Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Are users willing to embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the factors on the

acceptance of chatbots from the perspective of AIDUA framework
Xiaoyue Ma *, 1, Yudi Huo
School of Journalism and New Media, Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 28, Xianning West Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710049, PR China

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

Keywords: As a rapidly emerging generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT has garnered unprecedented global attention for its
Chatbot advanced AI-based text generation capabilities. However, the issue of ChatGPT acceptance requires further
AIDUA investigation. Prior studies on chatbot acceptance primarily focused on traditional technology acceptance models
Cognitive appraisal theory
(TAMs) and did not consider the intelligence features of AI technology. Based on the AI device use acceptance
Novelty value
Perceived humanness
(AIDUA) model and cognitive appraisal theory (CAT), this study proposed a research model to investigate the
acceptance of ChatGPT. Participants with experience using ChatGPT were invited to take part in the survey. A
total of 500 valid questionnaires were collected through the Credamo survey platform. Our findings reveal
compelling associations: social influence, novelty value, and humanness positively correlate with performance
expectations, while hedonic motivation, novelty value, and humanness negatively correlate with effort expec­
tations. Both performance and effort expectations contribute to cognitive attitudes. Age, as a control variable,
exhibits a significant negative impact on the willingness to reject ChatGPT. Notably, this study expands the
current AIDUA framework within chatbot contexts by incorporating perspectives on novelty value, perceived
humanness, and cognitive attitudes to examine chatbot acceptance. These insights offer practical implications for
the design and development of AI-based chatbots, contributing to the evolving landscape of AI technology
acceptance.

1. Introduction valuable tool in various applications and industries [11].

Currently, the development of artificial intelligence-generated con­
tent (AIGC) has received widespread attention and gained popularity
worldwide, which refers to the fact that users can use artificial intelli­
gence (AI) to create content (e.g., images, text, and videos) automati­
cally according to their personalized requirements [1]. AIGC was
considered one of the most advanced technologies, but it only came into
the public view and impressed people with its powerful capabilities with
the advent of ChatGPT. To be specific, ChatGPT (https://openai.co
m/blog/chatgpt) is a highly capable AI chatbot and has attracted un­
precedented attention for its ability to understand complex and diverse
human languages, generating personalized, human-like responses [2,3].
Notably, it serves as the first accessible AI user interface for the general
public [2]. Compared with the previous chatbots, ChatGPT has made
substantial advancements in addressing limitations related to person­
alized responses [4,5], the richness of answers [6–8], and conversational
coherence [9,10]. The remarkable capabilities of ChatGPT make it a
With the increasing discussion of ChatGPT in various walks of life,
recent studies have demonstrated its potential and challenges in scien­
tific writing [12], the healthcare industry [13,14]), educational appli­
cations [15–18] , intelligent vehicles[19], and other fields. However,
these studies have concentrated on the application of ChatGPT in spe­
cific domains, and very little attention has been paid to individuals’ use
of ChatGPT. Currently, its developers, OpenAI, have made ChatGPT free
to use and easily accessible to people who do not have technical
expertise [20]. More importantly, ChatGPT is a milestone in the field of
AI text generation, making users feel for the first time that their lives are
close to AI. However, there remains a paucity of evidence on the ordi­
nary users’ acceptance of ChatGPT and the factors contributing to its
acceptance. We are curious whether users’ demonstrated interest in
ChatGPT aligns with their actual willingness to embrace it. Conse­
quently, this study aims to investigate users’ willingness to accept or
reject ChatGPT and the factors influencing their evaluations.
Existing studies on the acceptance of chatbots are mainly empirical

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xyma_mail@163.com (X. Ma), huoyudi2022@163.com (Y. Huo).
1
Present/permanent address: School of Journalism and New Media, Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 28, Xianning West Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710,049, P.R. China.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102362
Received 9 May 2023; Received in revised form 21 August 2023; Accepted 9 September 2023
Available online 14 September 2023
0160-791X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Ma and Y. Huo
research based primarily on the theoretical foundations of the technol­
ogy acceptance model (TAM) and the unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT). However, these models did not examine AI
characteristics or the coexistent acceptance and refusal of AI [21]; thus,
this study attempts to use the latest technology acceptance model: the AI
device use acceptance (AIDUA) model [22]; discussed in Section 3.1).
Despite the advancement and reliability of the AIDUA model, it has
several limitations, such as a lack of cognitive attitudes [23–25].
Therefore, this study proposes a new research model to explain users’
acceptance of ChatGPT and investigates whether the AIDUA model is
still applicable in the context of ChatGPT.
Compared with the original AIDUA model, this proposed model in­
troduces new factors. First, cognitive attitudes, which state the impor­
tant factors in influencing users’ behavioral intentions toward AI
[23–25], were incorporated into the model, but they are not reflected in
the AIDUA model. In addition, a humanlike appearance or the capability
to simulate human emotions and behavior is not the core characteristic
of ChatGPT; thus, the antecedent of anthropomorphism was replaced by
perceived humanness, which embodies a more accurate description of
ChatGPT’s characteristics. Moreover, the unique capabilities of ChatGPT
set it apart from previous AI chatbots [26,27], which shows great nov­
elty. Therefore, we introduced another new variable, novelty value,
which has been proven to have an impact on the acceptance of tech­
nology (e.g., Refs. [28,29]. Age, population, type of use, and occupation
were also used as control variables. To verify the proposed model, 500
valid questionnaires were gathered from the Credamo platform
(https://www.credamo.com/home.html#/). We employed the struc­
tural equation model approach for model testing.
The innovative aspects of this thesis are as follows: First, this paper
contributes to the literature on chatbot acceptance behavior by inves­
tigating both acceptance and objections to ChatGPT and validates the
AIDUA model in the new context. Second, as opposed to previous
research that primarily focused on emotion as the ultimate antecedent of
users’ willingness to accept AI devices, this study predicts user behavior
by combining cognitive and affective attitudes. Third, this research in­
cludes two new concepts for predicting chatbot acceptance, which
further develop and extend the AIDUA model. Novelty value comple­
ments the technological change embodied in ChatGPT, and perceived
humanness reflects the enhanced conversational capabilities of
ChatGPT.
The subsequent sections of the article are structured as follows. An
overview of studies on chatbots and AI acceptance is provided in the
literature review section. The following section explores the theoretical
context, introducing the AIDUA model, cognitive appraisal theory
(CAT), and hypothesis formulation. The research methodology is then
presented and discussed in light of the existing theoretical and empirical
evidence. In conclusion, we discuss the significance of our findings, the
management and theoretical ramifications of our work, and its limita­
tions and potential future scopes.
2. Literature review
2.1. Chatbots
Chatbots are intelligent systems developed utilizing either rule-based
or self-learning (AI) techniques [30] to converse with people through
synthetic voice or text mediated by a digital interface for entertainment
or information retrieval [31–33]. Due to the advancement of AI, chat­
bots are becoming more common in e-commerce [34–36], tourism [37,
38], mental health [39,40], educational research [41], and other service
scenarios.
The user research on chatbots mainly focuses on customer service,
which can be divided into two aspects in general. On the one hand, prior
literature focused on the topic of chatbots themselves, including users’
satisfaction with chatbots [42,43], attitude [44], acceptance [45],
intention to continue using [34,46], loyalty [42,47], intelligent
2
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
experience [48], customer service performance [49], trust [50,51],
engagement, and user behavior [52]. Among them, the impact of chat­
bot anthropomorphism [53], social existence [54], humor [55,56],
empathy [57], and other characteristics on user perception are mainly
considered. For example, chatbot characteristics like competence,
credibility, anthropomorphism, and informativeness enhance users’
trust and thus increase purchase intentions [58]. In addition, some
studies have considered the impact of individual factors on chatbot
usage, such as increased social interaction anxiety and obsessive chat­
ting with the chatbot [59]. The individual characteristic of tolerating
ambiguity may affect the human–chatbot interaction experience [50],
and users consider chatbots to be more effective when the clarity of their
wants is greater [40]. Other studies, however, extend to the topics of
chatbot services, including purchase intention, brand reputation, shop­
ping experience satisfaction [60], customer–brand relationship [61],
customer–brand engagement [62], brand attitude [34], brand intimacy
[63], and human-AI relationship [64,65]. For instance, chatbots respond
enthusiastically and competently to initial messages, which makes users
feel closer to the brand and increases their brand engagement [66].
ChatGPT, developed by the commercial company OpenAI, is an
innovative AI chatbot based on a large language model [67]. It’s an
autonomous machine-learning system that, after training on extensive
text data, can produce advanced and seemingly intelligent writing [68].
However, what distinguishes ChatGPT from every other model ever
released is its capability to engage in ongoing interactions with users,
respond to user inputs, and provide conversational responses. Due to
ChatGPT’s most distinctive features, many software developers, creative
authors, scholars/teachers, and songwriters have used ChatGPT to
create computer software and apps, text, academic articles, and song
lyrics [69].
However, ChatGPT also poses threats, including black-box algo­
rithms, discrimination, biases, copyright violation, plagiarism, manu­
factured and unauthentic language, fake news, privacy and security
concerns, and an increased probability of cheating on assignments
[70–75]. For instance, because this technique generally reproduces text
without accurately crediting the sources or authors, researchers
employing it may fail to give credit to earlier work, accidently plagia­
rizing a large number of unfamiliar documents, and possibly even giving
away their ideas [68]. Recently, Elon Musk and 1,122 other people have
signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause on AI program
development. Meanwhile, the Italian Personal Data Protection Agency
announced a temporary ban on ChatGPT and investigated its alleged
violation of data collection rules. ChatGPT has generally sparked debate
and reignited longstanding worries about the future of AI.
2.2. Acceptance of AI
Studies on the acceptance of chatbots have mainly examined user
attitudes and willingness based on technical and social characteristics.
From a technical acceptance perspective, these studies are mainly based
on the TAM and UTAUT models. Based on the theory of TAM [76],
discovered that attitudes are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of
use, enjoyment, risk, price consciousness, and individual creativity [77].
revealed that the acceptability of chatbots was positively affected by
utilitarian criteria, such as “truth of discourse” and “perceived utility,”
as well as hedonic factors, such as “felt delighted.” Pet owners’ per­
ceptions of correctness, completeness, usability, and convenience had a
significant positive effect on their satisfaction with a chatbot providing
pet disease counseling [78]. Based on the theory of UTAUT, perceptions
of chatbot performance, trust in bank chatbot services, and the bank’s
reputation have a positive impact on user satisfaction [79]. Perceived
intelligence and anthropomorphism play a major role in shaping atti­
tudes, and sustaining chatbot-based service usage [80]. Users were
found to place high value on perceived expertise, responsiveness and
security [81].
Besides, the use and satisfaction theory [77], perceived risk theory
X. Ma and Y. Huo
[37], diffusion of innovation theory [62,76,82], expectations confir­
mation theory [79,83], user acceptance of technology model [84], and
so on have been used to explore users’ attitudes towards chatbots and
their willingness to accept them.
From the perspective of social characteristics [85], summarized
three social characteristics conducive to the interactions between chat­
bots and humans: conversational intelligence, social intelligence, and
anthropomorphism. The informal conversational style of chatbots gen­
erates a sense of parasocial engagement, which increases chatbot usage
intention and brand attitude [34]. Theories such as computer-mediated
communication [86], social exchange theory [52], and social response
theory [87] are used to explore the social characteristics of chatbots.
2.3. Motivation
Notably, ChatGPT represents a milestone in AI text generation,
bringing users closer to AI in their daily lives. In this context, it is
important to comprehend how users perceive and evaluate ChatGPT in
practical usage scenarios. However, existing research on ChatGPT
mainly focuses on specific fields, and the ordinary users’ willingness to
accept ChatGPT is still not clear. In addition, previous studies on the
acceptance of chatbots were mainly based on traditional technology
models such as TAM and lacked investigation into the characteristics of
AI technologies. Therefore, to better understand users’ behavioral in­
tentions toward ChatGPT, this paper aims to investigate user evaluation
and behavioral intention toward ChatGPT usage based on the AIDUA
model.
3. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
3.1. An AI acceptance framework: AIDUA
Previous studies on the acceptance of chatbots were mainly based on
the TAM model, UTAUT, UTAUT2, and the information system model
for verification. Although existing technology acceptance models
partially explain the mechanism of consumers’ intentions with AI gad­
gets, they were initially designed to examine the acceptance of non-AI
technology [22][88][89]. New theoretical advances have emerged in
the field of AI, including the AIDUA model, which explains users’
readiness to accept the usage of AI equipment in service. Rather than
relying on classic models (e.g., TPB and TAM) that define acceptance as
the absence of refusal [90], indicated that acceptance and rejection may
co-exist. Consequently, this study will utilize the AIDUA framework to
investigate the acceptance of ChatGPT among current users.
Before users determine whether to accept AI devices, there are three
steps in the generation of acceptance: primary evaluation, secondary
evaluation, and outcome phase [22]. In the preliminary appraisal stage,
individuals will initially assess the importance and relevance of utilizing
AI devices during service encounters, taking into account three vari­
ables: social influence, hedonic motivation, and anthropomorphism. In
detail, social influence and hedonic motivation are favorably associated
with performance expectations, while anthropomorphism is positively
associated with effort expectancy. During the second evaluation phase,
performance and expected effort are important antecedents of consumer
feelings. In the outcome stage, users’ attitudes toward using AI devices
will determine their willingness to accept AI devices and their opposi­
tion to their use during service interactions. The AIDUA theory has so far
been validated in artificially intelligent robotic devices in the hospitality
service setting [91], AI devices [92], autonomous vehicles in travel and
tourism [93], and AI hospitality robots [90]. Moreover, there is no
literature using this model in chatbot acceptance studies. One of our
research objectives is to test whether this model can be extended to
chatbot usage scenarios. Therefore, we proposed the first question:
RQ1. What are the behavioral intentions of users toward ChatGPT?
3
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
3.2. Cognitive appraisal theory
Cognitive appraisal theory [94] is a credible psychological expla­
nation for why and how individuals respond to external stimuli [24],
which has emerged as a valuable lens for explaining reactions toward
information systems (IS) [95]. This evaluation, which incorporates
cognitive and emotive elements, conducive to different coping mecha­
nisms, manifests through attitudes [96]. However, prior research
employing CAT in information systems has primarily emphasized af­
fective attitudes [22]. In addition, several studies have demonstrated the
necessity of balancing cognitive and emotional attitudes when
researching technologies [96].
Netizens appear to have an ambivalent attitude toward ChatGPT,
while cognitive attitude is a comprehensive assessment of AI’s skills
[96]. Therefore, to obtain a comprehensive understanding of user atti­
