The Moderating Role of Personal Innovativeness and Users Experience in Accepting the Smart Meter Technology
Source abstract
Abstract
The rapid development of smart technologies and data analytics empowers most industries to evolve their systems and introduce innovative applications. Consequently, smart metering technology, an internet of things-based application service, is diffusing rapidly in the energy sector. Regardless of its associated benefits, smart meters continue to struggle from consumers’ acceptance. To promote smart meters’ successful deployment, research is needed to better understand consumers’ acceptance of smart metering. Motivated by these concerns, a smart meter acceptance model is developed to evaluate the moderation role of experience and personal innovativeness factors among residential consumers. A cross-sectional research design was used in this study. Data were collected using a self-administrated questionnaire from 318 smart meters consumers who have had experience in using it. Hypothetical relationships were assessed and validated using partial least squares structural equation modelling. The empirical findings exert the moderating role of experience and personal innovativeness of smart meter acceptance that achieved an acceptable fit with the data, and specifically, five out of nine hypotheses were supported.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Smart Grid Energy Management · Technology Adoption and User Behaviour · Consumer Retail Behavior Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Sustainable Energy (ISE), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Selangor 43000, Malaysia
College of Graduate Studies, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Selangor 43000, Malaysia
Funding
Universiti Tenaga Nasional
References (87)
Show source-provided references
1. A new IoT-based smart energy meter for smart grids10.1002/er.5177 ↗
2. Internet-of-things-based smart environments: State of the art, taxonomy, and open research challenges10.1109/MWC.2016.7721736 ↗
3. An Integrated IoT architecture for smart metering10.1109/MCOM.2016.1600647CM ↗
4. A smart IoT based system for monitoring and controlling the sub-station equipment10.1016/j.iot.2019.100085 ↗
5. Rokan, A.B., and Kotb, Y. (2020). Towards a real IoT-based smart meter system. First International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Computational Intelligence, Springer.10.1007/978-981-15-0029-9_11 ↗
6. An IOT based smart metering development for energy management system
7. Noisy Winter: The DDT controversy in the years before silent spring10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00670.x ↗
8. A road map to integration: Perspectives on smart grid development10.1109/MPE.2014.2301515 ↗
9. Preparing for smart grid technologies: A behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.047 ↗
10. Preeti, S. (2020, August 14). Why IoT Opportunities Are High, Adoption Rates Low. Available online: Cxotoday.com.
11. Castro, D., New, J., and McQuinn, A. (2016). How Is the Federal Government Using the Internet of Things, Center for Data Innovation.
12. Hoover, M. (Washington Technology, 2016). Study: IoT Adoption Still Slow for Government Agencies, Washington Technology.
13. Toward understanding individuals’acceptance of internet of things-based services: Developing an instrument to measure the acceptance of smart meters
14. A systematic review of individuals’ acceptance of IOT-based technologies
15. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.006 ↗
16. A hybrid SEM-neural network method for identifying acceptance factors of the smart meters in Malaysia: Challenges perspective10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.002 ↗
17. An empirical study of the acceptance of IoT-based smart meter in Malaysia: The effect of electricity-saving knowledge and environmental awareness10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2977060 ↗
18. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology10.2307/41410412 ↗
19. The effects of information quality of mobile information services on user satisfaction and service acceptance–empirical evidence from Finland10.1080/01449290601177003 ↗
20. The effects of privacy concerns and personal innovativeness on potential and experienced customers’ adoption of location-based services10.1007/s12525-009-0012-4 ↗
21. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view10.2307/30036540 ↗
22. Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model10.5539/ies.v6n7p157 ↗
23. Slade, L.E., Williams, M.D., and Dwivedi, Y. (2013, January 15–18). Extending UTAUT2 to explore consumer adoption of mobile payments. Proceedings of the 23rd UK Academy for Information Systems Conference (UKAIS), Milan, Italy.
24. Elderly and internet banking: An application of UTAUT2
25. Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002 ↗
26. Examining factors influencing Jordanian customers’ intentions and adoption of internet banking: Extending UTAUT2 with risk10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.026 ↗
27. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2)10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8 ↗
28. Explaining the adoption of social networks sites for sharing user-generated content: A revision of the UTAUT210.1016/j.chb.2017.02.007 ↗
29. Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030 ↗
30. What determines tourist adoption of smartphone apps?
31. Mobile shopping apps adoption and perceived risks: A cross-country perspective utilizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.017 ↗
32. and Tohir, L.M. (2016, January 25–27). Predicting smart metering acceptance by residential consumers: An Indonesian perspective. Proceedings of the 2016 4th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), Bandung, Indonesia.
33. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future
34. The evolution of technology acceptance theories
35. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013 ↗
36. The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift
37. The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001 ↗
38. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y ↗
39. Predicting m-commerce adoption determinants: A neural network approach10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.068 ↗
40. Carter, L., and Schaupp, L.C. (2008, January 14–17). Efficacy and acceptance in e-file adoption. Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2008), Toronto, ON, Canada.
41. Kranz, L., Gallenkamp, J., and Picot, A.O. (2010, January 12–15). Exploring the role of control–smart meter acceptance of residential consumers. Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2010), Lima, Peru.
42. Hurst, W., Tekinerdogan, B., and Kotze, B. (2020). Perceptions on smart gas meters in smart cities for reducing the carbon footprint. Smart Cities, 3.10.3390/smartcities3040058 ↗
43. Wunderlich, P., Veit, D., and Sarker, S. (2012, January 16–19). Examination of the determinants of smart meter adoption: An user perspective. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), Orlando, FL, USA.
44. Governing the transition of socio-technical systems: A case study of the development of smart grids in Korea10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.005 ↗
45. Factors affecting adoption of smart meters in the post-Fukushima era in Taiwan: An extended protection motivation theory perspective10.1080/0144929X.2017.1317363 ↗
46. Kranz, L., Gallenkamp, J., and Picot, A. (2010, January 7–9). Power control to the people? Private consumers’ acceptance of smart meters. Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010), Pretoria, South Africa.
47. Karlin, B. (2012, January 12–17). Public acceptance of smart meters: Integrating psychology and practice. Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.
48. Fredericks, D., Fan, Z., Woolley, S., De Quincey, E., and Streeton, M. (2020). A decade on, how has the visibility of energy changed? Energy feedback perceptions from UK focus groups. Energies, 13.10.3390/en13102566 ↗
49. Vassileva, I., and Campillo, J. (2016). Consumers’ perspective on full-scale adoption of smart meters: A case study in Vasteras, Sweden. Resources, 5.10.3390/resources5010003 ↗
50. Between the technology acceptance model and sustainable energy technology acceptance model: Investigating smart meter acceptance in the United States10.1016/j.erss.2016.12.011 ↗
51. Understanding and beliefs about smart energy technology10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.018 ↗
52. Smart meter deployment in Europe: A comparative case study on the impacts of national policy schemes10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.031 ↗
53. Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to con-sumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.048 ↗
54. User acceptance of smart home services: An extension of the theory of planned behavior10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0017 ↗
55. Determinants of willingness to pay for smart meters: An empirical analysis of household customers in Germany10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.012 ↗
56. A synthetic view of acceptance and engagement with smart meters in the United States10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.025 ↗
57. Shuhaiber, A. (2018). The role of perceived control, enjoyment, cost, sustainability and trust on intention to use smart meters: An empirical study using SEM-PLS. World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-77712-2_74 ↗
58. The British public’s perception of the UK smart metering initiative: Threats and opportunities10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.003 ↗
59. A study of factors enhancing smart grid consumer engagement10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.017 ↗
60. When is trust not enough? The role of perceived privacy of communication tools in comfort with self-disclosure10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.016 ↗
61. Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis10.1207/s15327663jcp0703_02 ↗
62. How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance10.2307/25148817 ↗
63. Explaining cognitive lock-in: The role of skill-based habits of use in consumer choice10.1086/513048 ↗
64. Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024 ↗
65. A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems10.2307/25148694 ↗
66. Consumer response to the Internet: An exploratory tracking study of on-line home users10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00206-X ↗
67. The moderating effect of experience in the adoption of mobile payment tools in virtual social networks: The m-payment acceptance model in virtual social networks (MPAM-VSN)10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.12.006 ↗
68. How individual differences influence technology usage behavior? Toward an integrated framework
69. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology10.1287/isre.9.2.204 ↗
70. An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors10.1177/0092070302303001 ↗
71. RFID, privacy and the perception of risk: A strategic framework10.1016/j.jsis.2007.05.006 ↗
72. The Likert scale analysis using parametric based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
73. The measurement imperative
74. Byrne, B.M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Routledge.10.4324/9781410600219 ↗
75. Kline, R.B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Publications. [4th ed.].
76. Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.001 ↗
77. Saunders, N.M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2015). Research Methods for Business Students EBook, Pearson Australia Pty Limited.
78. Cornford, T., and Smithson, S. (2005). Project Research in Information Systems: A Student’s Guide, Macmillan International Higher Education.
79. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 ↗
80. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling
81. A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires10.1177/002224378302000105 ↗
82. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7 ↗
83. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error10.1177/002224378101800104 ↗
84. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Academic Press.10.4324/9780203771587 ↗
85. Modeling intermediary satisfaction with mandatory adoption of e-government technologies for food distribution
86. Wamatu, A.K. (2013). Moderating Factors in Adoption of Mobile Financial Services in Kenya. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi].
87. Rogers, E.M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations, Simon and Schuster.