International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Can AI artifacts influence human cognition? The effects of artificial

autonomy in intelligent personal assistants
Qian Hu a, Yaobin Lu a, *, Zhao Pan a, *, Yeming Gong b, Zhiling Yang c
a
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
b
EMLYON Business School, Ecully Cedex, 69134, France
c
School of Management, City University of Hong Kong, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the era of the Internet of Things (IoT), emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies provide various
Internet of Things (IoT) artificial autonomy features that allow intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) to assist users in managing the
Artificial intelligence dynamically expanding applications, devices, and services in their daily lives. However, limited academic
Intelligent personal assistant
research has been done to validate empirically artificial autonomy and its downstream consequences on human
Artificial autonomy
Mind perception
behavior. This study investigates the role of artificial autonomy by dividing it into three types of autonomy in
terms of task primitives, namely, sensing, thought, and action autonomy. Drawing on mind perception theory,
the authors hypothesize that the two fundamental dimensions of humanlike perceptions—competence and
warmth—of non-human entities could explain the mechanism between artificial autonomy and IPA usage. Our
results reveal that the comparative effects of competence and warmth perception exist when artificial autonomy
contributes to users’ continuance usage intention. Theoretically, this study increases our understanding of AI-
enabled artificial autonomy in information systems research. These findings also provide insightful sugges­
tions for practitioners regarding AI artifacts design.

1. Introduction 2024, reaching a value of $7.9 billion (Transparency Market Research,

The emerging variety and volume of electronic services available in
the Internet of Things (IoT) era have given rise to the need for intelligent
personal assistants (IPAs) that help users manage a large number of
applications, devices, and services in their daily lives (Ponciano, Pais, &
Casal, 2015). Most large global technology companies have launched
their own IPAs, such as Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple’s
Siri, and have expanded them from mobile devices to broader IoT de­
vices or platforms (e.g., smart TVs, smart cars, and smart speakers) (Reis,
Paulino, Paredes, & Barroso, 2017). These IPAs can help their users
perform various daily tasks through a speech interface (Saad, Afzal,
El-Issawi, & Eid, 2017), such as sending a message or making a phone
call (Santos et al., 2016). They can also perform customized tasks by
self-learning users’ tastes and habits, such as providing personalized
recommendations, chatting, and controlling home appliances (Han &
Yang, 2018). With such significant advances in IPAs, the global IPA
market is forecasted to expand at an annual rate of 32.8 % from 2016 to
2016). As business and technology mature, IPAs are recognized as
having the potential to reshape new “entrances” to personal digital
services in the IoT era (Voicebot, PullString, & RAIN, 2018).
The advantages of IPAs are primarily derived from their ability to act
as human assistants to capture users’ daily needs and, then, to be
available to act on behalf of the user to perform everyday tasks in line
with their preferences (Han & Yang, 2018). Emerging AI technologies
provide various artificial autonomy features that allow IPAs to sense,
think, and act more autonomously when executing tasks (Dwivedi et al.,
2019; Lee, Yoo, Kim, Lee, & Hong, 2019), such as collecting and
recognizing various types of awareness data (e.g., voice, vision, and
location) from IoT devices, self-learning to support decisions based on
users’ preferences and habits, and activating various actions on other
applications and devices (Santos et al., 2016). These autonomy features
enable IPAs to interact naturally and socially with users and perform
desired tasks well, in accordance with the users’ preferences (Beer, Fisk,
& Rogers, 2014), which may lead to better user experiences in which

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: qian_hu@hust.edu.cn (Q. Hu), luyb@hust.edu.cn (Y. Lu), victola.pz@gmail.com (Z. Pan), gong@em-lyon.com (Y. Gong), Forrest.Yang@cityu.
edu.hk (Z. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102250
Received 22 March 2020; Received in revised form 7 September 2020; Accepted 16 September 2020
Available online 16 October 2020
0268-4012/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Q. Hu et al.
IPAs may even be perceived as actual human assistants (Gursoy, Chi, Lu,
& Nunkoo, 2019). This humanlike perception may affect users’ subse­
quent behavior toward IPAs.
Previous studies on information systems (IS) have found that users
who perceive IT artifacts as social actors are more likely to be responsive
to social cues from the machine (Nass, Steuer, & Tauber, 1994),
including its voice, embodiment, information, demographics, and per­
sonality (Hess, Fuller, & Campbell, 2009; Komiak & Benbasat, 2006; Qiu
& Benbasat, 2009). Little academic research, however, has been con­
ducted to empirically validate artificial autonomy and its downstream
consequences on human behavior (Nickerson & Reilly, 2004). This
might be because earlier IT artifacts were not as smart as AI artifacts (e.
g., IPAs); the former can be regarded as relative automation rather than
as fully autonomic (De Visser, Pak, & Shaw, 2018). Since the purpose of
IPAs is to assist humans’ everyday lives today and into the future, it is
essential to understand further how the artificial autonomy of IPAs
fosters the perception of them as humanlike and influences users’
continuance usage intention toward IPAs. Therefore, current research
distinguishes the artificial autonomy of IPAs into sensing, thought, and
action autonomy in terms of three task primitives; furthermore, it
respectively investigates the manner in which these types of autonomy
can affect how individuals’ humanlike perception of IPAs and, in turn,
influence their continuance usage intention.
Drawing on mind perception theory that has been applied to identify
the perception of human minds in various types of non-human entities
(Gray & Wegner, 2010; Waytz, Gray, Epley, & Wegner, 2010), we pro­
pose that artificial autonomy causes individuals to infer IPAs’ ability to
do (i.e., material agency) and to feel (i.e., material experience) (Gray,
Gray, & Wegner, 2007), which respectively correspond to two funda­
mental dimensions of social judgment—competence and warmth (Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). The constructs
associated with these two dimensions have been individually investi­
gated in the research stream on the perceptions of humanlike minds in
AI artifacts. For instance, Dong, Chang, Wang, and Yan (2017) focused
on competence-related factors (e.g., intelligence and connectivity) in
IoT systems, whereas Lee, Lee, and Sah (2020) focused on
warmth-related factors (e.g., closeness) in Chatbot. However, these two
dimensions have not been simultaneously examined and compared in
relation to the role artificial autonomy plays in influencing users’
behavior. Researchers have recommended the incorporation of both
dimensions of human mind perception into studies of AI artifacts (ter
Stal, Tabak, op den Akker, Beinema, & Hermens, 2020). Therefore, we
investigate and compare together the effects of perceptions of compe­
tence and warmth on the mechanism of the impacts of the three types of
autonomy (i.e., sensing, thought, and action) on IPA continuance usage
intention. We propose that consideration of the two abovementioned
categories of mind perception (competence and warmth) will serve to
better explain the relationship that exists between artificial autonomy
and users’ continuance usage intention.
Our study makes the following contributions: First, the current
research contributes to the growing body of research on artificial au­
tonomy by drawing conceptual distinctions between sensing, thought,
and action autonomy in terms of three task primitives. Second, the
current study expands on the emerging literature on the impact of
artificial autonomy on human behavior regarding AI artifacts. Third,
drawing on mind perception theory, we operationalize warmth and
competence perceptions as two basic dimensions inherent in the
perception of human-likeness in non-human entities and simultaneously
investigate the psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of
artificial autonomy on human behavior regarding AI artifacts. Our re­
sults contribute tangibly to fill a knowledge gap in the field of mind
perception research focused on the simultaneous investigation and
comparative impact of perceptions of competence and warmth in AI
artifacts.
2
International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250
2. Literature review
2.1. Artificial autonomy in IPAs
In the field of computer science, the topic of artificial autonomy has
emerged (Maes, 1994). In contrast to human autonomy (Deci & Ryan,
2002), artificial autonomy, incorporated into machines by engineers
through technology (Beer et al., 2014), refers to the ability of a system to
perform tasks derived from humans without specific human interven­
tion (Hoffman & Novak, 2018; Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens,
2000). Artificial autonomy is considered to comprise autonomous
functions—within a task-specific context—with an emphasis on the
allocation of tasks from the human to the artifact (Beer et al., 2014).
When the artifacts can accomplish more parts of tasks that were previ­
ously carried out by humans and with less human intervention, the
artifact exercises stronger autonomy. Thus, artificial autonomy is not
dichotomous but rather operates along a continuum from no autonomy
to full autonomy (Beer et al., 2014).
Intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) are a class of autonomous
agents designed as human-assistance aids to perform daily tasks ac­
cording to their users’ needs or preferences (Han & Yang, 2018; Santos
et al., 2016). Unlike customer-service agents or recommendation agents
designed to execute specific tasks in the e-commerce environment, IPAs
are designed to perform users’ varied daily tasks in a range of different
scenarios, such as chatting with users, shopping, and home control, to
meet a variety of needs (Reis et al., 2017). Thanks to the embedding of
AI technologies, such as machine learning, the degree of artificial au­
tonomy of IPAs has been significantly improved by the provision of
autonomy features—understanding the user’s voice commands, auton­
omously performing tasks assigned by users, and responding to users
verbally (Freeman & Beaver, 2018)—which may lead to users
perceiving them as similar to actual human assistants (Gursoy et al.,
2019).
In the field of IS, many topics related to the development of human-
likeness and subsequent human behavior in the post-adoption stage
focus on a wide range of IT features, such as voice (Qiu & Benbasat,
2009), humanoid embodiment (Qiu & Benbasat, 2009), demographics
(Hess, Fuller, & Mathew, 2005; Qiu & Benbasat, 2010), personality
(Al-Natour, Benbasat, & Cenfetelli, 2011; Hess et al., 2009), vividness
(Hess et al., 2009), interactivity (Animesh, Pinsonneault, Yang, & Oh,
2011), personalization (Komiak & Benbasat, 2006), and sociability
(Animesh et al., 2011). However, the effect of artificial autonomy on
humanlike perception and human behavior has received limited atten­
tion. The reason for this under-emphasis may be that IT artifacts were
not as smart as AI artifacts and could be regarded as “relative automa­
tion” rather than as autonomous actors (De Visser et al., 2018).
The influence of artificial autonomy on human beings has given rise
to considerable debate on, for example, the ethical issues related to
artificial autonomy (Bryson, 2018; Draper & Sorell, 2017; Noorman &
Johnson, 2014), a redefinition of its role in technology (De Visser et al.,
2018), and human-autonomy teaming (Chen et al., 2018). Clearly, the
topic of artificial autonomy cannot be neglected as it constitutes an
important factor in addressing the complex mechanism of users’
continuance usage of IPAs.
This paper fills this research gap by exploring the relationship be­
tween the autonomy of IPAs and users’ continuance usage. As the
perception of autonomy offered by the features of the current generation
of IPAs varies across different users, the current research defines artifi­
cial autonomy from the users’ perspective as the extent to which users
feel IPAs can independently complete the tasks they assign them without
human intervention.
2.2. IPAs and mind perception
Mind perception research has identified experience and agency as
two dimensions of humanlike mind perception in non-human entities,
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

