## 4 Study 2
### Results
#### 4.2.2 Differences in the Dimensions Across the Three Phases of the Field Experiment  
Separate univariate ANOVAs were performed to compare the effect of the different field experimental phases on the three identified emotion dimensions. As the number of reports varied between different household members, we included the participants as a random factor in the design. A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the emotional intensity dimension (F (2, 204) = 16.02, \(p\) = 0.000, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.14). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the emotional intensity dimension was significantly different between phases 1 and 2 (\(p\) = 0.025, 95% C.I. = [0.04, 0.73]), between phases 1 and 3 (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.48, 1.22]), and between phases 2 and 3 (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [0.25, 0.68]). Reactions to the irregularities of IoT devices were most intense at the beginning of the field experiment, lower in the second phase, and the lowest in the third phase (Figure 7). A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the constructive vs. unconstructive dimension (F (2, 204) = 26.78, \(p\) = 0.000, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.21). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the constructive vs. unconstructive dimension was significantly different between phases 1 and 2 (\(p\) = 0.001, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)0.94, \(-\)0.22]), between phases 1 and 3 (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)1.5, \(-\)0.73]), and between phases 2 and 3 (\(p\) = 0.000, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)0.76, \(-\)0.31]). The emotional reactions reported in phase 1 were the most constructive and became less constructive in phase 2 and phase 3 (see Figure 8). A univariate ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension (F (2, 204) = 7.57, \(p\) = 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.07). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparison indicated that the mean value of the cognitive-motivational vs. affective dimension was significantly different between phase 2 and phase 3 (\(p\) = 0.001, 95% C.I. = [\(-\)0.70, \(-\)0.15]). Reactions to the reported irregularities of IoT devices triggered more affective reactions in phase 2 (in which they were not aware of possible cybersecurity breaches on their IoT devices) and more cognitive-motivational reactions in phase 3 (in which they were aware of the possibility of breaches) (Figure 9). There was no statistically significant difference between other phases (\(p\) > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the fourth dimension (distress symptoms vs. oppositional tendencies) between different phases or between different IoT devices. Additionally, we analyzed variation in the dimensions for the different devices but found no statistically significant differences (see statistical tests in Appendix A). For this analysis, we included only participants' reports from the second phase of the field experiment as, in this phase, participants were exposed to simulated irregularities on the IoT devices installed in their house. Initially, we introduced a balanced design, comparable  
Figure 8: Mean emotional reactions on the second dimension for different phases of the household experiment. Figure 7: Schemes follow the same formatting: estimated marginal means of the emotional reactions on the first dimension for different phases of the household experiment. to the ones in Study 1. However, the number of reported irregularities between different devices varied and was unevenly distributed (from 8 reports for smart camera to 40 for the smart speaker). The reasons for this uneven distribution are partially that the participants were often not aware of the simulated cybersecurity attacks and therefore did not report them. Instead, they reported on other negative experiences that they had with the devices.