Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjmm20

Adding ‘things’ to the internet: exploring the

spillover effect of technology acceptance

Yang Lu, Savvas Papagiannidis & Eleftherios Alamanos

To cite this article: Yang Lu, Savvas Papagiannidis & Eleftherios Alamanos (2021) Adding
‘things’ to the internet: exploring the spillover effect of technology acceptance, Journal of
Marketing Management, 37:7-8, 626-650, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2021.1886156

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2021.1886156

Published online: 17 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 792

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT
2021, VOL. 37, NOS. 7–8, 626–650
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2021.1886156

Adding ‘things’ to the internet: exploring the spillover effect

of technology acceptance
Yang Lua, Savvas Papagiannidisb and Eleftherios Alamanos b

a
International Business School Suzhou, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China; bNewcastle
University Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Internet of Things (IoT) describes a promising future in which Received 26 February 2020
anyone and anything can be connected at any time and any place. Accepted 5 October 2020
This study aims to explore how users’ Internet-based predisposi­ KEYWORDS
tions could influence their IoT acceptance and if there is a spillover Spillover effect; internet of
of psychological outcomes such as affect, values and cognitive things; emotions; well-being;
thoughts. The hypothesised research framework is tested using perceived value; technology
structural equation modelling with data collected from 615 acceptance
Internet users. Results show that challenge emotions, well-being,
and the overall value experienced in using the Internet significantly
spill over into users’ behavioural intention of using the IoT. Also, IoT
acceptance significantly leads to increased perceived value and
degree of well-being. This study confirmed the spillover effects
from one technological paradigm to the subsequent one, indicating
that technology acceptance could be conceptualised as intercon­
nected acceptance events as opposed to isolated and separated
ones.

Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a dynamic network infrastructure that is composed of
numerous uniquely addressed ‘things’, which are smart objects able to interact with other
objects and people and to react to the physical environment (Atzori et al., 2010; Guillemin
& Friess, 2009; Lu et al., 2018). The IoT enhances the connection between anyone and
anything at any time and any place, collecting strategic information and creating oppor­
tunities for companies to become more efficient, responsive to market changes, and to
improve consumer experiences (Guillemin & Friess, 2009; Lo & Campos, 2018; Nguyen &
Simkin, 2017). As a broad technology, the Internet underpins the Internet of Things. Still,
the IoT is neither the sole manifestation of the Internet’s development nor a homogenous
set of Internet technologies. Building upon the Internet, the IoT allows for ubiquitous
services integrated into the surrounding environments and is equipped with sensors and
communication components that enable automatic adaptation to users’ requirements
(Atzori et al., 2010; Dlodlo et al., 2012; Lu et al., 2018). Such connectivity can extend the

CONTACT Savvas Papagiannidis [email protected] David Goldman Professor of Innovation &

Enterprise, Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, 5 Barrack Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4SE, UK
© 2021 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 627

scope of existing interactions between users and Internet-based applications and services
(Atzori et al., 2010; Falcone & Sapienza, 2018; Lu et al., 2018).
What is more, consumers’ attitudes, either positive or negative, towards one product or
its brand, label, and characteristic influences their attitudes towards other products with
perceived similarities, and consequently determines their evaluation of and satisfaction
with a wide range of products (Rauschnabel et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2019). This implies that
the common characteristics of the extant products may be extended to consumers’
perceptions towards new products in the same category. Given that the IoT extends
users’ experiences with its unique capacities, such as smartness, autonomy and agency
beyond those typical user-Internet interactions undertaken using consumer electronics
devices (Novak & Hoffman, 2019), there is a growing need to study how predispositions
based on existing interactions can affect the attitudes related to the IoT.
Previous studies have sufficiently explored and tested the antecedents of IoT accep­
tance abstracted from information system management (MIS) theories. More specifically,
studies have incorporated and tested the effects of many MIS constructs, such as per­
ceived usefulness (Bao et al., 2014; Gao & Bai, 2014; Liew et al., 2017; Mital et al., 2018),
perceived ease of use (Balaji & Roy, 2016; Bao et al., 2014; Gao & Bai, 2014; Liew et al., 2017;
Mital et al., 2018), social influences (Caputo et al., 2018; Leong et al., 2017; Pal et al., 2018),
personal innovativeness (Caputo et al., 2018; Karahoca et al., 2017; Martínez-Caro et al.,
2018), technological characteristics (Park et al., 2017; Shin, 2017), and demographic
characteristics (Jang & Yu, 2017), etc., all of which significantly influence the user’s
attitudes towards IoT acceptance. Although testing the determinants of technology
acceptance is of interest and can provide valuable insights when it comes to how users
utilise products and services, empirical studies tend to be narrow, in that they typically
test the ecological validity of existing factors in a different context. However, they seldom
examine the impact that relevant technologies could have, assuming that acceptance can
be confined within technological silos.
Given the above, this study proposes exploring IoT acceptance from a different
approach. This study starts with the premise that the IoT, as a technological platform
that can underpin a wide range of new applications, has evolved from an existing
technological platform that the users are familiar with, i.e. the Internet. Access to the
Internet in the past two decades has been made possible using devices such as desktop
computers and then mobile devices. Interacting with the Internet can result in a number
of psychological outcomes, e.g., sparking emotional reactions (Beaudry & Pinsonneault,
2010), having an impact on well-being (Lu et al., 2019; Munzel et al., 2018), and on the
perceived values from using a technology (Wang, 2014; Yu, Lee et al., 2015). Prior studies
suggested that the individuals’ cognitive thoughts, emotions and behaviour can be
transferred from one area to another (Verfuerth & Gregory-Smith, 2018) and their past
behaviours and values predict their future intention and behaviours in relevant areas (Van
Der Werff et al., 2013). The psychological outcomes generated when using the Internet
can potentially spill over into the individuals’ predispositions towards IoT use. In turn,
existing consumption experiences can inform consumer behaviour going forward. This
article therefore aims to examine whether the Internet’s acceptance can have a spillover
effect on the acceptance of the IoT. If that were found to be the case, then technology
acceptance could be conceptualised as interconnected acceptance events as opposed to
isolated and separated ones.
628 Y. LU ET AL.

The literature review section presents the development of hypotheses and the con­
struction of the research model. The methodology section outlines the research design
and offers sample information on its key phases. The paper continues by presenting the
results and discussing the findings, before concluding with the limitations and future
research avenues.

Literature review
Spillover effects
Spillover refers to the within-person transference of psychological states and behaviour
from one life domain to another, which is a mechanism that links various areas of one’s
everyday life (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Truelove et al., 2014; Xanthopoulou &
Papagiannidis, 2012). The spillover effects of the originating domain on the receiving
domain generate similarities between them, usually described in one’s cognitive
thoughts, emotions, values, skills, and behaviours (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Hanson
et al., 2006; Verfuerth & Gregory-Smith, 2018). Hanson et al. (2006) developed and
validated three types of work-family positive spillover, namely the behaviour-based
instrumental spillover, value-based instrumental spillover, and affective spillover. Skills,
behaviours, and values are likely to spill over through the instrumental path, which is
a direct transfer from one role to another, leading to better performance in the receiving
domain (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Hanson et al., 2006). Affect can be transferred in one
of two ways, i.e. indirect spillover via influencing the individual’s performance or direct
spillover into one’s general affect (Hanson et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2000).
The instrumental spillover effects comprise the transference of skills, values, and
behaviours, as various studies have demonstrated. For example, a longitudinal study
supported the positive spillover of active learning and transformational leadership from
an online game to real-life work under the condition of enhanced game performance
(Xanthopoulou & Papagiannidis, 2012). Their findings implied that putting the active
learning and transformational leadership skills gained in online games into practice may
enhance organisational effectiveness (Xanthopoulou & Papagiannidis, 2012). Similarly, an
experimental study provided evidence that the products’ functional, economic, emo­
tional, and social values can spill over into other service subsystems, and vice versa
(Arne et al., 2017). These spillover effects further affect consumers’ loyalty and value
perceptions in other service subsystems (Arne et al., 2017). Specifically, the emotional
value of a well-performing wireless service significantly spills over into the consumer
loyalty of the cell phone manufacturer, even though the cell phone per se performed
poorly (Arne et al., 2017).
Studies have also explored spillover effects of behaviours. A recent study reported that
people’s environmentally sustainable behaviour is closely related to people’s environ­
mental identity, i.e. how people see themselves in relation to the natural world (Verfuerth
et al., 2019). An environmental behaviour change intervention may threaten people’s
existing identities, leading to integration, conflict or compartmentalisation between their
identities (Verfuerth et al., 2019). This identity process further results in positive spillover
effects (i.e. the same direction as the initial behaviour), negative spillover effects (i.e. the
opposite direction to the initial behaviour), or a lack of spillover effects (Verfuerth et al.,
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 629

