The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm

Consumers’ intention towards The use of

smart
the use of smart technologies technologies in
T&H industry
in tourism and hospitality (T&H)
industry: a deeper insight into the
integration of TAM, TPB and trust Received 27 June 2022
Revised 14 September 2022
26 October 2022
Sujood Accepted 26 October 2022
Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management,
Jamia Millia Islamia (Central University), New Delhi, India, and
Naseem Bano and Samiha Siddiqui
Department of Commerce, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

Abstract
Purpose – This study used an integrated framework that incorporates the technology acceptance model
(TAM) (Davis, 1989), the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and trust to examine factors that
mainly influence consumers’ intention towards the use of smart technologies in tourism and hospitality (T&H)
industry. The Internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality systems, augmented reality
systems, etc. are the Smart 4.0 technologies generally used in T&H industry these days.
Design/methodology/approach – Convenience sampling approach was employed in this study. Data were
collected over the Internet using a survey instrument by posting the questionnaire link on social network web
pages of travel agencies from November 10, 2021, to December 30, 2021. In the opening statement of the
questionnaire, we have explained about the Smart 4.0 technologies so that every respondent could understand
what we mean by Smart 4.0 technologies.
Findings – The findings show that conjoining the TAM and the TPB with trust resulted in a robust model for
explaining customers’ intention toward using smart technologies in the T&H industry.
Research limitations/implications – Smart technologies have become one of the most profitable
e-commerce applications. This study examines and integrates the various advantages of smart technologies for
the consumers in T&H industry, as well as providing insight into the intentions of Indian consumers. Hence,
this study gives significant information to IT companies, online travel agencies, tour operators, travel agents,
T&H planners and other stakeholders on Indian consumers’ behavioral intentions (BIs).
Originality/value – This study tested the utility of the extended model in predicting consumers’ intention
towards the use of smart technologies in T&H industry. As far as the authors’ knowledge is concerned, this is
the first study that predicted intention of Indian consumers towards the use of smart technologies in T&H
industry by integrating TAM, TPB and trust.
Keywords Technology acceptance model (TAM), Theory of planned behavior (TPB), Trust,
Smart technologies, Tourism and hospitality industry
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Studies have revealed how emerging technologies can facilitate and, to some degree, enrich
tourism journeys by modifying visitor actions and engagement with tourism locations when
new technologies are developed and applied (Tussyadiah, 2020). The advent of Industry 4.0
technology has had an impact on many aspects of the economy, including tourism (Stankov and
Gretzel, 2020). Advanced mobile phones with constant Internet connectivity and a plethora of
programs (apps) have a significant impact on tourist behavior (Gupta and Dogra, 2017). Smart Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights
tourism technologies (STT) are any form of interactive technology adopted by different tourists © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
to collect information, perform transactions, communicate and produce content (Yoo et al., 2017). DOI 10.1108/JHTI-06-2022-0267
JHTI It must examine how travelers use and explore technology pre, during and after their trip (Li
et al., 2017; Sigala, 2018). Technology provides the significant benefit of granting tourist sectors
to replace expensive human labor with electronic labor, lowering labor costs while also,
minimizing consumer service issues (Brain, 2011). The use of technological platforms was crucial
in limiting the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in sustaining human
communication (Stylos and Jiang, 2021). Smart technologies, which include both hardware and
software technological equipment that facilitates interconnections, are progressively being
utilized to help travelers find information, boost operational efficiency and promote tourism and
hospitality (T&H) locations (Han et al., 2021). Marketing and management rationales are enabled
for operations by smart technological methods such as big data analysis and collection of data
(Stylos et al., 2021a; Trunfio and Pasquinelli, 2021). The current era’s digital technologies
highlight not just the wide range of interactions and worldwide connectivity, but also the wide
selection of resources (Niemand et al., 2021; Soni et al., 2022). Smart technologies comprise smart
gadgets as well as social media outlets, big data, accessible connection via Wi-Fi, smartphones,
smartphone devices, integrated e-commerce systems, social networks, virtual reality, card
readers, artificial intelligence (AI), facial & voice recognition, Digital ID, service robots, etc. (Jiang
and Stylos, 2021; Todua and Urotadze, 2021; Pai et al., 2020; Gretzel et al., 2015). Consumers will
likely alter the system qualities based on their wants and aspirations (Hartwick and Barki, 1994).
Smart technologies offer a wide range of options for planning, analyzing, preferences,
expectations and monitoring along with acknowledging tourist behavior (Pasquinelli and
Trunfio, 2020). Smart technologies foster a digital environment that encourages collaboration,
information exchange, building consensus and extended innovation (Del Chiappa and Baggio,
2015; Trunfio and Pasquinelli, 2021). Due to the economic consequences, previously the product
development was prioritized. However, in the current years, adoption theories have been
effectively utilized in service contexts (Kaushik et al., 2015). Tourism locations are no exemption
when it comes to utilizing smart technology since technology has had a substantial influence on
the tourism industry in many aspects (Huang et al., 2017). Various tourism attractions have
implemented the approach of smart tourism, as more attractions become smarter through
intelligent technology networks that allow tourism operators to interact and share tourism
activity information with customers in real-time (Buhalis and Amaranggana, 2014). Smart
tourism is a gradual shift away from conventional tourism offers and toward the modern
incorporation of extensive technical expertise into the tourism industry. This shift has occurred
in the tourism industry, primarily as of the advent of e-Tourism (Stylos et al., 2021b; Buhalis,
2003). New kinds of funding enabled by digital technology offer new opportunities for the T&H
industries to utilize and strengthen (Soni et al., 2022). It is suggested that using Industry 4.0
technologies can improve an industry’s competitiveness (Nasiri et al., 2020), which is supported
by other academicians who believe that Industry 4.0 technologies could help travel operators to
be more identifiable and connected, allowing them to be more flexible and resilient in their
pursuit of better performance (Seyedghorban et al., 2020), improved visibility and minimizing
lead times are two examples (Masood and Sonntag, 2020; Soni et al., 2022). According to research
studies, visitors’ usage of smart technology will expand in the upcoming years, and they will be
able to arrange their vacations at any time and from any location (Jeong and Shin, 2020).
John McCarthy proposed the term “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) in the 1950s, describing it as “the
science and engineering of making intelligent machines” (Artificial Solutions, 2020). AI is viewed as
a method that understands a person, performs like a human, thinks sensibly and behaves
rationally. The adaptation of AI and robotics technologies by the hospitality industry is estimated
to accelerate after the COVID-19 outbreak. Numerous hotels will likely deploy “unmanned”
technology and robots to deliver highly contactless assistance (Jiang and Wen, 2020). Smart
technologies promotes paradigm shifts and innovation by assisting in the expansion of growing
industry and destination strategies in which tourist perspectives may be co-created through the
use of technological platforms that dynamically link and engage a wide range of stakeholders
(Trunfio and Campana, 2019; Sigala, 2018; Williams et al., 2020). The Internet of things (IoT), big The use of
data, analytics and cloud computing are all examples of Industry 4.0 technologies that have a smart
substantial effect on the transformation and impact of financial technology (Soni et al., 2022). An
increasing proportion of tourist destinations and hotels are using new technologies and services to
technologies in
promote their items and services. IoT offers T&H businesses a fantastic opportunity to optimize T&H industry
customer happiness while lowering operating expenses (Car et al., 2019). The IoT is commonly
viewed as an electronic connection of physical items, machine-to-machine connections, or devices
that are remotely paired via smart sensors (Li et al., 2015).
Although there are various studies on smart technologies, less work has been done on Smart
tourism development in respect of the COVID-19 outbreak. On the other side, the COVID-19
pandemic is promoting the usage of Smart travel technologies (Gretzel et al., 2020). Although
their research seems to be restricted to existing usage observations and possible future
applications and implications, researchers in the subject of T&H have started to show interest in
AI, robotics and automation (Tussyadiah, 2020). The application of smart technologies in the
T&H industries is a significant innovation that influences consumer behavior. Hence, we have
adopted a combination of technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior
(TPB) along with trust to investigate consumers’ innovation adoption (He et al., 2019) and their
intention towards the use of smart technologies. To the extent of the authors’ information, it is
one of the first research to forecast Indian consumers’ intentions concerning the use of smart
technologies in the T&H industry by merging TAM, TPB and Trust.

