Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Chatbots in retailers’ customer communication: How to measure

their acceptance?
Alexandra Rese *, Lena Ganster, Daniel Baier
University of Bayreuth, Germany

A B S T R A C T

Currently, online retailers evaluate whether chatbots—software programs that interact with users using natural languages—could improve their customers’ satis­
faction. In a retail context, chatbots allow humans to pose shopping-related questions and receive answers in natural language without waiting for a salesperson or
using other automated communication forms. However, until now, it has been unclear which customers accept this new communication form and which factors
determine their acceptance. In this paper, we contrast the well-known technology acceptance model (TAM) with the lesser known uses and gratifications (U&G)
theory, applying both approaches to measure the acceptance of the text-based “Emma” chatbot by its target segment. “Emma” was developed for the prepurchase
phase of online fashion retailing and integrated into Facebook Messenger by the major German online retailer Zalando. Data were collected from 205 German
Millennial respondents in a usability study. The results show that both utilitarian factors such as “authenticity of conversation” and “perceived usefulness,” as well as
hedonic factors such as “perceived enjoyment”, positively influence the acceptance of “Emma”. However, privacy concerns and the immaturity of the technology had
a negative effect on usage intention and frequency. The predictive power of both models was similar, showing little deviation, but U&G gives alternative insights into
the customers’ motivation to use “Emma” compared to the TAM.

1. Introduction
Since about 2016, chatbots have been described as an important
technological trend (Baier et al., 2018). Shawar and Atwell (2007, p. 29)
define them as “software programs that interact with users using natural
languages.” Regarding language processing, two modes can be distin­
guished: text-based and speech-based. The development of text-based
dialog systems started early: the first chatbot already existed in the
1960s. In 1966, Joseph Weizenbaum introduced ELIZA, which simu­
lated a psychotherapist and for the first time allowed humans and
computers to communicate in natural language through text (Epstein
and Klinkenberg, 2001; Shah et al., 2016; Weizenbaum, 1966). The
renewed interest in chatbots is because of two developments. Besides the
constant and fast-paced advances in artificial intelligence, for example,
in terms of improved recognition of text and human speech (Shankar,
2018), messenger platforms for smartphones such as WhatsApp or
Facebook Messenger are increasingly being used as a communication
channel (Baier et al., 2018).
Companies acknowledge the high potential of chatbots, which are
considered to be “the new apps”, for example, as seen in a statement first
made by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadalla (della Cava, 2016). Text-based
chatbots are increasingly implemented in messaging services and
described prospectively as “integral part of the future consumer
services” (Koumaras et al., 2018, p.1). One example is the Messenger
Service KiK, that is popular among teens. Kik added a bot store to
integrate bots into apps shortly before Facebook in April 2016 (Wagner,
2016). Several industries are frequently mentioned to benefit from
chatbots among which is retail (Capgemini, 2018; Mindbrowser, 2017;
Patil, 2019). Chatbots are considered to be beneficial for retailers in
terms of customer service (about 95%), sales/marketing (about 55%)
and order processing (about 48%) (Mindbrowser, 2017). If chatbots
provide a high quality service for customers, positive effects on com­
plaints, word-of-mouth, and customer loyalty can be expected (McLean
and Osei-Frimpong, 2019, p. 55). However, in online retailing, cus­
tomers are considerably reluctant when it comes to using chatbots in
different phases of the customer journey. In the United States, around
40% of the customers prefer to communicate with a real person (CGS,
2018; Mindbrowser, 2017). Only 34% of a global sample were
comfortable proactively receiving personalized recommendations by a
chatbot when searching for products, for example, in the prepurchase
phase (Pega, 2017). For U.S. consumers the percentage is even lower
with 14% (CGS, 2019). Generation Z and Millennials are more interested
in using chatbots: 25% of a global sample aged 18 to 34 opted for a
personal shopping chatbot (Chatbots Magazine, 2019) and teens aged 13
to 19 made up 60% of the chatbot users of Kik (Swant, 2016). In Ger­
many, only a small fraction (3.5%) of the consumers liked to use

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alexandra.rese@uni-bayreuth.de (A. Rese).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102176

Available online 22 June 2020

0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Rese et al.
chatbots as communication channels when on websites and webshops,
followed by 23.5%, who eventually could think of using them (Fittkau
and Maaβ Consulting, 2017). However, every second online buyer
(52%) expressed their dislike of chatbots because of the communication
being too impersonal (61.8%), technology being not mature or accurate
enough (41.3%), no recognizable benefit (23.6%) or feeling observed
when communicating via chatbots (16.6%). These reasons indicating the
need for improvement of chatbots have been confirmed in several
studies (see Table 1).
To successfully introduce new technology, it is necessary to under­
stand why potential users choose to accept or reject technology (De
Graaf and Allouch, 2013). Because chatbots are relatively new, their
acceptance has just started being researched (Rietz et al., 2019).
Currently, market research studies provide initial insights into the
possible reasons for or against the use of chatbots from the customer’s
perspective (Drift et al., 2018; Fittkau and Maaβ Consulting, 2017). The
few research studies so far have looked at satisfaction with use, for
example, whether chatbots meet users’ expectations (Chopra, 2019;
Chung et al., 2018; McLean and Osei-Frimpong, 2019).
With this context in mind, the aim of the current paper is to close this
research gap and determine the key acceptance variables of a chatbot
available via Facebook Messenger relying on a model-based approach.
The chatbot “Emma” (https://chatshopper.com/), which was developed
for the fashion e-commerce sector and supports the prepurchase phase of
the customer journey, was the object of study. This chatbot belongs to
the category of informative chatbots (Koumaras et al., 2018, p.3),
helping customers via chat in their product search, for example, by of­
fering product suggestions, making recommendations about fashion
products and forwarding customers directly to suitable offers on the
retailer’s website. Overall, three research questions are in the focus.
First, we want to identify the factors which have a positive or negative
influence on usage intention and the frequency of the “Emma” chatbot.
Second, two prominent research models are used here: the use and
gratifications (U&G) theory and the technology acceptance model
(TAM). Both models include hedonic and utilitarian beliefs and display a
simple, rather similar structure. In both models – and in contrast to
previous research (Luo et al., 2011) – the factors are directly related to
usage intention (and intended usage frequency). The models are
compared against different information criteria and the results of an
encompassing test. The question is answered which of the two models is
more suitable for acceptance modeling. In addition, the question arises
whether the models are able to detect potential gender-specific differ­
ences. At the current state studies report gender differences with a slight
favor to male usage of text-based chatbots in an online shopping context
(Merrit, 2018; Swant, 2016; Tidio, 2019), however, the results are
inconsistent.
The following important contributions to the literature are made: (1)
An overview of chatbots in the context of retailing is given, and the key
factors having an impact on acceptance are identified. (2) Two research
models are compared regarding their strengths and weaknesses, and by
taking their group-specific differences, for example, gender, into ac­
count. A joint model is used to achieve deeper insights into the impact
and relations of the key factors.
The next section provides an overview of chatbots, their increasing
usage in e-commerce and on messaging platforms, and the findings
regarding their acceptance by consumers. Then, the two models
explaining user acceptance and behavior—the U&G approach and the
TAM—are discussed and compared. The development of two conceptual
models follows. In the methodology section, the use case of the fashion
shopping chatbot “Emma” is presented, followed by the presentation of
the results. Finally, the research and practical implications are dis­
cussed, and a short outlook on future research is given.
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
2. Literature review
2.1. Chatbots as conversational user interfaces
The term “chatbot” is a combination of the two words “chat” (con­
versation) and “bot” (short for robot). Chatbots, which are also termed
conversational agents (Kerly et al., 2007), are described as “any software
application that engages in a dialog with a human using natural lan­
guage” (Dale, 2016, p. 813; Shawar and Atwell, 2007, p. 29). Relying on
artificial intelligence and, in particular, computational linguistics tech­
niques, chatbots present a natural language interface that can “under­
stand natural language and respond in natural language to a user
request” (Lester et al., 2004, p. 220). Task or information-oriented user
queries can be answered in real time.
The term chatbot has often been related to text-based applications
(Dale, 2016) because this was the principle behind the first chatbot
ELIZA introduced by Josef Weizenbaum (1966). Input text is analyzed
with a pattern-matching approach that can detect key words used in the
chatbot’s rules to activate scripts to respond to the user. Recently, the
restriction to text-based systems has become obsolete because of ad­
vances in speech recognition, linguistic processing and other artificial
intelligence techniques (Dale, 2016; Shawar and Atwell, 2007).
In addition, since the 2010s, the communication behavior of in­
dividuals has changed, with smartphones and messenger apps being
increasingly used, creating new business opportunities (Sarwar and
Soomro, 2013). The number of smartphone users crossed 3 billion
worldwide in 2018 and is expected to grow to 3.763 billion by 2021
(Takahashi, 2018). Correspondingly, messenger services are increas­
ingly popular, with 1.5 billion monthly active users of WhatsApp, fol­
lowed by Facebook Messenger (1.300 million), WeChat (1.083 million),
and QQ mobile (803 million) in January 2019 (Statista, 2019a). This
strong increase becomes clearly visible against the user numbers
worldwide in December 2014 (WhatsApp: 700 million, Facebook
Messenger: 500 million, WeChat: 468 million, QQ mobile: 542 million)
(Statista, 2015). Dale (2016, p. 815) points out that users are “entirely
comfortable communicating via short typed interactions, and quite un­
fazed by carrying on several asynchronous conversations at the same
time.”
Companies are increasingly offering corporate services by inte­
grating chatbots into messaging platforms such as Facebook Messenger
and WhatsApp. For Facebook, several bot builders, such as Chatfuel,
Botsify, or ChatterOn, are available. Since April 2016, Facebook has
offered application programming interfaces (APIs) for bot integration on
the platform that can be used by external programmers (Gentsch, 2019).
Customers can use the channel they are familiar with for everyday
communication with friends instead of additionally installing a special
app on their mobile devices (Koumaras et al., 2018). This is called the
“bot effect” (Van Doorn and Duivestein, 2016). Starting with 11,000
chatbots in June 2016, the number of chatbots on Facebook Messenger
tripled from 100,000 in April 2017 to 300,000 in April 2019 (Statista,
2019b).
Chatbots can be used for customer service along the entire customer
journey (Copulsky, 2019; Forrest and Hoanca, 2015; Marinchak et al.,
2018; Sotolongo and Copulsky, 2018). In directly answering written
customer questions around the clock, they “offer an atomized and cost
efficient first-level support” (Backhaus and Awan, 2019, p.342). Here,
the customer journey describes the interaction of customers with a
company via different touch points along three different stages: pre­
purchase, purchase, and postpurchase (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016).
Chatbots can, for example, support prepurchase by using learning al­
gorithms and predictive modeling, “to instantly match a consumer’s
need against all accessible products that meet the consumer’s expecta­
tions and price points” (Forrest and Hoanca, 2015, p. 45).
Despite chatbots being a relatively new technological trend, several
market research surveys have investigated chatbots regarding their
acceptance rates, the demographic characteristics of users, reasons for
 Table 1
Studies on the acceptance of chatbots.
Market research Country Sample Acceptance rate Reasons for use Fears and reservations
A. Rese et al.

