CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1AI in Service InteractionsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

Conversational AI in E-Commerce: Strategic Implications of Voice-Based Chatbots for Consumer Engagement and Trust

Open access
Gharib, Moaz, Trivedi, Vibha, Trivedi, Ashish·2025·International Review of Management and Marketing
DOI 10.32479/irmm.19352
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

AI-powered chatbots are disruptive innovations with great potential for easing online business communication. This study aims to empirically investigate the influence of the voice mode of chatbot technology on consumer continuance intention toward e-commerce websites by examining the role of perceived technological optimism (PTO), cognition-based trust (CBT), and perceived customer care (PCC). A 2X2 factorial design is employed for a between-subjects laboratory experiment. ANOVA was used to test the treatments’ comparative effects, and the final analyses were done using Hayes PROCESS Macro in SPSS. The results reveal consumer preference for the voice mode of chatbots over the text mode when seeking service assistance. It empowers consumers by giving them greater control over their interaction with technology and the problem-solving process. With a seamless interaction with a virtual assistant, consumers develop CBT in the technology, leading to positive PCC and, eventually, continuance intention toward the website. The study offers recommendations on how to save a firm’s resources by retaining its customers rather than spending on new acquisitions. Firms need to implement a competent technology that allows customers to express themselves using autonomy, thereby building trust and continued engagement.

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 · 10.32479/irmm.19352

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Systems designed to minimize friction augment perceived utility and user satisfaction, thereby reinforcing trust and subsequent intention outcomes.

    “Systems designed to minimize friction (e.g., expedited information access, simplified input, structured guidance, enhanced navigation) augment perceived utility and user satisfaction, thereby reinforcing trust and subsequent intention outcomes (e.g., retention, purchase intention, reliance-oriented metrics) [6,44,45,48,50,52,67,69].”

    From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 5.2 (page not provided) recommends quick, easy chatbot interactions and says efficient problem-solving can strengthen trust, satisfaction, and continuance intentions. Section 5.1 also reports a pathway from chatbot interaction through trust and perceived customer care to continuance intention. The paper does not establish the full claimed pathway through perceived utility and user satisfaction, or the broader purchase-intention and reliance outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • As systems move toward truly agentic, transaction-executing commerce, the main limitation is measurement: a significant portion of the evidence deduces delegation from adoption or continuation intentions, rather than from direct observation of explicit delegation choices or verified execution.

    “As systems move toward truly agentic, transaction-executing commerce [24,40,44,45,50,52,67], the main limitation is measurement: a significant portion of the evidence deduces delegation from adoption or continuation intentions, rather than from direct observation of explicit delegation choices or verified execution.”

    From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Beliefs about one's ability (such as perceived task-solving competence) strengthen the usefulness and trust routes; delegation is more likely when the agent is seen as competent for the task.

    “First, beliefs about one's ability (such as perceived task-solving competence) strengthen the usefulness and trust routes stronger.Delegation is more likely when the agent is seen as competent for the task [51,52,69].”

    From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 2.3 says that perceiving a chatbot as competent at solving problems increases users’ trust and belief that it can meet their needs. The paper tests task-solving competence as a moderator of the link between chatbot mode and technological optimism, not a usefulness route. The cited passages do not establish that users’ beliefs about their own ability strengthen those routes or that competence makes delegation more likely. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Design and channel factors (voice vs. text; initiation mode; anthropomorphic cues) influence perceived control and social presence, occasionally altering the direction of effects through reactance or satisfaction mechanisms.

    “Fourth, design and channel factors (voice vs. text; initiation mode; anthropomorphic cues) influence perceived control and social presence, occasionally altering the direction of effects through reactance or satisfaction mechanisms [7,24,31,32,52].”

    From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 2.2 suggests that voice rather than text interaction may give consumers a greater sense of control, and Section 2.3 discusses anthropomorphism in relation to perceived chatbot competence. The paper does not establish effects of initiation mode or social presence, or show effects reversing through reactance or satisfaction. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Modality and interface cues determine whether autonomy is perceived as supportive or intrusive.

    “In a similar vein, modality and interface cues determine whether autonomy is perceived as supportive or intrusive (e.g., the effects of voice versus text on cognition and satisfaction; assistant initiation patterns affecting reactance) [8,24,52].”