such as animals, objects, and artifacts (Gray & Wegner, 2010; Gray et al.,
2007). Previous literature on mind perception regarding non-human
entities indicates that experience and agency are consistent with the
perceptions of warmth and competence (Gray & Wegner, 2010; Waytz
et al., 2010), which belong to two basic dimensions of social judgment
(Fiske et al., 2007, 2002). The warmth dimension refers to the degree to
which individuals perceive caring, kindness, and friendliness in
non-human entities, whereas the competence dimension refers to the
degree to which individuals perceive intelligence, capability, efficacy,
and efficiency in non-human entities (Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010;
Fiske et al., 2002).
Previous studies on mind perception across multiple disciplines have
found that these two dimensions jointly contribute to a solid under­
standing of how characteristics of non-human entities contribute to
forming an individual’s emotions, attributions, and behaviors by being
perceived as humanlike (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). For instance, the
circular or angular cues of a servicescape (defined as the physical envi­
ronment in which a service can occur) in the context of a fast-paced
service encounter can shape customer satisfaction through warmth
and competence perception of the servicescape (Liu, Bogicevic, & Mat­
tila, 2018). Furthermore, individuals’ perceptions of brand globalness or
localness can impact individuals’ brand identification through compe­
tence and warmth perception of a brand (Kolbl, Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, &
Diamantopoulos, 2019). In a further example, money anthropomor­
phism, which was manipulated in an experiment, increased donation
intention through warmth and competence perception of money (Zhou,
Kim, & Wang, 2019).
Despite consistent enhancement of warmth and competence di­
mensions in various non-human entities, there is abundant evidence
suggesting a dilemma in mind perception research about the comparative
importance of the perception of competence and warmth in these non-
human entities (Zhu & Chang, 2020). Some studies have reported that
warmth perception is the primary determinant in the evaluation of
non-human entities (Abele & Bruckmüller, 2011; Fiske et al., 2007; Gray
et al., 2007). For example, in the context of charitable giving, warmth
perception is more critical than competence perception with regard to
money in terms of individuals’ donation behavior (Zhou et al., 2019). For
consumer-brand identification, warmth perception of a brand has a
stronger effect than competence perceptions of the brand (Kolbl et al.,
2019). The warmth perception of emoticons in the context of online
feedback has a more significant impact on students’ perceptions of the
accessibility and emotionality of online learning tools than does the
competence perceptions of emoticons (Moffitt, Padgett, & Grieve, 2020).
Other studies have provided evidence of the greater impact of the
competence perception of non-human entities (Aaker et al., 2010;
Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005). For instance, in busy
settings, the competence perception is more important than the warmth
perception of a servicescape in increasing customer satisfaction (Liu et al.,
2018). Moreover, the competence perception of firms was found to
stimulate consumers’ intention to buy the firm’s products more signifi­
cantly than warmth perception (Aaker et al., 2010). Although researchers
agree that both perceptions are important, when limited resources must
be considered, it remains debatable which strategy would be more
effective in establishing mind perception. Researchers suggest investi­
gating the comparative effects of both dimensions of mind perception to
clearly understand individual behaviors (Zhou et al., 2019).
In the IS discipline, although the humanlike perception has been
indicated as an appropriate perspective for explaining individuals’ re­
sponses to AI artifacts (Lee et al., 2020), prior studies have mainly
focused on a single dimension rather than considering the possible hu­
manlike perception as well as both the competence and warmth di­
mensions (see Table 1). Several studies have focused on factors related to

Table 1
Research on Humanlike Perceptions in Human Behavior in AI Artifacts.
Types of AI Artifacts Features Warmth Competence Human Behavior Reference

Smart Wearable Devices Service Quality – Usefulness Continuance Intention to Use Park (2020)
System Quality Ease of Use
Smart Home Services – – Mobility Intention to Use Yang et al. (2017)
Interoperability
Service Robot – – Performance Efficacy Willingness to Use Lu et al. (2019)
Artificially Intelligent (AI) Device Anthropomorphism – Performance Expectancy Willingness to Accept Gursoy et al. (2019)
Effort Expectancy
Voice Assistants Localization – Ease of Use Engagement Moriuchi (2019)
Usefulness
Smart Home Technology Compatibility – Ease of Use Intention to Use Hubert et al. (2019)
Triability Usefulness
Result Demonstrability
Visibility
Smart Home Technology Compatibility – Ease of Use Intention to Use Nikou (2019)
Triability Usefulness
Observability
Innovativeness
Smart Home Technology Compatibility – Ease of Use Intention to Use Shin et al. (2018)
Usefulness
IoT Systems – – Ease of Use Intention to Use IoT Dong et al. (2017)
Intelligence
Connectivity
Convenience
Usefulness
Smart Products – – Uselessness Resistance Mani and Chouk (2017)
Smart Speakers – – Functionality Adoption Intention Park et al. (2018)
Availability
Smart Home Technology Optimism Trust – Intentions to Adopt Mulcahy et al. (2019)
Innovativeness
Humanoid Service Robots Anthropomorphism Trust – Intention to Use van Pinxteren et al. (2019)
Chatbot – Closeness – Intention to Use Lee et al. (2020)
IPAs – Social Attraction Task Attraction Continuance Intentions Han and Yang (2018)
Robots Gender Warmth Competence Engagement Intention Stroessner and Benitez (2019)
Humanlike
AI Speaker Relationship Type Warmth Competence Response to AI Kim et al. (2019)
Gender

