Received: 29 April 2020 | Revised: 26 December 2020 | Accepted: 9 April 2021

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21498

RESEARCH ARTICLE

When do you trust AI? The effect of number presentation

detail on consumer trust and acceptance of AI
recommendations

Jungkeun Kim1 | Marilyn Giroux1 | Jacob C. Lee2,3

1
Department of Marketing, Auckland
University of Technology, Auckland, Abstract
New Zealand
When do consumers trust artificial intelligence (AI)? With the rapid adoption of
2
Department of Business Administration,
Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea
AI technology in the field of marketing, it is crucial to understand how consumer
3
Department of Artificial Intelligence, adoption of the information generated by AI can be improved. This study explores a
Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea novel relationship between number presentation details associated with AI and
consumers' behavioral and evaluative responses toward AI. We theorized that
Correspondence
Jacob C. Lee, Department of Business consumer trust would mediate the preciseness effect on consumer judgment and
Administration and Department of Artificial
evaluation of the information provided by AI. The results of five studies demon-
Intelligence, Dongguk University,
30 Pildong‐ro 1‐gil, Seoul 04620, Korea. strated that the use of a precise (vs. imprecise) information format leads to higher
Email: lee.jacob.c@gmail.com
evaluations and behavioral intentions. We also show mediational evidence in-
Funding information dicating that the effect of number preciseness is mediated by consumer trust
This study was supported by the Institute of (Studies 2, 4, and 5). We further show that the preciseness effect is moderated by
Information & communications Technology
Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by
the accuracy of AI‐generated information (Study 3) and the objective product
the Korea government (MSIT), quality of the recommended products (Study 4). This study provides theoretical
Grant/Award Number: 2019‐0‐00050
implications to the AI acceptance literature, the information processing literature,
the consumer trust literature, and the decision‐making literature. Moreover, this
study makes practical implications for marketers of AI businesses including those
who strategically use AI‐generated information.

KEYWORDS
AI adoption, AI technology, artificial intelligence, marketing, preciseness, recommendation,
trust

1 | INTRODUCTION The use of AI‐based recommendation agents in the online market-

For years, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have radically shifted
how marketing strategies are implemented in terms of customer
service, business relationships, and sales management (Bock
et al., 2020; Kaartemo & Helkkula, 2018; Lu et al., 2020; Martínez‐
López & Casillas, 2013). Recommendation systems are an efficient
way for companies to suggest products and services to customers
based on data analysis of their personal preferences and behaviors.
place is increasingly prevalent (Davenport et al., 2020). For example,
Netflix displays a narrower selection of TV shows and movies that
people are expected to enjoy rather than presenting their entire
catalog to each viewer. This contributes to the overall experience of
consumers and results in considerable gains for the company. In
addition, companies like Amazon.com integrate recommendations
into the purchasing process, and these systems have expanded into
several other domains such as retail, travel, and finance.

Jungkeun Kim, Marilyn Giroux, and Jacob C. Lee contributed equally to this study.

1140 | © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar Psychol Mark. 2021;38:1140–1155.


KIM ET AL.
Many retailers and service companies are using AI to understand
their customers' preferences and desires, with varying levels of
success and accuracy. Despite the expanding adoption of AI and in-
creasing use of AI‐based recommendation agents, our understanding
of consumers' cognitive reactions toward these emerging technolo-
gies is still limited. Prior research has demonstrated consumer re-
sistance toward adopting AI recommendations (e.g., algorithm
aversion, see Dietvorst et al., 2015). In addition to privacy and reg-
ulatory issues, this stream of research suggests that consumers do
not trust AI's ability to make accurate inferences regarding their
preferences (Dietvorst et al., 2015; Longoni et al., 2019). A lack of
sufficient data and information can lead to inaccurate re-
commendations from the AI recommendation system or agent. In
addition, previous research in healthcare and customer support has
shown that individuals may experience a great level of discomfort
and perceived risk when dealing with AI robots and recommendation
systems (Huang & Rust, 2018). Adoption and acceptance of new
technologies can be complex as those innovations come with many
changes that often translate into higher levels of perceived risk and
uncertainty for individuals. Thus, a significant research question is
how to increase the understanding of when consumers trust AI
agents' recommendations. Extant research has found several factors
that increase trust toward AI. For example, consumers respond to AI
more favorably when it is used to support the analytical (vs. intuitive)
aspects of decision‐making (Jarrahi, 2018), but consumers react to AI
less favorably when the decisions are more intuitive and of the
“common‐sense” type (Guszcza et al., 2017; McAfee et al., 2012).
Meanwhile, other research has suggested the opposite pattern
of consumer trust in AI recommendations: algorithm appreciation
(Logg et al., 2019). Indeed, the algorithmic judgments of AI systems
are often more accurate and precise than human assessments
(Dawes et al., 1989). With large amounts of data, these behavioral
signals can become insights for companies, and greater personali-
zation of offers and services can be achieved, which are then per-
ceived to be more suited for consumers, ultimately leading to more
purchase intentions, engagement, and click‐through conversions
(Aguirre et al., 2015). Therefore, variables that can guide the usage of
AI recommendations in decision‐making must be determined.
Given the recent substantial developments in the area of AI and
AI‐generated recommendations, the objective of this paper is
threefold: (a) examine conditions under which individuals are more
willing to accept AI suggestions and recommendations, (b) in-
vestigate the impact of information preciseness on individuals' re-
actions to AI, and (c) examine how trust affects this process.
Specifically, we focus on the nudging way of improving AI re-
commendations by examining the preciseness of the recommenda-
tion information. The existing literature suggests that people believe
that AI currently has good skills for mechanical and analytical tasks
as opposed to intuitive and empathetic ones (Huang & Rust, 2018).
One salient characteristic of mechanical and analytical tasks could be
“precise” or “logical and analytic.” Therefore, we can expect that an
AI recommendation will be evaluated higher when the preciseness of
the recommendation communication is precise (vs. nonprecise). For
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1141
example, when forecasting the next day's probability of rain, people
might prefer an AI recommendation containing precise information
(e.g., 59.85% chance of rain) to one containing imprecise or rounded
information (e.g., 60% chance of rain). We further suggest that user
trust in AI recommendations drives the positive effect of AI re-
commendations providing precise information.
Accordingly, this study makes several significant theoretical and
managerial contributions. First, it contributes to the marketing and
usage of technologies, specifically AI literature, by examining a factor
that can influence consumer reactions to AI recommendation sys-
tems. This is significant because prior research has obtained con-
tradictory findings on preferences and trust regarding AI
recommendations. Indeed, by incorporating the notion of informa-
tion preciseness, we contribute to a better understanding of how
cognitive processing contributes to the acceptance of AI re-
commendations. Second, we advance trust as a crucial construct for
understanding people's behaviors toward AI. With new technologies,
individuals can experience discomfort and uncertainty, and devel-
oping trust toward AI plays a pivotal role in the adoption and ac-
ceptance. We show that the preciseness of the information provided
influences the level of trust and that this trust can impact pre-
ferences and decisions related to AI recommendations. This provides
an answer about how cognitive trust can be developed between
humans and AI. In addition, our research expands the literature in
behavioral economics by showing that AI‐generated recommenda-
tions represent an anchor in consumer evaluations and decision‐
making processes. Finally, the results of this study have substantive
implications. Although AI is revolutionizing the business world and
that consumers are exposed to an increasing amount of AI‐generated
content, more research is needed to provide guidance in terms of the
best ways to communicate with individuals. This paper contributes to
our understanding of how to frame information to increase accep-
tance of AI recommendations. The findings have straightforward
implications for companies to make recommendations successfully
and enhance consumer experiences with their organizations.
2 | THEOR ETICAL F RAMEWORK AND
PR ED IC TIO N S
2.1 | AI technologies in business and marketing
AI elates to “programs, algorithms, systems and machines”
(Shankar, 2018, p. vi) that manifest and imitate elements of human
intelligence and behavior (Huang & Rust, 2018; Syam &
Sharma, 2018). AI uses various technologies, including machine
learning, natural language processing, deep learning, big data analy-
sis, and physical robots (Davenport et al., 2020; Mariani, 2019;
Mariani et al., 2018). AI technologies have developed considerably
over the past decades and are becoming an important part of con-
sumers' daily lives.
In business, AI technologies allow for the efficient processing of
vast amounts of data and the learning of relationships among the

