Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Adoption of AI-driven personalization in digital news platforms: An

integrative model of technology acceptance and perceived contingency
Joon Soo Lim a, Jun Zhang b, *
a
S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, 215 University Place, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA
b
School of Journalism and Strategic Media, College of Media and Entertainment, Middle Tennessee State University, 1301 E Main St, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research demonstrates the usefulness of the integrative model of the technology acceptance model (TAM)
Artificial intelligence and the perceived contingency model in predicting the users’ adoption of AI-driven personalization in digital
News personalization news platforms. We conducted an online survey with 1369 US adults randomly drawn from the national panel of
Technology acceptance model
Qualtrics. The results show that perceived contingency plays a crucial role in predicting the adoption of AI-
Perceived contingency
Engagement
powered news platforms, showing a significant direct effect and an indirect effect mediated by enhanced user
engagement experience and positive attitude. Furthermore, the TAM variables are still important in predicting
adoption behavior.

1. Introduction We conduct research based on the technology acceptance model

Artificial intelligence (AI) is shaping every corner of news distribu­
tion and consumption.
To adapt to the rapid advances in technology and changing needs
and behaviors of news users, major news outlets have leveraged AI in
their websites and mobile applications (apps hereafter). Among many
aspects of AI use, personalization is the most crucial characteristic of AI-
powered news as many of today’s businesses want to develop a system
that resembles Netflix or Spotify-like personalized content recommen­
dation algorithms.1 From a news personalization perspective, the cur­
rent study defines AI-powered news as the tailored news stories
recommended by digital news platforms using advanced AI algorithms
based on a reader’s interests, preferences, previous searches, location,
and other demographic information [1]. News audiences in the age of
artificial intelligence can also, intentionally or unintentionally, train
news algorithms on news apps or social media platforms to get more
relevant news. Despite these advantages, the use of such AI-powered
news platforms as Google News and their machine learning-based
personalization services seems to be still in the initial adoption stage
[2]. The fact that the adoption of AI-powered news has not yet reached a
critical mass poses a question to practitioners in news organizations—
what are perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral adoption of today’s
news viewers toward an AI-powered news personalization service?
(TAM) [3], which provides a major explanatory power in predicting
consumers’ intention to use innovative technology and actual use.
Providing a parsimonious yet robust predictive power, TAM has been
widely applied to explain various types of technological adoptions.
Established in the late 1980s, however, TAM is somewhat outdated in
describing interactive digital technologies powered by AI and machine
learning.
Therefore, we add additional elements to our model that capture the
capabilities of the automated and interactive technologies. As previously
discussed, AI-powered news platforms are characterized by providing
highly personalized news recommendations, which rely on the ability of
algorithms to generate output tailored to the user’s input and interaction
with the system. Sundar et al. [4] called the users’ perception of the
capabilities of this algorithm “perceived contingency.” Addressing the
limitation of the original TAM, we integrate TAM with the perceived
contingency-based engagement model proposed by Sundar and his col­
leagues [4].
2. Theoretical background
2.1. News personalization and AI-powered news service
News personalization is not a novel topic in the news industry.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jlim01@syr.edu (J.S. Lim), jun.zhang@mtsu.edu (J. Zhang).
1
https://www.wsj.com/articles/td-ameritrade-beefs-up-personalization-with-ai-11574115074.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101965
Received 16 October 2021; Received in revised form 18 February 2022; Accepted 8 March 2022
Available online 26 March 2022
0160-791X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang
Inspired by Netflix’s streaming content using algorithmic recommen­
dations, major large news media and agencies are striving to deliver
personalized news in real time reflecting user preferences and engage­
ment with content [1,5]. News personalization, which is based on
adaptive interactivity between news users and platforms, is a different
concept from the platform navigational interactivity and interactivity
among users [1]. Thurman [6] defined it as “a form of user-to-system
interactivity that uses a set of technological features to adapt the con­
tent, delivery and arrangement of communication to individual users’
explicitly registered and/or implicitly determined preference” (p. 397).
News personalization depends on user data and preferences that are
explicitly registered by users and/or automatically recorded by the
platform algorithms [6]. The driving force that made news personali­
zation possible is the development of artificial intelligence and machine
learning technology, which enables predictive analytics by analyzing
big data in real time. Early news personalization techniques were based
on users manually signing up for news subscriptions and editing initial
configurations to reflect their reading preferences. This type of news
personalization has the limitations that it relies heavily on a user’s
ability to enter their interests effectively and candidly into the system
and can easily lead to information overload [7].
With the development of machine learning algorithms, recent news
services are more dependent on the platforms’ algorithmic capability to
collect and utilize user information to recommend news [8]. Various
filtering algorithms have been developed to improve personalization
services, including a content-based approach, a demographic-based
approach, and a collaborative approach [9]. There is a newer
approach that combines the content-based method with the
collaborative-filtering method [10]. This integrated approach utilizes
both news consumption data for a user and news consumption data from
other groups of users similar to that user to predict the needs and in­
terests of that user. Chung et al. [7], used a modified Naive Bayesian
algorithm and behavioral data from a social networking site to develop
an adaptive personalization algorithm that reflects the needs, interests,
and changing preferences of users. Using such adaptive personalization
algorithms, news media can capture the needs and interests of specific
users with behavioral data such as “likes” and “retweets” to deliver news
that reflects their preferences. This adaptive personalization algorithm
enables news media to feed news that not only reflects the needs and
interests of users, but also their news consumption driven by homophily
and social influence in their social networking sites.
Previous studies have shown that AI-powered news personalization
shapes users’ news consumption behaviors and perceptions of news
platforms [11–15]. Using two sets of Pew Research data, Beam and
Kosicki [16] examined the effect of news personalization on users’ at­
titudes and behaviors toward news consumptions. They found that users
of personalized news portals read significantly more news sources and
news categories online than non-users. Furthermore, they found that
personalized news also increased exposure to other news sources offline
by encouraging users to engage with the news. In an experimental study,
Kalyanaraman and Sundar [13] found that personalized content had a
positive effect on users’ attitudes toward the website through perceived
relevance, involvement, and interactivity. Ye et al. [15], found that the
perceived quality of personalized news service of a Chinese mobile news
app had a positive effect on user satisfaction with the news app and their
continuance intention.
The adoption of news personalization also provides opportunities for
news media by driving better busines related outcomes [5,9]. Bodó [5]
interviewed 12 European quality news organizations and found that
AI-powered news personalization enabled news organizations to better
serve the needs of audiences with various interests leading to greater
long-term loyalty and paid subscribers. Furthermore, the AI-powered
news service contributed to news organizations’ financial sustainabil­
ity by helping them collect user data for commercial purposes.
2
Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965
2.2. Technology acceptance model (TAM)
The TAM is one of the most frequently used theories to explain
people’s information technology adoption behavior [17]. The original
TAM, building on the basis of the theory of reasoned action [3], con­
siders the influence of two extrinsic motivations—perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use—on the intention and actual use of informa­
tion technology [18]. Perceived ease of use (PEOU) refers to “the degree
to which the prospective user expects the use of the target system to be
free of effort” [19] (p. 270). Perceived usefulness (PU) refers to “the
degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would
enhance his or her job performance” [3] (p. 319). Davis, Bagozzi, and
Warshaw [20] added the variable of attitude into the original TAM
model. They proposed that users’ perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness influence their attitudes toward using the technology, which
subsequently influences their behavioral intentions and actual adoption
behavior. To put it another way, the more users like the functionality
and usability of a technology product/service, the more favorable atti­
tudes toward it are formed, which in turn increase the user’s intention to
adopt it. With the substantial predictive power for technology adoption
behaviors, the TAM has been applied to various innovative technologies,
such as smartwatch [21], mobile applications [22,23], telemedicine
[24] and VR technologies [25,26]. As summarized in Table 1, previous
studies have yielded robust results for the hypothesis of TAM applied to
various technologies.
Based on the robust results reported in previous studies on TAM, we
posit the following hypotheses:
H1a. Perceived usefulness has a positive effect on attitudes toward AI-
powered news.
H1b. Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on attitudes toward AI-
powered news.
H2. Attitudes toward AI-powered news have a positive effect on the
adoption of AI-powered news.
H3a. Perceived usefulness has a positive effect on the adoption of AI-
powered news.
H3b. Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on the adoption of AI-
powered news.
Critics argue that the TAM has limitations in explaining the rapidly
changing technology fields and human behaviors. Several researchers
attempted to extend the TAM with variables in other theories such as
uses and gratification approach [26,27], theory of planned behavior
(TPB) [29–31], the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory [22,28], the
task technology fit model [32,33] and so on. Table 1 presents the
summary of research topics, added variables, and findings of some
recent empirical studies that attempted to extend the TAM.
Park [27] combined the TAM with the uses and gratifications
approach to examine what motivation, along with TAM variables, in­
fluences the adoption and use of computer-based VoIP phone service. He
found that PU had a direct impact on the actual use of the service,
whereas PEOU had an indirect effect on it through PU. As for the
motivational factors, he found that instrumental and communication
motives positively related to PU. Sagnier et al. [26], added the variables
of the VR technique’s pragmatic and hedonic qualities and a user’s
innovativeness in the TAM. The results indicate that people’s confidence
in the functional capability of VR enhances the PEOU, whereas people’s
feeling of joy and enjoyment when using VR and their willingness to try
VR increase the PU.
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis [34] attempted to integrate a
few prominent theories related to technological adoption, including
diffusion theory, TPB, and social cognitive theory (SCT), and proposed
the Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance and Use (UTAUT). The
theory can replace the original PU and PEOU with performance expec­
tancy (PE) and effort expectance (EE), with adding two additional
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965

