Which of the following factors influences the expected benefits and perceived costs of search?

1. Introduction

Recently, the internet has literally entered into our homes, offering automations that facilitate our daily lives. People can control internet-connected devices using just a smartphone or a tablet. The smart home includes a set of devices and services which work individually and together to interact with each other and the user thanks to Internet of Things (IoT) technologies []. A smart home is a “home equipped with computer and information technology, which meets the users’ needs, working to increase their comfort, security, and entertainment through the management of technology in the home and with the rest of the world” []. Smart home services and devices include energy information services [], services that control interaction between devices [], payment services [], lighting control devices [], interconnected smart white appliances such as smart fridges and washing machines, entertainment devices such as smart TVs, household robots used for various home chores [], smart thermostats and assisted living systems and devices [], smart security systems including automated devices such as smoke detectors, smart locks, and doors, and motion detectors []. Empirical studies have shown that consumers have a positive attitude towards the use of smart technologies, pointing out benefits such as cost and time savings. In addition, smart home technology can control and reduce the household’s energy consumption. Regarding people’s well-being and psychology, smart technology can help people that feel isolated, providing them with companionship, support, and assistance. Although smart home technology can reduce energy bills, there is a high cost in buying, installing, and maintaining it. Furthermore, there are ethical challenges as well as legal obstacles such as the lack of legal coverage in using smart home technology.

Although the smart home market is still at an early stage in Greece, more and more Greek consumers have begun to show interest in smart home technology. For example, Tellogleio Foundation in Athens operates a smart energy management system consisting of sensors, controllers, and computer devices covering a building with an area of 5500 square meters []. Another building in Gerakas, Athens, provides automated lighting, cooling, and energy management and was implemented via KONNEX technology []. Furthermore, Hellas Dom, an integrated device and home management system, enables the management of audiovisual material, as well as the provision of services such as teleconferencing, home security, fire safety services, and more [].

Next, this paper presents previous studies on smart homes and states the problem to be investigated. Then, the paper presents the methodology, the survey, and the findings. Subsequently, it discusses and analyzes the results. Finally, it concludes, states limitations, and suggests future research directions.

2. Previous Studies and Hypotheses

Despite the technology advances and the expected benefits, there is a limited number of studies that have investigated users’ perceptions and acceptance of smart homes. Users in the UK, Germany, and Italy liked the tangible benefits and improved quality of life, but had concerns regarding risks of installation failure, privacy, and difficulty in using smart home technology []. Therefore, the penetration of smart homes into people’s daily lives is still low, with the United States leading the market, and Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Norway following []. Kitchen smart devices are leading the devices market []. However, the literature review showed that there are no smart home studies regarding Greek consumers.

Various researchers investigated the degree of smart home technology adoption using popular frameworks and models such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) [] and innovation diffusion theory (IDT) []. TAM investigates the consumer’s technology acceptance through perceived usefulness (the degree that a user believes that a new technology will offer more positive and useful outcomes than a different or prior technology) and perceived ease of use (the degree that a user believes that it will be easy to use a new technology). Other researchers [] argued that it is necessary to extend TAM according to the characteristics of the technology being analyzed, because consumer goals are different for each technology. Thus, extra factors to be measured were added to the TAM such as compatibility and protection of user privacy. Compatibility (the degree to which new technology will work and interact with other home appliances that pre-exist or are to be purchased in parallel) is a critical factor in adopting smart services as it is important to determine whether and to what extent home services are interoperable with various home appliances and external services []. This model is suitable for understanding and interpreting a consumer’s attitude towards smart home technology, as well as for investigating the factors that influence its adoption. The variables used in this study will be discussed further below.

While TAM looks at a number of factors that explain the acceptance of technology, such as compatibility and ease of use, the factors discussed in the innovation diffusion model focus solely on technology-related criteria []. According to [], the diffusion of innovation is a procedural sequence in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels between the members of a social system. The rate of dissemination is determined by the rate of adoption, which is related to various characteristics of innovation. The following five characteristics of innovation are related to each other, from the point of view of the potential user: relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, the possibility of testing the technology, and the observability of innovation [].