2. Research framework and hypothesis derivation (ROL)

2.1 Technology acceptance model (TAM)
The extensively used model for understanding consumer behavior in terms of technology
adoption is TAM. It was acquired using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to raise user
awareness of information technology acceptance (Davis, 1989; Lee et al., 2003). TRA presents a
fundamental paradigm that is adapted to describe the impacts of customer engagement and
involvement on technology utilization (Hartwick and Barki, 1994). The TAM does not include
the attitude component found in TRA. TAM has been practiced in research of several sorts of
information technology acceptance (Kim and Shin, 2015; Chuah et al., 2016; Karahanna and
Straub, 1999), business insights (Wang, 2016), health surveillance system (Tseng et al., 2013),
AI (Sohn and Kwon, 2020), usage of smartphones (Park and Chen, 2007) smart hotel
technologies (Yang et al., 2022) and in multiple tourism studies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000;
Lee et al., 2012). TAM is influenced by two major factors perceived usefulness (PU) and
perceived ease of use (PEoU) (Lim et al., 2016; Yu and Huang, 2020). Consumers who see the
technology as both pertinent and informative are more likely to have favorable views toward it
(Hartwick and Barki, 1994). PU has been defined as “the degree to which a person believes that
the use of a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989). PEoU is
defined as “the degree to which a person believes that use of a particular system would be free of
effort” (Davis, 1989). People’s perceptions of technology are influenced by both PU and PEoU
(Davis et al., 1989). PU and PEoU have been shown to have a significant impact on behavioral
intention (BI) in several prior studies (Mital et al., 2018). Within the perspective of the present
investigation, if the smart technologies are simple to comprehend or easy to use, the Internet
user is more inclined to perceive convenience, usefulness and build a positive attitude towards
the smart technologies. Therefore, we present the subsequent hypotheses:
H1. PU has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ intention towards the use
of smart technologies in T&H industry.
H2. PU has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards the use of
smart technologies in T&H industry.
JHTI H3. PEoU has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ perceived usefulness
towards the use of smart technologies in T&H industry.
H4. PEoU has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards the use
of smart technologies in T&H industry.

2.2 Theory of planned behavior (TPB)

The TPB is an expansion of the TRA in that it uses the same components as the TRA while
also incorporating the construct, i.e. perceived behavioral control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991).
The TPB affirms that BI is the strongest predictor of behavior since it denotes the exertion
that people are willing to put in to complete an action (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB states that the
factors that influence BI and actual behavior are PBC, ATT and SN. An individual’s intention
to use a certain technology is represented by BI. ATT is the positive and negative judgment of
a consumer’s willingness to adopt a given behavior. Many studies are related to attitude and
BI (Wang et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017; Sujood et al., 2021b; Hamid et al., 2022), saving energy
in the workforce (Gao et al., 2017). Individuals’ views of social pressures to engage in a
particular behavior are referred to as SN (Ajzen, 1987; Cheung et al., 2017). SN has been shown
in earlier studies to significantly and favorably influence BI (Sun et al., 2017; Chen and Tung,
2014; Tsarenko et al., 2013). PBC is a participant’s perception of how difficult or easy it is to
conduct an action, taking into consideration affecting factors like energy, resources and
expertise (Ajzen, 1991). PBC significantly affected the individual’s BI (Sujood et al., 2021a;
Han et al., 2010; Tonglet et al., 2004). Pavlou and Chai (2002) have observed a negative
association between PBC and BI. TPB has been utilized in many innovative investigations
(Basoglu et al., 2017; Yang and Jolly, 2009; Thorhauge et al., 2016), buying online air tickets
(Bign
e et al., 2010). Following are the hypotheses about the TPB model based on the above
discussion.
H5. ATT has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ intention towards the
use of smart technologies in T&H industry.
H6. SN has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ intention towards the use
of smart technologies in T&H industry.
H7. PBC has a significant and positive influence on consumers’ intention towards the use
of smart technologies in T&H industry.

2.3 Trust (TR)

Trust (TR) is a comprehensive method of lowering social complexity and perceived
transaction risk by increasing the anticipation of a favorable outcome and perceived
confidence about the trustee’s anticipated conduct (Pavlou, 2003; Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002;
Gefen, 2004; Tung et al., 2008). Trust is defined as consumers’ conviction in the quality and
trustworthiness of an organization’s services (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). We trust when
we are susceptible to danger from others yet think that even if they could, they would not hurt
us (Friedman et al., 2000). Trust develops when “one party has confidence in an exchange
partner’s reliability and integrity” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Consumers are expected to
have ambiguous thoughts and attitudes about the system that are supposed to be shaped
before the system’s development (Hartwick and Barki, 1994). Consumer behavior is
influenced by trust. It has been identified as a critical component (Horst et al., 2007; Tung et al.,
2008; Ha et al., 2019; Obaid and Aldammagh, 2021). The significance of trust in a partnership
is emphasized (Mayer et al., 1995). In other words, consumers’ trust in technology (or technical
objects) designers is limited by awareness of the circumstances under which the technology
operates persistently and securely (Friedman et al., 2000). Trust has a direct and
advantageous influence on the adoption of smart technologies, as per the numerous earlier The use of
research (Lee, 2009; Wu and Chen, 2005; Belanche et al., 2014), customer and e-commerce smart
associations (Keen et al., 1999). Troise et al. (2020) discovered a negative relationship between
BI and trust. The current study examines how consumer trust influences their willingness to
technologies in
use smart technologies in the T&H industries. Therefore, as per the above information, the T&H industry
following hypothesis has been presented.
H8. TR has a positive influence on consumers’ intention towards the use of smart
technologies in T&H industry.
Table 1 displays previous studies related to TAM, TPB, Trust and smart technologies.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection
A convenience sampling approach was employed in this research. Data were collected over
the Internet using a survey instrument by floating the questionnaire link on social network
web pages of travel agencies from November 10, 2021, to December 30, 2021. The purpose of
putting the questionnaire on these social networking websites was to increase coverage in
order to get a larger sample size. In the opening statement of the questionnaire, we have
explained about Smart 4.0 technologies so that every respondent could understand what we
mean by Smart 4.0 technologies. The requirement for survey participation was that the
respondent is an Indian citizen. Two things were required in order to complete the survey:
first, respondents could only move on to the next page of the survey after answering all of the
questions on the previous page. Second, the email address was made a required field so that it
would be removed if the survey was completed many times.

3.2 Development of the instrument

There were two sections in the survey questionnaire. The demographic information of
respondents was collected in the first section of the questionnaire. The second section of the
survey consists of questions on study variables. Seven-point Likert scale ranging from
“strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree)” was
used. Items to measure PU and PEoU were adapted from Davis (1989) then for measuring
attitude, subjective norms, PBC and intention, items were adapted from Taylor and Todd
(1995), Mathieson (1991) and Kucukusta et al. (2015). Lastly, the items to measure trust were
adapted from Gefen (2002) and Kim et al. (2011). As per the results of Cronbach’s reliability
test, some items (PEoU5, ATT4 and PBC5) were dropped due to low alpha values. Appendix
lists all the items.

