International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com

F
OO
Research Article

Exploring the role of personality, trust, and privacy in customer experience

performance during voice shopping: Evidence from SEM and fuzzy set qualitative
comparative analysis

PR
Ransome Epie Bawack a ,⁎ , Samuel Fosso Wamba b , Kevin Daniel André Carillo b
a
TBS Business School, University of Toulouse Capitole, 2 Rue du Doyen Gabriel Marty, 31000 Toulouse, France
b
TBS Business School, 20 Boulevard Lascrosses, 31068 Toulouse, France

D
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords Voice shopping is becoming increasingly popular among consumers due to the ubiquitous presence of artificial
Voice shopping intelligence (AI)-based voice assistants in our daily lives. This study explores how personality, trust, privacy con-
TE
Personality cerns, and prior experiences affect customer experience performance perceptions and the combinations of these
Trust factors that lead to high customer experience performance. Goldberg’s Big Five Factors of personality, a contextu-
Privacy alized theory of reasoned action (TRA-privacy), and recent literature on customer experience are used to develop
Prior experience
and propose a conceptual research model. The model was tested using survey data from 224 US-based voice shop-
Customer experience
Smart speaker
pers. The data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy-set
Personalization qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). PLS-SEM revealed that trust and privacy concerns mediate the rela-
EC

Artificial intelligence tionship between personality (agreeableness, emotional instability, and conscientiousness) and voice shoppers’
perceptions of customer experience performance. FsQCA reveals the combinations of these factors that lead to
high perceptions of customer experience performance. This study contributes to voice shopping literature, which
is a relatively understudied area of e-commerce research yet an increasingly popular shopping method.
RR

1. Introduction ing voice assistants through personalization (Davenport, Guha, Gre-

wal, & Bressgott, 2020; de Barcelos Silva et al., 2020; Duan,
Consumers increasingly expect to use digital platforms to obtain in- Edwards, & Dwivedi, 2019; Dwivedi et al., 2020). Prior research
stant, frictionless, and memorable experiences during online shopping has established the importance of personalization in customer experi-
(Behrenbeck et al., 2015; Williams, Buoye, Keiningham, & Ak- ence, especially when using AI-enabled technologies (Ameen, Tarhini,
soy, 2020). Consequently, firms are constantly developing strategies to Reppel, & Anand, 2021; Ameen, Tarhini, Shah, & Nusair, 2021;
satisfy their customers' experiential needs through the latest technolo- Tyrväinen, Karjaluoto, & Saarijärvi, 2020; von Briel, 2018). It is
CO

gies adopted by consumers (Fanderl, Matthey, Pratsch, & Stöber, also known that consumer personality is a key determinant of personal-
2019; Lim, Tuli, & Grewal, 2020). One strategy that many firms ization in e-commerce (Kazeminia, Kaedi, & Ganji, 2019; Kim, Li, &
are currently using to stand out from the competition is by providing Kim, 2015; Moon, 2002). Yet, no study investigates how/if personal-
voice shopping services (Arnett, Goldfinch, & Chinta, 2018; Fiona, ity affects customer experience during voice shopping in particular.
2017; Kinsella & Mutchier, 2019). The term voice shopping today Understanding this phenomenon in the specific context of voice
mostly describes the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based voice assis- shopping is important not just for comparative reasons with other shop-
tants like Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Google Assistant to shop online. ping channels but also because voice shopping has its specificities. For
UN

In the US alone, one in five consumers has performed voice shopping example, speech has been associated with personality traits like im-
through this shopping channel, which is already worth over 1.8 billion pulsive sensation seeking and aggression (Guidi, Gentili, Scilingo, &
USD (Kinsella & Mutchler, 2018a). This has led to calls for studies Vanello, 2019). It has also been associated with emotions that deter-
that explain how to improve individual customer experiences when us mine customer satisfaction in voice commerce environments due to ad-
ditional information contained in voice pitch and tone (Chang & Jang,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.E. Bawack)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102309
Received 2 July 2020; Received in revised form 31 December 2020; Accepted 31 December 2020
Available online xxx
0268-4012/© 2021.
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

2009). Such data cannot be obtained from text-based channels like web- customer experience (Klie, 2013; Level 3 Communications, 2010;
sites, giving voice shopping platforms the ability to provide personal- Santander, 2014). However, customer satisfaction only captures the
ized services by analyzing both text and voice signals. Also, trust and customer’s emotional state resulting from the customer’s interaction
privacy play a central role in adopting AI-based voice assistants (Bur- with a platform or business (Verhoef, 2003). Thus, customer feedback
bach et al., 2019; Liao, Vitak, Kumar, Zimmer, & Kritikos, 2019; metrics that focus on a specific dimension of customer experience are
McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019). The personalization/privacy para- not strong predictors of customer experience performance, thus calling

F
dox makes it challenging for customers to obtain personalized services for the development of stronger measurement scales (Lemke, Clark, &
that will meet their experiential needs without trading off some of their Wilson, 2011; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016).
privacy rights (Cloarec, 2020; Dwivedi et al., 2020; Lee & Rha, While some researchers have attempted to conceptualize customer

OO
2016). In voice shopping, this challenge is even more critical than in experience and to evaluate its impact on shopping intentions (Hsu &
other e-commerce channels, given that voice shopping devices are usu- Tsou, 2011; Shi et al., 2020), others have investigated tools that can
ally “always listening” devices, exposing consumers to significant pri- help firms comprehensively measure their overall customer experience
vacy concerns. Furthermore, trust mediates the relationship between performance (Kuppelwieser & Klaus, 2020; Scheidt & Chung, 2019;
personalization and AI-enabled customer experience because trust in the Sperkova, 2019). Some are also investigating the antecedents of cus-
AI context also involves trusting the intentions of AI and its processes tomer experience (Foroudi, Gupta, Sivarajah, & Broderick, 2018;
(Ameen, Tarhini, Reppel et al., 2021; Ameen, Tarhini, Shah et Hsu & Tsou, 2011; McLean & Wilson, 2016) and how to best man-
al., 2021). In other e-commerce channels, intentions and processes are age the customer experience in this era of big data (Grewal, Levy, &

PR
predefined whereas AI-based voice assistants are expected to learn, un- Kumar, 2009; Holmlund et al., 2020; Witell et al., 2020). Others
derstand, adapt, and evolve (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019). Thus, trust- have explored the mediating role of customer experience in relation to
ing the vendor, voice assistant service provider, and AI algorithms could utilitarian/hedonic attributes of a product and brand equity, social in-
affect the personalization of voice shopping services depending on how teraction, convenience, and customer satisfaction (Sheng & Teo, 2012;
much the consumer is willing to share (even unconsciously) through Srivastava & Kaul, 2014).
voice shopping devices. All these specificities of voice shopping incite In online contexts, customer experience is centered around informa-
the need to investigate the relationship between personality and cus- tion technology (IT) access and design, customer support, customer ser-

D
tomer experience in the specific context of voice shopping. vice, and fulfillment in relation to product quality, price, description,
This paper explores how personality, trust, privacy concerns, and prior and delivery time (Stanworth, Warden, & Hsu, 2015). Online cus-
experiences affect consumer perceptions and lead to high customer experi- tomer experience is influenced by a web page's verbal and visual design
ence performance. It seeks to answer two main research questions: (i) elements (Bleier, Harmeling, & Palmatier, 2019). Depending on the
TE
how do personality, trust, privacy concerns, and prior experience affect product type and brand trustworthiness, this experience could influence
consumer perceptions of customer experience performance? (ii) which purchase decisions. Perceived utilitarian and hedonic benefits have been
configurations of these factors lead to high customer experience perfor- found to influence customer satisfaction with online social network ser-
mance? This study is theoretically grounded in Goldberg's Big Five per- vices (Hsu, Lin, & Tsai, 2014). While web design quality enjoyment
sonality factors (Goldberg, 1990), a contextualized theory of reasoned and web service quality influence customer satisfaction, these relation-
action (TRA-privacy), and recent literature on customer experience. Us- ships are moderated by websites' interactivity (Ku & Chen, 2015).
EC

ing an online survey involving 224 US-based voice shoppers shows the In the context of mobile commerce, customer experience is an im-
relationships between personality, privacy concerns, trust, prior expe- portant factor for the improvement of customer conversion and repur-
rience with smart speakers, and customer experience performance. Un- chase intention (Chopdar & Balakrishnan, 2020; Kaatz, Brock, &
derstanding the relationships between these concepts is essential for ad- Figura, 2019; Wagner, Schramm-Klein, & Steinmann, 2020). Per-
dressing personalization issues during the design and implementation of ceived enjoyment and ubiquity directly affect customer satisfaction, and
voice shopping services. Specifically, it reveals which personalities are perceived enjoyment is influenced by two-way communication, respon-
RR

more concerned about trust and privacy and the combinations that lead siveness, and synchronicity of the mobile commerce platform (Chop-
to high customer experience performance. dar & Balakrishnan, 2020; Yang & Lee, 2017). Utilitarian factors
The rest of the paper presents a literature review of customer expe- of technology, ease of use, convenience, and customization influence
rience performance, voice shopping, and personality, discusses the the- enjoyment, while the perceived amount of time spent on a shopping
oretical framework and model development, followed by the methodol- activity using mobile applications influences the customer’s shopping
ogy, results, discussion, and conclusions. experience (McLean, Al-Nabhani, & Wilson, 2018). Also, perceived
CO

visual complexities negatively affect satisfaction with customer experi-

2. Literature review ence, and this relationship is mediated by perceived psychological cost
(time, effort, and visual crowdedness) (Sohn, Seegebarth, & Moritz,
2.1. Customer experience performance 2017). Furthermore, customers with good customer experience in terms
of interactional justice tend to complain less than others when they face
Customer experience is holistically conceptualized as a multidimen- an issue with a vendor (Wu, 2013).
sional construct that characterizes a customer’s cognitive, emotional,
behavioral, sensorial, and social responses to service delivery processes 2.2. Voice shopping
UN

(Hsu & Tsou, 2011; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Shi, Wang, Chen,
& Zhang, 2020; Verhoef et al., 2009). It encompasses the total ex- The extant literature shows that AI continues to disrupt business
perience of the customer throughout the customer journey (Laming models and foster digital transformation. Smart speakers are the
& Mason, 2014; Verhoef et al., 2009). Although measuring cus- fastest-growing AI-based consumer technology since the smartphone
tomer experience is critical for decision making, scholars and practi- (Simms, 2019). Business leaders are actively thinking about how they
tioners started measuring the overall customer experience only recently. can be leveraged to improve sales and their customers' shopping expe-
Consequently, there is, to date, no well-established customer experience riences. The two most important characteristics of voice shopping are
measurement scale or approach (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Morge- ease of use and personalization (Rowe, 2019; While et al., 2018).
son, Sharma, & Hult, 2015). Customer satisfaction and Net Promoter Personalization and the social role of conversational voice agents in-
Score (NPS) are currently the most popular approaches used to measure fluence con

2
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

sumers' attitudes towards recommendations made by these agents dur- 2016). They have also been used to train AI algorithms for candidate re-
ing voice shopping. Thus, more personalized recommendations and a cruitment (Lee & Ahn, 2020) and predict peoples’ reactions to tweets
more socially-friendly design of voice shopping services have become (Gallo, Simari, Martinez, & Falappa, 2020) based on personality
necessary (Qiu & Benbasat, 2008; Rhee & Choi, 2020; Yuan & Den- analyses. Furthermore, some studies suggest that the way people inter-
nis, 2019). Customers are increasingly doing voice shopping because act with AI is different from the way they do with other humans. Al-
of the convenience expectations of this shopping channel, especially re- though people tend to be more open, agreeable, extraverted, conscien-

F
garding faster and frictionless shopping (Klaus & Zaichkowsky, 2020; tious, and self-disclosing with humans than with AI (Mou & Xu, 2017),
Reisinger, 2018). They expect this channel to provide faster and more extraverts are more likely to delegate decision making to AI than intro-
efficient shopping services, including repurchasing items, hands-free on- verts, and conscientious people tend to prioritize performance over con-

OO
line shopping, shopping reminders, and timely recommendations (Mo- venience (Goldbach, Kayar, Pitz, & Sickmann, 2019).
riuchi, 2019; While et al., 2018). Personality traits influence consumers' preferences and online shop-
However, a major downside of voice shopping remains privacy con- ping behaviors and experiences (Anaza, 2014; Bosnjak, Galesic, &
cerns since voice shopping services are offered through “always listen- Tuten, 2007; Marbach, Lages, & Nunan, 2016; Wu & Ke, 2015).
ing” devices meant to facilitate the provision of personalized services For example, the Big Five traits (neuroticism, conscientiousness, extra-
(Cloarec, 2020; Kinsella & Mutchler, 2018b). Nevertheless, the con- version, openness, and agreeableness) influence impulsive and compul-
stantly growing number of voice shoppers indicates that the conve- sive online shopping behaviors (Gohary & Hanzaee, 2014; Olsen,
Tudoran, Honkanen, & Verplanken, 2016; Turkyilmaz, Erdem, &