2019). The outcomes of behavioural spillover can be beneficial or harmful, e.g., encoura­
ging engagement or disengagement in pro-environmental behaviour (Nilsson et al.,
2017), and promoting better performance or interfering with performance (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2016). For instance, the employees who
are high in positive affectivity or with high job involvement may experience greater
spillover of positive mood and job satisfaction, which consequently enhances their
performance (Carlson et al., 2011). However, when the pressures experienced in the
workplace and home are incompatible, the individuals are likely to encounter negative
work-family interference (Bellavia & Frone, 2005). The negative work-family and family-
work interference would increase their perceived stress and decrease their job satisfaction
(Lourel et al., 2009). This negative spillover effect indicates that lower job satisfaction
reduces psychological well-being and job performance (Sok et al., 2014). A flexible work-
home arrangement can enhance the beneficial spillover effects and alleviate the harmful
effects (Sok et al., 2014).
Affect is an umbrella term that covers ‘a wide range of dispositions, moods, emotions,
and generalised affective reactions to events, objects, and daily experiences’ (Eby et al., 2010,
p. 94). The spillover of affect refers to the affect in one domain being influenced by
someone’s functioning and affective experiences in another domain (Lambert, 1990;
Pierce et al., 2016). Affective spillover involves the transference of an individual’s attitudes,
emotions, and psychological state (Lambert, 1990; Pierce et al., 2016; Xanthopoulou &
Papagiannidis, 2012). Affect spills over in either an indirect or direct way. Firstly, the
transference of affect can be achieved indirectly via one’s performance. Specifically, the
positive affect experienced in the originating domain may directly increase one’s motiva­
tion, self-efficacy, and interpersonal interactions in the receiving domain (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006). Such an increase improves one’s performance in
the receiving domain and thereby results in feelings of personal accomplishment or
recognition from other people, which consequently elevates one’s mood (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006). For instance, the individuals’ feelings of satisfaction
and pride in their family can increase their satisfaction with the job and boost their self-
efficacy at work (Eby et al., 2010). Also, the frustration experienced at work may influence
one’s mood at home after work (Eby et al., 2010). Secondly, affect can be transferred
directly via affect generalisation (Hanson et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2000). The affect
experienced in one role may influence one’s general affect and thereby influence their
affect in the receiving domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006; Judge et al.,
2000). For instance, a recent study indicated that the work-family conflict experienced by
employees may be reflected in emotional exhaustion, which spills over into the work
domain and results in low work engagement and low job success (Wayne et al., 2017).
Also, employees’ satisfaction with workplace IT has positive effects on their job satisfac­
tion (Wang et al., 2020).
Previous studies examined the spillover effects of the skills, value, behaviour, and affect
from one life domain to another. However, none of the existing studies investigated
information systems and/or technologies (IS/ITs) in resulting in spillover effects. It has
been suggested that the spillover effect from one technological platform to its extensions,
e.g., from the Internet to the IoT, is a meaningful research area (Ratnadeep Suri &
Sawhney, 2008). Given the above, this study aims to explore and test the potential
spillover effects of affect and value from the Internet domain into the IoT domain. By
630 Y. LU ET AL.

this we propose that the affect generated in Internet use, i.e., emotions and well-being,
and users’ perceived value of the Internet, would spill over into their intention of using the
IoT. The following sections proceed to introduce the development of hypotheses.

Spillover of emotions
The emotional spillover effect has been demonstrated as a mechanism of message
processing (Yegiyan, 2015). The individual’s memory accuracy for neutral objects can be
improved, if the object was previously paired with arousing objects (Yegiyan, 2015).
Specifically, the stimulus of arousing experience will be carried over to affect the indivi­
dual’s emotional responses to the subsequent stimulus (Yegiyan, 2015). Continually
monitoring and constraining the spillover of emotions is a ubiquitous function of the
human brain and is fundamental to emotion regulation and adaptation (Lapate et al.,
2017). On the one hand, the emotions provoked in the originating context may directly
spill over into the receiving context (Lapate et al., 2017). For instance, individuals may
experience higher degrees of psychological arousal and emotional positivity and nega­
tivity in the processing of advertisements after watching arousing movie clips (Yegiyan,
2015). On the other hand, the individual’s emotions can also spill over into their attitude
and behaviour. For instance, Hoffmann and Ketteler (2015) suggested that the share­
owner customers trading a company’s stock that see gains are likely to experience more
positive emotions, which in turn leads to increasing their preference for the company and
engagement in positive word-of-mouth. Losses in stock trading would cause negative
emotions, as well as lower degrees of satisfaction and behavioural loyalty towards the
company (Hoffmann & Ketteler, 2015). Salmela-Aro et al. (2017) reported that contextual
school-related mental health problems can predict excessive Internet use among adoles­
cents, and then spill over into their general affect, such as depressive symptoms. Negative
emotions, e.g., anger, can spill over from previous contexts to affect someone’s judge­
ments and decisions in unrelated contexts (Motro et al., 2016). Specifically, employees’
anger unrelated to their task at hand can spill over into the workplace and reduce their
cooperation activity with partners (Motro et al., 2016).
This study proposes that users’ emotional responses generated in using the Internet
may spill over into their acceptance of the IoT. Aiming to comprehensively explore the
potential spillover of various user emotions, this study adopted the emotional responses
of IS/IT use classified by Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2010). This classification combined
two appraisals and defined four types of emotions. The primary appraisal is that the new
technology acceptance would constitute an opportunity or a threat for the users (Beaudry
& Pinsonneault, 2005, 2010). This primary appraisal determines users’ emotional reactions
as positive or negative (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010; Lu et al., 2019). For instance,
enjoyment, as a positive emotion, is usually experienced when users believe that the
new technology will bring about better performance. The second appraisal refers to the
degree of users’ perceived control over expected outcomes of using a technology
(Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010). These two appraisals classified users’ emotions into
four types, i.e. achievement, challenge, loss, and deterrence emotions (Beaudry &
Pinsonneault, 2010). Accordingly, in the context of technology acceptance, these four
types of emotions are typically represented by satisfaction and enjoyment, excitement
and flow, frustration and dissatisfaction, and anxiety and fear respectively. The
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 631

achievement and challenge emotions are experienced when users believe that using the
new technology will generate positive outcomes, while the loss and deterrence emotions
would be caused by perceived negative consequences (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010).
Perceived control over the expected consequences of using the technology plays
a critical role in such a classification. Perceived control is defined as the perceptions of
the ability to manage the constraints on behaviour, which is similar to the perceived
behaviour control, self-efficacy, compatibility, and facilitating conditions (Lowry et al.,
2013; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Leong et al. (2017), Liew et al. (2017),
Mital et al. (2018), and Pal et al. (2018) found that perceived control did not directly predict
the intention of IoT adoption, whereas Chong et al. (2015), Gao and Bai (2014), and
Martínez-Caro et al. (2018);, and Park et al. (2017) confirmed that perceived control
positively affects the intention and beliefs of IoT acceptance. Perceived behaviour control
is strongly correlated with the ease of use (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Lowry et al., 2013).
When users perceive themselves as having control over an easy-to-use system, their
psychological feelings enhance the intention of performing the behaviour (Lowry et al.,
2013). When individuals believe that they have little control over the behaviour, due to
a lack of imperative opportunity or capacity, they are unlikely to perform the behaviour
even though they have strong intentions (Liew et al., 2017). Feeling a lack of control
would cause negative consequences, such as low competence, psychological strain, and
depression (Lowry et al., 2013).
Given the above, this study expects that the spillover effects of emotions from Internet
use to IoT use are largely dependent on the perceived control. That is, the challenge and
deterrence emotions, which are more likely to be stimulated when the users feel that they
have control over the expected outcomes (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010), will positively
influence behavioural intention of using the IoT, whereas the achievement and loss
emotions, which are caused by a lack of perceived control (Beaudry & Pinsonneault,
2010), have negative effects on behavioural intention of using the IoT.
H1: Users’ (a) challenge emotions and (b) deterrence emotions generated via Internet use are
positively correlated with behavioural intention of using the IoT, and their (c) achievement
emotions and (d) loss emotions are negatively correlated with behavioural intention of using
the IoT.

