## 6 Limitations and Future Perspectives  
The studies presented in this paper, including both the scenario-based study (Study 1) and the field experiment with simulated cybersecurity breaches (Study 2), encountered several challenges and limitations. Study 1 was designed to explore participants' emotional responses to hypothetical scenarios involving clear cybersecurity breaches. This controlled approach allowed us to introduce breaches in a clear and straightforward manner, offering insights into emotional reactions that may be difficult to capture in real-time situations. The use of simulated scenarios is grounded in behavioral research [26; 27; 28], which indicates that participants can provide accurate emotional responses in controlled environments. These simulations are designed to replicate real-world situations, thereby offering valid insights into user experiences. However, the hypothetical nature of these scenarios means that there may have been a gap between how participants imagined they would feel and how they would react in a live situation. In contrast, Study 2 was designed to simulate real-world cybersecurity breaches in a field setting, capturing participants' emotional reactions in a more realistic environment. One major limitation of Study 2 was that the intensity and consequences of the breaches were intentionally kept at a relatively low level for ethical reasons. While these low-intensity breaches often went undetected by participants, they reflect real-world situations where attackers aim to keep breaches concealed. Noticeability played a key role in the differences between the two studies: Study 1, where irregularities clearly indicated cybersecurity breaches, elicited stronger emotional responses, whereas Study 2, where most simulated breaches went unnoticed, resulted in more subdued emotional reactions. This aspect of noticeability is critical for understanding the emotional processing differences between hypothetical and real-world breach scenarios. Future research should address the limitations by exploring a wider range of breach intensities, using more diverse samples, and comparing both hypothetical and real-world scenarios to better understand the gap between perceived and actual emotional responses. Sampling formed another limitation of this study. Partly different types of samples were used in Study 1 and Study 2. While Study 1, which used hypothetical scenarios, only included a UK sample, Study 2 was conducted in both the Netherlands and the UK. Including samples from different countries enhances the robustness and generalizability of our findings, but the differences in the populations of the two studies complicate direct comparisons, as any observed differences may result from sample variation rather than the nature of the task itself. Our findings emphasize the need to raise awareness about the threat that cybersecurity breaches pose to household privacy. Breaches may occur more frequently than people realize. Increasing awareness can help users to recognize the signs of potential breaches. In addition to raising awareness, it is crucial to educate users on how to protect their IoT devices and respond effectively when attacks occur. Offering psychological support for those affected by cybersecurity breaches is also important, as these incidents can have significant emotional impacts, potentially leading to long-term psychological difficulties, similar to what is seen in cases of physical breaches, like burglary [29; 30]. The findings of this study not only advance theoretical understanding of user emotional responses in cybersecurity contexts but also provide actionable insights for manufacturers and policymakers. Enhanced device security measures and user education initiatives are essential for addressing the psychological impacts of breaches. Regulators should focus on enforcing stricter security standards for IoT devices, particularly in terms of transparency and accountability.