How Does Interactivity Shape Users’ Continuance Intention of Intelligent Voice Assistants? Evidence from SEM and fsQCA

References

• Maroufkhani P, Asadi S, Ghobakhloo M, Jannesari MT, Ismail WKW. How do interactive voice assistants build brands’ loyalty? Technol Forecasting Social Change. 2022;183(3):121870. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121870
   Google Scholar
• Bahmani N, Bhatnagar A, Gauri D. Hey, Alexa!: what attributes of Skills affect firm value? J Acad Marking Sci. 2022;60(2):241. doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00851-0
   Google Scholar
• Klaus P, Zaichkowsky JL. The convenience of shopping via voice AI: introducing AIDM. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2021;28(3):102490. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102490
   Google Scholar
• Research and Markets. Voice Assistant Application Market Size, Market Share, Application Analysis, Regional Outlook, Growth Trends, Key Players, Competitive Strategies and Forecasts, 2021 to 2029. Available from: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5612607/voice-assistant-application-market-size-market#src-pos-2. Accessed 18, January 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Canziani B, MacSween S. Consumer acceptance of voice-activated smart home devices for product information seeking and online ordering. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;119(2):106714. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106714
   Google Scholar
• Jain S, Basu S, Dwivedi YK, Kaur S. Interactive voice assistants – does brand credibility assuage privacy risks? J Business Res. 2022;139(1):701–717. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Lee KY, Sheehan L, Lee K, Chang Y. The continuation and recommendation intention of artificial intelligence-based voice assistant systems (AIVAS): the influence of personal traits. INTR. 2021;31(5):1899–1939. doi:10.1108/INTR-06-2020-0327
   Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: an Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quarterly. 2001;25(3):351–370. doi:10.2307/3250921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coskun-Setirek A, Mardikyan S. Understanding the Adoption of Voice Activated Personal Assistants. Int J E-Services Mobile Appl. 2017;9(3):1–21. doi:10.4018/IJESMA.2017070101
   Google Scholar
• Han S, Yang H. Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants. IMDS. 2018;118(3):618–636. doi:10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0214
   Google Scholar
• Shin J, Park Y, Lee D. Who will be smart home users?: an analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technol Forecasting Social Change. 2018;134(1):246–253. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029
   Google Scholar
• Ashfaq M, Yun J, Yu S. My Smart Speaker is Cool!: perceived Coolness, Perceived Values, and Users’ Attitude toward Smart Speakers. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2021;37(6):560–573. doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1841404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes T, Oliveira E. Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated technologies in service encounters: drivers of digital voice assistants adoption. J Business Res. 2021;122(3):180–191. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.058
   Google Scholar
• Kim J, Kang S, Bae J. Human likeness and attachment effect on the perceived interactivity of AI speakers. J Business Res. 2022;144(4):797–804. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.047
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen QN, Ta A, Prybutok V. An Integrated Model of Voice-User Interface Continuance Intention: the Gender Effect. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2019;35(15):1362–1377. doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1525023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Q, Lu Y, Pan Z, Gong Y, Yang Z. Can AI artifacts influence human cognition?: the effects of artificial autonomy in intelligent personal assistants. Int J Information Manage. 2021;56(5):102250. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102250
   Google Scholar
• Kowalczuk P. Consumer acceptance of smart speakers: a mixed methods approach. JRIM. 2018;12(4):418–431. doi:10.1108/JRIM-01-2018-0022
   Google Scholar
• McLean G, Osei-Frimpong K. Hey Alexa … examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019;99(4):28–37. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009
   Google Scholar
• Poushneh A. Humanizing voice assistant: the impact of voice assistant personality on consumers’ attitudes and behaviors. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2021;58(2):102283. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102283
   Google Scholar
• Xiang Y, Chae SW. Influence of Perceived Interactivity on Continuous Use Intentions on the Danmaku Video Sharing Platform: belongingness Perspective. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2022;38(6):573–593. doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1952803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang W, Shao B. The impact of voice assistants’ intelligent attributes on consumer well-being: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2023;70(3):103130. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103130
   Google Scholar
• Leung WKS, Cheung ML, Chang MK, Shi S, Tse SY, Yusrini L. The role of virtual reality interactivity in building tourists’ memorable experiences and post-adoption intentions in the COVID-19 era. JHTT. 2022;1(1):1. doi:10.1108/JHTT-03-2021-0088
   Google Scholar
• Liu Y. Developing a Scale to Measure the Interactivity of Websites. J Advertising Res. 2003;43(2):207–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan A, Lu Z, Mao Z. To talk or to touch: unraveling consumer responses to two types of hotel in-room technology. Int J Hospitality Manage. 2022;101(3–4):103112. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103112
   Google Scholar