Well-being
Well-being is the degree of users’ needs fulfilment and quality of life enhancement by
using technological platforms, namely the Internet and IoT. It has been found that work-
related well-being can spill over into other life domains, and predicts general and context-
free well-being in the long-term (Donoso et al., 2015; Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012).
However, the relationship between technology use and the individual’s well-being is
arguable. On the one hand, past studies suggested that the individual’s engagement in
technology use and related activities blurs the boundary of work and life, which nega­
tively affects their well-being in terms of decreasing life satisfaction, and arouses negative
affect (Berkowsky, 2013; Chesley, 2005). On the other hand, technology use has been
found to facilitate the individual’s work-family role balance, and it thereby enhances their
well-being (Gözü et al., 2015). More specifically, users’ attitude towards personal web use
632 Y. LU ET AL.

weakened the negative effect of work-family conflict on their well-being, and such an
attitude also strengthened the positive effect of work-family facilitation on well-being
(Gözü et al., 2015). These findings indicated that technology use facilitates the flexibility
and autonomy in dealing with work-family conflicts, which consequently contributes to
managing the work-family spillover, further enhancing the well-being (Gözü et al., 2015).
Beyond the previous research on work and life relationships influenced by technology
use, using the Internet per se can be beneficial to users’ emotions and well-being (Lu et al.,
2019). Also, IoT-based services, especially smart healthcare, would largely benefit users’
well-being (Anderson et al., 2013; Marikyan et al., 2018; Martínez-Caro et al., 2018). A high
degree of satisfaction with using IoT technologies enhances users’ quality of life and
needs fulfilment (Martínez-Caro et al., 2018), which corresponds to the concept of well-
being. In the context of social networking services, it has been empirically confirmed that
subjective well-being drove the general use, and the use had a positive impact on users’
well-being (Munzel et al., 2018). Following the above, this study proposes that well-being,
as an outcome of Internet use, may spill over into IoT use and act as an outcome as well.
As such, this study hypothesises the following.

H2a: The well-being experienced when using the Internet has a positive effect on users’ beha­
vioural intention of using the IoT.

H2b: The behavioural intention of using the IoT has a positive effect on the users’ well-being
experienced in IoT use.

Spillover of perceived value

Perceived value has roots in behavioural decision theory and social psychology, and
describes a cognitive trade-off between the effort required to be devoted (e.g., PEOU)
and the quality of the expected outcomes (e.g., PU) (Davis, 1989; Kim et al., 2007). As such,
perceived value can be defined as users’ cognitive overall assessment of using
a technological product or service, whether for work or personal purposes (Kim et al.,
2007; Okada, 2005; Zeithaml, 1988). Perceived functional, economic, emotional, and social
values of a product spill over into the consumer’s loyalty and behavioural intentions
towards the service provider, and vice versa (Arne et al., 2017). Also, the quality and
perceived value of one service partner can spill over onto the consumer’s evaluations and
reuse intention of a service partnership (Bourdeau et al., 2007). Similarly, consumers
expect the value of a new service alliance to be in accordance with its parent brands,
due to the spillover effects of perceived value (Bleijerveld et al., 2015). Perceived value has
been found to positively influence the attitude towards and the intention of using IoT-
based smart home services (Kim et al., 2017).
As a representation of the overall evaluation of the performance of technological
services, users’ perceived value of an IS/IT is determined by the perceived benefits and
sacrifice (Kim et al., 2017; Shin, 2017). Perceived benefits can influence user response to
technology use (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009). The users are
unlikely to adopt a technology if they do not perceive the use as beneficial. The IoT
benefits users in terms of improving their quality of life in a wide range of ways, e.g.,
entertainment, social networking, healthcare, transportation, etc. (Hsu & Lin, 2016; Lu
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 633

et al., 2018). Perceived benefits have been found to positively influence users’ intention of
IoT acceptance (Hsu & Lin, 2016). In the context of the IoT e-retail industry, the organisa­
tional assets and service processes constitute the hard and soft infrastructure (Yu,
Subramanian et al., 2015). However, hard and soft infrastructures do not directly deter­
mine consumer experience (Yu, Lee et al., 2015). However, the perceived benefits pro­
vided by these infrastructures, i.e. the flexibility of adapting the product according to
customer requirements, enhances consumer satisfaction. Furthermore, as the number of
IoT users increases, network externalities can further enhance the perceived value and
benefits provided by IoT services (Hsu & Lin, 2016; Hsu & Yeh, 2017; Katz & Shapiro, 1985).
With the proliferation of the IoT, perceived benefits may gain importance in enhancing
acceptance and use.
On the other hand, potential users may be sceptical about the caveats and threats
regarding using IoT services (Caputo et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2018). Perceived sacrifices,
which include monetary costs (Pal et al., 2018), privacy risks (Caputo et al., 2018; Hsu & Lin,
2016), and the difficulties in use (Kim et al., 2017), negatively affect the intention of IoT
adoption. However, privacy concerns have a smaller effect on continuance intention of
use compared to the perceived benefits provided by IoT services (Hsu & Lin, 2016). IoT
users withstand privacy risk and tend to share their information (Caputo et al., 2018;
Weber, 2010). This may be due to the very nature of IoT services, and may also reflect
Internet use trends, especially when it comes to young people (Caputo et al., 2018;
Scuotto et al., 2017). Also, the uncertainties and lack of information related to the IoT
do not arouse users’ deterrence emotions such as fear, but stimulate frequency of use
(Caputo et al., 2018; Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006). The trade-off between privacy risk
and perceived benefits also suggests that users are more willing to adopt and use IoT
services, if they are compatible with their values and beliefs (Hsu & Lin, 2016).
Overall, perceived value, which reflects users’ beliefs in the utility and effectiveness of
the technology, is hypothesised to be spilt over into IoT adoption intention.

H3a: The perceived value of the Internet has a positive effect on the users’ behavioural intention
of using the IoT. perceived value of the IoT.

H3b: The behavioural intention of using the IoT has a positive effect on the users’

Based on the hypotheses presented above, this study puts forward the research
framework (Figure 1).

Methodology
Data collection and sampling
This paper adopted a quantitative approach using a questionnaire survey. A brief intro­
duction and definition of the Internet and the IoT were included in the questionnaire,
ensuring that participants had a common working definition of the two technological
platforms. Specifically, the IoT was described as a dynamic global network infrastructure
that could be integrated to and act as an extension of future internet (Guillemin & Friess,
2009). The term ‘things’ acts as a new dimension of the extension of current existing
human and application interaction based on the Internet, thus enabling people and
634 Y. LU ET AL.

Challenge
Emotions

Deterrence
Emotions H1a

H1b IoT
Achievement
Emotions Well-being
H1c IoT H2b
Behavioural
Loss
H1d Intention H3b IoT
Emotions Perceived
H2a
Value
H3a
Internet
Well-being

Internet
Perceived
Value

Figure 1. Research framework.

objects to be connected exchanging real-time information ideally via any path (Atzori
et al., 2010; Guillemin & Friess, 2009).
A pilot study was carried out with 10 participants before distributing the questionnaire.
The average completion time of the questionnaire was estimated through the pilot study.
The questionnaire was distributed online using a survey platform, namely Qualtrics. This
study used a convenient sampling method; a third-party consumer panel was employed to
recruit participants. 670 full questionnaires were initially received. Based on an evaluation of
completion time in the pilot study, questionnaires that had been completed in less than
five minutes were excluded. We also removed questionnaires that selected mostly the same
answer to the scaled measurement items. After applying the aforementioned criteria in the
data screening process, 615 fully completed questionnaires were used for the analysis.
The participants were Internet users in the United States that had a good distribution
of demographic characteristics, as shown by Table 1. A descriptive analysis suggested that
the participants believe themselves to be proficient users of the Internet. Specifically,
more than 80% of the participants use desktop and laptop computers as the main device
for accessing the Internet; around 60% of them spent over 3 hours on the Internet on
a daily basis; and more than half of them reported that they spent more time on the
Internet than other people around them, they consider themselves as ‘heavy users’, and
that they feel informed and knowledgeable about the Internet.