company

Bitkom (2017) Germany 1005 respondents 25% No wish to communicate with a computer (63%), doubts
14 years and older about reliable handling of requests (54%), reliability of
information generally questioned (49%), technology
considered as not yet mature (47%)
Fittkau and Germany >1500 respondents 28% (in particular, males employed with a Too impersonal (62%), text/speech recognition too
Maaβ (online shoppers) slightly above-average income level) inaccurate (41%), too complicated (25%), doubts about
Consulting usefulness (24%), user feels observed (17%)
(2017)
Kayak (2017) Germany 2046 respondents Permanent accessibility (37%), faster responses compared Concerns about data security (36%), preference for a real
18 years and older with own research (26%), curiosity/trial of the new contact person (33%), concerns that a chatbot has little or no
technology (20%), more comprehensive information understanding of what the user says (27%), concerns that
compared with own research (19%), possibility of using chatbots manipulate answers (24%), user does not want to
standard messenger applications/no platform change required talk to a computer (18%), concerns that a chatbot suggests
(17%), individual offers (9%), more reliable than people (5%) offers that do not interest or appeal to the user (18%)
LivePerson Six countries 5002 respondents 44% prefer to get immediate assistance from a A human better understands customer’s needs (60%), is more
(2017) 18 years and older bot over speaking with a human (US: 41%; UK: reliable (21%), shows more empathy (13%), is faster (6%)
43%, Australia: 43%; France: 44%; Japan 57%;
Germany: 52%)
YouGov (2017) Germany 2000 respondents 50% (in particular < 45 years with a diploma Not being bound to opening times (62%), no waiting loops Insufficient handling of individual (55%) or complex
18 years and older corresponding to university entrance level (61%), quick response to FAQs (55%), no time pressure on enquiries (54%), danger of false reports (45%), lack of
(Abitur) and a household net income > 3000 €) service staff (41%), no support costs and fees (40%) personality (42%), risk of job losses (41%), lack of data
protection (35%), failure to distinguish between human and
machine (32%), lack of technical maturity (29%)
CGS (2018) United >500 respondents Answers are not detailed enough (US: 41%, UK: 47%),
States, Great of each of the two answers are less helpful (US: 37%, UK: 36%), issue is too

3
Britain countries complex or unusual (US: 37%, UK: 36%), redirecting user to
FAQs (US: 41%, UK: 41%), response time is too long (US:
18%, UK: 22%), conversation feels impersonal (US: 13%, UK:
25%)
Dentsu Aegis Germany >6000 respondents 10% (predominantly male, average age 32 years Specific inquiries to customer service centers (50%), curiosity
Network between 15 and 64 using communication channels such as instant (33%), pass time (25%)
(2018) years old messaging and social media much more often
than the population average)
Drift et al. United 1051 respondents 24-h service (64%), getting an instant response (55%),
(2018) States between 15 and 64 answers to simple questions (55%), easy communication
years old (51%), complaints resolved quickly (43%), a good customer
experience (43%), detailed/expert answers (37%), answers to
complex questions (35%), friendliness and approachability
(32%)
Helpshift, 2018 United >1000 internet Preventing from connecting with a live person (50.7%), too
States users 18 years and many unhelpful responses (47.5%), redirecting user to self-
older serve FAQs (39.5%); bad suggestions (28.2%); pop-up
chatbot prompts (25.0%), unnecessary pleasantries (24.9%),
response time is too long (24.2%), concerns about data
security and unnoticed collection (19.7%)
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
A. Rese et al.
use, and customer fears and reservations. For Germany, the acceptance
rates range between 10% and 52%, with well-off, well-educated young
males often being the main users. In particular, time-related and task-
related advantages are mentioned, for example, 24/7 engagement,
speeding up the search process and supporting a search with more in­
formation. On the other hand, the impersonal service offer, privacy
concerns and the immaturity of the technology are seen as major ob­
stacles (see Table 1). Regarding gender specific modes of chatbot usage
behavior, there is no clear picture. When it comes to online shopping a
study investigating U.S. online shoppers aged 18–60 years found that
more females (48.8%) use (apparently speech-based) chatbots for
assistance than males (36.8%). The latter turned to chatbots for infor­
mational assistance (Tidio, 2019). The analysis of Facebook messages in
the U.S. found that females are lagging behind males using text-based
chatbots, but they are on the rise. Their percentage increased from
28% to 37% between 2017 and 2018. The same holds for usage intensity
in terms of number of sessions per user which is only 27% higher for
males compared to the previous year with 50% (Merrit, 2018). Already
in 2016 the analysis of Kik messages had revealed that more females
were among the teen users of tex-based chatbots (Swant, 2016).
In addition, there are a few research studies that have investigated
key factors of chatbots, but concentrated to the most part on other
dependent variables such as customer satisfaction with the chatbot
service or communication quality (Chung et al., 2018; McLean and
Osei-Frimpong, 2019). These factors include interaction, entertainment,
the provision of trendy and customer-related information, and
problem-solving.
2.2. Key models in adoption research
IT adoption theories have been described as belonging to “one of the
most mature research areas” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 426) when it
comes to investigating the user acceptance of new information tech­
nologies. The TAM model is a prominent and often-used example (Davis
et al., 1989). However, Venkatesh et al. (2003, p. 426) point to the
problem with this model and construct selection, coming to the
conclusion that researchers “largely ignore the contributions from
alternative models.” Although the U&G theory also includes hedonic
and utilitarian beliefs (needs) (Luo et al., 2011), in contrast to the TAM,
the U&G approach does not belong to the “classic” acceptance models,
but rather stems from the field of communication. For our study, it is
important that the motivations for using text-based chatbots have
already been collected and categorized in the context of the U&G theory
(Brandtzaeg and Folstad, 2017). In addition, the U&G theory allows for
the integration of constructs of other theoretical models, for example,
the TAM model (Rauschnabel et al., 2017).
2.2.1. U&G theory
The U&G theory is an approach for explaining and understanding
media usage behavior by taking user’s needs and needs gratifications
into account (Katz et al., 1974). The focus is on active users who pur­
posefully choose and use media for need satisfaction (Katz et al., 1974;
Rosengren, 1974; Rubin, 2009). Users’ personal needs are commonly
defined “as forces that push people in a certain direction to gratify those
needs” (Chen, 2011, p. 756). Often, motives are used synonymously
with needs (Etzioni, 1986). Needs have been classified by Katz et al.
(1973b, p. 166f.) into five categories: cognitive, affective, personal- and
social-integrative needs, and needs to reduce tension. The first category
includes the acquisition of information and knowledge as well as the
development of a better understanding of oneself or the environment.
Affective needs represent a collection of pleasant, emotional experi­
ences. Personal-integrative needs refer to benefits regarding increased
credibility or status. Social-integrative needs relate to improved contacts
with the social environment. If media is used to escape from everyday
life or distract oneself, the need to reduce tension is addressed.
Gratifications, on the other hand, refer to the perceived satisfaction
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
of these needs by users (Palmgreen, 1984). They represent the benefits
resulting from active media use (Stafford et al., 2004). U&G research has
developed several gratification typologies (Katz et al., 1973a). Two basic
types of gratification were introduced for the immergence of radio and
other mass communication media (Cutler and Danowski, 1980; Stafford
and Stafford, 1996): these include content- and process-related gratifi­
cations, for example, information and passing time. The two key di­
mensions can be classified into utilitarian and hedonic factors
(Venkatesh and Brown, 2001), with the first ones being related media’s
“practicability and usability” regarding users’ task-based objectives (De
Graaf and Allouch, 2013, p. 1477). For hedonic factors, the experience
during media use is the most important (De Graaf and Allouch, 2013). A
similar dichotomy exists in the motivational theory between intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
In times of new communication with the Internet and social media,
not surprisingly, Rauschnabel et al. (2017, p. 283) point to the necessity
“for the identification and assessment of novel” gratifications. Table 2
presents the gratifications for this new media background. Two addi­
tional gratification categories have been added: “technology” and “so­
cial gratifications” (Gan and Li, 2018; Omar and Subramanian, 2018).
Social gratifications result from the interaction with others, while
technology gratifications are “the suitable and convenient environment
provided by a system” (Liu et al., 2010, p. 933).
For the use of chatbots and referring to the framework of the U&G
theory, Brandtzaeg and Folstad (2017) have identified several motives.
Recently, the utilitarian and hedonic benefits/positive beliefs have been
confirmed by Rzepka et al. (2020) using a qualitative approach inter­
viewing 30 chatbots users. Productivity (or efficiency as termed by
Rzepka et al. (2020)), that is assisting “users to obtain timely and effi­
cient assistance or information” has been rated as most important reason
for usage (see Table 2). The time saving is due to users not having “to
open the app and deliberately select a product” (Rzepka et al., 2020,
p.7). Productivity is closely related to convenience, which can be
described as “how easy it is to obtain something” (Liu et al., 2016, p. 61).
This is the case for example with shopping in terms of time costs (Noble
et al., 2006) and users which “do not have to browse through the
products online and type on the keyboard” (Rzepka et al., 2020, p.7).
Convenience has previously been classified into the category of tech­
nology gratifications (Liu et al., 2016). Instead of clicking around on the
online shop, the user can tell the chatbot what she/he is looking for in
text form. Corresponding to Liu et al. (2016, p. 61) social presence, for
example, “the extent to which people believe that the environment is
personable and human-like”, is also assigned here to the technology
category. Chatbots are still more perceived as a machine and not as
human-like (Araujo, 2018; Ciechanowski et al., 2019; Go and Sundar,
2019). Regarding social presence, Ciechanowski et al. (2019) found that
visual cues did not make a difference when comparing an animated
avatar chatbot to a simple text-based chatbot. Verbal cues such as lin­
guistic content, language style and response time are important (Feine
et al., 2019), but often the human-chabot conversation is not natural and
human-like (Hill et al., 2015) calling for further efforts in artificial in­
telligence algorithms. “Authenticity of conversation”, which is under­
stood as the user’s ability to communicate with a chatbot in a natural
way, is an important aspect of social presence.
Following these technological gratifications with entertainment and
passing time, two hedonic ones are relevant. Brandtzaeg and Folstad
(2017, p. 8) define the entertainment gratification of chatbots as
“whether they are fun to use.” In this sense, the motive corresponds to
the perceived enjoyment motive of the TAM because pleasure is driven
by the process of use but not the content (Luo et al., 2011). In addition,
chatbots are also used “when bored to kill time” (Brandtzaeg and Fol­
stad, 2017, p. 8). “Pass time” has also been listed as one of the reasons to
use chatbots by market research surveys (Dentsu Aegis Network, 2018).
Similar to Rauschnabel et al. (2017) and Rzepka et al. (2020), two
possible risks that could hinder the acceptance of the chatbot “Emma”
are included. Market research surveys on chatbots often mention the
A. Rese et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176