3.3 Data analysis and screening

As put forward by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), “a two-step approach was used for data
analysis. The reliability and validity of the measuring scales employed in this study were first
examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Second, the proposed conceptual model’s
structural path was evaluated using SEM” (Talwar et al., 2020). After screening the data for
missing values and outliers, a final sample of 529 responses was considered for the study,
which was significantly more than the recommended value of at least 400 (Boomsma, 1987)
for SEM. Kurtosis and skewness were calculated to confirm the normality distribution
(Table 3). The resulting values do not exceed þ2 and 2, demonstrating that the data is
normally distributed (Garson, 2012). To detect common method bias, Harman’s single-factor
test was used. Harman’s single-factor test results revealed that the single factor accounts for
JHTI Author’s/ Theory/
S. No. (Year) Purpose Country Sample (n) Concept Results

1. Zhang and To gain better China 587 TPB Except perceived

Liu (2022) knowledge about the risk, which shows to
determinants that be a barrier to ESHS
affect a customer’s adoption, the
decision for using findings suggest that
ESHS all variables have a
substantial relation
with the consumers’
intention to adopt
ESHS and SN is
surprisingly
unaffected by the
consumer’s intention
to adopt ESHS
2. Yang and To determine the – 365 – STTs are
Zhang (2022) effect, magnitude and advantageous for
relevance of STTs in revisiting intentions
museum service by and good
assessing visitors’ suggestions and they
objectives and have a significant
investigating their and positive effect on
perceptions of STTs generating an
in generating unforgettable
museum tourism tourism experience
experiences for museum visitors.
STTs have a
negative impact on
the tourism
experience during
the communication
stage
3. Obaid and The TPB and TAM Palestine 250 TPB, As per the findings,
Aldammagh models, as well as TAM, perceived trust has a
(2021) trust and PR, were Trust and positive relation with
used to measure the PR the consumer
user acceptability of intentions for using
mobile banking mobile banking
applications in applications
Palestine
4. Sohn and To figure out which Korea 378 TAM, As per the findings,
Kwon (2020) models are most TPB, the VAM
accurate in UTAUT outperformed
describing customer and VAM UTAUT, TPB and
acceptance of AI- TAM regarding
based goods, as well modeling user
as factors having the acceptance. The most
higher effect on essential element
purchase intention. influencing user
There have been purchase intention
Table 1. comparisons between was determined to be
Previous studies TAM, TPB, UTAUT enjoyment, followed
related to TAM, TPB, and VAM by subjective norms
trust and smart
technologies (continued )
 Author’s/ Theory/
The use of
S. No. (Year) Purpose Country Sample (n) Concept Results smart
technologies in
5. Yu and To get knowledge China 375 TAM and The findings
Huang (2020) about the factors TPB highlight that all the T&H industry
affecting customers’ variables of TAM
readiness to use and TPB positively
intelligent libraries influence consumers’
willingness to use
intelligent libraries
6. Troise et al. To examine the Italy 425 TAM and The results reveal
(2020) willingness of TPB that including the
consumers to adopt TAM and TPB in a
OFD by model is pertinent
incorporating food and significant for
preferences, comprehending the
convenience, trust behavioral intentions
and the PR effect into of OFD users.
the TPB and TAM Contrarily, trust has
models a negative
relationship with BI
7. Ha et al. (2019) To evaluate the Vietnam 423 TAM, As per the findings,
impacts of several TPB and PU, PEoU, ATT, SN
variables on the Trust and trust have a
online purchase positive effect on
intention of consumers’
Vietnamese intentions to buy
consumers’ by online
utilizing TAM and
TPB
8. Mital et al. To evaluates the India 314 TRA, The finding reveals
(2018) three models in the TPB and that all the variables
context of IoT TAM supported the
adoption in India to adaptation of the IoT
advocate using the in India except the
SEM approach to PBC
close a gap in the
primary topic of
research
9. Pal et al. To narrow the gap – 239 TAM, As shown in the
(2018) left by putting the TRA and findings, all three
three models to the TPB models appear to be
test in the context of valid in the context of
older people adopting older people
smart homes adopting smart
homes
10. Hansen et al. To develop and UK 318 TAM, PEoU significantly
(2018) critically examine a TPB, PR enhances the effect of
model that integrates and Trust PBC on the intention
TAM and TPB for using social
components along networks for
with PR and trust transactions,
according to the
empirical findings

(continued ) Table 1.
JHTI Author’s/ Theory/
S. No. (Year) Purpose Country Sample (n) Concept Results

11. Yang et al. To provide an Korea 216 TPB and According to the
(2017) extensive research Trust research, trust,
model that mobility and
incorporates TPB, security/privacy risk,
automation, mobility, all are substantial
interoperability, variables impacting
security/risk and the implementation
trust to explain of Smart home
potential consumers’ services
behavioral intentions
toward Smart home
service absorption
and use
12. Bign
e et al. To determine the Spain 309 TAM, SN, ATT and PEoU
(2010) factors that cause TPB andwere considered to be
various Internet Trust significant
subscribers to avoid determinants in
purchasing airline online ticket
tickets online purchase intention.
Purchase intention
was considered to be
influenced by risk,
trust and perceived
behavioral control
via attitude
Note(s): “STTs 5 Smart Tourism Technologies, UTAUT 5 The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology, VAM 5 Value-based Adoption Model, SEM 5 Structural Equation Modeling, ESHS 5 Eco-
Table 1. friendly Smart Home Services, PR 5 Perceived Risk, OFD 5 Online Food Delivery”

Figure 1.
The conceptual
framework
less than 50% of the variance (38.873%), indicating that common method bias was not an The use of
issue in this study. smart
technologies in
4. Results
T&H industry
4.1 Respondents profile
The sample of the present study consists of 529 responses from Indian consumers (Table 2).
Out of the entire sample men made up 51.23% and women made up 48.77%. A large number
of respondents are between the age of 30–39 (27.03%) and from the undergraduate level of
education (35.35%) with an income level of 50,001 to 80,000 (42.15%).

4.2 Measurement model

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) has been used to estimate the relationship between observed
and latent constructs. The underlying constructs were identified using principal component
extraction with Varimax rotation and the Eigenvalue larger than 1 criterion. According to the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of 0.955, factor analysis is appropriate. To evaluate the
validity of the constructs, confirmatory factor analysis was used. The measurement model
analysis produced good model fit scores, indicating that the data fit the model well (CMIN/
DF 5 2.402, GFI 5 0.908, NFI 5 0.941, TLI 5 0.959, CFI 5 0.964 and RMSEA 5 0.052).
The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were tested to confirm the adequacy of
the measurement model. Composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha values were used to
assess reliability. CR values (Table 4) and alpha values (Table 3) are greater than the
recommended level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2011). Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed that
convergent validity be assessed using two criteria: (a) all factor loadings should be larger than
0.70, and (b) the average variance extracted (AVE) value should be greater than 0.50. All factor
loadings are more than 0.70. AVE values are also higher than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2011). The results given in Table 4 satisfy both convergent validity requirements.