PR
nience voice shopping brings to the customer experience largely out-
weighs privacy concerns (While et al., 2018). Also, it is relatively dif- Uslu, 2015). They also influence self-reported happiness and non-gro-
ficult to browse and discover new shopping possibilities during voice cery shopping (Goldsmith, 2016). Furthermore, extraversion and con-
shopping. This explains why voice shopping is more adapted for repur- scientiousness have been shown to influence consumers’ willingness to
chase activities since the consumer does not have to go through the pay (Ufer, Lin, & Ortega, 2019). Meanwhile, aggressiveness and al-
cognitive effort required to browse and purchase new items (Simms, truism have significant impacts on consumers' complaining attitudes and
2019). Some authors have also revealed security flaws in voice shop- behaviors (Souiden, Ladhari, & Nataraajan, 2019).
ping systems (Lei et al., 2017). For businesses, voice shopping is per- This review reveals the conspicuous absence of personality studies in

D
ceived as an excellent way to convert leads to sales (Simms, 2019) and the context of voice shopping despite the importance of personalization
improve customer loyalty (Moriuchi, 2019). Nevertheless, this channel and perceptions of ease of use for the customer experience of voice shop-
brings about several challenges regarding data ownership, commissions pers. Therefore, this study seeks to fill this research gap by investigating
for payment services, and competition with smart speaker companies the relationship between personality traits and perceptions of customer
TE
since they also provide voice shopping services (Simms, 2019). experience performance in the context of voice shopping.
There are debates about the importance of consumer trust in firms'
services through voice assistants (Klaus & Zaichkowsky, 2020). Con- 3. Theoretical framework and model development
sumer trust in voice shopping as well as in the voice shopping service
provider (e.g., Amazon) significantly affects customer experience and This study is theoretically founded on the Big Five personality traits
adoption of voice shopping platforms (Klaus & Zaichkowsky, 2020). (Goldberg, 1990) and TRA-privacy (Bansal, Zahedi, & Gefen,
EC

Trust is built by the interaction quality between the consumer and the 2016), which contextualizes TRA. The Big Five factors are a well-estab-
voice assistant, especially through the assistant's quality of responses lished set of personality traits that have been extensively used in per-
and recommendations (Li & Karahanna, 2015; Nasirian, Ahmadian, sonality research to understand how individual differences affect human
& Lee, 2017). The social perception of voice assistants also affects behavior (Cui, 2017; Gohary & Hanzaee, 2014; Goldsmith, 2016).
consumer trust in voice assistants and leads to a para-social relation- It has also been extensively used in information systems (IS) research to
ship between voice assistants and voice shoppers (Hu, Wang, & Liu, explain human-computer interactions (Chen, Widjaja, & Yen, 2015;
RR

2019; Whang, 2018). However, consumers hardly trust the integrity Maier, Mattke, Pflügner, & Weitzel, 2020; Venkatesh, Sykes, &
and choices of voice assistants, although some managers strongly believe Venkatraman, 2014). TRA-privacy is a contextualized trust theory that
voice assistants would win consumer trust compared to other technolo- argues that “personality types and privacy concerns are critical factors im-
gies (Mari, Mandelli, & Algesheimer, 2020). pacting trust and the willingness to disclose personal information” (Bansal
et al., 2016, p.1). As highlighted in the literature review, privacy con-
2.3. Artificial intelligence and personality cerns are a major issue in voice shopping. Thus, TRA-privacy could help
CO

explain how personality relates to customer experience in voice shop-

Several researchers are working on embedding personality and en- ping contexts since benefiting from the full voice shopping experience
hancing social interactions between AI systems and their environments requires the willingness to disclose personal information. Based on the
(Rodić, Jovanović, Stevanović, Karan, & Potkonjak, 2015). Voice aforementioned theories, Fig. 1 presents a research model to explain
personality could influence the acceptance and continued use of so- customer experience performance.
cial AI systems, especially for elderly people (Rodić, Vujović, Ste-
vanović, & Jovanović, 2016; Shareef et al., 2021). Furthermore, 3.1. Privacy concerns, trust, and prior experience with smart speakers
people generally prefer female extraverted voices in social AI systems,
UN

and it is important to consider individual preferences during design Privacy concerns refer to worries individuals have about the control
(Loideain & Adams, 2020). Such studies have created the need for they have over the use of the personal information they share with or-
research that can help assess, understand, and apply individual differ- ganizations (Yun, Lee, & Kim, 2019). On web platforms, publishers
ences in adaptation to AI technologies that manifest social agency ca- are often challenged by the decision to trade between price and privacy
pabilities (Chang, Lu, & Yang, 2018; Matthews et al., 2020). On in their attempt to make profits. Platform owners sometimes tend to vi-
the other hand, peoples’ personality traits have been used to train AI olate the privacy of their customers to offer cheaper services by mon-
algorithms that help explain human behaviors like gambling (Cerasa etizing customer data, thus justifying the rising concerns about infor-
et al., 2018), cyberbullying (Sánchez-Medina, Galván-Sánchez, & mation disclosure and online privacy expressed by consumers (Gopal,
Fernández-Monroy, 2020), and desirability (Fatahi & Moradi, Hidaji, Patterson, Rolland, & Zhdanov, 2018; Piotrowicz & Cuth-
bertson, 2014). Smart speakers provide access to voice shopping ser

3
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

F
OO
Fig. 1. Research Model.

PR
vices that are not created and managed by smart speaker companies these devices were made. Thus, smart speaker owners are bound to trust
(like Amazon or Google) but by other third-party companies providing that the smart speaker manufacturers will not misuse their data. This
voice shopping services. The question is, will the data be used by the suggests that trust plays an important role in the perceived customer ex-
smart speaker company or the third-party company, and how? There- perience performance. Previous studies show that trusting beliefs – the
fore, although the services provided by third parties create value for belief that firms are interested in and care about the wellbeing of their
their customers, this comes at the cost of concerns regarding informa- customers, positively influences word-of-mouth and purchase intentions
tion sharing and disclosure between the manufacturer and third parties. (Mikalef, Pappas, & Giannakos, 2017; Mikalef, Pappas, Gian-
However, in the context of mobile apps, app value reduces the cost nakos, & Sharma, 2017; Pappas, Kourouthanassis, Giannakos, &

D
of privacy trade-offs, especially regarding permitting apps to access per- Lekakos, 2017; Pappas, Mikalef, Giannakos, & Pavlou, 2017). This
sonal data (Gu, Xu, Xu, Zhang, & Ling, 2017; Wottrich, van Rei- implies customers who experience positive trust beliefs most likely had
jmersdal, & Smit, 2018). Therefore, depending on the voice shopping good enough experiences to incite their intention to purchase from a
service's perceived value, the privacy-concerned user may not be will- given company and to encourage others to do the same. Furthermore,
TE
ing to grant the voice shopping service access to their personal informa- one could argue that trust is related to customer experience as trust can
tion. This would limit the service’s ability to provide the customer with reduce the cognitive effort required to pay attention to details, espe-
the best possible voice shopping experience. Also, user interfaces that cially when the voice assistant is perceived as easy to learn and operate
positively affect consumers make them significantly underestimate pri- (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Shareef et al., 2021). Therefore, we hy-
vacy concerns (Kehr, Kowatsch, Wentzel, & Fleisch, 2015). Given pothesize that:
EC

that convenience is the main reason consumers like using smart speak-
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Trust in the smart speaker manufacturer will have a
ers for voice shopping, this shopping interface's convenience could make
positive effect on customer experience performance during voice shopping
customers underestimate privacy concerns. However, suppose the con-
with smart speakers.
sumer has to read or say personal information out loud during voice
shopping interactions. In that case, this may create discomfort, espe- Although consumers could end up trusting platform owners with
cially in public spaces (Easwara Moorthy & Vu, 2015), thereby re- their private information, they have less trust in third-party compa-
ducing the customer experience performance. Moreover, voice shop- nies seeking their information through these platforms (Kelly, Kerr,
RR

ping involves granting access to a lot of personal information, leading & Drennan, 2017). This implies that customers doing voice shopping
to transactional privacy concerns and even intrusiveness feelings (Choi with smart speakers may not be willing to trust a third-party service
& Land, 2016; Krafft, Arden, & Verhoef, 2017). This could influ- provider with their personal/financial information. However, without
ence the shopper's customer experience, which would explain why per- sharing this information with the third-party, they will not be able to
ceived privacy risk negatively affects the use of in-home voice assistants use all or part of the voice shopping services. Consequently, this lack
(de Barcelos Silva et al., 2020; Hadian, Altuwaiyan, Liang, & Li, of trust could negatively affect their experience with the voice shopping
CO

2019; McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019). These arguments led us to service since they would not fully enjoy it. This suggests that trust me-
the following hypothesis: diates the relationship between customer experience performance and
privacy concerns. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Privacy concerns will have a negative effect on cus-
tomer experience performance during voice shopping with smart speakers. Hypothesis 3 (H3): The effect of privacy concerns on customer experi-
ence performance during voice shopping with smart speakers will be mediated
Trust is defined as the belief that one party will not take advantage
by the trust customers have in their smart speaker manufacturer.
of the other's relative weakness but can rather depend on them to ful-
UN

fill their commitments (Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003). Smart A consumer’s impression may change depending on the person’s per-
speaker owners are always in a position of relative weakness since these ceived history of success or failure with a particular experience (Avnet,
devices are always listening for instructions from the user and collect- Pham, & Stephen, 2012). Previous studies show that the prior ex-
ing user information at the same time. Bansal et al. (2016) define a perience of a consumer with a company influences trust in the com-
sensitive context as “an environment in which individuals’ sensitive infor- pany’s website (Kumar, Kumar, & Bhasker, 2018; Shi & Chow,
mation is collected, stored, and communicated as a matter of routine busi- 2015). Also, in sensitive contexts like financial services markets, prior
ness activity” (p.4). This is precisely the case with smart speakers since experience with information exchange is found to influence customer
people will naturally not censor everything they say at home simply trust (Lindh, Thilenius, & Hadjikhani, 2016). Similarly, we argue
because they own a smart speaker. Moreover, plugging/unplugging the that when voice shopping with smart speakers, experience with smart
smart speaker each time we want/don’t want to use it just because speakers influences the way the smart speaker company is trusted. If
of privacy concerns will defeat the purpose of convenience for which the past experiences in using smart speakers were good, then it is more

4
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

likely that the satisfied user would trust the smart speaker company ple with this trait may decide to trust these companies despite their pri-
to deliver good voice shopping services. In other words, the trust built vacy concerns because they look forward to enjoying the pleasure of
in the manufacturer while using the smart speaker in the past would voice shopping. Therefore, we formulate the following hypotheses:
be extended to the voice shopping services provided through the smart
Hypothesis 6b (H6b): Agreeableness will positively affect privacy concerns.
speaker. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7b (H7b): Agreeableness will positively affect trust.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Prior experience with smart speakers will have a posi-

F
tive effect on the trust customers have in their smart speaker manufacturer. Emotional instability or neuroticism is a personality trait that describes
people who are insecure, fearful, emotional, gullible, and intrusive
People are found to avoid internet ads based on their negative prior
(Goldberg, 1990). This personality trait negatively affects impulsive

OO
experience with other internet ads and vice versa (Seyedghorban, Tah-
online buying (Turkyilmaz et al., 2015). Given their anxious nature
ernejad, & Matanda, 2016). Similarly, consumer perceptions of other
and low confidence in their decisions, people with this personality trait
smart speaker services would influence their evaluation of the expe-
tend to easily engage in compulsive buying behaviors (Gohary & Han-
rience with voice shopping services. This study argues that if smart
zaee, 2014). This shows that they do not trust their instincts. Also, dis-
speaker users have positive prior experiences with other smart speaker
closing their personal information makes them nervous and anxious, es-
services, they will likely use this as a baseline to evaluate their voice
pecially in sensitive contexts (Bansal et al., 2016). We believe the fear,
shopping experiences. Therefore, the following hypothesis is made:
anxiety, and insecurity they feel will make them scared to share and en-

PR
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Prior experience with smart speakers will have a trust their personal information through smart speakers. Therefore, we
positive effect on customer experience performance during voice shopping hypothesize that:
with smart speakers.
Hypothesis 6c (H6c): Emotional instability will positively affect privacy
concerns.
3.2. Personality
Hypothesis 7c (H7c): Emotional instability will negatively affect trust.
According to TRA-privacy, personality differences affect trust and
Conscientiousness is a personality trait that describes people who are
privacy concerns because personality traits are related to people's infor-

