A Synopsis of “The Impact of Motivation, Price, and Habit on Intention to Use IoT-Enabled Technology: A Correlational Study”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting article by Christina Phibbs and colleagues. The paper aims to investigate the extent to which performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value, and habit affect the intention to use emerging IoT technologies in their homes for people aged 60+ from northern Virginia. IoT technologies have to be designed to compensate for the declining physical capabilities and health conditions of older adults and be used for improving older adults' healthcare, comfort, independence, and quality of life.

The topic is interesting and relevant and the article is interesting and well-written. The language used is concise and I like how the authors clearly explain every aspect of the research. The methodological approach and findings are clearly described, and the structure of the paper has a clear and logical flow. The recommendations for further research are also addressed.

I also have some suggestions/concerns:

·        1.Even if the originality/novelty of the approach is detailed in the Discussion and Conclusions chapters, I consider that a short underline of this aspect would be useful to be included in the Introduction in 1.3 Purpose of the study;

·         2. The content of the chapters of the paper should be specified at the end of the Introduction;

·        3.  I think that Figure 2 (lines 694-695) and Figure 3 (lines 703-704) are, in fact, 2 equations and should be considered and numbered accordingly.

I hope my feedback is useful to the authors in improving their paper and wish them all the best in pursuing this important area of research.

Author Response

Point 1: Even if the originality/novelty of the approach is detailed in the Discussion and Conclusions chapters, I consider that a short underline of this aspect would be useful to be included in the Introduction in 1.3 Purpose of the study;

Response 1: I have added content on the originality of the study's approach to Section 1.3.

 

Point 2: The content of the chapters of the paper should be specified at the end of the Introduction;

Response 2: I added a section to the end of the Introduction detailing this. See 1.11 Organization of the Remainder of this Article.

 

Point 3: I think that Figure 2 (lines 694-695) and Figure 3 (lines 703-704) are, in fact, 2 equations and should be considered and numbered accordingly.

Response 3: Figures 2 and 3 are indeed separate equations and each has a unique Figure number and title.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study discusses older adults' acceptance of IoT based on the UTAUT model. The topic is interesting and timely, but two major issues should be solved for journal publication.

First, the overall flow and structure of this study need to be adjusted. For example, the titles of Chapters 2 and 3 are not appropriate, and it is very unnatural for the research methodology part to appear in the latter part of the manuscript. It is common that a discussion part of the results appears after the research methodology and analysis.

Second, what are the main differences between the elderly and the general sample in IoT acceptance? If the study wants to emphasize that the acceptance of the elderly is different compared to others, the statistical differences should be presented and discussed through comparison with the previous studies. Thus, the discussion on the analysis results of the study also needs to be extended.

Next, it is better that research questions and hypotheses are presented separately in different sections. It is appropriate to present the research questions in the introduction, and for hypothesis building, the theoretical evidence or logical discussion must be presented based on existing theories.

Lastly, although the topic is interesting, it is not clear what the differences or strengths of this study are. Simply applying the UTAUT model to the elderly does not have much academic contribution. The authors should specifically explain what the academic contribution of this study is.

As a minor issue, the abstract of the manuscript also needs to be refined.  The current version of the abstract is rather distracting and lacks the meaningful content of the study.

Author Response

Point 1: First, the overall flow and structure of this study need to be adjusted. For example, the titles of Chapters 2 and 3 are not appropriate, and it is very unnatural for the research methodology part to appear in the latter part of the manuscript. It is common that a discussion part of the results appears after the research methodology and analysis.

Response 1: Thank you for this feedback. I struggled trying to adapt my article and the flow to what was in the template. I have significantly updated the flow and structure of the article as follows:

1.5 Research Questions

1.6 Definition of Terms

1.7 Research Design

1.8 Assumptions and Limitations

 

Point 2: Second, what are the main differences between the elderly and the general sample in IoT acceptance? If the study wants to emphasize that the acceptance of the elderly is different compared to others, the statistical differences should be presented and discussed through comparison with the previous studies. Thus, the discussion on the analysis results of the study also needs to be extended.

Response 2: Section 1.8 Assumptions and Limitations discusses why statistical differences were not addressed in this study. As the main research questions were looking for statistically significant predictors of an outcome variable, multiple regression was the appropriate statistical approach. The research design and questions were not looking for differences or comparisons. Additional content has been added to the paper to properly explain the rationale. I also extended the content on the literature review section to better explain the basis for the research design. See Section 2.4.

Also, the sections for analysis and the results have been extended. See sections 3 and 4.

 

Point 3: Next, it is better that research questions and hypotheses are presented separately in different sections. It is appropriate to present the research questions in the introduction, and for hypothesis building, the theoretical evidence or logical discussion must be presented based on existing theories.

Response 3: Research questions are in Section 1.5. Hypotheses are in Section 3.2. Logical discussion on the theories for technology acceptance are more thoroughly covered in the Literature Review and in the discussion of the Research Design. In trying to reduce the length of my article, I inadvertently removed so much of the information laid the foundation for the significance and rationale behind the design of the study.

 

Point 4: Lastly, although the topic is interesting, it is not clear what the differences or strengths of this study are. Simply applying the UTAUT model to the elderly does not have much academic contribution. The authors should specifically explain what the academic contribution of this study is.

Response 4: New content in Section 5. Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations provides the information requested in this point.

 

Point 5: As a minor issue, the abstract of the manuscript also needs to be refined.  The current version of the abstract is rather distracting and lacks the meaningful content of the study.

Response 5: The abstract has been updated/refined.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have well modified the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.