International journal of advanced smart convergence

The Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication (한국인터넷방송통신학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Smart Home Systems for Safety and Security and Individuals' Motivational Orientation to Prevention

  • Cho, Heayon (Dep. of Interior Design, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kim, Moon-Yong (College of Business, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)
  • Received : 2022.04.19
  • Accepted : 2022.04.24
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Smart home systems for safety and security are in high demand and always needed for many reasons including people's desire to feel safe in their own houses and to avoid a high rate of crime. In the current research, we investigate the role of individuals' motivational orientation to prevention in their responses to smart home systems for safety and security. That is, this research examines whether individuals' attitudes toward smart home systems for safety and security vary depending on their level of prevention orientation. Specifically, it is hypothesized that individuals with strong (vs. weak) prevention orientation will have more positive attitudes toward smart home systems for safety and security. In support of the hypothesis, the results indicate that respondents in the strong (vs. weak) prevention orientation reported significantly more positive attitudes toward smart home systems for safety and security. Our findings imply that individuals' motivational orientation to prevention may be an effective marketing and segmentation tool in facilitating their favorable responses to the smart home systems for safety and security.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2021.

References

  1. D. Singh, I. Psychoula, J. Kropf, S. Hanke, and A. Holzinger, "Users' Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Smart Home Technologies," in: M. Mokhtari, B. Abdulrazak, and H. Aloulou (eds) Smart Homes and Health Telematics, Designing a Better Future: Urban Assisted Living, ICOST 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10898, Springer, Cham, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94523-1_18.
  2. N. Balta-Ozkan, R. Davidson, M. Bicket, and L. Whitmarsh, "Social Barriers to the Adoption of Smart Homes," Energy Policy, Vol. 63, pp. 363-374, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043.
  3. A. Adriansyah and A. W. Dani, "Design of Small Smart Home System Based on Arduino," in Proc. Electrical Power, Electronics, Communications, Controls and Informatics Seminar (EECCIS), pp. 121-125, August 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EECCIS.2014.7003731.
  4. J. W. Lartigue, C. McKinney, R. Phelps, R. Rhodes, A. D. Rice, and A. Ryder, "A Tablet-Controlled, MeshNetwork Security System: An Architecture for a Secure, Mesh Network of Security and Automation Systems Using Arduino and Zigbee Controllers and an Android Tablet Application," in Proc. ACM Southeast Regional Conference, Vol. 33, pp. 1-4, March 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2638404.2638500.
  5. A. Hong, C. Nam, and S. Kim, "What Will Be the Possible Barriers to Consumers' Adoption of Smart Home Services?" Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 1-15, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101867.
  6. P. S. de Boer, A. J. van Deursen, and T. J. van Rompay, "Accepting the Internet-of-Things in Our Homes: The Role of User Skills," Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 147-156, March 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.004.
  7. M. -Y. Kim and H. Cho, "The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Consumer Responses to Smart Home Services for Energy Management," The International Journal of Advanced Smart Convergence (IJASC), Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 221-226, September 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7236/IJASC.2020.9.3.221.
  8. M. -Y. Kim and H. Cho, "Consumers' Responses to Smart Home Services: The Role of Self-Regulation Systems," The International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology (IJACT), Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 28-39, March 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17703/IJACT.2021.9.1.28.
  9. E. T. Higgins, "Beyond Pleasure and Pain," The American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 12, pp. 1280-1300, December 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.
  10. G. V. Noort, P. Kerkhof, and B. M. Fennis, "The Persuasiveness of Online Safety Cues: The Impact of Prevention Focus Compatibility of Web Content on Consumers' Risk Perceptions, Attitudes, and Intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 58-72, Autumn 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20121.
  11. L. Werth and J. Foerster, "How Regulatory Focus Influences Consumer Behavior," European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 33-51, January/February 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.343.
  12. E. T. Higgins, C. J. R. Roney, E. Crowe, and C. Hymes, "Ideal versus Ought Predilections for Approach and Avoidance Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 276-286, February 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276.
  13. E. T. Higgins, "Making a Good Decisions: Value from Fit," The American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 11, pp. 1217-1230, November 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217.
  14. J. A. Aaker and A. Y. Lee, "'I' Seek Pleasure and 'We' Avoid Pain: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 33-49, June 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/321946.
  15. A. Chernev, "Goal-Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1-2, pp. 141-150, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_16.
  16. J. Shah and E. T. Higgins, "Expectancy x Value Effects: Regulatory Focus as Determinant of Magnitude and Direction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 447-458, September 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.447.
  17. P. Lockwood, C. H. Jordan, and Z. Kunda, "Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 854-864, November 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.
  18. L. Bergkvist, "Appropriate Use of Single-Item Measures is Here to Stay," Marketing Letters, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 245-255, September 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9325-y.
  19. L. Bergkvist and J. R. Rossiter, "The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 175-184, May 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175.
  20. J. R. Rossiter, "The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 305-335, December 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6.
  21. U. Bockenholt and D. R. Lehmann, "On the Limits of Research Rigidity: The Number of Itemsin a Scale," Marketing Letters, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 257-260, September 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9373-y.