Table 2
Gratifications of new media usage.
Research Studies Sample Gratifications
context/medium

Internet/World Ferguson and Perse 250 U.S. college students Hedonic: entertainment, pass time, relaxation; social: social information
Wide Web (2000)
Papacharissi and 279 U.S. college students Utilitarian: information seeking; hedonic: pass time, entertainment; social: interpersonal utility;
Rubin (2000) technology: convenience
Song et al. (2004) 498 U.S. college students Utilitarian: monetary compensation, information seeking; hedonic: aesthetic experience,
diversion; social: virtual community, relationship maintenance; personal status
Mobile phone Leung and Wei 834 respondents aged 18 years Utilitarian: mobility, immediate access, instrumentality, reassurance; hedonic: relaxation;
(2000) and older in Hong Kong social: affection/sociability
E-Mail Ku et al. (2013) 167 users (students, university Utilitarian: information seeking; hedonic: amusement; social: relationship maintenance, style/
staff) in Taiwan status
Instant messaging Ku et al. (2013) 150 users (students, university Utilitarian: information seeking; hedonic: amusement, killing time; social: relationship
staff) in Taiwan maintenance; sociability; style/status
Gan and Li (2018) 297 WeChat users in China Utilitarian: self-presentation, information documentation, information sharing; hedonic:
perceived enjoyment, passing time, social: social interaction, social presence; technology: media
appeal
Social networks Sheldon (2008) 172 U.S. college students Hedonic: passing time, entertainment; social: relationship maintenance; virtual community;
companionship; coolness
Brandtzaeg and Heim 1200 SNS users in Norway Utilitarian: information (10%); debating (6.5%); free SMS (3.5%); profile surfing (1.5%);
(2009) hedonic: time killing (3.5%); unspecific fun (2%); social: new relations (31%), contact with
friends (21%); socializing (14%); family contacts (1%)
Park et al., 2009 1715 U.S. college students Utilitarian: information seeking, hedonic: entertainment; social: socializing; self-status seeking
Kim et al. (2011) 349 U.S. and 240 Korean Utilitarian: seeking information; hedonic seeking entertainment; social: seeking friends; seeking
undergraduate students social support; technology: seeking convenience
Ku et al. (2013) 122 users (students, university Utilitarian: information seeking, hedonic: amusement, social: relationship maintenance;
staff) in Taiwan sociability; style/status
Online/mobile Wei and Lu (2014) 237 Taiwanese players of online/ Hedonic enjoyment; social: interaction with others
games mobile games
Li et al. (2015) 3919 Chinese players of a social Utilitarian: achievement, self-presentation; hedonic: enjoyment, fantasy, escapism; social: social
network game interaction, social presence
Rauschnabel et al. 642 German Pok� emon Go players Hedonic: nostalgia, enjoyment, physical activity (relaxation, feels good), flow; social:
(2017) socializing, image
Chatbots Brandtzaeg and 146 chatbot user in the United Utilitarian: productivity (68%); hedonic: entertainment/passing time (20%); novelty/curiosity
Folstad (2017) States aged 16–55 years (10%); social: social/relational (12%)
Rzepka et al. (2020) 30 chatbots users in Germany aged Benefits: efficiency, convenience, enjoyment; costs/negative beliefs: limited transparency, low
21–82 years technical maturity, limited control, lack of trust

Fig. 1. The U&G model for the chatbot “Emma”.

immaturity of the technology and privacy concerns (see Table 1). In
particular, the chatbot having difficulties in understanding individual or
complex inquiries or not providing any relevant product suggestions
could discourage consumers from using it. The same holds true for the
collection of personal data, resulting in a loss of control by the user
(Malhotra et al., 2004). Fig. 1 shows the U&G model of the chatbot
“Emma” and the proposed impacts of the gratifications on behavioral
intention to use the chatbot.
2.2.2. The TAM
First proposed by Davis (1986) as part of his dissertation, the TAM
was developed as a way to explain and predict the acceptance of users
regarding information systems (Davis et al., 1989). The TAM is based on
the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and deals with the determinants of
behaviors that are described as being “consciously intended” (Davis
et al., 1989, p. 983). A person’s behavior is determined by her or his
intention to use information systems, which depends on her or his
attitude toward behavior, and the two beliefs or motivations of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The mediating variable
attitude can be omitted to better understand the direct effects of the two
motivations on the intention to use a system (Davis et al., 1989; Ven­
katesh, 2000). A modified version of the TAM is used with additionally
considering perceived enjoyment (Van der Heijden, 2004). This varia­
tion has recently been applied to a text-based chatbot integrated into
Slack and employed in a work context (Rietz et al., 2019). Perceived
usefulness is regarded as an extrinsic motivation. An expected conse­
quence of use is improved performance, which in turn can be used to
achieve utilitarian gratifications (Davis et al., 1989). Users of “Emma”
are searching for fashion products and want to obtain shopping ideas.
On the other hand, the perceived ease of use can increase the enjoyment

5
A. Rese et al.
Fig. 2. The modified TAM for “Emma”.
of the process of using information systems, having a positive effect on
efficacy and competence (hedonic gratification). Chatbots can be used
very easily compared with an app or website because simple questions
have to be asked. The TAM includes perceived enjoyment and perceived
usefulness as the dichotomy of hedonic and utilitarian motivation.
Perceived ease of use is regarded as a determinant or antecedent, and a
positive effect on both perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment is
proposed in this case (Davis et al., 1989, 1992; Venkatesh, 2000). Fig. 2
includes the proposed TAM relationships for “Emma”.
2.2.3. Comparison of the two models
A comparison of the two models has been undertaken by Luo et al.
(2011); they emphasize the following parallels of the two approaches:
hedonic and utilitarian motivations as the drivers of usage behavior,
well-established and distinct constructs, a well-documented and long
testing history, as well as reliable and valid item scales. Basing on a PLS
analysis and the resulting R2 values the authors found an R2 value of
0.367 for behavioral usage in case of the U&G model and an R2 value of
0.173 for the TAM model. A statistical model comparison using tests or
information criteria was not performed. In contrast to Luo et al. (2011)
here a similar structure of both models is chosen. The TAM model of Luo
et al. (2011) is the original TAM including the mediator variables atti­
tude towards use and behavioral intention. Since usage frequency is
better predicted (Burton-Jones and Hubona, 2005), two dependent
variables are considered separately here: behavioral intention and
intended usage frequency.
Regarding the differences, the TAM aims at “generality and parsi­
mony” (Park, 2010, p. 45), allowing for an easy transfer and application
to different contexts (Venkatesh, 2000). An extension with external
variables is possible and must be justified; however, there is no formal
mechanism provided to include antecedents (Benbasat and Barki, 2007).
In addition, because of the well-established TAM paradigm, if necessary,
only minor adjustments must be made, thus limiting the possibility for
new discoveries (Benbasat and Barki, 2007). Although the relative
importance of the two key factors (perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness) can be derived (Davis et al., 1989), the information about
them remains at a general level (Mathieson, 1991).
Compared with the TAM, the U&G theory allows for an even freer
choice of motivational factors depending on the type of communication
medium. Li et al. (2015, p. 262) describe the approach as a “nomological
network for research rather than providing a predefined set of constructs
or factors.” A greater variety of motives is analyzed, but there is the need
to adapt the motives or to develop new item scales depending on the
context (Luo et al., 2011).
Mathieson (1991, p. 187) introduce three criteria to compare
acceptance models: “the ability to predict intention to use a system,”
“the value of the information provided by the models,” and “the cost of
using the models.” These criteria are empirically investigated in the
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
current study.
3. Research design and methodology
3.1. Use case: chatShopper’s chatbot “Emma” on Zalando’s website
The chatbot “Emma” is an example of a shopping chatbot that is
available for the prepurchase phase and that supports consumers in their
product search for fashion products. This chatbot was developed by the
start-up chatShopper, founded in 2015 by Antonia Ermacora and Mat­
thias Nannt, and is available in German and English via Facebook
Messenger. For Germany, the online shop of the fashion retailer Zalando
serves as a search base and is the only place “Emma” can be used. When
chatShopper first opened online on Facebook Messenger, real shopping
assistants selected suitable products for users. Because of too many in­
quiries and for efficiency reasons, “Emma” was introduced in April 2016
as a personal shopping assistant that could handle the fashion shopping
requests exclusively. Only if “Emma” cannot figure out the inquiry is it
forwarded to a P.O. box and then manually handled. This information is
re-fed to train Emma for future similar problems. In January 2017,
chatShopper’s “Emma” came out as the best e-commerce bot in the first
ChatBottle Awards (Christiansen, 2016; Ermacora, 2017). The user
starts an inquiry, for example, for shoes, and then receives several
product suggestions that are displayed in a carousel. The search can be
specified in more detail, for example, by selecting the size and color.
Once the user has found a suitable product, she or he will be redirected
to the Zalando website where the purchase takes place. For each product
sale, chatShopper receives monetary compensation from Zalando
(Dürmuth, 2017).
3.2. Study and participants
The data collection took place at a German university in June 2018.
The participants were recruited in the faculty building of the faculty of
law, business and economics, which houses a foyer with a cafeteria, and
participation was voluntary. The study was conducted in a computer
room with four computers. To use “Emma,” four Facebook accounts
were created to deliver access to “Emma” via Facebook Messenger. A
researcher was always available to answer any questions the partici­
pants might have.
The students of a German university were selected as participants
because as Millennials or members of Generation Y, they are considered
to be technically experienced (Gur�au, 2012); indeed, they grew up with
smartphones and are used to shopping online (Smith, 2011). In partic­
ular, Millennials are familiar with the concept of chatbots as a
communication interface, are among the early adopters (Chatbots
Magazine, 2019; Eeuwen, 2017; Soni and Tyagi, 2019), and are the
potential real users of “Emma”. A total of 205 questionnaires were
A. Rese et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176