D
organized, efficient, dependable, precise, conventional, persistent, cau-
mation behaviors (Bansal et al., 2016). We resorted to Goldberg's Big
tious, punctual, decisive, and predictable (Goldberg, 1990). Conscien-
Five factors (extraversion, agreeableness, emotional instability, consci-
tious individuals make decisions based on the information they have.
entiousness, and intellect) (Goldberg, 1990) to identify the personality
Perceptions of strong moral values and ethics positively influence their
TE
traits that play a role in customer experience performance how they op-
trust and decision to commit to an action. Such people are willing to pay
erate.
more to derive utilitarian value from a product or service, especially if
Extraversion is a personality trait that describes people who are play-
the company seems dependable and trustworthy (Gohary & Hanzaee,
ful, expressive, talkative, brave, optimistic, and spontaneous (Goldberg,
2014; Ufer et al., 2019). Furthermore, they are more likely to trust
1990). People with this personality are more likely to engage in so-
brands that they perceive as trying to improve their services and better
cial orientation activities (interpersonal relations) because they are more
meet customer needs (Rajavi, Kushwaha, & Steenkamp, 2019). Nev-
EC

people-oriented. They are willing not only to pay more for products
ertheless, their careful and responsible nature makes them avoid unnec-
just to encourage local producers (Ufer et al., 2019) but to delegate
essary risks (Ufer et al., 2019), which also explains why this person-
tasks to AI algorithms (Goldbach et al., 2019). They also tend to show
ality trait is positively associated privacy concerns (Junglas, Johnson,
higher life satisfaction, happiness, and hedonic shopping habits (Gold-
& Spitzmüller, 2008; Korzaan & Boswell, 2008). Voice shopping re-
smith, 2016). However, higher extraversion is positively associated
quires sharing an extensive amount of personal information to benefit
with higher utilitarian shopping values and negatively associated with
from the full experience it offers fully. We argue that conscientious indi-
impulsive online buying (Gohary & Hanzaee, 2014). Furthermore, ex-
RR

viduals would acquire as much information as possible on the primary

traversion is negatively associated with privacy concerns and positively
and secondary uses of the data collected. This would enable them to
associated with trust in environments that require information disclo-
decide whether or not it is worth the risk in terms of customer experi-
sure online (Bansal et al., 2016). Knowing that extraverts enjoy social
ence improvements. Since they are very meticulous, it is expected that
interactions and are more willing to delegate tasks to AI algorithms, they
more conscientious individuals will have greater privacy concerns than
would be less wary about privacy concerns and more inclined to trust
less conscientious ones. Also, conscientious individuals are more likely
the algorithms behind smart speakers. As a result, we hypothesize that:
to trust voice shopping services provided through smart speakers that
CO

Hypothesis 6a (H6a): extraversion will negatively affect privacy con- are perceived to better serve customer needs and to have trustworthy
cerns. user agreements. This leads us to hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7a (H7a): extraversion will positively affect trust. Hypothesis 6d (H6d): Conscientiousness will positively affect privacy
concerns.
Agreeableness is a personality trait that describes people who are
cooperative, friendly, emphatic, lenient, courteous, generous, flexible, Hypothesis 7d (H7d): Conscientiousness will positively affect trust.
warm, natural, and with strong moral values (Goldberg, 1990). This
UN

Intellect or openness to experience is a personality trait that describes

personality trait is positively correlated with happiness, hedonic shop-
people who are insightful, creative, and curious (Goldberg, 1990).
ping habits (Goldsmith, 2016), online impulse buying (Turkyilmaz
This personality trait is positively associated with non-grocery shop-
et al., 2015), internet addiction (Leong, Hew, Ooi, Lee, & Hew,
ping habits because it is a highly experiential activity and people with
2019), high utilitarian values, and knowledge sharing attitudes (Cui,
this personality trait like new experiences (Goldsmith, 2016). It also
2017). It is also positively associated with privacy concerns and trust
is positively associated with higher utilitarian shopping values (Go-
online because it is perceived as immoral for manufacturers or third
hary & Hanzaee, 2014), impulsive online buying (Turkyilmaz et
parties to invade their privacy (Bansal et al., 2016). However, be-
al., 2015), and social commerce adoption intentions (Aydın, 2019)
cause of their friendliness, leniency, and hedonic shopping habits, peo
for the same reasons. Individuals with this personality trait are more

5
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

willing to disclose their personal information when using technology the survey was completely anonymized, data collected will be used
(Pizzi & Scarpi, 2020). Voice shopping is a very new practice that is strictly for academic research, and there are no wrong or right answers;
gaining popularity. Therefore, we argue that the stronger this personal- (ii) questionnaires were administered online, and questions were ran-
ity trait is in an individual, the more likely they are to disclose their per- domized; (iii) participants were informed on attention checks to keep
sonal information to experience voice shopping fully. Their open-mind- them focus throughout the process. After data collection, Harman's sin-
edness and curiosity would overshadow their privacy concerns and will gle factor test showed that no single factor solution emerged from the

F
make them trust the process although their rationality would enable factor analysis, and the maximum variance explained by any one factor
them to understand the risks involved fully. Therefore, we hypothesize was 31.2 %. This is below the critical threshold of 50 % (Podsakoff et
that: al., 2003). Thus, data analysis was pursued without fear of errors in-

OO
duced by common method bias. Table 1 presents a description of our
Hypothesis 6e (H6e): Intellect will negatively affect privacy concerns.
sample.
Hypothesis 7e (H7e): Intellect will positively affect trust.

4. Methodology 4.2. PLS-SEM

4.1. Survey administration and data collection First of all, we used partial least squares structural equation mod-

PR
eling for data analysis (PLS-SEM) (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
We used an online questionnaire-based survey to collect data. We 2016; Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014). A well-es-
chose this approach because, in exploratory and predictive research set- tablished approach in IS and marketing research allows researchers to
tings, it is a well-established approach that is easily replicable and gen- quantitatively and reliably assess causal relationships between multiple
eralizable (Mikalef, Krogstie, Pappas, & Pavlou, 2020). All scales independent and dependent variables simultaneously (Chen, Ma, Wei,
used for the survey were adapted from previous studies. Given that cus- & Yang, 2020; Gu, Deng, Zheng, Liang, & Wu, 2019; Mikalef et
tomer experience performance has no well-established set of measure- al., 2020). This approach involves two main stages: (i) assess the mea-
ment items (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Morgeson et al., 2015), we surement model wherein the reliability and validity of the model’s mea-

D
adapted a performance impact scale from Aldholay, Isaac, Abdullah, surement constructs are verified; and (ii) assess the structural model
Abdulsalam, and Al-Shibami (2018). We chose this scale because it wherein the hypotheses of the model are tested. We completed our data
attempts to holistically capture performance impact expectations of con- analysis using SmartPLS software version 3.3.2.
sumers who use technology services (Isaac, Abdullah, Ramayah, & The measurement model was assessed through the computation of
TE
Mutahar, 2017; Isaac, Aldholay, Abdullah, & Ramayah, 2019; MD the values of item loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, av-
Main Uddin, Isaac, Alrajawy, & Maram, 2019). We did a pretest and erage variance extracted (AVE), Fornell-Larcker criteria, and the het-
a pilot test to verify the psychometric properties of our measurement erotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) (Hair et al., 2017).
instrument. The pretest was conducted to test the understandability of The ultimate goal was to validate the quality of our scale. Item load-
the instrument, which was a 7-point-Likert scale questionnaire. Thus, 20 ings, Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability values were expected
random graduate students from our university were asked to fill in and
EC

provide feedback on the instructions, wordings, length, and clarity. As

expected, we did not have any negative feedback as the scales that we Table 1
used had already been validated in existing studies. Description of the study sample.
The pilot test was used to verify the reliability and validity of items Characteristic Sample (N = 224)
used to measure each construct. This test was conducted on our study's
target population, that is, US citizens with voice shopping experience Type of smart speaker used
RR

1
through smart speakers. We used a platform called Prolific to recruit Amazon Echo 150
Google Home 54
research participants. This platform helps researchers recruit survey par-
Both 20
ticipants and collect reliable data (Jeong, Zo, Lee, & Ceran, 2019; Years of Experience with smart speakers
Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti, 2017). We used this plat- Less than a year 17
form because: (i) it has a strict participant recruitment procedure; (ii) it 1 year 45
2 years 91
ensures the privacy of participants; and (iii), it gave us more screening
3−5 years 64
options, thereby enabling access to better-quality participants. The pi-
CO

Over 5 years 7
lot test was conducted using 50 responses. All construct reliability and Age (in years)
validity test scores, including Cronbach’s alpha, average variance ex- Below 21 6
tracted (AVE), and Fornell-Larcker test, were deemed acceptable (Hair, 21−40 149
41−55 52
Matthews, Matthews, & Sarstedt, 2017). The results of the pilot test
56−74 16
enabled us to validate the questionnaire and pursue our study. Over 74 1
The validated questionnaire was sent to target participants through Gender
the Prolific platform. The participants of this main data collection phase
UN

Female 99
did not take part in the pilot test. The data collection process took Male 124
Prefer not to say 0
place in February 2020. Out of the 243 responses obtained, 224 were
Transgender 1
validated and retained for further analysis. To mitigate any effects of Annual household income (in USD)
common method bias in this study, we did the following (Podsakoff, Less than 10K 5
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003): (i) informed participants that 10K-50K 52
50K-100K 109
100K-150K 42
0ver 150K 16
1 https://www.prolific.co/

6
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

to be above the 0.70 thresholds to support item and construct reliability; urations with minimum frequencies of 3 were used for analysis. Config-
AVE values have to be above the 0.50 threshold to support convergent urations selected in this study (consistency) captured at least 80 % of
validity; to validate discriminant validity, HTMT has to be below 0.85 the cases, representing the extent to which a causal solution leads to an
and the square root of the AVE for each construct should be greater than outcome (Ragin et al., 2008). Combinations that meet this consistency
the correlation involving the constructs (Fornell-Larcker criterion). threshold explain the outcome to be determined (high customer experi-
The structural model was assessed by reporting the path coefficients ence performance). Solution consistency was used to measure the extent

F
and their significance levels. The paths' significance was evaluated using to all the solutions implemented systematically lead high customer ex-
p-values obtained by running a bootstrap analysis with 5000 subsamples perience performance (Mikalef & Krogstie, 2020). The empirical rel-
to verify the stability of the results obtained (Hair et al., 2017). Me- evance of each solution was determined by calculating the raw, unique,

OO
diation analysis was also conducted to determine if the impact of per- and solution coverage (2009, Ragin, 2006). Raw coverage measures
sonality traits on customer experience performance was direct or medi- the proportion of membership in the outcome explained by each term in
ated. We used the R-square (R2) value to determine the predictivity of the solution. Unique coverage measures the proportion of memberships
our model. In IS and marketing studies, R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 in the outcome explained solely by each solution term. Solution cover-
are generally described as substantial, moderate, or weak, respectively. age measures the proportion of memberships in the outcome that is ex-
However, consumer behavior studies targeting customer satisfaction is- plained by the complete solution (Mikalef & Krogstie, 2020; Ragin et
sues tend to accept R2 values of 0.20 as substantial (Hair et al., 2017). al., 2008).

PR
4.3. FsQCA 5. Results

Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (FsQCA) is a qualita- 5.1. Measurement model analysis
tive-quantitative method used to analyze multiple cases that explain a
given phenomenon in complex situations (Ragin, 2009). This method All the reliability and validity measurements met the threshold val-
has been applied to explore several configurations of factors that ex- ues. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values were above the
plain consumer behavior in general (Fang, Shao, & Wen, 2016; Pap- threshold of 0.70. All item loadings were above the 0.7 thresholds ex-

D
pas, Kourouthanassis, Giannakos, & Chrissikopoulos, 2016; Pap- cept one and the item was dropped from the study. AVE values were
pas, Papavlasopoulou, Mikalef, & Giannakos, 2020) and customer also above the threshold of 0.50. Thus, the items and construct reliabil-
experience during online shopping in particular (Foroudi, Jin, Gupta, ity and validity measures were verified (Table 2).
Melewar, & Foroudi, 2016; Pappas, Kourouthanassis et al., 2017,
TE
2017b; Pekovic & Rolland, 2020). The approach complements con- The square root of each construct’s AVE is greater than its highest
ventional quantitative methods which are incapable of revealing causal correlation with other constructs thus establishing discriminant validity
complexity between variables, which is a crucial aspect of social science of the latent variables based on the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Table 3).
research (Ragin & Pennings, 2005). Thus, several times, it has been Also, discriminant validity is established since the HTMT pairs of latent
used to complement the findings of research models initially analyzed variables are all below the threshold of 0.85 (Table 4).
using SEM (Fang et al., 2016; Xie & Tsai, 2020; Yueh, Lu, & Lin,
EC

