Advertisement

Perceived Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Responses to Positive Behaviour Change Intervention

  • Iis TussyadiahEmail author
  • Graham Miller
Conference paper

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have a great potential to aid not only in promoting tourism products and services, but also in influencing responsible travel behaviour to support sustainability. The effectiveness of using AI for positive behaviour change interventions depends on consumers’ attitudes toward AI. This study found three underlying views of AI impacts: Beneficial AI, Destructive AI, and Risky AI. Based on these, three consumer segments were identified: The Laggards, The Aficionados, and The Realists. The first two segments hold opposing views: the former averaging higher in negative impacts, while the latter in positive impacts of AI. The Realists are aware of both benefits and risks of AI. These segments differ in their intention to follow recommendations from AI. It is suggested that mainstream consumers, those belonging to The Realists, are likely to respond positively to AI systems recommending responsible behaviour, signifying the positive role of AI in sustainable tourism.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Segmentation Profiling Positive behaviour change Sustainable tourism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the University of Surrey’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (Pump Priming Fund 2017/2018).

References

  1. 1.
    An M (2017) Artificial intelligence is here-people just don’t realize it. https://research.hubspot.com/artificial-intelligence-is-here. Last accessed: 10 Aug 2018
  2. 2.
    Krogue K, Larsen G, Parry B (2017) The state of artificial intelligence, 2017: public perceptions of the most disruptive technology (UK Edition). https://uk.insidesales.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/State_of_AI_UK.pdf. Accessed: 10 Aug 2018
  3. 3.
    Shandwick W (2016) AI-Ready or not: artificial intelligence here we come! What consumers think & What marketers need to know. https://www.webershandwick.com/uploads/news/files/AI-Ready-or-Not-report-Oct12-FINAL.pdf. Accessed: 10 Aug 2018
  4. 4.
    PwC (2017) Sizing the prize: What’s the real value of ai for your business and how can you capitalise? https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prize-report.pdf. Last accessed: 10 Aug 2018
  5. 5.
    Economist (2016) Artificial intelligence in the real world. https://www.eiuperspectives.economist.com/sites/default/files/Artificial_intelligence_in_the_real_world_1.pdf. Last accessed: 10 Aug 2018
  6. 6.
    Russell S, Dewey D, Tegmark M (2015) Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Mag 36(4):105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):40–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tromp N, Hekkert P, Verbeek P-P (2011) Design for socially responsible behavior: a classification of influence based on intended user experience. Des Issues 27(3):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tussyadiah IP (2017) Technology and behavioral design in tourism. In: Fesenmaier DR, Xiang Z (eds) Design Science in Tourism. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 173–191.   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42773-7_12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gretzel U (2011) Intelligent system in tourism: a social science perspective. Ann Tour Res 38(3):757–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tussyadiah IP, Wang D (2016) Tourists’ attitudes toward proactive smartphone systems. J Travel Res, 55(4):493–508.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514563168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fast E, Horvitz E (2017) Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Inc.: Menlo Park, CA, pp. 963–969Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brougham D, Haar J (2018) Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. J Manag Organ 24(2):239–257.  https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tussyadiah IP, Zach FJ, Wang J (2017) Attitude toward autonomous on-demand mobility: the case of self-driving taxi. In: Schegg R, Stangl B (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2017. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 755–766.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hardcastle SJ, Hagger MS (2015) Psychographic profiling for effective health behavior change interventions. Front Psychol 6:1988.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01988
  16. 16.
    Morrison PD, Roberts JH, Midgley DF (2004) The nature of lead users and measurement of leading edge status. Res Policy 33(2):351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schreier M, Oberhauser S, Prügl R (2007) Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: insights from two extreme sports communities. Mark Lett 18(1–2):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Marez L, Vyncke P, Berte K, Schuurman D, De Moor K (2007) Adopter segments, adoption determinants and mobile marketing. J Target, Measur Anal Mark 16(1):78–95.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bobbitt LM, Dabholkar PA (2001) Integrating attitudinal theories to understand and predict use of technology-based self-service: the internet as an illustration. Int J Serv Ind Manag 12(5):423–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dabholkar PA, Bagozzi RP (2002) An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. J Acad Mark Sci 30:184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walker RH, Craig-Lees M, Hecker R, Francis H (2002) Technology-enabled service delivery: an investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection. Int J Serv Ind Manag 13(1):91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers EM (2003) The diffusion of innovation (5th Ed). Free Press: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steenkamp J-BEM, Burgess SM (2002) Optimum stimulation level and exploratory consumer behavior in an emerging consumer market. Int J Res Mark 19(2):131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tussyadiah IP (2016) The influence of innovativeness on on-site smartphone use among American travelers: implications for context-based push marketing. J Travel Tour Mark 33(6):806–823.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1068263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Im S, Bayus BL, Mason CH (2003) An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. J Acad Mark Sci 31(1):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tellis GJ, Yin E, Bell S (2004) Global consumer innovativeness: cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. J Int Mark: June 2009, 17(2):1–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Hospitality and Tourism ManagementUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations