IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v62y2020ics0160791x19302830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk knowledge and concern as influences of purchase intention for internet of things devices

Author

Listed:
  • Aggarwal, Nitin
  • Albert, Leslie J.
  • Hill, Timothy R.
  • Rodan, Simon A.

Abstract

Consumer demand for Internet of Things (IoT) devices is projected to continue its lucrative acceleration despite growing cybersecurity concerns and incidents reported in the public press. We explore this apparent anomaly through a model, based on the relevant literature, casting consumers’ IoT Purchase Intention as driven by their pre-existing IoT Risk Knowledge, their level of IoT-related Security Concern, and their device-specific perceptions of Riskiness and Coolness. Based on this model, we collected survey data gauging Purchase Intention for four products varying in Riskiness and Coolness levels. Our analysis extends prior research by confirming the negative influence of IoT Risk Knowledge, implicating it as an emerging drag on IoT consumer demand growth. We further confirm the expected effects of Device Riskiness (negative) and Coolness (positive) as primary factors and we note the cognitive dissonance implied by the inherent IoT device trade-off: greater Coolness tends to come at the price of greater Riskiness. In this trade-off, Coolness mattered more for consumers with lower IoT Security Concern suggesting greater susceptibility to the “wow” factor as offsetting or even distracting from the associated risk. This work contributes to the literature by confirming antecedents and revealing subtleties in the interplay of general and device-specific factors affecting consumer IoT Purchase Intention, shedding light on the feature-attraction/risk-avoidance paradox and identifying implications for both research and practice as the marketplace and consumer perceptions co-evolve going forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Aggarwal, Nitin & Albert, Leslie J. & Hill, Timothy R. & Rodan, Simon A., 2020. "Risk knowledge and concern as influences of purchase intention for internet of things devices," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:62:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x19302830
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X19302830
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101311?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shuhaiber, Ahmed & Mashal, Ibrahim, 2019. "Understanding users’ acceptance of smart homes," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. Naveed, Kashif & Watanabe, Chihiro & Neittaanmäki, Pekka, 2018. "The transformative direction of innovation toward an IoT-based society - Increasing dependency on uncaptured GDP in global ICT firms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 23-46.
    3. Morwitz, Vicki, 2014. "Consumers' Purchase Intentions and their Behavior," Foundations and Trends(R) in Marketing, now publishers, vol. 7(3), pages 181-230, November.
    4. Mashal, Ibrahim & Alsaryrah, Osama & Chung, Tein-Yaw & Yuan, Fong-Ching, 2020. "A multi-criteria analysis for an internet of things application recommendation system," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Rao, Akshay R & Monroe, Kent B, 1988. "The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 253-264, September.
    6. Oravec, Jo Ann, 2017. "Kill switches, remote deletion, and intelligent agents: Framing everyday household cybersecurity in the internet of things," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 189-198.
    7. Bettman, James R & Park, C Whan, 1980. "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 234-248, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Straub, Jeremy, 2021. "Defining, evaluating, preparing for and responding to a cyber Pearl Harbor," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Pal, Debajyoti & Zhang, Xiangmin & Siyal, Saeed, 2021. "Prohibitive factors to the acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT) technology in society: A smart-home context using a resistive modelling approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Paupini, Cristina & van der Zeeuw, Alex & Fiane Teigen, Helene, 2022. "Trust in the institution and privacy management of Internet of Things devices. A comparative case study of Dutch and Norwegian households," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Raina, Ajay & Palaniswami, M., 2021. "The ownership challenge in the Internet of things world," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Nasrollahi, Maedeh & Ghadikolaei, Abdolhamid Safaei & Ghasemi, Rohollah & Sheykhizadeh, Morteza & Abdi, Mehdi, 2022. "Identification and prioritization of connected vehicle technologies for sustainable development in Iran," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Mohammad