1142 | KIM
data, potentially leading to consumer insights and enhanced perso-
nalization. The use of AI can significantly enhance various functions
of a business, including the automation of business processes; the
acquisition of marketing insights from data, engagement, and inter-
action with customers and employees; the development of planning
strategies, such as segmentation and analytics, predictions of trends
and consumer behavior; and the recommendations made to custo-
mers (Davenport et al., 2020). Companies from various industries,
including healthcare (Longoni et al., 2019; Zang et al., 2015), military
(Amoroso et al., 2018) and hospitality (Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005)
adopt AI technology, and they used it in various usage contexts in-
cluding voice assistant (Moriuchi, 2019) and companion robots
(Davenport et al., 2020).
In the context of marketing, AI is revolutionizing how companies
and organizations create content, advertise and make re-
commendations (de Ruyter et al., 2018). Marketers must understand
how to best integrate AI in businesses and contribute to individual's
higher acceptance to maintain a competitive advantage. Given the
arrival of AI‐generated marketing, a critical research question is to
understand whether and how consumers accept AI‐generated con-
tents and information. In the past decade, researchers have identi-
fied potential issues and areas to develop to gain a deeper
understanding. For instance, Bock et al. (2020) explored the internal
and external values provided by integrating AI technologies in the
service environments. Technologies, such as AI and robots, are cri-
tical agents in the value cocreation and technology engagement and
experience (Kaartemo & Helkkula, 2018). Technological develop-
ments shape individuals' motivations, expectations, and concerns,
and marketers must comprehend better how they can influence and
alter consumer behaviors and experiences (Lu et al., 2020). Based on
the key issues identified around the management of consumers' re-
lationships and engagement (Lu et al., 2020; Martínez‐López &
Casillas, 2013), this paper generates a better understanding of how
AI can be a critical factor in the transformation of behaviors.
Moreover, it examines how cognitive processing influences the ac-
ceptance of those technologies by enhancing the general feeling of
trust.
2.2 | AI‐generated information acceptance or
avoidance
One of the biggest strengths of AI is the ability to acquire informa-
tion and solve problems based on deep learning and knowledge
creation and transfer (De Bruyn et al., 2020). With the capacity of AI
to collect large amounts of data from individuals' history and inter-
actions, AI recommendation engines can produce fast and relevant
recommendations to reflect each person's preferences and wants.
With AI's superb computational abilities, forecasts made by statis-
tical models tend to outperform human instinct. For example, sta-
tistical models outperform human intuition in predicting student
grades (Dawes, 1979), employee performance (Kuncel et al., 2013),
and market demand (Sanders & Manrodt, 2003). With its large
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
capacity of analyzing data and behavioral signals from customers, AI
can transform those inputs into insights and improve personalized
recommendations (Pardes, 2019). The increasing adoption of AI
technology suggests that it provides greater performance and that
consumers acknowledge and appreciate its unique capabilities.
Despite the superior performance and accuracy of judgments
made by statistical models, the research of marketing and psychol-
ogy documents people's skepticism toward accepting AI re-
commendations. As it is often the case with new and emerging
technologies, individuals continue to have important reservations
due to the significant levels of risk and uncertainty associated with
those novelties (Seegebarth et al., 2019). Resistance, anxiety, and
ambivalence toward new technologies represent important aspects
of the success and adoption of those technologies (Talwar
et al., 2020). Research showed that some people tend to prefer hu-
man recommendations over those made by statistical models
(Castelo et al., 2018; Dietvorst et al., 2015; Longoni et al., 2019). The
resistance of the statistical models' recommendations has been ob-
served in various AI applications, including book suggestions
(Yeomans et al., 2019), judgments for recruiters (Highhouse, 2008),
predictions of employee performance (Kuncel et al., 2013) and crime
(Kleinberg et al., 2017), consumer preferences (Sinha &
Swearingen, 2001), medical decision‐making (Longoni et al., 2019),
and doctor preferences (Keeffe et al., 2005).
Prior research has investigated various task type factors that
cause people to accept or avoid AI‐generated information. One im-
portant aspect is the task accomplished by the AI systems. People
avoid AI when the task is subjective and involves intuition or affect
(Castelo, 2019). This is because AI is perceived to lack affective
capabilities or empathy (Castelo et al., 2018). In addition, consumers
avoid AI when the task domain involves intuitive (vs. analytical) as-
pects of decision‐making (Jarrahi, 2018) or “common‐sense” deci-
sions (Guszcza et al., 2017; McAfee et al., 2012). This is related to the
general belief that although AI shows superb performance and skills
in analytical tasks (Castelo, 2019) and mechanical and analytical
tasks, AI would be less functional in performing intuitive and em-
pathetic tasks (Huang & Rust, 2018). The key characteristic of AI is
its ability to process large amounts of data, identify data‐driven
patterns, and thus make appropriate and scientific recommendations
(Marwala & Hurwitz, 2015). In the same vein, people tend not to
associate AI applications with autonomous goals (Kim & Du-
hacheck, 2020) and will thus be less responsive to messages that
highlight “why” rather than “how.” Indeed, people accept AI less for
more consequential and risky tasks.
2.3 | Preciseness and information processing
Marketers must understand the psychological factors that influence
consumers' acceptance of AI‐generated information and how to in-
duce more favorable consumers' responses about their AI‐generated
information and marketing. As one novel way to increase AI tech-
nology acceptance among consumers, this study proposes that the

KIM ET AL.
number preciseness of the recommendation information will criti-
cally influence consumer responses to AI technology.
Various researchers have suggested that the preciseness of the
information presented to someone can significantly influence their
evaluation and judgment of that information. First, the impact of
preciseness on information processing has been investigated most
frequently in the pricing literature. One significant stream of re-
search has involved comparing a price ending in “9” and a price
ending in “0,” which relates to the preciseness of the information
presented. Traditionally, researchers have found that consumers
prefer prices with the precise ending (e.g., the “9” ending) to those
with the less precise ending (e.g., the “0” ending). This phenomenon is
mainly attributable to two explanations: (i) an association‐based
explanation (i.e., the tendency to associate a product with a price
ending in “9” as the cheaper product) (Naipaul & Parsa, 2001;
Stiving, 2000) and (ii) a heuristic process‐based explanation (i.e., the
tendency to ignore or drop‐off the precise component; e.g., ignoring
the “.99 cent” component of a $3.99 price value and instead con-
sidering it as $3) (Basu, 1997; Stiving & Winer, 1997). In addition, the
preciseness of the information can influence the meaning of
the price: Kim et al. (2020) suggested that people associate a precise
price ($199) as a cost or sacrifice of the product, whereas they as-
sociate an imprecise price ($200) as a benefit or quality of the
product.
Another stream of research (Burson et al., 2009; Gourville, 1998;
Monga & Bagchi, 2012) has examined the different framing effects
regarding the basic unit presented (e.g., 85 cents per day [pennies‐a‐
day strategy] vs. $300 per year). Researchers have found that people
prefer the product with precise (versus nonprecise) information,
mainly due to the transaction utility (Gourville, 1998). When com-
paring two pieces of attribute information, people prefer the option
with precise information (e.g., for a movie‐rental plan—number of
movies per week: seven and price per month: $10) to the same op-
tion with less precise information (e.g., number of movies per year:
364 and price per month: $10) (Burson et al., 2009). In short, the
previous literature provides empirical evidence that the preciseness
of the price and unit significantly influence our preference and value
judgments.
Existing literature suggests two opposing conclusions regarding
the impact of preciseness on the evaluation of the product. On
the one hand, one stream of research shows the positive effect of
precise information on product evaluation. According to this stream,
the preciseness of information significantly influences confidence
and credibility regarding that information (Jerez‐Fernandez
et al., 2014; Zhang & Schwarz, 2013). Indeed, people exhibit great-
er trust in other's evaluations when the estimation is precise (e.g., the
estimated length of the Niger River in miles: 2611 miles) rather than
less precise (e.g., 2600 miles) (Jerez‐Fernandez et al., 2014). In ad-
dition, Xie and Kronrod (2012) found that people prefer product
information using precise numbers (e.g., 19.42%) rather than that
using less precise numbers (e.g., 20%). This effect was explained by
the disfluency effect in that precise information requires elaborate
processing, resulting in greater attention and evaluation. They
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1143
further suggested that the positive impact of the precise information
was only higher for people with low advertising skepticism. Put
differently, people prefer precise information to aid their decision‐
making and judgment.
On the other hand, another research stream suggests a negative
effect of precise information in evaluations. For example, a rounded
(and less precise) number (e.g., 200 mg) is associated with the con-
cept of stability as opposed to a precise number (e.g., 203 mg) (Pena‐
Marin & Bhargave, 2016). This difference also influences further
inferred quality, such as the perception of the duration of the pro-
duct benefits. In addition, less precise (vs. precise) numbers are easy
to process and have higher processing fluency, resulting in more
positive evaluations (King & Janiszewski, 2011; Wadhwa &
Zhang, 2015). Furthermore, an imprecise number (e.g., $365,000)
compared to a precise number (e.g., $364,578) could generate a
feeling of uncertainty in the judgment and decision‐making process.
For example, Thomas et al. (2010) argued that a precise (vs. im-
precise) number requires much deeper processing, which conse-
quently evokes a feeling of uncertainty and therefore reduces
product evaluations. In sum, the previous literature has suggested
conflicting patterns regarding the impact of preciseness on
evaluation.
2.4 | Hypothesis 1: Precise format increases
consumer response
By linking the literature about AI technology acceptance and the
psychology of price preciseness, we make a novel prediction that the
high (vs. low) preciseness of the AI‐generated information derives
positive consumer responses for the entities associated with the AI
technology. We make this prediction based on the following. First,
the existing literature suggests the belief of people that current AI
has an excellent performance in automated and analytical tasks as
opposed to intuitive and empathetic ones (Huang & Rust, 2018). We
view that a salient characteristic of mechanical and analytical tasks is
“precise” or “logical and analytic.” Similarly, people associate robots
with agency‐related capabilities (e.g., self‐control, morality, memory,
emotion recognition, planning, communication, and thought), which
overlaps more closely with “preciseness” than experience‐related
capabilities (e.g., pleasure, personality, consciousness, pride, embar-
rassment, and joy) (Gray et al. (2007). Thus, we view that a precise
format of AI‐generated information would provide the notions of the
performed task being analytic and automated, thereby resulting in
more favorable consumer responses.
Second, given that consumers' confidence level is an essential
factor for adopting new technology (Lee, 2004; Li et al., 2008), we
argue that the preciseness format, which is associated with high
confidence (Jerez‐Fernandez et al., 2014; Zhang & Schwarz, 2013)
will lead to favorable consumer responses. A competing hypothesis
might suggest that information preciseness would elicit negative
consumer responses because preciseness is associated with low
processing fluency (King & Janiszewski, 2011; Wadhwa &
 15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1144 | KIM ET AL.

