See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/380112255

The Moderating Role of Perceived Interaction in a Chatbot's Impact on

Conversational Commerce: From intention to usage to actual usage

Chapter · May 2024

DOI: 10.1201/9781003450443-16

CITATIONS READS

0 107

2 authors, including:

Habiba Ben Ameur

FSEGT
10 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Habiba Ben Ameur on 09 December 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The moderating role of perceived interaction in a Chabot’s impact on
conversational commerce: From intention to usage to actual usage

Habiba Ben Ameur

Doctor in Marketing.
Faculty of Economics and Management of Tunis.
University of Tunis El Manar. Business and Research in Marketing (ERMA).
E-mail: [email protected]
Kaouther Saied Ben Rached
University Professor. Faculty of Economics and Management of Tunis. University of Tunis El
Manar.

Abstract :
The implementation of chatbots in e-commerce has seen growing interest. Indeed, they make it
possible to increase customer engagement and technological investments in the business field
(Cruzado et al., 2023). Thus, these chatbots aim to improve the user experience during online
purchases (Rapp et al., 2021). The importance of this research consists of studying the impact of
the intention to use a chatbot in the context of conversational commerce on its current use while
highlighting the moderating role of perceived interactivity. An empirical study carried out with
218 Tunisian Chatbot users shows that there is a significant link between the intention of use and
the current use of a chatbot. On the other hand, perceived interactivity negatively moderates the
relationship between these two variables. The results of the empirical study are discussed,
managerial implications and future avenues of research are presented.
Keywords: Chabot, conversational commerce, website, intention of use, perceived interactivity,
actual use.

1
Introduction :
The invention of machine learning around the turn of the 20th century accelerated the progress of
artificial intelligence (Thilagavathy and Kumar, 2021). Digital marketing was impacted by this
revolution, which also altered customer purchasing behavior and increased revenues (Pangkey et
al., 2020).
This increasing diffusion of artificial intelligence has opened up new opportunities for the study
of consumer behavior (Cosmo et al. 2021).In fact, this technology enables the development of
new marketing strategies based on Big Data and a deeper understanding of the decision-making
process (Kumar et al., 2019; Sterne, 2017; Yang and Siau, 2018). Additionally, the quick
development of AI has made it possible for companies to engage with clients using chatbots
(Chen et al., 2022).
For Sidlauskiene et al. (2023), Chatbot technology is employed as a great tool to enhance
communication, boost service delivery effectiveness, reduce costs, and enhance customer
experience. It enables businesses to communicate with their customers, facilitate information
searches, facilitate transactions, and facilitate after-sales service requests (Cosmo et al., 2021). In
addition to facilitating real-time, individualized communication, chatbots also guarantee sales
and transaction processes (Leszkiewicz et al., 2021). Although chatbots have been around for a
while in the world of information technology, they were just recently made available for
commercial use. The ability of chatbots as a marketing tool was first demonstrated in 2016 by
the well-known instant messaging service Messenger (Cosmo et al., 2021).
Referring to the marketing literature, researchers such as Sidlauskiene et al. (2023), Han and
Kim (2020), and Cruzado et al. (2023) were interested in addressing the importance of chatbots
in conversational commerce. Others like Moriuchi (2019), Chhikara et al. (2022), and Cosmo et
al. (2021) studied the attitude toward this technology. The intention to use chatbots has attracted
the interest of several recent works such as Gnewuch et al. (2022); Han and Kim (2023) and
Sumarjan et al. (2023).
Our study aims to examine the influence of chatbot use intention on actual conversational
commerce usage on a website by emphasizing the importance of perceived interactivity. With the
exception of certain research done by Febrianto et al. (2018), Alifiardi (2019), and Han and Kim
(2023), few academics have been interested in examining the relationship between the intention
of adopting a chatbot and actual use. In study on chatbots and artificial intelligence, there are
gaps in the comprehension of the role of perceived interactivity.
Our problem is presented within this context: What is the impact of the intention to use a chatbot
in conversational commerce on it’s actual use?
To carry out this research work, we will present the conceptual framework of our research. Then,
we will specify the nature of the relationships that exist between these different variables by
referring to the literature. Finally, we will present the research methodology and we will present
and discuss the results obtained.

