European Journal of Information Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjis20

The role of user perceptions of intelligence,

anthropomorphism, and self-extension on
continuance of use of personal intelligent agents

Sara Moussawi, Marios Koufaris & Raquel Benbunan-Fich

To cite this article: Sara Moussawi, Marios Koufaris & Raquel Benbunan-Fich (2022):
The role of user perceptions of intelligence, anthropomorphism, and self-extension on
continuance of use of personal intelligent agents, European Journal of Information Systems, DOI:
10.1080/0960085X.2021.2018365

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.2018365

Published online: 26 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 784

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjis20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.2018365

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

The role of user perceptions of intelligence, anthropomorphism, and

self-extension on continuance of use of personal intelligent agents
Sara Moussawia, Marios Koufarisb and Raquel Benbunan-Fich b

a
Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Information Systems,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA; bBaruch College Zicklin School of Business, Paul H. Chook Department of Information Systems and Statistics, One
Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Personal Intelligent Agents (PIAs), such as Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa, are different from Received 27 January 2020
traditional information systems. They possess unique design features and are increasingly Accepted 7 December 2021
available through various technological devices. Due to PIAs’ relative novelty, little is known KEYWORDS
about the determinants of their continued use. An investigation into PIAs’ characteristics and Intelligent agents;
their impact on users’ post-adoption evaluations is expected to have theoretical and practical conversational intelligent
implications for PIA design and sustained usage. Our research model integrates perceptions of agents; personal intelligent
intelligence, anthropomorphism, and self-extension into the unified model of information agents; continued use;
technology continuance. Our findings show the key role of perceived intelligence of the PIA perceived intelligence;
on continuance intention and indicate that hedonic perceptions of the agent become less perceived
important during post-adoption. Our results also highlight the role of perceived ownership and anthropomorphism; self-
extension; The unified model
personalisation as antecedents of perceived self-extension.
of IT continuance; mastery;
personalization; ownership

1. Introduction
Personal Intelligent Agents (PIAs) have quickly
become very popular with users (Liao et al., 2019;
Welch, 2018) and very important for tech companies’
strategic plans. These systems – which include Apple’s
Siri, Google’s Assistant, and Amazon’s Alexa – are
backed by advances in artificial intelligence. PIAs are
designed to exhibit general intelligence and to think
and act as much as possible like a human. As a result,
they have assumed the role of user companions and
act on the users’ behalf to help manage everyday
activities (Olsen & Malizia, 2011). Such extensive
interaction with PIAs will result in novel effects on
users, ranging from impacting their general percep­
tions of the technology to influencing their sense of
self.
In this study, we focus on the factors that influence
the users’ decision to continue to use PIAs after initial
adoption. We specifically aim to answer the following
research question: How do perceptions of a PIA’s char­
acteristics influence the user’s intention to continue
using the agent? Examining continuance of use of
PIAs is valuable for several reasons. First, these agents
are the first widely used human-like intelligent sys­
tems, and their rates of use, as well as the types of tasks
for which they are employed, will only continue to
expand. They herald a new era where users will
employ different intelligent applications to perform
various tasks with different levels of complexity.
These agents are highly customisable and use natural
language to interact with the user. They also possess
novel sensory and feedback mechanisms and
advanced learning algorithms. Second, the use of intel­
ligent agents is rapidly expanding from the personal to
the organisational level (e.g., Alexa for Business).
Third, prior research shows that continuance of use
increases loyalty and lifetime value for both the tech­
nology user and the technology provider organisation
(Bhattacherjee, 2001b). Understanding the factors that
increase continued use of PIAs therefore has impor­
tant implications for individual and institutional users,
as well as for technology companies.
PIAs are worth investigating because they possess
inherently unique characteristics. These systems are
aware of, and responsive to, their environment and
are sociable with users. They are proactive and goal-
and self-directed. Moreover, they can have human-like
characteristics, such as a name, a specific accent, and
a sense of humour (Knote et al., 2019; Moussawi et al.,
2021). PIAs are commonly accessed through a device
(e.g., smartphone or home device) and are not
equipped with an animated avatar or physical body.
In addition, we believe that the PIAs’ existence within
the user’s immediate personal space and their ability
to extend the user’s capabilities may lead users to
incorporate these agents within their sense of self.
For this study, we integrate PIAs’ unique character­
istics and corresponding user perceptions into the
unified model of information technology (IT) con­
tinuance to understand user continuance intentions

CONTACT Sara Moussawi smoussaw@andrew.cmu.edu

© Operational Research Society 2022.
2 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
(Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015). We specifically investi­
gate the effect of perceived intelligence, perceived
anthropomorphism, and perceived self-extension on
PIA users’ continuance of use decisions. We propose
and test three antecedents for perceived self-extension:
perceived ownership, perceived mastery, and per­
ceived personalisation. Using data from a cross-
sectional study of PIA users, we empirically test and
verify our expanded model of usage continuance.
2. Theoretical foundations
2.1. Personal intelligent agents
Software agents are designed to act on behalf of the user
to find and filter information, automate complex tasks,
or collaborate with other agents to solve problems
(Czibula et al., 2009). They are considered intelligent
when they have built-in knowledge and a capability to
learn; these features enable them to be autonomous and
continuously aware of, and adaptable to, their dynamic
environment. PIAs (or personal assistant agents, smart
assistants, personal assistants, and conversational agents,
as they are referred to in the literature) learn and adapt to
the user’s preferences (Czibula et al., 2009). We define
a PIA as software that employs intelligent behaviour and
uses natural language processing and production function­
alities to assist the user (March et al., 2000; Moussawi
et al., 2021; Russell & Norvig, 2010). Based on the litera­
ture and results of a PwC Consumer Intelligence Voice
Assistant Survey (McCaffrey et al., 2018), we classify PIA
uses into three broad categories: informational (e.g.,
answering a question based on information available
online), interpersonal (e.g., contacting someone via
a phone call or text message) and transactional (e.g.,
launching an app, play a song, etc.).
Relevant work has explored various dimensions
related to PIAs’ use including personification, appro­
priateness of responses, and implications for security
and privacy. In an adoption context, recent studies
found that performance and effort expectancies, hedo­
nic motivation, habit, likeability, perceived anthropo­
morphism, and perceived intelligence positively
influence users’ intention to adopt PIAs (Moussawi
et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2019). Prior research
found that anthropomorphism led to more favourable
user perceptions of a PIA, including an attenuating
effect for its potentially intrusive features (Benlian
et al., 2019; Purington et al., 2017). In Appendix A,
we present a review of recent research on PIAs and
intelligent conversational agents (see Table A1).
2.2. The unified model of IT continuance
The unified model of IT continuance (Bhattacherjee &
Lin, 2015) proposes a set of factors that predict con­
tinuance of use. Those factors include perceptions of
usefulness, satisfaction, positive disconfirmation of
expectations, and subjective norms. The model assumes
that pre-usage expectations change after adopting and
using the system. The dissonance between pre-usage
expectations and post-usage observed performance is
captured by the disconfirmation construct. Specifically,
positive disconfirmation of expectations occurs when
technology performance exceeds initial expectations,
and it is positively associated with satisfaction and per­
ceived usefulness. Positive disconfirmation is also asso­
ciated with positive attitudes and perceptions, and it is
a relevant construct in a post-adoption context.
Additionally, the unified model of IT continuance
proposes that perceived usefulness, satisfaction with
use, and subjective norms positively influence the
users’ continuance intention (Bhattacherjee, 2001b;
Venkatesh et al., 2011). Perceived usefulness is
a behavioural belief based on the utilitarian side of
system use. Satisfaction is an attitude that captures
the affective side of system use. Subjective norms,
also an attitude, represent the social normative influ­
ences by peers, colleagues, or friends that shape the
user’s intentions to use the system. For PIAs, the
unified model of IT continuance (Bhattacherjee &
Lin, 2015) can help explain what determines a user’s
decision to continue using a PIA after initial adoption
and use. Notably, this model treats all technologies
alike, regardless of specific design characteristics. As
a result, the model may not capture the extent to
which the defining features of the technology under
consideration influence the user’s decision to continue
using it. Therefore, to adapt the model to PIAs, we
include user perceptions of its two unique character­
istics – namely, perceived intelligence and perceived
anthropomorphism.
Additionally, the unified model of IT continuance
has been characterised as mostly extrinsic because it
overlooks the role of intrinsic motivations. In indivi­
dual technologies whose use is discretionary, such as
PIAs, the model needs to include a hedonic antecedent
(perceived enjoyment) as an additional predictor of
continuance intention. The model should also incor­
porate a construct that captures the extent to which
technology design contributes to fulfill its main func­
tion (Lowry et al., 2015). Given the function of PIAs to
work in the user’s personal space and assist with his/
her personal tasks, we conceptualise this construct as
perceived self-extension. The next sections define the
new constructs used to extend the model.
2.3. Perceived intelligence
March et al. (2000) defined an intelligent agent as “a
piece of software that acts intelligently and in the place
of a human to perform a given task” that is charac­
terised by autonomy, adaptability, mobility, and com­
munication. Additionally, an agent is personalised if it