2016). Combining these approaches helps researchers overcome the

overly simplistic nature of hypotheses tested using regression methods
and identify sufficiently new and unique findings regarding complex is-
5.2. Structural model
sues analyzed (Russo & Confente, 2019; Woodside, 2014). Thus, this
study uses fsQCA to explore the mechanisms underlying consumer per-
Fig. 2 summarizes our structural model obtained from PLS analysis
ceptions of high customer experience performance during voice shop-
with the path coefficients, their significance levels and the variance of
RR

ping which were not revealed using PLS-SEM. Specifically, we investi-

the dependent variables explained by the model (R2).
gate the configurations of personality, privacy, trust, and prior experi-
Our model explains 31 % of the variance in customer experience
ence that lead to high customer experience performance.
performance, 37 % of the variance in trust in the smart speaker com-
To perform fsQCA, the interval scale variables were transformed into
pany, and 3% of the variance in privacy concerns. To test the model
fuzzy sets. To do so, the variables need to be calibrated to determine
fit, we computed the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)
the configurations that would lead to high customer experience perfor-
value, which is the difference between the sample covariance matrix
mance. Calibration scores typically range from 0 (non-membership) to 1
CO

and the model covariance matrix. The acceptable cutoff SRMR value for
(full membership) and a crossover point of 0.5 representing maximum
PLS path models is 0.08 (Henseler, Hubona, & Ray, 2016). Thus, the
ambiguity regarding the membership (Ragin, 2009). Using the fsQCA
SRMR value of 0.055 obtained in this study means that the model fit
software for calibration, the recommended breakpoints for full mem-
criterion is met. Table 5 summarizes the hypotheses tested and their
bership, non-membership, and crossover points are 0.95, 0.05, and 0.5
significance. The hypotheses in bold indicate significant paths while the
respectively for full-set membership, full-set non-membership are 0.95
others indicate non-significant paths.
and 0.05 respectively (Ragin, Drass, & Davey, 2008). To calibrate the
variables, summated measures were created by summing items measur-
UN

ing each construct (X. Hu, Huang, Zhong, Davison, & Zhao, 2016; H1 was not validated, thus indicating that privacy concerns do not
Tho & Trang, 2015). directly influence customer experience performance during voice shop-
The calibrated fuzzy sets were analyzed using the truth table algo- ping with smart speakers. However, the validation of H2 indicates that
rithm in fsQCA software (Ragin et al., 2008). This procedure involves trust in the smart speaker manufacturer influences customer experience
creating a truth table based on the fuzzy data to select the configura- performance during voice shopping with smart speakers. Furthermore,
tions to analyze, followed by specifying the causal conditions and out- H3 was validated indicating that the effect of privacy concerns on cus-
comes to minimize. Since this study has over 100 samples, only config tomer experience performance during voice shopping with smart speak-
ers is mediated by the trust customers have in their smart speaker man-
ufacturer. The validation of H4 and H5 confirms that prior experience
with smart speakers influences the trust customers have in their smart
speaker manufacturers and also has a direct effect on the perceptions of

7
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

Table 2
Construct definitions and results of the measurement model. Item
Measures loadings
Item
Measures loadings Conscientiousness (I…) (α = 0.788, CR = 0.876, AVE = 0.701)
Am always prepared 0.794
Customer experience performance (α = 0.945, CR = 0.953, Pay attention to details 0.733
AVE = 0.669) Get chores done right away 0.840

F
The degree to which customers appreciate the physical and emotional Like order 0.812
experiences occurring through their interactions with a product and/or Follow a schedule 0.794
service offering of a brand from point of first direct, conscious contact, Intellect (I…) (α = 0.724, CR = 0.834, AVE = 0.629)

OO
through the total journey to the post-consumption stage (Aldholay et al., Am quick to understand things 0.868
2018; Laming & Mason, 2014). Spend time reflecting on things (dropped) 0.650
My smart speaker helps me to accomplish my shopping tasks more 0.836 Am full of ideas 0.843
quickly.
My smart speaker makes it easier to complete my shopping tasks. 0.796 Legend: α=Cronbach’s alpha, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance ex-
My smart speaker helps me save money when it comes to shopping 0.801 tracted.
tasks.
My smart speaker improves my shopping performance. 0.875
My smart speaker enhances my shopping effectiveness. 0.867 customer experience performance during voice shopping with smart

PR
My smart speaker helps me review and eliminate errors in my shopping 0.799
speakers.
tasks.
My smart speaker helps me to meet my future shopping target. 0.867 Regarding personality and trust, agreeableness is positively associ-
My smart speaker helps me acquire new shopping knowledge. 0.755 ated with trust (H7b). However, only conscientiousness was positively
My smart speaker helps me acquire new shopping skills. 0.797 associated with trust, as opposed to what was predicted by H7d. No
My smart speaker helps me to come up with innovative shopping ideas. 0.776
other personality trait had a significant effect on trust. Meanwhile, emo-
Privacy concerns (α = 0.897, CR = 0.936, AVE = 0.830)
The fear an individual has about control over the use of personal information
tional instability had a negative effect on privacy concerns (H6c). Extra-
they share with organizations (Bansal et al., 2016; Yun et al., 2019). version and intellect have no significant effects on either trust or privacy
My financial/personal information will not be abused at all once 0.926 concerns.

D
submitted through my smart speaker.
My financial/personal information will not be compromised at all once 0.938
5.3. Mediation analysis
submitted through my smart speaker.
My extent of concern regarding the misuse of my financial/personal 0.867
TE
information submitted through my smart speaker is very low. Agreeableness has a direct significant effect on customer experience
Trust (α = 0.937, CR = 0.955, AVE = 0.842) performance (β = 0.044; p = 0.048) and trust (β = 0.226; p = 0.000).
The belief that one party will not take advantage of the relative weakness of
It also has a total indirect effect on customer experience (β = 0.044;
the other but can rather depend on them to fulfill their commitments (Gefen
et al., 2003; Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). p = 0.048) and a specific indirect effect on customer experience (Agree-
I believe that my smart speaker company is honest 0.914 ableness -> Trust -> Customer experience; β = 0.035; p = 0.049).
I believe that my smart speaker company is trustworthy 0.920 This indicates a complementary (partial mediation) between agreeable-
EC

I believe that my smart speaker company is dependable 0.914

ness and customer experience performance. Conscientiousness was
I believe that my smart speaker company is reliable 0.921
Prior experience (α = 0.952, CR = 0.969, AVE = 0.912) found to have a direct significant effect on trust (β = 0.142; p = 0.034)
The knowledge users acquired from using smart speakers in the past (Bansal only. In other words, there is an indirect-only (full) mediation between
et al., 2016; Taylor & Todd, 1995). conscientiousness and customer experience performance. Emotional in-
I have found my smart speaker very useful this far 0.947
stability has a direct significant effect on both privacy concerns (β =
I have benefited many times from using my smart speaker 0.966
I have had numerous positive encounters with my smart speaker 0.951 -0.142; p = 0.025). and trust (β = -0.140; p = 0.032). It also has a total
RR

Personality traits indirect effect on trust (β = -0.054; p = 0.032). This effect on trust is
Personality characteristics that describe the relatively stable behavioral
mediated by privacy concerns (Emotional instability -> privacy concern
dispositions of people (Bansal et al., 2016; Srivastava, Chandra, &
Shirish, 2015). -> Trust: β = -0.054; p = 0.032). This indicates an indirect-only (full
Extraversion (I…) (α = 0.897, CR = 0.923, AVE = 0.705) mediation) between conscientiousness and customer experience perfor-
Am the life of the party 0.802 mance. Privacy concerns has a total indirect effect on customer experi-
Feel comfortable around people 0.856 ence (β = 0.066; p = 0.026). Its effect on customer experience is shown
Start conversations 0.851
CO

Talk to many different people at parties 0.861 to be mediated by trust (Privacy Concern -> Trust -> Customer expe-
Don’t mind being the center of attention 0.827 rience: β = 0.066; p = 0.026). This shows a complementary (partial)
Agreeableness (I…) (α = 0.874, CR = 0.910, AVE = 0.718) mediation between privacy concerns and customer experience perfor-
Sympathize with others’ feelings 0.801 mance.
Have a soft heart 0.846
Take time out for others 0.883
Feel others’ emotions 0.856 5.4. Results of fuzzy set analysis
Emotional instability (I…) (α = 0.930, CR = 0.946, AVE = 0.779)
UN

Get stressed out easily 0.914 Table 6 presents the coverage and consistency of the three combi-
Am easily disturbed 0.820 nations that sufficiently explain high customer experience performance.
Get upset easily 0.919
The black circles indicate the variable's presence, the hollow circles in-
Change mood a lot 0.877
Get irritated easily 0.878 dicate its absence, and the blank cells indicate that the specific variable
is not considered in the solution.

The existence of multiple sufficient configurations for customer ex-

perience performance indicates equifinality (Fiss, 2011). The findings
indicate an overall solution coverage of 0.837 and an overall solution
consistency of 0.914. This shows that the three configurations cover
a substantial proportion of the outcome. Solution 1 demonstrates high

8
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

Table 3
Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion).

Customer Emotional Prior Privacy

Agreeableness Conscientiousness experience instability Extraversion Intellect experience Trust concern

Agreeableness 0.847
Conscientiousness 0.290 0.838

F
Customer 0.328 0.191 0.818
experience
Emotional 0.001 −0.081 −0.126 0.882

OO
instability
Extraversion 0.267 0.198 0.149 −0.388 0.840
Intellect 0.376 0.402 0.169 −0.074 0.339 0.793
Prior experience 0.265 0.154 0.524 −0.029 0.102 0.160 0.955
Trust 0.315 0.247 0.382 −0.156 0.216 0.198 0.414 0.917
Privacy concern 0.082 0.077 0.326 −0.145 0.087 0.050 0.411 0.496 0.911

PR
Table 4
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT).

Customer Emotional Prior Privacy

Agreeableness Conscientiousness experience instability Extraversion Intellect experience Trust concern

Agreeableness
Conscientiousness 0.381
Customer 0.340 0.224
experience

D
Emotional 0.071 0.110 0.130
instability
Extraversion 0.288 0.236 0.162 0.419
Intellect 0.504 0.570 0.203 0.188 0.381
TE
Prior experience 0.281 0.206 0.545 0.038 0.103 0.221
Trust 0.321 0.301 0.404 0.159 0.222 0.216 0.438
Privacy concern 0.087 0.107 0.350 0.148 0.100 0.081 0.444 0.540
EC
RR
CO

Fig. 2. Results of the structural model. (p < 0.05 *. p < 0.01 **. p < 0.001***).

levels of consistency (0.930) and explains a substantial number of cases 6. Discussion

(coverage = 0.808), thus representing the best solution for high cus-
tomer experience performance. This means that the presence of agree- The purpose of this paper was to explore how personality, trust, pri-
ableness, conscientiousness, intellect, trust, and prior smart speaker ex- vacy concerns, and prior experiences affect customer experience per-
perience are key conditions for high customer experience performance. formance perceptions and the combinations of these factors that lead
UN

Solution 2 is also highly consistent (0.968) and has significant cover- to high customer experience performance. The results obtained from
age (0.436). This means that the presence of extraversion, agreeable- SEM-PLS and fsQCA confirm the effects of each factor investigated on
ness, conscientiousness, and intellect, and the absence of emotional in- customer experience performance and identify the configurations that
stability and privacy concerns would lead to high customer experience lead to high customer experience performance. Overall, these findings
performance. Solution 3 also shows very high consistency (0.958) and are in line with the existing literature in other online shopping contexts
has significant coverage (0.429). This solution set is similar to solution (Bansal et al., 2016; Seyedghorban et al., 2016; Wang & Her-
2 besides the fact that the presence of trust substitutes the presence of rando, 2019; Webber, Payne, & Taylor, 2012). Surprisingly, pri-
prior experience. vacy concerns had no direct effect on customer experience performance
(H1). This implies that in voice shopping contexts, privacy concerns do

9
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

Table 5 experience voice shopping and the convenience of this shopping method
Hypotheses and their significance.
largely outweighs their privacy concerns (Kelly et al., 2017; While
Path Coefficients p- et al., 2018). As hypothesized, trust has a significant positive effect on
Hypothesis (β) values customer experience performance (H2). Thus, the belief that the smart
speaker company is interested in and cares about the wellbeing of its
H1 privacy concern -> Customer 0.065 0.372 users will positively influence customer experience performance. Its me-
experience

F
H2 Trust -> Customer experience 0.174 0.014
diating effect on privacy concerns shows that customers trust that the
H3 privacy concern -> Trust 0.383 0.000 smart speaker company will not allow their data to be misused, allow-
H4 Prior experience -> Trust 0.182 0.013 ing them to share their personal information comfortably. Furthermore,

OO
H5 Prior experience -> Customer 0.425 0.000 voice shopping is not always the first encounter customers have with
experience
smart speakers. The results show that prior experience with smart speak-
H6a Extraversion -> privacy concern 0.008 0.930
H7a Extraversion -> Trust 0.067 0.282 ers positively affects consumer trust (H4) and customer experience per-
H6b Agreeableness -> privacy concern 0.069 0.339 formance (H5). This implies that the trust and experiences acquired by
H7b Agreeableness -> Trust 0.199 0.004 the smart speaker user with other services would be extended or used as
H6c Emotional instability -> privacy −0.142 0.025
the baseline to evaluate voice shopping experiences.
concern
H7c Emotional instability -> Trust −0.085 0.201 Regarding personalities, extraversion has no significant effect on
trust or privacy (H6a and H7a). This implies that this personality trait

PR
H6d Conscientiousness -> privacy concern 0.045 0.548
H7d Conscientiousness -> Trust 0.125 0.048 alone is not concerned about privacy or trust. While agreeableness has
H6e Intellect -> privacy concern −0.008 0.927 no significant effect on privacy concerns (H6b), it has a significant pos-
H7e Intellect -> Trust 0.009 0.910
itive effect on trust (H7b). This implies that although agreeable peo-
ple are lenient, their strong moral values would make them seek evi-
dence of privacy measures taken to protect their data in order to build
Table 6 trust (Bansal et al., 2016; McCarthy, Wood, & Holmes, 2017).
Main configurations for high customer experience performance.
They would be able to experience voice shopping only after trust is es-

D
Configuration Solutions tablished. Emotional instability has a significant effect on privacy con-
cerns (H6c) but no significant effect on trust (H7c). This shows that the
1 2 3 hysterical nature of people with this personality trait makes them very
concerned about privacy irrespective of any trust efforts made by the
TE
Extraversion ● ●
Agreeableness ● ● ●
smart speaker company (Bansal et al., 2016; McCarthy et al., 2017).
Conscientiousness ● ● ● Meanwhile, conscientiousness has no significant effect on privacy con-
Emotional instability ○ ○ cerns (H6d) but a significant effect on trust (H7d). As hypothesized, the
Intellect ● ● ● rigorous nature of people with this personality trait would allow them
Privacy concerns ○ ○ to build trust based on actions made by the company to better serve cus-
Trust ● tomers’ needs and to have trustworthy user agreements. This personal-
EC

