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1543000
[9] Christina Gross, Markus Siepermann, and Richard Lackes. 2020. The Acceptance of Smart Home Technology. In Perspectives in Business Informatics Research (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Robert Andrei Buchmann, Andrea Polini, Björn Johansson, and Dimitris Karagiannis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61140-8_1
[10] Christine Geeng and Franziska Roesner. 2019. Who’s In Control?: Interactions In Multi-User Smart Homes. In Proceedings ofthe 2019 CHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300498
[11] Sarah Mennicken and Elaine M. Huang. 2012. Hacking the Natural Habitat: An In-the-Wild Study of Smart Homes, Their Development, and the People Who Live in Them. In Pervasive Computing, David Hutchison, Takeo Kanade, Josef Kittler, Jon M. Kleinberg, Friedemann Mattern, John C. Mitchell, Moni Naor, Oscar Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, Bernhard Steffen, Madhu Sudan, Demetri Terzopoulos, Doug Tygar, Moshe Y. Vardi, Gerhard Weikum, Judy Kay, Paul Lukowicz, Hideyuki Tokuda, Patrick Olivier, and Antonio Krüger (Eds.). Vol. 7319. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31205-2_10 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
[12] Erika Shehan Poole, Marshini Chetty, Rebecca E. Grinter, and W. Keith Edwards. 2008. More than meets the eye: transforming the user experience of home network management. In Proceedings ofthe 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems – DIS ’08. ACM Press, Cape Town, South Africa, 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394494
[13] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd, Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne.