operates within a specific user’s context and can for­
mulate more precise queries when interacting with the
user (March et al., 2000). Intelligence has been defined
in objective and subjective ways in the fields of artifi­
cial intelligence, psychology, and human-robot inter­
action (Krening & Feigh, 2018; Legg & Hutter, 2007).
Objectively, a robot can be considered intelligent if it is
capable of learning, adapting, solving problems, and
achieving its goal while being aware of its environment
(Legg & Hutter, 2007). Subjectively, users may per­
ceive an agent as intelligent when it demonstrates
characteristics of compliance, responsiveness, effort,
ability to learn from feedback, transparency, and
robustness (Krening & Feigh, 2018). Other dimen­
sions used for measuring perceived intelligence
include knowledge, competence, intelligence, foolish­
ness, and responsibility (Bartneck et al. 2009; Kiesler
et al., 1996).
For PIAs, our definition of intelligence aligns with
the IS and AI literatures’ view and encompasses
dimensions of autonomy; problem solving; task com­
pletion; awareness of the environment; learning and
adapting to change; speed and flexibility; and commu­
nication capabilities (March et al., 2000; Moussawi &
Benbunan-Fich, 2021; Moussawi et al., 2021; Russell &
Norvig, 2010). More specifically, the user will perceive
the agent as intelligent when it is aware of its sur­
roundings; is able to respond to the user’s requests
without continuous intervention; is capable of adapt­
ing to and learning from every interaction or new
piece of knowledge; and responds to requests effec­
tively and efficiently. Therefore, we define perceived
intelligence as the perception that the PIA is able to
operate in an autonomous and goal-oriented way,
adapt to its environment, communicate with the
human user using natural language, and deliver effi­
cient output (Moussawi et al., 2021).
2.4. Perceived anthropomorphism
The concept of anthropomorphism has been widely
investigated in IS and other fields (Epley et al., 2007;
Moussawi et al., 2021; Pfeuffer et al., 2019). People can
anthropomorphise – i.e., attribute distinctly human
capacities – to non-human entities and objects posses­
sing human-like intention, cognition, emotions, or
features (Duffy, 2003; Epley et al., 2008, 2007;
Fournier & Alvarez, 2012). Any object can be anthro­
pomorphised, including invisible entities and sym­
bolic concepts (Aaker, 1997). Research has explored
various characteristics that impact anthropomorphic
perceptions, including facial expressions, speech para­
meters, personality dimensions, and vividness (Hess
et al., 2009; Link et al., 2001; Nass & Steuer, 1993).
When interacting with computer applications, users
were found to attribute gender and ethnicity stereo­
types and exhibit social behaviours (Nass & Moon,
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3
2000). Additionally, interactive avatars, humanoid
embodiment, and voice-based communication were
found to positively influence the user’s experience
when interacting with a system (Qiu & Benbasat,
2009; Wang et al., 2007).
Perceived anthropomorphism itself has been
defined and measured in various ways (Bartneck
et al. 2009; Kiesler et al., 2008; Moussawi & Benbunan-
Fich, 2021; Moussawi et al., 2021). Research on
human-robot interaction has focused on the robot’s
appearance and movements – i.e., the robot’s fakeness,
artificialness, consciousness, and movement descrip­
tion (e.g., fake, machinelike, or elegant) (Bartneck
et al. 2009). Other work has investigated robots’
human- and machine-likeness as well as sociability
(Kiesler et al., 2008, 1996). In social psychology,
Waytz et al. (2014) contended that the presence of
mental functions in an object (e.g., a car) is an indis­
pensable and satisfactory condition for humanness
(Waytz et al., 2014). Haslam et al.’s (2008) work
viewed humanness as a set of attributes that are
uniquely or typically human. Features rated high in
human uniqueness include civility, openness, and
agreeableness. Features ranking high on human nature
include agency, warmth, emotionality, and extraver­
sion. We adopt Haslam et al.’s (2008) view and postu­
late that a user will perceive the PIA based on uniquely
human attributes (such as funny, respectful or fluent)
or based on human nature attributes (such as caring,
happy or friendly). For instance, PIAs that commu­
nicate with the user by listening and talking back with
varying intonations and pitches are likely to appear
more human-like.
2.5. Perceived self-extension
Given that the main purpose of a PIA is to act as
a user’s personal assistant, its continued use will
depend upon its ability to extend the user’s capabil­
ities. We conceptualise the continuous reliance of the
user on the PIA via self-extension, i.e., attributing
a meaning associated with the self or self-identity to
possessed objects (R. Belk, 1988; Sivadas & Machleit,
1994). People who consider objects to be an extension
of themselves may use these entities to define them­
selves; to build a sense of identity; to serve as
a reminder of their self-identity and aspirations; or
to preserve and refine their self-concept (Mittal,
2006; Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, 2008).
Extant research on self-extension in IS has explored
the concept of extended self directly (Clayton et al.,
2015) or through (1) closely related concepts, such as
emotional attachment and identification (You &
Robert, 2017), and embodied perceptions of avatars
(You & Sundar, 2013); (2) multidimensional scaling to
map users’ extensional associations with technology
(Vishwanath & Chen, 2008); and (3) avatar designs
4 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
and their relationship with the self as well as forms of
attachment to possessions among teens (Kafai et al.,
2007; Odom et al., 2011). Findings suggest that
extending oneself to include the artefact – such as an
embodied robot in collaborative teams or a personal
technological artefact like a mobile phone – promotes
emotional attachment towards the artefact (Carter
et al., 2013; R. W. Belk, 2013; You & Robert, 2017).
Mittal (2006) identifies several mechanisms
whereby products become part of oneself at the pro­
duct selection stage (through choice and acquisition),
during use (by investing resources on learning how to
use it), and through bondin
g post-acquisition. First, objects are considered part
of the self when users choose them and exercise con­
trol over them (Kiesler & Kiesler, 2004). For instance,
users select objects we want to buy and through this
selection we shape our extended selves (R. Belk, 1988).
In a technology context, prior research explored the
perceptions of virtual possessions among teenagers by
focusing on associations between the self and personal
communication technologies such as mobile phones
(Kafai et al., 2007; Odom et al., 2011).
Second, objects become part of the self when users
learn how to use them. Users are more likely to view
products as extensions of themselves when they invest
resources (time, money, and effort) in their use.
Through this mastery, the owner reinforces the pro­
cess of constructing the extended self (R. Belk, 1988;
Mittal, 2006).
Third, personalisation of a product – by embellish­
ing it with personal symbols or messages or using it in
personal spaces – can increase the degree to which
users consider it part of their extended selves (Kiesler
& Kiesler, 2004). By tailoring products to their perso­
nal preferences, users develop what Mittal (2006) calls
post-acquisition attachment bonds.
In this study, perceived self-extension captures the
level to which users attribute meanings to the PIA that
are related to their self or self-identity. Consistent with
Figure 1. Research model. Controlled for but not shown are also habit, use frequency, and use tenure
prior research, we conceptualise the antecedents of
perceived self-extension as (a) possession/ownership
with self-based choice and resource investment in
acquisition; (b) mastery with investment in learning
how to use the agent; and (c) personalisation as an
indicator of bonding post-acquisition.
3. Hypotheses development
We present the complete research model of our study
in Figure 1. In a continuance of use context, the dis­
confirmation of expectations construct captures the
cognitive aspect, while the satisfaction construct cap­
tures the affective one. Satisfaction is the summary
psychological state that results from the emotions
surrounding the disconfirmed expectations and prior
IT use experience (Oliver, 1980; Venkatesh et al.,
2011). Prior research in IS supports the positive rela­
tionship between positive disconfirmation of expecta­
tions and satisfaction with the experience
(Bhattacherjee, 2001a, 2001b; Bhattacherjee & Lin,
2015; Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004). We believe
that following the adoption and use of the PIA, the
user will continuously re-evaluate her initial expecta­
tions considering the observed performance of the
PIA. This re-evaluation will influence the levels of
positive disconfirmation regarding the PIA’s perfor­
mance. Consistent with prior research, we expect that
the higher the positive disconfirmation, the higher the
satisfaction level.
H1: Positive disconfirmation of expectations is posi­
tively associated with satisfaction for experienced PIA
users.
Prior research has shown that pre-usage usefulness
expectations, which are based on second-hand infor­
mation, tend to be weaker than post-usage usefulness
expectations, which are based on the user’s first-hand
interaction with the system (Bhattacherjee & Lin,

2015; Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004). In the con­
text of post-adoption, prior work has supported
a positive association between positive disconfirma­
tion and perceived usefulness (Bhattacherjee, 2001a,
2001b; Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015). We expect that
following the adoption and use of the PIA, the user
will perform new tasks and evaluate her expectations
in light of the observed performance of the PIA, which
will influence the level of positive disconfirmation. For
example, if the user’s expectations of Alexa are
exceeded by Alexa’s help with various tasks (i.e., posi­
tively disconfirmed), the user’s perception of her own
performance (aided by Alexa) is likely to increase. We
expect that the more positive the disconfirmation
result, the higher the perceptions of usefulness of
the PIA.
H2: Positive disconfirmation of expectations is posi­
tively associated with perceived usefulness for experi­
enced PIA users.
The relationship between perceived intelligence
and usefulness of a PIA has been supported in a pre-
adoption context (Moussawi et al., 2021). More gen­
erally, with decision-assistive technologies, a user
perceives a system to be more useful when it reduces
the user’s cognitive load and increases task efficiency
(Kamis et al., 2008). Additionally, a system’s output
quality is a significant determinant of perceived use­
fulness of various types of systems (Chismar &
Wiley-Patton, 2003; Davis et al., 1992; Hart &
Porter, 2004). Therefore, an agent that acts indepen­
dently and learns from the user’s behaviour while
delivering an effectual and goal-directed output is
expected to increase the user’s perceived usefulness
of it. That is because the system will reduce the user’s
mental load and increase her efficiency and effective­
ness. We expect that this will be true post-adoption
as well, and that users’ perceptions of intelligence
will increase their perceptions of the PIA’s
usefulness.
H3: Perceived intelligence is positively associated with
perceived usefulness for experienced PIA users.
If the user’s perceived performance of the PIA
exceeds her expectations, she will experience
a positive disconfirmation of expectations
(Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015). Perceived intelligence is
expected to increase perceptions of PIAs’ performance
following continued use. First, the PIA is expected to
anticipate and autonomously carry out tasks. Second,
the PIA’s ability to produce the desired result and its
adaptive behaviour will ensure satisfactory output
quality and efficiency. For two users with a similar
level of pre-usage expectations, the higher the percep­
tions of intelligence, the higher the perceptions of
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 5
performance during post-adoption, and hence the
higher the positive disconfirmation of expectations is
expected to be.
H4: Perceived intelligence is positively associated with
positive disconfirmation of expectations for experi­
enced PIA users.
Prior research has shown that perceived enjoyment
is an important factor shaping users’ behaviour with
various systems (Kamis et al., 2008; Koufaris, 2002).
When users anthropomorphise an entity, such as
a technological application, a relationship forms,
which can elevate the quality of and hedonic gains
from the experience (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010).
For example, prior research has shown that the inte­
gration of social cues into a website improved users’
flow, gratification, and stimulation, which boosted
hedonic benefits (Wang et al., 2007). We expect
a similar relationship between anthropomorphism
and enjoyment for PIA users.
H5: Perceived anthropomorphism is positively asso­
ciated with perceived enjoyment for experienced PIA
users.
Alan Turing famously stated that a computer can
be considered to have a mind if its interrogator cannot
tell that it is not human (Gray et al., 2007; Turing,
1950). In other words, a system’s intelligence and
anthropomorphism are tightly linked. Accordingly,
researchers have developed anthropomorphism scales
partly based on mentalistic notions (Waytz et al.,
2014). In our study, however, we separate perceptions
of intelligence (i.e., associated with possessing a mind)
from perceptions of human-likeness, because we
believe that with PIAs, perceptions of one do not
always associate with perceptions of the other
(Moussawi et al., 2021). We include perceptions of
possessing a mind in the perceived intelligence con­
struct and conceptualise anthropomorphism based on
typically and uniquely human-like features of a PIA.
For example, if Google Assistant presents the user with
relevant information based on a deep analysis of the
user’s preferences, history, and activity, but does so in
a list of links in the Google app, it may be perceived as
intelligent but not necessarily anthropomorphic.
H6: Perceived intelligence is positively associated with
perceived anthropomorphism for experienced PIA
users.
We propose three antecedents for perceived self-
extension in a PIA context: perceived ownership, per­
ceived mastery, and perceived personalisation. Since
the PIA assists the user in her everyday tasks, it is
always available to her within close proximity,
6 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
addresses her by name or preferred nickname, and
serves her unequivocally. It has access to the user’s
information and over time it can learn her needs and
preferences and detect her behaviour patterns. The
relationship is reciprocal, however. After adopting
the PIA and after a period of repeated use, the user
can also learn how to interact with the PIA better and
gain mastery over it. Over time, the user can have
better control over the agent as she learns through
trial and error how to properly interact with the
agent and make best use of its capabilities.
Additionally, since the PIA is available through
a device or an account that the user owns, the user
has sole control over use of the PIA.
We expect a perception of ownership of the PIA to
develop in the post-adoption phase, and we define it as
the degree to which the user perceives that she owns
and can control the agent. Relevant research states that
the more we believe we possess something, the more it
becomes a part of the self (R. Belk, 1988; Kiesler &
Kiesler, 2004; Prelinger, 1959). The level of control
a user has over her PIA is akin to the control one has
over a body part to perform a function (e.g., to move
one’s legs to walk). The user can ask the PIA to per­
form any of its possible tasks (informational, interper­
sonal, or transactional) at any time. She can launch it
or stop it from performing an action (e.g., playing
a game, searching the internet, reading the news or
a book) at any time.
H7: Perceived ownership is positively associated with
perceived self-extension for experienced PIA users.
Another process through which objects can become
a part of the self is appropriation or mastering the use
of an object (R. Belk, 1988; Mittal, 2006). In a PIA
context, we define perceived mastery as the degree to
which the user perceives herself to be proficient in
using the PIA. Once the user masters the PIA, and
the PIA remains in close proximity, its use can become
natural and automatic. In that way, when perceived
mastery is high, the PIA begins to resemble a physical
appendage.
H8: Perceived mastery is positively associated with
perceived self-extension for experienced PIA users.
A third process through which objects can
become a part of the self is personalisation. We
define perceived personalisation as the level to
which a user believes she is able to tailor the PIA
to her own preferences. We propose that a period of
repeated use of a PIA will lead the user to feel that
she is able to personalise the agent due to the
agent’s ability to customise its behaviour and learn
from user interactions. Research has found empiri­
cal support for the positive causal association
between personalisation and self-extension. When
an object is personalised, it starts to symbolise,
and represent relevant aspects of, the user (Burris
& Rempel, 2004; Kiesler & Kiesler, 2004). For
instance, a Siri user can customise the PIA by chan­
ging its gender, language, and dialect, capturing
relevant aspects of herself.
H9: Perceived personalisation is positively associated
with perceived self-extension for experienced PIA
users.
The self-extension literature indicates that when
users perceive an object as an extension of them­
selves, they also perceive it as extending their cap­
abilities (R. Belk, 1988; Kiesler & Kiesler, 2004;
Mittal, 2006). Since PIAs assist users with various
tasks, perceptions of extended self can allow the
user to be more efficient and in control and can
impact the user’s perception of her performance.
For instance, a PIA that assists a parent with setting
timers or reminders to ease the burden of juggling
multiple household tasks provides the user with
a functional extension of herself. These perceptions
of extended self are shaped by increased mastery and
control over the agent over time. For experienced
users, PIAs may provide functional extensions that
amplify the self. Since the user will have increased
capabilities (those of the PIA that are associated with
the self now) and will need less time to complete her
everyday tasks, she will perceive the PIA as more
useful.
H10: Perceived self-extension is positively associated
with perceived usefulness for experienced PIA users.
Research exploring the association between the
consumer’s self and product meaning has proposed
an association between the diffuse self (i.e., the part of
the self that strives for hedonic satisfaction) and enjoy­
ment that is achieved through product familiarity and
sensory and aesthetic pleasures (Lapsley & Power,
2012; Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, 2008). We
expect that when the user considers the PIA to be
a part of her extended self, she will associate it with
her diffuse and private selves (i.e., the parts of the self
that strives for individual achievement). The PIA’s
connection with the user’s diffuse self is primarily
based on the PIA’s familiarity to the user as well as
sensory pleasures, such as the PIA’s ability to sense the
user’s presence and detect her voice despite ambient
noise; an understanding of multi-finger gestures or
specific commands; and an appealing design with 3D
effects or a soothing voice. The association with the
private self is due to the agent’s ability to extend the
user’s abilities (see H10). Therefore, we propose that
when users interact with an agent to which they are