The most important category of factors that affect the technology adoption by consumers is related to the technology itself. The decision to adopt smart home technology can be explained by the perceptions of the individual consumer about its features []. Perceived usefulness shows how much the users value the usefulness of the device or service they use; therefore, users will not use smart technology if they will not find it useful []. Furthermore, perceived usefulness is the best predictor of the intention to use smart homes []. German consumers stated that they will not use smart technology if they do not find it useful []. Therefore, the following hypothesis is introduced:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Perceived usefulness is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

The cost factor (the degree to which the cost of installing, maintaining, and repairing new technology differs from the cost of old or other technology) [] is directly related to perceived utility. Consumers will adopt a new technology, as long as the benefits outweigh the cost of installing and using it. It is possible that the maintenance costs and low energy savings discourage users from adopting smart technology systems []. Many scholars in the past have defined perceived cost as the sum of a consumer’s doubts about the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and operating an intelligent system []. Therefore, the following hypothesis is introduced:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Perceived cost is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

Perceived ease of use is the degree to which the user believes that the new technology is manageable and easy to use []. This variable can be defined as the perceived effort of consumers when using smart technology in their home environment. This variable can also be influenced by another factor such as social influence (SI). Social influence is the extent to which the consumer is influenced by his/her social environment in adopting a new technology []. In short, society will stimulate the consumer who is not aware of smart technology through friends, experts, social media, newspapers, and television. Therefore, the following hypotheses are introduced.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Perceived ease of use is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Social influence is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

One last factor that affects intention of consumers to adopt smart technology is compatibility. Consumers want to know if the smart device that they are going to buy can efficiently interact and communicate with other devices in the same environment. Thus, the compatibility directly affects the variables mentioned above, the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use. According to a recent study [], compatibility was very important for people with a high level of education and especially for females. In addition, a user’s perceptions regarding the compatibility, connectivity, and reliability of the smart home technology as well as the installation’s complexity may lead the user to avoid the adoption of smart home technology []. Therefore, the hypothesis is developed as follows:

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Perceived compatibility is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

The last category of factors that influence the consumer’s intention to use smart home technology is the variables that have to do with human personality. Such variables are trust and perceived enjoyment. Consumer trust (the degree to which the consumer trusts a new technology and its operation) plays an important role in trying to overcome any doubts and uncertainties about the adoption of smart technology. Thus, in the general context of smart technology, trust in smart homes is positively related to consumer behavior in terms of their intended use. Therefore, the following hypothesis is introduced:

Hypothesis 6 (H6).

Trust is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

Perceived enjoyment in the context of smart home technology has to do with the belief that the use of smart technology is enjoyable in itself, regardless of any performance implications that may arise. In the present work, perceived enjoyment is defined as the extent to which the use of smart home technology is fun and enjoyable []. Perceived enjoyment has been considered as a factor influencing the adoption of smart home technology []. In the same context, perceived enjoyment is related to perceived ease of use, due to the fact that an easy-to-use and operating technology will only bring a positive feeling to the user and boost his/her self-confidence. Therefore, the hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 7 (H7).

Perceived enjoyment is positively related to intention to use smart homes.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the degree of intention to use smart home technology services by Greek consumers, to record the benefits and disadvantages of using smart home technology services and to investigate which of these factors affect the acceptance of smart home technology in Greece. In the present research, the technology acceptance model was used as a basic model for interpreting consumer behavior, and for this reason the factors that were evaluated and considered to influence the intention to use smart home technology are perceived usefulness, perceived convenience, perceived cost, perceived compatibility, social influence, and perceived enjoyment. These variables have been investigated by a number of studies which have shown that consumer behavior can be influenced by each one of them [,,,,,,,,].

shows the research model to be investigated in the next sections. It presents the relationships among all variables that may affect the participants’ intention to use smart homes.

3. Methodology

4. Findings

The social and demographic profile of the consumers is an important variable in the adoption of smart home technology. Highly educated consumers adopt innovation more easily than the less educated []. Additionally, less educated people can even resist new technologies and so low education could become an obstacle to technology adoption []. Regarding age, younger people adopt new technologies easily and older people avoid technological changes in their daily lives []. The participants (n = 108) were mostly females (54.6%) (males, 45.4%) (). Additionally, 38.9% (n = 42) of the participants were up to 26 years of age and 38.9% (n = 42) were aged 26 to 35 years. Regarding their educational level, 62% (n = 67) of the participants were graduates of higher education and 25.9% (n = 28) held a master’s degree ().