Zhang, 2015). However, we view any negative influence due to low importance of trust in acceptance and reactance toward their re-
fluency to be minimal because given that AI is a new technology, commendations (Aljukhadar et al., 2017; Wang & Benbasat, 2005).
consumers will process AI‐generated information thoughtfully We believe that the role of trust is especially strong in con-
because. Therefore, the negative underlying mechanism of precise sumers' reactions toward AI companies or products. Trust is parti-
information (i.e., processing fluency) will be minimal for AI‐involved cularly critical when individuals lack control over the other party
decision‐making and judgment, especially in a new environment. (Lynch et al., 2001). Indeed, compared to interpersonal relationships
Based on this reasoning, we make the following hypothesis: and traditional businesses, human/machine interactions require new
means of creating trust, and more research is needed into how in-
H1: Consumers show more favorable (a) behavioral intention and (b) dividuals place confidence in AI interactions (Bock et al., 2020).
evaluation toward the company when the AI‐generated information Compared to other technologies, AI has many unique and unfamiliar
is presented in a precise (vs. imprecise) format. characteristics, and its performance and process need to be better
defined. With the vulnerability related to AI, trust has been sug-
gested to be a crucial antecedent of the development and successful
2.5 | Hypothesis 2: Trust mediates the effect of adoption of AI (Ostrom et al., 2018).
precise format increasing consumer response Integrating the AI and trust literature, we suggest that the precise-
ness of AI‐generated information will greatly strengthen trust toward the
As the key mechanism for the information preciseness inducing fa- AI's recommendations, which will, in turn, lead to higher evaluations and
vorable consumer response, consumers' perceived trust is the focus intentions from individuals. More precise information is believed to be
of this study. Several definitions of trust have emphasized the im- associated with a higher quality of communication and content. There-
portance of the perceived confidence, honesty, and reliability of the fore, this study proposes that trust will mediate the relationship between
other entity (Crosby et al., 1990; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Indeed, the preciseness of AI‐generated information and consumer evaluations.
Morgan and Hunt (1994) describe trust as the perception of “con-
fidence in the exchange partner's reliability and integrity” (p. 23). H2: The perceived trust for AI mediates the impact of the format
Research also suggests that trust has both cognitive and affective preciseness of AI‐generated information on consumer's (a)
dimensions. Cognitive trust relates more to the perception of the behavioral intention and (b) evaluation.
ability (e.g., skills, knowledge, and competencies), reliability, and in-
tegrity of the trustee, whereas the affective dimension involves the
perceived benevolence and disposition to do good of the trustee 2.6 | Present studies
(Johnson & Grayson, 2005; Mayer et al., 1995). Cognition related to
available information and valid logic is the foundation of trust Five studies tested our hypotheses in various contexts (see Figure 1 for
(Ye et al., 2020). Integrating these streams of research, given that the overall theoretical framework). Study 1 tested for initial evidence of
crucial elements of trust are reliability and ability, we propose the preciseness effect on consumers' response in the context of buying a
that the preciseness of AI‐generated information will greatly company's stock. Study 2 tested for the mediating role of trust that
strengthen trust toward the AI's recommendations, thus deriving in explains the preciseness effect in an AI‐based online music
more favorable consumer responses toward the AI company.
Consumer trust is viewed as a significant factor for consumers'
decision‐making and behaviors, and researchers have put a lot of em-
phasis on understanding how to build and manage business strategies
that contribute to a higher level of trust (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999;
Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The importance of trust was investigated in
several domains, such as communications, services marketing, branding,
and sales management (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Eisingerich &
Bell, 2008; Hovland et al., 1953; Sung & Kim, 2010).
Related to our research, past research has suggested that trust is a
prominent factor in the development and adoption of new technologies
and products. Building trust was a major factor for success in the de-
velopment of relationships (Bart et al., 2005; Berry, 1995; Slade
et al., 2015). Trust has also been a critical concept in academic research
related to online and technology‐mediated environments (Dimitriadis &
Kyrezis, 2010; Schlosser et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2006). Emerging tech-
nologies are often associated with greater complexity and uncertainty,
requiring confidence and trust in the systems (Seegebarth et al., 2019).
Existing studies on recommendation agents have exposed the FIGURE 1 Overall framework
 15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KIM ET AL. | 1145

recommendation context. Studies 3 and 4 tested the boundary condi-

H1 and H2 supported

H1 and H2 supported
tions of the preciseness effect; Study 3 tested whether the accuracy of
AI‐generated information moderates the impact of preciseness and Study

H1 supported

H3 supported

H4 supported
4 tested whether objective product quality influences the preciseness
effect. Study 5 replicated the results of Study 1 with more defined

Sample size (n) Results

measures (i.e., multiple measures) and using different experimental sti-
muli. See Table 1 for a detailed summary of our empirical studies.

3 | STUDY 1

114

155

IV: 2 (number presentation detail: precise vs. imprecise) × 2 (estimation direction: low vs. high to 436

IV: 2 (number presentation detail: precise [79.865%] vs. imprecise [80%]) × 2 (objective product 157

131
The purpose of Study 1 was to provide initial evidence of the preciseness

the actual weight) × 2 (estimation accuracy: similar to the actual weight vs. different from
effect of AI recommendations on consumers' responses (H1a). Partici-

IV: number presentation detail: precise I (80.135%) versus precise II (80.000%) versus
pants evaluated AI‐generated number information of a company's pro-
duct, presented either in precise or imprecise format. We predicted that
participants' responses toward the company would be more positive
when the information was presented in a precise format.

IV: number presentation detail (precise [74.975%] vs. imprecise [75%])

IV: number presentation detail (precise [78.025%] vs. imprecise [78%])

3.1 | Method

DVs: attitude, consumer trust, and willingness to recommend

DVs: attitude, consumer trust, and purchase intention (stock)

3.1.1 | Pretest

To test the validity of our preciseness manipulation, a pretest was con-

DVs: consumer trust and purchase intention

ducted (n = 51, Mage = 38.12, SD = 12.71; 49.1% female) with participants

DV: consumer adoption of AI's estimation

recruited via MTurk. Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate

the actual weight) of AI estimations

one of the two number information format (74.975% [precise] vs. 75%
[imprecise]) that are used in the main study (see below section for de-
DV: purchase intention (stock)

tails). Participants indicated their perceived preciseness of the accuracy

rating of the AI system (i.e., “How detailed is the accuracy rating of the AI

quality: high vs. low)

system?”) along two 7‐point scales (1 = not at all precise/detailed, 7 = very
imprecise (80%)

precise/detailed; Pearson correlation r = 0.60, p < 0.001). Supporting the

Research design

validity of using our experimental stimuli, the perceived preciseness was

significantly higher for information format used in the precise condition
(M = 4.84, SD = 1.09) than the imprecise condition (M = 4.41, SD = 1.40,
F(1, 49) = 4.23, p = 0.045, η2 = 0.079).
AI system that detects Coronavirus using chest

AI system that detects Coronavirus using chest

AI‐based online book recommendation engine
AI system estimates weight estimator with

3.1.2 | Participants, design, and procedure

AI‐based online music recommendation

Participants were 114 (Mage = 37.38, SD = 12.99; 57.0% female) adults

Summary of empirical studies

recruited via MTurk in exchange for a small monetary payment. The

study employed a simple, one‐way between‐subjects experimental design
with two levels (number presentation detail: precise vs. imprecise). All
machine learning

participants were asked to read the following passage containing

information about a company's AI system that detects Coronavirus1:
CT scans

CT scans
Study name Context

A tech company has developed an AI (artificial in-

telligence) system that can detect Coronavirus on
chest CT (computed tomography) scans. According to
TABLE 1