tudes toward ChatGPT, it is necessary to include cognitive attitudes in
the model. Therefore, we proposed the second research question:
RQ2. Do cognitive and emotional attitudes influence the acceptance of
ChatGPT?
3.3. Hypothesis development
3.3.1. Social influence
Social influence refers to “the degree to which an individual believes
that important others believe he/she should adopt a new technology”
[97]. Before adopting a new technology, individuals considered the
opinions of their friends and family and were less inclined to do so if
others’ opinions were negative [98]. In this study, social influence is
defined as both mass media influence and interpersonal influence [99].
It has also been discovered that social influence will inspire users to use
chatbots since it profoundly affects users’ evaluations of performance
and expected effort [100]. The potential mechanism for this impact is
that users obtain more information about the technology from signifi­
cant others, which reduces their perceptions of uncertainty [101][102].
Since the release of ChatGPT, tech celebrities have been complimentary
about it in succession. Musk once commented that ChatGPT was “scary
good” and “has illustrated to people just how advanced AI has become”
[103]. Bill Gates claimed that ChatGPT will “change our world” [104].
Therefore, influenced by celebrities’ opinions on social media and sur­
rounding ChatGPT users, potential users will receive more specific in­
formation about the usage of ChatGPT, thereby having higher
expectations of its performance. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:
H1. Social influence positively influences users’ performance expec­
tations of ChatGPT.
3.3.2. Hedonic motivation
Hedonic motivation is “the fun or pleasure derived from using a
technology” [105]; p. 161). That is, individuals with a hedonic moti­
vation enjoy the overall interaction experience and value playfulness
and fun when engaging with the new technology. A previous study
found that users with hedonic motivation for using AI devices would
benefit from having their demands for novelty and enjoyment met
[106]. The user interface of ChatGPT allows fluent interactions and
various types of conversations, resulting in users perceiving it as
enjoyable and entertaining [107]. Particularly, given that ChatGPT is
still a new technology, users are curious and often ask ChatGPT some
whimsical or nonsensical questions that they would never ask a human
[108]. For users, ChatGPT’s capabilities are reflected in conversational
skills. Correspondingly, if users have a pleasant experience during the
interaction, that will strengthen their beliefs that ChatGPT is easy to use
and can help accomplish tasks. Consequently, we put forth the following
hypotheses:
H2a. Hedonic motivation positively improves ChatGPT users’ perfor­
mance expectations.
X. Ma and Y. Huo
H2b. Hedonic motivation detrimentally affects the effort expectations
of ChatGPT users.
3.3.3. Novelty value
Novelty value is a newly introduced variable that assesses the extent
to which a product is perceived distinctively from others due to its
freshness and originality [109], which is an important characteristic of
any new technology [110]. Previous studies have revealed that novelty
value is a key belief about technology innovations and plays an instru­
mental role in the acceptance of innovative technology [110]. In the
context of chatbots, it has been proved that a novelty effect is at play
when it comes to interactions between users and chatbots [111].
Furthermore, when users perceive the novelty value of technology, they
will achieve tasks in an enjoyable manner [28], which positively affects
both utilitarian and hedonistic values toward technology [112]. In light
of the fact that ChatGPT is disruptive AI in the realm of natural language
processing, the novelty value of ChatGPT will help to attract and
maintain users’ attention [113], and reduce their psychological resis­
tance to new technologies [114]. Thus, the following hypothesis was
formulated:
H3a. Novelty value negatively influences users’ performance expec­
tations of ChatGPT.
H3b. Novelty value negatively influences users’ effort expectations of
ChatGPT.
3.3.4. Perceived humanness
In the AIDUA model, anthropomorphism as the antecedent increased
users’ effort expectations of AI facilities. Specifically, anthropomor­
phism refers to the degree to which an item possesses humanlike qual­
ities, such as human appearance, self-awareness, and mood [115]. On
the one hand, ChatGPT is a text-based chatbot with no anthropomorphic
appearance; on the other hand, although social media praised ChatGPT
for its high level of anthropomorphism, users were aware that anthro­
pomorphism was a technological advancement and not an actual
self-awareness [116]. Considering the interactive characteristics of
ChatGPT, admitting its errors, challenging incorrect premises, and
rejecting inappropriate requests [117], we propose that the concept of
perceived humanness is more appropriate than anthropomorphism as
the antecedent.
The concept of humanness is essential to research human–chatbot
interaction [118,119]. As discussed in the literature review [118], hu­
manness is comprised of the formal features of contact, such as syntax
and language, and humanlike conversational approaches. People
consider a chatbot with superior conversational skills to be more hu­
manlike and engaging [120]. In chatbot-related research, user happiness
is highly influenced by the conversational quality of AI bots, including
their capacity to comprehend humanness, perceptions of contingency,
and human-like responses [42]. Although ChatGPT is merely an AI
application, it has the capacity to generate responses that closely
resemble human writing [121]. In this way, ChatGPT’s responses and
answers are full of humanness, which enables users to increase their
performance expectations for ChatGPT. The humanlike responses are
considerate and friendly to users, making interactions with ChatGPT
easy and enjoyable. The following hypothesis is formulated based on the
discussions:
H4a. Perceived humanness positively influences users’ performance
expectations of ChatGPT.
H4b. Perceived humanness negatively influences users’ effort expec­
tations of ChatGPT.
3.3.5. Influence of performance expectancy on attitudes
Performance expectancy can be characterized as the extent to which
users believe that using ChatGPT will aid them in completing a certain
activity [97]. In the context of ChatGPT, this refers to users’ perceptions
4
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
of how ChatGPT will help them in various tasks, such as answering
questions, generating content, or providing assistance in daily activities.
According to the human–computer interaction literature, the utilitarian
aspects that increase user productivity significantly impact technology
adoption [105]. This means that users are more likely to accept ChatGPT
if they perceive it as a valuable tool that can enhance their efficiency and
productivity. Moreover, rational choice theory posits that individual
judgments regarding cost and benefit evaluations that maximize overall
utility are typically reasonable (Atkins and Kim, 2012). In other terms,
clients typically choose the ideal shopping technique to obtain the
greatest advantage [122]. Users’ performance expectations pertain to
their anticipation of service dependability and consistency [22][123].
Consequently, we postulate as follows:
H5a. Performance expectancy positively influences users’ cognitive
attitudes.
H5b. Performance expectancy positively influences users’ affective
attitudes.
3.3.6. Influence of effort expectancy on attitudes
Effort expectancy refers to “the degree of ease associated with users’
use of technology” [105]; p. 159). In the context of ChatGPT, this
concept relates to how users perceive the ease of interacting with and
utilizing ChatGPT for various tasks. Users’ perceptions of effort expec­
tations play a crucial role in their intention to accept new technology.
This view was supported by the AI literature indicating the emergence of
negative emotions when AI systems cause communication issues and
require additional cognitive work due to their complicated design [22].
Prior studies have demonstrated that effort anticipation has a substantial
and favorable effect on sightseers’ perceptions of AI in service provision
[124] and AI-based robotic devices [91]. In a separate study [125],
revealed that effort expectation has the greatest positive impact on
users’ AI experiences. This means that users are more likely to have a
positive experience if they find it easy to communicate with ChatGPT.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H6a. Effort expectancy negatively influences users’ cognitive
attitudes.
H6b. Effort expectancy negatively influences users’ affective attitudes.
3.3.7. Influence of affective and cognitive attitudes on willingness to accept
chatbots
Cognitive and affective evaluations are distinct aspects of attitude
theory [126]. Cognitive appraisals correspond to the utilitarian side of
attitude, whereas affective appraisals are judgments based on senti­
ments, emotions, and gut reactions that individuals experience in rela­
tion to an attractive object, alluding to the hedonic aspect of attitude
[46,127]. Thus cognitive appraisals might relate to users’ perceptions of
how effectively ChatGPT can help them with tasks or provide informa­
tion, while affective appraisals might involve the pleasure or satisfaction
users derive from interacting with ChatGPT.
[91] revealed that their emotional judgment of these technologies
mostly influences user acceptance of AI devices [128] and users’
behavioral intentions [129]. also provided evidence that affective
evaluation, which encompasses the passionate and hedonic aspects of
social learning, plays a crucial role in elucidating users’ perspectives and
attitudes toward the source. In addition, the pre-adoption evaluation of
AI in enterprises revealed that both emotional and cognitive attitudes
are connected to connection with the staff’s reaction to the technology
[96]. Thus, we hypothesize:
H7a. Affective appraisals are positively associated with users’ will­
ingness to accept ChatGPT.
H7b. Affective appraisals negatively affect users’ objections to
ChatGPT.
X. Ma and Y. Huo
H8a. Cognitive appraisals are positively associated with users’ will­
ingness to accept ChatGPT.
H8b. Cognitive appraisals are negatively associated with users’ ob­
jections to ChatGPT.
Hence, our third research question examines the impact of these
factors on users’ evaluation of ChatGPT. To conclude, based on the
AIDUA model and CAT, this study presents a research design for
investigating user acceptance of ChatGPT (see Fig. 1). This research
model hypothesizes that social influence and eight other factors will
influence users’ behavior toward ChatGPT. To further investigate the
potential influence of demographic variables on users’ willingness to
accept or reject ChatGPT, we have included age, gender, education level,
and usage type as control variables.
4. Methodology
To collect data for this study, a questionnaire survey was adminis­
tered. The final questionnaire contained two sections: demographic in­
formation and ChatGPT perceptions. All variables and their dimensions
were adapted from prior literature.
To analyze the acquired data, we evaluated the accuracy of the
measurements and executed a structural equation model. Pretests of the
questionnaire were undertaken to identify and rectify any flaws or issues
that might develop during the data collection procedure. We first
collected 160 valid questionnaires on the WeChat platform. During the
formal questionnaire distributions, we chose the Credemo data platform
(https://www.credamo.com/home.html#/). After excluding the
incomplete questionnaires, 500 valid questionnaires were finally adop­
ted. The data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics) and
Fig. 1. Proposed model.
5
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
Amos 24.0 (Analysis of Moment Structure).
4.1. Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was separated into two components: demographic
information and perceptions of ChatGPT. In the first portion of the
questionnaire, we incorporated the respondents’ demographic infor­
mation (such as age, gender, education, and occupation) and the
ChatGPT usage information of the respondents (e.g., the types of func­
tions you most often use and the version of ChatGPT).
The second section of the questionnaire concludes with the con­
structs for the perception of ChatGPT. The scales of this survey were
adapted from well-established literature (see Table 1). The social in­
fluence and hedonic motivation constructs were adapted from Ref. [22];
novelty value from Ref. [112]; and perceived humanness from Ref. [42].
The items for measuring performance expectancy and effort expecta­
tions were adapted from Ref. [105]. Adapted from Voss et al. (2003),
both the cognitive and affective attitude constructs consist of four items.
The acceptance of ChatGPT with three items and the objection to
ChatGPT with four items were adapted by Ref. [22]. These items were
rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 for “Strongly
Disagree” and 7 for “Strongly Agree.” Age, gender, education, type of
use, and occupation were used as control variables in this study.
4.2. Data collection
From March 19 to March 25, 2023, we distributed online question­
naires. Due to the multiple versions of ChatGPT, especially the release of
ChatGPT-4, the survey included the question, “Which version of
ChatGPT have you used?” Credemo (https://www.credamo.com/home.
X. Ma and Y. Huo Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362