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their perceived usefulness of smart home technology. They recognize to a very large extent that the use of smart home services and appliances facilitates the control of the operation of the house (M = 4.3). Similarly, to a large extent, they value services in areas such as home security that will be based on new technologies (e.g., security cameras) instead of traditional security methods such as the standard alarm (M = 3.9). Finally, regarding which services and devices of smart technology they use most often, it emerged that the most popular services/devices are payment services (e-banking) (M = 4.4), smart entertainment devices (smart TV, headphones, speakers) (M = 4.4), and network devices (routers, smartphones, printers) (M = 4.3). To a lesser extent, they use energy information and electricity management services (M = 2.4), interaction control services and operation of home appliances (M = 2.4), business information services (M = 2.5), smart smoke detectors (M = 2.0), telemedicine services (M = 2.5), smart thermostats (M = 2.2), and household robots and robotic cleaning devices (M = 2.0). On average, they expressed a moderate level of perceived usefulness (M = 3.0).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their perceived ease of use of smart home technology. They recognize to a great extent that it is easier for people with mobility difficulties or the elderly to use services such as telemedicine than to visit a doctor or hospital that requires transportation (M = 4.3). Similarly, to a large extent, the participants feel able to use the smart devices of their home without learning or having technological specialization (M = 3.9). However, there are moderate difficulties for elderly people in the family environment to operate smart home appliances (M = 2.9). On average, they expressed a moderate to high level of perceived ease of use of smart home technology (M = 3.7).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their perceived compatibility of smart home technology. To a great extent, they feel comfortable with electronic payment services such as e-banking (M = 4.3). Additionally, to a moderate extent, they feel that the use of smart services and devices is compatible with their daily activities (M = 3.2). Finally, their responses showed that, to a moderate extent, voice command services such as Google Nest or Apple Siri are ideal to interact with their home devices (M = 3.2). On average, they expressed a moderate to high level of perceived compatibility of smart home technology (M = 3.7).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their perceived cost of smart home technology. They largely recognize that the use of smart home technology helps them save money through its applications (M = 3.9). In addition, to a moderate extent, participants feel that they can meet their needs by paying lower prices than those of smart home services (M = 3.6). Finally, they believe that the cost of installation, repair, and maintenance of smart home technology is high (M = 3.4). On average, they expressed a moderate to high level of perceived cost of smart home technology (in comparison to the cost of the old or another technology) (M = 3.6).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their social influence regarding smart technology. They will be moderately affected if their social environment buys a state-of-the-art device (M = 2.9). In addition, they moderately acknowledged that the application for the new messaging service of 13033, the use of which was recommended by the state during the lockdown period, leads them to use their mobiles more (M = 2.8). Finally, they admit to a small extent that they want to be the first to buy a new product, due to the fact that they will stand out from the rest who use older technology devices (M = 1.8). On average, they expressed a moderate to low degree of influence from their social environment (M = 2.5).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their trust in new technologies. They moderately avoid using services such as telemedicine because they believe that they may not receive services similar to those from a physically present doctor (M = 3.2). In addition, they moderately acknowledged that it is safe to provide personal information to providers of smart devices such as Google Nest or Apple Cloud (M = 3.2). Finally, they are to a small extent afraid to use electronic payment services such as e-banking, for fear of others intercepting their data (M = 2.1). On average, they expressed a moderate degree of trust in new technologies (M = 2.8).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their perceived enjoyment from using smart home technology. They largely believe that the use of smart home services and entertainment devices is fun when they have to spend many hours at home (M = 4.3). In addition, they largely acknowledged that the use of devices makes them feel comfortable during the lockdown period because they can get in touch with others via the internet using a smartphone or tablet (M = 4.6). Finally, to a great extent, they recognize that they can watch the same movie or listen to the same music on different devices through their connection to the home network (M = 4.4). On average, they expressed a high level of perceived enjoyment from the use of smart home technology (M = 4.4).