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Study 4

Study 5

1
The study was conducted in early April 2020. The contents were modified from an article
about the virus.

1146 | KIM
the researchers who developed the system, the AI
system can yield a [74.975% vs. 75%] accuracy rate.
Participants were randomly assigned to either the precise condition
in which they saw the 74.975% accuracy rate or the imprecise condition
in which they say the 75% accuracy condition. Then, participants in-
dicated their purchase intention to buy the company's stock (i.e., “If you
have money to invest, to what extent are you willing to buy the stocks of
the tech company?”) by answering on a 7‐point scale (1 = not at all,
7 = very much). We viewed that purchase intention of company stock is
an indicator of consumers' favorable evaluation and behavior toward the
company and its products. Finally, participants provided their age and
gender.
3.2 | Results and discussion
We conducted an ANOVA and found a significant main effect of our
experimental factor (F(1, 112) = 4.12, p = 0.045, η2 = 0.035). Specifically,
participants in the precise condition (M = 4.28, SD = 1.71) showed higher
intention to buy the company's stock than those in the imprecise con-
dition (M = 3.63, SD = 1.71). These results support H1.
Study 1 provided initial evidence of the preciseness effect on con-
sumers' responses toward the company associated with AI. As antici-
pated, participants showed more favorable responses toward the
company when the AI‐generated information was presented in a precise
(vs. imprecise) format.
4 | STUDY 2
The purpose of Study 2 was threefold. First, we wanted to replicate the
preciseness effects in another marketing context: music. Participants
indicated their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward AI‐
recommended songs, which were presented either in precise or im-
precise format. We predicted more positive consumer responses when
the AI information was given in a precise (vs. imprecise) format (H1a and
H1b). Second, we measured consumer trust and tested whether it
mediated the preciseness effect on consumer responses toward AI (H2).
Third, we evaluated other consumer response measures: attitude toward
the recommended songs and recommendation intention to others. One
limitation of Study 1 was that the consumers' intention to purchase
company stock was assessed as the key consumer response measure.
Study 2 addresses this limitation by assessing multiple and more direct
response measures.
4.1 | Method
4.1.1 | Pretest
A pretest was conducted (n = 82, Mage = 39.07, SD = 13.45; 49.1%
female). After participants were randomly exposed to one of three
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
experimental conditions (i.e., precise I [80.135%], precise II
[80.000%], or the imprecise [80%]; see below section for details),
they were asked to rate their perceived preciseness of the con-
fidence rating of the AI system (i.e., “How detailed is the confidence
rating of the AI recommendation system?”) along two 7‐point scales
(1 = not at all precise/detailed, 7 = very precise/detailed; Pearson
correlation r = 0.59 p < 0.001). As expected, the perceived precise-
ness differed significantly between the experimental conditions
(F(2, 79) = 6.82, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.147). Specifically, the perceived
preciseness for the imprecise condition (M = 4.75, SD = 0.94) was
lower than that for the precise I condition (M = 5.66, SD = 0.84;
posthoc p = 0.002) and the precise II condition (M = 5.35, SD = 1.01;
posthoc p = 0.046).
4.1.2 | Participants, design, and procedure
Participants were 155 (Mage = 39.59, SD = 12.02; 47.1% female)
adults recruited via MTurk. The study employed a one‐way between‐
subjects experimental design with three levels (number presentation
detail: precise I vs. precise II vs. imprecise). All participants were
asked to read the following scenario about online music
consumption:
Imagine that you visit an online music streaming site
to listen and download some music in a specific genre.
On the website, the AI (Artificial Intelligence)‐based
recommendation system shows you 3 songs that are
"Recommended for You". The AI system came up with
the list based on your past activities on the website.
(The recommended songs are currently ranked #1, #3,
#4, respectively, in the Hot 20 Chart list in the specific
genre).
The AI recommendation system says it is [80.135% vs.
80.000% vs. 80%] confident that you will like these
recommended songs.
The manipulation of the experimental factor was changed in that
participants were randomly assigned to either the precise I (80.135%),
precise II (80.000%), or the imprecise (80%) condition in the scenario
above. The purpose of the precise II condition was to test the preciseness
effect on evaluation not based on an absolute value difference but rather
based on a difference in the specific presentation.
Then, participants indicated their attitudes toward the re-
commended songs (i.e., “To what extent do you think you will like the
songs?”) and recommendation intentions to others (i.e., “To what
extent are you willing to recommend the songs that AI recommended
to your friend?”) by answering a 7‐point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very
much). They were also asked to indicate their level of trust in the AI
(i.e., “To what extent do you trust that AI knows your preference?”)
by answering a 7‐point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Finally,
participants provided their age and gender.

KIM ET AL.
4.2 | Results and discussion
4.2.1 | Main effects
First, we conducted a one‐way ANOVA on the attitudes toward the
recommended songs. The results indicated a marginally significant
main effect of our experimental factor (F(2, 152) = 2.63, p = 0.075,
η2 = 0.033). Planned contrast analysis found a significant difference
between the imprecise (M = 4.67, SD = 1.58) and precise I (M = 5.19,
SD = 0.98) conditions (p = 0.026). The difference between the im-
precise and precise II conditions (M = 5.06, SD = 0.94) was not sig-
nificant but did show the expected direction (p = 0.104). No
difference emerged between the precise I and precise II conditions
(p = 0.566) (Figure 2). These results support H1b.
Second, the results for the recommendation were similar in that
the main effect was also significant (F(2, 152) = 3.54, p = 0.032,
η2 = 0.044). Planned contrast analysis found significant differences
between the imprecise (M = 4.02, SD = 1.52) and precise I (M = 4.72,
SD = 1.37) conditions (p = 0.011) and between the imprecise and
precise II conditions (M = 4.58, SD = 1.24; p = 0.049). No difference
emerged between the precise I and precise II conditions (p = 0.576).
These results replicated the results of Study 1 (H1a) in that con-
sumers showed more favorable responses when the information was
given in a precise (vs. imprecise) format.
Third, the results of AI trust perception indicated a marginally
significant main effect of our experimental factor (F(2, 152) = 2.82,
p = 0.063, η = 0.036). Planned contrast analysis found a significant
2
difference between the imprecise (M = 4.33, SD = 1.60) and precise I
(M = 4.91, SD = 1.08) conditions (p = 0.023), and a difference between
the imprecise and precise II conditions (M = 4.79, SD = 1.14) that was
marginally significant in the direction that is consistent with our
hypothesis (p = 0.080). No difference emerged between the precise I
and precise II conditions (p = 0.606).
4.2.2 | Mediation analysis
For mediation analysis, we collapsed the two conditions into the
precise condition and compared them to the imprecise condition
because precise I and II conditions do not show differences. The
results indicated significant differences for attitude (M_imprecise =
4.67, SD = 1.58, M_precise = 5.13, SD = 0.96; F(1, 153) = 4.93, p = 0.028,
η = 0.031), recommendation intentions (M_imprecise = 4.02, SD = 1.52,
2
M_precise = 4.65, SD = 1.31; F(1, 153) = 6.79, p = 0.010, η2 = 0.042), and
AI trust (M_imprecise = 4.33, SD = 1.60, M_precise = 4.85, SD = 1.11;
F(1, 153) = 5.40, p = 0.021, η2 = 0.034).
Using Hayes' (2017) Process Macro (Model 4 with 5000 boot-
strapping), we conducted a simple mediation (i.e., IV: preciseness
of→Mediator: AI trust→DV: recommendation intention). The results
indicated that the indirect effect was significant (effect = 0.33, 95%
confidence interval [CI]: [0.008, 0.681]), whereas the direct effect
was not significant (effect = 0.30, t = 1.51, 95% CI: [−0.094, 0.701]),
indicating a full mediation (H2a). The additional simple mediation
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1147
FIGURE 2 Results of study 2
(i.e., IV: preciseness of→Mediator: AI trust→DV: attitude) was also
significant (effect = 0.32, 95% CI: [0.021, 0.661]), whereas the direct
effect was not significant (effect = 0.14, t = 0.51, 90% CI: [−0.172,
0.457]), indicating a full mediation (H2b).
Based on the results above, we conducted a serial mediation (i.e., IV:
preciseness of information [1: imprecise, 2: precise]→Mediator 1:
AI trust→Mediator 2: attitude→DV: recommendation intention) using
Hayes' (2017) Process Macro (Model 6 with 5000 bootstrapping). The
results indicated that the direct effect with mediators became insignif-
icant (effect = 0.25, t = 1.28, 95% CI: [−0.133, 0.624]). By contrast, the
overall mediation was significant (effect = 0.39, 95% CI: [0.031, 0.789]).
Specifically, the serial mediation (i.e., preciseness of information→AI
trust→attitude→recommendation intention) was significant (effect =
0.13, 95% CI: [0.005, 0.326]), as was one of the simple mediation
(i.e., preciseness of information→AI trust→recommendation intention)
(effect = 0.20, 95% CI: [0.011, 0.453]). However, another simple media-
tion (i.e., the preciseness of information→attitude→recommendation
intention) was not significant (effect = 0.06, 95% CI: [−0.066, 0.239]),
suggesting the role of AI trust as the key mediator.
In Study 2, we provided another evidence of the preciseness
effect of AI recommendations in another context (i.e., online music
services). As expected, participants' attitude toward the products
associated with AI and behavioral intention (i.e., recommendation to
others) were more favorable when the information was given in a
precise rather than an imprecise format.
Second, we further provided empirical evidence of the critical role
that consumer trust toward AI mediates the preciseness effect on con-
sumer response. Third, we showed the preciseness effect influenced
consumers' evaluation (i.e., attitude) and behavioral responses (i.e., re-
commendation to others) about the AI company's products.
5 | STUDY 3
The purpose of Study 3 was to test for boundary conditions of the
preciseness effect to examine more circumstances when preciseness
will lead to more adoption through trust. Research on online