2
Theoretical background:
The use of chatbots powered by artificial intelligence has increased, which has gradually
transformed how consumers make purchases (Sidlauskiene et al., 2023). Many businesses have
made use of this technology to deliver individualized product information, respond swiftly to
consumer demands, and assist customers in making purchasing decisions.
I. Artificial intelligence in online marketing
1. Definition of artificial intelligence
One of the newest fields of science and engineering, artificial intelligence was developed by
Alan Turing in 1956 (Russell and Norvig, 2010). It is a field of study that tries to automate
human intellect (Nilsson, 2005). The development gained owing to artificial intelligence is
considered as a revolution expected to alter the industries of banking, health, marketing,
insurance, and vehicles (Fain, 2019). It is founded on a big data-driven machine-learning
methodology (Dubey et al., 2020). Artificial intelligence, as defined by Zouinar (2020), refers to
devices, algorithms, or software that look for to reproduce human abilities like language
comprehension, object recognition, and various types of thinking. According to Huang and Rust
(2021) this technology refers to the use of computational devices to mimic human capacities
such as thinking, emotion, and performing physical or mechanical activities. Intelligent
conversational agents use various forms of artificial intelligence, such as speech recognition and
natural language processing, to control interactions with humans (Ling et al., 2021).
2. Artificial intelligence in e-commerce
Artificial intelligence has gradually been involved in marketing with the rise of e-commerce.
According to Pansari and Kumar (2017), the majority of companies have employed digital
technology and artificial intelligence to interact with clients on social media and other platforms
that have AI built in. According to Micu et al. (2018), the purpose of artificial intelligence in
marketing is to enhance the optimization of marketing campaigns, search engine rankings,
website consistency, and traffic volume. On their part, Pillai and Sivathanu (2020), point out that
artificial intelligence quickens the pace of the digital transformation by fostering disruptive
innovation. This explains that several companies use this technology in e-commerce to detect
trends based on browsing history, order history, account records, and other factors (Mittal and
Sharma, 2021).
2.1 Conversational commerce
The term "conversational commerce" was coined by Chris Messina, a former Uber and Google
employee who created the hashtag (#) in tweets (Sidlauskiene et al., 2023). The term
conversational commerce or online commerce is conducted through text, voice, or other natural
language technologies interacting with businesses, brands, and services (Messina, 2015). Several
marketing researchers have been interested in defining conversational commerce. This concept
consists of offering convenience, personalization, and decision support (Van Manen, 2016).
According to Shopify (2016), customers may speak with corporate employees, obtain customer
service, ask questions, receive tailored suggestions, read reviews, and click through to purchases

3
using messaging applications thanks to conversational commerce. The use of conversational
commerce allows consumers to engage in an interaction with a human representative, a chatbot,
or a mixture of both (Van Euewen (2017). It refers to an interaction between a brand and a
consumer that simulates human dialogue (Gartner, 2019). During this conversation, a purchase
of products or services will be made (Sidlauskiene et al., 2023). The current growth of
conversational commerce is fueled by technological advancements in artificial intelligence (AI)
(Reavie, 2018) and is expected to increase sevenfold by 2025, reaching some US$290 billion
worldwide (Sidlauskiene et al., 2023).
2.2 Perceived interactivity
Interactivity or interaction refers to the ease for individuals and organizations to communicate
directly with each other regardless of distance and time (Blatteberg and Deighton, 1991). Users
can engage in an interactive environment by altering the structure and content of it in real time
(Steuer, 1992). For Deighton (1996), being "interactive" is having the capacity to address a
person, gather and remember their response, and then address them again while taking into
account their prior reaction. According to Sundar et al. (2003), interactivity is conceptualized as
the possibility of having a cumulative response to user input that expresses a sense of dialogue
and contingency. Interactivity in web-based communication can be conceptualized as the
possibility of having a cumulative response to the user's input that expresses a sense of dialogue
and contingency (Sundar et al., 2003). Real-time interaction enhances customer perceptions and
increases the likelihood that they will make a purchase on e-commerce websites (Matteson et al.,
2011). Additionally, Sundar et al. (2014) believe that interactivity is a key factor in predicting
user engagement and more precise behavioral intents to use a tool or technology. If customers
perceive interactivity as being high, they may be able to gather required data and receive
customised services based on repeated encounters (Kang et al ., 2015).
II. The determinants of adopting artificial intelligence
2.1 Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivation
Based on the causes and objectives that drive behaviors, SDT has been utilized in the marketing
literature to explain that there are two primary types of human motivations (Deci and Ryan,
2000). According to Botti and McGill (2010) and Whitley et al. (2018), customers are driven to
look for, buy, and consume goods and services for utilitarian and hedonistic reasons.
-Hedonic motivation and intrinsic motivation are factors that influence behavior and are
connected to the enjoyment that results from engaging in that conduct (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
Consumers willingly endorse and participate in actions when hedonic incentive is present (Botti
and Mc Gill, 2011), according to Deci and Ryan (2000). This kind of incentive, in accordance
with Gonzalez et al. (2019), relates to how much people like utilizing technology.
-Utilitarian motivation: For Ryan and Deci (2017), this is extrinsic motivation which represents
the driving force of behavior aimed at achieving instrumental values such as external rewards or
social approval. Babin et al. (1994) and Whitley et al. (2018) point out that utilitarian motivation