3
Q. Hu et al.
competence, such as usefulness, intelligence, and connectivity (Dong
et al., 2017), as well as mobility (Yang, Lee, & Zo, 2017), performance
efficacy (Lu, Cai, & Gursoy, 2019), and functionality (Park, Kwak, Lee, &
Ahn, 2018). In contrast, other studies have focused on factors related to
warmth, such as trust (Mulcahy, Letheren, McAndrew, Glavas, &
Russell-Bennett, 2019) and closeness (Lee et al., 2020). More recently, a
few IS researchers have applied both competence and warmth perception
in research regarding AI artifacts and found that both dimensions can
prominently contribute to explaining individuals’ responses to AI arti­
facts. For example, Kim, Cho, Ahn, and Sung (2019) employed a
between-subjects experimental design to identify the impacts of the
relationship type and gender of AI on the human’s response to AI by
assessing the perceptions of competence and warmth. Stroessner and
Benitez (2019) conducted two experiments to evaluate how humanlike
and feminine of artificial robots determine liking ratings and desire for
contact through both trait inferences (i.e., judgments of warmth and
competence). However, the comparative effects of competence and
warmth perceptions have not been investigated in AI artifacts. A growing
number of researchers recommend the simultaneous investigation of
these two dimensions of mind perception to explain how the character­
istics of AI artifacts influence individual behaviors (Čaić, Mahr, &
Oderkerken-Schröder, 2019; ter Stal et al., 2020; van Doorn et al., 2017).
These two dimensions of mind perception provide an appropriate
theoretical foundation for examining the influence of artificial auton­
omy on human behavior regarding IPAs, because IPA autonomy may
easily lead individuals to perceive IPAs as humanlike, which may affect
their subsequent responses toward IPAs. However, few studies have
investigated these two dimensions simultaneously, nor have they
compared the different roles these two dimensions play in the mecha­
nism of how sensing, thought, and action autonomy influence human
behavior regarding AI artifacts. Our research addresses this gap by
simultaneously examining and comparing these two dimensions of mind
perception to show the underlying mechanism by which the artificial
autonomy of IPAs impacts users’ continuing behavior.
3. Research model and hypotheses
For the purposes of this study, we divided artificial autonomy into
sensing, thought, and action as three task primitives. Drawing on mind
perception theory, we examined how the autonomy of IPAs affects users’
continuance usage intention by using two fundamental dimensions of
mind perception—competence and warmth—and further developed our
logic regarding the comparative impact of each dimension. Fig. 1 sum­
marizes the theoretical model utilized in this study.
3.1. Categorizing artificial autonomy of IPAs
According to the definition of artificial autonomy that refers to the
ability of a system to perform tasks derived from humans without
Fig. 1. The Research Model.
Note: * p < .05;** p < .01; *** p < .001; n.s., non-significant.
4
International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250
specific human intervention (Parasuraman et al., 2000), current artifi­
cial autonomy is considered well within a task-specific context. Thus,
the taxonomy of artificial autonomy can be divided according to how
well IPAs perform various aspects of the tasks. Each task, no matter how
simple or complex, can be divided into three primitives: sense, think,
and act (i.e., the STA framework)—sense the environment, think of a
plan based on the environment, and act on the plan (Siegel, 2003). Each
task primitive can be allocated to either the human or the artifact (or
both) (Beer et al., 2014) such that the artifact can function indepen­
dently on each task primitive with less human intervention. Therefore,
artificial autonomy can change along with any of the sense, think, and
act primitives (Rosen & Nilsson, 1966).
STA provides a foundation to classify the level of artificial autonomy
of IPAs (from low to high) applied to each of the three task primi­
tives—sensing, thought, and action autonomy. Sensing autonomy
manifests itself as the IPA’s ability to see, hear, and feel things
happening in its environment; IPAs can autonomously control the
sensing process while interacting with users. Thought autonomy mani­
fests itself in the IPA’s ability to formulate a plan to respond appropri­
ately to the environment with little human intervention. Action
autonomy manifests itself in the IPA’s ability to carry out actions in the
environment and independently control the process while performing a
specific action or series of actions. Although the provision of these au­
tonomy features of IPAs is similar across many users, the perception and
experience of the autonomy level of these IPAs may differ among users
due to varying demographics, motivations, and environments. There­
fore, the current study investigates IPA autonomy from the users’
perspective.
3.2. Artificial autonomy and mind perceptions in IPAs
According to mind perception theory (Gray et al., 2007) and the
literature on social judgment (Fiske et al., 2007, 2002), non-human
entities tend to be perceived as humanlike when both warmth and
competence are perceived. Although there are no specific studies testing
the direct relationship between IPA autonomy and these two funda­
mental dimensions of mind perception, we hypothesize that when IPAs
possess artificial autonomy, such as sensing, thought, and action au­
tonomy, the individual will be more likely to attribute these two
fundamental dimensions to the IPA and to perceive its human-likeness
(Nickerson & Reilly, 2004).
3.2.1. Competence perception in artificial autonomy
We first theorized that artificial autonomy might contribute to the
perception of competence stemming from the individual’s cognitive
evaluation of a non-human entity’s intelligence, capability, or skillful­
ness (Fiske et al., 2002). For instance, management practices indicate
that for-profits show higher levels of competence than non-profits due to
the fact that the work practices of the former are oriented toward low
Q. Hu et al.
costs and high efficiency, which can predict a company’s competitive­
ness (Aaker et al., 2010). IS research also indicates that the character­
istics of AI artifacts (e.g. anthropomorphism, innovativeness, and
quality) could also stimulate users’ inference of the competence
perception of AI artifacts (e.g. performance expectancy and usefulness)
(Gursoy et al., 2019; Nikou, 2019). Applying this logic, the high level of
autonomy that enables IPAs to complete tasks independently, solve
problems, and achieve the user’s goal with fewer user interventions may
generate the positive inference that the IPAs are intelligent, capable, and
skillful, thereby activating users’ cognitive inferences when judging the
competence capabilities of IPAs.
To be specific, sensing autonomy supports IPAs’ ability to actively
sense relevant aspects of the environment by seeing, listening, locating,
and monitoring the status of objects. This sensing autonomy prompts
IPAs to actively collect data from their surroundings, even from their
users, and to identify information from this data, such as recognizing
text, voices, images, locations, and objects. The technical improvements
of IPAs in active data collection and information recognition support the
perception of IPAs’ competence by improving their grasp of the envi­
ronment and carrying out users’ hands-free commands, which lead to
the inferences of intelligence, capability, skillfulness, and efficiency and
effectiveness in task performance. Therefore, we hypothesize as follows:
H1a. Sensing autonomy will have a positive influence on the percep­
tion of IPAs’ competence.
Thought autonomy enables IPAs to evaluate important things, such
as when actively recommending plans based on user preferences and
suggesting scheduling and self-learning according to previous in­
teractions. This type of autonomy empowers IPAs to further analyze the
collected information and make optimal plans to better meet users’
needs and preferences. Such improvements in the area of information
analysis and decision-making can promote the perceived competence of
IPAs by demonstrating their intelligence, capability, and skill, thereby
reducing users’ information redundancy or overload, sparing users un­
necessary effort, and increasing overall efficiency and effectiveness
(Duan, Edwards, & Dwivedi, 2019). Thus, thought autonomy might
become a significant stimulus for users’ perception of competence.
Therefore, we hypothesize as follows:
H1b. Thought autonomy has a positive influence on the perception of
IPAs’ competence.
Action autonomy is focused on acting upon the important things in
the environment, such as executing actions to control devices or appli­
cations, searching for information, reminding, and even providing
sound. This type of autonomy enables IPAs to take the place of their
users by directly acting on plans for achieving users’ goals or purposes.
IPAs implement such actions with relatively few manual interventions
and faster than users can execute them in traditional ways, such as
typing or touching, which may lead to competence perception. There­
fore, we hypothesize as follows:
H1c. Action autonomy will have a positive influence on the perception
of IPAs’ competence.
3.2.2. Warmth perception in artificial autonomy
Next, we hypothesize that artificial autonomy might also contribute
to the perception of warmth. The perception of warmth comes from an
individual’s affective perception of non-human entities’ caring, kind­
ness, and friendliness (Fiske et al., 2002). These positive assessments are
generally triggered by the warmth-related traits of non-human entities
(Zhou et al., 2019). For example, a marketing study indicated that a
servicescape’s “shape and busyness” had a significant influence on
customers’ perceptions of warmth (Liu et al., 2018). IS research has also
found that the characteristics of AI artifacts (e.g., anthropomorphism
and innovativeness) were able to foster users’ inference of the warmth
(e.g., trust and closeness) of AI artifacts (Mulcahy et al., 2019; van
5
International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250
Pinxteren, Wetzels, Rüger, Pluymaekers, & Wetzels, 2019). Following
this logic, the features supporting IPA autonomy may also be designed as
attributes of humanlike affective features. As a consequence, the IPAs
autonomy embodied in the process of helping users achieve their goals
may enhance users’ interest and lead to their greater enjoyment of their
user experience, ultimately contributing to affective inferences by users’
about the caring, kindness, and friendliness of IPAs.
Specifically, sensing autonomy enables IPAs to be constantly ready
for users’ commands, actively monitoring users’ needs whenever desired
and detecting abnormal and sudden alterations in the conditions in their
surroundings. This type of autonomy conveys a signal of the IPA’s
apparent concern for its user, which would readily lead to IPAs being
perceived as caring, friendly, and kind. Therefore, we hypothesize as
follows:
H2a. Sensing autonomy will have a positive influence on the percep­
tion of IPAs’ warmth.
Thought autonomy enables IPAs to recommend plans and manage
users’ schedules based on their preferences. This type of autonomy re­
flects IPAs’ active capability to make decisions for users by considering
and adapting themselves to satisfy users’ preferences and needs, thereby
demonstrating that IPAs are friendly and that they care about users’
wellbeing. Therefore, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H2b. Thought autonomy will have a positive influence on the
perception of IPAs’ warmth.
Action autonomy allows IPAs to execute or implement actions
affecting the environment with fewer manual user interventions, such as
operating apps or devices, searching for information, reminding, or
alerting. This type of autonomy enables users to employ IPAs to
implement actions to perform tasks according to their needs hands-free
(Han & Yang, 2018). When their expectations are implemented and
fulfilled by IPAs, affective inferences of the friendliness and kindness of
IPAs will naturally arise from users. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
H2c. Action autonomy will have a positive influence on the perception
of IPAs’ warmth.
3.3. Mind perception and IPA usage
The existing literature on mind perception has identified the signif­
icant impact of warmth and competence perceptions of non-human
entities on consumer behavior. For instance, the value-in-use of brand
apps that are furnished with affordances of mobile apps increases cus­
tomers’ continuance intention through warmth and competence
perception (Fang, 2019). The warmth and competence perceptions that
humans entertain of robotic chefs with humanoid hands have various
consequences for consumers’ actual behaviors in the restaurant industry
(Zhu & Chang, 2020). The perceptions of warmth and competence to­
ward robots can have positive impacts on individuals’ evaluations and
engagement intention (Stroessner & Benitez, 2019). Competence and
warmth perceptions instilled by artificial intelligence (AI) speakers have
a preferential impact on individuals’ responses to the speaker (Kim et al.,
2019). Analogously, in the context of IPAs, we hypothesize that mind
perception regarding IPAs as social objects, through two fundamental
dimensions of mind perception—warmth and competence—will lead to
the users’ continuance usage intention.
3.3.1. Competence perception of IPAs on IPA usage
Competence perception is closely associated with individualism and
agency, and mainly manifests itself in achieving tasks, solving problems,
and reaching goals (Judd, James-hawkins, & Yzerbyt, 2005). Thus,
competence perception is likely to promote individuals’ cognitive
evaluations of benefits and usefulness, along with their willingness to
engage in actions to realize these advantages. Applying the same logic to
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

the context of IPAs, as IPAs benefit users by allowing them to perform Table 2
tasks with less effort while also understanding their preferences Principal Constructs and Their Definitions.
(McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019), users are likely to engage in contin­ Constructs Operational Definitions References
uance usage of IPAs under the perception that IPAs are capable and
Sensing The extent to which users feel IPAs Beer et al. (2014)
intelligent. Therefore, we advance this hypothesis: Autonomy can sense the environment for
performing tasks assigned without
H3a. Competence perception will have a positive influence on
external control.
continuance usage intention. Thought The extent to which users feel IPAs Beer et al. (2014)
Autonomy can think of plans to perform tasks
3.3.2. Warmth perception of IPAs on IPA usage assigned without external control.
Action Autonomy The extent to which users feel IPAs Beer et al. (2014)
The warmth perception is closely related to collectivism and
can carry out the actions in its
communion, which primarily concern relationships, interactions, and environment for performing tasks
interpersonal behaviors (Fiske et al., 2007). Thus, the warmth percep­ assigned without external control.
tion may cause an individual to cultivate an emotional commitment and Competence The degree to which individuals Fiske et al. (2002),
personal dedication to non-human entities and engage in actions to Perception perceive IPAs’ intelligence, Aaker et al. (2010)
capability, efficacy, and efficiency.
maintain and preserve the relationship with them. In applying this logic
Warmth The degree of individuals’ perception Fiske et al. (2002),
to the context of IPAs, in the post-adoption stage, warmth perception Perception of IPAs’ kindness, friendliness, and Aaker et al. (2010)
enables users to maintain and reinforce trusting and harmonious re­ caring.
lationships with IPAs (Han & Yang, 2018). Users who perceive a higher Continuance The intention to continue using IPAs. Bhattacherjee (2001)
degree of warmth will want to continue their use of IPAs in order to Usage Intention

maintain their relationship with them. Therefore, we hypothesize as

follows: 4. Method
H3b. Warmth perception will have a positive influence on continuance
usage intention. 4.1. Pretest of mind perception of IPAs