Table 1
Previous studies of TAM: Adoption behaviors and integrative models.
Author(s) Adoption behavior Non-TAM variables [theory] Findings

Davis et al. [3] Computer systems subjective norms [Theory of reasoned action] PEOU→PU;
PU→ATT;
ATTI→BI, PU→BI (Both at T1 and T2);
PEOU→BI (at T1);
PEOU→PU→BI (at T2); PEOU/PU
→ATTI→BI (partial mediation);
BI → AU
Agarwal and Information technology Individual characteristics such as tenure in workforce, prior similar PEOU→PU;
Prasad [52] experience, training PEOU→ATTI;
PU→ATTI;
ATTI→BI
Park [27] Actual VoIP use Perceived cost-effectiveness (PCE) PEOU→PU;
PU→AU;
PCE→AU
Cho [28] Intention to use 3G services Perceived critical mass (PCM) [Critical mass theory], subjective norms (SN) PEOU→PU;
[Social influence theory] PEOU→BI;
PU→BI;
SN→PCM→BI (partial mediation)
Wang et al. [53], Participation in an online Intrinsic motivation (IM) [Uses & gratification theory] PEOU→PU;
community PU→AU;
IM→PU
Pai and Huang Healthcare information Information quality (IQ), service quality (SerQ), system quality (SysQ) IQ, SerQ→PU;
[54] systems [Information system success model] SerQ, SysQ→PU;
PEOU→PU;
PU→BI;
PEOU→BI
Cheung and Vogel E-learning (Google Compatibility (COMP), perceived resource (PR), subjective norms (SN), self- PR, COMP→PEOU;
[31] applications platform) efficacy (SE) [Theory of planned behavior] PEOU→PU→ATTI→BI→AU;
COMP→ATTI;
Peer SN, SE→BI;
Sharing→PU, ATTI, BI, AU
Lee and Lehto [32] YouTube for procedural User satisfaction (US), task technology fit (TTF), content richness (CR), PEOU did not lead to PU, BI;
learning vividness (VI), self-efficacy (SE) PU→US, BI;
TTF, CR, VI, SE→PU
Jung and Walden Use of broadcast TV Perceived enjoyment (PE) PU did not lead to BI;
[18] network web sites. PEOU→BI;
PE→BI
Nikou and Adoption intention of Perceived autonomy (AUT), competence (COMP), relatedness (REL) [Self- AUT, REL→PU;
Economides [55] mobile-based assessment determination theory] COMP, REL→ PEOU;
PEOU→PU;
PU→BI;
PEOU→BI
Muk and Chung SMS advertising Social influence (SI) SI→ATTI;
[56] PEOU did not lead to ATTI;
PEOU→PU→ATTI→BI
Huang and Liao Augmented-reality Presence (PR), perceived aesthetics (PA), service excellence (SE), perceived High CI:
[57] interactive technology playfulness (PP), sustainable relationship behavior (SRB), cognitive PR→PU, PEOU, PA, SE, PP;
innovativeness (CI) PU, PA, SE→SRB;
Low CI:
PR→PU, PEOU, PA, SE, PP;
PEOU→PU;
PU, PP→SRB
Kim and Shin [58] Smart watch Affective quality (AQ), relative advantage (QA), mobility (MB), availability AQ, RA→PU;
(AV), subcultural appeal (SA), cost (CT) [Diffusion of innovation] MB, AV→PEOU;
PEOU→PU, ATTI;
PU, SA→ATTI;
ATTI, CT→BI
Lunney et al. [30] Wearable fitness Subjective norms (SN) [Theory of planned behavior] PEOU→ATTI;
technology PU→ATTI;
ATTI→AU;
SN→AU
Wu and Chen [33] MOOCs Individual-technology fit (IT), task-technology fit (TTF) [Task technology fit PEOU did not lead to ATTI;
model]; TTF, RP, SR, SI; PEOU→PU;
Openness (OP), reputation (RP); social recognition (SR), social influence (SI) IT, TTF, OP→PEOU;
[Social motivation] PU→ATTI, CI (continuance intention);
ATTI→CI
Min et al. [22] Uber mobile application Relative advantage (RA), compatibility (COMP), complexity (CPLEX), RA, COMP, OPLEX, OBS, SI→PU, PEOU;
observability (OBS), social influence (SI) [Diffusion of innovation] PU→ATTI;
PEOU→ATTI;
ATTI→BI
Raquel et al. [59], Educational chatbots Bot with social language, proactive bot (perceived contingency theory) PU → BI
PEOU → BI
Bot w/Social language → BI