presents the participants’ responses to the items that describe their intention to use smart home technology. The most popular technologies include e-payment services (M = 4.5), smart entertainment devices (e.g., smart TV, headphones, speakers, etc.) (M = 4.5), and network devices (e.g., routers, smartphones, printers, etc.) (M = 4.4). On average, they expressed a moderate to high degree of intention to use smart home technology (M = 3.7).

presents the importance of various benefits of using smart home technology according to the participants. They consider as the most important benefits the monitoring and management of patients and the elderly (Μ = 4.5) (in agreement with Lee et al., 2014), as well as the storage of health records and electronic prescriptions (Μ = 4.5). Improving home security systems (Μ = 4.4), saving money (Μ = 4.4) (in agreement with []), simultaneous use of different entertainment systems (Μ = 4.3), control and management of energy use (Μ = 4.2), temperature control (M = 4.1), and automatic control of white devices (M = 4.0) follow.

presents the importance of various barriers to the use of smart home technology according to the participants. They consider as the most important barriers the lack of awareness and resistance to change (M = 4.0) (in agreement with []), possible breach of security data (M = 3.9) (in agreement with [,]), installation, maintenance, and repair costs (M = 3.9) (in agreement with []), as well as the complexity of installing and managing smart technology (M = 3.8) and the devices’ interconnectivity (M = 3.8) (in agreement with []).

The results of the t-test according to the participants’ gender () showed a significant difference with gender in terms of the level of perceived usefulness (t = 2.033, p = 0.003), the level of perceived ease of use (t = 2.442, p = 0.016), and the intention to use (t = 3.169, p = 0.002). More specifically, the results showed that males express a higher level of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use while having a greater degree of intention to use smart home technology.

The results of the one-way ANOVA test in terms of the participants’ age group () showed that there are no significant differences in terms of age in any of the dimensions studied (p > 0.05 in all cases).

The results of the one-way ANOVA test in terms of the participants’ educational level () showed that there are no significant differences in terms of educational level in any of the dimensions studied (p > 0.05 in all cases).

The results of the one-way ANOVA audit in terms of the participants’ income () showed a significant difference with income in terms of perceived usefulness level (F = 2.749, p = 0.047) and social influence (F = 2.891, p = 0.039). More specifically, the results show that people with higher incomes express a higher level of perceived usefulness while people with incomes up to EUR 5000 per year show a lower degree of social influence.

According to , perceived usefulness (r = 0.778), perceived ease of use (r = 0.443), perceived compatibility (r = 0.462), social influence (r = 0.290, p = 0.002), and perceived enjoyment (r = 0.221, p = 0.023) are positively related to the intention to use smart home technology. Perceived usefulness is positively related to perceived ease of use (r = 0.470), perceived compatibility (r = 0.438), and social influence (r = 0.356). Perceived ease of use is positively related to perceived compatibility (r = 0.598), perceived cost (r = 0.333), social influence (r = 0.247), and perceived enjoyment (r = 0.465). Perceived compatibility is positively related to perceived cost (r = 0.254), social influence (r = 0.254), and perceived enjoyment (r = 0.467). Finally, social influence is positively related to trust (r = 0.378). Previous studies [,,,,] found similar results.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree of acceptance of smart home technology services by Greek consumers, to record the benefits and disadvantages of using smart home technology services, and to investigate what factors affect the acceptance of smart home technologies in Greece. In the present research, the technology acceptance model was used as a basic model for interpreting consumer behavior, and for this reason the factors that were evaluated and considered to influence the intention to use smart home technology are the following: perceived usefulness, perceived convenience, perceived cost, perceived compatibility, social influence, and perceived enjoyment. These variables have been investigated by a number of studies which have shown that consumer behavior can be influenced by each one of them [,,,].

