Understanding customers’ intentions to use AI-enabled services in online fashion stores – a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Artificial intelligence (AI) services are vital in enhancing customer experience and purchase intentions in the international online fashion retail sector. This study explores customers’ intentions to use AI-enabled services, focusing on transaction utility, trust and product uniqueness across the customer journey in the context of international online fashion stores. This study also assesses how privacy moderates customer intentions. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a longitudinal research design and purposive sampling technique to collect a total of 566 participants. The final data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Amos version 21 software. Findings The study highlights the significance of transaction utility, trust and product uniqueness in AI integration across the customer journey (pre-purchase, during purchase and post-purchase stages). Most of the direct relationships are significant, except the relationship between the during purchase and post-purchase stages. With a few exceptions, AI integration commonly does not mediate the relationship between antecedents and intention to use AI-enabled services. Privacy moderates AI integration in post-purchase, during purchase and intention to use AI-enabled services, except in the pre-purchase stage. Originality/value This study bridges important gaps in the literature by integrating AI-enabled services and customer behavior, contributing to a broader knowledge of customer interactions in global e-commerce fashion stores. The study examines multiple attributes that impact intention, such as transaction utility, trust, product uniqueness, AI integration in three stages of purchases (pre-purchase, during purchase and post-purchase) and privacy, using three major theories: mental accounting theory, trust commitment theory and commodity theory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".