4
allows individuals to successfully perform tasks efficiently and on time to achieve external goals.
Utilitarian motivation has an external locus of causality (Botti and McGill, 2011).
2.2 Social presence of a chatbot
Referring to the marketing literature, several researchers have used the concept of social presence
in their studies focusing on sculpins such as Araujo (2018), Go and Sundar (2019), De Cicco et
al. (2020), and Lee et al. (2020). Social presence is prevalent in human-chatbot interaction
research because it describes a feeling of being with another...either a human or artificial
intelligence (Biocca et al., 2003). It refers to the extent to which a medium allows individuals to
feel as if others were psychologically present (Biocca et al., 2003). ). The role of social presence
is crucial in digital commerce, as it stimulates users' positive reactions towards website trust, and
purchase intention (Gefen and Straub, 2004). According to the theory of multiple source effects,
the feeling of social presence felt by a user in a digital environment will be amplified when
numerous voice sources are used and integrated into the digital environment (Lee and Nass,
2004). For Kilteni et al. (2012) and Moon et al. (2013), social presence or virtual friendliness
refers to the feeling that the interlocutor experiences as well as their ability to react to human
requests.
Social presence has been identified as the degree to which users experience other intelligent
beings coexisting and interacting with them within a digital environment even when the virtual
artifacts are not real (Kim, 2016). For their part, Lu et al. (2016) clarified that social presence
presents the degree of social cues offered by interacting with the technological source such as
“warm,” “personal,” and “sociable.”
III Chatbots
1. Definition of a chatbot
The first known text-based chatbot ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966) was developed in the 1960s as a
computer program for using natural language to stimulate human-like conversation (Sidlauskiene
et al., 2023). A chatbot is a computer program that uses automated, algorithm-based technologies
such as natural language processing, learning, and AI to mimic conversational interactions with
humans (Crolic et al., 2021). These chatbots are programmed based on natural language
processing to carry out real-time communication to advise, support or simply converse with the
interlocutor (Misischia et al., 2022). According to Lee and Lee (2020), chatbots provide
customers with a more engaging platform to submit their contact details. They can also be used
to generate consumer interest in products/services and potentially increase company revenue
(Lee and Lee, 2020). These virtual agents make it possible to distribute products and services
personalized according to individual needs and which are sold via real-time one-on-one
conversations (Diederich et al., 2020). Software systems are designed to interact with humans
using natural language (Feine et al., 2019; McTear et al., 2016). Chatbots are used in various
fields such as customer service (Sheehan et al., 2020), education (Smutny & Schreiberova,
2020), e-commerce (Shafi et al., 2020), healthcare (Fitzpatrick et al., 2017) and retail (Tran et al.,
2021).

5
Avatars having human traits, such as a face and body parts, are frequently used in chatbots (Han,
2021). Embodied chatbots may communicate with humans by using language (text or voice), a
virtual body or face, and nonverbal signals including body language, gaze, and facial emotions
(Kramer et al., 2009). Text-based or speech-based chatbots are both possible (Gnewuch et al.,
2017). Its advancements lead to three different kinds of intelligent conversational agents,
including robot-like conversational agents that seem human while interacting with people, as
Maya at Lemonade. Apple's Siri, Amazon's Alexa, and chatbots that only interact with text
inputs and outputs are a few examples of voice-based chatbots or personal voice assistants (Ling
et al.2021).
2. Intention to use a chatbot
Use intention is the desire to adopt a certain behavior (Ajzen, 1985). The technology acceptance
model (TAM) also proposes that users' attitudes toward information systems influence their
behavioral intentions to use (Davis et al., 1989). According to Bae (2018), this intention can be
defined as the perceived likelihood that a person will perform a specific behavior. It explains
whether the chatbot can function adequately and meet the user's needs (Santiago et al., 2019). It
is an attitude or behavior that tends to want to use technology (Andy et al., 2021). Usage
intention is influenced by culture, society, person, and psychology (Andy et al., 2021).
According to Kuo et al. (2021), the intention to continue using chatbot services is essential to
ensure the long-term viability of chatbot and communication services of large companies.
Knowing customers' usage intention is crucial for marketers to make strategic decisions and
forecast sales of existing and new products and services (Sumarjan et al., 2023).
3. Actual use of chatbot
According to Davis (1989), actual usage is measured as the amount of time spent interacting with
a technology and the frequency of its use (Davis, 1989). It refers to the desire to adopt a certain
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). A person would be satisfied with using the system if he believes that it is
easy to use and will increase productivity as shown by actual usage (Venkatesh and Davis,
1996).
According to Rigopoulos and Askounis (2007), actual usage is measured based on repeated
usage and more frequent use. A person will be satisfied upon using the system if they believe
that the system is easy to use and will increase productivity as seen from actual usage.
(Venkatesh and Davis, 1996).

6
 Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Hedonic Perceived
motivation interactivity

Social Intention Actual

Presence to use use

Utilitarian
motivation

IV. Development of hypotheses:

-Impact of utilitarian and hedonic motivations on usage intention:
Behavioral intentions are activated by motivation, a potent force (Dinh and Park, 2022). In this
study, we anticipate that hedonic incentive will lead to increased chatbot use. Indeed, chatbots
may have engaging, automated conversations with customers. As a result, when engaging with
chatbots, users may really feel delight, enjoyment, and escape (Mishra et al., 2022; Pitardi and
Marriott, 2021). Utilitarian motives, for example, boost the desire to use chatbot services since
they assist customers in making wise decisions (Mimoun and Poncin, 2015) and resolving issues
(Chung et al., 2020). They are useful (Pitardi and Marriott, 2021), simple to use (Cheng and
Jiang, 2020), and help in achieving objectives (Vimalkumazr et al., 2021). Therefore, our
hypotheses are stated as follows:
H1: Hedonic motivation has a positive effect on the intention to use a chatbot.
H2: Utilitarian motivation has a positive impact on the intention to use a chatbot
-Impact of utilitarian and hedonic motivations on social presence:
According to Deci and Ryan (2014), consumers who are hedonically motivated, expect to form
relationships with others. However, referring to SDT, Ryan, and Deci (2017) higlight clarify that
utilitarian motivation makes people focus more on instrumental outcomes such as financial
resources, reputation, power, or external attractiveness. Additionally, in their work, Deci and
Ryan (2014) and Lee et al. (2020) consider that people tend to view their relationship partners as
instruments for achieving utilitarian goals rather than mutually respected or supported partners.
Thus proposes that if consumers have a hedonic motivation, they are more likely to seek a sense