The findings of the present study showed that Greek consumers recognize to a moderate level the usefulness of new technologies with the most popular services and devices being payment services (e-banking), smart entertainment devices (smart TV, headphones, speakers), and networking devices (routers, smartphones, printers). In addition, Greek consumers are moderately aware of the conveniences provided by new technologies. One of the most important facilities provided by new technologies is the ease of using services such as telemedicine for people with mobility difficulties or the elderly. Similarly, Greek consumers appreciate, to a moderate to high level, the compatibility of new technologies and to a high level the perceived enjoyment of using new technologies. On the contrary, Greek consumers recognize the high cost of new technologies. Regarding the possible social influence, Greek consumers seem to be accepting, to a moderate to low degree, of social influence in the use of new technologies. Finally, Greek consumers show a moderate level of trust in the use of new technologies. These results confirm that the use of smart home technology offers some degree of convenience to users [,] and a high degree of compatibility []. The main negative factors of using smart home technology include the low confidence of users in these technologies [] and the high cost [].

The results show that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived compatibility, social influence, and perceived enjoyment are positively related to the intention to use smart home technology. Perceived usefulness is positively related to perceived ease of use, perceived compatibility, and social influence. Perceived ease of use is positively related to perceived compatibility, perceived cost, social influence, and perceived enjoyment. Perceived compatibility is positively related to perceived cost, social influence, and perceived enjoyment. Finally, social influence is positively related to trust.

In addition, males express a higher level of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use while having a greater degree of intention to use smart home technology. Additionally, participants with higher income express a higher level of perceived usefulness while participants with income up to EUR 5000 per year show a lower degree of social influence. However, there are no significant differences in terms of age and in terms of educational level.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

Previous studies investigated the acceptance of smart home technologies in various countries but not in Greece. Furthermore, previous studies did not consider all combinations of factors, benefits, and obstacles investigated by this study. The results of the research showed that Greek consumers recognize to some extent the usefulness of smart home technologies as well as the facilities that they provide such as monitoring and managing patients and the elderly, saving money compared to previous methods, and managing energy consumption. Furthermore, they are attracted by smart home technology due to the financial benefits it offers, something that particularly affects the elderly who have to spend a large part of their money on their health care. On the other hand, Greek consumers seem to have a moderate level of trust in these technologies, showing that they are still not convinced about issues such as providing their data to smart service providers, while there was a moderate degree of fear of data interception. However, recognizing these benefits is not enough to adopt smart home technologies, with the major obstacles observed being a lack of knowledge about these new technologies and installation, maintenance, and repair costs as well as possible security breaches of their personal data. However, the most important factors that seem to contribute to the acceptance of smart home technology and its possible future use are the perceived level of usefulness and compatibility, factors which smart home technology suppliers and providers can use to their advantage, attracting even larger numbers of consumers. As a practical matter, providers of smart homes should provide devices that follow open standards and interoperate with each other even if they belong to different brands. Furthermore, they should advance the devices’ ease of use by anyone, anywhere, and at any time. A user should interact with the devices using multiple modes in an enjoyable way without any effort. Greek consumers are getting acquainted with smart home technology although they do not seem to be convinced about issues such as providing their personal data to smart service providers.