Prior experience ● ●
ity also factors its privacy concerns into trust beliefs. Finally, intellect,
Consistency 0.930 0.968 0.958
Raw coverage 0.808 0.436 0.429 just like extraversion, has no significant effect on trust or privacy (H6e
Unique coverage 0.390 0.018 0.011 and H7e). This implies that this personality trait alone is not concerned
Solution coverage 0.837 about privacy or trust (Bansal et al., 2016; McCarthy et al., 2017).
Solution consistency 0.914
Nevertheless, the fsQCA reveals three configurations that can lead
Legend: The black circles = presence of the variable; hollow circles = absence of the variable; to high customer experience performance. Based on the value of its
RR

blank = not considered in the solution. unique coverage, solution 1 it represents the largest proportion of cases.
This solution indicates that the presence of agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, and intellect personality traits as well as the presence of trust and
not affect the total experience of the customer throughout the customer prior experience would lead to high customer experience performance.
journey. These findings are in line with recent research that shows This implies that a single individual with these three personality traits
that information privacy concerns have an almost zero significance on who has prior experience with smart speakers and who trusts the smart
speaker company will have high customer experience performance. This
CO

the satisfaction of customers who use AI-based voice assistants (Brill,

Munoz, & Miller, 2019). This may be because exposure to privacy solution validates the SEM results (H2-H5, H7b, H7d) and includes H7e.
risks is needed to benefit from voice shopping experiences. Therefore, It confirms the possibility that privacy concerns have been factored into
consumers who engage in voice shopping inherently accept the privacy the trust beliefs of voice shoppers. It also demonstrates the importance
costs associated with using voice shopping. Thus, consumers who use of the experience consumers have during their initial contact with smart
voice shopping services could have already factored privacy concerns speakers before using voice shopping services. This is in line with recent
into their trust beliefs (H3). To them, trust includes trusting the compa- research showing that consumers discontinued the use of their voice as-
sistants because they developed negative beliefs related to its abilities
UN

nies with the privacy of their data (Hossain & Dwivedi, 2014). This
implies that privacy concerns may significantly affect intention to use and value in performing certain tasks (Trajkova & Martin-Hammond,
and actual use of voice shopping services rather than customer expe- 2020). Thus, if voice shopping is not the first experience consumers
rience performance. This is a plausible explanation because the results have with smart speakers, their initial contact can create biases before
show that trust mediates the relationship between privacy concerns and they get to use voice shopping services. Therefore, this study shows that
customer experience performance. Another possibility is that younger tailoring voice shopping services to the personality traits and prior ex-
generations (about 70 % of the participants of this study) are less wary periences of customers lead to greater customer experience performance
of sharing their personal information online as they are accustomed to compared to a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
this practice (Piotrowicz & Cuthbertson. 2014). Therefore, the desire to

10
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

6.1. Implications for research even compare the differences in results. Furthermore, customer expe-
rience has been identified as one of the key performance indicators of
This study shows that personality differences affect individual per- customer service performance in firms that seek to gain competitive
ceptions of customer experience performance during voice shopping. In advantages by delivering superior customer services (Lycett & Rad-
an environment where personalization is central to customer adoption wan, 2019; Scheidt & Chung, 2019). We contribute to research on
and decision making (Gutierrez, O’Leary, Rana, Dwivedi, & Calle, customer experience performance by using a scale different from cus-

F
2019; Zhu & Kanjanamekanant, 2020; Zhu, Ou, van den Heuvel, tomer satisfaction to capture perceptions of overall customer experience
& Liu, 2017), we believe it is important to understand the personal- (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Shin, 2017). This scale is more encompass-
ity-AI relationship as well as how it affects customer experience perfor- ing and captures customer experience beyond mere satisfaction mea-

OO
mance expectations. Voice shopping using smart speakers is a very new sured from an emotional perspective. Specifically, we show that perfor-
context within which relatively few studies have been conducted. Yet, it mance scales can contribute to understanding the overall perceptions of
is a shopping channel with great potential for highly personalized ser- customer experiences. Thus, researchers can further develop, adapt, and
vices and requires customers to entrust a lot of personal information to assess the ability of other performance scales to better explain customer
smart speaker companies and voice shopping service providers. There- experience performance.
fore, this study could serve as a starting point for understanding his phe- Fourth, we demonstrate not only TRA-privacy’s ability to support re-
nomenon in voice shopping contexts. While the hype around voice assis- search in highly information-sensitive contexts but also the importance
tants and voice shopping continues growing, the underlying factors that of context during theory development and implementation (Bansal et

PR
make them so appealing for online shoppers remain largely unexplored, al.. 2016). By applying this theory in the context of voice shopping, we
especially in IS research. validate its relevance and potential to support other studies geared to-
This study makes three main contributions to AI and personality re- wards personality, trust, and privacy in e-commerce environments. Fur-
search in IS. First, it identifies the critical role of personality, trust, and thermore, more studies are needed to bring personality into the scenes
privacy concerns during voice shopping and the combinations of these of IS research (Bansal et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2020) as AI
factors that lead to high customer experience. More precisely, the find- becomes more present in the lives of consumers. Thus, this study con-
ings show that a consumer who possesses agreeableness, conscientious- tributes to personality research which is highly solicited to understand

D
ness, and intellect personality traits is expected to have high customer individual differences and how they affect consumer adoption of AI
experience performance when combined with the presence of prior ex- (Dwivedi et al., 2019; Matthews et al., 2020).
perience and trust; the absence of both emotional instability and privacy
concerns lead to high customer experience performance; the presence of 6.2. Implications for practice
TE
trust plays a key role in increasing customer experience performance.
This implies that consumer trust is not the only important factor regard- Rapidly changing consumer needs have led to a growing interest
ing customer experience with AI-based voice technologies used by firms in how businesses can stand out from the competition by providing
to provide services to their customers (Klaus & Zaichkowsky, 2020). top-notch online omnichannel shopping services (Ameen, Tarhini,
Individual personality differences also play a critical role in modern-day Reppel et al., 2021; Ameen, Tarhini, Shah et al., 2021; Shi et
online shopping contexts (Choden, Bagchi, Udo, & Kirs, 2019; Kang al., 2020). This study provides useful implications for managers and
EC

& Johnson, 2015; Yoon & Occeña, 2015). Therefore, we contribute practitioners seeking to exploit the potential of voice shopping services
to the body of knowledge on the interplay between personality, privacy, for competitive advantage. As voice assistants become increasingly pop-
and trust in e-commerce environments (Masele & Matama, 2020; ular (Steinhoff, Arli, Weaven, & Kozlenkova, 2019; Tong et al.,
Yoon & Occeña, 2015), specifically in the voice shopping environ- 2020), firms need to meet rising customer experience expectations by
ment. providing safer and more personalized customer services through such
Second, this study uses an innovative approach to explain customer channels (Russo & Confente, 2019). Our study contributes to ongoing
RR

experience performance and its relationship with other dimensions discussions by showing that understanding individual personality dif-
within the complex voice shopping scenario. In e-commerce contexts, ferences can enable businesses that provide voice shopping services to
scenarios are often complex and unique since consumers can easily generate insights that can help them provide more personalized and en-
switch from one e-marketplace to another, especially with the availabil- hanced customer experiences. We discuss five main implications of our
ity of new shopping channels like voice assistants (Russo & Confente, study for practice. First, we highlight that personality plays an impor-
2019). Thus, regression-based methods like PLS-SEM oversimplify the tant role in consumer-oriented AI services like voice shopping. Person-
relationship between variables in e-commerce contexts (Pappas et al., ality affects privacy concerns and trust relationships of customers dur-
CO

2020; Ragin, 2006). This study uses fsQCA to capture the most com- ing voice shopping. Therefore, during personalization efforts, managers
plex relationships between customer experience, privacy concerns, trust, need to develop and tailor their strategies to the personality of their cus-
and prior experience. Thus, this study contributes to research by reveal- tomers. More attention should be given to customers with agreeableness,
ing specific combinations of these factors that lead to high customer ex- emotional instability, and conscientiousness personality traits. Managers
perience performance, thereby contributing to theory development. Fur- could use self-evaluation questions or gamification to acquire informa-
thermore, this study complements other studies that have demonstrated tion on personality from customers without making them feel invaded
the relevance of combining SEM and fsQCA in explaining complex phe- (Triantoro, Gopal, Benbunan-Fich, & Lang, 2019).
UN

nomena in social science research (Fang et al., 2016; Xie & Tsai, Second, we enlighten managers on the key factors to consider dur-
2020; Yueh et al., 2016). ing their efforts towards personalizing voice shopping services. Man-
Third, this study contributes to research seeking to explain con- agers need to understand the personality of their customers who use
sumer behavior differences when shopping through smart devices and voice shopping services because this could have significant impacts on
virtual assistants (Klaus & Zaichkowsky, 2020; Pillai, Sivathanu, their marketing and sales strategies. Categorizing customers by person-
& Dwivedi, 2020; Tong, Luo, & Xu, 2020). Thus, we contribute to ality when offering voice shopping services through smart speakers im-
calls for more research on the behaviors of consumers using smart de- plies meeting consumer expectations concerning seamless shopping ex-
vices and virtual assistants for shopping. Our findings can be used to periences as this will create better customer experiences. Businesses of-
investigate similar contexts like voice shopping using smartphones and ten associate positive customer experiences with increased sales and

11
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

improved customer loyalty and encourage making enhancing customer shopping services are, customers need to trust the voice shopping ser-
experience part of business culture. Therefore, enhancing customer ex- vice to deliver the expected experience. If customers had a tough time
perience performance means ensuring retention, referrals, cross-sales, interacting with the smart speaker in the past or has had a bad pri-
and other behaviors that can yield tangible results in terms of profitabil- vacy experience with smart speakers, they would not trust the voice
ity (Collins-Taylor, 2016; Holmlund et al., 2020; Witell et al., shopping service to be any different. If retail organizations notice that
2020). their customers prefer one smart speaker company over the other, this

F
Third, we suggest that in the voice shopping context, organizations will logically influence their partnership decisions. We showed that cus-
should include trust in the smart speaker company and prior experience tomers’ trust and privacy concerns are tied to the smart speaker com-
with smart speakers into their customer experience performance toolk- pany. Therefore, it is equally important for these companies to under-

OO
its, while taking into account customer personality. A recent marketing stand different personalities and learn how they can leverage this to
report based on US companies (Moorman, 2019) shows a continuous build trust and reduce privacy concerns. They could do this by analyzing
rise of AI in marketing, especially for personalization, consumer insights, data collected during interactions between the speaker and its user and
and targeting decisions. Marketing leaders expect to prioritize excellent use this information to support arguments when negotiation deals with
customer services although they perceive their customer experience per- third parties regarding voice shopping services. Smart speaker compa-
formance as low compared to their competitors. This is mainly because nies could also audit the quality of services provided through their smart
of their limited ability to design, deliver, and monitor the customer ex- speakers because it could play a role in the image of the smart speaker.
perience. Our study shows that measuring trust and prior experience If users notice that third parties provide bad services through a smart

PR
with using smart speakers could support the design, delivery, and mon- speaker, they may not be able to tell the difference and assume it is
itoring of customer experience performance. Customer (dis)confirma- the smart speaker manufacturer that is bad, thus reducing their propen-
tion of perceived performance influences customer satisfaction and con- sity to trust future services provided through the speaker. Therefore, the
fidence in their expectations (Lin & Lekhawipat, 2016). Thus, if cus- stakes are as high for the smart speaker companies as they are for the
tomers appreciate the added value of the experience provided by voice voice shopping service providers.
shopping services, this could increase their levels of advocacy and re-
purchase intentions as is the case with other shopping channels (Dowl- 6.3. Limitations and future research