3.3.3. Comparative effects of mind perception on IPA usage
We further hypothesize that although both the competence and
warmth of IPAs may enhance continuance usage intention, competence
perception has a stronger influence than warmth perception on users’
intention to engage in continuance usage.
Previous research has presented mixed results on the comparative
effects of warmth and competence perceptions of various non-human
entities. Some studies have shown that warmth perception is primary
in the evaluation of non-human entities (e.g., money, brand, and emo­
ticons) (Kolbl et al., 2019; Moffitt et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019), while
others have demonstrated the greater impact of the competence
perception of non-human entities (e.g., servicescapes and firms) (Aaker
et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2018). However, the comparative effects of
competence and warmth perceptions have not been examined in AI
artifacts.
Although the results of previous studies are not consistent, we pro­
pose that competence perception has a stronger impact than warmth
perception in the context of IPAs. According to the approach typically
taken in the literature, competence can be seen as ability, whereas
warmth can be seen as integrity (Fiske et al., 2007). Considering that
performing tasks is generally the aim of IPAs, a high level of competence
provides a clear signal to users that IPAs can perform tasks with high
efficacy and quality, while a higher degree of perceived warmth,
although positive, is not closely related to whether IPAs can perform
high-quality tasks for their users. Building on this logic, we posit that
when IPAs are perceived as competent, it is more likely to affect
continuance usage intention than when IPAs are perceived as “warm.”
Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:
H3c. The impact of competence perception is stronger than that of
warmth perception on continuance usage intention.
3.4. Control variables
In addition, we considered other factors that could influence IPA
users’ continuance usage intention as control variables in this paper,
including gender, age, and frequency of use (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu,
2012), as well as occupation (Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012) and
education (Nosko, Wood, & Molema, 2010).
To validate the premise that artificial autonomy makes IPAs seem
competent and warm, we first conducted a content analysis study on
users’ comments regarding IPAs. We randomly scanned 690 recent
comments on Xiaomi Classmate, one of the most popular IPAs in China
from JD.com (https://www.jd.com). Two coders who were blinded to
this research independently identified descriptors about IPAs from these
comments and classified them into two categories: competence-related
(72 descriptors, κ = 0.736) and warmth-related (34 descriptors, κ =
0.701). The most frequent competence-related descriptors were “intel­
ligence," “multi-functionality," “powerfulness," “agility,” and “accu­
racy.” The most frequent warmth-related descriptors were “loveliness,"
“playfulness," “closeness," “tractability,” and “friendliness.” This implies
that both competence-related and warmth-related descriptors are
noteworthy in IPAs with autonomous features.
4.2. Measurement development
We adapted most of the measurements from the existing literature to
the context of this study to ensure validity. The items for continuance
usage intention were adapted from Bhattacherjee (2001), whereas the
items for competence and warmth perceptions were adapted from Zhou
et al. (2019) and Judd et al. (2005). Table 2 details the operational
definitions of the constructs.
Because there were few scales available in prior literature to measure
artificial autonomy, such measurements had to be developed for the
purposes of this study. The process used to develop sensing, thought, and
action autonomy items were based on the methods recommended by
James, Wallace, and Deane (2019) and are described in Appendix B.
Because a Chinese questionnaire was required, we translated the English
measurement items into a Chinese version. To ensure that the Chinese
version correctly expressed the meaning of the English items, we invited
two bilingual researchers to translate the questionnaire to Chinese and
then back-translate it into English. A comparison of the two English
versions was found to contain no significant differences, indicating that
the translated version was valid.
Next, a pilot study was conducted to ensure the reliability and val­
idity of these measurements. A questionnaire for people who had used
IPAs was posted on Yipinweike (http://www.epwk.com/), a well-known
crowdsourcing platform in China. In the end, we obtained 76 valid
questionnaires. Data analysis showed that Cronbach’s alphas were all
above 0.74, which exceeds the threshold of 0.7, indicating that the

6
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

structure had good reliability. Finally, three respondents were invited to
comment on the readability of the questionnaire, and we made minor
revisions according to their suggestions. The final version of the ques­
tionnaire for the current study is presented in Table C1 in Appendix C.
The final items were formatted as 7-point Likert-type questions ranging
from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.”
4.3. Data collection
We selected users familiar with IPAs, including Apple’s Siri, Google
Assistant, Microsoft’s Cortana, Xiaomi’s Xiaoai Classmate, Alibaba’s
Tmall Genie, and Baidu Duer, as the participants we recruited to respond
to the survey on Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn/), a professional
online questionnaire platform similar to Amazon Mechanical Turk,
where the participant pool has more than 260 million users (Zhang,
Zhao, Lu, & Yang, 2016). The platform is used by more than 30,000
well-known companies and 90 % of the universities in China and is a
trusted online questionnaire platform. IPA users were recruited in
January 2020 to fill out the survey. Questionnaires from respondents
who selected the same answer on all items, who had no IPA experience,
who failed to notice the attention traps, or whose questionnaires had
been completed very quickly were deleted, leaving 412 complete and
valid samples. To check for non-response bias, the mean values of all
variables were compared with the demographic data of the early versus
late participants (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). The analysis revealed no
significant differences, indicating that non-response bias was not a fac­
tor in this study.
The sample demographics are shown in Table 3. Most respondents
were between 18 and 39 years old. About 58.7 % of respondents said
they used IPAs at least once a day, and 38.4 % at least once a week.
Table 3 shows some basic devices and app demographics, respectively.
The respondents were asked to provide one of their most frequently used
Table 3
Demographics of the Research Sample.
Option N Percentage (%)
IPAs since the respondents were more likely to be familiar with the IPA
they used the most. However, they were allowed to report more than one
device type used for IPAs because it is possible to use one IPA on many
smart devices. Many respondents used Apple’s Siri, Xiaomi’s Xiaoai
Classmate, Alibaba’s Tmall Genie, or Baidu’s Duer, which are used in
devices such as smartphones, laptops and tablets, and smart speakers, all
of which are among the most popular for data collection.
4.4. Data analysis
4.4.1. Common method bias
As self-reported data were used in our study, common method bias
(CMB) might arise. This potential bias was reduced following the rec­
ommendations of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003).
“Attention trap” items were scattered throughout the survey to identify
and discard responses from those not cognitively engaged; these con­
sisted of asking the respondent to select a particular option, such as
“Please answer ‘Disagree’ to this question.”
We employed several statistical analyses to test for CMB in the data.
First, Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) was performed.
Six factors were extracted that accounted for 64.10 % of the variance,
but only 35.58 % of the variance was accounted for by the first factor,
thereby indicating that CMB is not a significant concern in our study.
Second, following Liang, Saraf, Hu, and Xue, 2007, we used a com­
mon method factor to evaluate the common method variance in the
partial least squares (PLS) model. The indicators of common method
factors were composed of measurement items in our model. The vari­
ance of each indicator included two values that were computed
respectively through the principal constructs and the method. The re­
sults demonstrated that most method factor loadings were insignificant;
the average method variance of the indicators was 0.007. The average
substantive variance explained was 0.631. The ratio of substantively
explained variance to method-based variance was about 90:1. Consid­
ering that the method variance is small and insignificant, CMB is not
problematic in our study. Appendix D summarizes the results.

Male 242 58.7

Gender
Female 170 41.3
34 8.3
Table 4
≤18
>18 and≤29 213 51.7
Age Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
>30 and≤39 147 35.7
≥40 18 4.4 Construct Items Loading Cronbach’s Composite Average
Student 76 18.5 Alpha Reliability Variance
Working 303 73.5 Extracted
Occupation
Unemployed 26 6.3
SA1 0.864
Others 7 1.7 Sensing
SA2 0.816
High school or below 12 2.9 Autonomy 0.873 0.913 0.724
SA3 0.851
Two-year college 42 10.2 (SA)
Education SA4 0.872
Four-year college 312 75.7
TA1 0.780
Graduate school or above 46 11.2 Thought
TA2 0.785
At least once a day 242 58.7 Autonomy 0.797 0.867 0.621
TA3 0.777
At least once a week 146 35.4 (TA)
TA4 0.809
Frequency At least once every two weeks 14 3.4
AA1 0.834
At least once a month 7 1.7 Action
AA2 0.863
Less than once a month 3 0.7 Autonomy 0.847 0.897 0.686
AA3 0.812
Smart Speaker 180 43.7 (AA)
AA4 0.802
Smart Phone 366 88.8
CP1 0.762
Smart Headphone 79 19.2
Competence CP2 0.796
Smart Watches and Wearables 36 8.7
Perception CP3 0.717 0.809 0.868 0.568
Devices Type Smart Cars 11 2.7
(CP) CP4 0.769
(Multiple Choices) Smart TVs 72 17.5
CP5 0.720
Smart Displays 24 5.8
WP1 0.768
Smart Camera 22 5.3
Warmth WP2 0.755
Laptops & Tablets 94 22.8
Perception WP3 0.727 0.796 0.859 0.550
Other 0 0.0
(WP) WP4 0.741
"Siri" 102 24.8
WP5 0.715
"Xiaoai Classmate" 130 31.6
Continuance CUI1 0.815
IPA Type "Tmall Genius" 32 7.8
Usage CUI2 0.768
"Duer" 57 13.8 0.721 0.842 0.641
Intention
other 91 22.1 CUI3 0.818
(CUI)
Note(s): One user can report more than one device type.