3
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang
variables social influence and facilitating conditions, which are derived
from TPB, and several demographic variables as moderators. It should
be noted that there is an important difference between the UTAUT
model and the extended model of TAM, which attempts to incorporate
variables derived from theories such as SCT, TPB, and DOI. In the extend
TAM, variables in other theories are incorporated as the antecedents of
PU and PEOU, whereas in UTAUT, those variables (i.e., social influence,
facilitating conditions) function as exogenous variables along with PE
and EE. Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu [35] criticized that UTAUT over­
looked hedonic motivation while focusing only on users’ utilitarian
motivation and proposed a revised UTAUT2 model that included both
price and hedonic motivation. Previous studies reported that the inte­
grated model of UTAUT [36] and UTAUT2 [37,38] explained more
variance in behavioral intention and actual behavior than TAM (for
explained variance for TAM, see Venkatesh and Davis [40]). Despite the
substantial power of explained variance, however, some scholars
pointed out the limitations of the UTAUT models, including “less
parsimonious” [27] (p.44), and “the complexity of the socio-technical
system … is narrowed down to individual users’ perceptions or expec­
tancies” [41] (para. 2).
In addition, a few studies [29] did not find any contribution of social
norms, a key variable of TPB, in predicting the technological adoption or
use. Dwivedi et al.’s [36] meta-analytic study of UTAUT found that the
exogenous variable of social influence did not make a significant effect
on attitudes. In contrast, PE and EE had a positive impact on the
mediator, which is consistent with the theoretical premise of TAM that
predicts the positive impact of PU and PEOU on attitudes toward using
technology. Despite some additional power by UTAUT in explaining the
technological adoption, we propose a more parsimonious model of TAM
that is based on two exogenous variables of which effect is consistently
proven, without taking four demographic moderators into account for
the attitude-mediation model. In addition, previous research on TAM
[29,40] and UTAUT suggests that social norms do not have a significant
effect on the adoption of technology for which users’ voluntary use is
more important than mandatory use.
As to AI-powered news platforms, no known research to date
examined user adoption within the theoretical framework of TAM. As
the perceived contingency model [4] reflects AI-powered news plat­
forms’ algorithmic capability responding to the ever-changing user
preference, we argue that the model could be a critical supplement to the
TAM’s existing variables in predicting the adoption of AI-powered news.
2.3. Perceived contingency model and user engagement
With the rise of AI-powered news personalization, an emerging
question is how to evaluate the adaptive interactivity of user-to-system.
Sundar and his colleagues [4] posed the question of how users achieve
the reciprocal message exchanges, highlighted in human-computer
interaction (HCI), when using programmed systems (e.g., Google
News and social media news) and how these reciprocities influence their
attitudes and behavioral intentions.
According to the literature of human-computer interaction,
perceived contingency is considered a critical factor in assessing out­
comes of the user-system interaction. Perceived contingency refers to
“the extent to which a system (e.g., website) registers the user’s input by
displaying cumulative interaction history” [4] (p. 602). What perceived
contingency evaluates is the dependency of output on inputs. Notably,
the inputs include not only users’ immediate “clicks” or “likes” but also
their interaction history with the system. To some degree, it reflects the
system’s capacity to track users’ inputs and then generate precise and
timely responses. For instance, a user’s interaction with the system via
text, image or voice is processed and filtered by an AI algorithm, and
then the system responds with a personalized information in text, image,
or voice (For visual illustration of this reciprocal process, refer to Fig. 1
in Rahman [42]).
In the context of news personalization, perceived contingency
4
Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965
Fig. 1. Path model of TAM integrating with perceived contingence model.
indicates how well news recommendations reflect a user’s prior news
consumption behaviors in displaying recommended stories. Thus,
perceived contingency is an evaluation of the system’s responsiveness.
In other words, perceived contingency manifests the service value that
audiences seek from AI-powered news, which is to predict and present
news that accurately reflects audiences’ needs and interests.
Sundar et al. [4], proposed a model that explained the effect of
message interactivity on attitude and behavioral intention through
perceived contingency and user engagement. Their experimental study
operationalized message interactivity as the interaction history of a user
with a website. They found that the presence of interaction history
increased the perceived contingency, which subsequently had a direct
effect on participants’ attitudes toward the website and an indirect effect
on behavioral intention through user engagement. Bellur and Sundar
[43] tested the model in the context of a health information Q&A tool.
Their research found perceived contingency and user engagement could
mediate the effects of message interactivity on participants’ behavioral
intention to use the website and the content. Based on Sundar et al. [4]
perceived contingency model, we proposed the following hypotheses:
H4a. Perceived contingency has a positive effect on engagement with
AI-powered news.
H4b. Perceived contingency has a positive effect on attitude toward
AI-powered news.
H4c. Perceived contingency has a positive effect on the adoption of AI-
powered news.
H5. Attitude toward AI-powered news has a positive effect on attitude
toward Engagement with AI-powered news.
H6. Engagement with AI-powered news has a positive effect on the
adoption of AI-powered news.
2.4. Mediation model
In a widely cited TAM paper, Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw [20]
assumed that PEOU and PU would have indirect effects on behavioral
intention (BI) and actual use (AU) in various mediation processes. For
instance, they assumed that PEOU would lead to BI and AU through PU.
In discussing the findings, they called for future research that identifies
“the conditions under which attitude mediate the belief-intention link”
[3] (p. 999). However, it is still not known whether attitude can fully
mediate the effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables in
some conditions (e.g., types of technology). Part of this inconclusiveness
is due to a lack of meta-analytic research on the mediating role of atti­
tude in linking two independent variables (i.e., PEOU/PU) and the
dependent variable (i.e., technological adoption). King and He’s [39]
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965