The main limitation of this study is the small sample size and the non-representativeness of the sample. The literature review showed that there are no similar studies conducted in Greece. This study can be treated as a pilot that can provide ideas and lessons for the design of a nationwide survey. The results of the present study are not directly comparable with other studies in other countries due to the different culture and socio-economics of Greek consumers from other country’s consumers. Secondly, at the model level, this study has focused on the user’s characteristics. However, some other factors might be included and tested, such as attributes of smart homes and subjective norms. A key recommendation for future research is to extend the study to consumers in other countries with different cultures and socio-economics, in order to identify differences between the consumers. A final recommendation for future research is to use a proportional stratified sample so that each subgroup of the sample is adequately represented throughout the research population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.E.; methodology, P.P.; software, P.P.; validation, P.P.; formal analysis, P.P.; investigation, A.A.E. and P.P.; resources, P.P.; data curation, P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P.; writing—review and editing, A.A.E. and P.P.; supervision, A.A.E.; project administration, A.A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Wu, C.-L.; Liao, C.-F.; Fu, L.-C. Service-Oriented Smart-Home Architecture Based on OSGi and Mobile-Agent Technology. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 2007, 37, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Aldrich, F.K. Smart Homes: Past, Present and Future. In Inside the Smart Home; Harper, R., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2003; pp. 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Li, M.; Gu, W.; Chen, W.; He, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Smart Home: Architecture, Technologies and Systems. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 131, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Kaneko, M.; Arima, K.; Murakami, T.; Isshiki, M.; Sugimura, H. Design and implementation of interactive control system for smart houses. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–10 January 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Gerontechnology. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontechnology (accessed on 18 September 2021).
6. Moscaritolo, A. The Best Smart Home Devices for 2022. Available online: https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-best-smart-home-devices (accessed on 18 December 2021).
7. Reynolds, E. The Household Robots Who Will Do Your Chores. Available online: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/household-robots (accessed on 18 September 2021).
8. Lee, C.; Zappaterra, L.; Choi, K.; Choi, H.-A. Securing smart home: Technologies, security challenges, and security requirements. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security, San Francisco, CA, USA, 29–31 October 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. The National Council for Home Safety and Security. Burglary Statistics: The Hard Numbers. Available online: https://www.alarms.org/burglary-statistics/ (accessed on 18 September 2021).
10. Πραγματικότητα και στην Ελλάδα τα «έξυπνα» σπίτια. Available online: http://tkm.tee.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/10.10.05.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2021).
11. Ενα σπίτι με υψηλό IQ. Available online: https://www.kathimerini.gr/economy/local/183370/ena-spiti-me-ypsilo-iq/ (accessed on 18 September 2021).
12. Balta-Ozkan, N.; Amerighi, O.; Boteler, B. A comparison of consumer perceptions towards smart homes in the UK, Germany and Italy: Reflections for policy and future research. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 1176–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Baudier, P.; Ammi, C.; Deboeuf-Rouchon, M. Smart home: Highly-educated students’ acceptance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 153, 119355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Statista. Smart Home. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/smart-home/worldwide (accessed on 18 September 2021).
15. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
16. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
17. Legris, P.; Ingham, J.; Collerette, P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Blut, M.; Wang, C.; Schoefer, K. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Self-Service Technologies. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 19, 396–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Neumann, N. The acceptance of smart home technology. In Proceedings of the 11th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands, 10 July 2018; pp. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
20. Park, E.; Cho, Y.; Han, J.; Kwon, S.J. Comprehensive Approaches to User Acceptance of Internet of Things in a Smart Home Environment. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 2342–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Balta-Ozkan, N.; Davidson, R.; Bicket, M.; Whitmarsh, L. Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
23. Shin, J.; Park, Y.; Lee, D. Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 134, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Park, E.; Kim, S.; Kim, Y.; Kwon, S.J. Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: Determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2017, 17, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, W.; Liu, L. How consumers’ adopting intentions towards eco-friendly smart home services are shaped? An extended technology acceptance model. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2021, 2021, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Gao, L.; Bai, X. A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2014, 26, 211–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Han, M.J.N.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, I.H. Exploring the user performance of Korean women in smart homes with a focus on user adoption. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 39, 102303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Παπαγεωργίου, Γ. Ποσοτική έρευνα. Available online: http://sociology.soc.uoc.gr/pegasoc/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Microsoft-Word-Papageorgiou_DEIGMATOLHPTIKH1.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2021).
29. Terzis, V.; Moridis, C.N.; Economides, A.A. The effect of emotional feedback on behavioral intention to use computer based assessment. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 710–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Nikou, S.A.; Economides, A.A. Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Comput. Educ. 2017, 109, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Nikou, S.A.; Economides, A.A. Factors that influence behavioral intention to use mobile-based assessment: A STEM teachers’ perspective. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 587–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Ehrenhard, M.; Kijl, B.; Nieuwenhuis, L. Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Alsulami, M.H.; Atkins, A.S. Factors Influencing Ageing Population for Adopting Ambient Assisted Living Technologies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ageing Int. 2016, 41, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Reeder, B.; Meyer, E.; Lazar, A.; Chaudhuri, S.; Thompson, H.J.; Demiris, G. Framing the evidence for health smart homes and home-based consumer health technologies as a public health intervention for independent aging: A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2013, 82, 565–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
35. Damodaran, L.; Olphert, W. User Responses to Assisted Living Technologies (ALTs)—A Review of the Literature. J. Integr. Care 2010, 18, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Graphic model of variables’ correlations.

Figure 1. Graphic model of variables’ correlations.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.