Do AI-Based Voice Assistants Influence Brand Continuous Usage? The Mediating Role of AI-Driven Customer Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) voice assistant (VA) on customer experience, resulting in the continuous use of mobile brands. Specifically, this article assesses the role of hedonic, utilitarian, and social benefits provided by AIVA on customer experience and continuous usage of a mobile phone brand. Using a primary data collection instrument, the quantitative approach was adopted to examine the study’s variables. Data from 348 valid responses were used for the analysis based on structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS version 23. Three main factors were identified to influence customer experience, which results in continuous usage of a mobile phone brand. These factors are social benefits, hedonic benefits, and utilitarian benefits. In conclusion, a significant and positive relationship exists between AI-enabled customer experience and brand continuous usage. It recommended that mobile brands consider and research their prospects’ and customers’ social, hedonic, and utilitarian needs to provide them with desired products and experiences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".