collected. Table 3
Quality of the measurement scales.
3.3. Procedure of the study Construct Variance CA CR AVE VIF
extracted >50% >0.7 >0.7 >0.5 <5
Following the steps of a usability test (see Pricilla et al., 2018 for Convenience 74.20% 0.826 0.895 0.739 1.972
evaluating a chatbot prototype), the participants first received infor­ Authenticity of 80.96% 0.765 0.895 0.810 1.751
mation on the use of “Emma” that should then be used to complete a conversation
specific task. Afterwards, a questionnaire was answered. To allow for a Enjoyment 77.75% 0.855 0.912 0.776 1.395
Pass time 78.67% 0.864 0.912 0.776 1.290
smooth testing process, both the information about “Emma” and the task Privacy concerns 81.55% 0.924 0.946 0.815 1.267
were integrated into a Qualtrics survey. Immature 68.44% 0.769 0.861 0.675 1.159
At the beginning, the participants were introduced to the topic by technology
one of the researchers presenting a general definition of a “chatbot” and, Perceived 87.06% 0.925 0.952 0.870 1.511
usefulness
more specifically, “Emma”. In addition to a short verbal explanation, the
Perceived ease of 78.32% 0.914 0.779 0.861 1.326
participants were asked to watch a 1-min video showing an exemplary use
order with “Emma”. They were then asked to use “Emma” to search for a Behavioral 89.63% 0.945 0.896 0.896 –
pair of sneakers and place their desired product in the shopping basket. intention to use
After the product search, that is, in the postusage phase, the participants CA: Cronbach’s Alpha; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance
filled out a questionnaire about their experiences with “Emma”. extracted; VIF: variance inflation factor.

3.4. Questionnaire design
The first part of the questionnaire included questions regarding fa­
miliarity and usage of chatbots in general and “Emma” in particular, use
of Facebook Messenger, and frequency of shopping (only in the context
of fashion). Next, the independent variables of the U&G model and the
modified TAM, as well as the dependent variables underlying both
models, had to be evaluated. For operationalizing the constructs of the
U&G model and modified TAM, the scales already available in the
literature were used and adapted to the context of “Emma” (see Table A4
in the Appendix). The constructs “enjoyment” and “privacy concerns”
relied on the scales of Rauschnabel et al. (2017), “pass time” on Papa­
charissi and Rubin (2000), and operationalization of the gratification
“convenience” on Childers et al. (2001) and Ko et al. (2005). The items
of the gratification of “authenticity of conversation” were newly
developed, and those of “immature technology” were based on market
research surveys. The constructs “perceived usefulness” and “perceived
ease of use” were operationalized based on Venkatesh and Davis (2000).
For the intention of use, one item each was taken from Moon and Kim
(2001) and Venkatesh et al. (2012). All items were measured on a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly
agree”). In addition, the respondents were asked to indicate their
“intended usage frequency” of Emma on a five-level scale (0%, 25%,
50%, 75%, 100%), for example, rating how many of their textile pur­
chases they would make with Emma in future (Junco, 2012). Overall,
although an established instrument of item scales was available for the
modified TAM, the item scales had to be newly developed for the U&G
model for the context of chatbots. Finally, in order to get a more com­
plete picture additional reasons for use, as well as fears and reservations,
that had not been integrated into the research models were then added.
They were chosen from the frequently mentioned ones and included
novelty Brandtzaeg and Folstad, 2017; Dentsu Aegis Network, 2018;
Kayak, 2017), good customer experience (Drift et al., 2018), compre­
hensive information (Kayak, 2017), but also no wish to communicate
with a robot (Bitkom, 2017; Kayak, 2017) and job losses (YouGov,
2017). Altogether, five of these (dis)motivational variables could be
answered with a “yes” or “no.” Open comments could also be provided at
this point. Finally, the demographic data of the participants were
collected.
3.5. Measure validation
All constructs were measured with reflective items. The quality of the
measurement in terms of reliability, validity, and unidimensionality was
tested using a confirmatory framework (Segars, 1997) using SPSS26 and
SmartPLS 3.2.8. First, internal consistency and unidimensionality were
tested for the single constructs in an exploratory way relying on
Cronbach’s Alpha as well as a factor analysis and the extracted variance.
For three constructs—convenience, authenticity of conversation, and
perceived ease of use—one item was removed (marked as “dropped” in
Table A4 in the Appendix) because of indicator loadings below 0.7 (Hair
et al., 2011). Afterwards the confirmatory test followed. The values of all
constructs were above the threshold for internal consistency reliability
(composite reliability) and convergent reliability (average variance
extracted) (see Table 3). Overall, the results of the exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis were satisfactory in terms of
unidimensionality.
The discriminant validity was established first by the Fornell-Larcker
criterion (see Table A1 in the Appendix), e.g. squared AVE of the
construct being higher than the correlations with any other construct
(Hair et al., 2011). Second, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio criterion
(HTMT) was used (see Henseler et al., 2015). The HTMT ratio of cor­
relations was below 0.85 (see Table 4); in addition, the HTMT confi­
dence intervals being calculated using a bootstrapping procedure with
5000 samples did not contain the value 1 (see Table 5). Variance
inflation factors (VIF) of the indicators and constructs were below the
threshold value of 5, indicating no severe collinearity problem (see
Table 3 and A4). VIFs on the factor level were also used to investigate
common method bias (Kock, 2015). After directly connecting all the
factors to a single factor, all VIFs were below the threshold value of 3.3
in the case of the two dependent variables in both models. However, for
the U&G model, behavioral intention to use was above 3.3 but below 5
when connected to all other independent variables, indicating a minor
common method bias. This was also the case for “authenticity of con­
versation” when connected to “immature technology” or “pass time.”
Regarding the mean values of the constructs, the value for perceived
ease of use is the highest at 5.18, while the lowest value for the lowest for
behavioral intention to use was at 2.55 on a scale from 1 ¼ “strongly
disagree” to 7 ¼ “strongly agree” (see Table A4 in the Appendix). The
intended usage frequency was, on average, about 11.46% for fashion
shopping.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive results
The sample of 205 respondents is almost equally composed of fe­
males (49%) and males (51%). The average age of the sample is 22
years, and most respondents are either 18–21 years (47.8%) or 22–25
years (42.9%) old. About half of the respondents, particularly more
males, said they were already familiar with the term “chatbot.” A
quarter of the respondents—and again more males—already had used a
chatbot, presenting themselves as more tech-savvy (Gerpott and

7
A. Rese et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176

Table 4
Discriminant validity – Heterotrait–monotrait ratio criterion.
U&G theory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Authenticity of conversation
2 Convenience 0.714
3 Enjoyment 0.680 0.626
4 Pass time 0.258 0.230 0.509
5 Privacy concerns 0.123 0.406 0.098 0.044
6 Immature technology 0.267 0.182 0.344 0.246 0.275
7 Behavioral intention 0.731 0.586 0.587 0.297 0.296 0.291
8 Intended usage frequency 0.573 0.441 0.494 0.257 0.328 0.362 0.805

Modified TAM 1 2 3 4 5

1 Perceived usefulness
2 Perceived ease of use 0.494
3 Perceived enjoyment 0.543 0.436
4 Behavioral intention 0.719 0.416 0.587
5 Intended usage frequency 0.570 0.268 0.494 0.805

Table 5 Table 6
Discriminant validity (HTMT confidence interval). Descriptive results.
Relationships U&G theory Bias Corrected 95% Confidence Sample Female Male Two-
Interval sided p

Behavioral intention - > Authenticity of [0.594, 0.844] Knowledge and use of chatbots and Facebook Messenger
conversation Were you already familiar with the 42.9% 39.8% 60.2% 0.026
Convenience - > Authenticity of conversation [0.601, 0.813] term “chatbot?”
Convenience - > Behavioral intention [0.450, 0.692] Have you ever used a chatbot before 26.8% 22.0% 31.4% 0.129
Enjoyment - > Authenticity of conversation [0.563, 0.784] taking part in the study?
Enjoyment - > Behavioral intention [0.433, 0.713] Do you already know the chatbot 3.4% 5.0% 1.9% 0.224
Enjoyment - > Convenience [0.479, 0.744] “Emma?”
Immature technology - > Authenticity of [0.115, 0.439] Do you use Facebook Messenger? 82.9% 88.0% 78.1% 0.060
conversation Fashion online shopping behavior
Immature technology - > BI [0.137, 0.438] How often do you order fashion 0.036
Immature technology - > Convenience [0.068, 0.330] online?
Immature technology - > Enjoyment [0.162, 0.506] � Never 8.3 6.0 10.5
Pass time - > Authenticity of conversation [0.123, 0.426] � Rarely 27.8 27.0 28.6
Pass time - > Behavioral intention [0.153, 0.452] � Sometimes 31.7 26.0 37.1
Pass time - > Convenience [0.107, 0.373] � Somewhat frequently 26.8 34.0 20.0
Pass time - > Enjoyment [0.373, 0.625] � Very frequently 5.4 7.0 3.8
Pass time - > Immature technology [0.140, 0.345] Reasons for use and fears/reservations
Intended usage frequency - > Authenticity of [0.461, 0.679] “Emma” is innovative. 78.0% 50.6% 49.4% 0.399
conversation Shopping with “Emma” is an unusual 62.4% 50.8% 49.2% 0.474
Intended usage frequency - > Behavioral [0.727, 0.866] experience.
intention “Emma” provides a personalized offer. 59.5% 54.1% 45.9% 0.087
Intended usage frequency - > Convenience [0.302, 0.557] I don’t want to communicate with a 38.0% 51.3% 48.7% 0.666
Intended usage frequency - > Enjoyment [0.373, 0.594] robot.
Intended usage frequency - > Immature [0.221, 0.482] Jobs will be lost. 33.2% 70.6% 29.4% 0.000
technology
Intended usage frequency - > Pass time [0.122, 0.391]
Privacy concerns - > Authenticity of [0.033, 0.205] Meinert, 2019). Only a few respondents had heard before of the chatbot
conversation
“Emma,” and these participants were more often females. The results are
Privacy concerns - > Behavioral intention [0.149, 0.428]
Privacy concerns - > Convenience [0.246, 0.537]
consistent with research findings showing gender differences regarding
Privacy concerns - > Enjoyment [0.046, 0.188] interest in clothing and fashion styles, here with a higher involvement of
Privacy concerns - > Immature technology [0.114, 0.438] females (Mitchell and Walsh, 2004). Most of the sample used Facebook
Privacy concerns - > Pass time [0.025, 0.046] Messenger, again more females than males. About two-thirds of the
Privacy concerns - > Intended usage frequency [0.194, 0.450]
sample at least shopped sometimes clothes online, females more
Relationships modified TAM frequently than males. The majority of the respondents (78%) would use
Perceived enjoyment - > Behavioral intention [0.419, 0.708] “Emma” because it is innovative (78%), providing an unusual experi­
Intended usage frequency - > Behavioral [0.728, 0.867] ence (62.4%) and a personalized offer (59.5%). However, about
intention one-third did not want to talk to a chatbot. Females in particular noted
Intended usage frequency - > Perceived [0.370, 0.592]
they think that chatbots will cost people jobs (see Table 6).
enjoyment
Perceived ease of use - > Behavioral intention [0.264, 0.537]
Perceived ease of use - > Perceived enjoyment [0.286, 0.572] 4.2. Comparison of the two models
Perceived ease of use - > Frequency [0.130, 0.396]
Perceived usefulness - > Behavioral intention [0.612, 0.805]
Perceived usefulness - > Perceived enjoyment [0.400, 0.668]
For the evaluation of the two structural models, the path coefficients
Perceived usefulness - > Frequency [0.465, 0.654] and their strength —the effective size of the paths coefficients—, as well
Perceived usefulness - > Perceived ease of use [0.380, 0.590] as R2, R2 adjusted, and Stone-Geisser Q2 of the endogenous latent var­
iables and other information criteria (AIC, BIC, GM), were used (Hens­
eler et al., 2009).
For the U&G model, Table 7 shows that authenticity of conversation
has a strong significant positive effect on both the behavioral intention