1148 | KIM
recommendations suggests that accuracy influences the adoption of
new technologies (Punj & Moore, 2007; Zhu et al., 2014). In relation
to AI, data accuracy is also a critical factor determining its adoption
by individuals. The accuracy and quality of the information available
to people influence consumers' responses (Kreps
Neuhauser, 2013). Therefore, we predict that the preciseness effect
of the information is more pronounced when the accuracy of the
information is lower. Indeed, we suggest that when the difference
between estimations of AI and individuals are bigger (vs. smaller), the
preciseness of the information will have a stronger influence on
decisions to adopt the AI estimations.
H3: When the accuracy of the information is low (vs. high), information
preciseness has a stronger influence on consumers' responses.
5.1 | Method
5.1.1 | Pretest
Aa separate pretest was conducted (n = 53, Mage = 38.55, SD = 14.82;
49.1% female). After participants were randomly exposed to one of
the eight experimental conditions (see below section for details),
they were asked to rate their perceived preciseness of the accuracy
of the AI system (i.e., How detailed is the estimation of the AI sys-
tem?”) along two 7‐point scales (1 = not at all precise/detailed, 7 = very
precise/detailed; Pearson correlation r = 0.84, p < 0.001). As expected,
the overall effect was significant (F(7, 45) = 2.43, p = 0.034,
η2 = 0.274). The further analysis, after considering two groups (1:
imprecise conditions, 2: precise condition), also indicated that the
perceived preciseness was significantly higher for the precise con-
dition (M = 5.43, SD = 1.41) than it was for the imprecise condition
(M = 4.02, SD = 1.77, F(1, 51) = 10.28, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.168).
5.1.2 | Participants, design, and procedure
Participants were 436 (Mage = 38.39, SD = 12.96; 46.8% female)
adults recruited via MTurk in exchange for a small monetary pay-
ment. The study employed a 2 (number presentation detail: precise
vs. imprecise) × 2 (estimation direction: low vs. high to the actual
weight) × 2 (estimation accuracy: similar to the actual weight vs.
different from the actual weight) between‐subjects design.
The stimuli were modified from the stimuli used by Logg et al.
(2019). Specifically, participants were asked to estimate the weight
of a person in a provided photo from Logg et al. (2019) (see
Appendix A for the photo). Participants were first asked to read the
following:
An AI (artificial intelligence) system incorporating
machine learning estimated the weight of the person
in the photograph to be [130 vs. 130.25 vs. 160 vs.
160.25 vs. 169.75 vs. 170 vs. 189.75 vs. 190] lb.
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
The manipulation of the experimental factor was changed in that
participants were randomly assigned to either the precise conditions
(i.e., 130, 160, 170, and 190 lb) or the imprecise conditions (i.e.,
130.25, 160.25, 169.75, and 189.75 lb) group in the scenario above.
& The estimation direction was lower (i.e., 130, 130.25, 160, and
160.25 lb) than the actual weight or estimated weight (i.e., actual
weight = 164 lb and estimated weight from separate pretest
[n = 85] = 162.96 lb, SD = 16.83), or higher (i.e., 169.75, 170, 189.75,
and 190 lb) than both these weights. The estimation accuracy was
manipulated by providing numbers either similar to the actual weight
(i.e., 160, 160.25, 169.75, and 169.75 lb) or different from the actual
weight (i.e., 130, 130.25, 189.75, and 190 lb).
Participants were then asked to estimate the weight considering
the information above. Therefore, the key dependent variable
was the weight estimation. We assumed that if the participants
believed the AI recommendation, they would generate a biased
estimation from the actual weight or estimated weight without any
information (i.e., 164–165 lb). Finally, participants were asked to
provide their age and gender.
5.2 | Results and discussion
Based on H3, we expect the below predictions from our experiment.
Specifically, the impact of estimation accuracy will moderate the impact
of estimated direction on the relationship between information precise-
ness and consumers' response (i.e., the estimated weight of a person). On
the one hand, when the estimated weight is significantly different from
the actual weight, the significant interaction effect between estimation
direction and preciseness of AI information will be significant in that
participants' estimated weight will be lower when AI estimated weight is
precise (vs. imprecise) when AI estimation is lower than the actual one.
Meanwhile, participants' estimated weight will be higher when AI esti-
mated weight is precise (vs. imprecise) when AI estimation is higher than
the actual one. On the other hand, when the estimated weight is similar
to the actual weight, the interaction effect between estimation direction
and preciseness of AI information on the participants' estimated weight
will not be significant.
To verify these predictions, we conducted a 2 (number pre-
sentation detail) × 2 (estimation direction) × 2 (estimation accuracy)
ANOVA on the estimated weight. The results indicated that the
three‐way interaction effect was significant (F(1, 427) = 5.78,
p = 0.017, η2 = 0.013). To illustrate the three‐way interaction effect,
we conducted two separate 2 (number presentation detail) × 2 (es-
timation direction) ANOVA for weights similar to the actual weight
condition and weights different from the actual weight condition.
First, for the different from the actual weight condition (i.e., 130,
130.25, 189.75, and 190 lb), a 2 (number presentation detail) × 2
(estimation direction) ANOVA generated a significant two‐way in-
teraction effect (F(1, 208) = 8.58, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.040). Planned
contrast analysis found that when the AI's estimation was lower (i.e.,
130 and 130.25 lb) than the actual weight condition, the estimated
weight was lower (showed higher biased estimation) for the precise

KIM ET AL.
condition (M = 143.61 lb, SD = 16.92) than the imprecise condition
(M = 150.78 lb, SD = 18.19, F(1, 208) = 5.67, p = 0.018, η2 = 0.027). By
contrast, the opposite pattern was found for the conditions when the
AI estimation was higher (i.e., 189.75 and 190 lb) than the actual
weight condition. The participants' estimated weights were higher
(showed higher biased estimation) for the precise condition
(M = 178.56 lb, SD = 12.32) than the imprecise condition
(M = 172.94 lb, SD = 15.19, F(1, 208) = 3.16, p = 0.077, η2 = 0.015)
(Figure 3). In sum, we found that precise AI recommendations gen-
erated estimations that were more biased by the participants. This
tendency indicated the participants' beliefs regarding AI‐generated
information.
Second, for the similar to the actual weight condition (i.e., 160,
160.25, 169.75, and 169.75 lb), the overall two‐way interaction effect
was not significant (F(1, 208) = 0.02, p = 0.881, η2 = 0.001). The detailed
pattern is presented in Figure 3. In sum, we found a significant three‐way
interaction effect showing important moderators for our main hy-
potheses. When the AI‐generated information was similar to the lay-
person's estimation, the preciseness of the AI‐generated information did
not matter. However, when the AI‐generated information was sub-
stantially different from the layperson's estimation, the preciseness of the
AI‐generated information did matter. In this situation, the preciseness of
the information helped individuals adopt the AI's recommendation, even
in cases of biased estimation, which supports our prediction about the
importance of information preciseness when the accuracy of the in-
formation is lower. These results support H3.
6 | STUDY 4
The purpose of Study 4 was to test another boundary condition to
examine when the preciseness of information is more critical. In this
experiment, we investigate whether the number presentation detail
associated with AI and the objective product quality of the re-
commended products influenced consumer purchase intentions. In
addition, we tested whether consumer trust toward AI mediated the
effects of presentation detail and objective quality on purchase in-
tention for a different product category (i.e., books). Previous re-
search demonstrates that the objective quality of a decision or a
product has a significant impact on information processing in the
case of recommendation agents (Gupta & Harris, 2010). In addition,
price preciseness has been demonstrated to influence the perceived
quality of product and ultimately affecting consumers' preferences
(Kim & Kim, & Marshall, 2020).
H4: When the product's objective quality is high (vs. how), information
preciseness has a stronger influence on consumers' purchase intentions.
6.1 | Method: Participants, design, and procedure
Participants were 157 (Mage = 36.80, SD = 11.60; 46.5% female)
adults recruited via MTurk. The study employed a 2 (number
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1149
FIGURE 3 Results of study 3
presentation detail: precise vs. imprecise) × 2 (objective product
quality: high vs. low) between‐subjects design. Participants were
randomly assigned to either the precise (79.865%) or the imprecise
(80%) condition and either the high objective quality (ranking #1, #2,
and #4) or the low objective quality (ranking #11, #12, and #14)
condition. All participants read the following scenario about pur-
chasing books online:
Imagine that you visit an online bookstore to look for
some books in a specific category. As you are starting
to browse, the AI (Artificial Intelligence)‐based re-
commendation system shows you 3 books that “Re-
commended for You.” The AI system came up with the
list based on your past activities at the website.
The recommended books, which you have not read,
are currently ranked [#1, #2, #4 vs. #11, #12, #14],
respectively, in the Top 20 Bestsellers list in the
specific category.
The AI recommendation system says it is [79.865% vs.
80%] confident that you will like these recommended
books.
Then, participants indicated their purchase intention by an-
swering two questions, “To what extent are you willing to consider
buying the books that AI recommended?” and “To what extent are
you willing to buy the books that AI recommended?” (1 = not at all,
7 = very much). The responses to these two purchase intention items
were averaged (Pearson correlation r = 0.78, p < 0.001).
Participants indicated their levels of AI trust by answering two
questions, “To what extent do you trust that AI knows your pre-
ference?” and “To what extent do you trust that AI correctly assessed
your preference?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Pearson correlation
r = 0.83, p < 0.001).
Participants answered the question, “How detailed is the con-
fidence rating of the AI recommendation system?” (1 = not at all de-
tailed, 7 = very detailed), as a manipulation check for the number
presentation manipulation. Meanwhile, for the objective quality