meta-analytic research focused on the PEOU→PU→BI mediation pro­ Table 2

cess, of which partial mediation was reported in Davis et al.’s [20] Demographic information and media use (N = 1369).
research. Schepers and Wetzels [44] stated that the attitude-mediated Demographic Characteristics N %
TAM model is “usually not considered in later replications of” TAM
Gender
because “Davis et al. had already noted that perceived ease of use had a Male 461 33.7
direct effect on behavioral intention (for time period 1),” which “ques­ Female 906 66.2
tioned the mediating role of attitude” (p. 98). In the absence of Other 2 0.1
conclusive evidence for the potential mediation through attitude, we Ethnicity
White 838 61.2
attempted to examine the indirect effects of PEOU/PU on adoption Hispanic or Latino 242 17.7
behavior. Furthermore, we also attempted to consider the effect of African American 182 13.3
perceived contingency on the adoption of AI-powered news in the in­ Asian American 81 5.9
tegrated model of TAM. Since both TAM and contingency models predict Other 26 1.9
Education
the adoption behavior, we combine the two models in which attitudes
Less than high school 10 0.7
are considered as a key mediator in predicting the endogenous variable. High school incomplete 48 3.5
High school graduate 273 19.9
3. Method Some college 337 24.6
Two-year associate degree 176 12.9
Four-year college degree 333 24.3
3.1. Survey: sampling and participants Some postgraduate or professional degree 52 3.8
Postgraduate or professional degree 140 10.2
Prior to conducting the survey, we performed a pilot survey to ensure Income
the reliability and validity of the survey instruments. The pilot survey Under $ 25,000 249 18.2
$ 25,000 - $ 29,999 120 8.8
was conducted with a total of 1071 respondents recruited from Amazon
$ 30,000 - $ 34,999 117 8.5
Mechanical Turk (MTurk) with an incentive of $1 for each completed $ 35,000 - $ 49,999 213 15.6
survey. To select respondents whose primary news source was identified $ 50,000 - $ 69,999 252 18.4
with either online news (news websites, news apps) or social media, we $ 70,000 - $89,999 150 11.0
used MTurk’s Premium Qualifications. Based on the pilot survey, we $ 90,000 - $ 119,999 134 9.8
Over $ 120,000 134 9.8
ensure the reliability and validity of the measures. After validating the Age Mean SD
survey instrument, we updated the questionnaire and launched the main 40.28 15.34
survey in July 2019. Using a random sampling method, participants Primary source of news N %
were drawn from the Qualtrics national panel in accordance with the News organization’s website 333 24.3
Search engine website 154 11.2
census data of US ethnicity composition. Only respondents who read
Email newsletter or text alert 85 6.2
digital news were eligible to take the survey. Qualtrics noted that the News apps 452 33.0
panelists received points for their participation in the current research, YouTube 127 9.3
which they could later redeem for gift cards, sky miles, online credit, and Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit 163 11.9
so on. Other 55 4.0
Most used digital news apps (N ¼ 992)
In the survey, the concept of digital news was used to encompass a
Google News 308 22.5
variety of news content provided in digital formats that can be read on a Apple News 139 10.2
computer or a mobile screen. We also presented the definitions of both News Agency/company 304 22.2
artificial intelligence (AI) and news powered by AI to increase the clarity Portal News 163 11.9
Other 78 5.7
of the terminology used in the survey.
The final sample contains a total of 1369 respondents. The sample is
well-reflective of the US national ethnicity composition—61.2% are Mashal’s study [45] to measure respondents’ perceptions of the use­
White respondents, 17.7% are Hispanic or Latino, 13.3% are African fulness of AI-powered news for meeting the needs of their news con­
American, 5.9% are Asian American, and 1.9% were other groups. The sumption. The sample items include “find personally relevant news
respondents’ ages range from 18 to 83, with an average age of 40.28 and stories based on my interests” and “select news based on my prefer­
a standard deviation of 15.34. Among them, females account for 66.2%, ences.” The items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The mean is
whereas males are 33.7%. About 24.1% of respondents have a high 3.63, and SD is 0.88. Cronbach’s alpha of the five items is 0.90. Table 3
school degree or below high school, 61.8% have some college or college presents all measures used in the study.
degree, and 14% have some postgraduate or postgraduate degree. In Perceived ease of use. Five items were adapted from Shuhaiber and
terms of annual income, 18.2% of respondents make less than $25,000, Mashal’s study [45] to measure perceived ease of use. The sample items
51.3% earn $25,000 to $69,999, 20.8% make $50,000 to $119,999, and include “AI finds related stories fast and easily,” and “AI helps me
9.8% earn over $120,000. Table 2 presents the summary of respondents’ discover trending stories.” The respondents were asked to indicate to
demographics. what extent they agree or disagree with the items on a 7-point Likert
We also surveyed the respondents’ primary source of digital news scale. The mean is 3.47, and SD is 0.82. The internal reliability (α) of the
and their most-used digital news apps. About 33% of the respondents five items is 0.87.
selected news apps as their primary source of news, 24.3% went to news Perceived contingency. We adapted five items from Sundar and col­
organizations’ websites directly, 9.3% chose YouTube, 11.9% used so­ league’s [4] measures of perceived contingency. We measured them on a
cial media, and the rest 10.2% used email newsletters or others. Among 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The
992 respondents who were currently using news apps, 22.5% of them sample items included “The online news source takes into account my
chose Google News as their most-used digital news app, 10.2% used browsing/searching history” and “I feel the stories I receive are
Apple News, 22.2% selected news agency apps, and 17.6% used portal customized to my specific needs.” The mean is 3.42, and SD is 0.94. The
news or others. reliability (α) is 0.91.
Attitudes toward AI-powered news. We used a four-item semantic dif­
3.2. Measures ferential scale to respondents’ attitude toward AI-powered news, which
contained “Not Likable/Likable,” “Negative/Positive,” “Unfavorable/
Perceived usefulness. We adapted five items from Shuhaiber and