already accustomed and that they consider a part of
themselves, they will have a pleasurable and enjoyable
usage experience.
H11: Perceived self-extension is positively associated
with perceived enjoyment for experienced PIA users.
Since satisfaction is based on prior and current use
of the PIA, it is an important factor in determining
continuance of use intention. Prior research studies
supported the positive association between satisfaction
with use and continuance intention (Bhattacherjee,
2001a, 2001b; Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015;
Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004). In line with the
unified model of IT continuance and prior research
findings, we propose that when the satisfaction level
increases, so does the intention to continue to use
the PIA.
H12: Satisfaction with the PIA is positively associated
with the intention to continue to use for experienced
PIA users.
Prior research empirically supported the relation­
ship between perceived usefulness and continuance
intention (Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015; Limayem et al.,
2007; Venkatesh et al., 2011). Consistent with the
unified model of IT continuance, we expect that if
a PIA is perceived as helping the user conduct her
daily activities (e.g., keeping up with a schedule, com­
pleting tasks, looking up information, playing music)
in a more efficient and effective manner, this percep­
tion will increase continuance of use intention.
H13: Perceived usefulness of the PIA is positively
associated with the intention to continue to use for
experienced PIA users.
Prior research in IS found empirical support for the
relationship between enjoyment and intention to use
in various contexts during pre- (Kamis et al., 2008;
Koufaris, 2002; Van der Heijden, 2004) and post-
adoption (Thong et al., 2006). We expect that PIA
users will enjoy interacting with an intelligent and
human-like PIA, and that this pleasurable experience
will be a strong determinant of their intention to
continue to use the system.
H14: Perceived enjoyment is positively related to the
intention to continue to use for experienced PIA users.
The positive association between subjective norms
and behavioural intention has been supported by sev­
eral studies on IS use (Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015;
Karahanna et al., 1999). In relation to relevant others,
we expect that the user will associate the PIA with her
public self, i.e., the facet of the self that strives for
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 7
social accreditation and self-definition (Lapsley &
Power, 2012). The connection with the public self is
mainly due to normative pressures. In our study, this
implies that PIA users are likely to develop positive
intentions towards continuance if they believe that
their relevant others (e.g., friends, colleagues, family
members) approve of this behaviour.
H15: Subjective norms are positively associated with the
intention to continue to use for experienced PIA users.
In line with prior research, we control for habit,
frequency of use, and use tenure, since these factors
are directly relevant for continuing users (Limayem
et al., 2007).
4. Research design
To test our research model, we designed a cross-sectional
study with experienced PIA users who have adopted the
PIA at some point in the past. Participants were college
students from a student pool at a major university in the
Northeastern United States. Students are an appropriate
sample of experienced PIA users since they are adopting
voice assistants at a faster rate than other age groups
(McCaffrey et al., 2018). The subject pool consisted of
students in several sections of an introductory informa­
tion systems course, who had the option to participate in
research projects to earn course credit (3% of the course
grade). We asked participants about their prior experi­
ence with PIAs. Participants who used a PIA more than
two times in the previous month were directed to our
survey. We adapted scales from the literature, as
explained in Appendix B, Table B1.
4.1. Sample
252 subjects qualified to participate in this study.
Subjects voluntarily chose to participate and received
the same amount of course credit upon completion of
the questionnaire. We excluded 20 data records due to
incomplete responses and used 232 valid and complete
records in our data analysis. Participants reported the
most frequently used PIAs as Apple’s Siri (78%), Google
Assistant (16%), Microsoft’s Cortana (4%), and
Amazon’s Echo (2%) (Appendix C, Table C1). About
60% of users were using their agent for more than
a year. About 51% of the subjects were 18 to 20 years
old, 27% were 21 to 23 years old, and 57% were female.
5. Data analysis
We used SmartPLS (Ringle et al., 2015) to analyse the
measurement and structural model. PLS-SEM analysis
was more suitable than CB-SEM because this research
is an extension of an existing structural theory (Hair
et al., 2011).
8 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
5.1. Measurement model evaluation
We confirmed convergent, discriminant validity and
reliability of all constructs in the model using loadings,
cross-loadings, composite reliability, average variance
extracted values, and the Fornell-Larcker criterion
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2013). We
also confirmed the lack of common method variance
using the marker variable and Harman’s single factor
techniques (Lindell and Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff
et al., 2003). For more details, please see Appendix C.
5.1.1. Structural model and hypotheses testing
The sample size (232 records) was appropriate for
PLS-SEM testing since it was greater than ten times
the largest number of structural paths directed at
a construct in the model (Hair et al., 2011). The
Goodness of Fit (GoF = 0.48 > GoFlarge = 0.36) indi­
cated that the model performed well. The cut-off for
large effect sizes was 0.36 (Wetzels et al., 2009).
We used the bootstrapping technique to estimate
the statistical significance of the path coefficients
(Chin, 2010). Figure 2 shows the results of our hypoth­
esis testing. The paths from positive disconfirmation
of expectations to satisfaction and to perceived useful­
ness were supported: H1 (β = 0.73; p = 0.000) and H2
(β = 0.66; p = 0.000). The paths from perceived intelli­
gence to usefulness, positive disconfirmation, and per­
ceived anthropomorphism were also supported: H3
(β = 0.14; p = 0.004), H4 (β = 0.53; p = 0.000), and
H6 (β = 0.35; p = 0.000). H5, which hypothesised the
relationship between perceived anthropomorphism
and enjoyment, was supported (β = 0.34; p = 0.000).
Among the factors that shape perceived self-extension,
the effects of perceived ownership and personalisation
were supported, but the effect of mastery was not
supported: H7 (β = 0.43; p = 0.000) and H9
(β = 0.23; p = 0.001). Perceived self-extension was
found to increase perceptions of usefulness and enjoy­
ment: H10 (β = 0.12; p = 0.007) and H11 (β = 0.21;
Figure 2. Results of PLS analysis (*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05). Control variables: Habit (0.08, ns); Use Frequency (−0.03,
ns); Use Tenure (0.06, ns); ns = not significant
p = 0.000). Among the factors that shape continuance
intention, the effect of satisfaction and usefulness was
supported, but not that of subjective norms or enjoy­
ment: H12 (β = 0.42; p = 0.000), and H13 (β = 0.33;
p = 0.000).
Inner variance inflation factor (VIF) values were
below 5, indicating no potential collinearity issues
among the constructs. As for predictive power, most
variables explained moderate (>0.20) to substantial
(>0.50) variance in the model with two exceptions:
perceived intelligence explained 13% of the variance
in anthropomorphism, and perceived anthropo­
morphism and self-extension explained 20% of the
variance in enjoyment. All other R2 values ranged
from 29% to 63% (Figure 2) (Hair et al., 2016).
Finally, to better understand the relationships in
our model, we calculated total effects (See Appendix
C, Table C5). All total effects were high and statisti­
cally significant, ranging from 0.349 to 0.736
(Appendix C, Table C5).
6. Discussion
Our results supported the hypothesised positive effect
of perceived intelligence of a PIA on positive discon­
firmation of expectations, perceived usefulness, and
perceived anthropomorphism. We also found that
perceptions of anthropomorphism can increase the
user’s intrinsic enjoyment, though enjoyment itself
did not significantly impact continuance of use.
Additionally, we found support for positive relation­
ships between a user’s perception of a PIA as an
extension of her self-identity (perceived self-
extension) and perceptions of usefulness and enjoy­
ment. Furthermore, perceived self-extension was
found to be positively impacted by the user’s perceived
ownership and personalisation of the PIA, but not by
perceived mastery. Our results also showed that post
initial adoption, PIA users’ satisfaction and usefulness