Table 1 4.3. Data description

Measurements for constructs.
Construct Item Reference There were a total of 500 valid responses, of which 42.6% were male,
and 57.4% were female. The demographic characteristics of the re­
Social Influence People who influence my behavior would want [22]
me to utilize ChatGPT. spondents are presented in Table 2. More than 80% of respondents were
People whose opinions I value would prefer that younger than 35, and 77.2% held a bachelor’s degree. Interactive con­
I utilize ChatGPT. versations, information searches, and text production are the most
People who are important to me would frequently used ChatGPT functions. In addition, over 80% of the par­
encourage me to utilize it.
People in my social networks who would utilize
ticipants used the versions of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.
AI devices have more
prestige than those who don’t. 5. Results
Hedonic I have fun interacting with ChatGPT. [22]
Motivation Interacting with ChatGPT is fun.
Interaction with ChatGPT is enjoyable. 5.1. Measurement model
Novelty Value I found using ChatGPT to be a novel experience. [112]
Using ChatGPT is new and refreshing. AMOS 24.0 and SPSS 26.0 were utilized to evaluate the model fit of
Using ChatGPT satisfied my curiosity.
the measurement model. 2/df = 1.689, RMSEA = 0.037, CFI = 0.949,
ChatGPT made me feel like I was exploring a new
world. IFI = 0.949, and TLI = 0.944 indicate that the data are well represented
Perceived ChatGPT’s responses feel natural. [42] by the model. Table 3 displays the test results for reliability and
Humanness ChatGPT has a humanlike response. convergent validity. Internal consistency is indicated by Cronbach’s
ChatGPT’s responses do not feel machine-like. alpha values greater than 0.70 for all constructs [130]. Each construct’s
ChatGPT reacts in a very human way.
composite reliability (CR) value exceeds the benchmark value of 0.7,
Performance I would find using ChatGPT useful in daily life or [105]
Expectancy work. and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct is greater
Using ChatGPT would help me accomplish than 0.5, which is the suggested threshold for convergent validity. Ac­
things more quickly. cording to Ref. [131] approach, discriminant validity is ensured, as
Using ChatGPT has increased my productivity.
Table 4 reveals that the square root of the AVE of each concept is greater
ChatGPT would increase my chances of
achieving things that are important to me.
than its correlations with other constructs. Furthermore, applying the
Effort Expectancy Learning how to use ChatGPT would be easy for [105] heterotrait monotrait (HTMT) ratio approach [132], all HTMT values of
me.
My interaction with ChatGPT would be clear and
Table 2
understandable.
I would find using ChatGPT easy.
Demographics of the respondents (n = 500).
It would be easy for me to become skillful using Measure Items Frequency Percent
ChatGPT.
Cognitive Using ChatGPT is effective. [97] Gender Male 213 42.6%
Attitudes Using ChatGPT is helpful. Female 287 57.4%
ChatGPT is practical. Age 19–25 188 37.6%
ChatGPT is valuable. 16–35 231 46.2%
Affective Attitudes Using ChatGPT is [97] 36–45 60 12%
Happy 46–55 15 3%
Positive 56–65 6 1.2%
Pleasing Education Senior high school or below 15 3%
Satisfactory Undergraduate degree 386 77.2%
Willingness to I am willing to receive ChatGPT. [22] Master’s degree 87 17.4%
Accept I will feel happy to interact with ChatGPT. Doctor’s degree 12 2.4%
I am likely to interact with ChatGPT. The types of Information search 134 26.8%
Objection to Use The information is processed in a less humanized [22] functions you Text production 117 23.4%
manner. most often use Syntax check 13 2.6%
The existing problems with ChatGPT make me Debug code 43 8.6%
take Language translation 49 9.8%
a wait-and-see approach to ChatGPT. Interactive conversations 144 28.8%
I do not plan to continue using ChatGPT. The version of ChatGPT1 in 2018 5 1%
I prefer human contact in service transactions ChatGPT ChatGPT2 in 2019 13 2.6%
ChatGPT3 in 2020 46 9.2%
ChatGPT3.5 in 2022 273 54.6%
ChatGPT4 in 2023 163 32.6%
html#/) has been confirmed as the official online platform for ques­
Occupation IT/Hardware and software 187 37.4%
tionnaire distribution. It allows for the rejection of 30% of invalid services/E-commerce/Internet
questionnaires, thereby increasing the efficiency of the data review. operations
The study targeted respondents who had used ChatGPT. We set up Household appliance 91 18.2%
two filter questions at the beginning of the questionnaire: “Have you Banking/insurance/securities/ 43 8.6%
investment banking/venture funds
ever used ChatGPT?” and “Please describe one specific situation in Electronic technology/ 10 2%
which you used ChatGPT” to exclude respondents who did not meet our semiconductor/integrated circuit
requirements. We also used attention filters (e.g., “please select Catering/entertainment/tourism/ 10 2%
disagree,” “please select strongly agree,” etc.) in the middle and at the hotel/lifestyle services
Advertising/public relations/ 17 3.4%
end of the questionnaire as well as to check whether respondents paid
media/art
considerable attention while completing the questionnaire (Yu et al., Communications/telecom 37 7.4%
2018). After excluding users who did not meet the requirements and did operations/network equipment/
not pay attention, 500 valid questionnaires were collected. value-added services
Medical/nursing/health/hygiene 15 7.5%
Accounting/auditing 9 4.5%
Manufacturing industry 22 4.4%
Other sectors 59 29.5%