D
ing et al., 2020). Also, trust will make customers more comfortable
with disclosing their personal information during voice shopping, al- This study has some limitations which provide opportunities for fu-
lowing them to fully appreciate the experience provided by the voice ture research. First, our data were collected only from US-based partic-
shopping service. Therefore, the challenge is how to get consumers to ipants for consistency. This limits generalizability because cultural and
TE
the stage where they can strategically control the information that they environmental factors may influence trust and privacy concerns. For ex-
share through their smart speakers to reduce vulnerabilities. This could ample, privacy-personality relationships may be different in European
include adding more features in the smart speaker’s app that the user countries due to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which
could use to control and monitor the use of personal data. may make citizens feel more protected when sharing their data through
Fourth, understanding customers' personality traits could help mar- voice shopping devices. Therefore, further research could be conducted
keters design and deliver more personalized voice shopping services to in other contexts like in Europe, Africa, and Asia to determine if similar
EC

their customers while considering its effects on their privacy concerns results are obtained. Second, our hypotheses were tested using self-re-
and trust perceptions. Since customer experience is more affective in na- ported data from participants through a crowdsourcing platform. Al-
ture, its outcome can either make the customer a promoter or a detrac- though we put considerable effort into screening participants and in-
tor. We recommend that voice shopping service providers should sys- citing them to respond as objectively as possible, we acknowledge that
tematically measure customer experience performance after each pur- there might still be biases in responses as we had no way to confirm
chase and incentivize the consumers to participate in such evaluations that the participants were actually US-based or that they had ever used
RR

if necessary. Instead of rating each experience individually, managers a smart speaker for shopping as they claimed. Thus, future research
could rather make consumers rate their actual experience compared to could have an experimental design where participants are invited to ac-
the previous one and if possible, compared to their expectations. This tively take part in a voice shopping exercise before evaluating their ex-
will enable the managers to take proactive actions towards planning periences. Future research should also consider a longitudinal approach
continuous service improvements. to investigating customer experience with voice shopping as consumer
Fifth, our study also has implications for smart speaker manufac- experiences might change as privacy concerns and trust beliefs might
turers. Given the correlation between service relevance, perceived ease evolve with time. Lastly, we did not restrict our respondents to any par-
CO

of use and customer experience performance (Fairhurst, 2013; Visi- ticular type of voice assistant, smart speaker, product, or service pur-
nescu, Sidorova, Jones, & Prybutok, 2015), smart speaker compa- chased. Thus, future research should examine each of these aspects to
nies should make sure that all the services offered through their plat- provide a deeper understanding of customer experience performance in
form are relevant and easy for the user to understand. Managers should voice shopping contexts.
expect personality to influence variations in customer experience per-
formance during voice shopping due to trust in the smart speaker man- 7. Conclusions
ufacturer. This can be used as a decision criterion for retail companies
UN

to choose the smart speaker company for their voice shopping service. This study explored how personality, trust, privacy concerns, and
Retail organizations can also conduct a simple survey to find out from prior experience with smart speakers affect customer experience perfor-
their customers who own smart speakers which one they prefer and mance and the combinations of these factors that lead to high customer
why. Questions should focus on the trust relationships the customers experience performance. It was highly motivated by the growing inter-
have with their smart speaker manufacturer and their current experi- est of business scholars and practitioners in the adoption and use of AI
ences with the smart speakers. in e-commerce environments. The study reveals that the belief that the
Furthermore, smart speaker manufacturers play a key role in build- smart speaker company is interested in and cares about the wellbeing
ing consumer trust and alleviating privacy concerns regarding the use of its users, especially regarding privacy, will strongly influence cus-
of smart speakers for voice shopping. No matter how impressive voice tomer experience performance. This trust and experience significantly
depend on the experiences and trust beliefs developed due to past expe-
riences with smart speakers. Consumers with a high sense of curiosity

12
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

and strong moral values who perceive the smart speaker company’s ef- Choden, K., Bagchi, K.K., Udo, G.J., & Kirs, P.J. (2019). The influence of individual
values on internet use: A multinational study. International Journal of Information
forts to protect the privacy of its customers and better serve their needs Management, 46, 198–209. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.010.
will have high customer experience performance. This research con- Choi, B.C.F., & Land, L. (2016). The effects of general privacy concerns and transactional
tributes to research by showing the relationships and combinations of privacy concerns on Facebook apps usage. Information & Management, 53(7),
868–877. doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.02.003.
factors that lead to high customer experience performance in the voice Chopdar, P.K., & Balakrishnan, J. (2020). Consumers response towards mobile commerce
shopping context. It also shows managers and practitioners how to im- applications: S-O-R approach. International Journal of Information Management, 53,

F
prove personalized voice shopping experiences. Hopefully, these contri- 102106. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102106.
Cloarec, J. (2020). The personalization–privacy paradox in the attention economy.
butions would incite researchers to further explore how voice assistants Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120299. doi:10.1016/
could be used to enhance the shopping experiences of consumers and j.techfore.2020.120299.

OO
help businesses provide better voice shopping services. Collins-Taylor, C. (2016). The evolving behaviors of empowered consumers. Teller Vision,
1469, 2–3.
Cui, X. (2017). In- and extra-role knowledge sharing among information technology
CRediT authorship contribution statement professionals: The five-factor model perspective. International Journal of Information
Management, 37(5), 380–389. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.04.011.
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020). How artificial intelligence will
Ransome Epie Bawack: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
change the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1),
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Re- 24–42. doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00696-0.
sources, Software, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Samuel Fosso de Barcelos Silva, A., Gomes, M.M., da Costa, C.A., da Rosa Righi, R., Barbosa, J.L.V.,
Wamba: Project administration, Supervision, Validation. Kevin Daniel Pessin, G., … Federizzi, G. (2020). Intelligent personal assistants: A systematic

PR
literature review. Expert Systems With Applications, 147, 113193. doi:10.1016/
André Carillo: Project administration, Supervision, Validation. j.eswa.2020.113193.
Dowling, K., Guhl, D., Klapper, D., Spann, M., Stich, L., & Yegoryan, N. (2020). Behavioral
References biases in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 449–477.
doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00699-x.
Duan, Y., Edwards, J.S., & Dwivedi, Y.K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making
Aldholay, A., Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., Abdulsalam, R., & Al-Shibami, A.H. (2018). An in the era of Big Data – Evolution, challenges and research agenda. International
extension of Delone and McLean IS success model with self-efficacy: Online learning
Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71. doi:10.1016/
usage in Yemen. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,
j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021.
35(4), 285–304. doi:10.1108/IJILT-11-2017-0116.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., … Williams,

D
Ameen, N., Tarhini, A., Reppel, A., & Anand, A. (2021). Customer experiences in the age
M.D. (2019). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging
of artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106548. doi:10.1016/
challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International
j.chb.2020.106548.
Journal of Information Management. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.
Ameen, N., Tarhini, A., Shah, M.H., & Nusair, K. (2021). A cross cultural study of gender
Dwivedi, Y.K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D.L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., …
differences in omnichannel retailing contexts. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
TE
Services, 58, 102265. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102265. Wang, Y. (2020). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research:
Anaza, N.A. (2014). Personality antecedents of customer citizenship behaviors in online Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information
shopping situations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(4), 251–263. doi:10.1002/ Management, 102168. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168.
mar.20692. Easwara Moorthy, A., & Vu, K.P.L. (2015). Privacy concerns for use of voice activated
Arnett, J., Goldfinch, B., & Chinta, R. (2018). Multi-dimensional nature of innovation personal assistant in the public space. International Journal of Human-computer
at Amazon. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 15(1), 1–13. Interaction, 31(4), 307–335. doi:10.1080/10447318.2014.986642.
doi:10.1504/IJBIR.2018.088461. Fairhurst, M. (2013). Collision course. Canadian Underwriter, 80(5), 58–61.
Avnet, T., Pham, M.T., & Stephen, A.T. (2012). Consumers’ trust in feelings as information. H. Fanderl A. Matthey S. Pratsch J. Stöber Driving the automotive customer experience
EC

The Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 720–735. doi:10.1086/664978. towards the age of mobility1. Retrieved fromMcKinsey & Companyhttps://www.
Aydın, G. (2019). Do personality traits and shopping motivations affect social commerce mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/driving-the-
adoption intentions? Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Internet automotive-customer-experience-toward-the-age-of-mobility2019
Commerce, 18(4), 428–467. Retrieved from http://10.0.4.56/15332861.2019. Fang, J., Shao, Y., & Wen, C. (2016). Transactional quality, relational quality, and
consumer e-loyalty: Evidence from SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of
1668659.
Information Management, 36(6, Part B), 1205–1217. doi:10.1016/
Bansal, G., Zahedi, F.M., & Gefen, D. (2016). Do context and personality matter? Trust and
privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Information & Management, j.ijinfomgt.2016.08.006.
53(1), 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.08.001. Fatahi, S., & Moradi, H. (2016). A fuzzy cognitive map model to calculate a user’s
RR

Behrenbeck, K., Peter, B., Peter, C., Rugholm, J., Frank, S., Wachinger, T., … Zocchi, desirability based on personality in e-learning environments. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 272–281. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.041.
A. (2015). Perspectives on retail and consumer goods. Perspectives on retail and
Fiona, G. (2017). Asda parent introduces voice shopping technology. DIY Week, 2.
consumer goods. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/
Fiss, P.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies
Industries/Retail/OurInsights/Perspectives on retail and consumer goods Number7/
in organization research. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
Perspectives-on-Retail-and-Consumer-Goods_Issue-7.ashx.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120.
Bleier, A., Harmeling, C.M., & Palmatier, R.W. (2019). Creating effective online customer
Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U., & Broderick, A. (2018). Investigating the effects
experiences. Journal of Marketing, 83(2), 98–119. doi:10.1177/0022242918809930.
of smart technology on customer dynamics and customer experience. Computers in
Bosnjak, M., Galesic, M., & Tuten, T. (2007). Personality determinants of online shopping:
Human Behavior, 80, 271–282. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.014.
CO

Explaining online purchase intentions using a hierarchical approach. Journal of

Foroudi, P., Jin, Z., Gupta, S., Melewar, T.C., & Foroudi, M.M. (2016). Influence of
Business Research, 60(6), 597–605. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.008.
innovation capability and customer experience on reputation and loyalty. Journal of
Brill, T.M., Munoz, L., & Miller, R.J. (2019). Siri, Alexa, and other digital assistants:
Business Research, 69(11), 4882–4889. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.047.
A study of customer satisfaction with artificial intelligence applications. Journal
Gallo, F.R., Simari, G.I., Martinez, M.V., & Falappa, M.A. (2020). Predicting user reactions
of Marketing Management, 35(15–16), 1401–1436. doi:10.1080/
to Twitter feed content based on personality type and social cues. Future Generation
0267257X.2019.1687571.
Computer Systems, 110, 918–930. doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.10.044.
Burbach, L., Halbach, P., Plettenberg, N., Nakayama, J., Ziefle, M., & Valdez, A.C. (2019).
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D.W. (2003). Trust and tam in online shopping: AN
“hey, siri”,“ Ok, google”,“ Alexa”. Acceptance-relevant factors of virtual
integrated model. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(1), 51–90.
voice-assistants. 2019 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference
doi:10.2307/30036519.
(ProComm) (pp. 101–111).
UN

Gohary, A., & Hanzaee, K.H. (2014). Personality traits as predictors of shopping
Cerasa, A., Lofaro, D., Cavedini, P., Martino, I., Bruni, A., Sarica, A., … Quattrone, A.
motivations and behaviors: A canonical correlation analysis. Arab Economic and
(2018). Personality biomarkers of pathological gambling: A machine learning study.
Business Journal, 9(2), 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.aebj.2014.10.001.
Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 294, 7–14. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.10.023.
Goldbach, C., Kayar, D., Pitz, T., & Sickmann, J. (2019). Transferring decisions to an
Chang, S.E., & Jang, Y.T. (2009). Assessing customer satisfaction in a V-commerce
algorithm: A simple route choice experiment. Transportation Research Part F, Traffic
environment. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 19(1),
Psychology and Behaviour, 65, 402–417. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.011.
30–49. doi:10.1080/10919390802605083.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative“ description of personality”: The big-five factor
Chang, R.C.S., Lu, H.P., & Yang, P. (2018). Stereotypes or golden rules? Exploring likable
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216.
voice traits of social robots as active aging companions for tech-savvy baby boomers
Goldsmith, R. (2016). The Big five, happiness, and shopping. Journal of Retailing and
in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 194–210. doi:10.1016/
Consumer Services, 31, 52–61. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.007.
j.chb.2018.02.025.
Gopal, R.D., Hidaji, H., Patterson, R.A., Rolland, E., & Zhdanov, D. (2018). How much to
Chen, J.V., Widjaja, A.E., & Yen, D.C. (2015). Need for affiliation, need for popularity,
share with third parties? User privacy concerns and website dilemmas. MIS Quarterly:
self-esteem, and the moderating effect of big five personality traits affecting
Management Information Systems, 42(1), 143–163. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2018/
individuals’ self-disclosure on facebook. International Journal of Human-computer
13839.
Interaction, 31(11), 815–831. Retrieved from http://10.0.4.56/10447318.2015.
Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing:
1067479.
An organizing framework. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/
Chen, X., Ma, J., Wei, J., & Yang, S. (2020). The role of perceived integration in WeChat
j.jretai.2009.01.001.
usages for seeking information and sharing comments: A social capital perspective.
Gu, D., Deng, S., Zheng, Q., Liang, C., & Wu, J. (2019). Impacts of case-based health
Information & Management, 103280. doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103280.
knowledge system in hospital management: The mediating role of group

13
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

effectiveness. Information & Management, 56(8), 103162. doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.04.005. B. Kinsella A. Mutchler Voice assistant consumer adoption report November 2018Re-
Gu, J., Xu, Y.(C.), Xu, H., Zhang, C., & Ling, H. (2017). Privacy concerns for mobile app trieved fromhttps://voicebot.ai/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/voice-assistant-
download: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Decision Support Systems, consumer-adoption-report-2018-voicebot.pdf2018
94, 19–28. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.10.002. Kinsella, B., & Mutchler, A. (2018b). Voice shopping: Consumer adoption report.
Guidi, A., Gentili, C., Scilingo, E.P., & Vanello, N. (2019). Analysis of speech features and Voicebot.ai. Retrieved from https://voicebot.ai/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/voice-
personality traits. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 51, 1–7. doi:10.1016/ shopping-consumer-adoption-report-june-2018-voicebot-voysis.pdf%0D%0A.
j.bspc.2019.01.027. Klaus, P., & Zaichkowsky, J. (2020). AI voice bots: A services marketing research agenda.
Gutierrez, A., O’Leary, S., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., & Calle, T. (2019). Using privacy Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 389–398. doi:10.1108/JSM-01-2019-0043.

