| Literature DB >> 31872134 |
Abstract
Smart media combines media and artificial intelligence (AI) and can also be a user-centered content service market. However, existing research lacks an understanding of user's perceptions concerning smart services generated by different user experience types across different payment groups. Taking AI-powered Smart TV (AI TV) as a typical research object, this study (1) develops a theoretical model by integrating the technology acceptance model with users' smart service belief factors and (2) employs the user experience type as an original moderator. Using data from 585 AI TV users, the structural equation modeling analysis suggests that perceived two-way communication, perceived personalization, and perceived co-creation as three belief factors, are important antecedent constructs in the extended technology acceptance model. The analysis also suggests that the user experience type exerts positive moderating effects on two-way communication and personalization to attitude toward behavior and purchase intention. This study thus contributes to the literature on smart service by identifying and studying smart service belief factors. The addition of smart service belief factors as antecedents, as well as user experience type as a moderator, are crucial to expand the generalizability of TAM to the smart media service context. From a customer experience management perspective, this study shows how to convert ad-supported users into new paid subscribers, while keeping existing subscribers by fulfilling their smart service requirements.Entities:
Keywords: Business; Co-creation; Marketing; Personalization; Psychology; Smart media; Technology acceptance model; Two-way communication; User experience type
Year: 2019 PMID: 31872134 PMCID: PMC6911877 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02983
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Proposed research model.
Demographic characteristics of respondents.
| Item | Type | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 288 | 49.2% |
| Female | 297 | 50.8% | |
| Age | 18–25 | 156 | 26.7% |
| 26–35 | 332 | 56.8% | |
| 36–45 | 75 | 12.8% | |
| 46+ | 22 | 3.8% | |
| Monthly Income (RMB:Yuan) | 3000- | 124 | 21.2% |
| 3001–5000 | 204 | 34.9% | |
| 5001–10000 | 191 | 32.7% | |
| 10001+ | 66 | 11.3% | |
| Payment type | Paid subscribers | 310 | 53.0% |
| Ad-supported users | 275 | 47.0% |
Measurement items, validity and reliability.
| Construct | Adapted Scale | Standardized | CR | AVE | Cronbach's alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intention to Purchase | IP1: It is likely that I will purchase the AI TV content services within the next 6 months. | 0.764 | 0.752 | 0.503 | 0.750 |
| IP2: Given the chance, I intend to purchase the AI TV content service. | 0.655 | ||||
| IP3: I recommend my family and friends to purchase the AI TV content service. | 0.705 | ||||
| Attitude Toward Behavior | ATB1: Using the AI TV is a good idea. | 0.813 | 0.876 | 0.588 | 0.876 |
| ATB2: Using the AI TV is a wise idea. | 0.826 | ||||
| ATB3: I like the idea of using the AI TV. | 0.766 | ||||
| ATB4: Using AI TV is pleasant. | 0.735 | ||||
| ATB5: I have a positive perception toward using AI TV. | 0.684 | ||||
| Two-way Communication | PTC1: AI TV enables two-way communication. | 0.820 | 0.846 | 0.527 | 0.845 |
| PTC2: AI TV enables concurrent communication. | 0.784 | ||||
| PTC3: AI TV is interactive. | 0.745 | ||||
| PTC4: AI TV is interpersonal. | 0.647 | ||||
| PTC5: AI TV enables conversation. | 0.612 | ||||
| Personalization | PP1: I feel that AI TV content service recommendations are tailored to my interests. | 0.824 | 0.840 | 0.569 | 0.838 |
| PP2: I feel that AI TV content service recommendations are personalized. | 0.761 | ||||
| PP3: I feel that AI TV content service is personalized for my use. | 0.769 | ||||
| PP4: I feel that AI TV content service recommendations are delivered in a timely way. | 0.653 | ||||
| Co-creation | PCC1: I feel comfortable co-creating content (including comments) on AI TV. | 0.728 | 0.806 | 0.580 | 0.805 |
| PCC2: The setting of the AI TV allows me to effectively co-create content. | 0.767 | ||||
| PCC3: My AI TV using experience was enhanced because of my content co-creation activity. | 0.789 | ||||
| Ease of Use | PEU1: I found that learning to operate AI TV is easy. | 0.735 | 0.807 | 0.583 | 0.805 |
| PEU2: The operation of AI TV is clear and understandable. | 0.820 | ||||
| PEU3: Operating AI TV does not require a lot of my mental effort. | 0.733 | ||||
| Usefulness | PU1: Using the AI TV makes “TV watching” more convenient. | 0.761 | 0.786 | 0.553 | 0.780 |
| PU2: Using the AI TV can enhance the effectiveness of “TV watching.” | 0.825 | ||||
| PU3: Using the AI TV can assist my life. | 0.631 |
Correlation matrices and discriminant validity.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Usefulness | |||||||
| 2. Ease of Use | 0.645*** | ||||||
| 3.Two-way Communication | 0.593*** | 0.558*** | |||||
| 4. Personalization | 0.575*** | 0.580*** | 0.650*** | ||||
| 5. Co-creation | 0.607*** | 0.534*** | 0.561*** | 0.653*** | |||
| 6. Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.653*** | 0.621*** | 0.628*** | 0.631*** | 0.586*** | ||
| 7. Intention to Purchase | 0.402*** | 0.340*** | 0.490*** | 0.507*** | 0.452*** | 0.485*** |
Note: 1: Zero-order correlation (***:p < 0.001,**:p < 0.01,*:p < 0.05).