6
X. Ma and Y. Huo Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362

Table 3
Reliability and validity results.
Constructs Items Mean S.D. Loadings Cronbach’s α CR AVE

Social Influence SI1 5.33 1.058 0.808*** 0.830 0.852 0.592

SI2 5.53 1.104 0.761***
SI3 5.61 1.150 0.766***
SI4 5.61 1.117 0.741***
Hedonic Motivation HM1 5.91 0.883 0.840*** 0.849 0.857 0.666
HM2 6.25 0.869 0.822***
HM3 6.18 0.830 0.785***
Novelty Value NV1 6.01 0.967 0.796*** 0.850 0.850 0.587
NV2 6.12 1.019 0.753***
NV3 6.10 0.967 0.721***
NV4 6.04 1.006 0.793***
Perceived Humanness PH1 5.85 0.971 0.771*** 0.847 0.846 0.579
PH2 5.69 0.976 0.738***
PH3 5.34 0.900 0.767 ***
PH4 5.62 0.940 0.767***
Performance Expectancy PE1 5.97 0.896 0.758 *** 0.839 0.837 0.560
PE2 6.12 0.996 0.766***
PE3 6.03 1.015 0.750***
PE4 5.81 0.973 0.726***
Effort Expectancy EE1 5.98 0.927 0.744*** 0.841 0.842 0.571
EE2 6.12 0.911 0.732***
EE3 6.01 0.943 0.779***
EE4 5.96 0.915 0.768***
Cognitive Attitudes CA1 6.08 0.831 0.712 *** 0.808 0.812 0.519
CA2 6.32 0.796 0.749***
CA3 6.25 0.771 0.724***
CA4 6.21 0.868 0.695***
Affective Attitudes AA1 6.21 0.957 0.824*** 0.833 0.870 0.625
AA2 6.21 0.953 0.789***
AA3 6.21 0.972 0.761***
AA4 6.21 0.971 0.791***
Willingness to Accept WA1 6.25 0.724 0.723*** 0.823 0.823 0.606
WA2 6.39 0.766 0.747***
WA3 6.46 0.627 0.858***
Objection to Use OU1 6.46 0.627 0.782*** 0.815 0.836 0.561
OU2 6.46 0.627 0.801***
OU3 6.46 0.627 0.680***
OU4 6.46 0.627 0.728***

Notes: SI = social influence; HM = hedonic motivation; NV = novelty value; HU = humanness; PE = performance expectancy; EE = effort expectancy; CA= Cognitive
Attitudes; AA = Affective Attitudes; W = willingness to accept the use of AI devices; O = objection to the use of AI devices; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average
variance extracted; ***p < 0.001.

Table 4
Construct correlations.
SI HM NV PH PE EE CA AA WA OU

SI 0.770
HM 0.471 0.816
NV 0.405 0.421 0.766
PH 0.470 0.458 0.732 0.761
PE 0.493 0.444 0.755 0.754 0.718
EE 0.360 0.435 0.684 0.634 0.620 0.733
CA 0.288 0.289 0.501 0.479 0.556 0.507 0.717
AA 0.277 0.157 0.285 0.277 0.344 0.228 0.195 0.790
WA 0.212 0.212 0.368 0.352 0.411 0.367 0.700 0.225 0.749
OU − 0.166 − 0.159 − 0.283 − 0.273 − 0.328 − 0.255 − 0.372 − 0.570 − 0.306 0.778

Notes: The square roots of AVE values for each construct itself are in bold; SI = social influence; HM = hedonic motivation; NV = novelty value; HU = humanness; PE =
performance expectancy; EE = effort expectancy; CA= Cognitive Attitudes; AA = Affective Attitudes; W = willingness to accept the use of ChatGPT; O = objection to
the use of ChatGPT.

the constructs (as shown in Table 5) were found to be below the con­
servative cut-off value of 0.85, demonstrating satisfactory discriminant
validity.
5.2. Structural model
As depicted in Table 6, the statistical analysis, which includes both
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests, has offered valuable insights
into the impact of various control variables on users’ behavioral in­
tentions toward ChatGPT. Apart from gender, which influenced users’
willingness to reject ChatGPT (F/t = 5.813, p < 0.01), other de­
mographic variables showed no significant effects on users’ behavioral
intentions toward ChatGPT. Consequently, in the process of fitting the
structural model, we included the age variable.
Fig. 2 depicts the standardized path coefficient and path significance
for each path. Table 5 presents the results of the hypotheses test. Social
influence positively influences performance expectancy (β = 0.097; p =
0.011), and H1 is verified. Hedonic motivation is connected positively
with effort anticipation (β = − 0.139, p = 0.005), while there is no
substantial effect on expected performance (β = 0.014, p = 0.761).

7
X. Ma and Y. Huo Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362

Table 5
HTMT of all constructs.
HTMT F1 F10 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

SI –
O 0.365 –
HM 0.467 0.323 –
NV 0.401 0.332 0.429 –
HU 0.468 0.459 0.455 0.733 –
PE 0.476 0.426 0.423 0.816 0.782 –
EE 0.372 0.260 0.439 0.689 0.629 0.638 –
CA 0.394 0.395 0.379 0.415 0.482 0.541 0.497 –
AA 0.285 0.600 0.295 0.265 0.375 0.285 0.206 0.281 –
AC 0.303 0.310 0.340 0.345 0.357 0.410 0.444 0.687 0.268 –

Notes: SI = social influence; HM = hedonic motivation; NV = novelty value; HU = humanness; PE = performance expectancy; EE = effort expectancy; CA= Cognitive
Attitudes; AA = Affective Attitudes; W = willingness to accept the use of ChatGPT; O = objection to the use of ChatGPT.

Consequently, H2b is supported, and H2 is rejected. Novelty value has a

Table 6
positive impact on the performance expectancy (β = 0.447; p < 0.000)
Hypotheses and their significance.
and a negative effect on effort expectancy (β = − 0.402; p < 0.000); H3a
Path Path Coefficients (β) p-value Result and H3b are supported. Similarly, perceived humanness positively in­
H1 SI→PE 0.109 0.013 fluences performance expectations (β = 0.389; p < 0.000) and nega­
H2a HM→PE 0.012 0.784 Supported tively affects effort expectations (β = 0.243; p < 0.000); H4a and H4b
H2b HM→EE − 0.135 0.005 Supported
are supported.
H3a NV→PE 0.493 *** Supported
H3b NV→EE − 0.460 *** Supported
The results demonstrate that performance anticipation affects
H4a HU→PE 0.374 *** Supported cognitive attitudes positively (β = 0.346; p < 0.000) and affective atti­
H4b HU→EE − 0.231 *** Supported tudes (β = 0.287; p < 0.000), H5a and H5b are supported. In addition,
H5a PE→CA 0.384 *** Supported effort expectancy negatively influences cognitive attitudes (β = − 0.237;
H5b PE→AA 0.314 *** Supported
p < 0.001), and H6a is supported. However, the effect of effort expec­
H6a EE→CA − 0.127 *** Supported
H6b EE→AA − 0.267 0.713 Rejected tation on emotional attitudes is negligible (β = − 0.022; p = 0.738), and
H7a CA→ W 0.684 *** Supported H6b is rejected. Age has a significant negative impact on users’ will­
H7b CA→O − 0.257 0.004 Supported ingness to refuse ChatGPT (β = − 0.435; p = 0.001).
H8a AA→ W 0.094 0.043 Supported
Both cognitive and affective attitudes increased the willingness to
H8b AA→O − 0.552 *** Supported
Control variable Age→ O − 0.435 0.001 Supported
accept ChatGPT, supporting H7a and H8a. Specifically, cognitive atti­
tudes were the most influential factor in increasing the desire to receive
Notes: SI = social influence; HM = hedonic motivation; NV = novelty value; HU the use of ChatGPT (β = 0.505, p < 0.000). Nonetheless, affective atti­
= humanness; PE = performance expectancy; EE = effort expectancy; CA=
tudes had a much smaller impact on willingness to accept (β = 0.068, p
Cognitive Attitudes; AA = Affective Attitudes; W = willingness to accept the use
= 0.048). Moreover, both cognitive and affective attitudes are nega­
of AI devices; O = objection to the use of AI devices.
tively associated with ChatGPT objection (β = − 0.435, p 0.000; β =
− 0.836, p < 0.000). As a result, both H7b and H8 are supported. The

Fig. 2. Results of structural model testing. (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n. s.: not significant).