Classification Freq %

Gender
Men 271 51.23
Women 258 48.77
Age (years)
Below 18 95 17.96
18–29 123 23.26
30–39 143 27.03
40–49 135 25.52
50 and above 33 6.24
Level of Education
High School 86 16.26
Intermediate 112 21.18
Undergraduate 187 35.35
Postgraduate 106 20.04
Ph.D 27 5.10
Others 11 2.07
Level of Income (INR)
Less than 20,000 53 10.02
20,001 to 50,000 76 14.37
50,001 to 80,000 223 42.15 Table 2.
80,001 to 1,10,000 112 21.17 Respondents’
1,10,001 and above 65 12.29 profile (n 5 529)
JHTI Items Loadings Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s alpha

PU 5.6976 0.9983 1.183 1.660 0.937

PU1 0.705
PU2 0.757
PU3 0.694
PU4 0.621
PEoU 5.5061 1.0235 0.939 1.049 0.864
PEoU1 0.799
PEoU2 0.720
PEoU3 0.756
PEoU4 0.745
PEoU5a
ATT 5.0693 1.1109 0.566 0.198 0.839
ATT1 0.705
ATT2 0.838
ATT3 0.783
a
ATT4
SN 5.5715 0.9438 1.068 1.213 0.909
SN1 0.699
SN2 0.780
SN3 0.779
SN4 0.658
PBC 5.6205 1.1768 0.739 0.542 0.935
PBC1 0.665
PBC2 0.784
PBC3 0.745
PBC4 0.743
PBC5a
TR 5.1086 1.0083 0.546 0.365 0.894
TR1 0.771
TR2 0.821
TR3 0.799
TR4 0.792
INT 5.3965 1.0300 0.732 0.660 0.910
INT1 0.744
INT2 0.776
INT3 0.695
Table 3. INT4 0.709
EFA results Note(s): aDropped items

The square root of the AVE for each construct was compared to the inter-construct
correlation to determine discriminant validity. Table 5 shows that all of the diagonal
elements, which are the squares of root AVE, exceed the inter-construct correlations,
implying discriminant validity.

4.3 Structural model and hypothesis testing

The findings of SEM have shown a good model fit (CMIN/DF 5 2.402, GFI 5 0.908,
NFI 5 0.941, TLI 5 0.959, CFI 5 0.964 and RMSEA 5 0.052). Table 6 shows the hypotheses
testing results. Intention towards the use of smart technologies in this study was jointly
predicted by PU (β 5 0.280, t-value 5 8.782, p < 0.001), ATT (β 5 0.354, t-value 5 11.091,
p < 0.001) and SN (β 5 0.564, t-value 5 21.481, p < 0.001) and these variables explained 63%
of the variance of intention towards the use of smart technologies. Hence, hypotheses 1, 5 and
6 were supported. PEoU influenced PU (β 5 0.741, t-value 5 25.371, p < 0.001) and explained
Variables Items FL CR AVE
The use of
smart
Perceived usefulness 0.938 0.790 technologies in
PU1 0.91
PU2 0.91 T&H industry
PU3 0.88
PU4 0.85
Perceived ease of use 0.865 0.617
PEoU1 0.75
PEoU2 0.80
PEoU3 0.81
PEoU4 0.79
Attitude 0.840 0.637
ATT1 0.79
ATT2 0.82
ATT3 0.79
Subjective norm 0.909 0.715
SN1 0.85
SN2 0.80
SN3 0.86
SN4 0.87
Perceived behavioral control 0.936 0.785
PBC1 0.86
PBC2 0.88
PBC3 0.91
PBC4 0.89
Trust 0.899 0.690
TR1 0.82
TR2 0.87
TR3 0.89
TR4 0.74
Intention 0.909 0.715
INT1 0.84 Table 4.
INT2 0.85 Reliability and
INT3 0.85 convergent
INT4 0.84 validity test

Constructs ATT SN PBC PU PEOU TR INT

ATT 0.798
SN 0.463*** 0.845
PBC 0.715*** 0.624*** 0.886
PU 0.512*** 0.802*** 0.744*** 0.889
PEOU 0.562*** 0.681*** 0.597*** 0.684*** 0.785 Table 5.
TR 0.477*** 0.595*** 0.646*** 0.624*** 0.469*** 0.831 Discriminant
INT 0.612*** 0.763*** 0.691*** 0.753*** 0.624*** 0.576*** 0.845 validity test

about 55% of the total variance in PU. Hence, hypothesis 3 was supported. Attitude was
jointly predicted by PU (β 5 0.222, t-value 5 4.498, p < 0.001) and PEoU (β 5 0.467,
t-value 5 9.457, p < 0.001) and these variables explained about 42% of the total variance in
attitude. Therefore, hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported. PBC (β 5 0.046, t-value 5 1.738,
p 5 0.082) and trust (β 5 0.015, t-value 5 0.578, p 5 0.563) did not significantly affect
intention. As a result, hypotheses 7 and 8 were not supported. The structural path model and
path coefficients are displayed in Figure 2.
JHTI 5. Discussion and conclusion
A robust empirical investigation supports the research model, and the results offer a number of
key observations and significant contributions to the advancement of theory regarding
consumer’s intention to use smart technologies in T&H sector. Overall eight hypotheses were
articulated and verified using SEM. As per the findings of our study, six out of the eight
hypotheses were accepted while two were rejected. The analysis exhibited that PU had a
significant impact (β 5 0.280) on consumer’s intention to use smart technologies. Therefore, H1
was accepted. This implies that the more consumers perceive smart technology as useful, the
more likely they are to embrace it. This is consistent with earlier research on smart technologies
(Tung et al., 2008; Lee, 2009; Mital et al., 2018). Particularly during and post-COVID, smart
technology was essential in coping with a number of challenges, particularly in the tourism
sector. For example, contactless check-ins, facial recognition, self-bookings, etc. have become
ubiquitous because of their utility. Next, the outcomes of the data analysis demonstrated that
both PU (β 5 0.222) and PEoU (β 5 0.467) influenced attitude (H2 and H4) which in turn
generated favorable intentions (H5) (β 5 0.354). Thus H2, H4 and H5 are all accepted. The
findings corroborate earlier research (Lee, 2009; Yang et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2018; Kim and Han,
2022; Zhang and Liu, 2022). In our opinion, these results stem from the number of benefits smart
technologies have provided consumers, which include increased comfort, autonomy,
convenience, efficiency and fun woven into state-of-the-art smart technologies used at various

H Paths β-value t-value p-value Results

H1 PU→INT 0.280 8.782 <0.001 Supported

H2 PU→ATT 0.222 4.498 <0.001 Supported
H3 PEoU→PU 0.741 25.371 <0.001 Supported
H4 PEoU→ATT 0.467 9.457 <0.001 Supported
H5 ATT→INT 0.354 11.091 <0.001 Supported
Table 6. H6 SN→INT 0.564 21.481 <0.001 Supported
Results of hypothesis H7 PBC→INT 0.046 1.738 0.082 Not supported
testing H8 TR→INT 0.015 0.578 0.563 Not supported