Measurement items
The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions in total, including seven demographic
characteristics (Table 1) and 29 items measuring the variables (Table 2). Four items
were removed in confirmatory factor analysis due to the fact that they (a) fail to load
with the expected factor, (b) have factor loading lower than 0.5, or (c) cause high
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 635

Table 1. Profile of the respondents.

Demographic characteristic Type Frequency (n = 615) Percentage (%)
Gender Male 266 43.3%
Female 349 56.7%
Age 20–29 69 11.2%
30–39 127 20.7%
40–49 114 18.5%
50–59 139 22.6%
60 or over 166 27.0%
Current employment status Full-time employed 258 42.0%
Part-time employed 64 10.4%
Out of work (looking for work) 26 4.2%
Out of work (not looking for work) 6 1.0%
Homemaker 77 12.5%
Student 16 2.6%
Retired 125 20.3%
Unable to work 43 7.0%
Ethnicity African American 65 10.6%
Native American 6 1.0%
USA White 452 73.5%
Asian American 28 4.6%
Hispanic American 37 6.0%
Multiracial 8 1.3%
Other White Background 15 2.4%
Other 4 0.7%
Education attainment Some high school or less 12 2.0%
High school graduate or equivalent 118 19.2%
Vocational/technical school 54 8.8%
Some college, but no degree 157 25.5%
College graduate 156 25.4%
Some graduate school 22 3.6%
Graduate degree 78 12.7%
Professional degree 18 2.9%
Residence area Urbanised area 256 41.6%
Urban cluster 231 37.6%
Rural area 128 20.8%
Household income $0- 24,999 USD 114 18.5%
$25,000-$49,999 161 26.2%
$50,000-$74,999 138 22.4%
$75,000-$99,999 95 15.4%
More than 100,000 USD 107 17.4%

cross-loadings. Table 3 presents the means, standard deviation (S.D.), and factor
loadings of each item. A 7-point Likert scale was used in measuring the items. The
majority of the items were measured with ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’; items
for the perceived value of the Internet and the IoT were measured with ‘not at all
valuable’ to ‘extremely valuable’ (PV1), ‘not at all well-off’ to ‘extremely well-off’ (PV2),
and ‘I would not care at all’ to ‘I would be very unhappy’ (PV3). Well-being was
measured with items from El Hedhli et al. (2013), while items for perceived value
were adapted from Okada (2005). These two constructs were measured twice by
adapting the items to the Internet and the IoT contexts respectively. Items for
behavioural intention were adapted from Venkatesh (2000). Lastly, ten emotional
reactions towards using the Internet, which fall into four categories, were selected
from the original paper on the emotion classifying framework (Beaudry &
Pinsonneault, 2010).
636 Y. LU ET AL.

Table 2. Measure items of constructs.

Construct Item Label Source
Achievement Satisfaction AE1 (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010)
Emotions Pleasure AE2
Enjoyment AE3
Challenge Emotions Arousal CE1 (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010)
Playfulness CE2
Flow CE3
Loss Emotions Disappointment LE1 (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010)
Frustration LE2
Disgust LE3
Deterrence Emotions Fear DE1 (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010)
Worry DE2
Distress DE3
Internet Well-being The Internet satisfies my overall needs. I-WB1 (El Hedhli et al., 2013)
The Internet plays a very important I-WB2
role in my social well-being.
The Internet plays a very important I-WB3
role in my leisure well-being.
The Internet plays an important role in I-WB4
enhancing the quality of my life in
my community.
Internet Perceived Overall, what is the value of the I-PV1 (Okada, 2005)
Value Internet in your life?
How well-off are you with the Internet I-PV2
in your life?
How would you feel if you did not I-PV3
have access to the Internet?
IoT Behavioural I intend to use the IoT in the future. IoT-BI1 (Venkatesh, 2000)
Intention I will try to use the IoT in my daily life. IoT-BI2
I will plan to use the IoT frequently. IoT-BI3
IoT Well-being The IoT satisfies my overall needs. IoT-WB1 (El Hedhli et al., 2013)
The IoT will play a very important role IoT-WB2
in my social well-being.
The IoT plays a very important role in IoT-WB3
my leisure well-being.
The IoT will play an important role in IoT-WB4
enhancing the quality of my life in
my community.
IoT Perceived Value Overall, what would be the value of IoT-PV1 (Okada, 2005)
the IoT for you personally?
How well-off would you be with the IoT-PV2
IoT?
How happy would you be with the IoT? IoT-PV3
Notes: Items measured by the 7-point Likert scale.

Data analysis strategy

SPSS v.24 and SPSS Amos v.25 were used for the statistical analysis of the hypotheses. We
first undertook a confirmatory factor analysis (Table 3) to ensure the reliability and validity
of the constructs. The model fit indices were all satisfied, i.e. GFI (>0.9), CFI (>0.9), and
RMSEA (<0.08), which suggested that the measurement models were satisfactory (Hair
et al., 2014). Table 3 lists the loadings of the items (>0.7), construct reliabilities (C.R.; >0.7),
average variance extracted (AVE; >0.5), and Cronbach’s α (>0.7), which indicated sufficient
reliability for each measured variable (Hair et al., 2014). No convergent validity issue was
found with the model (Table 4).
This study examined the common method bias (CMB) issues. CMB is a systematic error
variance shared among the variables being measured with a common scaling approach or
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 637

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct C.R. AVE Cronbach’s α Item Mean (S.D.) Loading
Achievement Emotions 0.900 0.749 0.899 AE1 5.69 (1.103) 0.879
AE2 5.54 (1.199) 0.861
AE3 5.69 (1.142) 0.856
Challenge Emotions 0.790 0.560 0.773 CE1 3.46 (1.854) 0.639
CE2 4.54 (1.591) 0.843
CE3 4.86 (1.390) 0.750
Loss Emotions 0.892 0.806 0.890 LE1 2.96 (1.588) 0.928
LE2 3.19 (1.706) 0.867
LE3 Removed Removed
Deterrence Emotions 0.942 0.844 0.941 DE1 2.64 (1.598) 0.895
DE2 2.74 (1.608) 0.941
DE3 2.63 (1.621) 0.918
Internet Well-being 0.872 0.695 0.868 I-WB1 Removed Removed
I-WB2 4.72 (1.723) 0.857
I-WB3 5.31 (1.414) 0.791
I-WB4 4.69 (1.647) 0.851
Internet Perceived Value 0.828 0.619 0.805 I-PV1 5.71 (1.157) 0.886
I-PV2 5.38 (1.287) 0.761
I-PV3 5.47 (1.497) 0.700
IoT Behavioural Intention 0.964 0.900 0.964 IoT-BI1 4.48 (1.591) 0.923
IoT-BI2 4.48 (1.599) 0.961
IoT-BI3 4.42 (1.616) 0.961
IoT Well-being 0.956 0.878 0.956 IoT-WB1 Removed Removed
IoT-WB2 4.19 (1.726) 0.938
IoT-WB3 4.40 (1.699) 0.940
IoT-WB4 4.30 (1.711) 0.933
IoT Perceived Value 0.906 0.828 0.903 IoT-PV1 Removed Removed
IoT-PV2 4.45 (1.531) 0.879
IoT-PV3 4.49 (1.657) 0.940
Notes: Method: M.L.; Model fit: χ2 (240) = 699.285, CMIN/DF = 2.914, GFI = 0.917, CFI = 0.969, RMSEA = 0.056.

from a single data source (Fuller et al., 2016; Richardson et al., 2009) and can potentially
bias the true relationships between substantial variables (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012).
This study adopted the common latent variable technique suggested by Lindell and
Whitney (2001) and Podsakoff et al. (2003) to estimate the size of method variance. This
technique was applied to the CFA model and included three steps: (a) partialling out an
unrelated variable as a surrogate/marker variable for common method variances, (b)
loading all of the items on both their theoretical constructs and the marker variable
that has its own measure items, and (c) constraining the parameters between research
items and the marker variables to be equal (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff et al.,
2003). The marker variable in the case of this study is Job Satisfaction, which is theoreti­
cally unrelated to all of the constructs. It included three items adapted from Brayfield and

Table 4. Convergent validity test.