F
calculus theory to explore entrepreneurial directions in mobile location-based Klie, L. (2013). Which interaction channels are most popular? - CRM magazine. CRM
advertising: Identifying intrusiveness as the critical risk factor. Computers in Human Magazine, 17(9), 12. Retrieved from http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/
Behavior, 95, 295–306. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.015. Columns-Departments/Insight/Which-Interaction-Channels-Are-Most-Popular-91537.
Hadian, M., Altuwaiyan, T., Liang, X., & Li, W. (2019). Privacy-preserving voice-based aspx.

OO
search over mHealth data. Smart Health : International Conference, ICSH 2014, Korzaan, M.L., & Boswell, K.T. (2008). The influence of personality traits and information
Beijing, China, July 10-11, 2014 Proceedings ICSH (Conference : Smart Health) (2014 : privacy concerns on behavioral intentions. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
Beijing, China), 12, 24–34. doi:10.1016/j.smhl.2018.04.001. 48(4), 15–24. doi:10.1080/08874417.2008.11646031.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014). Partial least squares Krafft, M., Arden, C.M., & Verhoef, P.C. (2017). Permission Marketing and Privacy
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Concerns — Why Do Customers (Not) Grant Permissions? Journal of Interactive
European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128. Marketing, 39, 39–54. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2017.03.001.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Ku, E.C.S., & Chen, C.D. (2015). Cultivating travellers’ revisit intention to e-tourism
Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate service: The moderating effect of website interactivity. Behaviour & Information
Data Analysis, 1(2), 107. doi:10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574. Technology, 34(5), 465–478. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2014.978376.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least Kumar, S., Kumar, P., & Bhasker, B. (2018). Interplay between trust, information privacy

PR
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications. concerns and behavioural intention of users on online social networks. Behaviour &
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P.A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology Information Technology, 37(6), 622–633. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1470671.
research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. Kuppelwieser, V.G., & Klaus, P. (2020). Measuring customer experience quality: The EXQ
doi:10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382. scale revisited. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.042.
Holmlund, M., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Ciuchita, R., Ravald, A., Sarantopoulos, P., Ordenes, Laming, C., & Mason, K. (2014). Customer experience - an analysis of the concept and its
F.V., … Zaki, M. (2020). Customer experience management in the age of big data performance in airline brands. Research in Transportation Business & Management,
analytics: A strategic framework. Journal of Business Research, 116, 356–365. 10, 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.05.004.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.022. Lee, D.S., & Ahn, C.K. (2020). Industrial human resource management optimization
Hossain, M.A., & Dwivedi, Y.K. (2014). What improves citizens’ privacy perceptions based on skills and characteristics. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 144, 106463.
toward RFID technology? A cross-country investigation using mixed method doi:10.1016/j.cie.2020.106463.

D
approach. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 711–719. Lee, J.M., & Rha, J.Y. (2016). Personalization-privacy paradox and consumer conflict
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.07.002. with the use of location-based mobile commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 63,
Hsu, H.Y., & Tsou, H.-T. (2011). Understanding customer experiences in online blog 453–462. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.056.
environments. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 510–523. X. Lei G.-H. Tu A.X. Liu K. Ali C.-Y. Li T. Xie The insecurity of home digital voice assistants
TE
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.05.003. -- Amazon alexa as a case study. ArXiv preprint ArXiv:1712.03327Retrieved fromhttp:
Hsu, J.S., Lin, T.C., & Tsai, J. (2014). Does confirmation always matter? Extending //arxiv.org/abs/1712.033272017
confirmation-based theories. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(11), Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration
1219–1230. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2013.857431. in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the
Hu, P., Wang, K., & Liu, J. (2019). Speaking and listening: Mismatched human-like Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 846–869. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0.
conversation qualities undermine social perception and trust in AI-based voice Lemon, K.N., & Verhoef, P.C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the
assistants. Proceedings of the 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems: customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420.
Secure ICT Platform for the 4th Industrial Revolution. Leong, L.Y., Hew, T.S., Ooi, K.B., Lee, V.H., & Hew, J.J. (2019). A hybrid SEM-neural
EC

Hu, X., Huang, Q., Zhong, X., Davison, R.M., & Zhao, D. (2016). The influence of peer network analysis of social media addiction. Expert Systems With Applications, 133,
characteristics and technical features of a social shopping website on a consumer’s 296–316. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.024.
purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), Level 3 Communications (2010). Level 3 communications, inc. Annual report. Reportal
1218–1230. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.08.005. company reports. Acquisdata Inc..
Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., Ramayah, T., & Mutahar, A.M. (2017). Internet usage, user Li, S.S., & Karahanna, E. (2015). Online recommendation systems in a B2C E-commerce
satisfaction, task-technology fit, and performance impact among public sector context: A review and future directions. Journal of the Association for Information
employees in Yemen. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Systems, 16(2), 72–107. doi:10.17705/1jais.00389.
34(3), 210–241. doi:10.1108/IJILT-11-2016-0051. Liao, Y., Vitak, J., Kumar, P., Zimmer, M., & Kritikos, K. (2019). Understanding the role of
RR

Isaac, O., Aldholay, A., Abdullah, Z., & Ramayah, T. (2019). Online learning usage privacy and trust in intelligent personal assistant adoption. Lecture Notes in Computer
within Yemeni higher education: The role of compatibility and task-technology fit as Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes
mediating variables in the IS success model. Computers & Education, 136, 113–129. in Bioinformatics) (pp. 102–113). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_9.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.012. Lim, L.G., Tuli, K.R., & Grewal, R. (2020). Customer satisfaction and its impact on the
Jeong, M., Zo, H., Lee, C.H., & Ceran, Y. (2019). Feeling displeasure from online social future costs of selling. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 23–44. Retrieved from http://10.
media postings: A study using cognitive dissonance theory. Computers in Human 0.4.153/0022242920923307.
Behavior, 97, 231–240. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.021. Lin, C., & Lekhawipat, W. (2016). How customer expectations become adjusted after
Junglas, I.A., Johnson, N.A., & Spitzmüller, C. (2008). Personality traits and concern purchase. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(4), 443–469.
for privacy: An empirical study in the context of location-based services. European doi:10.1080/10864415.2016.1171973.
CO

Journal of Information Systems, 17(4), 387–402. doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.29. Lindh, C., Thilenius, P., & Hadjikhani, A. (2016). Distrust online in the financial services
Kaatz, C., Brock, C., & Figura, L. (2019). Are you still online or are you already mobile? market: The relevance of experiential knowledge and information exchange. Journal
– Predicting the path to successful conversions across different devices. Journal of of Customer Behaviour, 15(2), 173–191. doi:10.1362/147539216x14594362873776.
Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.005. Loideain, N.N., & Adams, R. (2020). From Alexa to Siri and the GDPR: The gendering
Kang, J.Y.M., & Johnson, K.K.P. (2015). F-Commerce platform for apparel online social of virtual personal assistants and the role of data protection impact assessments.
shopping: Testing a Mowen’s 3M model. International Journal of Information Computer Law & Security Report, 36, 105366. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105366.
Management, 35(6), 691–701. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.07.004. Lycett, M., & Radwan, O. (2019). Developing a quality of experience (QoE) model for web
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On applications. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 175–199. doi:10.1111/isj.12192.
the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Maier, C., Mattke, J., Pflügner, K., & Weitzel, T. (2020). Smartphone use while driving: A
UN

Horizons, 62(1), 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of personality profiles influencing frequent
Kazeminia, A., Kaedi, M., & Ganji, B. (2019). Personality-based personalization of online high-risk smartphone use while driving in Germany. International Journal of
store features using genetic programming: Analysis and experiment. Journal of Information Management, 55, 102207. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102207.
Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), 16–29. Retrieved from Marbach, J., Lages, C.R., & Nunan, D. (2016). Who are you and what do you value?
http://10.0.15.227/S0718-18762019000100103. Investigating the role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online
Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., & Fleisch, E. (2015). Blissfully ignorant: The effects of customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 502–525.
general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1128472.
Information Systems Journal, 25(6), 607–635. doi:10.1111/isj.12062. Mari, A., Mandelli, A., & Algesheimer, R. (2020). The evolution of marketing in the
Kelly, L., Kerr, G., & Drennan, J. (2017). Privacy concerns on social networking sites: context of voice commerce: A managerial perspective. Lecture Notes in Computer
A longitudinal study. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(17–18), 1465–1489. Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2017.1400994. in Bioinformatics) (pp. 405–425). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50341-3_32.
Kim, C., Li, W., & Kim, D.J. (2015). An empirical analysis of factors influencing Masele, J.J., & Matama, R. (2020). Individual consumers’ trust in B2C automobile
M-Shopping use. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 31(12), e-commerce in Tanzania: Assessment of the influence of web design and consumer
974–994. doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1085717. personality. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries,
B. Kinsella A. Mutchier Smart speaker consumer adoption report March 2019 giving voice 86(1), e12115. doi:10.1002/isd2.12115.
to a revolution U.SRetrieved fromhttps://voicebot.ai/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ Matthews, G., Hancock, P.A., Lin, J., Panganiban, A.R., Reinerman-Jones, L.E., Szalma,
smart_speaker_consumer_adoption_report_2019.pdf2019 J.L., … Wohleber, R.W. (2020). Evolution and revolution: Personality research for the
coming world of robots, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. Personality
and individual differences. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109969. 109969.

14
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

McCarthy, M.H., Wood, J.V, & Holmes, J.G. (2017). Dispositional pathways to trust: Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2008). Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation
Self-esteem and agreeableness interact to predict trust and negative emotional agents: A social relationship perspective to designing information systems. Journal
disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 95–116. Retrieved of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145–182. doi:10.2753/
from http://10.0.4.13/pspi0000093. MIS0742-1222250405.
McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Hey Alexa … examine the variables influencing Ragin, C.C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and
the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. doi:10.1093/pan/mpj019.
Behavior, 99, 28–37. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009. Ragin, C.C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. doi:10.7208/
McLean, G., & Wilson, A. (2016). Evolving the online customer experience … is there chicago/9780226702797.001.0001.

F
a role for online customer support? Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 602–610. Ragin, C.C., & Pennings, P. (2005). Fuzzy sets and social research. Sociological Methods &
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.084. Research, 33(4), 423–430. doi:10.1177/0049124105274499.
McLean, G., Al-Nabhani, K., & Wilson, A. (2018). Developing a mobile applications Ragin, C.C., Drass, K., & Davey, S. (2008). User’s guide to Fuzzy-Set / qualitative
customer experience model (MACE)- implications for retailers. Journal of Business comparative analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law : an Official Law Review of

OO
Research, 85, 325–336. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.018. the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law,
MD Main Uddin, Isaac, O., Alrajawy, I., & Maram, M.A. (2019). Do User Satisfaction and 87, 1–87.
Actual Usage of Online Learning Impact Students Performance? International Journal Rajavi, K., Kushwaha, T., & Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2019). In brands we trust? A
of Management and Human Science (IJMHS), 3(2), 60–67. multicategory, multicountry investigation of sensitivity of consumers’ trust in brands
Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2020). Examining the interplay between big data analytics to marketing-mix activities. The Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 651–670.
and contextual factors in driving process innovation capabilities. European Journal of doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz026.
Information Systems, 29(3), 260–287. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2020.1740618. Reisinger, D. (2018). Amazon says alexa voice shopping tripled during 2018 holiday
Mikalef, P., Krogstie, J., Pappas, I.O., & Pavlou, P. (2020). Exploring the relationship season. Fortune.Com, N.PAG-N.PAG..
between big data analytics capability and competitive performance: The mediating Rhee, C.E., & Choi, J. (2020). Effects of personalization and social role in voice shopping:
roles of dynamic and operational capabilities. Information & Management, 57(2). An experimental study on product recommendation by a conversational voice agent.