8
X. Ma and Y. Huo
results of the test of the hypotheses are shown in Table 6. Fig. 2 depicts
the structural model with standardized coefficient outcomes.
6. Discussion
6.1. New findings about antecedents in the AIDUA model
The current findings of the study partially support the AIDUA model.
Consistent with the prior study [22], the results indicate a positive
correlation between social influence and performance expectancy, he­
donic motivation, and effort expectancy. However, the new antecedents
(novelty value and perceived humanness) demonstrated stronger effects
than the original factors (social influence and novelty value) on the
next-stage evaluation, indicating that the adjustments we made to the
AIDUA model based on the context of ChatGPT are appropriate.
It is a special discovery that the indirect impact of novel value on user
acceptance intention is far greater than that of social influence. This
means that users attracted through the novel characteristics of ChatGPT
are more likely to accept it and continuously use ChatGPT than those
attracted through celebrity endorsements or social groups (i.e., family,
friends). When users are exposed to massive amounts of information in
the Internet environment, it weakens the impact of social groups on
users in real life, and on the contrary, the novelty of information ob­
tained has a greater impact on them. Besides, the weak effect of social
influence may be due to the fact that ChatGPT is used in spontaneous
user behavior, and its role may be more pronounced in organizational
scenarios.
Moreover, the effect of novelty value can have a much better influ­
ence on acceptance intention in highly intelligent chatbots [133] and
drive users to use the ChatGPT to the fullest extent [29]. The underlying
implication is that for most advanced technologies, users concentrate
more on the actual creativity of the technology than on how it is por­
trayed in the mass media or the mouths of important people. More
importantly, the findings revealed no correlation between hedonic
motivation and performance expectancy. Given that ChatGPT is a
functional chatbot, the impact of utilitarian factors may be more sub­
stantial than hedonic factors on performance expectancy [77].
In addition, perceived humanness has a huge effect on users’ eval­
uations of performance and expectations of effort. This result is notable
for several reasons. First, the concept of humanness centers on chatbots’
ability to accurately comprehend user questions or commands and
respond naturally, like humans [42], instead of the concept of anthro­
pomorphism in the original AIDUA model. In combination with the
discussion on the humanness of chatbots in the previous literature,
ChatGPT has reflected the high level of contingency in message ex­
changes [5], understanding humanness, response humanness [42], and
other aspects of humanness. Second, this is consistent with recent
research on chatbot humanness, which suggests that humanness can
increase user trust, resulting in a better user experience [134], and that
perceived humanness has a substantial impact on users’ propensity to
interact with chatbots [135]. Moreover, the focus on ChatGPT’s hu­
manness eliminates the uncanny valley effect of anthropomorphism and
decreases users’ perceptions of the amount of effort required to use the
chatbot.
6.2. Cognitive attitudes as the mediating factor of evaluation behavior
This study confirmed that performance expectancy influences users’
cognitive attitudes and affective attitudes, while effort expectancy only
impacts cognitive perspectives, highlighting the utilitarian nature of
users’ evaluation behavior. Furthermore, the influence of effort expec­
tancy on cognitive attitudes is weaker than that of performance expec­
tancy. In light of ChatGPT’s user-friendliness, as AI products become
more convenient, the perceived performance of future AI devices will
play a greater role in determining the value of AI device use for users.
This study resonates with previous studies [96,46,136] by
9
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
highlighting the significant mediation function of both types of attitudes
between evaluations and conduct intentions. However, the prior AIDUA
paradigm focused primarily on users’ acceptance of AI robotic devices
across service settings [90,91]. In these AI service scenarios, the avail­
ability of human service alternatives effectively avoids service failure
when an AI chatbot cannot serve users well [47]. However, in the case of
a powerful chatbot service such as ChatGPT, it is clear to users that
human services cannot be an alternative; that is, with the exception of
chatbot researchers, human customer service cannot provide additional
help. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate its usefulness from a utili­
tarian perspective. Besides, in accordance with the social learning hy­
pothesis, the cognitive dimension enhances an individual’s entire
functionality, and the emotional size simultaneously develops a unique
sensibility [126]. Users expect to receive emotional communication and
social support from ChatGPT during their interactions.
6.3. Acceptance and objection co-exist in chatbot acceptance
Our results underline the effect of cognitive and affective attitudes in
understanding users’ acceptance and objection to ChatGPT. The current
study found that cognitive attitudes are the key determinant of user
acceptance of ChatGPT. Both positive cognitive attitudes and affective
attitudes can reduce the willingness to reject ChatGPT. However, in
contrast to the prior studies about emotion [91,96], the affective atti­
tude was found to be almost negligible in explaining the acceptance
behaviors. This finding suggests that the influence of attitudes on
behavioral intention is probably interrelated with the technology
application scenarios. In scenarios such as tourism services and social
companionship, users are more influenced by emotional attitudes. A
congruence between the attitude components that motivate conduct and
those that are emphasized by cognitive processes would strengthen the
influence of attitude on behavior [137]. Given that ChatGPT is an
informative chatbot, users value its utilitarian function, which explains
why cognitive attitude plays a decisive role in their willingness to accept
ChatGPT. In addition, cognitive attitudes reflect an examination of the
technology effectiveness of ChatGPT, that is, the users’ positive cogni­
tive perceptions toward chatbots which in turn affect their attitudes
[44].
Moreover, although affective attitudes have little effect on users’
acceptance intention, they can significantly reduce users’ rejection of
ChatGPT. This influence seems to put users in an ambiguous position
between acceptance and rejection of the new technology. The equivocal
effect of attitudes toward AI can be traced to the absence of a distinction
between thinking and emotion [96]. The results prove that it is not
enough to investigate the user’s behavior only through emotional atti­
tudes. Users with only positive emotions are still in the wait-and-see
stage of the new technology.
In contrast to previous studies, which often suggest that younger
generations are more inclined to readily accept and adapt to emerging
technologies, our research reveals a unique finding. Young users in our
study did not exhibit a pronounced willingness to accept ChatGPT;
however, they also did not express a strong willingness to reject it. This
observation implies that users, particularly younger ones, may be more
inclined to provide new technologies with an opportunity for acceptance
and evaluation.
7. Implications
7.1. Theoretical implications
This study provides substantial contributions to the literature: (1)
The AIDUA framework is extended with the antecedent factors (novelty
value and perceived humanness) in the context of ChatGPT. (2) As
proposed by the CAT, this study stresses the necessity of examining
cognitive and emotional attitudes simultaneously when investigating
users’ behavioral attention to ChatGPT.
X. Ma and Y. Huo
First, it contributes to the development of studies on the AIDUA
model. However, almost no study has examined the model validity in the
context of AI chatbots [138]. This study has extended the AIDUA model
with the antecedents of novelty value and perceived humanness in the
context of ChatGPT, which is currently the most advanced AI chatbot.
The antecedent of anthropomorphism in previous studies was concep­
tualized as the humanlike qualities such as a name or avatar [139], voice
conversations [80], which is not suitable and accurate for describing the
characteristics of ChatGPT. Thus, this study introduces a new factor,
perceived humanness, which provides more nuanced findings about the
model. Besides, we compared the effects of all the antecedents, and the
results showed that another new factor, novelty value, had the most
significant impact on the expectancy about ChatGPT. Previous studies
have provided evidence that novelty value refers to new, unique,
personalized, novel content and experience [140]. We further empha­
sized the findings to examine innovation in the acceptance of new
technology products. The feasibility of new factors was validated in this
study, which promotes the progression of the original model in the new
context.
In addition, the study has emphasized the role of both cognitive at­
titudes and affective attitudes on users’ behavioral intentions, which
provides a complete explanation of how users’ intentions for using
ChatGPT are developed. This study introduces cognitive attitudes in the
framework of the AIDUA model, which has been proven to be an
indispensable part of the evaluation. Therefore, this study suggests
future studies that will use the AIDUA model to examine the behavioral
intention toward AI devices, and incorporate cognitive attitudes into the
model. The finding of affective attitude reversed the previous results of
emotion, which has little promotion on the willingness to accept
ChatGPT. Nonetheless, an affective attitude toward ChatGPT implies
potential human–chatbot relationships, which can be further explored in
the studies of emotional attachment [141], psychological dependence
[142], and so on. Moreover, the intensity of users’ cognitive attitude and
affective attitudes probably influence the chatbot support type of
ChatGPT [143], such as “friend vs assistant” or to what extent users can
develop human-chatbot friendships [111]. Therefore, this study believes
that it is necessary to investigate and compare cognitive and affective
attitudes in the future research scenario of willingness to accept
chatbots.
7.2. Practical implications
The findings of the current study have a number of practical impli­
cations for future practice.
First, this study confirms that novelty value and humanness are
crucial factors in determining the acceptance of chatbots. ChatGPT
avoids the fear of users regarding anthropomorphic chatbots in terms of
vision and consciousness in previous studies and instead develops an
intelligent tool that approximates human expression and comprehension
from the perspective of the function of conversational communication.
This necessitates that R&D personnel grasp the degree of “humanization
reasonably.” Further efforts can be made from the perspective of func­
tions such as the ability to understand dialogue in the future.
Second, this article provides new strategies for marketers to promote
new technology products. From the first evaluation to the final accep­
tance of ChatGPT, novelty value has been proven to be much more
effective than social influence. Thus, providing fresh content and un­
precedented experiences is more attractive than celebrity endorsements
when accepting new technology products. With the emergence of
numerous new products and technologies, identifying the unique,
innovative features that distinguish one product from others can help
marketers and advertisers attract the target audience. This also includes
novel peripheral information that is less related to important products’
core characters, which has been proven to evoke positive feelings about
the products [144].
In addition, this study demonstrated that users are likely to have both
10
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
a desire and reluctance to utilize ChatGPT. For ChatGPT, which repre­
sents a major advancement in AI, the average user’s perspective is likely
to be complex. On the one hand, ChatGPT liberates people from
monotonous and repetitive work; on the other hand, it brings innovation
to working methods, a revolution in knowledge learning, career anxiety,
data leakage, and other technical concerns. Therefore, the advancement
of technology should also incorporate ethical and humanistic consider­
ations. AI developers and policymakers should formulate policies and
establish AI governance systems to guide and regulate the correct
viewing and use of AI, such as ChatGPT.
The observed trend of younger individuals displaying a lower will­
ingness to reject ChatGPT, while older individuals exhibit a higher
likelihood of rejecting it, carries significant practical implications. First,
it underscores the significance of adopting a human-centered approach
in the design and promotion of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. It
highlights the necessity of conducting targeted surveys among older
groups to understand their concerns about ChatGPT. Such research en­
deavors facilitate technology developers in tailoring various aspects of
the technology, including interface design and response mechanisms, to
align with the preferences and requirements of elderly users. Second,
older people might need extra help, training resources, or more user-
friendly interfaces to feel comfortable with new tech. By considering
these requirements, we can foster a more inclusive and accommodating
environment for the adoption of emerging technologies like ChatGPT,
ensuring that they are accessible and beneficial to a wider demographic.
8. Conclusion
8.1. Summary
This study developed a new theoretical model to explain the users’
willingness to accept chatbots based on the AIDUA model and CAT. The
results indicate that in the primary appraisal stage, social influence,
novelty value, and humanness positively affect individuals’ perfor­
mance expectancy perceptions of ChatGPT. Novelty value, hedonic
motivation, and humanness negatively impact the effort expectancy of
ChatGPT. Performance and effort expectancy influenced users’ cognitive
attitudes during the second evaluation stage, whereas only performance
expectations influenced users’ affective attitudes. Ultimately, cognitive
attitudes are the main prerequisites for users to adopt ChatGPT, whereas
emotional attitudes significantly diminish their propensity to reject