2: The bold number on the diagonal is the square root of AVE. Off-diagonal numbers are correlations among constructs.
Goodness of fit indices.
| Model T Indices | Result | Recommended Value |
|---|---|---|
| Chi-square/degree of freedom | 2.638 | <3 |
| Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) | 0.903 | >0.9 |
| Normed fit index (NFI) | 0.911 | >0.9 |
| Comparative fit index (CFI) | 0.942 | >0.9 |
| Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) | 0.934 | >0.9 |
| Root mean square residual (RMSEA) | 0.053 | <0.08 |
| Standard root mean square residual (SRMR) | 0.039 | <0.05 |
Hypothesis testing of test 1.
| The Hypothesis | Path Coefficient | P-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.187 | * | Yes | |
| 0.206 | *** | Yes | |
| 0.191 | *** | Yes | |
| 0.345 | *** | Yes | |
| 0.216 | *** | Yes | |
| n.s | n.s | No | |
| n.s | n.s | No | |
| n.s | n.s | No | |
| 0.287 | *** | Yes | |
| 0.495 | *** | Yes | |
| 0.383 | *** | Yes | |
| 0.127 | † | Yes | |
| 0.203 | ** | Yes |
Note: ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01,*: p < 0.05, †: p < 0.10.
Figure 2Path analysis.
Indirect effects.
| Pathway | Path Coefficient | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ease of Use→Usefulness→Attitude Toward Behavior→Intention to Purchase | 0.038 | 0.006 | 0.171 |
| Two-way Communication→Usefulness→Attitude Toward Behavior→Intention to Purchase | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.195 |
| Personalization→Attitude Toward Behavior→Intention to Purchase | 0.044 | 0.002 | 0.144 |
| Co-creation→Usefulness→Attitude Toward Behavior→Intention to Purchase | 0.022 | 0.002 | 0.078 |
Note: 2,000 bootstrap samples were used for the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.
Chi-square difference test between paid subscribers and Ad-supported user groups.
| Path | Base Model | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1:Two-way Communication – Intention to Purchase | Model2: Personalization – Intention to Purchase | Model3: Two-way Communication-Attitude Toward Behavior | Model 4: Personalization – Attitude Toward Behavior | Model 5: Usefulness - Attitude Toward Behavior | Model 6: Ease of Use - Attitude Toward Behavior | ||||||||||||
| Full sample | Ad-supported | Paid | Ad-supported | Paid | Ad-supported | Paid | Ad-supported | Paid | Ad-supported | Paid | Ad-supported | Paid | |||||
| Unstandardized estimates | |||||||||||||||||
| Usefulness - Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.390*** | 0.393*** | 0.393*** | 0.392*** | 0.392*** | 0.388*** | 0.388*** | 0.393*** | 0.393*** | 0.390*** | 0.390*** | ||||||
| Ease of Use - Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.129† | 0.129† | 0.129† | 0.128† | 0.128† | 0.130† | 0.130† | 0.124† | 0.124† | 0.139† | 0.139† | ||||||
| Two-way Communication – Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.190*** | 0.183** | 0.183** | 0.184** | 0.184** | 0.179** | 0.179** | 0.178** | 0.178** | 0.179** | 0.179** | ||||||
| Personalization – Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.193*** | 0.161** | 0.161** | 0.162** | 0.162** | 0.174** | 0.174** | 0.175** | 0.175** | 0.169** | 0.169** | ||||||
| Attitude Toward Behavior – Intention to Purchase | 0.238** | 0.191* | 0.191* | 0.196* | 0.196* | 0.178* | 0.178* | 0.176* | 0.176* | 0.175* | 0.175* | 0.175* | 0.175* | ||||
| Two-way Communication – Intention to Purchase | 0.202* | 0.207* | 0.207* | 0.207* | 0.207* | 0.208* | 0.208* | 0.208* | 0.208* | 0.208* | 0.208* | ||||||