AE CE LE DE I-PV I-WB IoT-BI IoT-PV IoT-WB
AE 0.866
CE 0.579 0.748
LE −0.320 0.142 0.898
DE −0.282 0.195 0.840 0.919
I-PV 0.672 0.685 −0.126 −0.025 0.834
I-WB 0.761 0.538 −0.272 −0.210 0.737 0.786
IoT-BI 0.430 0.532 −0.038 0.052 0.607 0.507 0.949
IoT-PV 0.478 0.609 −0.034 0.075 0.749 0.532 0.839 0.937
IoT-WB 0.455 0.558 −0.065 0.039 0.650 0.588 0.829 0.888 0.910
638 Y. LU ET AL.

Rothe (1951), and was measured with the same approach as other constructs, i.e. the
7-point Likert scale. The parameters between Job Satisfaction and items in this study is
11.2%, suggesting that the common method variances of the research model did not
account for the majority of the variances. Therefore, this study is free of CMB issues.
We proceeded to test the proposed hypotheses, employing structural equation mod­
elling as the data analysis technique, and followed the process suggested by Hair et al.
(2014) and by Gaskin (2016). Structural equation modelling examines a series of depen­
dence relationships simultaneously, which is particularly useful in testing the dependence
relationships of multiple equations, and allows for assessing measurement properties and
testing theoretical relationships (Hair et al., 2014). A structured equation model was
constructed (Figure 2), and the statistical results of the path relationships are presented
in Table 5.

Results and findings

The structural equation model was established. Specifically, the model fit indices, i.e.
CMIN/DF = 4.131, CFI = 0.946, and RMSEA = 0.071, suggested a satisfactory fitness of the
research model (Hair et al., 2014). Table 5 and Figure 2 present the statistical results of the
hypothesised paths. Five out of the eight hypotheses were accepted, i.e. H1a, H2a, H2b,
H3a, and H3b. Three out of six psychological outcomes of Internet use were found to be
significant determinants of Behavioural Intention of using the IoT. Among the four
categories of the emotional responses to Internet use, only the Challenge Emotions
(e.g., enjoyment, playfulness, flow, etc.) significantly influence the Behavioural Intention
of using the IoT. The direct effect size is coef. = 0.226 at the significance level of 0.001. The
mean values of the items of the four constructs of user emotions showed that the
negative emotions, i.e., Loss Emotions and Deterrence Emotions, were much lower than
the positive emotions. The Well-being experienced when using the Internet has the
strongest effect (coef. = 0.408; p < 0.001) on the Behavioural Intention. The Perceived
Value of using the Internet showed a significant positive influence, with smaller path
estimates (coef. = 0.166; p < 0.05). Using the IoT is expected to arouse two positive
psychological outcomes as well. The users’ Behavioural Intention significantly and

Figure 2. Path significances and estimates. Notes: Significant at p: ns = > .05; * = < .05; ** = < .01;
*** = < .001
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 639

Table 5. Structural equation model and hypotheses test (H1-H5).

Hypotheses Path Coef. (t-test)
H1a Challenge Emotions → Behavioural Intention 0.226 (3.464***)
H1b Deterrence Emotions → Behavioural Intention 0.117 (1.570ns)
H1c Achievement Emotions → Behavioural Intention −0.083 (−1.197ns)
H1d Loss Emotions → Behavioural Intention −0.101 (−1.324ns)
H2a Internet Well-being → Behavioural Intention 0.408 (5.613***)
H3a Internet Perceived Value → Behavioural Intention 0.166 (2.297*)
H2b Behavioural Intention → IoT Well-Being 0.863 (29.352***)
H3b Behavioural Intention → IoT Perceived Value 0.852 (24.638***)
Notes: Method: M.L.; Model fit: χ2 (252) = 1040.926, CMIN/DF = 4.131, CFI = 0.946, RMSEA = 0.071
Significant at p: ns ≥ .05; * < .05; ** < .01; *** < .001

strongly enhances their Well-being (coef. = 0.863; p < 0.001) and Perceived Value
(coef. = 0.852; p < 0.001) of IoT use.
The R2 and the direct effects, indirect effects, and total effects of the three dependent
variables indicated a satisfactory practical significance for this research model (Table 6).
The R2 of Behavioural Intention was 44.6%, suggesting a moderate explanatory power of
the six psychological outcomes of using the Internet in explaining variances of the
Behavioural Intention of using the IoT (Hair et al., 2014). The effect size of Behavioural
Intention on IoT Well-being and IoT Perceived Value were larger than 0.7, suggesting
positive, substantial, and significant effects (Table 6). Large amounts of variances in the
estimated Well-being and Perceived Value of using the IoT were explained, which were
74.5% and 72.7% respectively.

Discussion
This study explored and tested many potential factors influencing user acceptance of the
IoT. A research framework was put forward hypothesising that users’ emotions experi­
enced and value perceived in using the Internet could influence their predispositions

Table 6. R2 and effect size.

Dependent Variable R2 Independent Variable Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect
IoT Behavioural Intention 0.446 Challenge Emotions 0.226 0.226
Deterrence Emotions 0.117 0.117
Achievement Emotions −0.083 −0.083
Loss Emotions −0.101 −0.101
Internet Well-being 0.408 0.408
Internet Perceived Value 0.166 0.166
IoT Well-being 0.745 Challenge Emotions 0.195 0.195
Deterrence Emotions 0.101 0.101
Achievement Emotions −0.072 −0.072
Loss Emotions −0.087 −0.087
Internet Well-being 0.352 0.352
Internet Perceived Value 0.143 0.143
Behavioural Intention 0.863 0.863
IoT Perceived Value 0.727 Challenge Emotions 0.192 0.192
Deterrence Emotions 0.100 0.100
Achievement Emotions −0.071 −0.071
Loss Emotions −0.086 −0.086
Internet Well-being 0.348 0.348
Internet Perceived Value 0.142 0.142
Behavioural Intention 0.852 0.852
640 Y. LU ET AL.

towards using the IoT. The findings supported the spillover effects from the Internet to the
IoT, and the determinants showed moderate explanatory power in explaining variances in
behavioural intention of using the IoT. The establishment of the research model sug­
gested that user perceptions towards the two technological platforms are correlated, and
that the emotional outcomes generated in using one platform significantly influence
users’ perceptions towards the subsequent one. Three out of the six outcomes of Internet
use significantly drove users’ IoT intention. Intentions were significantly linked to two
expected outcomes, i.e. the perceived value and well-being. These results suggest that
the affect experienced in the originating domain can influence users’ self-efficacy, moti­
vations and experiences in the receiving domain (Eby et al., 2010; Edwards & Rothbard,
2000; Hanson et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2000; Pierce et al., 2016).
The four types of emotions generated in Internet use performed differently in influen­
cing the behavioural intention of IoT acceptance. Only challenge emotions significantly
affected behavioural intention of using the IoT, which suggests that users’ emotions such
as playfulness and flow experienced in Internet use can enhance IoT acceptance. The
significant effect of emotional response towards the Internet on behavioural intention of
using the IoT confirmed that the individuals’ emotions provoked by the Internet as
experienced by users can spill over into the receiving context (Lapate et al., 2017;
Yegiyan, 2015). This finding also partially supported the viewpoint that the spillover
effects of emotions can further influence the user’s attitude and behaviour (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006; Hoffmann & Ketteler, 2015; Pierce et al., 2016).
Challenge and achievement emotions can be categorised as positive emotions.
Experiencing positive emotions indicates that users could benefit from using the
Internet. Although challenge emotions were found to significantly influence IoT accep­
tance, the same did not apply for achievement emotions. A potential explanation could
be that challenge emotions were different from achievement emotions in terms of the
willingness to devote effort to achieve the expected consequences of technology use
(Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010). Specifically, achievement emotions indicate that the
users believe that the outcomes of using an IS/IT are favourable, high in certainty, and
involve very little effort (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010), whereas challenge emotions
imply that the users are willing to devote some effort to securing potential benefits
(Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005). Challenge emotions significantly spill over into IoT
acceptance, implying that the users are willing to explore the IoT applications, and desire
to pursue the benefits even though this requires investing some effort. Accordingly, the
results of this study are in correspondence with the studies of Chong et al. (2015), Gao and
Bai (2014), Martínez-Caro et al. (2018), and Park et al. (2017), which suggested that
perceived control significantly influences user beliefs and intentions of IoT acceptance,
but the findings contradict the results of Leong et al. (2017), Liew et al. (2017), Mital et al.
(2018), and Pal et al. (2018), who reported non-significant effects of the perceived control.
Previous studies indicated that achievement emotions (e.g., perceived enjoyment) would
be more influential at the post-adoption stage (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Venkatesh &
Bala, 2008). As such, the effects of achievement emotions would be increasingly impor­
tant with the gaining of user experiences on the IoT.
On the other hand, negative emotions, i.e. loss and deterrence emotions, did not show
significant influence on IoT acceptance. This finding contradicts the argument that
negative emotions from the previous context can affect the individual’s judgement and
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 641