are important predictors of continued use, while sub­
jective norms and enjoyment are not. Finally, we
found support for the effect of positive disconfirma­
tion of expectations on both perceived usefulness and
satisfaction.
6.1. Theoretical implications
PIAs possess unique characteristics that enable them
to interact with users, react to the environment, be
proactive in completing tasks, possess personality
traits, and communicate using natural language. This
study’s findings show that in a post-adoption context,
users’ perceptions of a PIA as an extension of their
self-identity play in an important role in continuance
of use. PIAs exist in the users’ personal space and users
access them through a non-embodied device. Our
findings show that a user can perceive the agent as
part of her self-identity and that these perceptions of
self-extension are positively related with how much
a user enjoys using a PIA and whether she believes the
agent makes her work more efficient.
To better understand the factors that shape users’
perceptions of self-extension in this context, we inves­
tigated three factors: control, personalisation, and
mastery. We found that control over or owning the
PIA increases users’ perceptions of self-extension. One
implication of this result is that for a technology to
become part of the user’s self-identity, it must achieve
some of the qualities of a user’s physical self (i.e., to be
perceived as under the control of and adaptable by the
user), much like she can control a limb or modify her
voice or external appearance. Our findings also show
that the more users can personalise the PIA (e.g., by
changing its gender, language, or dialect), the higher
their perceptions of self-extension. Though we focused
on user-directed customisation in our study, auto­
mated personalisation (through continuous adapta­
tion of the PIA) may also impact perceptions of self-
extension. This could be examined in future research.
Interestingly, we did not find support for the
hypothesis that perceived mastery can increase per­
ceptions of self-extension. One possible explanation is
that if the PIA has a low complexity level, users do not
need to invest substantial time and effort to master its
use for the interaction to be successful. In their post-
survey comments, some of our subjects indicated how
easy their PIAs were to use, providing some support
for this explanation. Alternatively, the pace at which
the underlying algorithms learn and change, and pos­
sibly the resulting increase in predetermined set of
commands, could make using the PIA automatic and
frictionless, thereby reducing the users’ perception
that they have mastered the use of the PIA.
Prior literature on self-extension in IS indicated the
presence of an extended self with one’s mobile phone,
personal email, avatars, or Facebook posts (Clayton
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9
et al., 2015; Kafai et al., 2007; Odom et al., 2011;
Vishwanath & Chen, 2008). In line with these findings,
our results show that users can indeed report high
levels of perceived self-extension when it comes to
the PIAs they are using. However, PIAs are signifi­
cantly different from the technologies explored in
prior literature because they are more complex and
more proactive and interactive (as opposed to the
more passive nature of something like an email or an
avatar). The fact that PIAs exhibit significant anthro­
pomorphic characteristics, as well, means that their
relationship to a user’s self-identity may be different
than what has been found in prior research for other
technological artefacts. This is an important finding
given the unique nature of PIAs.
Our study also found that, in a post-adoption con­
text, perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorph­
ism are related but can exist independently for PIAs
and similar agents. More specifically, in technological
artefacts, perceptions of mind and perceptions of
anthropomorphism (i.e., human-likeness) do not
always overlap. An intelligent agent, for example, can
be perceived as intelligent but not as anthropomorphic
(e.g., a very capable and non-personalised chatbot
agent) and vice versa (e.g., an interactive voice assis­
tant with a personality and pre-defined set of ques­
tions). This is a different approach than the one
adopted in prior research in the psychology literature,
which conflated the two constructs by attributing
anthropomorphic notions to objects with cognition
and a human-like mind (Waytz et al., 2014). For
PIAs, the separate but related nature of the two con­
structs was supported in a prior study in a pre-
adoption context (Moussawi et al., 2021) and was
found to hold in the present study in a post-adoption
context.
Another key aspect of our findings is that when it
comes to continuance of use of PIAs, the effect of
utilitarian perceptions is significant, while that of
hedonic perceptions seems to wear off after initial
adoption. First, our findings show that perceptions of
intelligence not only shape perceptions of anthropo­
morphism, but also impact the user’s cognitive atti­
tudes and her evaluation of the benefits achieved from
using the system. Specifically, we find that positive
disconfirmation of expectations appears to be an
important factor for continuance of use in a post-
adoption context through its positive effect on user
satisfaction and perceived usefulness. In other words,
our results imply that users engage in a continuous
evaluation of the PIA, using their prior expectations as
benchmark, and that the mechanism through which
this evaluation affects their usage decisions is utilitar­
ian and concerns their overall satisfaction and their
general sense of efficiency. Second, we find that per­
ceived anthropomorphism can increase perceptions of
enjoyment, but enjoyment itself does not appear to
10 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
affect users’ continuance of use intentions. Research
has found that perceived anthropomorphism plays an
important role in users’ initial acceptance of PIAs
(Moussawi et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2019). Prior
work has also found that perceptions of anthropo­
morphism can help reduce the negative impact of
certain technology features (Benlian et al., 2019),
while positively impacting the user’s interaction with
the system by influencing their affect (Pfeuffer et al.,
2019). However, our results seem to indicate that what
is important to PIA users can shift as they move from
initial adoption to continued use. After the initial
novelty effect wears off, they may still enjoy using
a PIA (our data did not show a reduction in perceived
enjoyment overall), but enjoyment is no longer an
important factor in their decision to continue using
it. Instead, users shift to a utilitarian evaluation model,
where satisfaction with use and perceived usefulness
are the only significant factors.
An alternative explanation for the lack of signifi­
cance in the relationship between perceived enjoy­
ment and continuance of use intention may be
attributed to our conceptualisation of enjoyment in
terms of a pleasurable interaction. It is plausible that
the satisfaction with use construct has captured
a hedonic aspect of the experience (with the two
items with the words “pleased” and “delighted”) and
weakened the potential effect of perceived enjoyment
rendering it not significant. This could explain the
discrepancy between our results and those of prior
studies on other systems, different from PIAs, that
found a role for perceived enjoyment in shaping con­
tinuance of use intentions (e.g., Lee & Tsai, 2010;
Thong et al., 2006). However, given the unique nature
of PIAs, a more likely explanation relates to the shift to
a utilitarian evaluation, though more research is neces­
sary to confirm this explanation.
Additionally, the relationship between subjective
norms and intention to continue to use was not sup­
ported. In a work setting (Bhattacherjee & Lin, 2015),
influence from colleagues, managers, and various
other normative pressures are strong. Since the PIA
is mostly used to complete personal tasks in
a voluntary and individual context, the normative
pressures can be lower, especially when the PIA is
mostly used to complete personal tasks in
a voluntary context.
6.2. Practical implications
Although perceived anthropomorphism and per­
ceived enjoyment may affect users during pre-
adoption, our results indicate that these factors have
a limited effect in a post-adoption context. Since the
effect of perceived intelligence and usefulness seems to
be consistent in pre- and post-adoption, designers
need to focus on system features that increase those
perceptions. PIAs’ features should ensure that they
exhibit high autonomy and pro-activeness; possess
very good natural language production and proces­
sing; and use effective knowledge models.
Our results also indicate that users will consider the
PIA as a part of their self-identity when they feel they
have ownership over it and can customise it. This sug­
gests that PIA design should enable user customisation
(e.g., relating to the PIA’s name, voice, gender) as well as
a user interface that affords the user ownership over the
agent’s reactions and behaviour (e.g., relating to specific
buttons or commands that control access to the agent or
the agent’s reaction to different task requests). As PIAs
and the devices through which users access them evolve
and acquire new smart features or increase their utilisa­
tion of user tracking, such evolution could lead to con­
tinuous re-evaluations, positive or negative, of PIAs by
their users. We believe that this is an interesting ques­
tion for future research.
7. Limitations
One threat to external validity relates to our choice of
participants. We recruited student participants since
college-age individuals are integrating PIAs into their
life at a faster pace than other age groups (McCaffrey
et al., 2018). While targeting this group allowed us to
easily recruit experienced users, we caution that other
user groups may provide different results. Another
threat to external validity is that about 78% of respon­
dents were users of one specific PIA, Apple’s Siri.
However, we note that 22% of subjects were users of
other agents such as Microsoft’s Cortana, Amazon’s
Alexa, and Google’s Assistant, which extends the
results to various PIAs.
Our research design choices could be a source of
limitations. While we chose the cross-sectional
approach and focused on intention to continue to
use as the dependent variable, a longitudinal approach
could shed a different light on the dynamics of PIA use
continuance. Despite its limitations, a cross-sectional
methodology was adopted in many continuance stu­
dies (e.g., Bhattacherjee, 2001a; Ding & Chai, 2015;
Kim et al., 2007). Finally, our study investigates users’
perceived PIA characteristics rather than specific
design features. Future research could investigate
which design features are the strongest contributors
to perceived intelligence and anthropomorphism.
8. Conclusion
Our research highlights the important role that per­
ceived intelligence plays in a post-adoption context, as
well as the fading effect of enjoyment over time when
compared to an initial adoption context. It also pro­
vides a better understanding of perceptions of PIAs as
part of the users’ self-identities. Future research is