8
A. Rese et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176

Table 7
Testing the relationships of the U&G model.
Path coefficients (Effect size - f2) T statistics (p-value) Bias-corrected confidence interval (95%)

Enjoyment → Behavioral intention 0.177 (0.029) 2.356 (0.019) [0.009, 0.307]

Pass time → Behavioral intention 0.078 (0.009) 1.448 (0.148) [-0.023, 0.185]
Convenience → Behavioral intention 0.115 (0.012) 1.454 (0.147) [-0.039, 0.371]
Authenticity of conversation → Behavioral intention 0.389 (0.162) 5.166 (0.000) [0.255, 0.532]
Privacy concerns → Behavioral intention 0.161 (0.039) 3.168 (0.002) [-0.267, 0.071]
Immature technology → Behavioral intention 0.056 (0.005) 0.987 (0.324) [-0.169, 0.050]
Enjoyment → Intended usage frequency 0.200 (0.033) 2.940 (0.003) [0.056, 0.3299]
Pass time → Intended usage frequency 0.064 (0.005) 1.448 (0.148) [-0.055, 0.169]
Convenience → Intended usage frequency 0.000 (0.000) 0.003 (0.997) [-0.124, 0.158]
Authenticity of conversation → Intended usage frequency 0.317 (0.094) 4.735 (0.000) [0.198, 0.464]
Privacy concerns → Intended usage frequency 0.234 (0.071) 3.900 (0.000) [-0.347, 0.115]
Immature technology → Intended usage frequency -0.147 (0.031) 2.560 (0.011) [-0.253, 0.020]

to use “Emma” (0.389, p ¼ 0.000) and the intended usage frequency
(0.317, p ¼ 0.000). The effect is smaller but still significantly positive for
enjoyment (on behavioral intention: 0.177, p ¼ 0.019; on intended
usage frequency: 0.200, p ¼ 0.003). As proposed, privacy concerns are
negatively related to both dependent variables (behavioral intention:
-0.161, p ¼ 0.000; intended usage frequency: -0.234, p ¼ 0.002).
However, pass time and convenience show no significant effect, and the
proposed negative impact for immature technology can only be estab­
lished for intended usage frequency ( 0.147, p ¼ 0.001). Regarding the
individual path coefficients, only the authenticity of the conversation on
behavioral intention has a mediate effect on the structural level, with an
effect size of 0.162, which is larger than 0.15 (Henseler et al., 2009). The
significance of all path coefficients with a p-value at an error level
probability of 5% was confirmed by the bias-corrected confidence in­
tervals. The corresponding 95% confidence intervals did not contain the
value zero (Ringle et al., 2018). The coefficients of determination (R2, R2
adjusted) of the endogenous variables representing the inner model
evaluation can be described as moderate, being larger than 0.33 (Chin,
1998). In addition, the Q2 values are larger than zero, indicating the
predictive relevance of the model (see Table 9).
For the modified TAM, Table 8 shows that almost all the proposed
relationships except for ease of use are established taking the p-value
and the bias-corrected confidence interval into account. Again the sig­
nificance of the path coefficients was confirmed by the confidence in­
tervals not including a zero value (Ringle et al., 2018). Perceived
usefulness has the highest positive effect on both the behavioral inten­
tion to use “Emma” (0.514, p ¼ 0.000) and the intended usage frequency
(0.446, p ¼ 0.000), followed by perceived enjoyment. On the structural
level, the effect of perceived usefulness on behavioral intention (f2 ¼
0.514) and intended usage frequency (f2 ¼ 0.446) can be described as
moderate. The same holds for the effect of perceived ease of use on both
perceived enjoyment (f2 ¼ 0.175) and perceived usefulness (f2 ¼ 0.175)
(Henseler et al., 2009).
For a model comparison, several information criteria were used. R2
adjusted was included because the number of independent variables is
different for both models (Hair et al., 2014). In addition, a regression
analysis using the scores of the latent variables from the two PLS models
was performed resulting in almost exactly the same R2 and R2 adjusted
values (see Table 9). It should be mentioned that the scores of the three
variables which are the same in both models (behavioral intention,
intended usage frequency, enjoyment) displayed a correlation of 1 for
the latent variables when correlating the two models. In Table 9, the R2
adjusted and Q2 values showed mixed results with higher values for
behavioral intention in the modified TAM and intended usage frequency
in the U&G model. The Geweke-Meese (GM) criterion and Bayesian
information criterion (BIC) was lower for both dependent variables in
the modified TAM.
Additionally, following Davidson and MacKinnon (1993), for
comparing the two non-nested regression models, an encompassing test
was performed using likelihood quotient tests (see, also, e.g., Kleiber and
Zeileis, 2008, p. 83). This test fits a so-called encompassing (or joint)
model to the data which contains all regressors from both models such
that the two models are nested within the encompassing model. Table 10
displays the results: Both models are significantly inferior to the joint
model, but again, the TAM model performs better.
However, in the joint model, it could also be seen that the TAM
constructs have the strongest impact and overshadow the U&G factors
which become less apparent (see Table A3 in the Appendix). This in
particular holds for authenticity of conversation. There is no clear pic­
ture regarding the relationship of the U&G factors as external variables
of the three TAM constructs, because the correlations are often similar
high (see Table A2 in the Appendix).
Because of the apparent differences in female and male acceptance of
text-based chatbots, a mean comparison and multigroup analysis was
applied (Sarstedt et al., 2011). In the current study, females rated all
constructs higher than males, but in particular, this is found to be
significantly higher for pass time, enjoyment, convenience, and behav­
ioral intention to use (see Table A6 in the Appendix). Regarding the
models, there are no significant R2 differences (see Table A5 in the
Appendix). The same holds for the path coefficients in both models,
indicating the same structural relationships. One exception is the
importance of convenience for females regarding intended usage fre­
quency (0.158, p ¼ 0.021), which is significantly different (T ¼ 2.174, p
¼ 0.031) from the importance it has for males ( 0.166, p ¼ 0.023). In
addition to the p-value below 0.05, the path coefficients are each not
included in the other group’s confidence interval (Sarstedt et al., 2011)
(Tables A6 and A7 in the Appendix).

Table 8
Testing the relationships of the modified TAM.
Path coefficients (Effect size - f2) T statistics (p-value) Bias-corrected confidence interval (95%)

Perceived usefulness → Behavioral intention 0.514 (0.336) 9.168 (0.000) [0.396, 0.612]
Perceived ease of use → Behavioral intention 0.041 (0.002) 0.686 (0.493) [-0.091, 0.141]
Perceived enjoyment → Behavioral intention 0.245 (0.083) 3.508 (0.000) [0.094, 0.374]
Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness 0.463 (0.273) 10.288 (0.000) [0.378, 0.548]
Perceived ease of use → Perceived enjoyment 0.386 (0.175) 6.506 (0.000) [0.266, 0.493]
Perceived usefulness → Intended usage frequency 0.446 (0.204) 6.945 (0.000) [0.312, 0.566]
Perceived ease of use → Intended usage frequency 0.046 (0.002) 0.732 (0.465) [-0.170, 0.081]
Perceived enjoyment → Intended usage frequency 0.257 (0.073) 4.391 (0.000) [0.137, 0.371]

9
A. Rese et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176

Table 9
Model comparison (PLS, regression analysis).
Smart PLS Regression analysis
2 2 2
R R adj. Q AIC BIC GM R2 R2 adj. F

U&G model
Behavioral intention 0.466 0.449 0.383 115.443 92.182 236.183 0.465 0.449 28.72
Intended usage frequency 0.392 0.374 0.361 88.993 65.732 237.103 0.392 0.373 21.25
Modified TAM
Behavioral intention 0.479 0.472 0.401 126.843 113.551 225.021 0.480 0.472 61.76
Intended usage frequency 0.354 0.345 0.332 82.693 69.400 225.810 0.355 0.345 36.81
Perceived usefulness 0.215 0.211 0.170 46.548 39.902 211.719
Perceived enjoyment 0.149 0.145 0.107 30.116 23.470 212.844
Joint model
Behavioral intention 0.560 0.542 0.482 151.182 121.275 244.680 0.560 0.542 31.14
Intended usage frequency 0.449 0.427 0.418 105.296 75.389 241.691 0.450 0.427 20.00
Perceived usefulness 0.215 0.211 0.179 46.552 39.906 244.230
Perceived enjoyment 0.149 0.145 0.111 30.116 23.470 243.079

usefulness and perceived enjoyment is confirmed.