5
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang
Table 3
Mean, SD, and reliability of constructs.
Constructs Mean SD
Perceived Usefulness (PU) 3.63 .88
PU1: Find personally relevant news stories based on my interests
PU2: Select the type of news I am interested in
PU3: Find the most interesting news
PU4: Find topics that interest me
PU5: Select news based on my preferences
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) 3.47 .82
PEOU1: AI delivers news from diverse sources
PEOU2: AI delivers the top stories of the day fast
PEOU3: AI helps me discover trending stories
PEOU4: AI delivers important local news
PEOU5: AI finds related stories fast and easily
Perceived Contingency (CONT) 3.42 .94
CONT1: The online news source takes into
account my browsing/searching history
CONT2: The online news source’s responses are
related to my earlier inputs
CONT3: I feel the online news source delivers
stories based on my specific actions
CONT4: I feel the stories I receive are customized
to my specific needs
CONT5: I feel my online news source considers
my unique requests when presenting stories
Attitude toward AI-powered news (ATTI) 3.32 1.21
ATTI1: Not Likable/Likable
ATTI2: Negative/Positive
ATTI3: Unfavorable/Favorable
ATTI4: Bad/Good
Engagement (ENGA) 1.78 1.71
ENGA1: Spoke to an AI speaker requesting more content
ENGA 2: Interacted with a news chatbot
ENGA 3: Taught an AI to discern the problems like fake news
ENGA 4: Flagged suspicious stories as fake news
ENGA 5: Listened to robot-generated news on YouTube
Adoption (ADOPT): have you: 3.89 2.15
ADOPT1: clicked “More stories like this” when
you like a news story?
ADOPT2: clicked the thumbs up button when
you like a news story?
ADOPT3: clicked “Fewer stories like this” when
you dislike a news story?
ADOPT4: clicked “Hide stories” from the source
when you dislike a news source?
ADOPT5: “Unfollowed” the source when you
dislike a news source?
ADOPT6: clicked “recommended news” for me?
ADOPT7: allowed my favorite news apps to use
my location?
Favorable,” and “Bad/Good.” (Mean = 3.32; SD = 1.21). Cronbach’s
alpha is .94.
Engagement with AI-powered news. We created five items that
described people’s behavioral engagement with AI-powered news [46],
such as “Interacted with a news chatbot” and “Flagged suspicious stories
as fake news.” We asked respondents to answer “yes” or “no” regarding
whether they have performed each of those five behaviors. Then, we
created an index of engagement ranging from 0 to 5.
Adoption of AI-powered news. Following Park’s [27] study, we
measured the actual behavior instead of intention behavior. We created
seven items by collecting ways to personalize news supported by several
digital news platforms (e.g., Google News [47]) to measure respondents’
adoption behavior of AI-powered news. The sample items contained
“Clicked the ‘More stories like this’ when you like a news story” and
“Allowed my favorite news apps to use my location.” We asked re­
spondents to report whether they have performed each of these behav­
iors or not. The index ranges from 0 to 7.
The presence of common methods variance (CMV) was assessed
using Harman’s one-factor test with SPSS. Researchers widely use this
method to test bias levels in CMV, and a previous study [48] showed that
Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965
Harman’s one-factor test could appropriately detected CMV under
common conditions in survey studies. The results of our tests showed
Reliability that the variance explained by the single factor was 31.69%, which is
(α) below the 50% threshold [49]. Thus, the common method bias is not a
.90 concern for our data analysis.
4. Result
We performed a path analysis with maximum likelihood estimation
.87 using Mplus 9 to explore the relationships among perceived usefulness
(PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived contingency (CONT),
attitudes toward AI-powered news (ATTI), and two behavioral varia­
bles—engagement with AI-powered news (ENGA) and the adoption of
AI-powered news (ADOPT). The correlations between the variables are
.91 presented in Table 4.
Before testing the hypotheses, we compared the fit statistics of the
two models that are based on different hypotheses about the casual re­
lations between attitudes and engagement with AI-powered news. In
Model 1, attitudes are assumed to precede engagement, whereas
engagement precedes attitudes in Model 2. Table 5 shows the fit sta­
tistics to compare the model performance. According to Hu and Bentler
[50], CFI ≥0.95, TLI ≥0.95, SRMR ≤0.08, RMSEA ≤0.06 represent a
good model fit. For the other goodness-of-fit indices— AIC, BIC, and
.94 ABIC, the lower score represents a better fit [51].
The fit statistics indicated that Model 1 had a good fit to the data,
which is consistent with the TAM’s theoretical predictions. The
goodness-of-fit indices (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06 [90% CI
= 0.03 to 0.10], SRMR = 0.02) were within the cutoff ranges recom­
mended by Hu and Bentler [50]. However, Model 2 did not fit the data
well (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.65, RMSEA = 0.15 [90% CI = 0.12 to 0.18],
SRMR = 0.05). Furthermore, the AIC, BIC, and ABIC of Model 1 were
smaller than those of Model 2. The results suggested Model 1 had a
better model fit than Model 2. Based on the comparisons, we decided to
use Model 1 to test our hypotheses. The results of standardized path
coefficients and mediation effects are presented in Table 6.
4.1. Testing hypotheses related to TAM
Based on the TAM, we predicted that PU (H1a) and PEOU (H1b) led
to favorable attitudes toward AI-powered news. Further, we predicted
that favorable attitudes toward AI-powered news increased the adoption
of AI-powered news (H2). We also predicted that PU (H3a) and PEOU
(H3b) had a positive effect on the adoption of AI-powered news. As
predicted, the results of the path model showed that PU (β [95% CI] =
0.21 [0.15, 0.26], SE = 0.03, p < .001) and PEOU (β [95% CI] = 0.32
[0.26, 0.37], SE = 0.03, p < .001) had a significant positive effect on
attitudes. Attitudes led to greater adoption (β [95% CI] = 0.06 [0.02,
0.12], SE = 0.03, p = .02). Furthermore, the results indicated that PU (β
[95% CI] = 0.09 [0.05, 0.15], SE = 0.03, p = .002) had a significant,
positive effect on adoption, but PEOU did not. The results support H1a,
H1b, H2 and H3a. However, H3b is not supported.
Table 4
Correlation matrix.
ADOPT ENGA ATTI CONT EFFI PU
ADOPT 1.00
ENGA .55 1.00
ATTI .36 .38 1.00
CONT .35 .24 .37 1.00
PEOU .31 .27 .51 .48 1.00
PU .33 .27 .46 .45 .61 1.00
Note: ADOPT = adoption of AI-powered news; ENGA = engagement with AI-
powered news; ATTI = attitudes toward AI-powered news; CONT = perceived
contingency; PEOU= Perceived ease of use; PU = perceived usefulness.
6
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965

Table 5
Model comparison.
AIC BIC ABIC CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Model 1 14270.06 14384.95 14315.06 .99 .94 .06 .02

Model 2: 14318.30 14433.18 14363.30 .96 .65 .15 .05
Criterion The lower the score, the better the model fit. ≥.95 ≥.95 ≤.06 ≤.08

Note. Model 1: PU/PEOU/CONT → ATTI → ENGA → ADOPT; Model 2: PU/PEOU/CONT → ENGA → ATTI → ADOPT.

= 0.02, p < .001) were significant. Therefore, H5 and H6 are supported.

Table 6
Path analysis and mediation analysis.
BC 95% CI
4.3. Testing mediation model

Direct Paths SE Z Lower Upper

β
Following hypothesis testing, we examined the indirect effects of
PU→ATTI .21*** .03 7.31 .15 .26 exogenous variables on the endogenous variable of adoption behavior
PEOU→ATTI .32*** .03 11.17 .26 .37 through attitude and engagement (See Fig. 1). Firstly, we examined the
ATTI→ADOPT .07** .03 2.83 .02 .12
PU→ADOPT .10** .03 3.98 .05 .15
indirect effect of PU on adoption through attitudes and engagement. The
PEOU→ADOPT .04 .03 1.22 -.02 .20 results indicated that the total effect of PU on adoption was significant (β
CONT→ENGA .10*** .03 3.78 .05 .15 [95% CI] = 0.13 [0.07, 0.19], SE = 0.03, p = .001). In particular, both
CONT→ATTI .10*** .03 3.86 .05 .26 the direct effect of PU on adoption, as shown in H3, and the indirect
CONT→ADOPT .16*** .03 6.67 .11 .21
effects of PU→ATTI→ADOPT (β [95% CI] = 0.01 [0.002, 0.03], SE =
ATTI→ENGA .30*** .03 11.81 .25 .35
ENGA→ADOPT .45*** .02 20.38 .41 .50 0.01, p = .02) and PU→ATTI→ENGA→ADOPT (β [95% CI] = 0.03 [0.02,
MALE→ADOPT -.08*** .02 − 3.85 -.13 -.04 0.04], SE = 0.01, p < .001) were significant. Taken together, attitudes
AGE→ADOPT -.07** .02 − 3.06 -.11 -.03 and engagement partially mediate the effect of perceived usefulness on
Mediation Analysis the adoption of AI-powered news.
PU→ADOPT through ATTI and ENGA
Total Effect .13*** .03 4.58 .07 .19
Next, the indirect effect of PEOU on adoption behavior was analyzed.
Total Indirect Effect .04*** .01 5.08 .03 .06 The results show that PEOU had significant indirect effects of PEOU­
Specific Indirect: .01* .01 2.28 .002 .03 →ATTI→ADOPT (β [95% CI] = 0.02 [0.003, 0.04], SE = 0.01, p = .02)
PU→ATTI→ADOPT and PEOU→ATTI→ENGA→ADOPT (β [95% CI] = 0.04 [0.03, 0.06], SE
Specific Indirect: .03*** .01 5.89 .02 .04
= 0.01, p < .001). However, the direct and total effect of PEOU on
PU→ATTI→ENGA→ADOPT
PEOU→ADOPT through ATTI and ENGA adoption was not significant. The result suggests a full mediation of
Total Effect .10** .03 3.44 .04 .16 attitudes and engagement on the effect of perceived ease of use on the
Total Indirect Effect .06*** .01 5.95 .04 .08 adoption of AI-powered news.
Specific Indirect: .02** .01 2.35 .003 .04 Lastly, the mediation model for perceived contingency was tested.
PEOU→ATTI→ADOPT
Specific Indirect: .04*** .01 7.40 .03 .06
The total effect of perceived contingency on adoption (β [95% CI] = 0.22
PEOU→ATTI→ENGA→ADOPT [0.17, 0.27], SE = 0.03, p < .001) stands out of all other mediation
CONT→ADOPT through ATTI and ENGA analysis results. Notably, the direct effect of perceived contingency on
Total Effect .22*** .03 7.98 .17 .27 adoption, as shown in H4c, was stronger than its total indirect effects (β
Total Indirect Effect .07*** .01 5.03 .04 .09
[95% CI] = 0.07 [0.04, 0.09], SE = 0.01, p < .001). Furthermore, the
Specific Indirect: .01* .003 2.04 .000 .01
CONT→ATTI→ADOPT specific indirect effect of CONT→ENGA→ADOPT (β [95% CI] = 0.04
Specific Indirect: .04*** .01 3.74 .02 .07 [0.02, 0.07], SE = 0.01, p < .001) was the strongest compared to other
CONT→ENGA→ADOPT two specific indirect effects of perceived contingency on adoption (i.e.,
Specific Indirect: .01*** .004 3.61 .01 .02 CONT→ATTI→ADOPT; CONT→ENGA→ATTI→ADOPT).
CONT→ATTI→ENGA→ADOPT

