The continuation and recommendation intention of artificial intelligence-based voice assistant systems (AIVAS): the influence of personal traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Based on the post-acceptance model of information system continuance (PAMISC), this study investigates the influence of the early-stage users' personal traits (specifically personal innovativeness and technology anxiety) and ex-post instrumentality perceptions (specifically price value, hedonic motivation, compatibility and perceived security) on social diffusion of smart technologies measured by the intention to recommend artificial intelligence-based voice assistant systems (AIVAS) to others. Design/methodology/approach Survey data from 400 US AIVAS users were collected and analyzed with Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 18.0 and the partial least square technique using advanced analysis of composites (ADANCO) 2.1. Findings AIVAS technology is presently at the early stage of market penetration (about 25% of market penetration in the USA). A survey of AIVAS technology users reveals that personal innovativeness is directly and indirectly (through confirmation and continuance) associated with a stronger intention to recommend the use of the device to others. Confirmation is associated with all four ex-post instrumentality perceptions (hedonic motivation, compatibility, price value and perceived security). Among the four, however, only hedonic motivation and compatibility are significant predictors of satisfaction, which lead to use continuance and, eventually, intention to recommend. Finally, technology anxiety is found to be indirectly (but not directly) associated with a lower intention to recommend. Originality/value This is the first study conducted on the early-stage AIVAS users that evaluates the influence of both personal traits and ex-post instrumentality perceptions on users' intention for continuance and recommendation to others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".