ChatGPT.
This study contributes to chatbot acceptance research and expands
the AIDUA model by capturing its characteristics in the ChatGPT sce­
nario. The research findings enable us to comprehend the primary fac­
tors influencing user attitudes, thereby facilitating chatbot adoption.
8.2. Limitations and future research
In different usage scenarios, users’ perceptions of and acceptance
behavior toward ChatGPT may be inconsistent. Currently, ChatGPT is
still in its early stages of adoption and popularity, and users may be more
tolerant of the technology effectiveness of chatbots. Our research in­
dicates that the most popular ChatGPT function is interactive commu­
nication. On the contrary, issues such as insufficient content accuracy
and inability to perform advanced logic processing should be resolved
with the ChatGPT function upgrade. Therefore, future research is
required to evaluate user acceptance of ChatGPT in certain usage
scenarios.
In addition, beyond the added novelty value and humanness, users’
willingness to accept the use of AI gadgets may be substantially influ­
enced by the perceived accuracy of the information and other consid­
erations. Future research attempts could incorporate new items from
different individuals or organizations. Furthermore, this study exclu­
sively explored the willingness of users with ChatGPT experience to
accept the technology. The generalizability of these findings to a broader
X. Ma and Y. Huo
population requires careful consideration. Therefore, future research
should aim to incorporate a more diverse sample, encompassing in­
dividuals who have not yet engaged with the technology. This approach
would enable a comprehensive comparative analysis of both user and
non-user perspectives.
Author statement
Xiaoyue Ma: Conceptualization, Methodology, Reviewing and
Editing. Yudi Huo: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (72174164) and National Social Science Foundation of China
(Major program) (21&ZD320).
References
[1] T. Wu, S. He, J. Liu, S. Sun, K. Liu, Q.L. Han, Y. Tang, A brief overview of
ChatGPT: the history, status quo and potential future development, IEEE/CAA J.
Automat. Sinica 10 (5) (2023) 1122–1136.
[2] W.M. Lim, A. Gunasekara, J.L. Pallant, J.I. Pallant, E. Pechenkina, Generative AI
and the future of education: ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective
from management educators, Int. J. Manag. Educ. 21 (2) (2023), 100790.
[3] Dan Milmo, ChatGPT Reaches 100 Million Users Two Months after Launch, The
Guardian, 2023. February 2. Available online: https://www.theguardian.
com/technology/2023/feb/02/chatgpt-100-million-users-open-ai-fastest-growi
ng-app. (Accessed 18 June 2023).
[4] X. Luo, S. Tong, Z. Fang, Z. Qu, Frontiers: machines vs. humans: the impact of
artificial intelligence chatbot disclosure on customer purchases, Market. Sci. 38
(6) (2019) 937–947.
[5] E. Go, S.S. Sundar, Humanizing chatbots: the effects of visual, identity and
conversational cues on humanness perceptions, Comput. Hum. Behav. 97 (2019)
304–316.
[6] A. Janssen, L. Grützner, M.H. Breitner, Why do chatbots fail? A critical success
factors analysis, in: International Conference On Information Systems (ICIS),
2021.
[7] O. Beran, An attitude towards an artificial soul? Responses to the “Nazi Chatbot,
Philos. Investig. 41 (1) (2018) 42–69.
[8] Følstad, A., & Skjuve, M. (2019, August). Chatbots for customer service: user
experience and motivation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on
conversational user interfaces (pp. 1-9).
[9] Y. Shen, L. Heacock, J. Elias, K.D. Hentel, B. Reig, G. Shih, L. Moy, ChatGPT and
other large language models are double-edged swords, Radiology 307 (2) (2023),
e230163.
[10] T. Chong, T. Yu, D.I. Keeling, K. de Ruyter, AI-chatbots on the services frontline
addressing the challenges and opportunities of agency, J. Retail. Customer Serv.
63 (2021), 102735.
[11] Y. Shahsavar, A. Choudhury, User intentions to use ChatGPT for self-diagnosis
and health-related purposes: cross-sectional survey study, JMIR Human Factors
10 (1) (2023), e47564.
[12] S. Altmäe, A. Sola-Leyva, A. Salumets, Artificial intelligence in scientific writing:
a friend or a foe?, Reprod, Biomed. Online 47 (1) (2023) 3–9.
[13] S.B. Patel, K. Lam, ChatGPT: the future of discharge summaries? Lancet Digit.
Health 5 (3) (2023) e107–e108.
[14] M. Cascella, J. Montomoli, V. Bellini, E. Bignami, Evaluating the feasibility of
ChatGPT in healthcare: an analysis of multiple clinical and research scenarios,
J. Med. Syst. 47 (1) (2023) 33.
[15] E. Kasneci, K. Seßler, S. Küchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer,
G. Kasneci, ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language
models for education, Learn. Indiv Differ 103 (2023), 102274.
[16] M.C. Keiper, ChatGPT in practice: increasing event planning efficiency through
artificial intelligence, J. Hospit. Leisure Sports Tourism Educ. 33 (2023), 100454.
[17] F.J. García-Peñalvo, The Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Educational
Contexts after the Launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or Panic?, 2023.
[18] G. Liu, C. Ma, Measuring EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT in informal digital learning
of English based on the technology acceptance model, Innovat. Lang. Learn.
Teach. (2023) 1–14.
[19] H. Du, S. Teng, H. Chen, J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Gou, F.Y. Wang, Chat with Chatgpt on
Intelligent Vehicles: an Ieee Tiv Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Vehicles, 2023.
[20] N. Editorials, Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our
ground rules for their use, Nature 613 (612) (2023) 10–1038.
11
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
[21] S. Kelly, S.A. Kaye, O. Oviedo-Trespalacios, What Factors Contribute to
Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence? A Systematic Review, Telematics and
Informatics, 2022, 101925.
[22] D. Gursoy, O.H. Chi, L. Lu, R. Nunkoo, Customers acceptance of artificially
intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 49 (2019)
157–169.
[23] S. Lee, S. Ha, R. Widdows, Consumer responses to high-technology products:
product attributes, cognition, and emotions, J. Bus. Res. 64 (11) (2011)
1195–1200.
[24] Y. Suseno, C. Chang, M. Hudik, E.S. Fang, Beliefs, anxiety and change readiness
for artificial intelligence adoption among human resource managers: the
moderating role of high-performance work systems, Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.
33 (6) (2022) 1209–1236.
[25] W. Huo, X. Yuan, X. Li, W. Luo, J. Xie, B. Shi, Increasing acceptance of medical AI:
the role of medical staff participation in AI development, Int. J. Med. Inf. 175
(2023), 105073.
[26] E. Agathokleous, C.J. Saitanis, C. Fang, Z. Yu, Use of ChatGPT: what does it mean
for biology and environmental science? Sci. Total Environ. 888 (2023), 164154.
[27] S. Liu, A.P. Wright, B.L. Patterson, J.P. Wanderer, R.W. Turer, S.D. Nelson,
A. Wright, Using AI-generated suggestions from ChatGPT to optimize clinical
decision support, J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 30 (7) (2023) 1237–1245.
[28] S. Adapa, S.M. Fazal-e-Hasan, S.B. Makam, M.M. Azeem, G. Mortimer, Examining
the antecedents and consequences of perceived shopping value through smart
retail technology, J. Retail. Custom. Serv. 52 (2020), 101901.
[29] R. Hasan, R. Shams, M. Rahman, Customer trust and perceived risk for voice-
controlled artificial intelligence: the case of Siri, J. Bus. Res. 131 (2021) 591–597.
[30] V. Taecharungroj, “What can ChatGPT do?” Analyzing early reactions to the
innovative AI chatbot on twitter, Big Data Cognit. Comput. 7 (1) (2023) 35.
[31] M. Dahiya, A tool of conversation: chatbot, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 5 (5) (2017)
158–161.
[32] B.A. Shawar, E.S. Atwell, Using corpora in machine-learning chatbot systems, Int.
J. Corpus Linguist. 10 (4) (2005) 489–516.
[33] C. Crolic, F. Thomaz, R. Hadi, A.T. Stephen, Blame the bot: Anthropomorphism
and anger in customer–chatbot interactions, J. Mark. 86 (1) (2022) 132–148.
[34] M. Li, R. Wang, Chatbots in e-commerce: the effect of chatbot language style on
customers’ continuance usage intention and attitude toward brand, J. Retail.
Custom. Serv. 71 (2023), 103209.
[35] X. Cheng, Y. Bao, A. Zarifis, W. Gong, J. Mou, Exploring customers’ response to
text-based chatbots in e-commerce: the moderating role of task complexity and
chatbot disclosure, Internet Res. 32 (2) (2021) 496–517.
[36] S. Dube, E-Commerce Chatbots - Using Chatbots Customer Support to Improve
eCommerce Conversion Rate, 2020. https://www.invespcro.com/blog/eco
mmerce-chatbots/.
[37] B. Zhang, Y. Zhu, J. Deng, W. Zheng, Y. Liu, C. Wang, R. Zeng, “I Am here to assist
your tourism”: predicting continuance intention to use AI-based chatbots for
tourism. Does gender really matter? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (2022) 1–17.
[38] R. Pillai, B. Sivathanu, Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism,
Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 32 (10) (2020) 3199–3226.
[39] E. Kang, Y.A. Kang, Counseling chatbot design: the effect of anthropomorphic
chatbot characteristics on user self-disclosure and companionship, Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Interact. (2023) 1–15.
[40] Y. Zhu, R. Wang, C. Pu, “I am chatbot, your virtual mental health adviser.” What
drives citizens’ satisfaction and continuance intention toward mental health
chatbots during the COVID-19 pandemic? An empirical study in China, Digital
Health 8 (2022), 20552076221090031.
[41] K. Ryong, D. Lee, J.G. Lee, Chatbot’s complementary motivation support in
developing study plan of E-learning English lecture, Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Interact. (2023) 1–15.
[42] C.L. Hsu, J.C.C. Lin, Understanding the user satisfaction and loyalty of customer
service chatbots, J. Retail. Custom. Serv. 71 (2023), 103211.
[43] A.M. Baabdullah, A.A. Alalwan, R.S. Algharabat, B. Metri, N.P. Rana, Virtual
agents and flow experience: an empirical examination of AI-powered chatbots,
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 181 (2022), 121772.
[44] X. Lin, B. Shao, X. Wang, Employees’ perceptions of chatbots in B2B marketing:
affordances vs. disaffordances, Ind. Market. Manag. 101 (2022) 45–56.
[45] Y. Zhu, J. Zhang, J. Wu, Y. Liu, AI is better when I’m sure: the influence of
certainty of needs on customers’ acceptance of AI chatbots, J. Bus. Res. 150
(2022) 642–652.
[46] S.V. Jin, S. Youn, Social presence and imagery processing as predictors of chatbot
continuance intention in human-AI-interaction, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.
(2022) 1–13.
[47] Q. Chen, Y. Lu, Y. Gong, J. Xiong, Can AI Chatbots Help Retain Customers?
Impact of AI Service Quality on Customer Loyalty, Internet Research, 2023
(ahead-of-print).
[48] H. Fan, W. Gao, B. Han, Are AI chatbots a cure-all? The relative effectiveness of
chatbot ambidexterity in crafting hedonic and cognitive smart experiences,
J. Bus. Res. 156 (2023), 113526.
[49] X. Wang, X. Lin, B. Shao, How does artificial intelligence create business agility?
Evidence from chatbots, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 66 (2022), 102535.
[50] Y. Jiang, X. Yang, T. Zheng, Make chatbots more adaptive: dual pathways linking
humanlike cues and tailored response to trust in interactions with chatbots,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 138 (2023), 107485.
[51] S.W. Song, M. Shin, Uncanny Valley effects on chatbot trust, purchase intention,
and adoption intention in the context of E-commerce: the moderating role of
avatar familiarity, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (2022) 1–16.
X. Ma and Y. Huo
[52] H. Jiang, Y. Cheng, J. Yang, S. Gao, AI-powered chatbot communication with
customers: dialogic interactions, satisfaction, engagement, and customer
behavior, Comput. Hum. Behav. 134 (2022), 107329.
[53] M. Cheng, X. Li, J. Xu, Promoting healthcare workers’ adoption intention of
artificial-intelligence-assisted diagnosis and treatment: the chain mediation of
social influence and human–computer trust, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 19
(20) (2022), 13311.
[54] J. Lee, D. Lee, J.G. Lee, Influence of rapport and social presence with an AI
psychotherapy chatbot on customers’ self-disclosure, Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Interact. (2022) 1–12.
[55] H. Shin, I. Bunosso, L.R. Levine, The influence of chatbot humour on customer
evaluations of services, Int. J. Custom. Stud. 47 (2) (2022) 545–562.
[56] E.A. Croes, M.L. Antheunis, M.B. Goudbeek, N.W. Wildman, “I am in your
computer while we talk to each other” A content analysis on the use of language-
based strategies by humans and a social chatbot in initial human-chatbot
interactions, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (2022) 1–19.
[57] Q. Jiang, Y. Zhang, W. Pian, Chatbot as an emergency exist: mediated empathy
for resilience via human-AI interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, Inf.
Process. Manag. 59 (6) (2022), 103074.
[58] C. Yen, M.C. Chiang, Trust me, if you can: a study on the factors that influence
consumers’ purchase intention triggered by chatbots based on brain image
evidence and self-reported assessments, Behav. Inf. Technol. 40 (11) (2021)
1177–1194.
[59] F. Ali, Q. Zhang, M.Z. Tauni, K. Shahzad, Social chatbot: my friend in my distress,
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (2023) 1–11.
[60] E. Konya-Baumbach, M. Biller, S. von Janda, Someone out there? A study on the
social presence of anthropomorphized chatbots, Comput. Hum. Behav. 139
(2023), 107513.
[61] Y. Cheng, H. Jiang, Customer–brand relationship in the era of artificial
intelligence: understanding the role of chatbot marketing efforts, J. Prod. Brand
Manag. 31 (2) (2022) 252–264.
[62] H. Hari, R. Iyer, B. Sampat, Customer brand engagement through chatbots on
bank websites–Examining the antecedents and consequences, Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Interact. 38 (13) (2022) 1212–1227.
[63] J.S.E. Lin, L. Wu, Examining the psychological process of developing customer-
brand relationships through strategic use of social media brand chatbots, Comput.
Hum. Behav. 140 (2023), 107488.
[64] P.B. Brandtzaeg, M. Skjuve, A. Følstad, My AI friend: how customers of a social
chatbot understand their human–AI friendship, Hum. Commun. Res. 48 (3)
(2022) 404–429.
[65] J. Chatterjee, N. Dethlefs, This new conversational AI model can be your friend,
philosopher, and guide... and even your worst enemy, Patterns 4 (1) (2023),
100676.
[66] A.J. Kull, M. Romero, L. Monahan, How may I help you? Driving brand
engagement through the warmth of an initial chatbot message, J. Bus. Res. 135
(2021) 840–850.