1150 | KIM
manipulation, participants answered the question, “According to the
scenario, how high are the recommended books ranked in the top 20
Bestseller list?” (1 = not at all high, 7 = very high). Finally, participants
were asked to provide their age and gender.
6.2 | Results
6.2.1 | Manipulation checks
A series of 2 × 2 ANOVA analysis revealed that experimental ma-
nipulations were successful. As predicted, a 2 × 2 ANOVA on per-
ceived detail revealed only a marginal main effect of the number
presentation (Mprecise = 5.33, SD = 1.20; Mimprecise = 4.96, SD = 1.49,
F(1, 153) = 2.90, p = 0.091, η = 0.019), whereas a 2 × 2 ANOVA on
2
perceived product quality revealed only a main effect of the
product quality (Mhigh = 6.15, SD = 1.06; Mlow = 4.24, SD = 1.88,
F(1, 153) = 61.10, p < 0.001, η = 0.285). Thus, our manipulations
2
were successful.
6.2.2 | Results and discussion
Next, a 2 × 2 ANOVA on purchase intention revealed only a sig-
nificant interaction effect (F(1, 153) = 4.24, p = 0.041, η2 = 0.027)
(Figure 4). Planned contrast analysis revealed that in the high ob-
jective quality condition, the precise presentation led to higher
purchase intention (M = 5.18, SD = 1.28) than the imprecise pre-
sentation (M = 4.46, SD = 1.73; F(1, 153) = 5.32, p = 0.022, η2 = 0.034).
However, in the low objective quality condition, the precise pre-
sentation (M = 4.70, SD = 1.17) and the imprecise presentation
(M = 4.88, SD = 1.32; F (1, 153) = 0.36, p = 0.550, η2 = 0.002) did not
differ in terms of purchase intention. These results support H4.
A 2 × 2 ANOVA on AI trust revealed only a significant interac-
tion effect (F(1, 153) = 5.46, p = 0.021, η2 = 0.034). Planned contrast
analysis revealed that in the high objective quality condition, the
precise presentation led to higher AI trust (M = 4.88, SD = 1.20) than
the imprecise presentation (M = 4.16, SD = 1.66; F(1, 153) = 5.18,
p = 0.024, η = 0.033). However, in the low objective quality condi-
2
tion, the precise presentation (M = 4.55, SD = 1.19) and the imprecise
presentation (M = 4.87, SD = 1.47; F(1, 153) = 1.05, p = 0.308,
η2 = 0.007) did not differ in terms of AI trust.
Using Hayes' (2017) Process Macro (Model 8 with 5000 boot-
strapping), a moderated mediation analysis was conducted (i.e., IV:
preciseness of information [1: imprecise, 2: precise]→Mediator: AI
trust→DV: purchase intention & Moderator: objective product
quality [1: high, 2: low]). The results indicated that AI trust mediated
the effect of Number Presentation × Objective Product Quality on
purchase intention (95% CI: [−1.587, −0.126]). Specifically, for the
high‐quality recommendation condition, trust significantly mediated
the impact of IV on DV (95% CI: [0.055, 1.138]), consistent with H2a.
By contrast, the corresponding mediation was not significant for the
low‐quality recommendation condition (95% CI: [−0.743, 0.224]).
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
FIGURE 4 Results of study 4
Study 4 tested the effects of number presentation detail on AI
confidence and of objective product quality of the recommended
products on consumers' purchase intention. As predicted, we found
that the precise presentation led to higher purchase intention than
the imprecise presentation when the objective quality of the re-
commended products was high. However, as predicted, the number
presentation did not influence purchase intention when the objective
quality of the recommended products was relatively low. In addition,
we showed that consumer trust toward AI mediated the effect of
presentation details on purchase intention.
7 | STUDY 5
The purpose of Study 5 was to address some limitations from pre-
vious studies. First, even though we provided the empirical evidence
of mediation in the prior studies (i.e., Studies 2 and 4), the key
mediator of trust was measured by a single item. In this study, we
will use the multiple‐item scale based on Kim et al. (2016).
Second, in all previous studies, the imprecise numbers were based on
a multiple of 5 or 10 (e.g., 75%, 80%, 130 lb, or 190 lb). This study will use
a precise number using multiple of 5 and an imprecise number without
using multiple of 5. Specifically, we will compare an imprecise number
(i.e., 78%) and a precise number (i.e., 78.025%). Finally, we will reduce the
weaknesses of Study 1 by measuring the overall attitude toward the
product and the intention to buy the company's stock.
7.1 | Method: Participants, design, and procedure
Participants were 131 (Mage = 41.40, SD = 12.75; 51.9% female)
adults recruited via MTurk in exchange for a small monetary pay-
ment. The study employed a one‐way between‐subjects experimental
design with two levels (number presentation detail: precise vs. im-
precise). The overall stimuli were similar to that of Study 1A with few
modifications. First, the accuracy of the CT scan system was either
78% [imprecise condition] or 78.025% [precise condition].

KIM ET AL.
Then, participants were asked to indicate their perceived trust of
AI‐based CT scan system by three‐item 7‐point scale (1 = not at all
believable/trustworthy/truthful, 7 = very believable/trustworthy/truthful,
Cronbach's α = 0.923, based on Kim et al. (2016)). They also indicated
the overall attitude toward the CT scan system by 3‐item 7‐point
scale (1 = not at all good/favorable/positive, 7 = very good/favorable/
positive, Cronbach's α = 0.949, based on Kim et al. (2016)) and their
intention to buy the company's stock with the same scale of Study 1.
Participants were asked to rate their perceived preciseness of the
accuracy rating of the AI system (i.e., How detailed is the accuracy
rating of the AI system?”) along a 7‐point scale (1 = not at all detailed,
7 = very detailed) for the manipulation check. Finally, participants
were asked to provide their age and gender.
7.2 | Results and discussion
The manipulation was successful in that the perceived preciseness
was higher for the precise condition (M = 5.09, SD = 1.02) compared
to the imprecise condition (M = 4.51, SD = 1.32; F(1, 129) = 8.00,
p = 0.005, η2 = 0.058).
We compared consumers' responses across the two experi-
mental conditions (see Figure 5). First, the intention to buy the
company's stock in that the intention for the precise condition
(M = 4.68, SD = 1.82) was higher than that for imprecise condition
(M = 3.91, SD = 1.83; F(1, 129) = 5.92, p = 0.016, η2 = 0.044). These
results support H1a. Next, supporting H1b, the result of the attitude
toward the scan system was similar in that the attitude for
the precise condition (M = 5.31, SD = 1.21) was higher than that for
the imprecise condition (M = 4.65, SD = 1.41; F(1, 129) = 8.47,
p = 0.004, η2 = 0.062).
For the mediator, we found that the perceived trust of the AI‐
based scan system for the precise condition (M = 5.17, SD = 1.16) was
higher than that for the imprecise condition (M = 4.75, SD = 1.25; F
(1, 129) = 3.85, p = 0.052, η2 = 0.029).
Finally, we conducted two mediation tests. We conducted a
simple mediation (i.e., IV: preciseness of→Mediator: AI trust→DV:
intention to buy the company's stock) using Hayes' (2017) Process
Macro (Model 4 with 5000 bootstrapping). The results indicated that
the indirect effect was significant (effect = 0.33, 95% CI: [0.013,
0.729]), whereas the direct effect was not significant (effect = 0.45,
t = 1.62, 95% CI: [−0.099, 0.996]), indicating a full mediation (H2a).
Next, another simple mediation (i.e., IV: preciseness of information
[1: imprecise, 2: precise]→Mediator: perceived trust→DV: attitude)
using Hayes' (2017) Process Macro (Model 4 with 5000 boot-
strapping). The results showed that mediation was significant (ef-
fect = 0.37, 95% CI: [0.014, 0.772]), whereas the direct effect was
also still significant (effect = 0.30, t = 2.24, 95% CI: [0.035, 0.556]).
These results support H2b.
The second analysis was a serial mediation (i.e., IV: preciseness
of information [1: imprecise, 2: precise]→Mediator 1: perceived
trust→Mediator 2: attitude→DV: intention to buy the company's
stock) using Hayes' (2017) Process Macro (Model 6 with 5000
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1151
FIGURE 5 Results of study 5
bootstrapping). The results indicated that the direct effect with
mediators became insignificant (effect = 0.22, t = 0.83, 95% CI:
[−0.302, 0.739]), but the serial mediation was significant (effect =
0.29, 95% CI: [0.003, 0.621]).
8 | GENERAL D ISCUSS ION
AI uses various key technologies, including machine learning and
deep learning, and it can efficiently process vast amounts of data and
learn relationships among the data. AI is becoming an important tool
in marketing and business applications. In fact, AI is revolutionizing
how companies and organizations operate businesses. With the in-
creasing presence of AI in several aspects of the business environ-
ment and our daily lives, organizations and marketers are keen to
find ways to improve the successful adoption of AI technologies and
AI‐generated recommendations. Despite the superior performance
and accuracy of AI, recent evidence has shown that consumers have
reservations toward accepting AI‐generated recommendations
(Castelo et al., 2018; Dietvorst et al., 2015; Longoni et al., 2019).
Therefore, it is critical to understand how to improve consumer
adoption of the information generated by AI.
The current research uses five studies to provide insights into
how one nudging way (i.e., the preciseness of the AI‐generated in-
formation) of presenting the information can influence consumer
evaluations and intentions. Taken together, the results of the five
experiments contribute to the understanding of AI‐generated in-
formation and the continuous development of trust in AI technolo-
gies. First, we demonstrate a relationship between the preciseness of
the information and individuals' evaluations of AI recommendations.
Indeed, precise (vs. imprecise) information leads to higher evalua-
tions and behavioral intentions (Studies 1–5). This effect is con-
sistent across different measurements, dependent variables, and
recommendation categories (i.e., coronavirus chest CT scans, AI‐
based online music recommendation engine, AI‐based weight esti-
mator, AI‐based online book recommendation engine). This study
also provides evidence that the impact of information preciseness on
consumer evaluations is mediated by trust (Studies 2, 4, and 5).

