## 6 Discussions of Workshop Results
### Comparisons Between Identified Constructs in CIREI and Classic TAMs  
After developing our model with constructs and relationships based on the collected data, we compared it to the most prominent previously established technology acceptance models, shown in Figure 13, that were identified during the literature review: TAM2 [28]  
Figure 12: Conceptual framework for integrating robots with embodied intelligence (the CIREI framework). This brings together broad, situational themes (black boxes), linked through concepts drawn from recurring contributions in the participant workshop (blue ovals). Solid lines indicate direct links, and dashed lines indicate indirect links. and UTAUT2 [29]. Additionally, we included STAM [30] in this comparison due to its specialisation toward older adults, making it particularly relevant for certain aspects of our analysis. It is worth emphasising that our model is not intended to be a universal acceptance predictor; instead, it specifically focuses on ambient assistive smart home technology used by a vulnerable or frail older adult population living independently. TAM2 and UTAUT2 aim for broad applicability across demographics and technology domains. STAM targets older adults using gerontechnology but maintains a wider scope of technology domains. Our model's inclusion of varying granularities--broad themes and specific recurring concepts--is also not mirrored in established models. Despite these differences, we found some significant overlaps and absences thereof between our model and the established models. Our Agency construct had semantic overlap with TAM2's _Voluntariness_ and _Subjective norm_, as well as STAM's _Gerontechnology anxiety_. TAM2 suggests social phenomena, the need to fulfil social obligations, as infringing on one's agency; STAM presents technology use itself as the cause for this concern. There is a particularly strong connection between our _Individual limitations_ concept and the constructs within STAM: _Physical functioning_, _Cognitive ability_, _Self-reported health conditions_, and _Gerontechnology self-efficacy_. This reflects the shared target demographic and the difference in granularity, i.e., we have only a single construct, while STAM has 4 in this case, which could be a product of noise artefacts and our limited data volume. Other points of convergence are our _Usability_ theme and the Current use of technology concept, aligning with constructs across all three existing models: _Gerontechnology self-efficacy_, _Perceived ease of use_, _Effort expectancy_, _Use behaviour_ and [past] Experience. Our _Economic_ theme overlapped with UTAUT2's _Price value_ and STAM's _Economic status_, while _Learning_ overlapped with UTAUT2's _Habit_ and STAM's _Cognitive ability_. _Logistics of use_ found common ground with _Facilitating conditions_ in both UTAUT2 and STAM, as well as  
Figure 13: A network graph of connections between constructs in our CIREI model (orange) and constructs in pre-existing models: TAM2 (blue), UTAUT2 (green), and STAM (purple). _Habit_ in UTAUT2. _Technology anxiety_ and _Trust_ in our model echoed _Attitudes towards using_ in TAM2 and STAM, along with _Grontechnology anxiety_ in STAM. The only construct unique to our model was the _Rate of technological advancement_. This could be due to its high specificity and the user focus of the compared models, i.e., compared to a focus on the technology. It is also possible that the earlier development of TAM2 and UTAUT2 coincided with a time of rapid advancement, where public awareness of such change was lower. The proliferation of the internet, constant news cycles, and ubiquitous technology may have contributed to a heightened awareness of how current and prospective users relate to changing technologies. Therefore, the absence of a construct related to the _Rate of technological advancement_ in these older models could be seen as a limitation due to their period of origin rather than a difference in user-technology focus.