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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651257 · Cited by 12,583
Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · Cited by 5,550
The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1024 · Cited by 3,242
Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258646 · Cited by 2,057
Cited by
A Self‐Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity
Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1035 · Cited by 280
Corporate Sustainable Development: Testing a New Scale Based on the Mainland Chinese Context
Chow, W. S., & Chen, Y. (2012) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0983-x · Cited by 265
Religiosity and consumer behavior: a summarizing review
Agarwala, R., Mishra, P., & Singh, R. (2019) · Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion · doi:10.1080/14766086.2018.1495098 · Cited by 229
‘Nostalgia for the future’: memory, nostalgia and the politics of class
Smith, L., & Campbell, G. (2017) · International Journal of Heritage Studies · doi:10.1080/13527258.2017.1321034 · Cited by 163
Smith, K. T. (2019) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2017.1384043 · Cited by 115
Bäckström, K., & Johansson, U. (2017) · The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research · doi:10.1080/09593969.2017.1314865 · Cited by 39
The Role of Retailer Trust and Word of Mouth in Buying Organic Foods in an Emerging Market
Pandey, S., & Khare, A. (2017) · Journal of Food Products Marketing · doi:10.1080/10454446.2017.1266543 · Cited by 29
Mohd Suki, N., & Mohd Suki, N. (2020) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2019.1569088 · Cited by 22
Wu, L. (2019) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2018.1461125 · Cited by 10
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.