Table 1.
A critical overview of related works.
| Study | Methodology | Context/Setting | Sample frame | Sample Size | Main Variables | Outcomes | Critical Overview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pal et al. (2021) | Cross-sectional; survey | Smart voice assistant | Alexa users and Google Assistant users | 244 | User engagement; trust; privacy risk; satisfaction; slowness of adoption; skepticism; attitude | Continuance usage | Pal et al. (2021) reflected the utilitarian attitude and the hedonic attitude as exogenous variables. On the other hand, the current study observes the formation process of continuance intention more elaborately by presenting the evidence factors that determine the utilitarian value and the hedonic value. |
| McLean and Osei-Frimpong (2019) | Cross-sectional; survey | AI In-home voice assistant | Amazon Echo users | 724 | Utilitarian benefits; hedonic benefits; symbolic benefits; social presence; social interaction; perceived privacy risk | Usage | McLean and Osei-Frimpong (2019) explicated the use of voice assistants based on utilitarian benefits and hedonic benefits. The present research approaches the user behavior of AIPA more delicately by observing the formation mechanism of utilitarian value and hedonic value. |
| Nguyen et al. (2021) | Cross-sectional; survey | Chatbot | Bank's chatbot users | 359 | Information quality; system quality; service quality; trust; user satisfaction; confirmation expectations; perceived usefulness | Continuance intention | Nguyen et al. (2021) reflected robust variables, but they have been overused in IT contexts. The current study is different in that it includes AIPA-specific variables while maintaining the major determinants of IT use. |
| Nguyen et al. (2019) | Cross-sectional; survey | Voice-user interface | Voice-user interface users | 414 | Gender; information quality; information satisfaction; system quality; system satisfaction; perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use; perceived enjoyment; mobile self-efficacy; trust; perceived risk; attitude | Continuance intention | Nguyen et al. (2019) introduced representative variables of the IS success model and technology acceptance model. They did not reflect the unique characteristics of AIPA, which communicates through voice. The present research employs AIPA-specific factors and systematically structured them into two aspects: utilitarian value and hedonic value. |
| Pillai et al. (2020) | Cross-sectional; survey | AI-powered automated retail stores | AI-powered store consumers | 1250 | Optimism; innovativeness; discomfort; insecurity; perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use; perceived enjoyment; customization; interactivity | Intention to shop | Pillai et al. (2020) focused on AI in the shopping environment by considering the tendencies of consumers. On the other hand, the current work aims to study AIPA, which is most easily encountered by people. It can derive implications that can be applied to detailed AI subjects (e.g., shopping, game, education, etc.). |
| Jang (2020) | Cross-sectional; survey | Virtual personal assistant | Smart speaker users | 534 | Parasocial interaction; Personification type; Loneliness | Satisfaction | Jang (2020) investigated only how parasocial interaction, types of assistants, and loneliness affect satisfaction. The present paper has limitations in that it does not consider the function, technology, and value of assistants. To overcome it, this study measured related factors from the users' cognitive perspective. |
| Hasan et al. (2021) | Cross-sectional; survey | Voice-controlled AI | Siri users | 675 | Trust; interaction; perceived risk; novelty value; employment; brand involvement; consumer innovativeness | Brand loyalty | While Hasan et al. (2021) explained brand loyalty by examining only Siri, the current article describes the general intention of using AIPA by investigating multiple assistants. Hasan et al. (2021) suggested basic interaction as the antecedent of brand loyalty. This study introducesparasocial interaction based on the human-like behavior of AIPA. |
| Xu et al. (2020) | Study 3; Experimental study | AI customer service | Bank's AI Online service | 51 | Online customer service; perceived problem-solving ability; task-complexity | Usage intention | In explaining the use of AI customer service, Xu et al. (2020) considered only task complexity and problem-solving ability. The subjects of the study are used only for utility purposes. Because AIPA can provide both utilitarian value and hedonic value, this study considered both utility and hedonic aspects. |