7
of social presence from sculpins than those who have a utilitarian motivation. Therefore, our
hypothesis is stated as follows:
H3: The positive impact of consumer hedonic motivation on the social presence of chatbots is
stronger than the impact of utilitarian motivation on the social presence of chatbots.
-Impact of social presence on usage intention:
Several researchers like Cyr et al. (2007), Hassanein and Head (2007), and Qiu and Benbasat
(2009) indicated that social presence is a key factor in driving usage intentions of various
technologies contexts. Similarly, previous research has shown that social presence is positively
associated with chatbot adoption (Fernandes and Oliveira, 2021; Go and Sundar, 2019; Li and
Mao, 2015; Mc Lean and Frimpong, 2019). For their part, Gnewuch et al. (2022) and Dinh and
Park (2023) specified that social presence increases the intention to use chatbots. Based on
previous research, we propose that:
H4: Social presence has a positive effect on the intention to use a chatbot.
-Impact of the intention to use a chatbot on current usage:
Referring to the marketing literature, researchers like Davis (1989), Sambasivan (2010),
Febrianto et al. (2018), and Alifiardi and Baridwan (2019) specify that the intention of use
influences the actual use of online shopping applications. This led us to propose the following
hypothesis (we propose the following hypothesis) :
H5: The intention to use a chatbot has a positive effect on the current use of this technology
-Moderating effect of the perceived interactivity between the intention to use a chatbot and
actual use:
According to Sundar et al. (2014), perceived interactivity is considered an important determinant
of user engagement and the Behavioral intention to adopt. On the other hand, the presence of a
chatbot tool on a website was considered more attractive than a human cat and is a determinant
of the intention to interact with it. We proposed that perceived interactivity helps strengthen the
relationship between the intention to use a chatbot and its current use. Hence our hypothesis:
H6: Perceived interactivity moderates the relationship between the intention to use a
chatbot and its current use.
V. Research methodology and discussion of results :
1. Research methodology
This empirical section will deal with the impact of the desire to use a chatbot on actual usage
while emphasizing the significance of perceived interaction in the setting of conversational
commerce on a website. The online survey was administered to 218 Tunisian Chatbot users,
55.5% of whom were women and 44.5% of whom were men. This sample is distributed between
several categories of different age groups, 52.3% of which concerns users who are between 30
and 39 years old, 22.9% for users who are between 20 and 29 years old, 19.7% between 40 and

8
45 years old, and 5% are over 50 years old. The questionnaire allowed us to evaluate the
intention to use a chatbot and the factors that can influence this intention such as social presence,
and utilitarian and hedonic motivations the scale of Babin et al. (1994) to measure utilitarian and
hedonic motivation. The scale developed by Gefen and Straub (2004) to measure social
presence. Intention to use a chatbot was measured by the scale of Venkatesh et al. (2012). To
measure actual use of chatbot, we used the scale of Pillai and Sivathanu (2020) and the Kang et
al. (2015). Items of the related scales were scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. In
addition, the results were generated by SPSS 22 software for the exploratory analysis and AMOS
22 for the confirmatory analysis. Finally, we carried out a structural analysis to validate the fit of
the structural model as well as its research hypotheses.
Table 1: Results of principal component analysis
Variables KMO Bartlett Test
2
Motivation 0,902 X =3033,581, ddl=28,p=0,000

Social Presence 0,877 X2=1321 ?748, ddl=6, p=0,000

Intention to use 0,770 X2=777,643, ddl=3, p=0,000

Perceived interactivity 0,911 X2=1731,632, ddl=10, p=0,000
Actual use 0,646 X2=517,053, ddl=3, p=0,000

Table 2: Reliability and validity of measurement scales

Dimensions of variables Cronbach’s alpha Rho of Joreskog Convergent validity
Utilitarian motivation 0,964 0,966 0,904
Hedonic Motivation 0,983 0,983 0,922
Social Presence 0,975 0,977 0,914
Intention to use 0,963 0,964 0,900
Perceived interactivity 0,979 0,920 0,910
Actual use 0,906 0,919 0,792

-The utilitarian and hedonic motivation measurement scale indicates that there is a very good
predisposition of the data to be factorized. Jöreskog's Rho>0.9 which shows that there is very
good internal consistency convergent validity is greater than 0.5. For the confirmatory analysis
of this scale, the adjustment indices are compatible with the critical levels of acceptance (Hair et
al. 1998). GFI: 0.919 RMR: 0.033; RMSEA: 0.132, TLI: 0.965; CFI: 0.978 and χ2 / df=4,789;
BIC: 183,120 Ms 193,842 and CAIC: 201,120 Ms 229,842 .
-For the social presence scale, there is a commendable predisposition of the data to be factorized
and very good internal consistency. The convergent validity (ρvc) >0.5 which respects the
threshold defined by Fornell and Lacker (1981). The results of the confirmatory analysis are
acceptable. GFI: 0.991; AGFI: 0.957; RMR: 0.009; RMSEA: 0.065; TLI: 0.996; CFI:
0.999;χ2/df= 1.916; BIC: 46.908 Ms 53,845 and CAIC: 54,908 Ms 63,845.

9
 -The scale of the intention to use a chatbot shows a good predisposition of the data to be
factored. Similarly, the convergent validity is good (0.9>0.5). Jöreskog's Rho (0.964) indicates
that there is very good internal consistency. GFI: 0.999; AGFI: 0.939; RMR: 0.026 and RMSEA:
0.035. Incremental indices: TLI: 0.996 and CFI: 0.999. Parsimonious indices: χ2/ dl=1,640;
BIC:27,300 Ms 35,320 and CAIC:32,300 Ms 39,520.
-For the perceived interactivity scale, the results of the exploratory analysis show that there is a
very good predisposition of the data to be factorized (KMO=0.911). The confirmatory analysis
of this scale gives us indices of acceptable fit. For the absolute indices: GFI: 0.988; AGFI: 0.956;
RMR: 0.010 and RMSEA: 0.054. The incremental indices: are TLI:0.996 and CFI:0.999.
Parsimonious indices: χ2/ df=1.640; BIC: 65.787 Ms 80.767 and CAIC: 76.787 Ms 95.767.
-The measurement scale for the current use of a chatbot indicates a very good predisposition of
the data to be factored. Convergent validity (0.792 >0.5) is good. Jöreskog's Rho is 0.919 which
means that the internal consistency is very good. The confirmatory analysis of this scale gives us
acceptable fit indices. For absolute indices: GFI: 0.999; AGFI: 0.993; RMR: 0.073; RMSEA:
0.085; TLI: 0.986; CFI: 0.995 ; χ2/df=3,376 ; BIC: 30.298 Ms 32.307 and CAIC: 35.298 Ms
38.307.
-The table mentioned below shows that the fit indices of the global model are acceptable.
Table 3: Fit indices of the overall measurement model
Absolute indices Incremental indices Parsimonious indices
X² GFI AGFI RMR RMSEA TLI CFI X²/ddl BIC CAIC
1812,332 1864,332
1532,338 0,901 0,898 0,087 0,075 0,915 0,927 3,624 Ms Ms
1362,277 1615,277

Table4: Testing the model hypotheses

Hypothesis Links Standardized structural CR P Significativité

link
H1a Intention to use <--- Hedonic 0,025 0,235 0,815 Non
motivation Significative
H1b Intention to use <--- Non
-0,91 -0,848 0,396
Utilitarian motivation Significative
H2a Social Presence <--- Hedonic
0,265 7,048 *** Significative
motivation
H2b Social Presence <--- utilitarian 0,202 5,254 *** Significative
motivation
H3 Intention to use <--- Social 0,541 6,930 *** Significative
Presence
H4 Actual use<--- Intention to 0,409 5,652 Significative
***
use

10
 - Results of hypothesis testing show that the link between motivation (utilitarian-hedonic) and
the intention to use a chatbot is not significant (cr<1.98; p>0.05).
-The rest of the hypotheses H2, H3 and H4 are significant.
Test of the moderating effect of interactivity perceived between intention of use and actual use:
Table 5: Moderation Effect

X: Intention to use
Modération Y: Actual use
W: Perceived interactivity

Direct effects and interaction effect

Regressions Coefficient T value Significance
X Y -0,1100 0,0433 P=-2,5378
W Y 0,875 0,0437 P=20,0529
XW Y -0,1194 0,0415 P=-2,8732

The results of the analysis show that W: Perceived interactivity negatively moderates the
relationship between X: Intention to use and Y: Actual use.
2. Discussion of results:
Compared to the literature, the empirical findings of our study confirm the majority of the
hypotheses compared to the literature. First, regarding the relationship between utilitarian and
hedonic motivation with intention to use a chatbot, we observed that both types of motivation
exert no significant effect on intention to use a chatbot. use which is in contradiction with the
work carried out by Dinh and Park (2022). So for our research, these two types of motivations do
not constitute determinants that push users to adopt the chatbot during a commercial
conversation. Second, we found that the effect between hedonic motivation and social presence
is significant, which is consistent with the work of Deci and Ryan (2014) and Dinh and Park
(2022).
In contrast to Deci and Ryan's (2017) findings, which claim that utilitarian motivation has no
significant effect on social presence, we found that utilitarian motivation significantly affects
social presence. This demonstrates that consumers who feel as though they are having an online
discussion with the chatbot are those who find that adopting a chatbot provides more information
helps in making purchase decisions, suits their needs and expectations, and satisfies their demand
for enjoyment and amusement. Then, the results of their empirical study show that the
relationship between social presence and usage intention is significant and positive, which is
consistent with the research carried out by Qiu and Benbasat (2009), and Mc Lean and Frimpong
(2019) , Gnewuch et al. (2022) and Dinh and Park (2023). We can therefore see that social
presence is a very important factor in driving usage intentions.
In addition, we showed that the intention to use a chatbot has a significant and positive impact on
actual use, which is consistent with the work carried out by Febrianto et al. (2018), Gnewuch et
11
al. (2022) and Sumarjan et al. (2023). Therefore, we can consider that the people who intend to
use the chatbot are those who wish to make actual use of this technology. Finally, we verified the
moderating role of perceived interactivity between the intention to use a chatbot and actual use.
This is negative moderation. This can be explained by the fact that when the link between the
intention of use and actual use is strong and significant, the perceived interactivity is strong.
However, if the link between usage intention and actual use is not significant, perceived
interactivity is weak.
Conclusion:
Through our research, we were able to determine how a chatbot's intended usage affects its
actual use. The application of this technology in the context of conversational commerce is our
theoretical contribution. Referring to the literature, there are gaps regarding the treatment of this
relationship in this area of study. Furthermore, highlighting the role of perceived interactivity
constitutes an important contribution to our research. Indeed, we have enriched the literature by
specifying the moderating role of perceived interactivity between the intention to use a chatbot
and its actual use. At the end of the results of our research, we can put forward practical
recommendations intended for marketers on the importance of integrating artificial intelligence
into the company. This technology simplifies several complicated tasks and saves businesses a
lot of money and time. In addition, the introduction of artificial intelligence in digital marketing
connects companies with potential customers. This improves customer understanding and helps
organizations develop products and services to meet customer needs. Like any research, this
present work is not without limitations. The first limitation concerns the number of samples
which turns out to be too small compared to our study. We have also limited our research in the
field of conversational commerce while it is possible to broaden our field of study in other areas.
As future avenues of research, we propose to introduce moderator-mediator variables to enrich
the conceptual model such as trust in the chatbot, reactivity, perceived expertise, etc. It would
also be relevant to test our theoretical model on a larger sample of users.
References:
Adjei, M. T., Noble, S.M., & Noble. C . H 2010. “The influence of C2C communications in
online brand communities on customer purchase behavior”. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science,38,5,634–653.
Ajzen, I. (1985). “From Intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior”. In J. Kuhl, & J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Spinger-Verlag
Ajzen, I. (1991). “ The theory of planned behavior”. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50,2, 179–211.
Alifiardi, A. A., & Baridwan, Z. (2019). “ The Influence of Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use,
Trust, and Risk Towards Gojek Actual Use with Behavioral Intention to Use as Intervening
Variable”. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa FEB, 7,2, 1–21.

12
Andy, R. Dewi, A. &t As'adi, M. (2021). “An Empirical Study to Validate The Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) In Evaluating "Desa Digital" Applications”, Workshop on
Environmental Science, Society, and Technology,1-9.
Araujo, T. (2018). “Living up to the Chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design
cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions”.
Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183–189.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Grifn, M. (1994). “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”. Journal of Consumer Research, 20,4, 644–656.
Bae, M. (2018). “Understanding the effect of the discrepancy between sought and obtained
gratification on social networking site users' satisfaction and continuance intention”, Computers
in human behavior 79, 137-153.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). “Toward a more robust theory and measure of
social presence: review and suggested criteria”. Presence Teleoperators and Virtu.
Environments. 12, 456–480.

Bjorkli, C . , Folstad, A., & Bertinussen, C. (2019), “An Initial Model of Trust in Chatbots for
Customer Service – Findings from a Questionnaire Study”, Interacting with Computers,1-47.
Blattberg, R. C. & Deighton J.,(1991). “Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of
Addressability”, Sloan Management Review, 33, 1.5-14.
Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). “ The locus of choice: Personal causality and satisfaction with
hedonic and utilitarian decisions”. Journal of Consumer Research, 37,6, 1065–1078.
Butler, J. K. (1991). “Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of
conditions of trust inventory”. Journal of Management, 17,3, 643–663.
Crolic, C., Felipe, T., Rhonda, H., & Andrew, S. (2021). “Blame the bot: Anthropomorphism and
anger in customer-chatbot interactions”. Journal of Marketing, 86,1, 132–148.
Cyr D, Hassanein K, Head M, & Ivanov A (2007). “The role of social presence in establishing
loyalty in e-service environments”. Interaction Computer, 19,43–56.
Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2020). “Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction
regarding luxury brands”, Journal of Business Research, 117, 587–595
Cheng, Y., & Jiang, H. (2020). “How do AI-driven chatbots impact user experience? Examining
gratifications, perceived privacy risk, satisfaction, loyalty, and continued use”. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64,4, 592–614.
Chen, Y., Prentice, C ., Weaven,. S & Hisao, A (2022). “The influence of customer trust and
artificial intelligence on customer engagement and loyalty: The case of the home-sharing
industry”, Frontiers in Psychology,1-15.

