The Impact of Sustainable Technologies in the Perceived Well-being: The Role of Intrinsic Motivations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Sample characteristics	Descriptive statistics
Gender	Female	52%
	Male	48%
Age (average)		50
Urban area		88%
Building type	Terrace	12%
	Detached	22%
	Semi-detached	8%
	Flat	58%
	Other	1%
Employment	Student	6%
	Employed worker	43%
	Self-employed	15%
	Unemployed/Retired	37%
Homeowner		65%
Number of individuals living in the household (average)		3
Number of children (average)		1

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation, CR, and Fornell-Lacker table.

	Mean	STD	CR	PE	PW	PU	SAT	Use
Perceived enjoyment (PE)	5.21	1.25	0.96	0.95
Perceived well-being (PW)	4.06	1.67	0.96	0.50	0.93
Perceived usefulness (PU)	5.13	1.25	0.95	0.69	0.51	0.91
Satisfaction (SAT)	4.83	1.31	0.98	0.65	0.63	0.69	0.96
Use	3.81	1.67	0.97	0.45	0.72	0.44	0.57	0.96

Bold values are the square root of AVE.

Table 3. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio.

	PE	PW	PU	SAT	Use
PE
PW	0.526
PU	0.736	0.537
SAT	0.677	0.649	0.720
Use	0.475	0.756	0.462	0.593

PE: perceived enjoyment; PW: perceived well-being; PU: perceived usefulness; SAT: satisfaction.

Figure 2. Structural model results (Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1).

Figure 3. Moderation of perceived enjoyment (PE) between perceived usefulness (PU) and satisfaction.

Figure 4. Moderation of perceived enjoyment (PE) between use and perceived well-being.

Figure 5. Moderation of perceived enjoyment (PE) between satisfaction and perceived well-being.

Table A1. Interviewees’ details.

ID	Role	Occupation
I1	Expert	University professor
I2	Expert	Researcher
I3	Expert	Researcher
I4	Expert	Head of applied research and innovation
I5	Expert	Environmental engineer
I6	Expert	Researcher
I7	Expert	Project manager
I8	Expert	Sustainability manager
I9	Consumer	Unemployed
I10	Consumer	Communication department employee
I11	Consumer	Mechanical engineer
I12	Consumer	Marketing Assistant
I13	Consumer	Marketing and communication officer
I14	Consumer	Project leader
I15	Consumer	Self-employed baker
I16	Consumer	Mechanical engineer
I17	Consumer	University professor
I18	Consumer	IT consultant

Table B1. Survey items.

Variable	Item		Source
Perceived usefulness	PU1	Using sustainable energy solutions improves my performance in managing energy consumption	Venkatesh et al., 2012
	PU2	Using sustainable energy solutions increases my productivity in managing energy consumption
	PU3	Using sustainable energy solutions enhances my effectiveness in managing energy consumption
	PU4	Overall, sustainable energy solutions are useful in managing energy consumption
Perceived enjoyment	PE1	Using sustainable energy solutions is fun
	PE2	Using sustainable energy solutions is enjoyable
	PE3	Using sustainable energy solutions is very entertaining
Satisfaction		How do you feel about your overall experience with sustainable energy solutions use:	Bhattacherjee, 2001
	SAT1	1-Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7-Very satisfied
	SAT2	1-Very displeased 2 3 4 5 6 7-Very pleased
	SAT3	1-Very frustrated 2 3 4 5 6 7-Very contented
	SAT4	1-Absolutely terrible 2 3 4 5 6 7-Absolutely delighted
Use Behavior	UB1	I often use sustainable energy solutions in my household.	Venkatesh et al., 2012
	UB2	I often use sustainable energy solutions to manage my energy consumption.
	UB3	I often use sustainable energy solutions to monitor my energy consumption
Perceived well-being		Overall, sustainable energy solutions…	El Hedhli et al., 2013
	PW1	Have satisfied my overall household needs
	PW2	Have played a very important role in my social well-being
	PW3	Have played a very important role in my leisure well-being
	PW4	Have played an important role in enhancing the quality of life in my household

Table C1. Age and gender distribution.

Age/gender	Population (%)^a	Sample (%)	Chi-squared (p-value)
18–24	9	9	0.0377 (0.9813)
25–49	40	40
>50	52	52
Female	51	51	(>0.9999)
Male	49	49

^aSource: http://appssoeurostateceuropaeu/nui/showdo?dataset=demo_pjan (EUROSTAT: Population on 1 January by age and sex (The last update was April 27, 2021 and extracted on May 20, 2021).

Table D1. Loadings and cross-loadings.

	PE	PW	PU	SAT	Use
PE1	0.937	0.443	0.653	0.590	0.409
PE2	0.966	0.481	0.675	0.635	0.422
PE3	0.935	0.485	0.631	0.616	0.447
PW1	0.459	0.919	0.479	0.600	0.694
PW2	0.458	0.916	0.439	0.555	0.639
PW3	0.467	0.949	0.457	0.569	0.673
PW4	0.466	0.938	0.531	0.600	0.670
PU1	0.583	0.385	0.884	0.550	0.350
PU2	0.645	0.541	0.930	0.670	0.468
PU3	0.664	0.532	0.944	0.684	0.461
PU4	0.614	0.379	0.878	0.591	0.303
SAT1	0.633	0.626	0.705	0.943	0.577
SAT2	0.641	0.623	0.675	0.971	0.557
SAT3	0.600	0.579	0.627	0.968	0.535
SAT4	0.619	0.570	0.642	0.962	0.528
UB1	0.454	0.705	0.433	0.565	0.959
UB2	0.432	0.664	0.438	0.544	0.961
UB3	0.406	0.695	0.397	0.531	0.949

PE: perceived enjoyment; PW: perceived well-being; PU: perceived usefulness; SAT: satisfaction.

Bold values are the loadings of each construct; non-bold values are cross-loadings.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unidied theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

El Hedhli, K., Chebat, J. C., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). Shopping well-being at the mall: Construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar