Intention to use analytical artificial intelligence (AI) in services – the effect of technology readiness and awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The automation of services is rapidly growing, led by sectors such as banking and financial investment. The growing number of investments managed by artificial intelligence (AI) suggests that this technology-based service will become increasingly popular. This study examines how customers' technology readiness and service awareness affect their intention to use analytical AI investment services. Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses were tested with a data set of 404 North American-based potential customers of robo-advisors. In addition to technology readiness dimensions, the potential customers' characteristics were included in the framework as moderating factors (age, gender and previous experience with financial investment services). A post-hoc analysis examined the roles of service awareness and the financial advisor's name (i.e., robo-advisor vs. AI-advisor). Findings The results indicated that customers' technological optimism increases, and insecurity decreases, their intention to use robo-advisors. Surprisingly, feelings of technological discomfort positively influenced robo-advisor adoption. This interesting finding challenges previous insights into technology adoption and value co-creation as analytical AI puts customers into a very passive role and reduces barriers to technology adoption. The research also analyzes how consumers become aware of robo-advisors, and how this influences their acceptance. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze the role of customers' technology readiness in the adoption of analytical AI. The authors link the findings to previous technology adoption and automated services' literature and provide specific managerial implications and avenues for further research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".