13
Chhikara, D., Sharma, R., & Kaushik, K. (2022). “ Indian E-Commerce Consumer and their
Acceptance Towards Chatbots”. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 26, 1-10.
Cosmo, L.M, Piper, L., & Di Vittorio.A. (2021). “The rôle of attitude toward chatbots
and privacy concern on the relationship between attitude toward mobile advertising
and behavioral intent to use chatbots”, Italian Journal of Marketing, 83-102.
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). “On-line trust: Concepts, evolving
themes, a model”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58,6, 737–758.
Cruzado,J.G .,Morales,C.M. , Del Carpio,C.F., GoyCochea,J.L., Arévalo,A.A & Vargas, C.R
(2023), “Use of chatbots in e-commerce”, A comprehensive systematic review,101,4,1172-1183.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). “ User Acceptance of Computer
Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models”, Management Science,35, 8 982-1003.
Davis, F.D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.
Deighton J., & Sorell M.,(1996). “ The future of interactive marketing ”, Harvard Business
Review, 74, 6, 151-160.
Deighton, J. (1996). “The future of Interactive marketing”. Harvard Business Review, 74, 6, 151-
152.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985).“Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior”. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). “The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior”. Psychological Inquiry, 11,4, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). “Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships:
Relationships motivation theory”. In N. Weinstein (Ed.), Human motivation and interpersonal
relationships: Theory, research, and applications. Cham: Springer, 53-73.
De Cicco, R., Silva, S. C., & Alparone, F. R. (2020). “ Millennials’ attitude toward Chatbots: an
experimental study in a social relationship perspective”. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 48,11, 1213–1233.
Dellaert, B. G. C., &. Stremersch. S (2005). “Marketing mass-customized products: Striking a
balance between utility and complexity”. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 2,219–227.
Diederich, S., Brendel, A. B., & Kolbe, L. M. (2020). “Designing anthropomorphic enterprise
conversational agents”. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 62, 193–209.
Dinh, C.M & Park, S.S (2022), “How to increase consumer intention to use Chatbots? An
empirical analysis of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on social presence and the moderating
effects of fear across generations”, Electronic Commerce Research,1-41.

14
Dixon, M., Freeman, K., & Toman, N. (2010). “Stop trying to delight your customers”. Harvard
Business Review, 88,7, 116–122.
Dubey, R., & Gunasekaran,A., Childe., SJ., Bryde., DJ., Giannakis,, M.,Foropon, C.,Roubaud.,
David Benjamin ., H.T.(2020). “Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to
operational performance under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental
dynamism: A study of manufacturing organizations”, International Journal of Production
Economics,226.
Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). “The elements of computer credibility. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems”. New York, NY: ACM. 80-87.
Feine, J., Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., & Maedche, A. (2019). “A taxonomy of social cues for
conversational agents”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 132, 138–161.
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). “Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to
young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational
agent (Woebot): A randomized controlled trial”. JMIR Mental Health, 4,2, 7785
Fernandes, T., & Oliveira, E. (2021). “Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated
technologies in service encounters: Drivers of digital voice assistants adoption”. Journal of
Business Research, 122, 180–191.
Febrianto, G., Hidayatullah, S., & Ardianto,Y.T (2018). “The Effect of Intention to Usage to
Actual Usage E-Purchasing Application”, International Journal Of Scientific and Engineering
Research, 9, 12, 363-370.
Gartner. (2019). “6 technologies on the Gartner hype cycle for digital marketing and
advertising”. https://www.gartner.com/en/marke ting/insights/articles/6-technologies-on-gartner-
hype-cycle-fordigital-marketingand-advertising-2019.
Gefen, D & Straub, D. W (2004). “Consumer trust in B2C eCommerce and the importance of
social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services”, Omega, 32, 6, 407– 424.
Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., & Maedche, A. (2017). “Towards designing cooperative and social
agents for customer service”. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information
Systems (ICIS). Seoul.
Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., Adam, M. T. P., & Maedche, A. (2022). “Opposing Effects of
Response Time in Human–Chatbot Interaction”. Business and Information Systems Engineering.
Go, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2019). “Humanising chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and
conversational cues on humanness perceptions”. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 304–316.
Gonzalez, SM., Gidumal, G . B. & Tano, D.G (2019), “ Predicting the intentions to use chatbots
for travel and tourism”, Current Issues in Tourism,24, 2,192-210.
Han, M.C., & Kim, Y. (2020), “Commerce chatbot: Hype or Revolution”, Pan Pacific Journal of
Business Research, 11,2,30-45.

15
Han, M. C. (2021). “The impact of anthropomorphism on consumers’ purchase decision in
chatbot commerce”. Journal of Internet Commerce, 20,1, 46–65.
Hassanein K, &Head M (2007). “ Manipulating perceived social presence through the web
interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping”. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 65,689–708.
Huang, M.H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). “ A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in
marketing”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49,1, 30–50.
Kang, L., Wang, X ., Hoo Tan, C., &et Zhao, L. (2015), “ Understanding the Antecedents and
Consequences of Live Chat Use in Electronic Markets”, Journal of Organizational Computing
and Electronic Commerce, 25,2, 117-139.
Kilteni, K., Groten, R., et Slater, M. (2012), “The sense of embodiment in virtual reality,
Presence teleoperators, and virtual environments”,21,4,374-385.
Kim, K.J (2016). “ Interacting socially with the Internet of Things (IoT): effects of source
attribution and specialization in human-IoT interaction”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 21, 6, 420–435.
Kramer, N. C., Bente, G., Eschenburg, F., & Troitzsch, H. (2009). “Embodied conversational
agents”, Social Psychology, 40,1, 26–36.,
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Venkatesan, R., & Lecinski, J. (2019). “ Understanding the role of
artificial intelligence in personalized engagement marketing”, California Management Review,
61,4, 135–155.
Kuo, P.-H., et al. (2021). “Multi-sensor context-aware based chatbot model: An application of
humanoid companion robot ”, Sensors, 21,15, 5132.
Lee, S. M., & Lee, D. (2020). “Untact: a new customer service strategy in the digital age”.
Service Business, 14, 1–22.
Leszkiewicz,A, Hormann,T & Krafft, M (2021). “ Smart business and the social value of AI".
Smart Business and Better Management.
Lean,M..C. G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). “ Hey, Alexa examine the variables influencing the
use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants”. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 28–37.
Lee, K .M & Nass, C. (2004). “The multiple source effect and synthesized speech: doubly-
disembodied language as a conceptual framework”, Human Communication Research, 30, 2, pp.
182–207.
Lee, Y.-C., Yamashita, N., & Huang, Y. (2020). “ Designing a chatbot as a mediator for
promoting deep self-disclosure to a real mental health professional”, Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction, 4,1–27.