Table 10
Model comparison via an encompassing test.
Res.Df Df F Pr (>F)
Behavioral intention
U&G model vs. Joint model 196 2 21.0062
Modified TAM vs. Joint model 196 5 7.1238
Intended usage frequency
U&G model vs. Joint model 196 2 10.2965
Modified TAM vs. Joint model 196 5 6.7581
5. Discussion
One aim of the current study was to determine the factors that have a
positive or negative influence on user acceptance for the shopping
chatbot “Emma” in the prepurchase phase. Based on insights into
chatbots from market research surveys, two research models were
developed and empirically tested, taking both utilitarian and hedonic
factors into account. As theoretical foundations, the U&G theory from
the field of (mass) communication research and the widely used TAM
were employed. Regarding their predictive ability, both models pre­
dicted behavioral intention to use “Emma” rather well.
The results show that both utilitarian factors, such as the authenticity
of conversation and perceived usefulness, as well as hedonic factors,
such as enjoyment, increase user acceptance of “Emma”. Overall, the
impact of the utilitarian factors is stronger than that of the hedonic
factors. This might be because of Emma being primarily regarded as a
means to an end for online shopping.
In addition, privacy concerns and, to a lesser extent, the immature
technology have a negative effect on acceptance, particularly on the
intended usage frequency. Pass time and convenience have no signifi­
cant influence on behavioral intention and intended usage frequency of
“Emma”. On the one hand, any form of online shopping might be
perceived as convenient. Therefore, convenience plays only a minor
role. The nonsignificant effect of pass time is in line with the results of
Gan and Li (2018) for Chinese users of the social media app WeChat,
which they explained with users having “alternative options to pass time
when needed” (p.312).
In the modified TAM, the influence of perceived ease of use is found
to be insignificant, corresponding to the findings of other studies, for
example, Wu and Wang (2005) for m-commerce. Because the partici­
pants of the study perceived the use of Emma as very easy, with the
construct achieving the highest mean value of 5.18 (std.: 1.31), in line
with Luo et al. (2011), it can be assumed that other belief constructs
might be more important regarding usage intention. However, when
chatbots are used in a work environment, perceived enjoyment is ranked
unimportant, but perceived ease of use important (Rietz et al., 2019).
Although the perceived ease of use has no direct effect on behavioral
intention and intended usage frequency, the positive effect on perceived
Overall, the mean values of behavioral intention (2.55) and intended
usage frequency (11.46%) indicate that the acceptance of the Millennial
participants to use “Emma” is rather low. Although the modified TAM
reveals a high importance of perceived usefulness for acceptance, the
0.000 mean value is also relatively low (3.48). Openly asking for reasons for or
0.000
against chatbot usage at the end of the questionnaire shows that the
0.001
participants wondered about the added value of “Emma” compared with
0.000 a search via the online shop. They complained that with “Emma”, the
same result could be achieved but in a more cumbersome and time-
consuming way with the chatbot.
Comparing the quality of the two research models, the measurements
are reliable and valid. However, the U&G model displays minor common
method bias. Overall, the development of the U&G model instrument
was more time-consuming in terms of the literature review and item
development, here because of taking the background of chatbots into
account. The same sample was used to test the models regarding the
same object of evaluation. Regarding their predictive performance, both
models are equally suitable, with slight advantages for the modified
TAM. Regarding gender, both models show the same results.
5.1. Theoretical and managerial implications
In the study by Luo et al. (2011) investigating a web-based infor­
mation service, the U&G model explained more variance than the
(original) TAM. In the current study, a modified TAM with a similar
structure compared to the U&G model, is used to investigate direct ef­
fects of the beliefs of two dependent variables to provide a more nuanced
picture (Rauschnabel et al., 2017): behavioral intention and intended
usage frequency. In the context of chatbots, a profound analysis shows
that with this structural change, the modified TAM performs slightly
better when taking the BIC and GM as information criteria, the
encompassing test and common method bias into account. Both models
account for moderate effect sizes for the effect of the utilitarian motives
(perceived usefulness, authenticity of conversation). A joint model re­
veals the dominance of the TAM variables and the difficulties to assign
external variables since these might have a rather equal effect on all
three TAM constructs.
Although the predictive power is quite similar for both models, the
TAM model can be used for a standardized comparison in different
contexts (e.g. Rietz et al., 2019), while the U&G approach is more
suitable to identify more specific influencing factors (Luo et al., 2011).
For chatbots, several novel gratifications have been introduced in the
current paper: authenticity of conversation, convenience and immature
technology. Other gratifications such as privacy concerns (Rauschnabel
et al., 2017) were adapted to the context. Although several positive and
negative significant relationships could be established, the authenticity
of conversation is found to have a moderate effect (f2) on behavioral