• Lucia-Palacios L, Pérez-López R. Effects of Home Voice Assistants’ Autonomy on Instrusiveness and Usefulness: direct, Indirect, and Moderating Effects of Interactivity. J Interactive Marketing. 2021;3(1):16. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2021.03.005
   Google Scholar
• van Doorn J, Mende M, Noble SM, et al. Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: emergence of Automated Social Presence in Organizational Frontlines and Customers’ Service Experiences. J Serv Res. 2017;20(1):43–58. doi:10.1177/1094670516679272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henkens B, Verleye K, Larivière B. The smarter, the better?: ! Customer well-being, engagement, and perceptions in smart service systems. Int J Res Marketing. 2021;38(2):425–447. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgosha MS, Hajiheydari N. How human users engage with consumer robots?: a dual model of psychological ownership and trust to explain post-adoption behaviours. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;117(1):106660. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106660
   Google Scholar
• Kirk CP, Peck J, Swain SD, Dahl D, Argo J. Property Lines in the Mind: consumers’ Psychological Ownership and Their Territorial Responses. J Consum Res. 2018;45(1):148–168. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellaert BGC, Shu SB, Arentze TA, et al. Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants. Mark Lett. 2020;31(4):335–347. doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09537-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang J, Shao Y, Wen C. Transactional quality, relational quality, and consumer e-loyalty: evidence from SEM and fsQCA. Int J Information Manage. 2016;36(6):1205–1217. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasoolimanesh SM, Seyfi S, Rather RA, Hall CM. Investigating the mediating role of visitor satisfaction in the relationship between memorable tourism experiences and behavioral intentions in heritage tourism context. TR. 2021;77(2):687–709. doi:10.1108/TR-02-2021-0086
   Google Scholar
• Vimalkumar M, Sharma SK, Singh JB, Dwivedi YK. ‘Okay google, what about my privacy?:’: user’s privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;120(3):106763. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106763
   Google Scholar
• Chen K, Yen DC. Improving the quality of online presence through interactivity. Inf Manage. 2004;42(1):217–226. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horning MA. Interacting with news: exploring the effects of modality and perceived responsiveness and control on news source credibility and enjoyment among second screen viewers - ScienceDirect. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;73:273–283. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao Z, Chen K. Understanding individuals’ engagement and continuance intention of MOOCs: the effect of interactivity and the role of gender. INTR. 2020;31(4):1262–1289. doi:10.1108/INTR-10-2019-0416
   Google Scholar
• Shi X, Evans R, Shan W. Solver engagement in online crowdsourcing communities: the roles of perceived interactivity, relationship quality and psychological ownership. Technol Forecasting Social Change. 2022;175(8):121389. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121389
   Google Scholar
• Song JH, Zinkhan GM. Determinants of Perceived Web Site Interactivity. J Marketing. 2008;72(2):99–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Yin D, Qiu H, Bai B. Examining the effects of AI contactless services on customer psychological safety, perceived value, and hospitality service quality during the COVID‐19 pandemic. J Hospitality Marketing Manage. 2022;31(1):24–48. doi:10.1080/19368623.2021.1934932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrabian A, Russell JA. An Approach to Environment Psychology. MIT. 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby J. Stimulus-Organism-Response Reconsidered: an Evolutionary Step in Modeling (Consumer) Behavior. J Consumer Psychol. 2002;12(1):51–57. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1201_05
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Wen S, Xue J. Unraveling the Influential Mechanisms of Social Commerce Overloads on User Disengagement: the Buffer Effect of Guanxi. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2023;16:1921–1945. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S408119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shang Q, Ma H, Wang C, Gao L. Effects of Background Fitting of e-Commerce Live Streaming on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: a Cognitive-Affective Perspective. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2023;16:149–168. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S393492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuncer I. The relationship between IT affordance, flow experience, trust, and social commerce intention: an exploration using the S-O-R paradigm. Technol Soc. 2021;65(9):101567. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101567
   Google Scholar
• Kamal Basha N, Aw EC-X, Chuah SH-W. Are we so over smartwatches?: or can technology, fashion, and psychographic attributes sustain smartwatch usage? Technol Soc. 2022;69(3):101952. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101952
   Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. The State of Psychological Ownership: integrating and Extending a Century of Research. Rev General Psychol. 2003;7(1):84–107. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawkins S, Tian AW, Newman A, Martin A. Psychological ownership: a review and research agenda. J Organiz Behav. 2017;38(2):163–183. doi:10.1002/job.2057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Monga A, Palmatier RW, Shu SB, Small DA. Evolution of Consumption: a Psychological Ownership Framework. J Marketing. 2021;85(1):196–218. doi:10.1177/0022242920957007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu C-M, Cheng H-L, Huang H-Y, Chen C-F. Exploring individuals’ subjective well-being and loyalty towards social network sites from the perspective of network externalities: the Facebook case. Int J Information Manage. 2013;33(3):539–552. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterman AS, Schwartz SJ, Conti R. The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. J Happiness Stud. 2008;9(1):41–79. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Song H, Guo R. A Study on the Causal Process of Virtual Reality Tourism and Its Attributes in Terms of Their Effects on Subjective Well-Being during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3). doi:10.3390/ijerph18031019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim MJ, Lee C-K, Preis MW. The impact of innovation and gratification on authentic experience, subjective well-being, and behavioral intention in tourism virtual reality: the moderating role of technology readiness. Telematic Informatic. 2020;49(4):101349. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101349
   Google Scholar
• Zhou M, Zhang X. Online social networking and subjective well-being: mediating effects of envy and fatigue. Comput Educ. 2019;140(1):103598. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103598
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman W. Technology Readiness Index (Tri) A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. J Serv Res. 2000;2(4):307–320. doi:10.1177/109467050024001
   Google Scholar
• Roy SK, Balaji MS, Quazi A, Quaddus M. Predictors of customer acceptance of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2018;42(3):147–160. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.02.005
   Google Scholar
• Chang Y-W, Chen J. What motivates customers to shop in smart shops?: the impacts of smart technology and technology readiness. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2021;58(3):102325. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102325
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, So KKF, Sparks BA. Technology Readiness and Customer Satisfaction with Travel Technologies: a Cross-Country Investigation. J Travel Res. 2017;56(5):563–577. doi:10.1177/0047287516657891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu Z, Nakata C, Sivakumar K, Grewal D. Self-service technology effectiveness: the role of design features and individual traits. J Acad Mark Sci. 2007;35(4):492–506. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0019-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parasuraman A, Colby CL. An Updated and Streamlined Technology Readiness Index. J Serv Res. 2015;18(1):59–74. doi:10.1177/1094670514539730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J Personality Assessment. 1985;49(1):71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin J, Luo Z, Cheng X, Li L. Understanding the interplay of social commerce affordances and swift guanxi: an empirical study. Inf Manage. 2019;56(2):213–224. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research. J Acad Mark Sci. 2012;40(3):414–433. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas IO, Woodside AG. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. Int J Information Manage. 2021;58(3):102310. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
   Google Scholar
• Fiss PC. Building Better Causal Theories: a Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Acad Manage J. 2011;54(2):393–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Jarvis CB. The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(4):710–730. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kock N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: a Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. Int J e-Collaboration. 2015;11(4):1–10. doi:10.4018/ijec.2015100101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra TK, Henseler J. Consistent Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Manage Information Systems. 2015;39(2):297–316. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci. 1988;16(1):74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
   Google Scholar
• Henseler JR, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115–135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christophersen T, Konradt U. Development and validation of a formative and a reflective measure for the assessment of online store usability. Behaviour Inf Technol. 2012;31(7–9):56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR. A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Inf Syst Res. 2003;14(2):189–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shmueli G, Sarstedt M, Hair JF, et al. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur J Marketing. 2019;53(11):2322–2347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitzl C, Roldan JL, Cepeda G. Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling. IMDS. 2016;116(9):1849–1864. doi:10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302
   Google Scholar
• Ragin CC. Redesigning Social Inquiry: fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Univ Chicago Press. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Rihoux B, Ragin CC. Configurational Comparative Methods: qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques: configurational comparative methods. Int J Med. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Gligor D, Bozkurt S. FsQCA versus regression: the context of customer engagement. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2020;52(3):101929. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101929
   Google Scholar
• Li D, Atkinson L. The role of psychological ownership in consumer happiness. J Consumer Marketing. 2020;37(6):629–638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo CW, Sanders GL, Cerveny RP. Exploring the influence of flow and psychological ownership on security education, training and awareness effectiveness and security compliance. Decis Support Syst. 2018;108(1):107–118. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2018.02.009
   Google Scholar