Figure 2.
Structural path model
and path coefficients
stages (Wu and Cheng, 2018). Another reason may be that people would like to try the latest The use of
devices and amenities to make travel at ease and more convenient. If service providers can show smart
they can employ smart tourism technology to minimize the time and energy necessary for travel
and the expected technology substantiates beneficial and simple to use, this behavior will also
technologies in
result in positive attitudes from visitors (Rafdinal et al., 2021). T&H industry
Also, the study’s findings confirm that PEoU significantly and positively (β 5 0.741)
affects PU. This affirms H3. Making the various technologies easy to handle and operate at a
simple level can significantly affect consumers’ intention to embrace smart technologies.
These results line up with prior findings (Xia et al., 2018; Yu and Huang, 2020). Next, the
findings demonstrate a significant positive association between subjective norm and
intention (β 5 0.564). Hence, H6 too was accepted. This is in keeping with previous research
(Yang et al., 2017; Mital et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2018; Kim and Han, 2022). The decision is made
based on whether their friends, family and relatives use these smart technologies and
consider them relevant. The Indian consumer is thus likely to perceive important referents in
their life as having a strong effect on their own behavior. Spreading the benefits of such
technologies could be made easier by techniques such as word-of-mouth marketing and
snowball marketing (Mital et al., 2018). Moreover, the positive association between Subjective
Norm and Intention, and Subjective Norm being one of the highest predictors, highlights the
relevance of maintaining current consumers, improving their perceptions of smart
technology’s utility and offering opportunities for subsequent usage.
However, PBC did not display a significant relationship with Intention (β 5 0.046) and hence,
H7 was rejected. This outcome is in agreement with former studies (Pavlou and Chai, 2002; Mital
et al., 2018). A plausible justification for this could be that Indian consumers are more
accustomed to using traditional approaches since they might not be as familiar with new
technologies and might face technical difficulties. When faced with the use of these technologies,
a lack of awareness and know-how may result in feelings of losing control and helplessness.
Lastly, the present research has established that Trust has no significant relationship
(β 5 0.015) with Intention and hence, H8 was rejected. This finding is quite surprising as this
implies that Indian consumers are distrustful of using smart technology. Although several
previous studies have found the positive relationship between trust and intention (Gefen et al.,
2003; Wu and Chen, 2005; Tung et al., 2008; Lee, 2009; Belanche et al., 2014), this does not hold
in our case. This finding supports earlier studies (Troise et al., 2020). The explanation of such
unexpectedly contradictory finding might be that Indian consumers are apprehensive that
their private information, data privacy, safety and security might be compromised when
using such technologies and are seeking to protect it. Whilst customers are becoming more
reliant on smart technologies, there is still a significant trust barrier that must be bridged.
This again might be because of dearth of understanding and unfamiliarity with such
technology. Both the government and the technology sector must do more to foster consumer
trust. The overall explanatory power of the research model explained 63% (R2 5 63.6) of the
variance for BI to the adaptation of smart technology in T&H and 54% (R2 5 54.9) for PU and
42% (R2 5 42.1) for attitude respectively signifying that the cohesive framework elucidated
the variables fairly well. According to the R2, each variable that meets the substantial and
moderate requirements is influenced by exogenous factors. In the present context, this
implies that the integrated model along with trust empirically demonstrates a high
explanatory power of Intention to use smart technology.

6. Implications
6.1 Theoretical implications
An extended model was tested in this study to predict consumers’ intention towards the
usage of smart technologies in the T&H industry. The study contributes to the discipline and
JHTI theory regarding smart technologies in an insightful and timely manner. This study has
significant academic implications for forthcoming research on consumer’s intention toward
the use of smart technologies in the T&H sector. First of all, this is the first study of its kind to
the best of the authors’ understanding that has inspected the impact of TAM, TPB and Trust
on Indian consumers’ intention to use smart technologies in the T&H industry. This is one of
the first studies to inspect the topic in a developing nation in a South Asian context. Our study
provides a theoretical contribution in the sense that it both advances our understanding of
conceptual frameworks and empirical research methods in the field of smart technologies.
It provides an improved insight of the consumer’s intention towards the usage of smart
technologies. Further, the findings indicate that the integration of two powerful models with
trust proved to be highly functional in predicting consumers’ willingness to adopt smart
technologies, demonstrating a fundamental contribution of the study. When combined with
additional theoretical notions to describe complex behavioral traits in consumers, the
integration has demonstrated a high degree of flexibility. Lastly, it is anticipated that
the TAM-based research design will be adaptable for application in future research that
examine the acceptability of smart technology in contexts other than the hospitality and
tourism industry (Han et al., 2021). This study advances the field of research by offering
crucial information to practitioners and academicians who wish to investigate consumer
attitudes on the use of smart technology in the T&H industry.

6.2 Practical implications

This research investigates and incorporates the different benefits of smart technology for
customers in the T&H industries, as well as predicts Indian consumers’ intentions.
Accordingly, this study provides useful information to IT companies, online travel agencies,
tour operators, travel agents, T&H planners and other stakeholders about Indian consumers’
behavior. The development of agile consumer profiling, dynamic service interactions and
methods for experience co-creation that are shared equally by businesses and customers may
all be facilitated with the use of smart technology. This research will aid the government,
businesses and software/application designers in better comprehending consumer behavior
in India. Despite significant changes in the hotel industry environment, traditional
approaches like door keys, paper checks and vouchers are still being used, hence it may
be a pressing reality that hotels must respond to the impending changes not only by
purchasing digital gadgets, applications that allow room controls, keyless entry and smart
TVs, but also by implementing massive reforms in hotel administration and management
across hotel divisions (Stylos et al., 2021b). For instance, hotel guests could be introduced and
familiarized to technologies through promotional tactics or demonstrations during the check-
in process.
Since PEoU and PU demonstrated a significant influence on Attitude, T&H planners
that seek to use smart technology ought to closely examine and comprehend consumers’
reactions to technological advancements. By emphasizing how easy to use and useful the
innovative technologies are, hotels should proactively market them to guests (Kim and
Han, 2022). Considering the construct of trust did not show a positive link with intention,
this leads to the imperative to work on it. This shows that consumers favor utilizing only
those recommended technology that they view as dependable and helpful (Kaushik et al.,
2015). Trust is of paramount prominence to the adoption of smart technologies in India.
Building trust among Indian consumers and gaining their confidence should be at the
forefront of the efforts of the T&H sectors at different levels. Obtaining consumers’ trust
should be smart technology providers’ goal and principle if they’re going to appeal to
them. Generally, such innovation involves risks such as data privacy, service disruptions
and cost, which raises the issue of trust. When hotels promote smart technologies that
require tourists to input personal information, they should emphasize increasing their The use of
efforts in guaranteeing tourists’ data privacy (Han et al., 2021). The hospitality industry smart
needs to put its efforts into addressing a customer’s concerns and creating a culture of
trust for innovative hospitality services in order to increase customer acceptance of smart
technologies in
technologies (Hao, 2021). Additionally, hotel owners and operators can leverage smart T&H industry
technology to improve service quality, facilitate sales and marketing and improve
customer loyalty through the utilization of behavioral data (Han et al., 2021). smart
technology adoption has taken off across all service sectors, particularly the hotel and
tourism industry. Technology will continue to advance, enhancing the capabilities of
hotel smart technologies.

7. Limitations and directions for future research

While this study shed some light on the subject matter discussed above, it still has some
limitations, which make it a potential research area going forward. Firstly, since the data
for this research was gathered only in India, generalization of the results concerning the
usage of smart technologies in the T&H industries may be difficult. A more comprehensive
study in multiple countries and diverse backgrounds would enable us to draw general
conclusions regarding smart technologies. In addition, the sample consisted of only people
who were able to access the Internet and spoke English. As such, it might be difficult to
generalize the results since the methodology was not able to take into account the non-
users of this technology; the inclusion of non-users in a future study would be a valuable
addition to increasing the validity of the results. Additionally, developing future research
with a more multilingual sample would be beneficial. Next, this paper examines intentions
rather than actual behavior, i.e. the actual usage of smart technologies. Future research
could also emphasize post-usage evaluation to understand actual behavior in terms of
satisfaction, experience, cost and time effectiveness. Examining actual behavior could
yield interesting insights into smart technology adoption. More investigation is vital to
comprehend the acceptance, application and influence of smart technology solutions in the
next years. The inclusion and assessment of some additional variables such as risk
perception, convenience, interactivity, satisfaction, time-saving etc., would be another
interesting pathway towards improving the model’s predictive power. Next, this study is
restricted to the acceptance of smart technology only in the T&H sector. This study can be
applied to other industries or markets in the future as a result of additional research.
Further research can also focus on the specific smart technologies utilized in the industry,
or make a comparative study between two or more of the technologies like AI, virtual
reality, IoT and AR. Furthermore, the current study incorporates the TAM and TPB with
Trust to construct its conceptual framework. Studies in the future can study TAM and
TPB in conjunction with other theories and models, such as expectation confirmation
model (ECM), social cognitive theory (SCT), self-determination theory (SDT), etc. for
improved outcomes and implications.