Note: ADOPT = adoption of AI-powered news; ENGA = engagement with AI-
powered news; ATTI = attitudes toward AI-powered news; CONT = perceived
contingency; PEOU= Perceived ease of use; PU = perceived usefulness.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
4.2. Testing hypotheses related to the perceived contingency model
Based on the perceived contingency model, we proposed that
perceived contingency had a positive effect on attitudes toward AI-
powered news (H4a), engagement with AI-powered news (H4b), and
the adoption of AI-powered news (H4c). Consistent with these pre­
dictions, perceived contingency had positive impacts on respondents’
attitudes (β [95% CI] = 0.10 [0.05, 0.26], SE = 0.03, p < .001),
engagement (β [95% CI] = 0.10 [0.05, 0.15], SE = 0.03, p < .001), and
adoption (β [95% CI] = 0.16 [0.11, 0.21], SE = 0.03, p < .001)
respectively. These results support H4a to H4c.
In addition, we predicted that attitudes toward AI-powered news had
a positive effect on engagement with AI-powered news (H5), and
engagement with AI-powered news had a positive effect on the adoption
of AI-powered news (H6). The results indicated that the effects of atti­
tude on engagement (β [95% CI] = 0.30 [0.25, 0.35], SE = 0.03, p <
.001) and engagement on adoption (β [95% CI] = 0.45 [0.41, 0.50], SE
5. Discussion
Based on the integrated model of TAM and perceived contingency
model, this study investigated how digital news users’ perceptions of
usefulness, ease of use, and contingency of AI-powered news platforms
influenced their actual use of the platforms. The newly added variables
to the existing TAM in this integrated model were perceived contingency
and user engagement with the technology. We believe that the proposed
model incorporating these two variables further expands the scope of
TAM by explaining the adoption of technologies that take into account
the adaptive interactivity of current digital technologies.
We offer the implications of the empirical results of the proposed
integrated model in explaining the adoption and use of technologies
based on adaptive interactivity as follows. First of all, the integrated
model regarded engagement with the technology as a major mediator
leading to technological adoption, and this hypothesis was supported.
This empirical finding offers the following theoretical and practical
implications. Consider the streaming music services these days. We can
deduct the hypothesis that the more engaged with a service powered by
machine learning, such as YouTube Music, the more likely users will
adopt and continue to use the service. To link this engagement-mediated
adoption hypothesis with TAM, we had to show two other pathways.