decisions in other contexts, even in unrelated domains (Motro et al., 2016). It also differs
from the findings of (Pal et al., 2018), who reported significant relationships between
deterrence emotions (e.g., technology anxiety) and behavioural intention of using the IoT.
It is worth noting that the differences between the mean values of the four categories of
emotions suggest that the degrees of negative emotions experienced in using the
Internet are much lower than the positive emotions (see Table 3). Also, negative emotions
were only evoked when the users were unsatisfied with the performance of the technol­
ogy. Given the above, one potential explanation for these non-significant effects is that
the Internet has become more general in recent years and the performance of Internet-
based services and applications is relatively satisfying.
This study defined well-being as the degree of need satisfaction and quality of life
enhanced by using the Internet and/or IoT. The significant effect of Internet well-being on
IoT behavioural intention confirmed that well-being can be transferred indirectly from
one life domain to another via influencing one’s behaviour (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000;
Hanson et al., 2006). On the other hand, some have argued that IS/IT use blurs the
boundary of work and life, consequently bringing about negative spillover effects on
the user’s well-being (Berkowsky, 2013; Chesley, 2005). However, the positive effect of IoT
acceptance on IoT well-being implied that technology use is, overall, considered bene­
ficial to individuals’ general affect (Lu et al., 2019; Martínez-Caro et al., 2018; Munzel et al.,
2018). One potential reason is that technology use alleviates the individual’s role conflict
between different life domains by enhancing their flexibility and autonomy in dealing
with work-family conflicts (Gözü et al., 2015).
Statistical results showed that the perceived value of the Internet significantly influ­
ences IoT acceptance. Perceived value, as a cognitive trade-off between the perceived
benefits and sacrifices, enhances the user’s beliefs and attitudes towards the IoT (Hsu &
Lin, 2016; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Kim et al., 2017). This significant spillover effect
partially supports the viewpoint that the perceived value of a product/service can spill
over into the consumer’s behavioural intention (Arne et al., 2017) and evaluations of
relevant products/services (Bleijerveld et al., 2015; Bourdeau et al., 2007). What is more,
potential users may believe that the IoT can bring value to their daily life. According to the
network externalities (Hsu & Lin, 2016; Hsu & Yeh, 2017; Katz & Shapiro, 1985), users
believe that the perceived value will gain importance with the proliferation of the IoT.
Despite the fact that users may be sceptical about the potential privacy and security risks
of the IoT (Lu et al., 2018), these findings imply that users may be willing to tolerate the
risks considering the potential benefits and convenience brought by the IoT (Caputo et al.,
2018; Hsu & Lin, 2016; Scuotto et al., 2017; Weber, 2010).

Conclusion, implications, and future research

Contemporary life is becoming instantly connected, as disruptive technology is evolving
at a fast pace. The IoT is now a more accessible and common technological paradigm
underlying a wide range of products and services (Lo & Campos, 2018; Nguyen & Simkin,
2017). Consumers’ attitudes towards such products and services embedded with IoT
labels and technological features are potentially influenced by their acceptance of the
IoT and the spillover effects from the Internet. Previous studies have explored spillover
effects of consumers’ affective response, perceptions and behaviours from one brand to
642 Y. LU ET AL.

its extended brands, parent brands, and competing brands (Wu et al., 2019), from
a religious label to categories of labelled products (Rauschnabel et al., 2015), amongst
umbrella brands across different product categories (Erdem & Sun, 2002), and from a focal
product to relevant or irrelevant brands and product categories (Chae et al., 2017;
Janakiraman et al., 2006). In line with the potential transference of similarities between
the Internet and IoT, this article put forward hypotheses, and constructed a research
framework on spillover effects of user emotions, well-being and perceived values of
Internet use on IoT acceptance.
A number of factors related to Internet use affecting IoT behaviour intentions and
outcomes were examined. In doing so, three significant contributions were made. Firstly,
this study explored how technology acceptance in one setting may spill over to another.
We tested a number of relationships related to emotions, well-being and perceived value
related to Internet use and then examined how these may affect IoT behaviour intentions.
Such spillover effects of users’ experience from the Internet to the IoT implied that
technology acceptance studies should consider not only the isolated IS/IT but also the
overlaps of existing and emerging technology (Sood & Tellis, 2005). In future research on
the acceptance and adoption of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine
learning, and blockchain (Kumar et al., 2020), users’ perceptions, values and behaviours in
relation to the Internet and IoT should also be taken into consideration. Secondly, we also
contributed to the growing IoT-related literature. The IoT may provide the end-users with
new forms of services that are embedded in the surrounding environments and are
autonomously adapted to the users’ habits and lifestyle, offering a larger scope of
interaction between users and technology (Atzori et al., 2010; Dlodlo et al., 2012; Lu
et al., 2018). Building upon the spillover concepts, this study first examined user accep­
tance of the IoT by testing the aforementioned antecedents. The positive spillover of
challenge emotions, well-being and perceived value experienced in Internet use on
acceptance of the IoT highlights the importance of considering users’ positive affects
experienced and values obtained in using the existing technologies when promoting and
implementing new technologies. This study also investigated how the IoT, a more perva­
sive and ubiquitous platform, can affect users’ well-being and perceived value. The
indirect spillover of well-being and perceived value from Internet use to the IoT suggested
that the users expect and believe the overall benefits brought by the Internet will be
possessed by the IoT, providing implications for future dissemination and popularisation
of the IoT. Thirdly, previous research has confirmed spillover effects amongst consumers’
attitudes towards, and word-of-mouth about, brands, labels and products (Chae et al.,
2017; Rauschnabel et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2019). This article confirmed that the affect
experienced and the value obtained from one category of products can potentially be
transferred to a series of products sharing a common label. Such spillover effects may also
be found in users’ acceptance of technology platforms.
This study also has practical implications for companies and enterprises. Taking
into account that users’ psychological feelings have significant effects on their inten­
tion and future behaviour, we suggest that practitioners take note of consumers’
preferences and emotional responses when developing new technological products
and services. For example, challenge emotions have positive influences on IoT accep­
tance, implying that potential consumers of IoT applications are likely to be attracted
by products featuring excitement, arousal, playfulness, and flow. What is more, the
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 643