needed to continue investigating human-like intelli­
gent applications and users’ continued interactions
with these applications in various contexts.
Acknowledgments
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National
Library.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
ORCID
Raquel Benbunan-Fich http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6358-
9161
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality.
Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356. https://
doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009).
Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism,
animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived
safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1
(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal
of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.
1086/671052
Belk, R. (1988, September). Possessions and the extended
self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209154
Benlian, A., Klumpe, J., & Hinz, O. (2019). Mitigating the
intrusive effects of smart home assistants by using
anthropomorphic design features: A multimethod
investigation. Information Systems Journal, 30(6), 1010–
1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12243 .
Bhattacherjee, A., & Lin, C.-P. (2015). A unified model of IT
continuance: Three complementary perspectives and
crossover effects. European Journal of Information
Systems, 24(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.
2013.36
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, P. (2004). Understanding
changes in belief and attitude toward information tech­
nology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test.
MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148634
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001a). An empirical analysis of the ante­
cedents of electronic commerce service continuance.
Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201–214. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00111-7
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001b). Understanding information sys­
tems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model.
MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3250921
Burris, C. T., & Rempel, J. K. (2004). ”It’s the End of the
World as We Know It”: Threat and the spatial-symbolic
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 19
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.19 .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 11
Carter, M., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. B. (2013). Mobile
devices and the self: developing the concept of mobile
phone identity. In Strategy, adoption, and competitive
advantage of mobile services in the global economy (pp.
150–164. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1939-5.ch008). IGI
Global.
Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear
ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as
alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcps.2009.12.008
Chin, W. W. (2010). Bootstrap cross-validation indices for
PLS path model assessment. In Handbook of partial least
squares (pp. 83–97). Springer.
Chismar, W. G., & Wiley-Patton, S. (2003). Does the
extended technology acceptance model apply to
physicians. System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the
36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, USA: IEEE, 8.
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The
extended iself: The impact of iphone separation on cogni­
tion, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 20(2), 119–135. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcc4.12109
Czibula, G., Guran, A.-M., Czibula, I. G., & Cojocar, G. S.
(2009). IPA-an intelligent personal assistant agent for
task performance support. 2009 IEEE 5th International
Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and
Processing, Cluj-Napoca, Romania: IEEE, 31–34.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992).
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in
the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22
(14), 1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.
1992.tb00945.x
Ding, Y., & Chai, K. H. (2015). Emotions and continued
usage of mobile applications. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 115(5), 833–852. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IMDS-11-2014-0338
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social
robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4),
177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)
00374-3
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008).
When we need a human: Motivational determinants of
anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing
human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.
Psychological Review, 114(4), 864. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea­
surement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39–
50.
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship
partners: Warmth, competence, and in-between. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.003
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions
of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619-619. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475
Hair, J. F. Jr, G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2013.
A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M.
(2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equa­
tion modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
12 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM:
Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/
MTP1069-6679190202
Hart, M., & Porter, G. (2004). The impact of cognitive and
other factors on the perceived usefulness of olap. The
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(1), 47.
Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Kashima, Y., & Bain, P. (2008).
Attributing and denying humanness to others. European
Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10463280801981645
Hess, T. J., Fuller, M., & Campbell, D. E. (2009). Designing
interfaces with social presence: Using vividness and extra­
version to create social recommendation agents. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 10(12), 1.
doi:10.17705/1jais.00216.
Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Cook, M. (2007). Your second
selves: Avatar designs and identity play in a teen virtual
world. Proceedings of DIGRA, (West London, UK).
Kamis, A., Koufaris, M., & Stern, T. (2008). Using an
attribute-based decision support system for
user-customized products online: An experimental
investigation. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 159–177. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25148832
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999).
Information technology adoption across time: A
cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and
post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249751
Kiesler, S., Powers, A., Fussell, S. R., & Torrey, C. (2008).
Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and
robot-like agent. Social Cognition, 26(2), 169–181.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169
Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1996). A prisoner’s
dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and
human-like computers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(1), 47.
Kiesler, T., & Kiesler, S. (2004). My pet rock and me: An
experimental exploration of the self extension concept.
Advances in Consumer Research, XXXII 32 .
Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Chan, Y. P. (2007). A balanced
thinking–feelings model of information systems continu­
ance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
65(6), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.009
Knote, R., Janson, A., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019).
Classifying smart personal assistants: An empirical clus­
ter analysis. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences Maui, Hawaii, USA.
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance
model and flow theory to online consumer behavior.
Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223. https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.2.205.83
Krening, S., & Feigh, K. M. (2018, September).
Characteristics that influence perceived intelligence in
AI design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 62(1), 1637–1641.
Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lapsley, D. K., & Power, F. C. (2012). Self, ego, and identity:
Integrative approaches. Springer Science & Business Media.
Lee, M. C., & Tsai, T.-R. (2010). What drives people to
continue to play online games? An extension of technol­
ogy model and theory of planned behavior. Intl. Journal
of Human–computer Interaction, 26(6), 601–620. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10447311003781318
Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). A collection of definitions of
intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and
Applications, 157, 17–24.
Liao, Y., Vitak, J., Kumar, P., Zimmer, M., & Kritikos, K.
(2019). Understanding the role of privacy and trust in intel­
ligent personal assistant adoption. International Conference
on Information, Washington, DC: Springer, 102–113.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How
habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of
information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4),
705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817
Lindell, M. K., and D. J. Whitney. 2001. “Accounting for
Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research
Designs.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 114–121.
Link, K. E., Kreuz, R. J., Graesser, A. C., & Group, T. R.
(2001). Factors that influence the perception of feedback
delivered by a pedagogical agent. International Journal of
Speech Technology, 4(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1017383528041
Lowry, P. B., Gaskin, J., & Moody, G. D. (2015). Proposing
the multi-motive information systems continuance
model (MISC) to better explain end-user system evalua­
tions and continuance intentions. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 16(7), 515–579.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00403
March, S., Hevner, A., & Ram, S. (2000). Research commen­
tary: An agenda for information technology research in
heterogeneous and distributed environments.
Information Systems Research, 11(4), 327–341. https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.327.11873
McCaffrey, M. H. P., Hobbs, M., & Wagner, J. (2018). Prepare
for the voice revolution. Consumer Intelligence Series, PWC.
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/library/
consumer-intelligence-series/voice-assistants.html
Mittal, B. (2006). I, me, and mine—How products become
consumers’ extended selves. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour: An International Research Review, 5(6),
550–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.202
Moussawi, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2021). The effect of voice
and humour on users’ perceptions of personal intelligent
agents. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(15),
1603–1626. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2020.1772368.
Moussawi, S., Koufaris, M., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2021).
How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism
affect adoption of personal intelligent agents. Electronic
Markets, 31, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-
020-00411-w .
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness:
Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56
(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Nass, C., & Steuer, J. (1993). Voices, boxes, and sources of
messages. Human Communication Research, 19(4),
504–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.
tb00311.x
Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2011). Teenagers
and their virtual possessions: Design opportunities and
issues. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human
Factors in computing systems, Vancouver BC Canada:
ACM, 1491–1500.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents
and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002224378001700405
Olsen, K. A., & Malizia, A. (2011). Automated personal
assistants. Computer, 44(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MC.2011.329
Pfeuffer, N., Benlian, A., Gimpel, H., & Hinz, O. (2019).
Anthropomorphic information systems. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 61(4) , 523–533.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/bise/vol61/iss4/10 .

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P.
Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature
and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 88 (5): 879.
Prelinger, E. (1959). Extension and structure of the self. The
Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00223980.1959.9916303
Purington, A., Taft, J. G., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N. N., &
Taylor, S. H. (2017). Alexa is my new bff” social roles,
user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo.
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems Denver Colorado
USA, New York NY United States: Association for
Computing Machinery, 2853–2859.
Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating anthropomorphic
product recommendation agents: A social relationship
perspective to designing information systems. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145–182.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250405
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS
3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS. http://www.smartpls.com
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial intelligence:
A modern approach (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Schifferstein, H. N., & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. (2008).
Consumer-Product attachment: Measurement and
design implications. International Journal of Design, 2
(3), 1–14.
Sivadas, E., & Machleit, K. A. (1994). A scale to determine
the extent of object incorporation in the extended self.
Marketing Theory and Applications, 5(1), 143–149.
Thong, J. Y., Hong, S.-J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects
of post-adoption beliefs on the
expectation-confirmation model for information tech­
nology continuance. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 64(9), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and
intelligence. Mind, LIX(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/
10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 .
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 13
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., Hu, P. J. H., &
Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the two-stage information
systems continuance model: Incorporating Utaut predictors
and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6),
527–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x
Vishwanath, A., & Chen, H. (2008). Personal communication
technologies as an extension of the self: A cross-cultural
comparison of people’s associations with technology and
their symbolic proximity with others. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology,
59(11), 1761–1775. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20892
Wagner, K., Nimmermann, F., & Schramm-Klein, H.
(2019). Is it human? The role of anthropomorphism as
a driver for the successful acceptance of digital voice
assistants. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences Hawaii USA.
Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. (2007).
Can a retail website be social? Journal of Marketing, 71(3),
143–157. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.143
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the
machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an auton­
omous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
52(52), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
Welch, C. (2018). Amazon made a special version of Alexa for
hotels that put echo speakers in their rooms. The Verge.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/19/17476688/amazon-
alexa-for-hospitality-announced-hotels-echo .
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C.
(2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarch­
ical construct models: guidelines and empirical
illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1). 177–195. https://doi.
org/10.2307/20650284 .
You, S., & Robert, L. (2017). Emotional attachment, perfor­
mance, and viability in teams collaborating with
Embodied Physical Action (Epa) robots. Emotional
Attachment, Performance, and Viability in Teams
Collaborating with Embodied Physical Action (EPA)
Robots, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 19 (5), 377–407. doi:10.17705/1jais.00496.
You, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2013). I feel for My Avatar:
Embodied perception in Ves. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems (Paris
France), 3135–3138.
14 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.

