## 3 Study 1
### Results
#### 3.2.3 Comparison Across Different Conditions/Intensities Across Five IoT Devices  
A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the emotional intensity dimension on the smart speaker (F (3, 99) = 4.17, \(p\) = 0.008, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.11). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the emotional intensity dimension was significantly different between conditions 1a,b (\(p\) = 0.013, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)1.72, \(-\)0.15]) and conditions 1a and 2a (\(p\) = 0.013, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)1.70, \(-\)0.14]). Reactions to the cybersecurity breach scenario on condition 1b and 2a triggered a more anticipated intense emotional reaction compared to condition 1a (Figure 4). Conditions 1b and 2a were intended to be more intrusive and included starting a radio on low volume without instruction and a decrease in volume of the smart speaker, compared to condition 1a, which informed the user that the radio is not available anymore. There was no statistically significant difference between the other conditions (\(p\) > 0.05). Figure 4: Estimated marginal means of the emotional reactions on the first dimension for different conditions within the smart speaker. Figure 3: Estimated marginal means of the emotional reactions on the third dimension for IoT devices. There were no differences between the different conditions for any of the IoT devices on the second dimension (\(p>0.05\)). A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension for the smart scale (F (2, 98) = 10.23, \(p\) = 0.000, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.17). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension was significantly different between conditions 1 and 2 (\(p\) =0.007, 95% C.I. = [0.16, 1.22]) and 1 and 3 (p = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.48, 1.60]). Participants anticipated more cognitive-motivational emotional reactions to the smart scale cybersecurity breach scenario in condition 1 (previous weight measurements deleted) vs. the more affective reactions in conditions 2 (3 kg higher measures) and 3 (9 kg higher measures) (Figure 5). There was no statistically significant difference between the other conditions (\(p>0.05\)). A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension for the smart speaker (F (3, 99) = 5.35, \(p\) = 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.14). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension was significantly different between conditions 1a,b (\(p\) = 0.031, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)1.31, \(-\)0.04]), 1a and 2a (\(p\) = 0.030, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)1.30, \(-\)0.05]), and 1a and 2b (\(p\) = 0.001, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)1.55, \(-\)0.30]). Reactions to the cybersecurity breach scenario on a smart speaker in condition 1a (radio becoming unavailable during use) triggered more anticipated affective reactions compared to the more cognitive-motivational reactions in conditions 1b (starts playing the radio at low volume without instruction), 2a (decreases the radio volume), and 2b (turning the radio on without intention) (Figure 6). A possible reason could be that interruption of the radio use was perceived more as losing something (enjoyment of the radio) while the other conditions might not have been perceived as such. There was no statistically significant difference between the other conditions (\(p>0.05\)). To summarize, a comparison across different devices revealed that the most intensive emotional reactions (the highest scores on the first dimension) were found for cybersecurity breaches on the smart camera. The most unconstructive action tendencies were found for cybersecurity breaches on the smart scale and the smart speaker, while the most constructive action tendencies were for breaches on the smart light.