spillover effect of emotions identified in this study is in line with the previous findings
that individuals’ emotions triggered in one context can broadly influence other
related or unrelated decisions (Janakiraman et al., 2006), and consumers’ emotions
or anticipated emotions determine their choice and purchasing decision (Bagozzi
et al., 2016; Guerreiro et al., 2015). Therefore, marketers and managers should account
for the potential influences of consumers’ previous experience on and emotional
responses to the relevant technologies, brands, products, and services in designing
and doing marketing practices. More specifically, consumers who experienced
positive affects and obtained value from their past purchase and use should be
targeted in marketing activities. Furthermore, spillover effects exist in many life
domains of consumers, indicating that consumers’ purchasing decisions about one
product may also be influenced by their previous experiences with other products
or in other contexts. As such, spillover can be considered as a possible instrument
in seeding positive word-of-mouth and dealing with a negative reputation (Chae
et al., 2017).
This research is not without limitations. First of all, this study collected data from
participants in the US. Future research could be carried out in other cultural back­
grounds or market settings. Additionally, we examined the spillover effect of the three
categories of Internet use outcomes on IoT acceptance but, still, a number of psycho­
logical and behavioural outcomes that potentially spill over into IoT acceptance,
adoption and use can be investigated in the future. Although the two categories of
negative emotions tested in the present study did not show significant effects, the dark
side of the IoT should not be overlooked. For instance, dark-side behaviour involves
the integrity of the system, privacy issues and information misuse, and customer
confusion, and switching barriers may dampen user acceptance (De Cremer et al.,
2017). What is more, the strength of the spillover effect has been found to be
moderated by factors such as the similarity between contexts and the individual’s
personality, self-identity and motivations (Nilsson et al., 2017). As such the moderating
role of user attributes such as demographic characteristics, innovativeness, hands-on
experience of the IoT, and the actual behaviour of use should also be further examined.
Another meaningful research area is the direct spillover of psychological states from
the Internet context into the IoT context, e.g., the spillover of Internet emotions onto
IoT emotions, which will potentially shed light on the influence of technological
evolution on individuals. Lastly, given that many IoT products and devices are con­
ceptualised as or labelled by their technological characteristics, e.g., smartness, auton­
omy and agency, and such labels and features may generate similarities between even
unrelated products (Chae et al., 2017; Novak & Hoffman, 2019; Rauschnabel et al., 2015;
Wu et al., 2019), this study encourages further research on the impact of the spillover
effects across IoT products on word-of-mouth, advertising, and branding in marketing
practices.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
644 Y. LU ET AL.

Notes on contributors
Yang Lu is a Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Marketing at the International Business School Suzhou,
Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. Annie’s research interests revolve around e-business and tech­
nology innovation, specifically, consumer behaviour, e-marketing, technology acceptance and use,
and management information system subjects.
Savvas Papagiannidis is the David Goldman Professor of Innovation and Enterprise in the Newcastle
University Business School, UK. His work has been published in several academic journals and
presented at international conferences. His research interests mainly revolve around electronic
business and its various sub-domains. More specifically, his research aims to inform our under­
standing of how e-business technologies affect the social and business environment, organisational
strategies and business models, and how these are implemented in terms of functional innovations.
His work puts strong emphasis on innovation, new value creation and the exploitation of entrepre­
neurial opportunities, within the context of different industries.
Eleftherios Alamanos holds a PhD in Consumer Behaviour from Newcastle University. His work
focuses on interventions in consumer behaviour. He has previously completed consultancy work on
residents and workers’ perceptions of town centres and he has also successfully co-supervised a KTP
examining older citizens’ perceptions of local transportation networks. His previous research has
also examined consumers’ perceptions of food to promote the adoption of a healthy food related
lifestyle as well as digital signage installations in department stores and their effect on consumer
purchasing behaviour. Dr Alamanos has also worked on projects related to location branding and
marketing, including tourists’ perceptions of holiday destinations and the influence of holidays on
tourists’ future purchasing behaviour. Eleftherios is currently working on projects examining the
role of technology on citizens’ everyday activities.

ORCID
Eleftherios Alamanos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4294-458X

References
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and
beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3250951
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A. L., Corus, C., Fisk, R. P., Gallan, A. S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M.,
Rayburn, S. W., Rosenbaum, M. S., Shirahada, K., & Williams, J. D. (2013). Transformative service
research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1203–1210. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013
Arne, F., Koller, M., Zauner, A., & Teller, C. (2017). Multiple value dimensions spill-over - An experi­
mental approach in a consumption system comprising a product and a service. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 16(4), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1634
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15),
2787–2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
Bagozzi, R. P., Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2016). The role of anticipated emotions in
purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 33(8), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20905
Balaji, M. S., & Roy, S. K. (2016). Value co-creation with internet of things technology in the retail
industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.
2016.1217914
Bao, H., Chong, A. Y.-L., Ooi, K.-B., & Lin, B. (2014). Are Chinese consumers ready to adopt mobile
smart home? An empirical analysis. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 12(5),
496–511. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmc.2014.064595
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 645

Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology:
A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148693
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect
effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 689–710. https://doi.org/
10.2307/25750701
Bellavia, G. M., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Work-family conflict. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone
(Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 113–148). Sage Publications.
Berkowsky, R. W. (2013). When you just cannot get away: Exploring the use of information and
communication technologies in facilitating negative work/home spillover. Information,
Communication and Society, 16(4), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.772650
Bleijerveld, J. F., Gremler, D. D., & Lemmink, J. G. (2015). Service alliances between unequals: The
apple does not fall far from the better tree. Journal of Service Management, 26(5), 807–822. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-06-2015-0183
Bourdeau, B. L., Cronin Jr, J. J., Jr, & Voorhees, C. M. (2007). Modeling service alliances: An exploratory
investigation of spillover effects in service partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6),
609–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.617
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5),
307–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055617
Caputo, F., Scuotto, V., Carayannis, E., & Cillo, V. (2018). Intertwining the Internet of Things and
consumers’ behaviour science: Future promises for businesses. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 136, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.019
Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2011). Work-family enrichment
and job performance: A constructive replication of affective events theory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022880
Chae, I., Stephen, A. T., Bart, Y., & Yao, D. (2017). Spillover effects in seeded word-of-mouth market­
ing campaigns. Marketing Science, 36(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.1001
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and
family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1237–1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1741-3737.2005.00213.x
Chong, A. Y.-L., Liu, M. J., Luo, J., & Keng-Boon, O. (2015). Predicting RFID adoption in healthcare
supply chain from the perspectives of users. International Journal of Production Economics, 159,
66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.034
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
De Cremer, D., Nguyen, B., & Simkin, L. (2017). The integrity challenge of the Internet-of-Things (IoT):
On understanding its dark side. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 145–158. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1247517
Dlodlo, N., Foko, T., Mvelase, P., & Mathaba, S. (2012). The state of affairs in Internet of Things
research. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 15(3), 244–258.
Donoso, L. M. B., Demerouti, E., Hernández, E. G., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Cobo, I. C. (2015). Positive
benefits of caring on nurses’ motivation and well-being: A diary study about the role of emotional
regulation abilities at work. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(4), 804–816. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.01.002
Eby, L. T., Maher, C. P., & Butts, M. M. (2010). The intersection of work and family life: The role of
affect. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.
093008.100422
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relation­
ship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–199.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791609
El Hedhli, K., Chebat, J.-C., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). Shopping well-being at the mall: Construct,
antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 856–863. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.011
646 Y. LU ET AL.

Erdem, T., & Sun, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of the spillover effects of advertising and sales
promotions in umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkr.39.4.408.19120
Falcone, R., & Sapienza, A. (2018). On the users’ acceptance of IoT systems: A theoretical approach.
Information, 9(3), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9030053
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance
detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Gao, L., & Bai, X. (2014). A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of
internet of things technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(2), 211–231.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1108/APJML-06-2013-0061
Gaskin, J. (2016). Excel stattools, stats tools package. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from. http://
statwiki.kolobkreations.com
Gözü, C., Anandarajan, M., & Simmers, C. A. (2015). Work–family role integration and personal well-
being: The moderating effect of attitudes towards personal web usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 52, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.017
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.
19379625
Guerreiro, J., Rita, P., & Trigueiros, D. (2015). Attention, emotions and cause-related marketing
effectiveness. European Journal of Marketing, 49(11/12), 1728–1750. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-09-2014-0543
Guillemin, P., & Friess, P. (2009). Internet of things strategic research roadmap the cluster of European
research projects. European Commission.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Pearson Education Limited.
Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive
symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 141(2–3), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of
a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11(3), 249. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.249
Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: Implications
for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4), 182–198. https://doi.
org/10.1108/07363760610674310
Hoffmann, A. O., & Ketteler, D. (2015). How experiences with trading a company’s stock influence
customer attitudes and purchasing behavior. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(7),
963–992. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-11-2014-0163
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J.-C.-C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of internet of things
services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Computers in
Human Behavior, 62, 516–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.023
Hsu, C. W., & Yeh, C. C. (2017). Understanding the factors affecting the adoption of the internet of
things. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 29(9), 1089–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537325.2016.1269160
Janakiraman, N., Meyer, R. J., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Spillover effects: How consumers respond to
unexpected changes in price and quality. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 361–369. https://
doi.org/10.1086/508440
Jang, S.-H., & Yu, C. H. (2017). A study on internet of things (IoT): Users’ reuse intention using
technology acceptance model in Korea. International Journal of Business and Management
Science, 7(2), 279–295. https://ephjournal.com/index.php/bms/index
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of
job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.85.2.237
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 647