References
Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and
social psychology”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1-63, doi: 10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60411-6.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, p. 411.
JHTI Artificial Solutions (2020), “Homage to John McCarthy, the Father of artificial intelligence (AI)”,
[online] Available at: https://www.artificial-solutions.com/blog/homage-to-john-mccarthy-the-
father-of-artificial-intelligence> (Accessed 7 June 2022).
Basoglu, N., Ok, A.E. and Daim, T.U. (2017), “What will it take to adopt smart glasses: a consumer
choice based review?”, Technology in Society, Vol. 50, pp. 50-56, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.
04.005.
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V., Flavi
an, C. and Schepers, J. (2014), “Trust transfer in the continued usage of
public e-services”, Information & Management, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 627-640, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.
05.016.
Bign
e, E., Sanz, S., Ruiz, C. and Ald
as, J. (2010), “Why some internet users don’t buy air tickets online”,
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010, Springer, Vienna, pp. 209-221,
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0644.
Boomsma, A. (1987), “The robustness of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation
models”, in Cuttance, P. and Ecob, R. (Eds), Structural Modeling by Example: Applications
in Educational, Sociological, and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 160-188.
Brain, L. (2011), “The World of technology affects tourism industry immensely”, [online] Tourism-
review.com. Available at: https://www.tourism-review.com/the-world-of-technology-affects-
tourism-industry-immensely-news2757 (accessed 15 August 2022).
Buhalis, D. (2003), eTourism: Information Technology for Strategic Tourism Management,
Pearson Education.
Buhalis, D. and Amaranggana, A. (2014), “Smart tourism destinations”, Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014, Springer, Cham, pp. 553-564, doi: 10.1007/
978-3-319-03973-2_40.
 c, M. (2019), “Internet of things (iot) in tourism and hospitality:
Car, T., Stifanich, L.P. and Simuni

