Evaluating Consumer Behavior, Decision Making, Risks, and Challenges for Buying an IoT Product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home appliance manufacturers have been adding Wi-Fi modules and sensors to devices to make them ‘smart’ since the early 2010s. However, consumers are still largely unaware of what kind of sensors are used in these devices. In fact, they usually do not even realize that smart devices require an interaction of hardware and software since the smart device software is not immediately apparent. In this paper, we explore how providing additional information on these misunderstood smart device features (such as lists of sensors, software updates, and warranties) can influence consumers’ purchase decisions. We analyze how additional information on software update warranty (SUW) and the type of sensors in smart devices (which draw attention to potential financial and privacy risks) mediates consumer purchase behavior. We also examine how other moderators, such as brand trust and product price, affect consumers’ purchase decisions when considering which smart product option to buy. In the first qualitative user study, we conducted interviews with 20 study participants, and the results show that providing additional information about software updates and lists of sensors had a significant impact on consumer purchase preference. In our second quantitative study, we surveyed 323 participants to determine consumers’ willingness to pay for a SUW. From this, we saw that users were more willing to pay for Lifetime SUW on a smart TV than to pay for a 5-year SUW. These results provide important information to smart device manufacturers and designers on elements that improve trust in their brand, thus increasing the likelihood that consumers will purchase their smart devices. Furthermore, addressing the general consumer smart device knowledge gap by providing this relevant information could lead to a significant increase in consumer adoption of smart products overall, which would benefit the industry as a whole.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".