Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychology and Marketing

Open access
·2006·Psychology and Marketing

Abstract

ABSTRACT As a significant application of artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous technologies (ATs) free people from decision‐making and task‐completion but they take away the autonomy and control that used to belong to users. This research advances understanding of AT acceptance by conceptually distinguishing and empirically validating two related but previously conflated constructs: perceived loss of autonomy and perceived loss of personal control. We develop clear definitions and reliable measurement scales for both constructs following rigorous scale development procedures with multiple methods and samples. We then examine their effects across two AT contexts that differ in task orientation—autonomous driving (utility‐oriented) and autonomous shopping (meaning‐oriented)—using separate survey samples. Findings reveal that perceived loss of autonomy is salient when technologies take over meaning‐oriented tasks (e.g., shopping), whereas perceived loss of personal control is more influential for utility‐oriented tasks (e.g., driving). This research contributes to AT acceptance literature by distinguishing and refining the conceptualization of loss of autonomy and loss of personal control, providing validated scales, and offering nuanced insights into how the effects of these two constructs vary by task orientation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/(issn)1520-6793

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Venue
Psychology and Marketing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-04-03
Volume
43
Issue
9
Pages
2245-2257
ISSN
  • 0742-6046 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6793
OpenAlex
W3157432320
Cited by
482
References
5
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.