opportunities and challenges”, Tourism in Southern Eastern Europe, Vol. 5, pp. 163-175,
doi: 10.20867/tosee.05.42.
Chen, M.F. and Tung, P.J. (2014), “Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to
predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 36, pp. 221-230, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006.
Cheung, L.T., Chow, A.S., Fok, L., Yu, K.M. and Chou, K.L. (2017), “The effect of self-determined
motivation on household energy consumption behaviour in a metropolitan area in southern
China”, Energy Efficiency, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 549-561, doi: 10.1007/s12053-016-9472-5.
Chuah, S.H.W., Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T. and Lade, S. (2016), “Wearable
technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 276-284, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.047.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340, doi: 10.2307/249008.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003,
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
Del Chiappa, G. and Baggio, R. (2015), “Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: analyzing
the effects of a network structure”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 145-150, doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50,
doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104.
Friedman, B., Khan, P.H. Jr. and Howe, D.C. (2000), “Trust online”, Communication of the ACM, Vol. 43
No. 12, pp. 34-40.
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J. and Li, H. (2017), “Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to The use of
understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 127, pp. 107-113, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030. smart
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in
technologies in
customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87, doi: 10.1177/ T&H industry
002224299906300205.
Garson, G.D. (2012), Testing Statistical Assumptions, Statistical Associates Publishing, Asheboro, NC.
Gefen, D. (2002), “Customer loyalty in e-commerce”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 2, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00022.
Gefen, D. (2004), “Whats make an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: linking trust
mechanism and ERP usefulness”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 263-288, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2004.11045792.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated
model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90, doi: 10.2307/30036519.
Grabner-Kraeuter, S. (2002), “The role of consumers’ trust in online-shopping”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 43-50, doi: 10.1023/A:1016323815802.
Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C. and Lamsfus, C. (2015), “Conceptual foundations for understanding
smart tourism ecosystems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 558-563, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2015.03.043.
Gretzel, U., Fuchs, M., Baggio, R., Hoepken, W., Law, R., Neidhardt, J., Pesonen, J., Zanker, M. and
Xiang, Z. (2020), “e-Tourism beyond COVID-19: a call for transformative research”, Information
Technology & Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 187-203, doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00181-3.
Gupta, A. and Dogra, N. (2017), “Tourist adoption of mapping maps: a UTAUT2 perspective of smart
travellers”, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 145-161, doi: 10.20867/thm.
23.2.6.
Ha, N., Nguyen, T., Nguyen, T. and Nguyen, T. (2019), “The effect of trust on consumers’ online
purchase intention: an integration of TAM and TPB”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 9
No. 9, pp. 1451-1460, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.5.006.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hamid, S., Azhar, M. and Sujood (2022), “Behavioral intention to order food and beverage items using
e-commerce during COVID-19: an integration of theory of planned behavior (TPB) with trust”,
British Food Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BFJ-03-2021-0338.
Han, H., Hsu, L.T.J. and Sheu, C. (2010), “Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel
choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 325-334, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.013.
Han, D., Hou, H., Wu, H. and Lai, J.H. (2021), “Modelling tourists’ acceptance of hotel experience-
enhancement smart technologies”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 8, p. 4462, doi: 10.3390/
su13084462.
Hansen, J.M., Saridakis, G. and Benson, V. (2018), “Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of
use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for transactions”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 197-206, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.010.
Hao, F. (2021), “Acceptance of contactless technology in the hospitality industry: extending the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology 2”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 26
No. 12, pp. 1386-1401, doi: 10.1080/10941665.2021.1984264.
Hartwick, J. and Barki, H. (1994), “Explaining the role of user participation in information system use”,
Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 440-465, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440.
He, Z., Han, G., Cheng, T.C.E., Fan, B. and Dong, J. (2019), “Evolutionary food quality and location
strategies for restaurants in competitive online-to-offline food ordering and delivery markets:
JHTI an agent-based approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 215, pp. 61-72,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.05.008.
Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M. and Gutteling, J.M. (2007), “Perceived usefulness, personal experiences,
risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government service in The
Netherlands”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1838-1852, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.
2005.11.003.
Huang, C.D., Goo, J., Nam, K. and Yoo, C.W. (2017), “Smart tourism technologies in travel planning: the
role of exploration and exploitation”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 757-770,
doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.11.010.
Jeong, M. and Shin, H.H. (2020), “Tourists’ experiences with smart tourism technology at smart
destinations and their behavior intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 59 No. 8,
pp. 1464-1477, doi: 10.1177/0047287519883034.
Jiang, Y. and Stylos, N. (2021), “Triggers of consumers’ enhanced digital engagement and the role of
digital technologies in transforming the retail ecosystem during COVID-19 pandemic”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 172, 121029, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.
121029.
Jiang, Y. and Wen, J. (2020), “Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: a perspective
article”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 2563-2573, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0237.
Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (1999), “The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-
use”, Information & Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 237-250, doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00096-2.
Kaushik, A.K., Agrawal, A.K. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Tourist behavior towards self-service hotel
technology adoption: trust and subjective norm as key antecedents”, Tourism Management
Perspectives, Vol. 16, pp. 278-289, doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.002.
Keen, P., Ballance, G., Chan, S. and Schrump, S. (1999), Electronic Commerce Relationships: Trust by
Design. Prentice Hall PTR.
Kim, J.J. and Han, H. (2022), “Hotel service innovation with smart technologies: exploring consumers’
readiness and behaviors”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 10, p. 5746, doi: 10.3390/su14105746.
Kim, K.J. and Shin, D.H. (2015), “An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption
of future wearable technology”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 527-541, doi: 10.1108/IntR-
05-2014-0126.
Kim, M.J., Chung, N. and Lee, C.K. (2011), “The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce:
shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 256-265, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.011.
Kucukusta, D., Law, R., Besbes, A. and Legoh
erel, P. (2015), “Re-examining perceived usefulness and
ease of use in online booking: the case of Hong Kong online users”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-198, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-
2013-0413.
Lee, M.C. (2009), “Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and
TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 130-141, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A. and Larsen, K.R. (2003), “The technology acceptance model: past, present, and
future”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 752-780,
doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.01250.
Lee, W., Xiong, L. and Hu, C. (2012), “The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence on
intention to go to the festival: applying an extension of the technology acceptance model”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 819-827, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijhm.2011.09.018.
Li, S., Xu, L.D. and Zhao, S. (2015), “The internet of things: a survey”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 243-259, doi: 10.1007/s10796-014-9492-7.
Li, Y., Hu, C., Huang, C. and Duan, L. (2017), “The concept of smart tourism in the context of tourism The use of
information services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 58, pp. 293-300, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.
03.014. smart
Lim, Y.J., Osman, A., Salahuddin, S.N., Romle, A.R. and Abdullah, S. (2016), “Factors influencing
technologies in
online shopping behavior: the mediating role of purchase intention”, Procedia Economics and T&H industry
Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 401-410, doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00050-2.
Masood, T. and Sonntag, P. (2020), “Industry 4.0: adoption challenges and benefits for SMEs”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 121, 103261, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2020.103261.
Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model
with the theory of planned behavior”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 173-191, doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.173.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734, doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.
9508080335.
Mital, M., Chang, V., Choudhary, P., Papa, A. and Pani, A.K. (2018), “Adoption of Internet of Things in
India: a test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 136, pp. 339-346, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.
2017.03.001.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38, doi: 10.1177/002224299405800302.
Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M. and Rantala, T. (2020), “Managing the digital supply chain: the role
of smart technologies”, Technovation, Vol. 96, 102121, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121.
unzer, A., Kraus, S. and Maalaoui, A. (2021), “Digitalization in the
Niemand, T., Rigtering, J.C., Kallm€
financial industry: a contingency approach of entrepreneurial orientation and strategic vision
on digitalization”, European Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 317-326, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.
2020.04.008.
Obaid, T. and Aldammagh, Z. (2021), “Predicting mobile banking adoption: an integration of TAM
and TPB with trust and perceived risk”, SSRN 3761669, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3761669.
Pai, C.K., Liu, Y., Kang, S. and Dai, A. (2020), “The role of perceived smart tourism technology
experience for tourist satisfaction, happiness and revisit intention”, Sustainability, Vol. 12
No. 16, p. 6592, doi: 10.3390/su12166592.
Pal, D., Triyason, T., Funilkul, S. and Chutimaskul, W. (2018), “Smart homes and quality of life for the
elderly: perspective of competing models”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6, pp. 8109-8122, doi: 10.1109/
ACCESS.2018.2798614.
Park, Y. and Chen, J.V. (2007), “Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 9, doi: 10.1108/02635570710834009.
Pasquinelli, C. and Trunfio, M. (2020), “Overtouristified cities: an online news media narrative
analysis”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1805-1824, doi: 10.1080/09669582.
2020.1760871.
Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the
technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 101-134, doi: 10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275.
Pavlou, P.A. and Chai, L. (2002), “What drives electronic commerce across cultures, A cross-cultural
empirical investigation of the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 240-253.
Rafdinal, W., Susanto, E., Novianti, S. and Juniarti, C. (2021), “Is smart tourism technology important
in predicting visiting tourism destination? Lessons from West Java, Indonesia”, Journal of
Tourism Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 102-115, doi: 10.35313/jtos.v1i2.20.
JHTI Seyedghorban, Z., Tahernejad, H., Meriton, R. and Graham, G. (2020), “Supply chain digitalization: past,
present and future”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 31 Nos 2-3, pp. 96-114, doi: 10.1080/
09537287.2019.1631461.
Sigala, M. (2018), “New technologies in tourism: from multi-disciplinary to anti-disciplinary advances
and trajectories”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 25, pp. 151-155, doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.
2017.12.003.
Sohn, K. and Kwon, O. (2020), “Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial
Intelligence-based intelligent products”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 47, 101324, doi: 10.1016/j.
tele.2019.101324.
Soni, G., Kumar, S., Mahto, R.V., Mangla, S.K., Mittal, M.L. and Lim, W.M. (2022), “A decision-making
framework for Industry 4.0 technology implementation: the case of FinTech and sustainable
supply chain finance for SMEs”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 180, 121686,
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121686.
Stankov, U. and Gretzel, U. (2020), “Tourism 4.0 technologies and tourist experiences: a human-
centered design perspective”, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 477-488,
doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00186-.
Stylos, N. and Jiang, Y. (2021), “Collaborative purchasing platforms for e-tailing: evidence from
Chinese Millenials and gen Zers during COVID-19 lockdowns”, Proceedings of AIRSI2021
International Conference (Held Virtually): 12-14 July 2021, Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 90-92.
Stylos, N., Zwiegelaar, J. and Buhalis, D. (2021a), “Big data empowered agility for dynamic, volatile, and
time-sensitive service industries: the case of tourism sector”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 1015-1036, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0644.
Stylos, N., Fotiadis, A.K., Shin, D.D. and Huan, T.C.T. (2021b), “Beyond smart systems adoption:
enabling diffusion and assimilation of smartness in hospitality”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 98, 103042, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103042.
Sujood, Hamid, S. and Bano, N. (2021a), “Behavioral intention of traveling in the period of COVID-19:
an application of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and perceived risk”, International
Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 357-378, doi: 10.1108/IJTC-09-2020-0183.
Sujood, Hamid, S. and Bano, N. (2021b), “Intention to visit eco-friendly destinations for tourism
experiences: an extended theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and
Well-Being, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 343-364.
Sun, Y., Wang, S., Li, J., Zhao, D. and Fan, J. (2017), “Understanding consumers’ intention to use plastic
bags: using an extended theory of planned behaviour model”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 89 No. 3,
pp. 1327-1342, doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-3022-0.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P. and M€antym€aki, M. (2020), “Why do people purchase from online travel
agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 88, 102534, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102534.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing
models”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 144-176.
Thorhauge, M., Haustein, S. and Cherchi, E. (2016), “Accounting for the theory of planned behaviour
in departure time choice”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
Vol. 38, pp. 94-105, doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2016.01.009.
Todua, N. and Urotadze, E. (2021), “The role of smart technologies in the Georgian tourism industry”,
Transformacje, Vol. 4 No. 111, pp. 20-29.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S. and Read, A.D. (2004), “Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate
the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK”, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 191-214, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001.
Troise, C., O’Driscoll, A., Tani, M. and Prisco, A. (2020), “Online food delivery services and behavioural
intention–a test of an integrated TAM and TPB framework”, British Food Journal, Vol. 123
No. 2, pp. 664-683, doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2020-0418.
Trunfio, M. and Campana, S. (2019), “Drivers and emerging innovations in knowledge-based The use of
destinations: towards a research agenda”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,
Vol. 14, 100370, doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100370. smart
Trunfio, M. and Pasquinelli, C. (2021), “Smart technologies in the Covid-19 crisis: managing tourism flows
technologies in
and shaping visitors’ behavior”, European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, pp. 2910-2910, T&H industry
doi: 10.54055/ejtr.v29i.2437.
Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., Sands, S. and McLeod, C. (2013), “Environmentally conscious consumption:
the role of retailers and peers as external influences”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 302-310, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.006.
Tseng, K.C., Hsu, C.L. and Chuang, Y.H. (2013), “Designing an intelligent health monitoring system
and exploring user acceptance for the elderly”, Journal of Medical Systems, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1007/s10916-013-9967-y.
Tung, F.C., Chang, S.C. and Chou, C.M. (2008), “An extension of trust and TAM model with IDT in the
adoption of the electronic logistics information system in HIS in the medical industry”, International
Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 324-335, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.06.006.
Tussyadiah, I. (2020), “A review of research into automation in tourism: launching the annals of
tourism research curated collection on artificial intelligence and robotics in tourism”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 81, 102883, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102883.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204, doi: 10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Wang, C.H. (2016), “A novel approach to conduct the importance-satisfaction analysis for acquiring
typical user groups in business-intelligence systems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 54,
pp. 673-681, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.014.
Wang, S., Wang, J., Yang, F., Wang, Y. and Li, J. (2018), “Consumer familiarity, ambiguity
tolerance, and purchase behavior toward remanufactured products: the implications for
remanufacturers”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1741-1750,
doi: 10.1002/bse.2240.
Williams, A.M., Rodriguez, I. and Makkonen, T. (2020), “Innovation and smart destinations:
critical insights”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 83, 102930, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102930.
Wu, L. and Chen, J.L. (2005), “An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption
of on-line tax: an empirical study”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 62
No. 6, pp. 784-808, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003.
Wu, H.C. and Cheng, C.C. (2018), “Relationships between technology attachment, experiential relationship
quality, experiential risk and experiential sharing intentions in a smart hotel”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 37, pp. 42-58, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.09.003.
Xia, M., Zhang, Y. and Zhang, C. (2018), “A TAM-based approach to explore the effect of online
experience on destination image: a smartphone user’s perspective”, Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, Vol. 8, pp. 259-270, doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.05.002.
Yang, K. and Jolly, L.D. (2009), “The effects of consumer perceived value and subjective norm on
mobile data service adoption between American and Korean consumers”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 502-508, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.08.005.
Yang, X. and Zhang, L. (2022), “Smart tourism technologies towards memorable experiences for museum
visitors”, Tourism Review, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 1009-1023, doi: 10.1108/TR-02-2022-0060.
Yang, H., Lee, H. and Zo, H. (2017), “User acceptance of smart home services: an extension of the theory of
planned behavior”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 68-89, doi: 10.1108/
IMDS-01-2016-0017.
Yang, H., Song, H., Cheung, C. and Guan, J. (2022), “Are prior smart hotel visiting experience and
personal innovativeness critical to future visit intention?”, Journal of China Tourism Research,
pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1080/19388160.2022.2064381.
JHTI Yoo, C.W., Goo, J., Huang, C.D., Nam, K. and Woo, M. (2017), “Improving travel decision support
satisfaction with smart tourism technologies: a framework of tourist elaboration likelihood and
self-efficacy”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 123, pp. 330-341, doi: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2016.10.071.
Yu, K. and Huang, G. (2020), “Exploring consumers’ intent to use smart libraries with technology
acceptance model”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 447-461, doi: 10.1108/EL-08-2019-0188.
Zhang, W. and Liu, L. (2022), “Unearthing consumers’ intention to adopt eco-friendly smart home services:
an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model”, Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 216-239, doi: 10.1080/09640568.2021.1880379.