7
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

Table 5 Table 7
Correlation coefficient matrix and square roots of the AVEs (shown as diagonal Path Coefficients.
elements). Path Coefficient or Comparison t- Hypothesis supported (Y/
SA TA AA CP WP CUI statistic N)

SA 0.724 H1a βSA -> CP= 0.280 6.305*** Y

TA 0.197 0.621 H1b βTA -> CP = 0.255 5.210*** Y
AA 0.161 0.278 0.686 H1c βAA -> CP = 0.301 6.322*** Y
CP 0.265 0.289 0.300 0.568 H2a βSA -> WP = 0.209 4.029*** Y
WP 0.191 0.271 0.217 0.447 0.550 H2b βTA -> WP = 0.314 5.382*** Y
CUI 0.065 0.173 0.154 0.240 0.167 0.641 H2c βAA -> WP = 0.216 3.668*** Y
H3a βCP -> CUI = 0.375 5.853*** Y
Notes: Shaded diagonal elements represent the square roots of the AVEs. SA = H3b βWP -> CUI = 0.144 2.155* Y
Sensing Autonomy, TA = Thought Autonomy, AA = Action Autonomy, CP = H3c βCP -> CUI (.375) > βWP -> CUI (0.144) 2.294* Y
Competence Perception, WP = Warmth Perception, CUI = Continuance Usage
Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; n.s., not significant (two-tailed tests,
Intention.
path comparisons used one-tailed tests). SA = Sensing Autonomy, TA = Thought
Autonomy, AA = Action Autonomy, CP = Competence Perception, WP =
Warmth Perception, CUI = Continuance Usage Intention.
Table 6
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT).
the diagonal elements correspond to the square root of the AVE value of
SA TA AA CP WP CUI
each construct, which were all larger than the values of their corre­
SA sponding correlation coefficients with the other constructs. As a second
TA 0.531
AA 0.467 0.642
check, we assessed the values of the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of cor­
CP 0.609 0.667 0.658 relations (HTMT). Table 6 shows these results. The values of the HTMT
WP 0.514 0.649 0.564 0.826 did not exceed the recommended threshold of 0.90 (Henseler, Hubona,
CUI 0.313 0.547 0.506 0.633 0.537 & Ray, 2016). These results indicate good discriminant validity (Gefen &
Notes: SA = Sensing Autonomy, TA = Thought Autonomy, AA = Action Au­ Straub, 2005).
tonomy, CP = Competence Perception, WP = Warmth Perception, CUI =
Continuance Usage Intention. 4.4.4. Structural model test
We evaluated our structural model by running a bootstrap analysis
4.4.2. Data analysis technique with 5,000 resamples (Chin, Marcolin, & Newstead, 2003; Ringle et al.,
To test our measurement and structural models, we adopted Smart 2015). We assessed the goodness of fit through the score of the stan­
PLS 3.2.8 based on PLS, a component-based structural equation dardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The SRMR value was 0.672,
modeling (SEM) technique (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). Compared which was below the threshold of 0.80 (Henseler et al., 2016). Fig. 2
with the covariance-based SEM method, component-based SEM is summarizes the results of the structural model test. By respectively
especially suitable for an exploratory study and can overcome model explaining 44.6 % and 35.4 % of the variance, sensing autonomy,
identification issues (Chin, 1998; Reinartz, Haenlein, & Henseler, 2009). thought autonomy, and action autonomy were found to have positive
Thus, component-based SEM is beneficial for our data analysis. impacts on competence perception and warmth perception, thus sup­
porting H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b, and H2c. The two dimensions of mind
4.4.3. Measurement model test perception (competence perception and warmth perception) together
The results of the confirmatory factor analyses are shown in Table 4. explained 29.7 % of the variance in continuance usage intention. Thus,
Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values of the measurement H3a and H3b were supported, as expected.
construct were all above 0.72, which is greater than the threshold of We also tested the impacts of five control variables—age, gender,
0.70. The acceptable reliability of the measurement construct was sup­ and frequency (Venkatesh et al., 2012), education (Nosko et al., 2010),
ported (Nunnally, 1978). The standardized loading of measurement and occupation (Hughes et al., 2012)—in determining the dependent
items exceeded 0.70, and the t-value was above 1.96. The average variables. The only control variables that had a significant impact on
variance extracted (AVE) for the measurement construct exceeded the continuance usage intention were frequency and occupation. Frequent
threshold of 0.50. These results indicated good convergent validity users were more likely to continue using IPAs than were infrequent
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). users. Students were less likely to continue using their IPA than were
Table 5 shows the correlation matrix and the square roots of the workers. These results indicate that frequency is an essential consider­
AVEs for these constructs to establish discriminant validity. Concretely, ation for IPA users, and the occupation cannot be ignored for the market

Fig. 2. Model Testing Results.

8
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

segmentation of IPAs users. The exact roles of individual differences in warmth perception, whereas the case for thought autonomy was not
the impacts of competence and warmth perception on continuing usage significant.
remains an interesting question for future research.
5. Discussion
4.4.5. Results of path comparison tests
To test H3c, we adopted the method of path coefficient comparison 5.1. Understanding the results
suggested by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). The results are
summarized in Table 7. Competence perception and warmth perception Our research yields significant findings by conceptualizing and
differ in their effect on continuance usage intention. Thus, H3c was decomposing artificial autonomy and investigating the impact of IPA
supported. autonomy on users’ continuance usage intention with regard to two
dimensions of mind perception—competence perception and warmth
4.4.6. Results of mediating tests perception.
To examine whether competence and warmth perceptions mediated First, our results show that artificial autonomy enhances the
the influences of artificial autonomy on continuance usage intention, we perception of both competence and warmth (H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b,
assessed the mediation effect based on 5,000 bootstrapping samples and H2c). While not formally tested in previous studies, this finding is
(Hayes, 2013; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010; see Table 8). The data consistent with our understanding of artificial autonomy. IPAs with a
analysis showed that the indirect effects of sensing, thought, and action high level of autonomy will excel at interacting with users and the
autonomy on continuance usage intention regarding competence environment, as well as in implementing actions for users. Artificial
perception were significant, although they were not significant for autonomy not only reflects the competence of IPAs to afford great
warmth perception. The direct effects of thought and action autonomy convenience to users by allowing them to perform tasks with hands-free
on continuance usage intention were also significant, while the direct access but also imparts the same feeling of warmth experienced in nat­
effect of sensing autonomy on continuance usage intention was not ural interactions. Our results also showed that competence and warmth
significant. Thus, thought and action autonomy enhanced continuance perceptions have positive effects on the continuance usage intention of
usage behavior, partially mediated by competence perceptions, while IPAs (H3a and H3b). These findings are consistent with the results from
sensing autonomy enhanced continuance usage behavior when fully marketing research on mind perception, where both the perception of
mediated by competence perceptions. competence and warmth have simultaneous positive effects on con­
sumer behavior and attitudes (Zhou et al., 2019), which implies that
4.4.7. Post hoc analysis results users consider IPAs actual personal assistants with both task and social
Following Pan, Lu, Wang, and Chau (2017), we further examined the capabilities rather than merely fun toys.
comparative impacts of each autonomy dimension (i.e., sensing, Consistent with previous literature in IS post-adoption research, we
thought, and action autonomy) on competence and warmth perceptions. found that the individual differences of age, gender, and educational
The results in Table 9 suggest that the impact of sensing and action level did not contribute to the enhancement of continuance usage
autonomy on competence perception were stronger than their impact on intention (McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019). These results indicate that
these individual characteristics have no distinction within the usage of
Table 8 IPAs. We also found that frequent use of IPAs contributes to an in­
Results of mediating effect testing. dividual’s continuance usage intention (Chen, Ou, Wang, Peng, &
Direct effect Indirect effect
Davison, 2020; Sundaram, Schwarz, Jones, & Chin, 2007). In addition,
Paths Results students were less likely to continue using their IPA than were workers.
effect LLCI ULCI effect LLCI ULCI
These results may be because students have more free time than workers
SA -> CP- − 0.063 − 0.162 0.037 0.087 0.043 0.140 Full to operate applications, devices, and services in their daily lives by
> CUI
themselves, which leads to less dependence on IPAs. Future research
TA -> CP 0.171 0.064 0.279 0.079 0.037 0.128 Partial
-> CUI could explore this question further to find the reasons behind our
AA -> CP 0.114 0.009 0.219 0.094 0.045 0.157 Partial observations.
-> CUI Second, path comparison tests showed that competence and warmth
SA -> WP − 0.063 − 0.162 0.037 0.018 − 0.010 0.055 No perceptions have significantly different effects on users’ continuance
-> CUI
TA -> WP 0.171 0.064 0.279 0.027 − 0.016 0.076 No
usage intention. As expected, our results suggested that the influence of
-> CUI the perception of an IPA’s competence on users’ continuance usage
AA 0.114 0.009 0.219 0.019 − 0.010 0.056 No intention is stronger than that of the perception an IPA’s warmth (H3c).
->WP- Previous findings of mind perception research on non-human entities
> CUI
are inconsistent. Some studies have reported that competence percep­
Notes: Level of confidence = 95 %. LLCI/ULCI = lower/upper limit of confidence tion was the main driver in servicescapes (Liu et al., 2018) and
interval. SA = Sensing Autonomy, TA = Thought Autonomy, AA = Action Au­ for-profits (Aaker et al., 2010), while others have reported the primacy
tonomy, CP = Competence Perception, WP = Warmth Perception, CUI = of warmth perception over competence perception in charitable mone­
Continuance Usage Intention. tary giving (Zhou et al., 2019), brand identification (Kolbl et al., 2019),
and emoticons (Moffitt et al., 2020). However, the comparative effects
Table 9 of competence and warmth perception have not been well investigated
Post Hoc Analysis Results. with respect to AI artifacts. Our results indicate that users are likely to
IV Path t-statistic Conclusion attach more importance to competence than to warmth regarding IPAs.
SA
Thus, IPAs are considered professional personal assistants rather than
β SA -> CP (0.280) > β SA ->WP (0.209) 1.756* β SA -> CP > β SA ->WP
TA β TA -> CP (0.255) > β TA ->WP (0.314) − 0.739 non-significant intimate friends, which is consistent with the market positioning of IPAs.
AA β AA -> CP (0.301) > β AA ->WP (0.216) 2.223* β AA -> CP > β AA ->WP Third, while it was not formally hypothesized, our results reveal that
Notes: + p < 0.1; * p < 0.05;** p < 0.01; and *** p < 0.001. IV: independent sensing, thought, and action autonomy vary in their impacts on
variable. One-tailed tests were performed as directional differences were hy­ competence and warmth perception of IPAs. That is, sensing and action
pothesized. SA = Sensing Autonomy, TA = Thought Autonomy, AA = Action autonomy play more important roles in determining competence
Autonomy, CP = Competence Perception, WP = Warmth Perception, CUI = perception than in determining warmth perception. However, the dif­
Continuance Usage Intention. ference in the impact of thought autonomy on competence versus

