CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8AI in Service InteractionsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

Understanding the Continuance Intention to Use Chatbot Services

Open access
Kim, Jeeyeon, Li, Yiling, Choi, Jeonghye·2023·Asia Marketing Journal
DOI 10.53728/2765-6500.1613
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Chatbot services have become an essential communication tool for interacting with consumers in e-commerce. To understand consumer behavior in the context of chatbot services, we apply the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to analyze continuance intention to use and additional predictors to explain behavioral intention. An analysis of data collected from 300 digital shopping users who had experienced chatbot services revealed that an extended TPB model holds for the continuous use of chatbot services, driven by both interaction and information quality. Accordingly, these findings provide a better understanding of consumer behavior toward chatbot services and valuable insights into digital customer relationship management.

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 · 10.53728/2765-6500.1613

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Studies focusing on intention usually follow extended TAM/ECT/TPB logic, in which quality/usefulness and confirmation lead to higher satisfaction and/or attitudes, which then predict continued use, purchase intention, or loyalty.

    “Studies that focus on intention usually follow the extended TAM/ECT/TPB logic, which says that quality/usefulness and confirmation lead to higher satisfaction and/or attitudes, which then predict outcomes like continued use, purchase intention, or loyalty”

    From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Assessment of structural model and Conclusion report that chatbot interaction and information quality positively affect attitudes, and that attitudes predict continuance intention. The paper uses an extended TPB model, but these passages do not establish the broader claim about studies usually following TAM/ECT/TPB logic, nor do they test confirmation, satisfaction, purchase intention, or loyalty as steps or outcomes. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Algesheimer, René, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), "The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs," Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 19-34.
  2. Brachten, Florian, Tobias Kissmer, and Stefan Stieglitz (2021), "The Acceptance of Chatbots in an Enterprise Context-A Sur- vey Study," International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102375.
  3. Çelen, Bo gaçhan, Andrew Schotter, and Mariana Blanco (2017), "On Blame and Reciprocity: Theory and Experiments," Journal of Economic Theory, 169, 62-92.
  4. Chung, Minjee, Eunju Ko, Heerim Joung, and Sang Jin Kim (2020), "Chatbot E-Service and Customer Satisfaction Regarding Lux- ury Brands," Journal of Business Research, 117, 587-595.
  5. DeLone, William H. and Ephraim R. McLean (2003), "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update," Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9-30.
  6. Fassnacht, Martin, Sharon E. Beatty, and Markus Szajna (2019), "Combating the Negative Effects of Showrooming: Successful Salesperson Tactics for Converting Showroomers into Buyers," Journal of Business Research, 102, 131-139.
  7. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker, (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure- ment Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
  8. Haas, Alexander and Peter Kenning (2014), "Utilitarian and Hedo- nic Motivators of Shoppers' Decision to Consult with Salespeo- ple," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 428-441.
  9. Hsu, Chin-Lung and Judy Chuan-Chuan Lin (2008), "Acceptance of Blog Usage: The Roles of Technology Acceptance, Social Influence and Knowledge Sharing Motivation," Information & Management, 45 (1), 65-74.
  10. Hsu, Tien-Yu, Hao-Ren Ke, and Wei-Pang Yang (2006), "Knowl- edge Based Mobile Learning Framework for Museums," The Electronic Library, 24 (5), 635-648.
  11. Hsu, Yi-Ping, Ying Chih-Hsi, and Wen-Chin Hsu (2019), "Factors Influencing Users' Willingness to Consult Chatbots for Health Information," International Journal of Innovation in Management, 7 (2), 117-126.
  12. Jiang, Yan, Jeeyeon Kim, Jeonghye Choi, and Moon Young Kang (2020), "From Clicks to Bricks: The Impact of Product Launches in Offline Stores for Digital Retailers," Journal of Business Re- search, 120, 302-311.
  13. Lee, Yonnim and Ohbyung Kwon (2011), "Intimacy, Familiar- ity and Continuance Intention: An Extended Expectation- Confirmation Model in Web-Based Services," Electronic Com- merce Research and Applications, 10 (3), 342-357.
  14. Li, Meichan and Rui Wang (2023), "Chatbots in E-Commerce: The Effect of Chatbot Language Style on Customers' Continuance Usage Intention and Attitude Towards Brand," Journal of Retail- ing and Consumer Services, 71, 103209.