Appendix

Perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989)

PU1- Using smart technologies in T&H industry saves my time.
PU2- Smart technologies in T&H industry enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly.
PU3- Using smart technologies in T&H industry is easier for me.
PU4- Overall, I find Smart technologies in T&H industry useful for me.

Perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989)

PEoU1- I find smart technologies in T&H industry to do what I want to do.
PEoU2- My interaction with smart technologies in T&H industry is easy for me to understand.
PEoU3- It is easy for me to remember how to use smart technologies in T&H industry.
PEoU4- Overall, I find smart technologies in T&H industry easy to use.
PEoU5- Smart technologies in T&H industry provide helpful guidance.

Attitude (Taylor and Todd, 1995)

ATT1-Using smart technologies in T&H industry is a good idea.
ATT2-Using smart technologies in T&H industry is a wise idea.
ATT3- I like the idea of using smart technologies in the T&H industry.
ATT4- Using smart technologies in T&H industry would be pleasant experience.

Subjective norm (Taylor and Todd, 1995; Mathieson, 1991)

SN1-People who influence my behavior would think that I should use smart technologies in T&H
industry.
SN2- People who are important to me think that I should use smart technologies in T&H industry.
SN3- People who are important to me would support my use of smart technologies in T&H industry.
SN4-People who are important to me would want me to use smart technologies in T&H industry.
Perceived behavioral control (Taylor and Todd, 1995) The use of
PBC1- I would be able to use smart technologies in T&H industry. smart
PBC2- Using smart technologies in T&H industry is entirely within my control. technologies in
PBC3- I have the resources to use smart technologies in T&H industry.
T&H industry
PBC4- I have the knowledge to use smart technologies in T&H industry.
PBC5- I have the ability to use smart technologies in T&H industry.

Trust (Gefen, 2002; Kim et al., 2011)

TR1- I trust smart technologies in T&H industry.
TR2- The smart technologies in T&H industry are reliable.
TR3- The smart technologies in T&H industry are trustworthy.
TR4- Even if not monitored, I trust mart technologies in T&H industry.

Intention (Taylor and Todd, 1995; Kucuksta et al., 2015)

INT1- I intend to use smart technologies in T&H industry in the near future.
INT2- I intend to use smart technologies in T&H industry frequently in the near future.
INT3- I will use smart technologies in T&H industry on a regular basis in the near future.
INT4- I will strongly recommend smart technologies to others in T&H industry.

About the authors

Dr Sujood is currently working as a Guest Faculty at Department of Tourism and Hospitality
Management, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He has also worked as a Visiting Faculty at Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh, India. He has published a good number of research papers in Scopus, Web
of Science and ABDC indexed journals. He has published two books of UGC-NET/JRF of Tourism
Administration and Management available on Amazon and Flipkart. He has teaching as well as industry
experience. He has also qualified UGC-NET/JRF in Tourism and UGC-NET in Commerce. He is open for
research and academic collaborations. Sujood is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
sjdkhancool@gmail.com
Naseem Bano is a Ph.D. Research Scholar of Tourism from Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. Her
research interests include sustainability, rural development and consumer behavior in tourism. She has
three publications in International highly ranked journals and conferences. Two of her research papers
have been recognized by World Health Organization (WHO) and have been listed under global literature
on coronavirus disease. Her recent research focuses on incorporating sustainable development practices
into rural tourism management.
Samiha Siddiqui is a Senior Research Fellow of Tourism at the Department of Commerce, Aligarh
Muslim University, India. She is currently working on various aspects of tourists’ behavior. Her research
areas include transformational tourism, cultural heritage tourism and the rejuvenation of old historical
monuments and buildings. She holds a Masters of Tourism and Travel Management from the Aligarh
Muslim University.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com