    From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Results report different technological-optimism scores for voice and text chatbots, and the Managerial Implications recommend interface choices that give users a sense of control. These passages support a role for modality and interface design in users’ perceptions, but the paper does not establish whether autonomy is perceived as supportive rather than intrusive or examine initiation patterns and reactance. The cited passages have no page numbers in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Aaker, J., Vohs, K.D., Mogilner, C. (2010), Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224-237.
  2. Andy Field. (2009), Discovering Statistics using SPSS (third). United States: Sage Publications.
  3. Campbell, D.T. (1957), Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312.
  4. Chen, Y.Y. (2012), Why do consumers go internet shopping again? Understanding the antecedents of repurchase intention. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 22(1), 38-63.
  5. Cheng, X., Bao, Y., Zarifis, A., Gong, W., Mou, J. (2022), Exploring consumers' response to text-based chatbots in e-commerce: The moderating role of task complexity and chatbot disclosure. Internet Research, 32(2), 496-517.
  6. Cheng, X., Zhang, X., Cohen, J., Mou, J. (2022a), Human vs. AI: Understanding the impact of anthropomorphism on consumer response to chatbots from the perspective of trust and relationship norms. Information Processing and Management, 59(3), 102940.
  7. Cheng, X., Zhang, X., Cohen, J., Mou, J. (2022b), Human vs. AI: Understanding the impact of anthropomorphism on consumer response to chatbots from the perspective of trust and relationship norms. Information Processing and Management, 59(3), 102940.
  8. Fernandes, T., Oliveira, E. (2021), Understanding consumers' acceptance of automated technologies in service encounters: Drivers of digital voice assistants adoption. Journal of Business Research, 122, 180- 191.
  9. Hoff, K.A., Bashir, M. (2015), Trust in automation. Human factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(3), 407-434.
  10. Keiningham, T.L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Andreassen, T.W., Weiner, J. (2007), The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting customer retention, recommendation, and share-of-wallet. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(4), 361-384.
  11. Kim, S.Y., Schmitt, B.H., Thalmann, N.M. (2019), Eliza in the uncanny valley: Anthropomorphizing consumer robots increases their perceived warmth but decreases liking. Marketing Letters, 30(1), 1-12.
  12. Lazarus, R.S. (1982), Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37(9), 1019-1024.
  13. Li, M., Wang, R. (2023), Chatbots in e-commerce: The effect of chatbot language style on customers' continuance usage intention and attitude toward brand. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 71, 103209.
  14. Luo, M.M., Chea, S. (2018), Cognitive appraisal of incident handling, affects, and post-adoption behaviors: A test of affective events theory. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 120-131.
  15. Mittal, A., Agrawal, A., Chouksey, A., Shriwas, R., Agrawal, S. (2016), A comparative study of chatbots and humans. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 5(3), 1055-1057.
  16. Niemand, T., Mai, R. (2018), Flexible cutoff values for fit indices in the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 1148-1172.
  17. Ortony, A., Clore, G.L., Collins, A. (1990), The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. 2 nd ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Parasuraman, A. (2000), Technology readiness index (Tri). Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320.
  19. Raggiotto, F., Compagno, C., Scarpi, D. (2023), Care management to improve retail customers' and employees' satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 72, 103280.
  20. Rapp, A., Curti, L., Boldi, A. (2021), The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 151, 102630.
  21. Rese, A., Ganster, L., Baier, D. (2020), Chatbots in retailers' customer communication: How to measure their acceptance? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102176.
  22. Rezaei, S., Amin, M., Ismail, W.K.W. (2014), Online repatronage intention: An empirical study among Malaysian experienced online shoppers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 42(5), 390-421.
  23. Rodríguez-Priego, N., Porcu, L., Prados Peña, M.B., Crespo Almendros, E. (2023), Perceived customer care and privacy protection behavior: The mediating role of trust in self-disclosure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 72, 103284.
  24. Roseman, I.J. (2001), A model of appraisal in the emotion system integrating theory, research, and applications. In: Appraisal Processes in Emotion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 68-91.
  25. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000), Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well- being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
