3.9 Article

Exploring utilitarian and hedonic antecedents for adopting information from a recommendation agent and unplanned purchase behaviour

期刊

NEW REVIEW OF HYPERMEDIA AND MULTIMEDIA
卷 22, 期 1-2, 页码 139-165

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13614568.2015.1052098

关键词

Adoption intention; Unplanned purchase behaviour; Enjoyment; Information diagnosticity; Web atmospherics; Outcome similarity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicated that in order for properly utilizing recommendation agents (RAs), customers must rationally evaluate capability and suggestions of RAs during the interaction process. However, enjoying interactive processes and interface is also important. Methods for increasing user enjoyment of RAs are yet unknown. This study investigated the influences of utilitarian and hedonic factors on intention to adopt RAs suggestions and their antecedents. Involvement influences relative importance of utilitarian and hedonic factors. Contrary to common assumptions, customers may make unplanned purchases, rather than rational purchase. A field experiment with 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design reveals main findings. First, information diagnosticity and enjoyment enhance adoption intention simultaneously. Information diagnosticity is more important than enjoyment. Diagnosticity was determined by outcome similarity, and enjoyment was determined by both outcome similarity and atmospherics. The context of interacting with RAs is important. Outcome similarity even directly affects adoption intention. Second, highly involved users considered enjoyment and diagnosticity when forming adoption intentions, while users with low involvement only considered enjoyment. Third, information cascades altered the relationship between adoption intention and unplanned purchases. Most customers change selection after seeing ratings from other customers, even if they originally strongly want to adoption suggestion from RAs. Theoretical and managerial implications are proposed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据