PR
doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004. 103169. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106359. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106359.
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., & Giannakos, M.N. (2017). Value co-creation and purchase Rodić, A., Jovanović, M., Stevanović, I., Karan, B., & Potkonjak, V. (2015). Building
intention in social commerce: The enabling role of word-of-mouth and trust. AMCIS technology platform aimed to develop service robot with embedded personality and
2017 - America’S Conference on Information Systems: A Tradition of Innovation. enhanced communication with social environment. Digital Communications and
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Giannakos, M.N., & Sharma, K. (2017). Determining consumer Networks, 1(2), 112–124. doi:10.1016/j.dcan.2015.03.002.
engagement in word-of-mouth: Trust and network ties in a social commerce setting.. Rodić, A., Vujović, M., Stevanović, I., & Jovanović, M. (2016). Development of
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial human-centered social robot with embedded personality for elderly care.. Mechanisms
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (pp. 351–362). doi:10.1007/ and Machine Science (Vol. 39, pp. 233–247). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30674-2_18.
978-3-319-68557-1_31. Rowe, S.D. (2019). Voice assistants are changing shopping--Are you ready? Speech
Moon, Y. (2002). Personalization and personality: Some effects of customizing message Technology Magazine, 24(2), 9. Retrieved from https://www.speechtechmag.com/

D
style based on consumer personality. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=131582.
313–325. doi:10.1207/15327660260382351. Russo, I., & Confente, I. (2019). From dataset to qualitative comparative analysis
Moorman, C. (2019). August 2019 CMO survey: Hiring, AI on the rise. Marketing News, (QCA)—Challenges and tricky points: A research note on contrarian case analysis
53(9), 6–7. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/marketing-news/august-2019-cmo- and data calibration. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(2), 129–135. doi:10.1016/
j.ausmj.2018.11.001.
TE
survey-hiring-ai-on-the-rise/.
Morgeson, F.V., Sharma, P.N., & Hult, G.T.M. (2015). Cross-national differences in Sánchez-Medina, A.J., Galván-Sánchez, I., & Fernández-Monroy, M. (2020). Applying
consumer satisfaction: Mobile services in emerging and developed markets. Journal of artificial intelligence to explore sexual cyberbullying behaviour. Heliyon, 6(1),
International Marketing, 23(2), 1–24. doi:10.1509/jim.14.0127. e03218. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03218.
Moriuchi, E. (2019). Okay, Google!: An empirical study on voice assistants on consumer Santander, U.K. (2014). MarketLine Company profile: Santander UK plc. Santander UK plc
engagement and loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 36(5), 489–501. doi:10.1002/ MarketLine company profile. MarketLine, a progressive digital media business.
mar.21192. Scheidt, S., & Chung, Q.B. (2019). Making a case for speech analytics to improve customer
Mou, Y., & Xu, K. (2017). The media inequality: Comparing the initial human-human service quality: Vision, implementation, and evaluation. International Journal of
EC

and human-AI social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 432–440. Information Management, 45, 223–232. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.002.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.067. Seyedghorban, Z., Tahernejad, H., & Matanda, M.J. (2016). Reinquiry into advertising
Nasirian, F., Ahmadian, M., & Lee, O.K.D. (2017). AI-based voice assistant systems: avoidance on the internet: A conceptual replication and extension. Journal of
Evaluating from the interaction and trust perspectives. AMCIS 2017 - America’S Advertising, 45(1), 120–129. doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1085819.
Conference on Information Systems: A Tradition of Innovation. Shareef, M.A., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., Kumar, U., Akram, M.S., & Raman, R. (2021).
Olsen, S.O., Tudoran, A.A., Honkanen, P., & Verplanken, B. (2016). Differences and A new health care system enabled by machine intelligence: Elderly people’s trust
similarities between impulse buying and variety seeking: A personality-based or losing self control. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120334.
perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 33(1), 36–47. doi:10.1002/mar.20853. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120334.
Sheng, M.L., & Teo, T.S.H. (2012). Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile
RR

Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2016).

Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: The role of cognitive and affective domain: The mediating role of customer experience. International Journal of
perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 794–803. doi:10.1016/ Information Management, 32(2), 139–146. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.11.017.
j.jbusres.2015.07.010. Shi, S., & Chow, W.S. (2015). Trust development and transfer in social commerce: Prior
Pappas, I.O., Papavlasopoulou, S., Mikalef, P., & Giannakos, M.N. (2020). Identifying experience as moderator. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(7), 1182–1203.
the combinations of motivations and emotions for creating satisfied users in SNSs: doi:10.1108/IMDS-01-2015-0019.
An fsQCA approach. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102128. Shi, S., Wang, Y., Chen, X., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Conceptualization of omnichannel
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102128. customer experience and its impact on shopping intention: A mixed-method approach.
Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N., & Lekakos, G. (2017). The interplay International Journal of Information Management, 50, 325–336. doi:10.1016/
CO

of online shopping motivations and experiential factors on personalized e-commerce: j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.001.

A complexity theory approach. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 730–742. Shin, D.H. (2017). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.021. of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. Information & Management,
Pappas, I.O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M.N., & Pavlou, P.A. (2017). Value co-creation and 54(8), 998–1011. doi:10.1016/j.im.2017.02.006.
trust in social commerce: An fsQCA approach. Proceedings of the 25th European Simms, K. (2019). How voice assistants could change the way we shop. Harvard Business
Conference on Information Systems (pp. 2153–2168). Review, (may), 2–7. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/05/how-voice-assistants-
Pavlou, P.A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online marketplaces with could-change-the-way-we-shop.
institution-based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37–59. doi:10.1287/ Sohn, S., Seegebarth, B., & Moritz, M. (2017). The impact of perceived visual complexity of
isre.1040.0015. mobile online shops on user’s satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 34(2), 195–214.
UN

Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative doi:10.1002/mar.20983.
platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Souiden, N., Ladhari, R., & Nataraajan, R. (2019). Personality traits and complaining
Psychology, 70, 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006. behaviors: A focus on Japanese consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 36(4), 363–375.
Pekovic, S., & Rolland, S. (2020). Recipes for achieving customer loyalty: A qualitative doi:10.1002/mar.21184.
comparative analysis of the dimensions of customer experience. Journal of Retailing Sperkova, L. (2019). Integration of textual VoC into a CX data model for business
and Consumer Services, 56, 102171. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102171. intelligence use in B2C. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 9(3), 39–55.
Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., & Dwivedi, Y.K. (2020). Shopping intention at AI-powered doi:10.37380/jisib.v9i3.514.
automated retail stores (AIPARS). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, Srivastava, M., & Kaul, D. (2014). Social interaction, convenience and customer
102207. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102207. satisfaction: The mediating effect of customer experience. Journal of Retailing and
Piotrowicz, W., & Cuthbertson, R. (2014). Introduction to the special issue information Consumer Services, 21(6), 1028–1037. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.04.007.
technology in retail: Toward omnichannel retailing. International Journal of Srivastava, S.C., Chandra, S., & Shirish, A. (2015). Technostress creators and job outcomes:
Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 5–16. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415180400. Theorising the moderating influence of personality traits. Information Systems
Pizzi, G., & Scarpi, D. (2020). Privacy threats with retail technologies: A consumer Journal, 25(4), 355–401. doi:10.1111/isj.12067.
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102160. doi:10.1016/ Stanworth, J.O., Warden, C.A., & Hsu, R.S. (2015). The voice of the Chinese customer:
j.jretconser.2020.102160. Facilitating ecommerce encounters. International Journal of Market Research, 57(3),
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method 459–481. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2015-037.
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended Steinhoff, L., Arli, D., Weaven, S., & Kozlenkova, I.V. (2019). Online relationship
remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/ marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 369–393.
0021-9010.88.5.879. doi:10.1007/s11747-018-0621-6.

15
R.E. Bawack et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS dissertations and theses. 174. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 19(4), 561–568. doi:10.2307/249633. 2130559314?accountid=168248%0Ahttp://www.yidu.edu.cn/educhina/educhina.
Tho, N.D., & Trang, N.T.M. (2015). Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to do?artifact=&svalue=Voice+Shopping%3A+The+Effect+of+the+Consumer-
business organizations through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA findings. Voice+Assistant+Parasocial+Relationship+on+the+Consumer%27s+Perception+and+Decisio
Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1332–1340. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.003. While, V.S.D., Home, G., Shopping, W.V., Tennant, B.E., Is, W., Most, I., … Ahead, L.
Tong, S., Luo, X., & Xu, B. (2020). Personalized mobile marketing strategies. Journal of (2018). Voice shopping is revolutionizing E-Commerce. Twice, 33(18), 9. Retrieved
the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 64–78. doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00693-3. from https://www.twice.com/blog/voice-shopping-revolutionizing-e-commerce.
Trajkova, M., & Martin-Hammond, A. (2020). Alexa is a toy”: Exploring older adults’ Williams, L., Buoye, A., Keiningham, T.L., & Aksoy, L. (2020). The practitioners’ path

F
reasons for using, limiting, and abandoning echo. Conference on Human Factors in to customer loyalty: Memorable experiences or frictionless experiences? Journal of
Computing Systems - Proceedings (pp. 1–13). doi:10.1145/3313831.3376760. Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102215. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102215.
Triantoro, T., Gopal, R., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Lang, G. (2019). Would you like to play? Witell, L., Kowalkowski, C., Perks, H., Raddats, C., Schwabe, M., Benedettini, O., …
A comparison of a gamified survey with a traditional online survey method. Burton, J. (2020). Characterizing customer experience management in business

OO
International Journal of Information Management, 49, 242–252. doi:10.1016/ markets. Journal of Business Research, 116, 420–430. doi:10.1016/
j.ijinfomgt.2019.06.001. j.jbusres.2019.08.050.
Turkyilmaz, C.A., Erdem, S., & Uslu, A. (2015). The effects of personality traits and website Woodside, A.G. (2014). Embrace perform model: Complexity theory, contrarian case
quality on online impulse buying. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503.
98–105. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1179. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006.
Tyrväinen, O., Karjaluoto, H., & Saarijärvi, H. (2020). Personalization and hedonic Wottrich, V.M., van Reijmersdal, E.A., & Smit, E.G. (2018). The privacy trade-off for
motivation in creating customer experiences and loyalty in omnichannel retail. mobile app downloads: The roles of app value, intrusiveness, and privacy concerns.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102233. doi:10.1016/ Decision Support Systems, 106, 44–52. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.12.003.
j.jretconser.2020.102233. Wu, I.-L. (2013). The antecedents of customer satisfaction and its link to complaint
Ufer, D., Lin, W., & Ortega, D.L. (2019). Personality traits and preferences for specialty intentions in online shopping: An integration of justice, technology, and trust.

PR
coffee: Results from a coffee shop field experiment. Food Research International, 125, International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 166–176. doi:10.1016/
108504. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108504. j.ijinfomgt.2012.09.001.
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T.A., & Venkatraman, S. (2014). Understanding e-Government portal Wu, W.Y., & Ke, C.C. (2015). An online shopping behavior model integrating personality
use in rural India: Role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information traits, perceived risk, and technology acceptance. Social Behavior and Personality,
Systems Journal, 24(3), 249–269. Retrieved from http://10.0.4.87/isj.12008. 43(1), 85–98. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.1.85.
Verhoef, P.C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management Xie, X.-Z., & Tsai, N.-C. (2020). The effects of negative information-related incidents on
efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing, social media discontinuance intention: Evidence from SEM and fsQCA. Telematics and
67(4), 30–45. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.4.30.18685. Informatics, 101503. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101503.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, Yang, S., & Lee, Y.J. (2017). The dimensions of M-Interactivity and their impacts in
L.A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management the mobile commerce context. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21(4),

D
strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001. 548–571. doi:10.1080/10864415.2016.1355645.
Visinescu, L.L., Sidorova, A., Jones, M.C., & Prybutok, V.R. (2015). The influence of Yoon, H.S., & Occeña, L.G. (2015). Influencing factors of trust in consumer-to-consumer
website dimensionality on customer experiences, perceptions and behavioral electronic commerce with gender and age. International Journal of Information
intentions: An exploration of 2D vs. 3D web design. Information & Management, Management, 35(3), 352–363. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.02.003.
52(1), 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.10.005.
TE
Yuan, L.(I.), & Dennis, A.R. (2019). Acting like humans? Anthropomorphism and
von Briel, F. (2018). The future of omnichannel retail: A four-stage Delphi study. consumer’s willingness to pay in electronic commerce.. Journal of Management
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 217–229. doi:10.1016/ Information Systems, 36(2), 450–477. doi:10.1080/07421222.2019.1598691.
j.techfore.2018.02.004. Yueh, H.-P., Lu, M.-H., & Lin, W. (2016). Employees’ acceptance of mobile technology in
Wagner, G., Schramm-Klein, H., & Steinmann, S. (2020). Online retailing across e-channels a workplace: An empirical study using SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research,
and e-channel touchpoints: Empirical studies of consumer behavior in the 69(6), 2318–2324. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.048.
multichannel e-commerce environment. Journal of Business Research, 107, 256–270. Yun, H., Lee, G., & Kim, D.J. (2019). A chronological review of empirical research
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.048. on personal information privacy concerns: An analysis of contexts and research
EC

Wang, Y., & Herrando, C. (2019). Does privacy assurance on social commerce sites matter constructs. Information & Management, 56(4), 570–601. doi:10.1016/
to millennials? International Journal of Information Management, 44, 164–177. j.im.2018.10.001.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.016. Zhu, Y.Q., & Kanjanamekanant, K. (2020). No trespassing: Exploring privacy boundaries in
Webber, S., Payne, S., & Taylor, A. (2012). Personality and trust fosters service quality. personalized advertisement and its effects on ad attitude and purchase intentions on
Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2), 193–203. Retrieved from http://10.0.3. social media. Information & Management. doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103314. 103314.
239/s10869-011-9235-4. Zhu, H., Ou, C.X.J., van den Heuvel, W.J.A.M., & Liu, H. (2017). Privacy calculus and
Whang, C. (2018). voice shopping: The effect of the consumer-voice assistant parasocial its utility for personalization services in e-commerce: An analysis of consumer
relationship on the consumer’s perception and decision making. ProQuest decision-making. Information & Management, 54(4), 427–437. doi:10.1016/
RR

j.im.2016.10.001.
CO
UN

16