Outcomes of training in smart home technology adoption: a living laboratory study

David Wright Missouri University of Science and Technology ; Daniel B. Shank Missouri University of Science and Technology ; Thomas Yarbrough Missouri University of Science and Technology

Abstract

While various forms of smart home technology have been available for decades, they have yet to achieve widespread adoption. Although they have risen in popularity during recent years, the general public continue to rate smart home devices as overly complex compared to their benefits. This article reports the results of an eight-month study into the effects of training on smart home technology adoption. Building upon the results of a previous study, and using the same living laboratory approach, we studied the effects of training on the attitudes of a group of residents toward use of smart home technology. Results show that training influences those attitudes toward smart home technology, including increased confidence in future use, and increased actual use of more complex smart home features. Results also indicate that users tended to seek out other users rather than training materials for advice, and that privacy concerns were not a deterrent to using smart home devices.

Journal
Communication Design Quarterly
Published
2021-09-01
DOI
10.1145/3468859.3468861
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Gold
Topics
Export

Citation context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Communication Design Quarterly
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly

References (71) · 1 in this index

  1. W. Braud & R
  2. Retrieved
  3. 10.1111/ijcs.12217
     ↗
  4. 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043
     ↗
  5. 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.043
     ↗
Show all 71 →
  1. 10.4018/978-1-61692-852-0.ch606
     ↗
  2. 10.1145/1978942.1979249
     ↗
  3. 10.1145/2750858.2807554
     ↗
  4. 10.1109/mc.2012.328
     ↗
  5. Is smart home a necessity or a fantasy for the mainstream user? A study on users' expecta…
    International Journal of Design
  6. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
  7. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
  8. 10.1080/095373203000136006
     ↗
  9. Retrieved
  10. 10.2991/ict4s-env-15.2015.14
     ↗
  11. 10.1109/percomw.2017.7917634
     ↗
  12. Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not
    Ecological and Environmental Anthropology
  13. Technology acceptance model as a predictor of using information systems to acquire inform…
  14. 10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
     ↗
  15. 10.1111/1475-6773.12117
     ↗
  16. 5 Reasons why our homes are still dumb and one big thing to do about it. Forbes. Retrieved
  17. 10.24006/jilt.2020.18.1.049
     ↗
  18. 10.23919/mipro.2017.7973622
     ↗
  19. 10.1080/095373203000136060
     ↗
  20. F. Piazolo & S
  21. The two faces of the smart city
  22. Business Insider. Retrived
  23. 10.1007/978-3-319-68018-7
     ↗
  24. 10.1080/09613218.2017.1286882
     ↗
  25. 10.1080/08874417.2016.1230725
     ↗
  26. 10.1108/imds-01-2015-0028
     ↗
  27. 10.1108/ejm-12-2016-0794
     ↗
  28. 10.1145/3287049
     ↗
  29. 10.3102/0013189x033007014
     ↗
  30. 10.24059/olj.v16i2.240
     ↗
  31. 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
     ↗
  32. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.07.025
     ↗
  33. Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in educational research, 16…
  34. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
     ↗
  35. 10.1007/978-3-030-29374-1_25
     ↗
  36. 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015
     ↗
  37. 10.1177/0149206306292388
     ↗
  38. 10.19030/rbis.v12i2.4384
     ↗
  39. 10.1007/978-3-642-31205-2_10
     ↗
  40. 10.1145/2971648.2971757
     ↗
  41. 10.19030/rbis.v23i1.10335
     ↗
  42. 10.1016/j.iot.2018.08.009
     ↗
  43. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.013
     ↗
  44. 10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.002
     ↗
  45. 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101283
     ↗
  46. 10.1109/jiot.2017.2750765
     ↗
  47. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.005
     ↗
  48. 10.2139/ssrn.1434247
     ↗
  49. 10.1108/00012530910973776
     ↗
  50. 10.1080/10447318.2020.1857135
     ↗
  51. Shank D. B. Wright D. Nasrin S. & White M. (under review). Unadoption practices: Restriction rejection and ot…
  52. 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029
     ↗
  53. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.003
     ↗
  54. 10.5902/1983465932624
     ↗
  55. 10.1080/17483107.2018.1425748
     ↗
  56. Takahashi D. (2017 January 31). PwC: 81% of consumers are aware of smart homes but only 26% want one. Venture…
  57. 10.1145/3214287
     ↗
  58. 10.1007/s00779-014-0813-0
     ↗
  59. 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.047
     ↗
  60. 10.1002/9781118886373.ch1
     ↗
  61. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  62. 10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0017
     ↗
  63. 10.5555/3235924.3235931
     ↗
  64. Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integ…
    Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education
  65. 10.1109/mcom.2017.1600267cm
     ↗
  66. 10.1145/3274469
     ↗