1152 | KIM
Finally, this study demonstrates the boundary conditions to this re-
lationship. The accuracy of the AI‐generated information influences
the impact of the presented information (Study 3). Further, the ob-
jective product quality of the recommended products impacts the
effect of presentation details (i.e., preciseness) on consumer pur-
chase intentions (Study 4).
8.1 | Theoretical contributions
These findings make several important theoretical contributions to
the AI literature. First, this study offers new insights into the AI
literature by investigating a new factor that influences consumer
attitudes and behaviors regarding the adoption of AI recommenda-
tions. Our findings are consistent with prior work on the preciseness
of information and price, suggesting that preciseness significantly
influences individuals' preferences and value judgments
(Gourville, 1998). It may be argued that being exposed to precise
information may further affect one's confidence in the information.
Our study investigates this concept in the AI environment to build on
the aforementioned work by demonstrating that precise information
(vs. imprecise information) can lead to more positive evaluations.
Regarding the positive effect of precise numbers in terms of quan-
titative evaluation and judgment, Zhang and Schwarz (2013) sug-
gested that the influence of precise information is greater in that the
relevant inference (e.g., the estimated cost of a DVD drive) was
higher when the related information was delivered in the precise
versus imprecise format (e.g., when the retailing price of the DVD
drive was $29.75 vs. $40). They further argue that this positive effect
is only valid for human communicators and not for non‐human
agents like computer messages. Contrary to this result, we find that
the preciseness of information generated by non‐human agents (i.e.,
AI) significantly influences the evaluation of and inference related to
a recommendation. One possible explanation for this is that people
might consider AI to be closer to human‐like agents than
simple computers (see Gray et al., 2007). Future research can in-
vestigate this possible moderating factor for the preciseness effect.
Second, prior work suggests that trust is a crucial factor in the
adoption of new technologies, thus advancing trust as a critical ele-
ment for understanding people's behaviors toward AI. Specifically,
we add to this study by showing that precise information increases
the level of confidence that individuals place in the relevant in-
formation and that this trust leads to positive affective and beha-
vioral outcomes. This finding offers empirical support for arguments
suggesting that increased preciseness of information leads to higher
reliability and credibility. Our research shows that in contrast to
imprecise information, precise information may elicit people to think
that the information is more reliable, potentially elevating their trust
level.
Finally, it extends the literature on heuristics by showing that AI‐
generated recommendations can be used as an anchor in consumer
judgments and decision‐making processes. In the contexts of the
anchoring‐and‐adjustment heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974),
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
Janiszewski and Uy (2008) found that the adjustment from the given
anchor was weaker when the anchoring information was based on
precise (vs. less precise) information. For example, the price esti-
mation of a type of cheese was lower when the anchor, which was
higher than the actual price, was less precise (e.g., “5”) rather than
precise (e.g., “4.85”). This study extends this pattern into the context
of judgments of AI‐generated information. Therefore, even in the
context of nonhuman information, the AI recommendation served as
anchoring information in the judgment. We also suggested the
boundary conditions, such as the gap between the AI‐generated in-
formation and the actual information, in Study 3.
8.2 | Managerial implications
This paper has several practical and managerial implications. First,
the results of our experiments provide additional evidence that the
presentation of the information provided by AI recommendation
agents can strongly impact consumer adoption of AI‐related tech-
nologies. The design and delivery of the generated information are of
critical importance for businesses using AI. As AI is becoming in-
creasingly prevalent, companies can influence its adoption in our
everyday lives. AI recommendations can be useful for consumers by
making their lives easier and providing an enhanced experience.
Thus, understanding more about the factors that impact individuals'
interactions with AI can lead to faster and stronger acceptance of
this new technology.
Second, according to the findings of this study, trust is an es-
sential factor in consumer evaluations of AI‐generated information.
Indeed, trust mediates the relationship between the preciseness of
information and judgments and evaluations of that information. This
should be considered by marketers and information system leaders
developing and managing AI technologies. Based on the findings of
this study, we recommend that businesses should consider factors,
such as preciseness, in the presentation of information, which could
lead to higher credibility. Such nudges should increase the level of
trust and thus motivate people to adopt the recommendations.
Finally, the recommendations generated by the AI agents and
presented to consumers are crucial elements that affect their judg-
ments; therefore, businesses should have valid and accurate models
to develop the information they deliver in these recommendations.
Thus, the algorithms developed with the data to find patterns must
be correct to form strong relationships with consumers, as the va-
lidity and reliability of those suggestions will determine the future
adoption of AI‐generated recommendations.
8.3 | Limitations and future directions
This study has several limitations, which can offer opportunities for
future work. First, this study was administered through online panels
providing experimental scenarios. Although hypothetical scenarios
have been used in the past in the AI area, further research needs to

KIM ET AL.
be done to replicate these results in real interactions with AI re-
commendation agents and technologies. Regarding the Amazon
Mturk sample, previous research suggested that the overall quality
of Mturk was good as other sources of marketing research (e.g.,
Buhrmester et al., 2011; Crump et al., 2013), even though their un-
derstanding of AI and machine learning could be different from other
populations. Future studies can cover this issue much deeply.
Second, as presentation methods are diverse, we can assume
that their impacts on persuading individuals will differ (e.g., Giroux
et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020, 2021). Therefore, future research
should employ additional presentation methods and determine their
influences on customers' reactions.
Third, even though our paper focused on the AI recommenda-
tion, it's worthy to investigate the impact of the preciseness of hu-
man suggestions. We expect that the impact of the preciseness
would be weaker for humans, but it might depend on the expertise
area of a human (e.g., Huang & Rust, 2018). Finally, specific char-
acteristics or factors (e.g., persuasion knowledge model; Friestad &
Wright, 1994; Kim et al., 2016) could influence trust; hence, different
antecedents of trust related to AI‐generated content and re-
commendations represent a promising field for future research.
8.4 | Closing statements
In this paper, we investigated a factor that can facilitate the adoption
of AI‐powered technology. Specifically, we suggested that the em-
ployment of precise (vs. imprecise) information in AI‐generated
messages leads to higher evaluations and behavioral intentions for
that AI technology. We hope that this study helps extend the un-
derstanding of the psychological reasons affecting consumer adop-
tion of AI technology.
ORCID
Jungkeun Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-833X
Marilyn Giroux https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5764-0533
Jacob C. Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-4711
R EF E RE N C E S
Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Toward the next generation of
recommender systems: A survey of the state‐of‐the‐art and possible
extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering,
17(6), 734–749.
Aguirre, E., Mahr, D., Grewal, D., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2015).
Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information
collection and trust‐building strategies on online advertisement
effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 34–49.
Aljukhadar, M., Trifts, V., & Senecal, S. (2017). Consumer self‐construal
and trust as determinants of the reactance to a recommender
advice. Psychology & Marketing, 34(7), 708–719.
Amoroso, D., Sauer, F., Sharkey, N., Suchman, L., & Tamburrini, G. (2018).
Autonomy in weapon systems: The military application of artificial
intelligence as a litmus test for Germany's new foreign and security
policy. Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005). Are the drivers and
role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1153
large‐scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of Marketing, 69(4),
133–152.
Basu, K. (1997). Why are so many goods priced to end in nine? And why
this practice hurts the producers. Economics Letters, 54(1), 41–44.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services—Growing interest,
emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
23(4), 236–245.
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services: Competing
through quality. The Free Press.
Bock, D. E., Wolter, J. S., & Ferrell, O. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence:
Disrupting what we know about services. Journal of Services
Marketing, 34(3), 317–334.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical
Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high‐quality, data?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
Burson, K. A., Larrick, R. P., Lynch Jr J. G. (2009). Six of one, half dozen of the
other: Expanding and contracting numerical dimensions produces
preference reversals. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1074–1078.
Castelo, N. (2019). Blurring the line between human and machine: Marketing
artificial intelligence (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Columbia
University Academic Commons.
Castelo, N., Bos, M., & Lehman, D. (2018). Consumer adoption of algorithms
that blur the line between human and machine. Graduate School of
Business: Columbia University Working Paper.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in
services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 54(3), 68–81.
Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating
Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral
research. PLOS One, 8(3), e57410.
De Bruyn, A., Viswanathan, V., Beh, Y. S., Brock, J. K. U., &
von Wangenheim, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence and marketing:
Pitfalls and opportunities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, 91–105.
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020). How artificial
intelligence will change the future of marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 24–42.
Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial
judgment. Science, 243(4899), 1668–1674.
Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in
decision making. American Psychologist, 34(7), 571–582.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion:
People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126.
Dimitriadis, S., & Kyrezis, N. (2010). Linking trust to use intention for
technology‐enabled bank channels: The role of trusting intentions.
Psychology & Marketing, 27(8), 799–820.
de Ruyter, K., Isobel Keeling, D., & Ngo, L. V. (2018). When nothing is
what it seems: A digital marketing research agenda. Australasian
Marketing Journal, 26(3), 199–203.
Eisingerich, A. B., & Bell, S. J. (2008). Perceived service quality and
customer trust: Does enhancing customers' service knowledge
matter? Journal of Service Research, 10(3), 256–268.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How
people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research,
21(1), 1–31.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction,
trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Giroux, M., Franklin, D., Kim, J., Park, J., & Kwak, K. (2021). The impact of
same versus different price presentation on travel choice and the
moderating role of childhood socioeconomic status. Journal of Travel
Research.
Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies‐a‐day: The effect of temporal reframing on
transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4),
395–408.