9
Q. Hu et al.
warmth perceptions is not significant. One possible reason for this is that
in the current generation of IPAs, sensing and action autonomy pri­
marily focus on collecting and recognizing various awareness data and
activating actions on other applications and devices to perform user-
assigned tasks (Santos et al., 2016). Thus, the autonomy can lead
directly to more substantial judgments about the ability of IPAs to
perform tasks (i.e., competence), which will lead to a stronger compe­
tence perception than warmth perception. While thought autonomy
mainly focuses on self-learning to provide personalized decisions based
on users’ preferences and habits (Santos et al., 2016), which may not
only represent the intelligence of IPAs but also stimulate users’ feeling of
being cared about by IPAs (Huang & Rust, 2020). Therefore, users who
perceive a high degree of thought autonomy in IPAs will have a marked
tendency to infer that IPAs have the ability both to do and to feel,
indicating that thought autonomy causes users to have consistent per­
ceptions of the competence and warmth of IPAs. Future research is
encouraged to further examine the mechanisms of the different impacts
of the three types of artificial autonomy on these dimensions of mind
perception.
Finally, while it was not formally hypothesized, we also found both
partial and full mediating effects of competence perception between
sensing, thought, and action autonomy and continuous intention to use
IPAs. However, a mediating effect of warmth perception was not found.
The results further validate the assumption that competence perception
plays a vital role in the mechanism between artificial autonomy and
continuous intention to use. Future research is invited to further inves­
tigate the direct mechanism by which IPAs’ thought and action auton­
omy impact users’ continuance usage intention.
5.2. Theoretical contributions
This research makes the following theoretical contributions. First, it
contributes to previous research on artificial autonomy by providing a
new perspective on the forms of IPA autonomy. Recently, artificial au­
tonomy has attracted more attention as AI technologies incorporate
autonomy features in AI artifacts (e.g., IPAs), but the types of autonomy
that provide a better user experience have not been established. The
present research advances artificial autonomy literature by exploring
IPA autonomy and making conceptual distinctions between the auton­
omy associated with the three task primitives, sense, think, and act, that
is, the STA framework. We developed and verified the validity of the
measurements of these three dimensions of artificial autonomy in
accordance with the features of IPAs. Our study demonstrates that the
features of the existing generation of IPAs promote three dimensions of
IPA autonomy. Artificial autonomy is a vital characteristic for AI arti­
facts (e.g., self-driving cars and the smart grid) (Wuenderlich et al.,
2015); therefore, it is timely that our research extends the scope of this
emerging field of artificial autonomy research.
Second, this research extends current knowledge about the psycho­
logical processes of AI-enabled artificial autonomy and its downstream
social influences on users’ behavior. Previous research on artificial au­
tonomy has mainly focused on the influence of artificial autonomy at the
macro level, such as the human labor market and ethical questions
(Wuenderlich et al., 2015). This study explores the influence of artificial
autonomy at the individual level. In a context of the conceptualization of
artificial autonomy of IPAs, the current study extends mind perception
theory to the literature on artificial autonomy by identifying the effects of
IPA autonomy on users’ behavior through two basic dimensions of mind
perception—warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2007, 2002). Our
results reveal that IPA autonomy impacts human behavior by exerting
influences on both competence and warmth perceptions of IPAs.
Third, our results also reveal that there is a significant difference
between competence and warmth perceptions of IPAs underlying the
influencing mechanism between artificial autonomy and continuing use.
We found that competence perception fosters usage continuance more
strongly than warmth perception does. Furthermore, sensing and action
10
International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250
autonomy are more oriented toward competence, while thought au­
tonomy is equally oriented toward both competence and warmth. These
findings contribute to filling the knowledge gap in mind perception
research relative to the comparative effects of competence and warmth
of AI artifacts (Aaker et al., 2010; Fiske et al., 2007); furthermore, they
complement the literature on artificial autonomy and mind perception
theory.
Fourth, our research contributes a novel perspective to the literature
on human behavior toward IPAs. Continuing usage in the post-
acceptance stage has long been a hot topic in IS research, and exten­
sive research has identified issues of continuance usage intention in this
emerging context, such as those related to AI artifacts (e.g., IPAs) (Han &
Yang, 2018) and various situational factors, such as anthropomorphism
(van Pinxteren et al., 2019), trust (Chattaraman, Kwon, Gilbert, & Ross,
2019), parasocial relationships (Han & Yang, 2018), and benefits
(McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019). The present research provides new
supplementation of these studies by showing that the artificial auton­
omy of IPAs, which promotes human-likeness perceptions of IPAs (i.e.,
displaying competence and warmth), could significantly increase
continuance usage intention.
5.3. Practical implications
These findings provide new insights that may be of interest to both
users and developers regarding the design of the next generation of IPAs.
First, our results suggest that companies operating in the IPA field
should attach importance to the critical role that human-likeness plays
in users’ continuance usage intention. The humanlike perception qual­
ities projected onto IPAs might be either competence or warmth, which
differ in that they imply the IPAs’ ability either to do or to feel. We found
that both competence and warmth perceptions of IPAs can simulta­
neously affect users’ continuance usage intention. Thus, service pro­
viders who want to bolster their populations of users should attempt to
stimulate users to form both types of human perceptions of IPAs.
Second, service providers should recognize that artificial autonomy
can promote users’ IPA usage-continuance intention through fostering
both competence and warmth perceptions. The artificial autonomy in
the existing generation of IPAs can be distinguished by its benefits for
autonomously performing three task primitives—sensing the environ­
ment, thinking of plans, and implementing actions—with less user
effort. The sensing, thought, and action autonomy could all be said to be
prominent in the current IPA context, and they could be the primary foci
for service providers who wish to develop these capabilities further.
Service providers who focus on reinforcing continuance usage intention
and the human mind perception of IPAs should invest their feature-
building efforts into fostering these three dimensions of autonomy. For
example, they might promote sensing autonomy by providing features
such as visual recognition and locating. Service providers might help
build thought autonomy by offering recommendations and suggesting
personal schedules. They might also promote action autonomy by
improving searching, speaking, and reminding features.
Third, service providers should consider that the comparative in­
fluence of perceived warmth and competence varies significantly in
different situations. The critical point we found is that competence
perception facilitates stronger usage continuance than warmth percep­
tion does in IPAs. Thus, service providers who want to promote the
continuing usage of IPAs should pay more attention to the features that
enhance their competence perception of IPAs than those that enhance
their warmth perception. Furthermore, we found that sensing and action
autonomy facilitate stronger competence perception than warmth
perception, while thought autonomy facilitates both competence and
warmth perception. Thus, service providers who prefer to balance the
competence and warmth perceptions of IPAs should pay more attention
to thought autonomy and provide continual system upgrades to improve
their ability to make plans and decisions autonomously.
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

5.4. Limitations
Our research has the following limitations. First, our data samples
were collected from one country. Future research could extend our
model to other countries that exhibit significant cultural differences.
Second, our research model tested the impact of IPA autonomy on users’
continuance usage intention in a general context; future research could
explore this model in other specific contexts, such as human-autonomy
teaming (Israelsen & Ahmed, 2019), smart homes (Shin, Park, & Lee,
2018), and humanizing Chatbots (Go & Sundar, 2019). Third, as an
initial investigation into artificial autonomy in the IPA context, this
paper explores the underlying process by means of a limited set of
constructs. Since competence only partially mediates the impacts of
thought and action autonomy on users’ continuance usage intention,
other factors (e.g., trust) that might exert influence were not taken into
account in our model. Future research should explore additional medi­
ations. Fourth, future research should investigate the extent and specific
features of three dimensions of artificial autonomy (i.e., sensing au­
tonomy, thought autonomy, and action autonomy) that users would
perceive as critical and useful and, then, compare their significance for
human behavior simultaneously.
autonomy is present in the existing generation of IPAs. This autonomy
can contribute to both of the dimensions of mind perception of IPAs, that
is, competence and warmth. Furthermore, competence perceptions re­
ceives more attention from IPA users than warmth perception does.
Sensing, thought, and action autonomy vary in their impacts on
competence and warmth perception of IPAs. This research significantly
improves our theoretical understanding of the impact of artificial au­
tonomy on mind perception of AI artifacts, which, in turn, influences
users’ behavior. These results can assist service providers in identifying
different types of artificial autonomy that can promote enhanced user
experience and improve current and future designs of IPAs for users.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qian Hu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing -
original draft. Yaobin Lu: Supervision. Zhao Pan: Conceptualization,
Software, Writing - review & editing. Yeming Gong: Writing - review &
editing. Zhiling Yang: Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest

6. Conclusion The authors report no declarations of interest.

Our study theorizes three types of artificial autonomy in the IPA
context—sensing, thought, and action autonomy—that differ in their
autonomy level (from low to high), along with the three task primitives.
Grounded in mind perception theory, we provided a fine-grained ex­
amination of the effects of IPAs’ artificial autonomy on continuance
usage intention through two dimensions of humanlike perception of
IPAs (competence and warmth). Our findings reveal that artificial
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC) (Project No. 71602063 and 71810107003),
the National Social Science Fund of China (Project No. 18ZDA109).
Yeming Gong is supported by Business Intelligence Center (BIC) and
EMLYON Shanghai Campus

Appendix A. Current Popular Intelligent Personal Assistants Applications

Applications Year Languages Device Type Devices Example

Phone iPhone
Watch iWatch
Speakers HomePod
Apple Siri1 2011 15 languages with Chinese Headphone AirPods
Smart Tablets iPad
Laptops & Tablets iMac、Macbook、Mac Air
Smart TVs AppleTV
PC Windows 10 PC
Microsoft Cortana2 2014 9 languages with Chinese Mobile Android and iOS
Speakers Harman Kardon
Smart Speakers Echo/Dot/Plus
Smart Displays All-new Echo Show
Echo Companions Echo Sub/Echo Link
Amazon Alexa3 2014 9 languages Smart home Amazon Smart Plug
Smart TVs Fire TV/Sonos Beam
Tablets, PCs Fire 7 Tablet/LG V35
Alexa on the go Echo Auto/ Roav Viva
Speaker Google Home
Phone Android and iPhone
Headphone Google Pixel Buds
Smart watches GC Connect
Google Assistant4 2016 22 languages
TVs Android TV
Smart Displays Google Home Hub
Camera Nest Cam IQ Indoor
Laptops & Tablets Pixelbook Pen
Speaker Xiaomi AI Speakers HD
Xiaoai classmate5 2017 Chinese (Mandarin)
Phone Android and iPhone
Speaker TmallGenie Sugar Cube
Alibaba AliGenie6 2017 Chinese (Mandarin) Display TmallGenie CC
Mirror TmallGenie Queen
Speaker Duer Smart Speaker
Baidu
2018 Chinese (Mandarin) Speaker with display Duer Home 1S
Duer7
TV box Duer TV companion
1
Siri Features See: https://www.apple.com/siri/ (accessed June 27, 2019).