[67] OpenAI, “DALL.E2”, 2023. Available at: https://openai.com/dall-e-2/.
[68] E.A. van Dis, J. Bollen, W. Zuidema, R. van Rooij, C.L. Bockting, ChatGPT: five
priorities for research, Nature 614 (7947) (2023) 224–226.
[69] Y.K. Dwivedi, N. Kshetri, L. Hughes, E.L. Slade, A. Jeyaraj, A.K. Kar, R. Wright,
“So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities,
challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice
and policy, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 71 (2023), 102642.
[70] J. Paul, A. Ueno, C. Dennis, ChatGPT and consumers: benefits, pitfalls and future
research agenda, Int. J. Consum. Stud. 47 (4) (2023) 1213–1225.
[71] C. Lee, J. Kim, J.S. Lim, How does fact-check labeling impact the evaluations of
inadvertently placed brand ads? Soc. Sci. J. (2023) 1–17.
[72] H. Ibrahim, R. Asim, F. Zaffar, T. Rahwan, Y. Zaki, Rethinking homework in the
age of artificial intelligence, IEEE Intell. Syst. 38 (2) (2023) 24–27, iiMedia
(2021). China’s Chatbot Satisfaction Report in 2021, https://www.iimedia.
cn/c400/81565.html.
[73] A. Tlili, B. Shehata, M.A. Adarkwah, A. Bozkurt, D.T. Hickey, R. Huang,
B. Agyemang, What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of
using chatbots in education, Smart Learn. Environ. 10 (1) (2023) 15.
[74] The Guardian. (2023). New York City schools ban AI chatbot ChatGPT. The
Guardian. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan
/06/new-york-city-schools-ban-ai-chatbot-chatgpt.
[75] F. Rahimi, A.T.B. Abadi, ChatGPT and publication ethics, Arch. Med. Res. 54 (3)
(2023) 272–274.
[76] D.L. Kasilingam, Understanding the attitude and intention to use smartphone
chatbots for shopping, Technol. Soc. 62 (2020), 101280.
[77] A. Rese, L. Ganster, D. Baier, Chatbots in retailers’ customer communication: how
to measure their acceptance? J. Retail. Custom. Serv. 56 (2020), 102176.
[78] D.H. Huang, H.E. Chueh, Chatbot usage intention analysis: veterinary
consultation, J. Innovat. Knowled. 6 (3) (2021) 135–144.
[79] B.A. Eren, Determinants of customer satisfaction in chatbot use: evidence from a
banking application in Turkey, Int. J. Bank Market. 39 (2) (2021) 294–311.
[80] J. Balakrishnan, S.S. Abed, P. Jones, The role of meta-UTAUT factors, perceived
anthropomorphism, perceived intelligence, and social self-efficacy in chatbot-
based services? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 180 (2022), 121692.
[81] E. Mogaji, J. Balakrishnan, A.C. Nwoba, N.P. Nguyen, Emerging-market
consumers’ interactions with banking chatbots, Telematics Inf. 65 (2021),
101711.
[82] A. Kwangsawad, A. Jattamart, Overcoming customer innovation resistance to the
sustainable adoption of chatbot services: a community-enterprise perspective in
Thailand, J. Innovat. Knowled. 7 (3) (2022), 100211.
12
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
[83] M. Ashfaq, J. Yun, S. Yu, S.M.C. Loureiro, I, Chatbot: modeling the determinants
of customers’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service
agents, Telematics Inf. 54 (2020), 101473.
[84] B. Zarouali, E. Van den Broeck, M. Walrave, K. Poels, Predicting customer
responses to a chatbot on Facebook, Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 21 (8)
(2018) 491–497.
[85] A.P. Chaves, M.A. Gerosa, How should my chatbot interact? A survey on social
characteristics in human–chatbot interaction design, Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Interact. 37 (8) (2021) 729–758.
[86] S.I. Lei, H. Shen, S. Ye, A comparison between chatbot and human service:
customer perception and reuse intention, Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 33 (11)
(2021) 3977–3995.
[87] S.Y. Huang, C.J. Lee, Predicting continuance intention to fintech chatbot,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 129 (2022), 107027.
[88] J. Im, M. Hancer, What fosters favorable attitudes toward using travel mobile
applications? J. Hospit. Mark. Manag. 26 (4) (2017) 361–377.
[89] B. Lee, D.A. Cranage, Causal attributions and overall blame of self-service
technology (SST) failure: different from service failures by employee and policy,
J. Hospit. Mark. Manag. 27 (1) (2018) 61–84.
[90] O.H. Chi, C.G. Chi, D. Gursoy, R. Nunkoo, Customers’ acceptance of artificially
intelligent service robots: the influence of trust and culture, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 70
(2023), 102623.
[91] H. Lin, O.H. Chi, D. Gursoy, Antecedents of customers’ acceptance of artificially
intelligent robotic device use in hospitality services, J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 29
(5) (2020) 530–549.
[92] V. Vitezić, M. Perić, Artificial intelligence acceptance in services: connecting with
Generation Z, Serv. Ind. J. 41 (13–14) (2021) 926–946.
[93] M.A. Ribeiro, D. Gursoy, O.H. Chi, Customer acceptance of autonomous vehicles
in travel and tourism, J. Travel Res. 61 (3) (2022) 620–636.
[94] R.S. Lazarus, S. Folkman. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer Publishing
Company, 1984.
[95] S. Paluch, S. Tuzovic, H.F. Holz, A. Kies, M. Jörling, My colleague is a
robot”–exploring frontline employees’ willingness to work with collaborative
service robots, J. Serv. Manag. 33 (2) (2022) 363–388.
[96] Y.T. Chiu, Y.Q. Zhu, J. Corbett, In the hearts and minds of employees: a model of
pre-adoptive appraisal toward artificial intelligence in organizations, Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 60 (2021), 102379.
[97] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. (2003) 425–478.
[98] P. He, S. Lovo, M. Veronesi, Social networks and renewable energy technology
adoption: empirical evidence from biogas adoption in China, Energy Econ. 106
(2022), 105789.
[99] T.T. Wei, G. Marthandan, A.Y.L. Chong, K.B. Ooi, S. Arumugam, What drives
Malaysian m-commerce adoption? An empirical analysis, Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
109 (3) (2009) 370–388.
[100] S. Sharma, N. Islam, G. Singh, A. Dhir, Why do retail customers adopt artificial
intelligence (AI) based autonomous decision-making systems? IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 3 (115-121) (2022) 1–17.
[101] X. Cheng, X. Zhang, J. Cohen, J. Mou, Human vs. AI: understanding the impact of
anthropomorphism on customer response to chatbots from the perspective of trust
and relationship norms, Inf. Process. Manag. 59 (3) (2022), 102940.
[102] A. Oldeweme, J. Märtins, D. Westmattelmann, G. Schewe, The role of
transparency, trust, and social influence on uncertainty reduction in times of
pandemics: empirical study on the adoption of COVID-19 tracing apps, J. Med.
Internet Res. 23 (2) (2021), e25893.
[103] Browne Ryan, Elon Musk, Who Co-founded Firm behind ChatGPT, Warns A.I. Is
‘one of the Biggest Risks’ to Civilization, Consumer News and Business Channel,
2023. March 6. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/elon-mu
sk-co-founder-of-chatgpt-creator-openai-warns-of-ai-society-risk.html.
[104] Bhaimiya Sawdah, Bill Gates said ChatGPT will ’change our world’ by making the
workplace more efficient, Insider (2023). February 2. Available online: https
://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-chatgpt-says-will-change-our-world-inter
view-2023-2.
[105] V. Venkatesh, J.Y. Thong, X. Xu, Customer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,
MIS Q. (2012) 157–178.
[106] L.K. Fryer, M. Ainley, A. Thompson, A. Gibson, Z. Sherlock, Stimulating and
sustaining interest in a language course: an experimental comparison of Chatbot
and Human task partners, Comput. Hum. Behav. 75 (2017) 461–468.
[107] A. Strzelecki, To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of
students’ acceptance and use of technology, Interact. Learn. Environ. (2023)
1–14.
[108] S. Melián-González, D. Gutiérrez-Taño, J. Bulchand-Gidumal, Predicting the
intentions to use chatbots for travel and tourism, Curr. Issues Tourism 24 (2)
(2021) 192–210.
[109] S. Im, S. Bhat, Y. Lee, Consumer perceptions of product creativity, coolness, value
and attitude, J. Bus. Res. 68 (1) (2015) 166–172.
[110] J.D. Wells, D.E. Campbell, J.S. Valacich, M. Featherman, The effect of perceived
novelty on the adoption of information technology innovations: a risk/reward
perspective, Decis. Sci. J. 41 (4) (2010) 813–843.
[111] E.A. Croes, M.L. Antheunis, Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study
on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot,
J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 38 (1) (2021) 279–300.
[112] H. Karjaluoto, A.A. Shaikh, H. Saarijärvi, S. Saraniemi, How perceived value
drives the use of mobile financial services apps, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 47 (2019)
252–261.
X. Ma and Y. Huo
[113] A. Luqman, X. Cao, A. Ali, A. Masood, L. Yu, Empirical investigation of Facebook
discontinues usage intentions based on SOR paradigm, Comput. Hum. Behav. 70
(2017) 544–555.
[114] L. Xie, X. Liu, D. Li, The mechanism of value cocreation in robotic services:
customer inspiration from robotic service novelty, J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 31
(8) (2022) 962–983.
[115] H.Y. Kim, A.L. McGill, Minions for the rich? Financial status changes how
consumers see products with anthropomorphic features, J. Consumer Res. 45 (2)
(2018) 429–450.
[116] S. Li, A.M. Peluso, J. Duan, Why do we prefer humans to artificial intelligence in
telemarketing? A mind perception explanation, J. Retail. Custom. Serv. 70
(2023), 103139.
[117] Open AI (2023), Introducing ChatGPT. Available online: https://openai.com/blo
g/chatgpt.
[118] A. Rapp, L. Curti, A. Boldi, The human side of human-chatbot interaction: a
systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots, Int. J.
Hum. Comput. Stud. 151 (2021), 102630.
[119] L. Lu, C. McDonald, T. Kelleher, S. Lee, Y.J. Chung, S. Mueller, C.A. Yue,
Measuring customer-perceived humanness of online organizational agents,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 128 (2022), 107092.
[120] R.M. Schuetzler, G.M. Grimes, J. Scott Giboney, The impact of chatbot
conversational skill on engagement and perceived humanness, J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
37 (3) (2020) 875–900.
[121] B. Foroughi, M.G. Senali, M. Iranmanesh, A. Khanfar, M. Ghobakhloo,
N. Annamalai, B. Naghmeh-Abbaspour, Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT
for educational purposes: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA, Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Interact. (2023) 1–20.
[122] E.C.X. Aw, G.W.H. Tan, T.H. Cham, R. Raman, K.B. Ooi, Alexa, what’s on my
shopping list? Transforming customer experience with digital voice assistants,
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 180 (2022), 121711.
[123] X. Lv, J. Luo, Y. Liang, Y. Liu, C. Li, Is cuteness irresistible? The impact of cuteness
on customers’ intentions to use AI applications, Tourism Manag. 90 (2022),
104472.
[124] O.H. Chi, D. Gursoy, C.G. Chi, Tourists’ attitudes toward the use of artificially
intelligent (AI) devices in tourism service delivery: moderating role of service
value seeking, J. Trav. Res. 61 (1) (2022) 170–185.
[125] E. Moriuchi, An empirical study on anthropomorphism and engagement with
disembodied AIs and customers’ re-use behavior, Psychol. Market. 38 (1) (2021)
21–42.
[126] A. Chen, Y. Lu, B. Wang, Customers’ purchase decision-making process in social
commerce: a social learning perspective, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 (6) (2017)
627–638.
[127] Y. Lee, A.N. Chen, V. Ilie, Can online wait be managed? The effect of filler
interfaces and presentation modes on perceived waiting time online, MIS Q.
(2012) 365–394.
[128] S.V. Jin, S. Youn, “They bought it, therefore I will buy it”: the effects of peer
customers’ conversion as sales performance and entrepreneurial sellers’ number
13
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102362
of followers as relationship performance in mobile social commerce, Comput.
Hum. Behav. 131 (2022), 107212.
[129] D. Le, M. Pratt, Y. Wang, N. Scott, G. Lohmann, How to win the customer’s heart?
Exploring appraisal determinants of customer pre-consumption emotions, Int. J.
Hospit. Manag. 88 (2020), 102542.
[130] J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bernstein. Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, Inc, USA, 1994.
[131] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, J. Market. Res. 18 (1) (1981) 39–50.
[132] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling, J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43
(2015) 115–135.
[133] Y. Wang, Q. Kang, S. Zhou, Y. Dong, J. Liu, The impact of service robots in retail:
exploring the effect of novelty priming on consumer behavior, J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 68 (2022), 103002.
[134] D. Shin, The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and
acceptance: implications for explainable AI, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 146
(2021), 102551.
[135] D. Shin, The perception of humanness in conversational journalism: an
algorithmic information-processing perspective, New Media Soc. 24 (12) (2022)
2680–2704.
[136] J.N. Choi, S.Y. Sung, K. Lee, D.S. Cho, Balancing cognition and emotion:
innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional
reactions toward innovation, J. Organ. Behav. 32 (1) (2011) 107–124. ’.
[137] Z.J. Wang, K.Q. Chan, J.J. Chen, A. Chen, F. Wang, Differential impact of affective
and cognitive attributes on preference under deliberation and distraction, Front.
Psychol. 549 (2015).
[138] W.B. Kim, H.J. Hur, What makes people feel empathy for AI chatbots? Assessing
the role of competence and warmth, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (2023) 1–14.
[139] C. Crolic, F. Thomaz, R. Hadi, A.T. Stephen, Blame the bot: anthropomorphism
and anger in customer–chatbot interactions, J. Market. 86 (1) (2022) 132–148.
[140] G. McLean, A. Wilson, Shopping in the digital world: examining customer
engagement through augmented reality mobile applications, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 101 (2019) 210–224.
[141] I. Pentina, T. Hancock, T. Xie, Exploring relationship development with social
chatbots: a mixed-method study of replika, Comput. Hum. Behav. 140 (2023),
107600.
[142] T. Xie, I. Pentina, T. Hancock, Friend, mentor, lover: does chatbot engagement
lead to psychological dependence? J. Serv. Manag. 34 (4) (2023) 806–828.
[143] N. Ameen, J.H. Cheah, S. Kumar, It’s all part of the customer journey: the impact
of augmented reality, chatbots, and social media on the body image and self-
esteem of Generation Z female consumers, Psychol. Market. 39 (11) (2022)
2110–2129.
[144] J. Lee, H. Kim, How to survive in advertisement flooding: the effects of
schema–product congruity and attribute relevance on advertisement attitude,
J. Consum. Behav. 21 (2) (2022) 214–230.