10
A. Rese et al.
intention. Regarding the two dependent variables, the U&G model again
provides more information because the risks (privacy concerns, imma­
ture technology) are evaluated more negatively when it comes to the
intended usage frequency. This is not the case for the beliefs in the
modified TAM. Compared with the U&G approach, the modified TAM
was easier to adapt to the research context. Although the explanatory
power is limited when it comes to explaining user acceptance, when
accounting for the direct effects, the performance of the modified TAM is
equally high.
The results provide several managerial implications. Behavioral
intention and intended usage frequency is low, and this holds particu­
larly for males (see Table A5 in the Appendix). A study of U.S. customers
is confirmed indicating that females are more interested in text-based
communication with a chatbot while online shopping. In this study
males turned to chatbots for informational assistance to answer simple
questions (Tidio, 2019). In our study males in particular were dissatis­
fied regarding the convenience which prevented a frequent usage. To
target Millennial men the convenience of text-based chatbots has to be
increased. An issue that could be addresses is that “men are apparently
slower typers” than women (Merrit, 2018). Overall, companies should
be aware of different target groups depending on demographics (age and
gender). The development of different types of text-based chatbots in
line with the needs of the target group they want to reach, is recom­
mended early on (Morgan, 2017).
The respondents generally had privacy concerns, which negatively
affected the intended usage frequency. The answers to the open question
reveal that some of the respondents automatically associated Facebook
with a lack of data protection. Therefore, the integration of the chatbot
“Emma” into Facebook Messenger could be reconsidered, and the re­
tailer’s website is recommended for implementation. The authenticity of
the conversation is the most important; therefore, similar standard
phrases to questions should be avoided. Overall, the limits of AI become
apparent, despite a reported accuracy of the corresponding algorithms
of 95% (Shankar, 2018). The immature technology again has a negative
effect on intended usage frequency. Text recognition seems to not be the
problem. The mean value of the corresponding item of the construct is
the lowest (mean value: 3.19), while the item that refers to the lack of
relevance of offers has the highest mean value (4.22). According to the
open question section, the accuracy of offers is a problem. In addition,
because of the limited number of product suggestions, many of the
participants felt that they were overlooking other interesting products.
Therefore, they noted preferring the online shop, which offers a better
product overview and is more clearly structured. Although for some
participants the restriction to one retailer’s online shop was seen as a
problem, others missed the fun of browsing through the websites.
Overall, the training of the chatbot based on sets of data, for example,
typical and untypical queries, is important to improve its performance
and should not be neglected.
5.2. Limitations and avenues for future research
Several limitations have to be taken into account. First, relying on a
student sample, the generalizability of the results can be strengthened by
repeating the study with a mix of a student and nonstudent sample
representatives for the Millennial age group, a Zalando customer sam­
ple, or a sample consisting of age groups unfamiliar with chatbots, e.g.
older generations. Second, “Emma” was only used by the participants
within the study, calling for a qualitative study over a longer period of
time. Also, the usage time of the participants differed, which offers
additional opportunities for user segmentation. It would also be inter­
esting to analyze the chat history. Some of the participants might not
necessarily have been in a “shopping mood” during the shopping situ­
ation, having no specific wish of buying the test product (sneakers).
Third, transferring the findings to other sectors or shopping stages is not
possible. Depending on the product category, customers might be more
(or less) willing to browse through the full assortment or need more (or
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
less) convenience. For example, chatbots providing product recom­
mendations and suggestions for recipes in food retailing might be better
accepted. The results might also be different if “Emma” is technologi­
cally developed further. Fourth, regarding the design of the U&G model,
potential important gratifications and costs might be missing; this also
holds true for the integration of external factors into the TAM. Potential
gratifications are as follows: simplicity of interaction, high information
quality (trendiness, customization, and faster and better support and
answers), high communication quality (accuracy, credibility), or tech­
nical and lifestyle experience in terms of engagement with an emerging
technology (Chung et al., 2018; McLean and Osei-Frimpong, 2019). In
addition, text-based chatbots might offer social gratifications in terms of
social connection and companionship for example to people with low
levels of sociability regarding shopping situations (Martínez-Lo �pez et al.,
2014). Potential costs/negative benefits are the following: limited
transparency regarding the choice of product recommendations and lack
of trust in product purchases (Rzepka et al., 2020).
Fifth, other models could be used as well, for example, TAM2 or
UTAUT. However, it has to be taken in mind, that common variables in
the models, e.g. the dependent ones, might be more different with
divergent model structure, not allowing to replicate the PLS values when
using the mean values of the latent variables. In addition, other
important variables in the process of information exchange, such as
information quality or trust (Chung et al., 2018) or emotion-based
models of IT use (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2010), should be studied.
Sixth, despite gender other individual-level characteristics, such as age,
level of education, prior experience, self-efficacy, technological readi­
ness, or cultural values (Burton-Jones and Hubona, 2006; Roy et al.,
2018), should be investigated regarding their effect on the acceptance of
chatbots.
6. Conclusion
At first sight, chatbots offer many advantages to both companies and
consumers. The results of the current study show that from a company’s
point of view, it is necessary to examine to what extent the provided
communications structure is accepted by customers. Although there
have been fast-paced advances in artificial intelligence, conversations
with text-based chatbots often reach their limits and do so relatively
quickly. In addition, privacy concerns are a problem. Finally, because
the similarity to conventional apps is still apparent with a text-based
chatbot, the results should be compared with speech-based chatbots.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102176.
References
Araujo, T., 2018. Living up to the chatbot hype: the influence of anthropomorphic design
cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company
perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 85, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2018.03.051.
Backhaus, K., Awan, A., 2019. The paradigm shift in customer analysis: marketing or IT-
driven? In: Bergener, K., R€ackers, M., Stein, A. (Eds.), The Art of Structuring.
Springer, Cham, pp. 337–349.
Baier, D., Rese, A., R€
oglinger, M., 2018. Conversational user interfaces for online shops?
A categorization of use cases. In: Completed Research Paper, 39th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2018), San Francisco, USA. December 13-
16, 2018.
Beaudry, A., Pinsonneault, A., 2010. The other side of acceptance: studying the direct
and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Q. 34 (4),
689–710. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25750701.
Benbasat, I., Barki, H., 2007. Quo vadis TAM? J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. Online 8 (4), 211–218.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol8/iss4/7.
Bitkom, 2017. One in Four Wants to Use Chatbots (Jeder Vierte Will Chatbots Nutzen).
https://www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Jeder-Vierte-will-Chatbots-nu
tzen.html. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Brandtzaeg, P.B., Følstad, A., 2017. November. Why people use chatbots. In:
Kompatsiaris, Cave, J., Satsiou, A., Carle, G., Passani, A., Kontopoulos, E.,
A. Rese et al.
Diplaris, S., McMillan, D. (Eds.), Internet Science. INSCI 2017. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 10673. Springer, Cham, pp. 377–392.
Brandtzæg, P.B., Heim, J., 2009. Why people use social networking sites. In: Ozok, A.A.,
Zaphiris, P. (Eds.), Online Communities and Social Computing. OCSC 2009. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5621. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 143–152.
Burton-Jones, A., Hubona, G.S., 2005. Individual differences and usage behavior:
revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. ACM SIGMIS - Data Base:
Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 36 (2), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/1066149.1066155.
Burton-Jones, A., Hubona, G.S., 2006. The mediation of external variables in the
technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43 (6), 706–717. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007.
Capgemini Inc., 2018. Conversational Commerce. Why Consumers Are Embracing Voice
Assistants in Their Lives. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/
01/dti-conversational-commerce.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., Gloor, P., 2019. In the shades of the
uncanny valley: an experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future
Generat. Comput. Syst. 92, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055.
CGS, 2018. CGS’s 2018 Global Consumer Customer Service Survey. https://www.cgsinc.
com/sites/default/files/media/resources/pdf/CGS_Consumer%2BCustServ%2Binfo
graphic%2B2018.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
CGS, 2019. 2019 CGS Customer Service Chatbots & Channels Survey. https://www.cgsin
c.com/en/resources/2019-CGS-Customer-Service-Chatbots-Channels-Survey.
(Accessed 22 March 2020).
Chatbots Magazine, 2019. Chatbot Report 2019: Global Trends and Analysis. https://cha
tbotsmagazine.com/chatbot-report-2019-global-trends-and-analysis-a487afec05b.
(Accessed 22 March 2020).
Chen, G.M., 2011. Tweet this: a uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter
use gratifies a need to connect with others. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (2), 755–762.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In:
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295–336.
Chopra, K., 2019. Indian shopper motivation to use artificial intelligence. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 47 (3), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-11-2018-0251.
Christiansen, A., 2016. In: In Facebook Messenger: Chatbot "Emma" Helps with Shopping
(Im Facebook Messenger: Chatbot "Emma" Hilft Beim Shoppen”). https://www.shz.
de/regionales/kiel/im-facebook-mess-enger-chatbot-emma-hilft-beim-shoppen-i
d15036971.html. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S., 2001. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations
for online retail shopping behavior. J. Retailing 77 (4), 511–535. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00056-2.
Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., Kim, S.J., 2018. Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction
regarding luxury brands. J. Bus. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.10.004.
Copulsky, J., 2019. Do conversational platforms represent the next big digital marketing
opportunity? Appl. Market. Anal. 4 (4), 311–316.
Cutler, N.E., Danowski, J.A., 1980. Process gratification in aging cohorts. Journal. Q. 57
(2), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700210.
Dale, R., 2016. The return of the chatbots. Nat. Lang. Eng. 22 (5), 811–817. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1351324916000243.
Davidson, R., MacKinnon, J., 1993. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Davis, F.D., 1986. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-
User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22 (14), 1111–1132. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
De Graaf, M.M., Allouch, S.B., 2013. Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance
of social robots. Robot. Autonom. Syst. 61 (12), 1476–1486. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007.
della Cava, M., 2016. Microsoft CEO Nadella: ’Bots Are the New Apps. https://www.
usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/03/30/microsof-ceo-nadella-bots-new-apps/
82431672/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Dentsu Aegis Network, 2018. More hearsay than dialogue: Dentsu Aegis Network
explores communication between human and machine (Mehr H€ orensagen als Dialog:
Dentsu Aegis Network erforscht Kommunikation zwischen Mensch und Maschine).
http://www.dentsuaegisnetwork.de/m/de-DE/PDF/20180221_PM_Dentsu%20Aegis
%20Network_Chatbot-Studie.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Drift, SurveyMonkey, Salesforce und myclever, 2018. The 2018 State of Chatbots Report.
https://www.drift.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-state-of-chatbots-r
eport.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Dürmuth, S., 2017. Computer programs: searching for clothes with Emma
(Computerprogramme: Auf Klamottensuche mit Emma). https://www.swp.de/wirts
chaft/news/auf-klamottensuche-mit-_emma_-23422349.html. (Accessed 22 March
2020).
Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W.D., 2001. From Eliza to Internet: a brief history of
computerized assessment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 17 (3), 295–314. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00004-8.
Ermacora, A., 2017. 2016 in Review — startups & Bots. https://blog.chatshopper.co
m/2016-in-review-startups-bots-a8b321f3d58a. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Etzioni, A., 1986. The case for a multiple-utility conception. Econ. Philos. 2 (2), 159–184.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478061500002619.
12
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
Eeuwen, M.V., 2017. Mobile Conversational Commerce: Messenger Chatbots as the Next
Interface between Businesses and Consumers. Master’s thesis. University of Twente.
https://essay.utwente.nl/71706/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Feine, J., Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., Maedche, A., 2019. A taxonomy of social cues for
conversational agents. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 132, 138–161. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.009.
Ferguson, D.A., Perse, E.M., 2000. The World Wide Web as a functional alternative to
television. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 44 (2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15506878jobem4402_1.
Fittkau, Maaß Consulting, 2017. Chatbots are rejected by every second online buyer
(Chatbots werden von jedem zweiten Online-K€ aufer abgelehnt). http://www.fitt
kaumaass.de/news/chatbots-von-jedem-zweiten-online-kaeufer-abgelehnt.
(Accessed 22 March 2020).
Forrest, E., Hoanca, B., 2015. Artificial intelligence: marketing’s game changer. In:
Trends and Innovations in Marketing Information Systems. IGI Global, pp. 45–64.
Gan, C., Li, H., 2018. Understanding the effects of gratifications on the continuance
intention to use WeChat in China: a perspective on uses and gratifications. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 78, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.003.
Gentsch, P., 2019. Conversational AI: how (chat) bots will reshape the digital experience.
In: AI in Marketing, Sales and Service. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 81–125.
Gerpott, T.J., Meinert, P., 2019. Not just every user of mobile music streaming shares the
same characteristics: a classification analysis of mobile network operator subscribers
in Germany. Telematics Inf. 41, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.008.
Go, E., Sundar, S.S., 2019. Humanizing chatbots: the effects of visual, identity and
conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 97, 304–316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020.
Gur�au, C., 2012. A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: comparing Generation
X and Millennial consumers”. J. Consum. Market. 29 (2), 103–113. https://doi.org/
10.1108/07363761211206357.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market.
Theor. Pract. 19 (2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.G., 2014. Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) an emerging tool in business research. Eur.
Bus. Rev. 26 (2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
Helpshift, 2018. Challenges of Using Chatbots According to US Internet Users, May 2018.