7
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang
One is the path from the existing TAM variables and engagement, and
the other is the path from engagement to the adoption. The path analysis
results revealed that pathways assuming these two indirect effects were
both significant. More specifically, the indirect effect of PEOU on
ADOPT mediated by attitude and engagement was greater than the in­
direct effect of PU on ADOPT through the same mediators.
Secondly, we note that perceived contingency reflecting adaptive
interactivity influenced the technology adoption both directly and
indirectly. Of particular note is that not only the direct path from con­
tingency to adoption, but also all three indirect pathways mediated by
attitudes and engagement were significant.
Thirdly, results showed that all exogenous variables in the integrated
model positively affected attitudes toward AI-powered news platforms.
These findings support the original TAM hypotheses that predict the
positive direct effect of PEOU and PU on ATTI. In addition, the positive
effect of CONT on ATTI indicates that users develop more favorable
attitudes toward AI-powered news platforms when they can deliver the
news without requiring them to put in many cognitive and behavioral
efforts.
Among three exogenous variables, PEOU had the greatest effect on
attitudes, whereas perceived contingency had the smallest direct effect
on attitudes. However, perceived contingency had a greater direct effect
on user engagement with AI-powered news than PEOU and PU. The
finding that perceived contingency has a substantial indirect effect on
attitudes through engagement offers a significant implication for the
theoretical advancement of the TAM as well as for the contingency
model. It is because, in both TAM and contingency model, attitudes
toward technology are the most important mediators in predicting
technological adoption. It is also noteworthily that engagement with
and attitudes toward the technology served as mediators, which con­
nected the three exogenous variables to the endogenous variable of
adoption behavior.
Fourthly, perceived contingency has the strongest influence on the
adoption of AI-powered news services. The total effect of perceived
contingency on the adoption behavior is greater than that of PU and
PEOU on the endogenous variable. This strong influence of perceived
contingency on adoption comes from its significant, direct effect as well
as the specific indirect effect through engagement with the platform
(CONT→ENGA→ADOPT). These results suggest that future research
should incorporate the engagement variable in predicting user adoption
of AI-powered technologies. The addition of the perceived contingency
and user engagement to the original TAM model increases the explained
variance of technology acceptance for AI-powered technologies. We
suggest that future research apply this integrative model to predict the
technology adoption of AI-powered technologies, such as smart
speakers, driverless cars, human-companion robots, translation apps,
and AI-based home automation systems.
Lastly, the current research contributes to advancing TAM by
providing empirical evidence of the direct and indirect effects of PU and
PEOU on technological adoption through attitudes. As discussed in the
literature review, the attitude-mediated TAM models are “usually not
considered” [44] (p. 98) in previous TAM research. We also note that the
detailed reports of various mediation results in the current research are
the response to Davis and his colleagues’ call for research to explicate
the mediating role of attitudes in technological acceptance. However,
we need to mention that the mediation path of PEOU→PU→AU was not
of our interest in testing our mediation model, although the specific
indirect effect has been tested in several studies (See Table 1). It is
because those studies have not produced consistent results regarding the
additional pathway. In addition, we assumed that all these three exog­
enous variables could be independent of one another, as they are
mutually exclusive. As such, we assumed that PU, PEOU, and perceived
contingency would lead to the adoption of AI-powered news through
attitudes and engagement with AI-powered news. For each of the
mediation models based on three exogenous variables, we confirmed the
significant indirect effects of PU, PEOU, and CONT on the adoption of
8
Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965
AI-powered news. However, the details of the indirect effects of each
exogenous variable were somewhat different. The full mediation was
observed for PEOU due to PEOU’s non-significant direct effect. The full
mediation model indicates that PEOU leads to adoption by increasing
positive attitudes. In contrast, the effect of PU on adoption is partially
mediated by attitudes. The effect of perceived contingency on adoption
is mediated by attitudes and user engagement separately. It is also
mediated by attitudes and user engagement sequentially.
Providing the theory-based factors that drive user adoption behavior,
the results observed in the current research can shed light on future
research related to AI-powered applications. In particular, we emphasize
that the integrated model contains the most essential and parsimonious
elements to account for user adoption of AI-powered news platforms. We
also believe that the model can be applied to a variety of digital and
mobile technologies that are increasingly powered by machine learning
algorithms.
6. Limitations and suggestions for future research
We believe that the results from the current research can be gener­
alized into the study population due to its use of a representative sample.
Nonetheless, the current study has several limitations that should be
addressed in future research. The first limitation is that both engage­
ment and adoption behaviors were measured with a series of actual
behaviors rather than behavioral intentions. The TAM predicts that
attitude leads to behavioral intentions, which is greatly influenced by
then-dominant theory—the theory of reasoned action. We did not
consider behavioral intentions in that AI-powered news is already
available to anyone who has digital devices since it is well-integrated
with almost all news applications and social media apps. Thus, the
focus of our research lies in the variation in the use of AI technology,
whether they are aware or not aware. Nonetheless, we call for future
research that considers measuring the adoption behavior on a Likert-
type scale for the items we have used.
Secondly, due to the limitation of the survey, we were unable to
designate a specific AI-powered news service such as Google News. As a
result, answers are based on respondents’ previous and/or current ex­
periences with their favorite online news service or app. This indicates
that the responses may reflect the variance in the performance inherent
in different online news services or apps. To avoid the variability by
different user experiences and evaluations, we suggest that future
research needs to test the proposed model in an experimental study.
Another limitation is that the results of our research may not be
generalized to other types of AI-powered technologies than AI-powered
news services. As more consumer products and services adopt AI, we
suggest future research replicate our research to more diverse AI-
powered products and services.
7. Conclusion
With news production and distribution being gradually powered by
artificial intelligence, digitized news platforms are becoming smarter
than ever to present the most relevant and interesting news stories that
keep up with news audiences’ changing interests. This research dem­
onstrates the usefulness of the integrative model of TAM and contin­
gency model in explaining users’ technology adoption of AI-powered
news platform. The results of this study show that the TAM model is still
important in predicting the adoption behavior of state-of-the-art tech­
nologies operated by machine-learning algorithms. Furthermore,
perceived contingency is the most important variable in predicting the
adoption behavior mediated by the enhanced user experience of
engagement and positive attitudes.
Funding acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang
Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Acknowledgements
All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work
reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and editing
assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for
authorship, are named in the Acknowledgements and have given us their
written permission to be named. If we have not included an Acknowl­
edgements, then that indicates that we have not received substantial
contributions from non-authors.
References
[1] N. Thurman, S. Schifferes, The future of personalization at news websites, Journal.
Stud. 13 (2012) 775–790, https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664341.
[2] T. Upstill, The New Google News: AI Meets Human Intelligence, 2018. https
://www.blog.google/products/news/new-google-news-ai-meets-human-intellige
nce/. (Accessed February 2020). accessed.
[3] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Q. 13 (1989) 319–340, https://doi.org/10.2307/
249008.
[4] S.S. Sundar, S. Bellur, J. Oh, H. Jia, H.-S. Kim, Theoretical importance of
contingency in human-computer interaction: effects of message interactivity on
User engagement, Commun. Res. 43 (2016) 595–625, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093650214534962.
[5] B. Bodó, Selling news to audiences – a qualitative inquiry into the emerging logics
of algorithmic news personalization in European quality news media, Digit.
Journal 7 (2019) 1054–1075, https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1624185.
[6] N. Thurman, Making ‘The Daily Me’: technology, economics and habit in the
mainstream assimilation of personalized news, Journalism 12 (2011) 395–415,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910388228.
[7] T.S. Chung, M. Wedel, R.T. Rust, Adaptive personalization using social networks,
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44 (2016) 66–87, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0441-
x.
[8] M.A. DeVito, From editors to algorithms: a value-based approach to understanding
story selection in the Facebook news feed, Digit. Journal 5 (2017) 753–773,
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1178592.
[9] M.J. Pazzani, A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic
filtering, Artif. Intell. Rev. 13 (1999) 393–408, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1006544522159.
[10] W. Xiao, H. Zhao, H. Pan, Y. Song, V.W. Zheng, Q. Yang, Beyond personalization:
social content recommendation for creator equality and consumer satisfaction.
Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, Anchorage, AK, USA.
[11] N. Thurman, S.C. Lewis, J. Kunert, Algorithms, automation, and news, Digit.
Journal 7 (2019) 980–992, https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1685395.
[12] G.M. Chen, T.M. Chock, H. Gozigian, R. Rogers, A. Sen, V.N. Schweisberger,