Appendix A (Wagner et al., 2019). Along these lines, another study

A recent classification study identified several attributes
relevant to PIAs, including communication via natural lan­
guage and sensors; collective intelligence; and embodiment
reflected through anthropomorphism and a clear presence
of an identifiable entity (Knote et al., 2019).
Implementations of PIAs range from general purpose –
such as Apple’s Siri, Google’s Assistant, Amazon’s Alexa –
to specific purpose, which are tailored to certain tasks or
contexts (Mahmood et al., 2018; Santos et al., 2018). Task-
and context-based PIAs have been designed for, and are
used in, different fields, including sports (iAPERAS), health­
care and mental health (HealthPal, BeWell, StudentLife,
PPCare, EMMA), education (Adele), manufacturing, perso­
nal communication, driving, nutrition, classroom, etc.
(Ghandeharioun et al., 2019; Mahmood et al., 2018; Tang
et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 1999; Verlic et al.,
2005).
A content analysis of Amazon.com reviews for the Echo
device and Alexa agent revealed that more personification,
i.e., the degree to which the technology is perceived as
a person, led to higher star ratings regardless of functionality
issues or appropriateness of responses (Purington et al.,
2017). Users’ personification of their PIA was characterised
as a mindless politeness (Lopatovska and Williams, 2018),
a view in line with the media equation theory (Reeves and
Nass, 1996), which states that people unconsciously treat
computers as they treat other people. Research has also
looked at other PIA issues, including children’s interactions
with PIAs, smart home integration, and the various implica­
tions on security and privacy (Druga et al., 2017; Pradhan
et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2017).
Several recent studies focused on exploring users’
adoption of agents. Prior research that used the latest
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT2) found that performance and effort expec­
tancies, hedonic motivation, habit, and likeability
(shaped by perceived sociability, animacy, and human­
like-fit) positively impact users’ intention to adopt PIAs
proposed that performance and effort expectancies,
social influence, price value, habit, privacy risk expec­
tancy, trust, experience, and access to a health system
are expected to shape users’ adoption intention of
a conversational agent for healthcare services (Laumer
et al., 2019). Additionally, perceptions of intelligence
and anthropomorphism of the agent were found to
influence new users’ beliefs and attitudes as well as
trust in a PIA (Moussawi et al., 2021). Using the para-
social theory to explain adoption, research revealed
interpersonal attraction as well as security and privacy
risks as important factors impacting PIA adoption (Han
and Yang, 2018). In the context of robo-advisory for
investment decisions, perceptions of anthropomorph­
ism, triggered by visual and verbal cues as well as
personalised anchors, were found to influence social
presence positively, which in turn causes an increase
in investment volumes (Adam et al., 2019). Other stu­
dies found that perceived anthropomorphism increases
when an agent exhibits socially refined behaviour and
has a clear role, increased independence, and
a personality (Wagner et al., 2019). Additionally,
smart home assistants’ anthropomorphic features can
diminish the negative impact that intrusive technology
features can have on users’ stress by shaping their feel­
ings of privacy invasion (Benlian et al., 2019). Prior
literature has also explored the role of agent design.
Features such as preset answers, automatic sentiment
analysis, and adaptive responses were found to impact
perceptions of empathy, social presence, and satisfac­
tion in a service encounter (Diederich et al., 2019a;
2019b). Research also explored the role of chatbots in
a digital work environment (Lechler et al., 2019) and
user interactions with smart personal assistants in
a group context (Winkler et al., 2019). Finally, in
a judge-advisor system context, conversational agents
with female traits appeared to increase users’ perceived
competence of the agent (Pfeuffer et al., 2019).

Table A1. Relevant research on PIAs and intelligent conversational agents.

Study Objective Technology Research Design
Adam et al. Investigated how anthropomorphism and personalised anchors can Digital automated service Experiment
2019 influence investment decisions for robo-advisors.
Benlian et al., Investigated how smart home assistants’ anthropomorphic features can Smart home assistants Mixed methods: online
2019 attenuate the harmful effects of intrusive technology features on experiment and
strain by shaping users’ feelings of privacy invasion. survey
de Barcelos Conducted a systematic literature review of intelligent personal Intelligent personal assistants Literature review
Silva et al., assistants.
2020
Diederich et al., Explored if preset answer options of text-based conversational agents Text-based conversational Experiment
2019 influence perceived humanness, social presence, and service agents
satisfaction
Diederich et al., Proposed and evaluated a design of a conversational agent with Conversational agent Experiment
2019 automatic sentiment analysis and adaptive responses that could
emulate empathy in a service encounter.
Druga et al., Explored children’s perceptions of Amazon Alexa, Google Home, Cozmo Amazon Alexa, Google Home, Interviews
2017 and Julie Chatbot in the context of child-agent interaction. Cozmo and Julie Chatbot
Han and Yang, Explored users’ adoption intention of intelligent personal assistants Intelligent personal assistants Survey
2018 drawing on the parasocial relationship theory.
Kiseleva et al., Investigated user satisfaction, task completion and effort variations in Voice-controlled intelligent User study with
2016 a number of use scenarios in various contexts. personal assistants simulated tasks
Knote et al. Conducted an empirical cluster analysis to classify smart personal Smart personal assistants Literature review and
(2019) assistants. The study built on a systematic literature review, specified cluster analysis
a number of design characteristics and revealed five clusters of
assistants.
Kuzminykh Identified categories in behavioural and visual perceptions of agents in Conversational agents Qualitative multi-phase
et al., 2020 relation to the anthropomorphism of conversational agents. study
(Continued)
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 15

Table A1. (Continued).

Study Objective Technology Research Design
Laumer et al., Built on UTAUT2 to investigate users’ adoption of conversational agents Conversational agents Semi-structured
2019 for healthcare services, specifically for disease diagnosis. interviews with 35
potential users
Lechler et al., Explored the roles that chatbots play in the exchange of feedback in Chatbots Design research
2019 digital work environments.
Liao et al., 2019 Explored the motivations for voice-controlled intelligent personal Voice-controlled Intelligent Survey
assistants’ adoption and the role that trust and privacy concerns play personal assistants
in this context.
Liu et al. (2017) Devised a roadmap for natural language processing research in IS based Various IT artefacts Literature review
on a literature review and the identification of 12 commonly
researched tasks.
Lopatovska and Investigated users’ personification, i.e., anthropomorphism, behaviours Amazon Alexa Qualitative study with
Williams, with intelligent personal assistants. The study aimed to categorise users’ diaries
2018 these behaviours with Amazon’s Alexa users.
Luger and Used the lens of Norman’s gulfs of execution and evaluation to explore Conversational agents Qualitative/Interviews
Sullen, 2016 users’ experiences with conversational agents.
Pfeuffer et al., Explored gender stereotyping and egocentric bias with cooperative Conversational agents Experiment
2019 conversational agents, specifically, with judge-advisor systems.
Porcheron et al., Examined how conversational agents are integrated and used in casual Intelligent personal assistants Participant-Observer
2017 group settings between friends. /Ethnomethodology
Pradhan et al., Examined the accessibility of intelligent personal assistants and how Amazon Echo User reviews and
2018 users with disabilities are using these agents. Interviews
Purington et al., Explored users’ personification of intelligent agents, specifically Amazon Amazon Echo User reviews
2017 Echo, and its connection to social interactions and user satisfaction.
Rzepka (2019) Built on the values and means-end chain theory to better understand Virtual assistants Qualitative/Interviews
users’ evaluations of virtual assistants and develop a means-end
objectives network for using these agents.
Sannon et al., Examined whether conversational agent’s type and user personification Conversational agents Interactive study
2018 influenced users’ tendency to disclose sensitive information to the
agent.
Wagner and Drew on the three-factor theory of anthropomorphism, media equation Digital voice assistants Qualitative/Interviews
Schramm- and uncanny valley to better understand users’ relationship with
Klein, 2019 digital voice assistants as well as assistants’ functionality,
anthropomorphic attributes, and behaviour.
Wagner et al., Revealed that performance and effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, Digital voice assistants Survey
2019 habit and likeability (shaped by perceived sociability, animacy and
humanlike-fit) positively impact users’ intention to adopt agents like
Siri and Alexa.
Winkler et al., Explored how interactions with smart personal assistants vs. a scripted Smart personal assistants Mixed method
2019 human facilitator in a complex problem-solving scenario improve approach
group performance and collaboration quality.
Yang et al., Found that perceived pragmatic and hedonic agent qualities influence Conversational agents (e.g., Siri, Survey
2019 users’ affective responses to them. Google Assistant, Alexa and
Cortana)
Zeng et al., Explored users’ experiences with smart homes and the emerging Smart Home Semi-structured
2017 security and privacy concerns. interviews

References Ghandeharioun, A., McDuff, D., Czerwinski, M., and

Adam, M., Toutaoui, J., Pfeuffer, N., and Hinz, O. 2019.
“Investment Decisions with Robo-Advisors: The Role of
Anthropomorphism and Personalized Anchors in
Recommendations”.
de Barcelos Silva, A., Gomes, M. M., da Costa, C. A., da Rosa
Righi, R., Barbosa, J. L. V., Pessin, G., De Doncker, G., and
Federizzi, G. 2020. “Intelligent Personal Assistants: A
Systematic Literature Review,” Expert Systems with
Applications (147).
Diederich, S., Brendel, A. B., Lichtenberg, S., and Kolbe, L.
2019a. “Design for Fast Request Fulfillment or Natural
Interaction? Insights from an Experiment with a
Conversational Agent,”.
Diederich, S., Janssen-Müller, M., Brendel, A. B., and Morana,
S. 2019b. “Emulating Empathetic Behavior in Online Service
Encounters with Sentiment-Adaptive Responses: Insights
from an Experiment with a Conversational Agent”.
Druga, S., Williams, R., Breazeal, C., and Resnick, M. 2017. “
Hey Google Is It Ok If I Eat You?” Initial Explorations in
Child-Agent Interaction,” Proceedings of the 2017
Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 595–600.
Rowan, K. 2019. “Emma: An Emotion-Aware Wellbeing
Chatbot,” 2019 8th International Conference on Affective
Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII): IEEE, 1–7.
Han, S., and Yang, H. 2018. “Understanding Adoption of
Intelligent Personal Assistants,” Industrial Management
& Data Systems.
Kiseleva, J., Williams, K., Jiang, J., Hassan Awadallah, A.,
Crook, A. C., Zitouni, I., and Anastasakos, T. 2016.
“Understanding User Satisfaction with Intelligent
Assistants,” Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference
on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 121–130.
Kuzminykh, A., Sun, J., Govindaraju, N., Avery, J., and Lank, E.
2020. “Genie in the Bottle: Anthropomorphized Perceptions
of Conversational Agents,” Proceedings of the 2020 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13.
Laumer, S., Maier, C., and Gubler, F. T. 2019. “Chatbot
Acceptance in Healthcare: Explaining User Adoption of
Conversational Agents for Disease Diagnosis”.
Lechler, R., Stöckli, E., Rietsche, R., and Uebernickel, F.
2019. “Looking beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: The
Two-Sided Nature of Chatbots and Their Roles for
Digital Feedback Exchange”.
16 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
Liu, D., Li, Y., and Thomas, M. A. 2017. “A Roadmap for
Natural Language Processing Research in Information
Systems,” Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Lopatovska, I., and Williams, H. 2018. “Personification of
the Amazon Alexa: Bff or a Mindless Companion,”
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human
Information Interaction & Retrieval, 265–268.
Luger, E., and Sellen, A. 2016. “” Like Having a Really Bad
Pa” the Gulf between User Expectation and Experience of
Conversational Agents,” Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems,
5286–5297.
Mahmood, K., Rana, T., and Raza, A. R. 2018. “Singular
Adaptive Multi-Role Intelligent Personal Assistant (Sam-
Ipa) for Human Computer Interaction,” 2018 12th
International Conference on Open Source Systems and
Technologies (ICOSST): IEEE, 35–41.
Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., and Sharples, S. 2017. “” Do
Animals Have Accents?” Talking with Agents in Multi-
Party Conversation,” Proceedings of the 2017 ACM con­
ference on computer supported cooperative work and social
computing, 207–219.
Pradhan, A., Mehta, K., and Findlater, L. 2018. “”
Accessibility Came by Accident” Use of Voice-
Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants by People
with Disabilities,” Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–
13.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How
people treat computers, television, and new media like real
people and places. Cambridge university press.
Rzepka, C. 2019. “Examining the Use of Voice Assistants: A
Value-Focused Thinking Approach”.
Sannon, S., Stoll, B., DiFranzo, D., Jung, M., and Bazarova,
N. N. 2018. “How Personification and Interactivity
Influence Stress-Related Disclosures to Conversational
Agents,” Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social
Computing, 285–288.
Santos, J., Rodrigues, J. J., Casal, J., Saleem, K., and Denisov,
V. 2018. “Intelligent Personal Assistants Based on
Internet of Things Approaches,” IEEE Systems Journal
(12:2).
Shaw, E., Johnson, W. L., and Ganeshan, R. 1999.
“Pedagogical Agents on the Web,” Proceedings of the
third annual conference on Autonomous Agents, 283–290.
Tang, Y., Wang, S., Chen, Y., and Chen, Z. 2012. “Ppcare: A
Personal and Pervasive Health Care System for the
Elderly,” 2012 9th International Conference on
Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing and 9th
International Conference on Autonomic and Trusted
Computing: IEEE, 935–939.
Verlic, M., Zorman, M., and Mertik, M. 2005. “IAPERAS-
Intelligent Athlete’s Personal Assistant,” 18th IEEE
Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems: IEEE.
Wagner, K., and Schramm-Klein, H. 2019. “Alexa, Are You
Human? Investigating Anthropomorphism of Digital
Voice Assistants–a Qualitative Approach”.
Winkler, R., Neuweiler, M. L., Bittner, E., and Söllner, M.
2019. “Hey Alexa, Please Help Us Solve This Problem!
How Interactions with Smart Personal Assistants
Improve Group Performance”.
Yang, X., Aurisicchio, M., and Baxter, W. 2019.
“Understanding Affective Experiences with
Conversational Agents,” Proceedings of the 2019 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–
12.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 17