11
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

Table C1
Measurement Items.
Construct and Items Sources

Sensing Autonomy (SA)

SA1. This IPA can autonomously be aware of the state of its surroundings.
SA2. This IPA can autonomously recognize information from the environment.
self-developed
SA3. This IPA can independently recognize objects in the environment.
SA4. This IPA can independently monitor the status of objects in the environment.
Thought Autonomy (TA)
TA1.This IPA can autonomously provide me choices of what to do.
TA2.This IPA can independently provide me recommendations for action plans for assigned matters.
self-developed
TA3.This IPA can independently recommend an implementation plan of the assigned matters.
TA4. This IPA can autonomously suggest what can be done.
Action Autonomy (AA)
AA1. This IPA can independently complete the operation of the skill.
AA2. This IPA can independently implement the operation of the skill.
self-developed
AA3. This IPA can autonomously perform the operation of the skill.
AA4. This IPA can carry out the operation of skills autonomously.
Competence Perception (CP)
How would you perceive this IPA?
CP1. This IPA is intelligent.
CP2. This IPA is skillful.
Zhou et al. (2019), Judd et al. (2005)
CP3. This IPA is capable.
CP4. This IPA is effective.
CP5. This IPA is efficient.
Warmth Perception (WP)
How would you perceive this IPA?
WP1. This IPA cares about me.
WP2. This IPA is kind.
Zhou et al. (2019), Judd et al. (2005)
WP3. This IPA is friendly.
WP4. This IPA is warm.
WP5. This IPA is sociable.
Continuance Usage Intention (CUI)
CUI1: If I could, I would like to continue using this IPA.
CUI2: It is likely that I will continue using this IPA in the future. Bhattacherjee (2001)
CUI3: I expect to continue using this IPA in the future.

2
Cortana Features See: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cortana/skills/featured (accessed June 27, 2019).
3
Alexa Features See: https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=aeg_lp_features?node=17934672011 (accessed June 27, 2019).
4
Google Assistant Features See: https://assistant.google.com/learn/ (accessed by June 27, 2019).
5
Xiaoai classmate Features See: https://www.mi.com/aispeaker/ (accessed June 27, 2019).
6
AliGenie Features See: https://bot.tmall.com/skills (accessed June 27, 2019).
7
Duer Features See: https://xiaodu.baidu.com/saiya/xiaodu-home/index.html#/ (accessed June 27, 2019).

Appendix B. Measurement Development of Artificial Autonomy of IPAs

We developed artificial autonomy items (sensing, thought, and action autonomy) for the current study because they were not available in the
literature. The specific operation process is described below, which followed a five-step procedure.
First, a list was compiled of currently available intelligent personal assistant (IPA) applications in popular media outlets worldwide and China, such
as The Wall Street Journal, Engadget, and iResearch. The original list contained 32 applications. Because IPAs are still relatively new to the
marketplace, most applications have rarely been used and are equipped with similar features. We then selected the target IPA applications from the
original list, including Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant, and Microsoft’s Cortana, which are from large information technology cor­
porations. They are currently the most widely used IPAs and technological leaders in the world market. These four IPAs may already contain most
features of the current generation of IPAs in the marketplace. For further confirmation, we also included the three most popular IPAs in the Chinese
market—XiaoMi’s Xiaoai Classmate, Alibaba’s Tmall Genie, and Baidu’s Duer. While not comprehensive, our list contains the most popular appli­
cations at the time our data were collected (see Appendix A).
Second, two researchers independently collected the features of each IPA on the list from the IPA’s product profile on the official website. A few
new features were found in the last three IPAs in the Chinese marketplace. Third, the feature lists from two of the researchers were compared and
discussed and, then, integrated into a features list. Fourth, according to the classification framework of IPA autonomy, two researchers independently
divided the features from the integration list mentioned above in accordance with the three types of autonomy. Then, the researchers’ classifications
were compared, discussed, and integrated into an autonomy features list. Fifth, we followed accepted procedural methods in developing IPA au­
tonomy items (James et al., 2019). We compiled autonomy items based on the autonomy features list and invited 28 active users of IPAs and academic
researchers to examine the scales. We implemented most of their wording suggestions with regard to artificial autonomy to improve the survey items.
Finally, we created our original version of scales related to the artificial autonomy of IPAs (see Table C1 in Appendix C).

Appendix C. Scale Items

Table C2,

12
Q. Hu et al. International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250

Table C2
Chinese Measurement Items.
Chinese Construct and Items
感知自主 (SA)
SA1. 该智能助手能自主地感知周围环境的状况
SA2. 该智能助手能自主地收集周围环境的信息
SA3. 该智能助手能自主地识别周围环境的事物
SA4. 该智能助手能自主地监测周围环境的状况
思考自主 (TA)
TA1. 该智能助手能自主地为我提供可以做什么事的选择
TA2. 该智能助手能自主地为我提供所指定事项行动计划的建议
TA3. 该智能助手能自主地向我推荐所指定事项的实施方案
TA4. 该智能助手自主地向我建议可以做的事项
行动自主 (AA)
AA1. 该智能助手能自主地完成技能的操作
AA2. 该智能助手能自主地实现技能的操作
AA3. 该智能助手能自主地执行技能的操作
AA4. 该智能助手能自主地实施技能的操作
能力感知 (CP)
你如何看待该智能助手?
CP1.该智能助手是聪明的
CP2.该智能助手执行任务熟练
CP3. 该智能助手是强大的
CP4.该智能助手执行任务快
CP5.该智能助手执行任务高效
温暖感知 (WP)
你如何看待该智能助手?
WP1.该智能助手是会关心人的
WP2.该智能助手是亲切的
WP3.该智能助手是友好的
WP4.该智能助手是热情的
WP5.该智能助手是会交际的
持续使用意愿 (CUI)
CUI1: 如果可以的话, 我愿意继续在我的生活中使用该智能助手
CUI2: 我可能会在将来继续使用该智能助手
CUI3: 我希望将来继续使用该智能助手

Appendix D. Common Method Variance Factor Test Results

Construct Indicator Substantive Factor Loading(R1) R12 Method Factor Loading(R2) R22

SA1 0.855*** 0.731 0.012 0.000

SA2 0.776*** 0.602 0.051 0.003
SA
SA3 0.913*** 0.834 − 0.081* 0.007
SA4 0.859*** 0.738 0.019 0.000
TA1 0.751*** 0.564 0.024 0.001
TA2 0.827*** 0.684 − 0.042 0.002
TA
TA3 0.782*** 0.612 0.003 0.000
TA4 0.791*** 0.626 0.015 0.000
AA1 0.829*** 0.687 0.009 0.000
AA2 0.857*** 0.734 0.007 0.000
AA
AA3 0.82*** 0.672 − 0.011 0.000
AA4 0.806*** 0.65 − 0.005 0.000
CP1 0.584*** 0.341 0.195** 0.038
CP2 0.731*** 0.534 0.069 0.005
CP CP3 0.762*** 0.581 − 0.051 0.003
CP4 0.855*** 0.731 − 0.092 0.008
CP5 0.844*** 0.712 − 0.132* 0.017
WP1 0.699*** 0.489 0.07 0.005
WP2 0.795*** 0.632 − 0.045 0.002
WP WP3 0.869*** 0.755 − 0.151* 0.023
WP4 0.814*** 0.663 − 0.074 0.005
WP5 0.524*** 0.275 0.211** 0.045
CUI1 0.802*** 0.643 0.013 0.000
CUI CUI2 0.828*** 0.686 − 0.067 0.004
CUI3 0.775*** 0.601 0.051 0.003
Average 0.79 0.631 ¡0.002 0.007

Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001. SA = Sensing Autonomy, TA = Thought Autonomy, AA = Action Autonomy, CP = Competence
Perception, WP = Warmth Perception, CUI = Continuance Usage Intention.

References
Aaker, J., Vohs, K., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Non-profits are seen as warm and for-profits as
competent: Firm stereotypes matter. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224–237.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651566.
Abele, A. E., & Bruckmüller, S. (2011). The bigger one of the “Big Two”? Preferential
processing of communal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47
(5), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.028.
Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. T. (2011). The adoption of online shopping
assistants: Perceived similarity as an antecedent to evaluative beliefs. Journal of the