Reza Asadi Zarch & Sarasadat Makian & Mohammad Najjarzadeh, 2023. "Multidimensional interdisciplinary variables influencing tourist online purchasing intention at World Heritage City (City of Yazd, Iran)," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1-21, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pal, Debajyoti & Zhang, Xiangmin & Siyal, Saeed, 2021. "Prohibitive factors to the acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT) technology in society: A smart-home context using a resistive modelling approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. Cheryl, Barr-Kumarakulasinghe & Ng, Boon-Kwee & Wong, Chan-Yuan, 2021. "Governing the progress of internet-of-things: Ambivalence in the quest of technology exploitation and user rights protection," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Shao, Wei & Lye, Ashley & Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, 2009. "Different strokes for different folks: A method to accommodate decision -making heterogeneity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 495-501.
    4. de Bont, Cees J. P. M. & Schoormans, Jan P. L., 1995. "The effects of product expertise on consumer evaluations of new-product concepts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 599-615, December.
    5. Cervi, Cleber & Brei, Vinicius Andrade, 2022. "Choice deferral: The interaction effects of visual boundaries and consumer knowledge," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke & Goldsmith, Ronald E., 1999. "A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 57-66, September.
    7. Varsha Jain & Chakshu Bhandari & Ganesh B.E., 2017. "Discovering the Interpersonal Relationship Between Luxury Perfume Brands and Consumers," Transnational Marketing Journal, Oxbridge Publishing House, UK, vol. 5(2), pages 85-108, October.
    8. Berger, Paul D & Smith, Gerald E, 1998. "The Impact of Prospect Theory Based Framing Tactics on Advertising Effectiveness," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 593-609, October.
    9. Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Manoj Kumar, 2011. "How mutual fund investors’ objective and subjective knowledge impacts their information search and processing behaviour," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 16(1), pages 27-41, June.
    10. Nel, Jacques & Boshoff, Christo, 2019. "Online customers’ habit-inertia nexus as a conditional effect of mobile-service experience: A moderated-mediation and moderated serial-mediation investigation of mobile-service use resistance," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 282-292.
    11. Smith, Gerald E. & Venkatraman, Meera P. & Dholakia, Ruby Roy, 1999. "Diagnosing the search cost effect: Waiting time and the moderating impact of prior category knowledge," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 285-314, June.
    12. Gergaud, Olivier & Livat, Florine, 2007. "How do consumers use signals to assess quality?," Working Papers 37296, American Association of Wine Economists.
    13. Tore Kristensen & Gorm Gabrielsen & Eugene D. Jaffe, 2014. "Is Familiarity a Moderator of Brand/Country Alliances? One More Look," Transnational Marketing Journal, Oxbridge Publishing House, UK, vol. 2(2), pages 61-77, October.
    14. repec:dgr:rugsom:95b44 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Wedel, Michel, 1995. "Assessing the effects of abstract attributes and brand familiarity in conjoint choice experiments," Research Report 95B44, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Kackovic, Monika & Bun, Maurice J.G. & Weinberg, Charles B. & Ebbers, Joris J. & Wijnberg, Nachoem M., 2020. "Third-party signals and sales to expert-agent buyers: Quality indicators in the contemporary visual arts market," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 587-601.
    17. Kim, Dong-hyu & Lee, Heejin, 2016. "Effects of user experience on user resistance to change to the voice user interface of an in‑vehicle infotainment system: Implications for platform and standards competition," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 653-667.
    18. Francisco B. Galarza & Gabriella Wong, 2017. "The Impact of Price Information on Consumer Behavior: An Experiment," Working Papers 106, Peruvian Economic Association.
    19. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    20. Polo, Yolanda & Sese, F. Javier & Verhoef, Peter C., 2011. "The Effect of Pricing and Advertising on Customer Retention in a Liberalizing Market," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 201-214.
    21. Anita Gärling & John Thøgersen, 2001. "Marketing of electric vehicles," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 53-65, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:62:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x19302830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.