Advertisement

The Antecedents of Intelligent Personal Assistants Adoption

  • Tihomir OrehovačkiEmail author
  • Darko Etinger
  • Snježana Babić
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 781)

Abstract

Intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) are software agents designed to provide the aid to the users in conducting daily routines such as answering phone calls, taking notes, shopping, making appointments, findings places and answers, web browsing, and alike. They are therefore commonly applied in all aspects of human endeavor. End-user acceptance is an important determinant of the success of each piece of software, and IPAs are no exception. Considering that literature lacks studies on IPAs acceptance, this paper introduces a nomological network of factors that determine users’ satisfaction and behavioral intention related to IPAs. After completing the scenario based activities by means of Google Assistant as representative sample of IPAs, students from two higher education institutions were asked to fill out a post-use questionnaire. The aim of this paper is to examine the psychometric characteristics of the research framework which reflects the interplay among eight relevant aspects of several theories and models related to the adoption and user acceptance of new technologies and inovations. The psychometric features of the model were explored by means of the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modeling (SEM). Reported findings have important implications for practitioners engaged in the development of IPAs as well as for researchers dealing with similar studies in the field.

Keywords

Intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) Educational ecosystem Adoption Theory and models Post-use questionnaire Empirical findings 

References

  1. 1.
    Gong, L.: Intelligent personal assistants. U.S. Patent Application No. 10/158, 213 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, J., District, C., Lee, Y.Y.: Multimodal interaction and believability. In: The 31st British Human Computer Interaction Conference, pp. 1–4 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oskouei, R.J., Varzeghani, H.N., Samadyar, Z.: Intelligent agents: a comprehensive survey. Int. J. Electron. Commun. Comput. Eng. 5(4), 790–798 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siddike, M., Kalam, A., Spohrer, J., Demirkan, H., Kohda, Y.: People’s interactions with cognitive assistants for enhanced performances. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1642–1648, January 2018Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, Y.B., Rochette, A., Sarikaya, R.: Natural language model re-usability for scaling to different domains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2071–2076 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reis, A., Paulino, D., Paredes, H., Barroso, J.: Using intelligent personal assistants to strengthen the elderlies’ social bonds. In: International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 593–602. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ponciano, R., Pais, S., Casal, J.: Using accuracy analysis to find the best classifier for intelligent personal assistants. Procedia Comput. Sci. 52, 310–317 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Han, S., Yang, H.: Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: a parasocial relationship perspective. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 118(3), 618–636 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siddike, M., Kalam, A., Kohda, Y.: Towards a framework of trust determinants in people and cognitive assistants interactions. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5394–5401 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oliver, R.L.: A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction. J. Mark. Res. 17, 460–469 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. J. Syst. Softw. 86(12), 3039–3059 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Identifying the relevance of quality dimensions contributing to universal access of social web applications for collaborative writing on mobile devices: an empirical study. In: Universal Access in the Information Society (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0555-7
  20. 20.
    Kiseleva, J., Williams, K., Jiang, J., Hassan Awadallah, A., Crook, A.C., Zitouni, I., Anastasakos, T.: Understanding user satisfaction with intelligent assistants. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 121–130. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faqih, K.M., Jaradat, M.I.R.M.: Assessing the moderating effect of gender differences and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adoption of mobile commerce technology: TAM3 perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 22, 37–52 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9–30 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pai, F.Y., Huang, K.I.: Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78(4), 650–660 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(4), 144–176 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amoroso, D., Lim, R.: Exploring the personal innovativeness construct: the roles of ease of use, satisfaction and attitudes. Asian Pacific J. Inf. Syst. 25(4), 662–685 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Predicting students’ continuance intention related to the use of collaborative Web 2.0 applications. In: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems Development, pp. 112–123 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Casaló, L., Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M.: The role of perceived usability, reputation, satisfaction and consumer familiarity on the website loyalty formation process. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(2), 325–345 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chou, S.-W., Min, H.-T., Chang, Y.-C., Lin, C.-T.: Understanding continuance intention of knowledge creation using extended expectation–confirmation theory: an empirical study of Taiwan and China online communities. Behav. Inf. Technol. 29(6), 557–570 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH (2015). http://www.smartpls.com
  31. 31.
    Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A.: An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40(3), 414–433 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications Inc., Los Angeles (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tihomir Orehovački
    • 1
    Email author
  • Darko Etinger
    • 1
  • Snježana Babić
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsJuraj Dobrila University of PulaPulaCroatia
  2. 2.Polytechnic of RijekaRijekaCroatia

Personalised recommendations