13
Q. Hu et al.
Association for Information Systems, 12(5), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.17705/
1jais.00267.
Animesh, Pinsonneault, Yang, & Oh. (2011). An odyssey into virtual worlds: Exploring
the impacts of technological and spatial environments on intention to purchase
virtual products. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.2307/
23042809.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02723327.
Beer, J. M., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2014). Toward a framework for levels of robot
autonomy in human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(2),
74–99. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An
expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Bryson, J. J. (2018). Patiency is not a virtue: The design of intelligent systems and
systems of ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6.
Čaić, M., Mahr, D., & Oderkerken-Schröder, G. (2019). Value of social robots in services:
Social cognition perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 463–478. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2018-0080.
Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W. S., Gilbert, J. E., & Ross, K. (2019). Should AI-Based,
conversational digital assistants employ social- or task-oriented interaction style? A
task-competency and reciprocity perspective for older adults. Computers in Human
Behavior, 90, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.048.
Chen, J. Y. C., Lakhmani, S. G., Stowers, K., Selkowitz, A. R., Wright, J. L., & Barnes, M.
(2018). Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy
teaming effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 259–282.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315750.
Chen, R. R., Ou, C. X., Wang, W., Peng, Z., & Davison, R. M. (2020). Moving beyond the
direct impact of using CRM systems on frontline employees’ service performance:
The mediating role of adaptive behaviour. Information Systems Journal, 30(3),
458–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12265.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural modeling. Modern
Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chin, W., Marcolin, B., & Newstead, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a monte carlo
simulation study and voice mail emotion / adoption study. Information Systems
Research, 14(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
correction analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2064799.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal
dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0065-2601(07)00002-0.
De Visser, E. J., Pak, R., & Shaw, T. H. (2018). From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: The
importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction. Ergonomics, 61(10),
1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1457725.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self- determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-
determination research. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press.
Dong, X., Chang, Y., Wang, Y., & Yan, J. (2017). Understanding usage of Internet of
Things (IOT) systems in China: Cognitive experience and affect experience as
moderator. Information Technology and People, 30(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/
10.1108/ITP-11-2015-0272.
Draper, H., & Sorell, T. (2017). Ethical values and social care robots for older people: An
international qualitative study. Ethics and Information Technology, 19(1), 49–68.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9413-1.
Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision
making in the era of Big Data: Evolution, challenges and research agenda.
International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., …
Williams, M. D. (2019). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on
emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy.
International Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.
Fang, Y.-H. H. (2019). An app a day keeps a customer connected: Explicating loyalty to
brands and branded applications through the lens of affordance and service-
dominant logic. Information and Management, 56(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2018.07.011.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition:
Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)
stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived
status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878.
Freeman, C., & Beaver, I. (2018). The effect of response complexity and media on user
restatement with multimodal virtual assistants. International Journal of Human-
computer Studies, 119, 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.06.002.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph:
Tutotial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information
Sytems, 16, 91–109.
14
International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250
Go, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2019). Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and
conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 97,
304–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is
“service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service
encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 38–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.002.
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Blaming god for our pain: Human suffering and the
divine mind. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1088868309350299.
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science,
315(5812). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475, 619–619.
Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially
intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information
Management, 49, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008.
Han, S., & Yang, H. (2018). Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A
parasocial relationship perspective. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 118(3),
618–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0214.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis
—— A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new
technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems,
116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.
Hess, T., Fuller, M., & Campbell, D. (2009). Designing interfaces with social presence:
Using vividness and extraversion to create social recommendation agents. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 10(12), 889–919. https://doi.org/10.17705/
1jais.00216.
Hess, T. J., Fuller, M. A., & Mathew, J. (2005). Involvement and decision-making
performance with a decision aid: The infuence of social multimedia, gender, and
playfulness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 15–54. https://doi.
org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222220302.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2018). Consumer and object experience in the internet of
things: An assemblage theory approach. The Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6),
1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx105.
Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2020). Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service. Journal
of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520902266. In press.
Hubert, M., Blut, M., Brock, C., Zhang, R. W., Koch, V., & Riedl, R. (2019). The influence
of acceptance and adoption drivers on smart home usage. European Journal of
Marketing, 53(6), 1073–1098. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0794.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001.
Israelsen, B. W., & Ahmed, N. R. (2019). “Dave…I can assure you …that it’s going to be
all right …” A definition, case for, and survey of algorithmic assurances in human-
autonomy trust relationships. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(6), 113–149. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3267338.
James, T. L., Wallace, L., & Deane, J. K. (2019). Using organismic integration theory to
explore the associations between users’ exercise motivations and fitness technology
feature set use. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/
2019/14128.
Judd, C. M., James-hawkins, L., & Yzerbyt, V. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social
judgment : Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and
warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899.
Kim, A., Cho, M., Ahn, J., & Sung, Y. (2019). Effects of gender and relationship type on
the response to artificial intelligence. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 22(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0581.
Kolbl, Ž., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2019). Stereotyping global
brands: Is warmth more important than competence? Journal of Business Research,
104, 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.060.
Komiak, S. Y. X., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The effects of personalization and familiarity on
trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 941–960.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148760.
Lee, K. M., Yoo, J., Kim, S. W., Lee, J. H., & Hong, J. (2019). Autonomic machine learning
platform. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 491–501. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.003.
Lee, S., Lee, N., & Sah, Y. J. (2020). Perceiving a mind in a chatbot: Effect of mind
perception and social cues on co-presence, closeness, and intention to use.
International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 36(10), 930–940. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1699748.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimiliation of enterprise systems: The
effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS
Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148781.
Liu, S. Q., Bogicevic, V., & Mattila, A. S. (2018). Circular vs. angular servicescape:
“Shaping” customer response to a fast service encounter pace. Journal of Business
Research, 89, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.007.
Lu, L., Cai, R., & Gursoy, D. (2019). Developing and validating a service robot integration
willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 36–51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005.
Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of
the ACM, 37(7), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/176789.176792.
Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2017). Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products. Journal
of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2016.1245212.
Q. Hu et al.
McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Hey Alexa… Examine the variables influencing
the use of Artificial Intelligent In-home Voice Assistants. Computers in Human
Behavior, 99, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009.
Moffitt, R. L., Padgett, C., & Grieve, R. (2020). Accessibility and emotionality of online
assessment feedback: Using emoticons to enhance student perceptions of marker
competence and warmth. Computers & Education, 143, Article 103654. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103654.
Moriuchi, E. (2019). Okay, Google!: An empirical study on voice assistants on consumer
engagement and loyalty. Psychology and Marketing, 36(5), 489–501. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.21192.
Mulcahy, R., Letheren, K., McAndrew, R., Glavas, C., & Russell-Bennett, R. (2019). Are
households ready to engage with smart home technology? Journal of Marketing
Management, 35(15–16), 1370–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2019.1680568.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems: Celebrating interdependence, 72–78.
https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703.
Nickerson, J. V., & Reilly, R. R. (2004). A model for investigating the effects of machine
autonomy on human behavior. In 37th Annual Hawaii international conference on
system sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265325.
Nikou, S. (2019). Factors driving the adoption of smart home technology: An empirical
assessment. Telematics and Informatics, 45, Article 101283. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tele.2019.101283.
Noorman, M., & Johnson, D. G. (2014). Negotiating autonomy and responsibility in
military robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10676-013-9335-0.
Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social
networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pan, Z., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2017). Who do you think you are? Common
and differential effects of social self-identity on social media usage. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 34(1), 71–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07421222.2017.1296747.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels
of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and
Cybernetics – Part A Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/
3468.844354.
Park, E. (2020). User acceptance of smart wearable devices: An expectation-confirmation
model approach. Telematics and Informatics, 47, Article 101318. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tele.2019.101318.
Park, K., Kwak, C., Lee, J., & Ahn, J. H. (2018). The effect of platform characteristics on
the adoption of smart speakers: Empirical evidence in South Korea. Telematics and
Informatics, 35(8), 2118–2132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.013.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Ponciano, R., Pais, S., & Casal, J. (2015). Using accuracy analysis to find the best
classifier for intelligent personal assistants. Procedia Computer Science, 52, 310–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.090.
Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation
agents: A social relationship perspective to designing information systems. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145–182. https://doi.org/10.2753/
MIS0742-1222250405.
Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2010). A study of demographic embodiments of product
recommendation agents in electronic commerce. Journal of Human Computer Studies,
68(10), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.05.005.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the
efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2009.08.001.
Reis, A., Paulino, D., Paredes, H., & Barroso, J. (2017). Using intelligent personal
assistants to strengthen the elderlies’ social bonds. In M. Antona, & C. Stephanidis
(Eds.), Universal access in human–computer interaction. Human and technological
environments. UAHCI 2017. Lecture notes in computer science (vol. 10279). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58700-4_48.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 2. Retrieved from.
Bönningsted, Germany: SmartPLS GmbH http://www.smartpls.com/.
15
International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021) 102250
Rosen, C. A., & Nilsson, N. J. (1966). Application of intelligent automata to reconnaisance.
Menlo Park: CA: Stanford Research Institute.
Saad, U., Afzal, U., El-Issawi, A., & Eid, M. (2017). A model to measure QoE for virtual
personal assistant. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(10), 12517–12537. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3650-5.
Santos, J., Rodrigues, J. J. P. C., Silva, B. M. C., Casal, J., Saleem, K., & Denisov, V.
(2016). An IoT-based mobile gateway for intelligent personal assistants on mobile
health environments. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 71, 194–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2016.03.014.
Shin, J., Park, Y., & Lee, D. (2018). Who will be smart home users? An analysis of
adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
134, 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029.
Siegel, M. (2003). The sense-think-act paradigm revisited. In 1st International workshop on
robotic sensing, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROSE.2003.1218700.
Stroessner, S. J., & Benitez, J. (2019). The social perception of humanoid and non-
humanoid robots: Effects of gendered and machinelike features. International Journal
of Social Robotics, 11(2), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0502-7.
Sundaram, S., Schwarz, A., Jones, E., & Chin, W. W. (2007). Technology use on the front
line: How information technology enhances individual performance. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
006-0010-4.
ter Stal, S., Tabak, M., op den Akker, H., Beinema, T., & Hermens, H. (2020). Who do you
prefer? The effect of age, gender and role on users’ first impressions of embodied
conversational agents in eHealth. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction,
36(9), 881–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1699744.
Transparency Market Research. (2016). Growing focus on strengthening customer relations
spurs adoption of intelligent virtual assistant technology, says TMR. Retrieved from: https
://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/growing-focus-on-strengthening-customer
-relations-spurs-adoption-of-intelligent-virtual-assistant-technology-says-tmr
-589042721.html. Accessed 1 September 2020.
van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., &
Petersen, J. A. (2017). Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social
presence in organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. Journal of
Service Research, 20(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679272.
van Pinxteren, M. M. E., Wetzels, R. W. H., Rüger, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Wetzels, M.
(2019). Trust in humanoid robots: Implications for services marketing. Journal of
Services Marketing, 33(4), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2018-0045.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and user of information
technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Voicebot, PullString, & RAIN. (2018). The voice assistant consumer adoption report 2018.
Retrieved from: https://voicebot.ai/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/voice-assistant
-consumer-adoption-report-2018-voicebot.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2019.
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind
perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2010.05.006.
Wuenderlich, N. V., Heinonen, K., Ostrom, A. L., Patricio, L., Sousa, R., Voss, C., &
Lemmink, J. G. A. M. (2015). “Futurizing” smart service: Implications for service
researchers and managers. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 442–447. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0040.
Yang, H., Lee, H., & Zo, H. (2017). User acceptance of smart home services: An extension
of the theory of planned behavior. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(1),
68–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0017.
Zhang, S., Zhao, L., Lu, Y., & Yang, J. (2016). Do you get tired of socializing? An
empirical explanation of discontinuous usage behaviour in social network services.
Information and Management, 53(7), 904–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2016.03.006.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651257.
Zhou, X., Kim, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money
anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. The Journal of Consumer Research, 45
(5), 953–972. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy012.
Zhu, D. H., & Chang, Y. P. (2020). Robot with humanoid hands cooks food better?: Effect
of robotic chef anthropomorphism on food quality prediction. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3), 1367–1383. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-10-2019-0904.