% of respondents. https://www.emarketer.com/chart/219582/challenges-of-
using-chatbots.1%20von.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N. (Eds.), New
Challenges to International Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
pp. 277–319.
Hill, J., Ford, W.R., Farreras, I.G., 2015. Real conversations with artificial intelligence: a
comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot
conversations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 49, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.02.026.
Junco, R., 2012. The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in
Facebook activities, and student engagement. Comput. Educ. 58 (1), 162–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004.
Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M., 1973a. Uses and gratifications research. Publ.
Opin. Q. 37 (4), 509–523. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2747854.
Katz, E., Haas, H., Gurevitch, M., 1973b. On the use of the mass media for important
things. Am. Socio. Rev. 38 (2), 164–181. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094393.
Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M., 1974. Utilization of mass communication by the
individual. In: Blumler, J.G., Katz, E. (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications:
Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. SAGE Publications, London,
pp. 19–32.
Kayak, 2017. Mobile Travel Report. https://www.kayak.de/news/wp-con-tent/uploads/
2017/05/DE_Report-compressed-1.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Kerly, A., Hall, P., Bull, S., 2007. Bringing chatbots into education: towards natural
language negotiation of open learner models. Knowl. Base Syst. 20 (2), 177–185.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., Choi, S.M., 2011. Cultural difference in motivations for using social
network sites: a comparative study of American and Korean college students.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (1), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.015.
Kleiber, C., Zeileis, A., 2008. Applied Econometrics with R. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Ko, H., Cho, C.H., Roberts, M.S., 2005. Internet uses and gratifications: a structural
equation model of interactive advertising. J. Advert. 34 (2), 57–70. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00913367.2005.10639191.
Kock, N., 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment
approach. Int. J. e-Collaboration 11 (4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/
ijec.2015100101.
Koumaras, V., Foteas, A., Kapari, M., Sakkas, C., Koumaras, H., 2018. 5G performance
testing of mobile chatbot applications. In: 2018 IEEE 23rd International Workshop
on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks
(CAMAD), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMAD.2018.8515004.
Ku, Y.C., Chu, T.H., Tseng, C.H., 2013. Gratifications for using CMC technologies: a
comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (1), 226–234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009.
Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
customer journey. Journal of Marketing 80 (6), 69–9.
Lester, J., Branting, K., Mott, B., 2004. Conversational agents. In: Singh, M.P. (Ed.), The
Practical Handbook of Internet Computing. Chapman & Hall, New York: New York,
pp. 220–240.
A. Rese et al.
Leung, L., Wei, R., 2000. More than just talk on the move: uses and gratifications of the
cellular phone. Journal. Mass Commun. Q. 77 (2), 308–320. https://doi.org/
10.1177/107769900007700206.
Li, H., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Heikkil€
a, J., Van Der Heijden, H., 2015. Modeling hedonic is
continuance through the uses and gratifications theory: an empirical study in online
games. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.01.053.
Liu, I.L., Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K., 2010. Understanding twitter usage: what drive people
continue to tweet. Pacis 92, 928–939. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2010/92.
Liu, I.L., Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K., 2016. User satisfaction with microblogging:
information dissemination versus social networking. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67
(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23371.
LivePerson, 2017. How Consumers View Bots in Customer Care. https://docsend.
com/view/826nkc4. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Luo, M.M., Chea, S., Chen, J.S., 2011. Web-based information service adoption: a
comparison of the motivational model and the uses and gratifications theory. Decis.
Support Syst. 51 (1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.015.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Agarwal, J., 2004. Internet users’ information privacy
concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 15 (4),
336–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032.
Marinchak, C.M., Forrest, E., Hoanca, B., 2018. Artificial intelligence: redefining
marketing management and the customer experience. Int. J. E Enterpren. Innovat. 8
(2), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEEI.2018070102.
Martínez-L� opez, F.J., Pla-García, C., G�azquez-Abad, J.C., Rodríguez-Ardura, I., 2014.
Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: dimensional structure and scales.
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 13 (3), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2014.02.002.
Mathieson, K., 1991. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance
model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2 (3), 173–191. https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173.
McLean, G., Osei-Frimpong, K., 2019. Chat now… Examining the variables influencing
the use of online live chat. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 146, 55–67. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.017.
Merrit, A., 2018. For the Love of Bots!. https://chatbotsmagazine.com/for-the-love-o
f-bots-7c00a64ae026. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Mindbrowser, 2017. Chatbot Survey 2017. http://mindbowser.com/chatbot-market-sur
vey-2017/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Mitchell, V.W., Walsh, G., 2004. Gender differences in German consumer decision-
making styles. J. Consum. Behav.: Int. Res. Rev. 3 (4), 331–346. https://doi.org/
10.1002/cb.146.
Moon, J.W., Kim, Y.G., 2001. Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf.
Manag. 38 (4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6.
Morgan, B., 2017. How Chatbots Will Transform Customer Experience: an Infographic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2017/03/21/how-ch
atbots-will-transform-customer-experience-an-infographic/#485677f97fb4.
(Accessed 22 March 2020).
Noble, S.M., Griffith, D.A., Adjei, M.T., 2006. Drivers of local merchant loyalty:
understanding the influence of gender and shopping motives. J. Retailing 82 (3),
177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.05.002.
Omar, B., Subramanian, K., 2018. Addicted to Facebook: examining the roles of
personality characteristics, gratifications sought and Facebook exposure among
youths. GSTF J. Media & Commun. 1 (1). http://dl6.globalstf.org/index.php/JMC/
article/view/1642/1557.
Palmgreen, P., 1984. Uses and gratifications: a theoretical perspective. Ann. Int.
Commun. Assoc. 8 (1), 20–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1984.11678570.
Papacharissi, Z., Rubin, A.M., 2000. Predictors of Internet use. J. Broadcast. Electron.
Media 44 (2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2.
Park, N., 2010. Adoption and use of computer-based voice over Internet protocol phone
service: toward an integrated model. J. Commun. 60 (1), 40–72. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01440.x.
Park, N., Kee, K.F., Valenzuela, S., 2009. Being immersed in social networking
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 12 (6), 729–733.
Patil, S., 2019. Top 5 Industries that Can Benefit from Chatbots. https://commversion.
com/top-5-industries-that-can-benefit-from-chatbots/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Pega, 2017. What Consumers Really Think about AI: A Global Study. https://www.cio
summits.com/what-consumers-really-think-about-ai.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Pricilla, C., Lestari, D.P., Dharma, D., 2018. Designing interaction for chatbot-based
conversational commerce with user-centered design. In: 2018 5th International
Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concept Theory and Applications (ICAICTA),
pp. 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICTA.2018.8541320.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Rossmann, A., tom Dieck, M.C., 2017. An adoption framework for
mobile augmented reality games: the case of Pok�emon Go. Comput. Hum. Behav. 76,
276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.030.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., Gudergan, S.P., 2018. Partial least squares
structural equation modeling in HRM research. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655.
Rietz, T., Benke, I., Maedche, A., 2019. The impact of anthropomorphic and functional
chatbot design features in enterprise collaboration systems on user acceptance. In:
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (2019).
Siegen, Germany, February 24-27. https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2019/track13/papers/
7/.
Rosengren, K.E., 1974. Uses and gratifications: a paradigm outlined. In: Blumler, J.G.,
Katz, E. (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on
Gratifications Research. SAGE Publications, London, pp. 269–286.
13
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Quazi, A., Quaddus, M., 2018. Predictors of customer acceptance
of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
42, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.02.005.
Rubin, A.M., 2009. Uses and gratifications: an evolving perspective of media effects. In:
Nabi, R.L., Oliver, M.B. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects.
SAGE Publications, London, pp. 147–159.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and
new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.1999.1020.
Rzepka, C., Berger, B., Hess, T., 2020. January. Why another customer channel?
Consumers’ perceived benefits and costs of voice commerce. In: Proceedings of the
53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://scholarspace.
manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/64241. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., 2011. Multi-group Analysis in partial least
squares (PLS) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results. Adv. Int.
Market. 22, 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2011)0000022012.
Sarwar, M., Soomro, T.R., 2013. Impact of smartphone’s on society. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 98
(2), 216–226.
Segars, A.H., 1997. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and
illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega 25 (1),
107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00051-5.
Shah, H., Warwick, K., Vallverdú, J., Wu, D., 2016. Can machines talk? Comparison of
Eliza with modern dialogue systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 58, 278–295. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.004.
Shankar, V., 2018. How Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping retail. J. Retailing 94 (4),
VI–XI. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(18)30076-90022-4359/.
Shawar, B.A., Atwell, E., 2007. Chatbots: are they really useful? LDV-Forum 22 (1),
29–49. https://jlcl.org/content/2-allissues/20-Heft1-2007/Bayan_Abu-Shawar_and_
Eric_Atwell.pdf. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Sheldon, P., 2008. Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use. SW Mass Commun.
J. 23 (2), 39–53.
Smith, K.T., 2011. Digital marketing strategies that Millennials find appealing,
motivating, or just annoying. J. Strat. Market. 19 (6), 489–499. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0965254X.2011.581383.
Song, I., Larose, R., Eastin, M.S., Lin, C.A., 2004. Internet gratifications and Internet
addiction: on the uses and abuses of new media. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 7 (4),
384–394. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.384.
Soni, M.R., Tyagi, V., 2019. Acceptance of chat bots by millennial consumers. Int. J. Res.
Eng. Appl. Manag. (IJREAM) 4 (10), 429–432. https://doi.org/10.18231/2454-
9150.2018.1343.
Sotolongo, N., Copulsky, J., 2018. Conversational marketing: creating compelling
customer connections. Appl. Market. Anal. 4 (1), 6–21.
Stafford, M.R., Stafford, T.F., 1996. Mechanical commercial avoidance: a uses and
gratifications perspective. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 18 (2), 27–38. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10641734.1996.10505049.
Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R., Schkade, L.L., 2004. Determining uses and gratifications for
the Internet. Decis. Sci. J. 35 (2), 259–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.00117315.2004.02524.x.
Statista, 2015. Number of mobile messaging app users worldwide in December 2014 (in
million) (Anzahl der Nutzer von Mobile Messaging Apps weltweit im Dezember 2014
(in Millionen). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/216439/umfrage/be
kanntheit-und-nutzung-von-instant-messenger-apps/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Statista, 2019a. Most Popular Mobile Messaging Apps Worldwide as of January 2019,
Based on Number of Monthly Active Users (In Millions). https://www.statista.
com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/. (Accessed 22
March 2020).
Statista, 2019b. Number of available chatbots on Facebook Messenger in selected months
from June 2016 to April 2019 (in 1,000) (Anzahl der verfügbaren Chatbots im
Facebook Messenger in ausgew€ ahlten Monaten von Juni 2016 bis April 2019 2018
(in 1.000)). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/662144/umfrage/anzah
l-der-verfuegbaren-chatbots-fuer-den-facebook-messenger/. (Accessed 22 March
2020).
Swant, M., 2016. Kik Users Have Now Sent Branded Chatbots Nearly 2 Billion Messages.
https://www.adweek.com/digital/kik-users-have-now-sent-branded-chatbots-near
ly-2-billion-messages-172803/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Takahashi, D., 2018. Newzoo: Smartphone Users Will Top 3 Billion in 2018, Hit 3.8
Billion by 2021. https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/11/newzoo-smartphone-users-
will-top-3-billion-in-2018-hit-3-8-billion-by-2021/. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Tidio, 2019. Top Chatbot Trends and Statistics in 2019. https://www.tidio.com/blog/ch
atbot-trends-and-stats-in-2019/#customer-experience-expectations. (Accessed 22
March 2020).
Van der Heijden, H., 2004. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q. 28
(4), 695–704. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148660.
Van Doorn, M., Duivestein, S., 2016. The Bot Effect: ,Friending Your Brand‘. Report.
Applied Innovation Exchange, SogetiLabs.
Venkatesh, V., 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11
(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., 2001. A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in
homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Q. 25 (1), 71–102.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3250959.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204. https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
A. Rese et al.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–478. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X., 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Q. 36 (1), 157–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41410412.
Wagner, K., 2016. Kik Messenger Launched a Bot Store One Week before Facebook Is
Expected to Launch a Bot Store. https://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11585866/kik-
bot-store-preview-for-facebook-messeger. (Accessed 22 March 2020).
Wei, P.S., Lu, H.P., 2014. Why do people play mobile social games? An examination of
network externalities and of uses and gratifications. Internet Res. 24 (3), 313–331.
Weizenbaum, J., 1966. ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language
communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9 (1), 36–45.
14
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102176
Wu, J.H., Wang, S.C., 2005. What drives mobile commerce?: an empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 42 (5), 719–729.
YouGov, 2017. Communication via chatbot: Are your customers ready for the next level
of customer service? (Kommunikation per Chatbot: Sind Ihre Kunden bereit für das
n€achste Level des Kundenservice?). https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/r/52/
YouGov_Report_Kommunikation_per_Chatbot.pdf?mkt_tok¼eyJpIjoiT1RSak5q
WTJPV1l5TXpFMyIsInQiOiIzK1YwWjJrRVJEYWErcExcL29XSGo5QTVLZ3A5Nm
9wb2ZCamp5RnBNREJoU1ZHblo1XC8zalh5MWN1Rjh
4Z0gwWENRZFBtUVZ1NGsrQVo2aGlEY1Nlb2lBUm
x1UlVEWGQ4YTZ5WHBDMWMxcVJkUUtCbFNnU3p6cTMwcndwWFdSaGFMIn0%
3D. (Accessed 22 March 2020).