  26. Sáiz-Manzanares, M.C., Marticorena-Sánchez, R., Martín-Antón, L.J., González Díez, I., Almeida, L. (2023), Perceived satisfaction of university students with the use of chatbots as a tool for self-regulated learning. Heliyon, 9(1), e12843.
  27. Santouridis, I., Veraki, A. (2017), Customer relationship management and customer satisfaction: The mediating role of relationship quality. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(9-10), 1122-1133.
  28. Serravalle, F., Pantano, E. (2023), Mastering care management strategies to improve retailing: Mechanisms, capabilities, impacts and emerging opportunities. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, 103298.
  29. Shah, T.R., Kautish, P., Mehmood, K. (2023), Influence of robots service quality on customers' acceptance in restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(12), 3117-3137.
  30. Shim, J.P., Shin, Y., Nottingham, L. (2002), Retailer web site influence on customer shopping: Exploratory study on key factors of customer satisfaction. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3(1), 53-78.
  31. Siddiqi, D.A., Miraj, F., Raza, H., Hussain, O.A., Munir, M., Dharma, V.K., Shah, M.T., Habib, A., Chandir, S. (2024), Development and feasibility testing of an artificially intelligent chatbot to answer immunization-related queries of caregivers in Pakistan: A mixed- methods study. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 181, 105288.
  32. Sijtsma, K. (2009), On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.
  33. Silva, G.M., Dias, Á., Rodrigues, M.S. (2022), Continuity of use of food delivery apps: An integrated approach to the health belief model and the technology readiness and acceptance model. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 0114.
  34. Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K.I., Brandtzaeg, P.B. (2021), My chatbot companion -a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601.
  35. Smutny, P., Schreiberova, P. (2020), Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Computers and Education, 151, 103862.
  36. Trivedi, V., Banerji, D., Yadav, M. (2023), Expecting the surprises: Role of hope in consumer repurchase intentions in an online shopping environment. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 31(4), 794-816.
  37. Trivedi, V., Trivedi, A., Pandey, K.K., Chaurasia, S.S. (2023), Ordering the right quantity? Examining the impact of plate size vagueness on food waste in an online food delivery system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 391, 136052.
  38. Uthamaputhran, S., Shuaib, A.S., Md Isa, Y.Z., Hasan, H., Zaato, S.G. (2022), What Drives Trust on Foodpanda Delivery Service During COVID-19 Pandemic? From the Perspective of Product Information, After Sales Service, and Payment Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 173-188.
  39. Vakeel, K.A., Sivakumar, K., Jayasimha, K.R., Dey, S. (2018), Service failures after online flash sales: Role of deal proneness, attribution, and emotion. Journal of Service Management, 29(2), 253-276.
  40. Vannucci, V., Dasmi, C., Nechaeva, O., Pizzi, G., Aiello, G. (2023), WHY do YOU care about me? The impact of retailers' customer care activities on customer orientation perceptions and store patronage intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, 103305.
  41. Viglia, G., Dolnicar, S. (2020), A review of experiments in tourism and hospitality. Annals of Tourism Research, 80, 102858.
  42. Wang, C., Li, Y., Fu, W., Jin, J. (2023), Whether to trust chatbots: Applying the event-related approach to understand consumers' emotional experiences in interactions with chatbots in e-commerce. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, 103325.
  43. Yin, J., Goh, T.T., Yang, B., Xiaobin, Y. (2021), Conversation technology with micro-learning: The impact of chatbot-based learning on students' learning motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 154-177.
  44. Zhao, X., Chen, L., Jin, Y., Zhang, X. (2023), Comparing button-based chatbots with webpages for presenting fact-checking results: A case study of health information. Information Processing and Management, 60(2), 103203.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gharib, M., Trivedi, V., & Trivedi, A.
Affiliations
  • Dhofar University (OM)
  • O. P. Jindal Global University (IN)
ORCID
Venue
International Review of Management and Marketing
Publisher
EconJournals
Published
2025-10-13
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
1-9
ISSN
2146-4405 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.32479/irmm.19352
OpenAlex
W4415129851
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • International Review of Management and Marketing (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • International Review of Management and Marketing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
conversational AI, e-commerce, cognition-based trust, consumer autonomy, customer engagement, customer retention, virtual assistants

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