The success of IoT technologies is undeniable. They are entering more and more in our lives, carrying out increasingly complex tasks. However, there are still a few problems we need to face and solve. For instance, it is not given that the users will be prepared to afford all the automation that IoT devices will offer or that it will be compatible with the users’ cognitive attitudes and its actual and real goals. Within this work, we start analyzing which reasons undermine the acceptance of IoT systems and then we propose a possible solution, tanking into account not just the user-device interaction, but also how this affects the device-device interaction. Since the complexity of the tasks the user asks may require the cooperation of some devices to be realized, the regulation of this relationship represents a necessary step for this technology. The first contribution of this work is the level characterization of the autonomy a user can grant to an IoT device. The second contribution is a theoretical model to deal with users and to stimulate users’ acceptance, taking also into account a possible, collaborative organizational structure, to manage the creation of groups and the partners’ selection process.
AloiG., CaliciuriG., FortinoG., GravinaR., PaceP., RussoW. and SavaglioC., Enabling IoT interoperability through opportunistic smartphone-based mobile gateways, Journal of Network and Computer Applications81 (2017), 74–84.
2.
AshrafQ.M. and HabaebiM.H., Introducing autonomy in internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2015 14th International Conference on Applied Computer and Applied Computational Science (ACACOS ’15), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23-25 April; pp, 215–221.
3.
AsiriS. and MiriA., An IoT trust and reputation model based on recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 14th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) , Auckland, New Zealand, 12–14 December 2016; pp. 561–568.
4.
BekierM. and MolesworthB.R.C., Altering user’ acceptance of automation through prior automation exposure, Ergonomics60 (2017), 745–753.
5.
CastelfranchiC. and FalconeR., Trust and Control: A Dialectic Link. In Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal; Special Issue on “Trust in Agents” Part 1 ; C. Castelfranchi, R. Falcone, B. Firozabadi, Y. Tan, Eds., Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK,; Volume 14, pp. 799–823, ISSN 0883-9514.
6.
CastelfranchiC. and FalconeR., Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model; John Wiley and Sons:, Chichester, UK, 2010.
7.
ChenB. and ChengH.H., A review of the applications of agent technology in traffic and transportation systems, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems11(2) (2010), 485–497.
8.
ConteR. and PaolucciM., Reputation in Artificial Societies: Social Beliefs for Social Order; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2002.
9.
EconomidesA.A., User Perceptions of Internet of Things (IoT) Systems. In International Conference on E-Business and Telecommunications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 3–20.
10.
FalconeR. and CastelfranchiC., The Human in the Loop of a Delegated Agent: The Theory of Adjustable Social Autonomy, IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A: Syst Hum31 (2001), 406–418, ISSN 1083-4427..
11.
FalconeR., SapienzaA. and CastelfranchiC., Recommendation of categories in an agents world: The role of (not) local communicative environments. In Proceedings of the 2015 13th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) Izmir, Turkey, 21–23 July 2015; pp. 7–13.
12.
FalconeR., SapienzaA. and CastelfranchiC., The relevance of categories for trusting information sources, ACM Trans Int Technol (TOIT)15 (2015), 13.
13.
FriesenM.R. and McLeodR.D., A survey of agentbased modeling of hospital environments, IEEE Access2 (2014), 227–233.
14.
GhazizadehM., LeeJ.D. and BoyleL.N., Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation, Cogn Technol Work14 (2012), 39–49.
15.
Internet of Things Installed Base Will Grow to 26 Billion Units by 2020. Gartner Press Release. 2013. Available online: www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2636073 (accessed on 01/05/2018).
16.
JingQ., VasilakosA.V., WanJ., LuJ. and QiuD., Security of the internet of things: Perspectives and challenges, Wirel Netw20 (2014), 2481–2501.
17.
JippM., Levels of automation: Effects of individual differences on wheelchair control performance and user acceptance, Theor Issues Ergon Sci15 (2014), 479–504. 10.1080/1463922X.2013.815829.
18.
KaminskiN.J., MurphyM., MarchettiN., (2016, October). Agent-based modeling of an IoT network. In 2016 IEEE international symposium on systems engineering (ISSE) (pp. 1–7). IEEE.
19.
KranzM., HolleisP. and SchmidtA., Embedded interaction: Interacting with the internet of things, IEEE Int Comput14 (2010), 46–53.
20.
LeeS.B. and LeeW.H., An empirical study on the effect of bundling service on the user acceptance of IoT services, Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology96(6) (2018).
21.
MastroeniL., VellucciP. and NaldiM., Agent-based models for opinion formation: A bibliographic survey, IEEE Access7 (2019), 58836–58848.
22.
MauryaA.K. and SastryV.N., Fuzzy Extractor and Elliptic Curve Based Efficient User Authentication Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks and Internet of Things, Information8 (2017), 136.
23.
MedagliaC.M. and SerbanatiA., An overview of privacy and security issues in the internet of things. In The Internet of Things; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 389–395.
24.
MirandaJ., MakitaloN., Garcia-AlonsoJ., BerrocalJ., MikkonenT., CanalC. and MurilloJ.M., From the Internet of Things to the Internet of People, IEEE Int Comput19 (2015), 40–47.
25.
NadinN., Kokciyan and P. Yolum, Context-Based Reasoning on Privacy in Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AI and Autonomy Track, Melbourne, Australia, 19–25 August 2017; pp. 4738–4744, doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/660
26.
PecorellaT., BrilliL. and MucchiL., The Role of Physical Layer Security in IoT: A Novel Perspective, Information7 (2016), 49.
27.
RomanR., ZhouJ. and LopezJ., On the features and challenges of security and privacy in distributed internet of things, Computer Networks57(10) (2013), 2266–2279.
28.
ShethA., Internet of things to smart iot through semantic, cognitive, and perceptual computing, IEEE Intell Syst31 (2016), 108–112.
29.
SuoH., WanJ., ZouC. and LiuJ., Security in the internet of things: A review. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (ICCSEE) Hangzhou, China, 23–25 March 2012; IEEE: Los Alamitos, CA, USA,; Volume 3, pp. 648–651.
30.
UrbanoJ., RochaA.P. and OliveiraE., Computing Confidence Values: Does Trust Dynamics Matter? In Proceedings of the 14th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, EPIA 2009, Aveiro, Portugal, 12–15 October 2009; L.S. Lopes, N. Lau, P. Mariano, L.M. Rocha, Eds., Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; LNAI 5816, pp. 520–531.
31.
WilenskyU., NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, 1999. Available online:
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
32.
YanZ., ZhangP. and VasilakosA.V., A survey on trust management for Internet of Things, J Netw Comput Appl42 (2014), 120–134.
