## 3 Study 1
### Results
#### 3.2.2 Differences Across Five IoT Devices in Households  
Separate univariate ANOVAs with a nested design were performed to compare the effect of type of device (five devices: camera, scale, light, photo frame, and speaker) and different conditions (three to four conditions with varying levels of intensity in terms of noticeability) on the three identified emotion dimensions (emotional intensity, constructive/unconstructive, cognitive-motivational/affective).  
A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the emotional intensity dimension (F (4, 501) = 13.43, \(p\) = 0.000, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.10). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparisons indicated that the mean value of the emotional intensity dimension was significantly different between the smart camera and the other devices, namely the smart scale (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.39, 1.11]), the smart light (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.40, 1.11]), the smart digital photo frame (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.34, 1.05]), and the smart speaker (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.41, 1.12]). Reactions to the smart camera cybersecurity breach scenario triggered the most intensive emotional reaction (Figure 1). There was no statistically significant difference between the other IoT devices (\(p\) > 0.05).  
A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the constructive vs. unconstructive dimension (F (4, 501) = 4.21, \(p\) = 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.03). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value was significantly different between the smart light and the smart scale (\(p\) = 0.029, 95% C.I. = [0.03, 0.78]) and between the smart light and the smart speaker (\(p\) = 0.016, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)0.80, \(-\)0.05]). Reactions to the cybersecurity breach scenario on a smart light triggered more anticipated constructive action tendencies compared to breaches on the smart scale and smart speaker, which triggered more anticipated unconstructive action tendencies (Figure 2). There was no statistically significant difference between the other IoT devices (\(p\) > 0.05).  
A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension (F (4, 501) = 5.55, \(p\) = 0.000, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.04). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension was significantly different between the smart camera and the smart scale (\(p\) = 0.001, 95% C.I. = [0.18, 0.90]), the smart camera and the smart light (\(p\) = 0.008, 95% C.I. = [0.08, 0.80]), the smart camera and the smart digital photo frame (\(p\) = 0.035, 95% C.I. = [0.02, 0.74]), and the smart scale and the smart speaker (\(p\) = 0.026, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)0.77, \(-\)0.03]). Reactions to the cybersecurity breach scenario on the smart camera triggered more anticipated cognitive-motivational reactions compared to more affective reactions on the smart scale, smart light, and smart digital photo frame. Also, reactions to cybersecurity breaches on the smart speaker triggered more anticipated cognitive-motivational reactions compared to more affective reactions for the breach on the smart scale (Figure 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the other IoT devices (\(p\) > 0.05).  
Figure 1: Estimated marginal means of the emotional reactions on the first dimension for IoT devices.  
Figure 2: Estimated marginal means of the emotional reactions on the second dimension for IoT devices.  
By comparing how emotional reactions to cybersecurity breaches on domestic IoT devices differ, we found the largest effects of cybersecurity breaches on the smart security camera. One of the explanations could be that cybersecurity breaches on the smart security camera have the strongest expected negative effect on privacy. In an interview study conducted parallel to this one, participants specifically expressed concern about the camera recording them [23].