1154 | KIM
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind
perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.
Gupta, P., & Harris, J. (2010). How e‐WOM recommendations influence
product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process
information perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63(9‐10),
1041–1049.
Guszcza, J., Lewis, H., & Evans‐Greenwood, P. (2017). Cognitive
collaboration: Why humans and computers think better together.
Deloitte Review, 1(20), 7–30.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression‐based approach. Guilford.
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in
employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3),
333–342.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and
persuasion. Yale University Press
Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal
of Service Research, 21(2), 155–172.
Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of the anchor influences the
amount of adjustment. Psychological Science, 19(2), 121–127.
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work:
Human‐AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business
Horizons, 61(4), 577–586.
Jerez‐Fernandez, A., Angulo, A. N., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). Show
me the numbers: Precision as a cue to others' confidence.
Psychological Science, 25(2), 633–635.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service
relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500–507.
Kaartemo, V., & Helkkula, A. (2018). A systematic review of artificial
intelligence and robots in value co‐creation: Current status and
future research avenues. Journal of Creating Value, 4(2), 211–228.
Keeffe, B., Subramanian, U., Tierney, W. M., Udris, E., Willems, J., McDonell, M.,
& Fihn, S. (2005). Provider response to computer‐based care suggestions
for chronic heart failure. Medical Care, 43(5), 461–465.
Kim, J., Cui, Y. G., Choi, C., Lee, S. J., & Marshall, R. (2020). The influence
of preciseness of price information on the travel option choice.
Tourism Management, 79, 104012.
Kim, J., Jhang, J., Kim, S. S., & Chen, S. C. (2021). Effects of concealing vs.
displaying prices on consumer perceptions of hospitality products.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102708.
Kim, J., Kim, J. E., & Marshall, R. (2016). Are two arguments always
better than one? Persuasion knowledge moderating the effect
of integrated marketing communications. European Journal of
Marketing, 50(7), 1399–1425.
Kim, J., Kim, J. E., & Marshall, R. (2020). Choose quickly! The influence of
cognitive resource availability on the preference between the
intuitive and externally recommended options. Australasian
Marketing Journal, 28(4), 263–272.
Kim, T. W., & Duhachek, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence and persuasion: A
construal‐level account. Psychological Science, 31(4), 363–380.
King, D., & Janiszewski, C. (2011). The sources and consequences of the fluent
processing of numbers. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 327–341.
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S.
(2017). Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293.
Kreps, G. L., & Neuhauser, L. (2013). Artificial intelligence and immediacy:
Designing health communication to personally engage consumers
and providers. Patient Education and Counseling, 92(2), 205–210.
Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013).
Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and
admissions decisions: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(6), 1060–1072.
Lee, J. (2004). Discriminant analysis of technology adoption behavior: A
case of internet technologies in small businesses. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 44(4), 57–66.
15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
Li, S., Glass, R., & Records, H. (2008). The influence of gender on new
technology adoption and use–mobile commerce. Journal of Internet
Commerce, 7(2), 270–289.
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation:
People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. (2019). Resistance to medical
artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650.
Lu, V. N., Wirtz, J., Kunz, W. H., Paluch, S., Gruber, T., Martins, A., &
Patterson, P. G. (2020). Service robots, customers and service
employees: What can we learn from the academic literature and
where are the gaps? Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 30(3),
361–391.
Lynch, P. D., Kent, R. J., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2001). The global internet
shopper: Evidence from shopping tasks in twelve countries. Journal
of Advertising Research, 41(3), 15–23.
Mariani, M. (2019). Big data and analytics in tourism and hospitality: A
perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 299–303.
Mariani, M. M., Baggio, R., Fuchs, M., & Höepken, W. (2018). Business
intelligence and big data in hospitality and tourism: A systematic
literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 30(12), 3514–3554.
Martínez‐López, F. J., & Casillas, J. (2013). Artificial intelligence‐based
systems applied in industrial marketing: An historical overview,
current and future insights. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(4),
489–495.
Marwala, T., & Hurwitz, E. (2015). Artificial intelligence and asymmetric
information theory (Doctoral dissertation). Johannesburg, South
Africa: University of Johannesburg.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T. H., Patil, D. J., & Barton, D.
(2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business
Review, 90(10), 60–68.
Monga, A., & Bagchi, R. (2012). Years, months, and days versus 1, 12, and
365: The influence of units versus numbers. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(1), 185–198.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment‐trust theory of
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Moriuchi, E. (2019). Okay, Google!: An empirical study on voice assistants
on consumer engagement and loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 36(5),
489–501.
Naipaul, S. A., & Parsa, H. G. (2001). Menu price endings that
communicate value and quality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 26–37.
Ostrom, A., Fotheringham, D., & Bitner, M. J. (2018). Customer
acceptance of AI in service encounters: Understanding
antecedents and consequences. In P. P. Maglio, C. A. Kieliszewski,
J. C. Spohrer, K. Lyons, L. Patricio, & Y. Swatani (Eds.), Handbook of
service science (Vol. 2, pp. 77–103). Springer Nature.
Pardes, A. (2019). Need some fashion advice? Just ask the algorithm.
https://www.wired.com/story/stitch-fix-shop-your-looks/
Pena‐Marin, J., & Bhargave, R. (2016). Lasting performance: Round numbers
activate associations of stability and increase perceived length of
product benefits. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 410–416.
Punj, G. N., & Moore, R. (2007). Smart versus knowledgeable online
recommendation agents. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4),
46–60.
Sanders, N. R., & Manrodt, K. B. (2003). The efficacy of using judgmental
versus quantitative forecasting methods in practice. Omega, 31(6),
511–522.
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting web site
visitors into buyers: How web site investment increases consumer
trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing,
70, 133–148.
 15206793, 2021, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21498 by Universidad Tecnica Federico, Wiley Online Library on [11/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KIM ET AL. | 1155

Seegebarth, B., Backhaus, C., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2019). The role of Zang, Y., Zhang, F., Di, C., & Zhu, D. (2015). Advances of flexible pressure
emotions in shaping purchase intentions for innovations using sensors toward artificial intelligence and health care applications.
emerging technologies: A scenario‐based investigation in the Materials Horizons, 2(2), 140–156.
context of nanotechnology. Psychology & Marketing, 36(9), 844–862. Zhang, Y. C., & Schwarz, N. (2013). How and why 1 year differs from 365
Shankar, V. (2018). How artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping retailing. days: A conversational logic analysis of inferences from the
Journal of Retailing, 94(4), 6–11. granularity of quantitative expressions. Journal of Consumer
Sinha, R., & Swearingen, K. (2001). Comparing recommendations made by Research, 39(2), 248–259.
online systems and friends, Proceedings of the DELOS‐NSF Workshop Zhu, D. H., Chang, Y. P., Luo, J. J., & Li, X. (2014). Understanding the
on Personalization and Recommender Systems in Digital Libraries. www. adoption of location‐based recommendation agents among active
onemweb.com users of social networking sites. Information Processing &
Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Modeling Management, 50(5), 675–682.
consumers' adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the
United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and
trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860–873.
Stiving, M. (2000). Price‐endings when prices signal quality. Management How to cite this article: Kim, J., Giroux, M., & Lee, J. C.
Science, 46(12), 1617–1629. (2021). When do you trust AI? The effect of number
Stiving, M., & Winer, R. S. (1997). An empirical analysis of price endings
presentation detail on consumer trust and acceptance of AI
using scanner data. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 57–67.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and recommendations. Psychol Mark, 38, 1140–1155.
brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21498
Syam, N., & Sharma, A. (2018). Waiting for a sales renaissance in the
fourth industrial revolution: Machine learning and artificial
intelligence in sales research and practice. Industrial Marketing
Management, 69, 135–146.
APPEND IX A
Talwar, S., Talwar, M., Kaur, P., & Dhir, A. (2020). Consumers' resistance
to digital innovations: A systematic review and framework Stimulus of Study 3
development. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(4), 286–299.
Thomas, M., Simon, D. H., & Kadiyali, V. (2010). The price precision effect:
Evidence from laboratory and market data. Marketing Science, 29(1),
175–190.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Wadhwa, M., & Zhang, K. (2015). This number just feels right: The impact
of roundedness of price numbers on product evaluations. Journal of
Consumer Research, 41(5), 1172–1185.
Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2005). Trust in and adoption of online
recommendation agents. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 6(3), 72–101.
Xie, G., & Kronrod, A. (2012). Is the devil in the details? The signaling
effect of numerical precision in environmental advertising claims.
Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 103–117.
Yang, S.‐C., Hung, W.‐C., Sung, K., & Farn, C.‐K. (2006). Investigating initial
trust toward e‐tailers from the elaboration likelihood model
perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 23(5), 429–445.
Ye, C., Hofacker, C. F., Peloza, J., & Allen, A. (2020). How online trust
evolves over time: The role of social perception. Psychology &
Marketing, 37(11), 1539–1553.
Yeomans, M., Shah, A., Mullainathan, S., & Kleinberg, J. (2019). Making
sense of recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
32(4), 403–414.