APPENDIX B

Table B1. Instruments’ items.

Construct Code Items Adapted from
Perceived intelligence PInt1 The PIA can complete tasks quickly. Moussawi and Koufaris
(2019)
PInt2 The PIA can understand my commands.
PInt3 The PIA can communicate with me in an understandable manner.
PInt4 The PIA can find and process the necessary information for completing its tasks.
PInt5 The PIA is able to provide me with a useful answer.
Perceived PAnt1 The PIA is able to speak like a human Moussawi and Koufaris
anthropomorphism (2019)
PAnt2 The PIA can be happy.
PAnt3 The PIA is friendly
PAnt4 The PIA is respectful
PAnt5 The PIA is funny
PAnt6 The PIA is caring
Positive disconfirmation Dis1 Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of the PIA to improve my Bhattacherjee and Lin (2015)
of expectations performance was much better than expected.
Dis2 Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of the PIA to increase my
productivity was much better than expected.
Dis3 Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of the PIA to enhance my
effectiveness was much better than expected.
Dis4 Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of the PIA to be useful for my
everyday life tasks was much better than expected.
Perceived usefulness PU1 Using the personal intelligent agent improves my daily performance Bhattacherjee (2001b) and
Davis et al. (1989)
PU2 Using the personal intelligent agent increases my productivity
PU3 Using the personal intelligent agent enhances my daily effectiveness
PU4 Overall, the personal intelligent agent is useful
PU5 Using the personal intelligent agent would enable me to complete tasks more
quickly
Satisfaction with use Sat1 I feel very satisfied about my overall experience with the personal intelligent agent. Bhattacherjee and Lin (2015)
Sat2 I feel very pleased about my overall experience with the personal intelligent agent.
Sat3 I feel very content about my overall experience with the personal intelligent agent.
Sat4 I feel absolutely delighted about my overall experience with the personal
intelligent agent.
Continuance intention Cont1 I intend to continue using the personal intelligent agent rather than discontinue its Bhattacherjee and Lin (2015)
use
Cont2 My intentions are to continue using the personal intelligent agent
Cont3 I plan to continue using the personal intelligent agent
Perceived mastery PM1 I have learned how to successfully interact with the personal intelligent agent in an Morrison (2002)
efficient manner.
PM2 I have mastered the use of the personal intelligent agent.
PM3 I have fully developed the appropriate skills and abilities to successfully interact
with the personal intelligent agent.
Perceived ownership PO1 This is my personal intelligent agent. Lee and Chen (2011)
PO2 I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of this personal intelligent agent.
PO3 I sense that I own this personal intelligent agent.
PO4 It is easy for me to think about this personal intelligent agent as mine.
Perceived self-extension Ext1 The personal intelligent agent helps me achieve the identity I want to have. Sivadas and Machleit (1994)
Ext2 The personal intelligent agent helps me narrow the gap between what I am and
what I try to be.
Ext3 The personal intelligent agent is central to my self identity.
Ext4 The personal intelligent agent is part of who I am.
Ext5 If the personal intelligent agent is taken from me I will feel as if part of myself has
been snatched from me.
Ext6 I derive some of my self-identity from the personal intelligent agent.
Perceived PP1 I set up the PIA to use it the way I want to. Kim and Son (2009) and
personalisation Zhou et al. (2012)
PP2 I have put effort into adapting the PIA to meet my needs.
PP3 I have chosen features offered by the PIA to suit my style of use.
PP4 The PIA is personalised in some way.
Perceived enjoyment PE1 While using the PIA, I find the interaction enjoyable. Kamis et al. (2008)
PE2 While using the PIA, I find the interaction interesting.
PE3 While using the PIA, I find the interaction to be fun.
Subjective norms SN1 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use the PIA. Bhattacherjee and Lin (2015)
SN2 People who are important to me think that I should use the PIA.
SN3 People who influence my behaviour would welcome my use of the IS in my
everyday life.
Habit Hb1 Using the PIA has become automatic to me. Limayem et al. (2007)
Hb2 Using the PIA comes naturally to me.
Hb3 When faced with a particular task, using the PIA is an obvious choice for me.
Hb4 I have a habit of using the PIA.
18 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
References
Kim, S. S., and Son, J. Y. 2009. “Out of Dedication or
Constraint? A Dual Model of Post-Adoption
Phenomena and Its Empirical Test in the Context of
Online Services,” MIS quarterly, 49–70.
Lee, Y., and Chen, A. N. 2011. “Usability Design and
Psychological Ownership of a Virtual World,” Journal of
Management Information Systems (28:3), 269–308.
Morrison, E. W. 2002. “Newcomers’ Relationships:
The Role of Social Network Ties During
Socialization,” Academy of management Journal
(45:6), 1149–1160.
Moussawi, S., & Koufaris, M. (2019). Perceived intelligence
and perceived anthropomorphism of personal intelligent
agents: Scale development and validation. In Proceedings
of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system
sciences.
Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Vogel, D. R., Jin, X.-L., and Zhang, X.
2012. “Attracted to or Locked In? Predicting Continuance
Intention in Social Virtual World Services,” Journal of
Management Information Systems (29:1), 273–306
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 19

APPENDIX C shown in Appendix C, Table C3. We then evaluated

C-1. Sample Statistics the measures’ composite reliabilities, which were
between 0.83 and 0.94, thus demonstrating high com­
posite reliability for all constructs (Appendix C, Table
Table C1. Subject demographics. C2).
Frequency Frequency We used the average variance extracted (AVE) values to
Variable (%) Variable (%) assess the convergent validity of the constructs. The AVEs
Times of Use on were all above 0.5 (Appendix C, Table C2). The only excep­
Age Average
tion was the AVE of 0.47 for perceived anthropomorphism,
18–20 119 (51.3%) Once a month 16 (6.9%) which was very close to 0.5. We kept all the items for
21–23 62 (26.7%) 2–3 times a month 64 (27.6%)
24–26 26 (11.2%) Once a week 26 (11.2%) perceived anthropomorphism since they cover the entire
27–29 6 (2.6%) 2–3 times a week 58 (25%) scope of the construct. We then used the Fornell-Larcker
30–32 9 (3.9%) Once a day 26 (11.2%) criterion to evaluate the discriminant validity (Fornell and
33–35 3 (1.3%) Twice a day 10 (4.3%) Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2013). For each construct, the
36 or above 7 (3%) More than twice a day 32 (13.8%)
Gender Period of Use
square root of the AVE was higher than the construct’s
Male 132 (56.9%) Less than a month 4 (1.7%) individual correlation with other constructs, thus demon­
Female 98 (42.2%) 1–2 months 10 (4.3%) strating satisfactory discriminant validity (Appendix C,
Year 3–4 months 22 (9.5%) Table C2).
Freshman 19 (8.2%) 5–6 months 21 (9.1%) We used two techniques to check for the presence of
Sophomore 102 (44%) 7–8 months 8 (3.4%)
Junior 94 (40.5%) 9–10 months 15 (6.5%) common method variance: marker variable method
Senior 17 (7.3%) 11–12 months 12 (5.2%) (Lindell and Whitney 2001; Podsakoff et al. 2003) and
PIA Type More than a year 140 (60.3%) Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The
Apple’s Siri 180 (77.6%) marker variable, belongingness to school, was theoretically
Microsoft’s Cortana 9 (3.9%)
Google Assistant 38 (16.4%)
unrelated to the variables in our study and identified before
Amazon’s Echo, 4 (1.7%) the start of data collection (Malhotra et al., 2006). Following
Alexa the marker variable approach outlined by Rönkkö and
Other 1 (0.4%) Ylitalo (2011), who adapted the Lindell and Whitney
(2001) method for PLS analyses, we ran two models (one
with the marker variable and one without). The results
C-2. Model Evaluation indicate that all path coefficients in both models are similar,
We first evaluated the relationships between the indi­ suggesting the absence of common method variance (See
cators and reflective variables. All loadings were satis­ Appendix C, Table C4; See Rönkkö and Ylitalo (2011)). In
factory, i.e., above or closely below the 0.70 threshold addition, we also used the Harman’s single factor test, which
(between 0.60 and 0.70). The only exception was one revealed the lack of one individual factor accounting for
item for perceived personalisation, which had a value of most of the covariance among the measures. The unrotated
0.57. We retained the item since the construct’s com­ factor solution shows that a single factor accounted for 29%
posite reliability and AVE values are satisfactory. We of the variance in the variables. This evidence indicates that
kept all items. The loadings and cross-loadings are common method bias is not a threat in this study.