| Personalization – Intention to Purchase | 0.361*** | 0.281*** | 0.281*** | 0.318*** | 0.318*** | 0.318*** | 0.318*** | 0.319*** | 0.319*** | 0.319*** | 0.319*** | ||||||
| Ease of Use - Usefulness | 0.493*** | 0.500*** | 0.500*** | 0.501*** | 0.501*** | 0.501*** | 0.501*** | 0.501*** | 0.501*** | 0.500*** | 0.500*** | 0.502*** | 0.502*** | ||||
| Two-way Communication - Usefulness | 0.173** | 0.174** | 0.174** | 0.172** | 0.172** | 0.173** | 0.173** | 0.173** | 0.173** | 0.172** | 0.172** | 0.172** | 0.172** | ||||
| Co-creation - Usefulness | 0.289*** | 0.284*** | 0.284*** | 0.284** | 0.284** | 0.283*** | 0.283*** | 0.283*** | 0.283*** | 0.285*** | 0.285*** | 0.283*** | 0.283*** | ||||
| Standardized estimates | |||||||||||||||||
| Usefulness - Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.383*** | 0.402*** | 0.394*** | 0.402*** | 0.394*** | 0.389*** | 0.398*** | 0.385*** | 0.415*** | 0.389*** | 0.402*** | ||||||
| Ease of Use - Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.127† | 0.129† | 0.134† | 0.129† | 0.134† | 0.128† | 0.139† | 0.119† | 0.136† | 0.135† | 0.149† | ||||||
| Two-way Communication – Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.206*** | 0.204** | 0.199** | 0.204** | 0.200** | 0.189** | 0.205** | 0.192** | 0.200** | 0.194** | 0.200** | ||||||
| Personalization – Attitude Toward Behavior | 0.216*** | 0.175** | 0.196** | 0.175** | 0.196** | 0.183** | 0.217** | 0.183** | 0.219** | 0.177** | 0.211** | ||||||
| Attitude Toward Behavior – Intention to Purchase | 0.203** | 0.180* | 0.184* | 0.183* | 0.190* | 0.162* | 0.178* | 0.164* | 0.173* | 0.161* | 0.174* | 0.160* | 0.174* | ||||
| Two-way Communication – Intention to Purchase | 0.187* | 0.215* | 0.219* | 0.205* | 0.232* | 0.205* | 0.233* | 0.206* | 0.232* | 0.206* | 0.232* | ||||||
| Personalization – Intention to Purchase | 0.345*** | 0.287*** | 0.331*** | 0.305*** | 0.397*** | 0.304*** | 0.401*** | 0.307*** | 0.399*** | 0.307*** | 0.399*** | ||||||
| Ease of Use - Usefulness | 0.495*** | 0.490*** | 0.520*** | 0.491*** | 0.521*** | 0.491*** | 0.521*** | 0.491*** | 0.521*** | 0.491*** | 0.519*** | 0.491*** | 0.522*** | ||||
| Two-way Communication - Usefulness | 0.191** | 0.188** | 0.187** | 0.187** | 0.186** | 0.188** | 0.188** | 0.187** | 0.188** | 0.187** | 0.186*** | 0.187** | 0.187** | ||||
| Co-creation - Usefulness | 0.287*** | 0.270*** | 0.292*** | 0.270*** | 0.292*** | 0.270*** | 0.291*** | 0.270*** | 0.290*** | 0.272*** | 0.292*** | 0.270*** | 0.290*** | ||||
| Attitude Toward Behavior - R2 | 0.701*** | 0.658*** | 0.698*** | 0.658*** | 0.698*** | 0.676*** | 0.683*** | 0.697*** | 0.668*** | 0.683*** | 0.675*** | 0.679*** | 0.681*** | ||||
| Intention to Purchase - R2 | 0.451*** | 0.297*** | 0.610*** | 0.307*** | 0.599*** | 0.368*** | 0.547*** | 0.371*** | 0.544*** | 0.368*** | 0.547*** | 0.368*** | 0.547*** | ||||
| Usefulness - R2 | 0.751*** | 0.702*** | 0.798*** | 0.702*** | 0.798*** | 0.701*** | 0.799*** | 0.701*** | 0.800*** | 0.705*** | 0.795*** | 0.702*** | 0.798*** | ||||
| Chi-square/Degree of Freedom | 2.638 | 2.017 | 2.020 | 2.023 | 2.016 | 2.022 | 2.022 | ||||||||||
| Comparative fit index (CFI) | 0.942 | 0.917 | 0.917 | 0.917 | 0.918 | 0.917 | 0.917 | ||||||||||
| Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) | 0.934 | 0.912 | 0.912 | 0.912 | 0.913 | 0.912 | 0.912 | ||||||||||
| Root mean square residual (RMSEA) | 0.053 | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.059 | ||||||||||
Note: ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01,*: p < 0.05, †: p < 0.10.