  15. Lou, Chen, Hyunjin Kang, and Caleb H. Tse (2022), "Bots vs. Humans: How Schema Congruity, Contingency-Based Inter- activity, and Sympathy Influence Consumer Perceptions and Patronage Intentions," International Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 655-684.
  16. Luo, Xueming, Siliang Tong, Zheng Fang, and Zhe Qu (2019), "Frontiers: Machines vs. Humans: The Impact of Artificial Intel- ligence Chatbot Disclosure on Customer Purchases," Marketing Science, 38 (6), 937-947.
  17. Mathieson, Kieran (1991), "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, 2 (3), 173-191.
  18. Moriuchi, Emi (2021), "An Empirical Study on Anthropomorphism and Engagement with Disembodied AIs and Consumers' Re- use Behavior," Psychology & Marketing, 38 (1), 21-42.
  19. Park, Sangwoo, Woo Jin Choi, and Dongwoo Shin (2021), "Who Makes You More Disappointed? The Effect of Avatar Pre- sentation, Company Market Status, and Agent Identity on Customers' Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction of On- line Chatting Services," Asia Marketing Journal, 23 (3), 36-47.
  20. Park, Sungjun S., ChunTing D. Tung, and Heejung Lee (2021), "The Adoption of AI Service Robots: A Comparison Between Cre- dence and Experience Service Settings," Psychology & Marketing, 38 (4), 691-703.
  21. Rese, Alexandra, Lena Ganster, and Daniel Baier (2020), "Chat- bots in Retailers' Customer Communication: How to Measure Their Acceptance?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102176.
  22. Roy, Rajat and Vik Naidoo (2021), "Enhancing Chatbot Effective- ness: The Role of Anthropomorphic Conversational Styles and Time Orientation," Journal of Business Research, 126, 23-34.
  23. Sheppard, Blair H., Jon Hartwick, and Paul R. Warshaw (1988), "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Re- search with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 325-343.
  24. Shneor, Rotem and Ziaul Haque Munim (2019), "Reward Crowd- funding Contribution as Planned Behavior: An Extended Framework," Journal of Business Research, 103, 56-70.
  25. Taylor, Shirley, and Peter A. Todd (1995), "Understanding In- formation Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-176.
  26. Teo, Thompson SH, Shirish C. Srivastava, and Li Jiang (2008), "Trust and Electronic Government Success: An Empirical Study," Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 (3), 99- 132.
  27. Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis (2003), "User Acceptance of Information Tech- nology: Toward a Unified View," MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425- 478.
  28. Whang, Jeong-Bin, Ji Hee Song, Jong-Ho Lee, and Boreum Choi (2022), "Interacting with Chatbots: Message Type and Consumers' Control," Journal of Business Research, 153, 309- 318.
  29. Wien, Anders Hauge, and Alessandro M. Peluso (2021), "Influence of Human Versus AI Recommenders: The Roles of Product Type and Cognitive Processes," Journal of Business Research, 137, 13- 27.
  30. Xu, Yingzi, Chih-Hui Shieh, Patrick van Esch, and I-Ling Ling (2020), "AI Customer Service: Task Complexity, Problem- Solving Ability, and Usage Intention," Australasian Marketing Journal, 28 (4), 189-199.
  31. Yan, Min, Raffaele Filieri, and Matthew Gorton, (2021), "Continu- ance Intention of Online Technologies: A Systematic Literature Review," International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102315.
  32. Yang, Heetae, Hwansoo Lee, and Hangjung Zo (2017), "User Ac- ceptance of Smart Home Services: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 (1), 68-89.
  33. Zhang, Lixuan, Iryna Pentina, and Yuhong Fan (2021), "Who Do You Choose? Comparing Perceptions of Human vs Robot- Advisor in the Context of Financial Services," Journal of Services Marketing, 35 (5), 634-646.
  34. Zhu, Yimin, Jiemin Zhang, Jifei Wu, and Yingyue Liu (2022), "AI is Better When I'm Sure: The Influence of Certainty of Needs on Consumers' Acceptance of AI Chatbots," Journal of Business Research, 150, 642-652.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, J., Li, Y., & Choi, J.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
ORCID
Venue
Asia Marketing Journal
Publisher
Korean Marketing Association (AMJ)
Published
2023-10-31
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
99-110
ISSN
  • 1598-7868 (ISSN-L)
  • 2765-6500
DOI
10.53728/2765-6500.1613
OpenAlex
W4388114847
Cited by
8
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • La Trobe University (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • Yonsei University (2023-22-0014)
  • Ministry of Education (NRF-2020S1 A3A2A02093277)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF‐2020S1A3A2A02093277)
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
chatbots, continuance intention, theory of planned behavior, consumer behavior, e-commerce, interaction quality, information quality, behavioral intention

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