Table C2. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted, latent variable correlations, and square root of the
AVE.
Correlations
CA CR AVE P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12
P1 0.84 0.90 0.75 0.87
P2 0.85 0.90 0.70 0.63 0.83
P3 0.78 0.84 0.47 0.26 0.37 0.69
P4 0.84 0.91 0.76 0.34 0.43 0.40 0.87
P5 0.80 0.86 0.56 0.48 0.53 0.35 0.41 0.75
P6 0.86 0.91 0.77 0.58 0.59 0.34 0.29 0.46 0.88
P7 0.87 0.91 0.72 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.56 0.25 0.36 0.85
P8 0.74 0.83 0.56 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.57 0.27 0.37 0.65 0.75
P9 0.93 0.94 0.73 0.06 0.38 0.31 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.58 0.52 0.86
P10 0.86 0.90 0.64 0.67 0.78 0.27 0.36 0.50 0.58 0.35 0.39 0.38 0.80
P11 0.88 0.92 0.74 0.69 0.73 0.38 0.35 0.57 0.64 0.37 0.36 0.27 0.70 0.86
P12 0.84 0.90 0.76 0.26 0.41 0.34 0.46 0.14 0.25 0.59 0.56 0.67 0.44 0.33 0.87
CA: Cronbach’s Alpha, CR: Composite Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted.
P1: Continuance intention, P2: Positive disconfirmation, P3: Perceived anthropomorphism, P4: Perceived enjoyment, P5: Perceived intelligence, P6:
Perceived mastery, P7: Perceived ownership, P8: Perceived personalisation, P9: Perceived self-extension, P10: Perceived usefulness, P11: Satisfaction, P12:
Subjective norms.
The square root of the AVE for each construct is presented in bold in the correlations section of the table.
20 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.

Table C3. Loadings and cross-loadings for reflective constructs.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12
Cont1 0.86 0.52 0.23 0.33 0.36 0.46 0.29 0.40 0.08 0.54 0.56 0.27
Cont2 0.89 0.57 0.20 0.23 0.37 0.51 0.22 0.34 0.07 0.61 0.59 0.24
Cont3 0.85 0.54 0.26 0.32 0.52 0.53 0.27 0.33 0.01 0.58 0.65 0.18
PDis1 0.49 0.84 0.31 0.39 0.41 0.46 0.32 0.35 0.36 0.64 0.61 0.32
PDis2 0.50 0.84 0.28 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.28 0.30 0.36 0.74 0.62 0.39
PDis3 0.54 0.83 0.31 0.32 0.44 0.47 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.58 0.59 0.29
PDis4 0.56 0.81 0.33 0.36 0.51 0.58 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.63 0.62 0.36
PE1 0.32 0.41 0.32 0.85 0.38 0.28 0.50 0.47 0.26 0.32 0.33 0.36
PE2 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.88 0.37 0.21 0.46 0.47 0.25 0.31 0.28 0.42
PE3 0.29 0.39 0.40 0.88 0.33 0.27 0.51 0.55 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.43
PM1 0.59 0.59 0.29 0.24 0.51 0.84 0.24 0.26 0.11 0.53 0.59 0.17
PM2 0.48 0.48 0.30 0.24 0.41 0.90 0.38 0.36 0.27 0.52 0.57 0.25
PM3 0.51 0.55 0.31 0.29 0.36 0.90 0.29 0.32 0.23 0.49 0.56 0.22
PO1 0.22 0.29 0.34 0.51 0.16 0.29 0.84 0.58 0.51 0.29 0.35 0.54
PO2 0.23 0.30 0.31 0.45 0.22 0.30 0.85 0.53 0.55 0.33 0.33 0.51
PO3 0.25 0.28 0.34 0.47 0.24 0.27 0.84 0.50 0.44 0.25 0.27 0.44
PO4 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.48 0.24 0.38 0.86 0.59 0.45 0.32 0.31 0.49
PAnt1 0.25 0.32 0.60 0.26 0.43 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.29 0.19
PAnt2 0.09 0.21 0.64 0.20 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.19 0.27 0.12 0.25 0.22
PAnt3 0.17 0.22 0.79 0.31 0.23 0.19 0.32 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.23 0.21
PAnt4 0.20 0.23 0.70 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.26 0.17
PAnt5 0.17 0.25 0.68 0.32 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.31 0.28
PAnt6 0.13 0.23 0.69 0.30 0.09 0.23 0.35 0.33 0.41 0.21 0.20 0.38
PInt1 0.38 0.38 0.22 0.25 0.68 0.37 0.20 0.19 0.00 0.34 0.41 0.09
PInt2 0.30 0.45 0.23 0.30 0.77 0.37 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.32 0.44 0.09
PInt3 0.37 0.39 0.34 0.36 0.71 0.37 0.21 0.22 0.02 0.39 0.41 0.14
PInt4 0.35 0.37 0.31 0.36 0.80 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.02 0.36 0.42 0.16
PInt5 0.39 0.40 0.21 0.23 0.77 0.34 0.12 0.17 0.06 0.42 0.44 0.05
PU1 0.45 0.66 0.25 0.24 0.33 0.45 0.31 0.36 0.47 0.85 0.52 0.41
PU2 0.48 0.69 0.18 0.25 0.34 0.43 0.24 0.29 0.38 0.85 0.57 0.42
PU3 0.46 0.65 0.20 0.22 0.31 0.40 0.29 0.35 0.44 0.84 0.53 0.46
PU4 0.70 0.55 0.25 0.37 0.58 0.53 0.25 0.27 0.01 0.68 0.61 0.17
PU5 0.56 0.58 0.21 0.38 0.41 0.48 0.32 0.30 0.25 0.77 0.55 0.34
PP1 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.45 0.26 0.25 0.50 0.77 0.36 0.23 0.28 0.39
PP2 0.36 0.35 0.24 0.45 0.19 0.31 0.54 0.83 0.48 0.35 0.26 0.47
PP3 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.43 0.21 0.30 0.51 0.79 0.42 0.32 0.30 0.48
PP4 0.31 0.27 0.32 0.43 0.19 0.25 0.40 0.57 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.31
Sat1 0.62 0.66 0.28 0.31 0.52 0.55 0.29 0.30 0.23 0.61 0.88 0.30
Sat2 0.65 0.60 0.26 0.31 0.43 0.58 0.35 0.30 0.20 0.64 0.85 0.27
Sat3 0.60 0.61 0.38 0.33 0.53 0.57 0.32 0.34 0.19 0.56 0.86 0.28
Sat4 0.52 0.66 0.38 0.28 0.46 0.51 0.33 0.29 0.33 0.60 0.85 0.28
Ext1 0.07 0.37 0.26 0.29 0.14 0.24 0.50 0.44 0.84 0.38 0.24 0.55
Ext2 0.08 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.05 0.23 0.46 0.43 0.86 0.33 0.25 0.61
Ext3 0.01 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.51 0.41 0.84 0.27 0.21 0.52
Ext4 0.05 0.32 0.27 0.26 −0.03 0.16 0.51 0.45 0.86 0.31 0.19 0.59
Ext5 0.05 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.24 0.54 0.46 0.84 0.32 0.24 0.58
Ext6 0.05 0.33 0.25 0.28 0.05 0.24 0.47 0.44 0.89 0.35 0.26 0.58
SN1 0.25 0.38 0.35 0.44 0.14 0.22 0.55 0.51 0.61 0.40 0.31 0.91
SN2 0.20 0.35 0.22 0.34 0.11 0.24 0.49 0.46 0.61 0.41 0.26 0.87
SN3 0.22 0.33 0.32 0.41 0.12 0.21 0.48 0.49 0.53 0.35 0.28 0.83
P1: Continuance intention, P2: Positive disconfirmation, P3: Perceived anthropomorphism, P4: Perceived enjoyment, P5: Perceived intelligence, P6:
Perceived mastery, P7: Perceived ownership, P8: Perceived personalisation, P9: Perceived self-extension, P10: Perceived usefulness, P11: Satisfaction, P12:
Subjective norms
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 21

Table C4. Marker variable analysis (***p < 0001; **p < 001).
Path/Model Baseline With Marker Variable
Coefficient Coefficient
Positive disconfirmation → Perceived usefulness 0.664*** 0.671***
Positive disconfirmation → Satisfaction 0.733*** 0.729***
Frequency → Continuance intention −0.03 −0.03
Habit → Continuance intention 0.083 0.082
Perceived anthropomorphism → Perceived enjoyment 0.335*** 0.315***
Perceived enjoyment → Continuance intention 0.089 0.081
Perceived intelligence → Positive disconfirmation 0.533*** 0.511***
Perceived intelligence → Perceived anthropomorphism 0.353*** 0.336***
Perceived intelligence → Perceived usefulness 0.135** 0.145**
Perceived mastery → Perceived self-extension 0.013 0.021
Perceived ownership → Perceived self-extension 0.426*** 0.431***
Perceived personalisation → Perceived self-extension 0.234** 0.235**
Perceived self-extension → Perceived enjoyment 0.209*** 0.202***
Perceived self-extension → Perceived usefulness 0.118** 0.122**
Perceived usefulness → Continuance intention 0.334*** 0.336***
Satisfaction → Continuance intention 0.418*** 0.412***
Subjective norms → Continuance intention −0.095 −0.097
Tenure → Continuance intention 0.056 0.059
Variable R2 R2
Continuance intention 0.559 0.562
Disconfirmation 0.285 0.294
Perceived anthropomorphism 0.125 0.125
Perceived enjoyment 0.200 0.22
Perceived self-extension 0.371 0.374
Perceived usefulness 0.631 0.635
Satisfaction 0.537 0.537

Table C5. Total effects (Listed in descending order by size).

Continuance intention Positive disconfirmation of expectations 0.521***
Satisfaction 0.408***
Perceived intelligence 0.340***
Perceived usefulness 0.336***
Habit 0.085
Perceived enjoyment 0.075
Belongingness 0.064
Tenure 0.061
Perceived self-extension 0.054*
Perceived anthropomorphism 0.027
Perceived ownership 0.023*
Perceived personalisation 0.013
Perceived mastery 0.001
Frequency −0.026
Subjective norms −0.093
Perceived usefulness Positive disconfirmation of expectations 0.660***
Perceived intelligence 0.496***
Perceived self-extension 0.118**
Perceived ownership 0.049*
Perceived personalisation 0.029
Perceived mastery 0.002
Satisfaction Positive disconfirmation of expectations 0.736***
Perceived intelligence 0.399***
Perceived enjoyment Perceived anthropomorphism 0.349***
Perceived self-extension 0.206***
Perceived intelligence 0.128**
Perceived ownership 0.088**
Perceived personalisation 0.049*
Perceived mastery 0.004
Positive disconfirmation of expectations Perceived intelligence 0.541***
Perceived anthropomorphism Perceived intelligence 0.365***
Perceived self-extension Perceived ownership 0.422***
Perceived personalisation 0.239**
Perceived mastery 0.018
22 S. MOUSSAWI ET AL.
References
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. 1981. “Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error: Algebra and Statistics,” Journal of marketing research,
382–388.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. 2013.
A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (Pls-Sem), (First ed.). Sage Publications.
Lindell, M. K., and Whitney, D. J. 2001. “Accounting for
Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research
Designs,” Journal of applied psychology (86:1), 114.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff,
N. P. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies,” Journal of applied psychology
(88:5), 879.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Patil, A. 2006. “Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Is Research: Reanalysis
of Past Studies Using a Marker-Variable Technique,”
Management Science (52:12), 1865–1883.
Rönkkö, M., and Ylitalo, J. 2011. “Pls Marker Variable
Approach to Diagnosing and Controlling for Method
Variance”.