Karahoca, A., Karahoca, D., & Aksöz, M. (2017). Examining intention to adopt to internet of things in
healthcare technology products. Kybernetes, 47(4), 742–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-
0045
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American
Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1814809?seq=1
Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical
investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.
009
Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implemen­
tation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.2307/
20650309
Kim, Y., Park, Y., & Choi, J. (2017). A study on the adoption of IoT smart home service: Using
value-based adoption model. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(9–10),
1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1310708
Kumar, V., Ramachandran, D., & Kumar, B. (2020, March). Influence of new-age technologies on
marketing: A research agenda. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2020.01.007
Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda.
Human Relations, 43(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679004300303
Lapate, R. C., Samaha, J., Rokers, B., Hamzah, H., Postle, B. R., & Davidson, R. J. (2017). Inhibition of
lateral prefrontal cortex produces emotionally biased first impressions: A transcranial magnetic
stimulation and electroencephalography study. Psychological Science, 28(7), 942–953. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797617699837
Leong, G. W., Ping, T. A., & Muthuveloo, R. (2017). Antecedents of behavioural intention to adopt
internet of things in the context of smart city in Malaysia. Global Business and Management
Research, 9(4), 442–456. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1988803312?pq-origsite=gscho
lar&fromopenview=true
Liew, C. S., Ang, J. M., Goh, Y. T., Koh, W. K., Tan, S. Y., & Teh, R. Y. (2017). Factors influencing consumer
acceptance of Internet of Things technology. In Handbook of research on leveraging consumer
psychology for effective customer engagement (pp. 186–201). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.
com/book/handbook-research-leveraging-consumer-psychology/149284
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.114
Lo, F.-Y., & Campos, N. (2018). Blending internet-of-things (IoT) solutions into relationship marketing
strategies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2018.09.029
Lourel, M., Ford, M. T., Edey Gamassou, C., Guéguen, N., & Hartmann, A. (2009). Negative and positive
spillover between work and home: Relationship to perceived stress and job satisfaction. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 24(5), 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910959762
Lowry, P. B., Gaskin, J., Twyman, N., Hammer, B., & Roberts, T. (2013). Taking ‘fun and games’
seriously: Proposing the Hedonic-Motivation System Adoption Model (HMSAM). Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 14(11), 617–671. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00347
Lu, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2018). Internet of Things: A systematic review of the
business literature from the user and organisational perspectives. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 136, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.022
Lu, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2019). Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes
of technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 90(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2018.08.056
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.
2012.08.001
648 Y. LU ET AL.

Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2018). A systematic review of the smart home
literature: A user perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139, 115–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.038
Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., García-Pérez, A., & Fait, M. (2018). Healthcare service
evolution towards the Internet of Things: An end-user perspective. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 136, 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.025
Mital, M., Chang, V., Choudhary, P., Papa, A., & Pani, A. K. (2018). Adoption of Internet of Things in
India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.001
Motro, D., Kugler, T., & Connolly, T. (2016). Back to the basics: How feelings of anger affect
cooperation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27(4), 523–546. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCMA-10-2015-0068
Munzel, A., Meyer-Waarden, L., & Galan, J.-P. (2018). The social side of sustainability: Well-being as
a driver and an outcome of social relationships and interactions on social networking sites.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 130, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2017.06.031
Nguyen, B., & Simkin, L. (2017). The Internet of Things (IoT) and marketing: The state of play, future
trends and the implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1257542
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M., & Schultz, W. P. (2017). Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across
time and context: A review and research agenda. Environmental Education Research, 23(4),
573–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148
Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2019). Relationship journeys in the internet of things: A new frame­
work for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0608-3
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods.
Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889
Pal, D., Funilkul, S., Charoenkitkarn, N., & Kanthamanon, P. (2018). Internet of Things and smart
homes for elderly healthcare: An end user perspective. IEEE Access, 6, 10483–10496. https://doi.
org/10.1109/access.2018.2808472
Park, E., Cho, Y., Han, J., & Kwon, S. J. (2017). Comprehensive approaches to user acceptance of
Internet of Things in a smart home environment. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(6), 2342–2350.
https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2017.2750765
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Crowley, C. (2016). Organization-based self-esteem and well-being:
Empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 25(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1028377
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Ratnadeep Suri, V., & Sawhney, H. (2008). The internet and its wireless extensions in Japan: The
portentous interface between chaos and order. Info, 10(3), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14636690810874043
Rauschnabel, P. A., Herz, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Ivens, B. S. (2015). Brands and religious labels:
A spillover perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(11–12), 1285–1309. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0267257X.2015.1013489
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining
post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance.
Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
Salmela-Aro, K., Upadyaya, K., Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Alho, K. (2017). The dark side of Internet
use: Two longitudinal studies of excessive Internet use, depressive symptoms, school burnout
and engagement among Finnish early and late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46
(2), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0494-2
Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M., & Tarba, S. (2017). The performance implications of
leveraging social media networks in smart fashion industry: From a customer-led innovation
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 649

view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tech

fore.2017.03.021
Shin, D.-H. (2017). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the Internet of Things:
Exploring how quality is perceived by users. Information and Management, 54(8), 998–1011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.02.006
Sok, J., Blomme, R., & Tromp, D. (2014). Positive and negative spillover from work to home: The role
of organizational culture and supportive arrangements. British Journal of Management, 25(3),
456–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12058
Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2005). Technological evolution and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing,
69(3), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.152.66361
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing
models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and
negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical
framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2014.09.004
Van Der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The
influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and
Behavior, 46(5), 626–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512475209
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motiva­
tion, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4),
342–367. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.
x
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/
30036540
Verfuerth, C., & Gregory-Smith, D. (2018). Spillover of pro-environmental behaviour research handbook
on employee pro-environmental behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Verfuerth, C., Jones, C. R., Gregory-Smith, D., & Oates, C. (2019). Understanding contextual spillover:
Using identity process theory as a lens for analyzing behavioral responses to a workplace dietary
choice intervention. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(345), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.
00345
Wang, C. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of perceived value in mobile government con­
tinuance use: An empirical research in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 140–147. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.034
Wang, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Ma, J. (2020). Spillover of workplace IT satisfaction onto job
satisfaction: The roles of job fit and professional fit. International Journal of Information
Management, 50, 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.011
Wayne, S. J., Lemmon, G., Hoobler, J. M., Cheung, G. W., & Wilson, M. S. (2017). The ripple effect:
A spillover model of the detrimental impact of work–family conflict on job success. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 876–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2174
Weber, R. H. (2010). Internet of things - new security and privacy challenges. Computer Law and
Security Review, 26(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2009.11.008
Wu, X. X., Choi, W. J., & Park, J. (2019). “I” see Samsung, but “we” see Samsung and LG: The
moderating role of consumers’ self-construals and perceived similarity in spillover effect of
product-harm crisis. International Journal of Market Research, 62(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1470785319866404
Xanthopoulou, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2012). Play online, work better? Examining the spillover of
active learning and transformational leadership. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79
(7), 1328–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.03.006
Yegiyan, N. S. (2015). Explicating the emotion spillover effect. Journal of Media Psychology, 27(3),
134–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000164
650 Y. LU ET AL.

Yu, J., Lee, H., Ha, I., & Zo, H. (2015). User acceptance of media tablets: An empirical examination of
perceived value. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.
11.004
Yu, J., Subramanian, N., Ning, K., & Edwards, D. (2015). Product delivery service provider selection
and customer satisfaction in the era of internet of things: A Chinese e-retailers’ perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.
09.031
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224298805200302