The purpose of this study was to examine the intention of consumer acceptance of technology in agricultural production by applying the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to smart farm. In particular, this study analyzed the intention to accept the technology of agricultural students, farmers, start-up farmers, returning farmers, and returnees in the general manufacturing industry and high-tech industries, and in agricultural sectors corresponding to primary industries. The results showed that performance expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, IT development level, and reliability had a significant influence on the intention to use smart farm technology. However, effort expectancy and price value were rejected because no significant impact on use intention was tested. In addition, the influences of the variables showing their influence were reliability (β=.569) > IT development level (β=.252) > social influence (β=.235) > performance expectancy (β=.182) > facilitating conditions (β=.134).

Purpose – There are common factors both in Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model and Technology Paradox Theory which can be put together and made in one unified model. The unified model can provide the following merits. First, the unified model is simple but contains factors of the models. Second, the unified model can clarify the process of technology acceptance of common consumers. Third, the unified model can provide the opportunities to analyze the negative sides of new technology, thus find ways to improve the level of acceptance by general consumers. Research design, data, and methodology – The 450 questionnaires were handed out to people around Seoul and 421 were collected. Except insincere and wrong-marked ones, 402 were used to analyze. SPSS program was used to analyze. Factor analysis, regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses. Results – By analyzing sub-factors of both models and binding the common factors in one category, we accomplish one model. And we tested the model by empirical method. The results show that the results from the unified model are almost same as the results from the two models. In other words, the unified model works. Conclusions – Explaining one state of affair by two different method is in some sense distracting attention. By devising a new model including factors of both models, we can explain the affair more straightforward and efficiently. At first the technology acceptance model was devised to explain the technology users in an organization and the following tests and revised models were for the similar purposes. However, as on-lone activities including contracts have been expanded and become important, consumers as the technology uses have emerged as first factor to consider. In accordance models to explain this situation has been suggested. The model suggested in this research is one of the models but it has the following merits. That is, it is simple but has strong explanation power, it can clarify the process of technology acceptance of common consumers by containing negative sides of consumer conception, and thus, it can provide the opportunities to analyze the negative sides of new technology, also find ways to improve the level of acceptance by general consumers.