J. Steinhardt, Y. Wang, Personalizing news websites attracts young readers,
Newspaper Res. J. 32 (2011) 22–38, https://doi.org/10.1177/
073953291103200403.
[13] S. Kalyanaraman, S.S. Sundar, The psychological appeal of personalized content in
web portals: does customization affect attitudes and behavior? J. Commun. 56
(2006) 110–132, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00006.x.
[14] T. Lavie, M. Sela, I. Oppenheim, O. Inbar, J. Meyer, User attitudes towards news
content personalization, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 68 (2010) 483–495, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.011.
[15] Q. Ye, Y. Luo, G. Chen, X. Guo, Q. Wei, S. Tan, Users intention for continuous usage
of mobile news apps: the roles of quality, switching costs, and personalization,
J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 28 (2019) 91–109, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-019-
5405-0.
[16] M.A. Beam, G.M. Kosicki, Personalized news portals: filtering systems and
increased news exposure, Journal. Mass Commun. Q. 91 (2014) 59–77, https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077699013514411.
[17] Y. Lee, K.A. Kozar, K.R. Larsen, The technology acceptance model: past, present,
and future, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12 (2003) 50, https://doi.org/10.17705/
1CAIS.01250.
[18] E.H. Jung, J. Walden, Extending the television brand: an examination of why
consumers use broadcast network web sites, J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 59
(2015) 94–111, https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.998229.
[19] A.L. Lederer, D.J. Maupin, M.P. Sena, Y. Zhuang, The technology acceptance model
and the World Wide Web, Decis. Support Syst. 29 (2000) 269–282, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00076-2.
[20] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models, Manag. Sci. 35 (1989) 982–1003, https://
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
[21] V. Dutot, V. Bhatiasevi, N. Bellallahom, Applying the technology acceptance model
in a three-countries study of smartwatch adoption, J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 30
(2019) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2019.02.001.
[22] S. Min, K.K.F. So, M. Jeong, Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application:
insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model,
9
Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965
J. Trav. Tourism Market. 36 (2019) 770–783, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2018.1507866.
[23] H. Rafique, A.O. Almagrabi, A. Shamim, F. Anwar, A.K. Bashir, Investigating the
acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance
codel (TAM), Comput. Educ. 145 (2020) 103732, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2019.103732.
[24] S.A. Kamal, M. Shafiq, P. Kakria, Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services
through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM), Technol. Soc. 60 (2020)
101212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101212.
[25] K.T. Manis, D. Choi, The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM):
extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual
reality hardware, J. Bus. Res. 100 (2019) 503–513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.10.021.
[26] C. Sagnier, E. Loup-Escande, D. Lourdeaux, I. Thouvenin, G. Valléry, User
acceptance of virtual reality: an extended technology acceptance model, Int. J.
Hum. Comput. Interact. 36 (2020) 993–1007, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10447318.2019.1708612.
[27] N. Park, Adoption and use of computer-based voice over internet protocol phone
service: toward an integrated model, J. Commun. 60 (2010) 40–72, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01440.x.
[28] H. Cho, Theoretical intersections among social influences, beliefs, and intentions in
the context of 3G mobile services in Singapore: decomposing perceived critical
mass and subjective norms, J. Commun. 61 (2011) 283–306, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01532.x.
[29] M.-C. Lee, Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of
TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit, Electron. Commer. Res.
Appl. 8 (2009) 130–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006.
[30] A. Lunney, N.R. Cunningham, M.S. Eastin, Wearable fitness technology: a
structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes, Comput.
Hum. Behav. 65 (2016) 114–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007.
[31] R. Cheung, D. Vogel, Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an
extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning, Comput. Educ. 63
(2013) 160–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003.
[32] D.Y. Lee, M.R. Lehto, User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: an
extension of the technology acceptance model, Comput. Educ. 61 (2013) 193–208,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001.
[33] B. Wu, X. Chen, Continuance intention to use MOOCs: integrating the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 67 (2017) 221–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.
[34] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davi, User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27 (2003) 425–478, https://doi.org/
10.2307/30036540.
[35] V. Venkatesh, J.Y.L. Thong, X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, MIS
Q. 36 (2012) 157–178, https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.
[36] Y.K. Dwivedi, N.P. Rana, K. Tamilmani, R. Raman, A meta-analysis based modified
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (meta-UTAUT): a review of
emerging literature, Curr Opin. Psychol. 36 (2020) 13–18, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.008.
[37] A. Gupta, N. Dogra, B. George, What determines tourist adoption of smartphone
apps? An analysis based on the UTAUT-2 framework, J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 9
(2018) 50–64, https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-02-2017-0013.
[38] I.M. Macedo, Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication
technology by older adults: an empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 75 (2017) 935–948, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.06.013.
[39] W.R. King, J. He, A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model, Inf. Manag.
43 (2006) 740–755, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
[40] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies, Manag. Sci. 46 (2000) 186–204, https://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[41] A. Shachak, C. Kuziemsky, C. Petersen, Beyond TAM and UTAUT: future directions
for HIT implementation research, J. Biomed. Inf. 100 (2019) 103315, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103315.
[42] W.F.W.A. Rahman, A.A. C Fauzi, W.S.W. Husain, S.H.C. Hassan, N.N.
N. Kamaruzaman, W.A.H.W. Aziz, The usage of artificial intelligence in marketing
automation: potentials and pitfalls, J. Math. Comput. Sci. 6 (2020) 1–8.
[43] S. Bellur, S.S. Sundar, Talking health with a machine: how does message
interactivity affect attitudes and cognitions? Hum. Commun. Res. 43 (2017) 25–53,
https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12094.
[44] J. Schepers, M. Wetzels, A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model:
investigating subjective norm and moderation effects, Inf. Manag. 44 (2007)
90–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007.
[45] A. Shuhaiber, I. Mashal, Understanding users’ acceptance of smart homes, Technol.
Soc. 58 (2019) 101110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.003.
[46] B. Marr, The 10 Best Examples of How AI Is Already Used in Our Everyday Life,
Forbes, 2019 (Dec 16,, https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/12/1
6/the-10-best-examples-of-how-ai-is-already-used-in-our-everyday-life/?sh=2d8
9c2a61171 (accessed Feb 2020).
[47] Customize what you find on Google News, Google News Help (N.A.). https://suppo
rt.google.com/googlenews/answer/9010862?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDes
ktop (accessed Feb 2020).
[48] C.M. Fuller, M.J. Simmering, G. Atinc, G.Y. Atinc, B.J. Babin, Common methods
variance detection in business research, J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016) 3192–3198, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.
J.S. Lim and J. Zhang
[49] Philip M. Podsakoff, Dennis W. Organ, Self-reports in organizational research:
problems and prospects, J. Manag. 12 (1986) 531–544, https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920638601200408.
[50] L. Hu, P.M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling,
A Multidiscip. J. 6 (1999) 1–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
[51] K.L. Nylund, T. Asparouhov, B.O. Muthén, Deciding on the number of classes in
latent class Analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation
study, structural equation modeling, A Multidiscip. J. 14 (2007) 535–569, https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.
[52] R. Agarwal, J. Prasad, Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies? Decis. Sci. J. 30 (1999) 361–391, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.x.
[53] H. Wang, J.E. Chung, N. Park, M.L. McLaughlin, J. Fulk, Understanding online
community participation: a technology acceptance perspective, Commun. Res. 39
(2012) 781–801, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408593.
[54] F.-Y. Pai, K.-I. Huang, Applying the technology acceptance model to the
introduction of healthcare information systems, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78
(2011) 650–660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.11.007.
10
Technology in Society 69 (2022) 101965
[55] S.A. Nikou, A.A. Economides, Mobile-based assessment: integrating acceptance and
motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and
technology acceptance, Comput. Hum. Behav. 68 (2017) 83–95, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.020.
[56] A. Muk, C. Chung, Applying the technology acceptance model in a two-country
study of SMS advertising, J. Bus. Res. 68 (2015) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.06.001.
[57] T.-L. Huang, S. Liao, A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive
technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness, Electron. Commer.
Res. 15 (2015) 269–295, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-014-9163-2.
[58] K.J. Kim, D.-H. Shin, An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the
adoption of future wearable technology, Internet Res. 25 (2015) 527–541, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0126.
[59] C. Raquel, C. Mónica, M.-M. Gustavo, Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in
education: a technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social
language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics, Educ. Stud. (2021), https://
doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1850426.