16
Li, M., & Mao, J. (2015). “ Hedonic or utilitarian? Exploring the impact of communication style
alignment on user’s perception of virtual health advisory services”. International Journal of
Information Management, 35,2, 229–243.
Ling, E. C., Tussyadiah, I., Tuomi, A., Stienmetz, J., & Ioannou, A. (2021). “Factors influencing
users' adoption and use of conversational agents: a systematic review”. Psychology and
Marketing
Lu, J.B., Fan, W., & Zhou, M. (2016). “Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase
intention: An empirical research,” Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 225–237.
Matteson, M. L., Salamon.J., &. Brewster, L. (2011). “A systematic review of research on live
chat service”, Reference and User Services Quarterly, 51,2,172–189.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). “An integrative model of organizational
trust”. The Academy of Management Review, 20,3, 709–734.
McTear, M., Callejas, Z., & Griol, D. (2016). “ The conversational interface: Talking to smart
devices”. In The Conversational Interface ( 283–308). Springer
Messina, C. (2015). “Conversational commerce”. Retrieved from https://medium.com/ chris-
messina/conversational-commerce-92e0bccfc3f.
Micu,A.,Capatina, A., Eliza Micu,A . (2018). “Exploring Artificial Intelligence Techniques’
Applicability in Social Media Marketing”, Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and
Management,156-165.
Mimoun, M. S. B., & Poncin, I. (2015). “ A valued agent: How ECAs affect website customers'
satisfaction and behaviors”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 70–82.
Misischia, C.V., Poecze, F., Strauss, C. (2022), “Chatbots in customer service: Their relevance
and impact on service quality”, The 13th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Network
and Technologies,421-428.
Mittal, U., & Sharma, M. (2021). “Artificial Intelligence and its Application in Different Areas
of Indian Economy”. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication
and Technology, 160–163.
Moon, J.H., Kim, E., Choi, S.M & Sung, Y (2013), “ Keep the Social in Social Media: The Role
of Social Interaction in Avatar-Based Virtual Shopping”, Journal of Interactive
Advertising,13,1,14-26.
Moriuchi, E. (2019), “Okay, Google !: "An empirical study on voice assistants on consumer
engagement and loyalty”, Psychology and Marketing,36,2,1-13.
Nilsson, N. J. (2005). “Human-Level Artificial Intelligence? Be Serious! ”. AI Magazine, 26,4,
68.

17
Pangkey, F.M, Furkan, L.M., Herman, L.E & Agusdin, A (2020). “Exploring the impact of
Artificial intelligence and digital marketing on intention to use online transportation: a lesson
learned from Indonesian Millenials”, Research square,1-9.
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017), “Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents and
consequences ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45,3, 294-311.
Pillai, R. & Sivathanu, B. (2020), “Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) for talent acquisition
in IT/ITeS organizations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,27,9, 2599-2629.
Pitardi, V., & Marriott, H. R. (2021). “Alexa, she's not human but Unveiling the drivers of
consumers' trust in voice-based artificial intelligence”. Psychology and Marketing, 38,4, 626–
642.
Qiu L, & Benbasat I (2009). “Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: a
social relationship perspective to designing information systems”. Journal of Management
Information System, 25,145–182.

Rapp,A., Curti,L & Bold, A.(2021). “The human side of human-chatbot interaction:
A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots”, International

Journal of Human-Computer,Studies,151,3,102630.

Reavie, V. (2018). “Do you know the difference between data analytics and AI machine
learning? Forbes”, Retrieved from https://www.
forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/08/01/do-you-knowthe-diference-between-data-
analytics-and-ai-machine-learning/# 5c50edac5878.

Rigopoulos, G., & Askounis, D.( 2007). “A TAM Framework to Evaluate User’s Perception
Toward Online Electronic Payments”. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce. 12

Russell, S. & Norvig, P. (2010). “Intelligence artificielle: une approche moderne”. 3éme édition,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). “Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness”. Guilford: Guilford Publications.

Sambasivan, M., Wemyss, G. P., & Rose, R. C. (2010). “ User acceptance of a G2B system: a
case of the electronic procurement system in Malaysia”. Internet Research, 20,2, 169–187.
Santiago, Melián-González et al. (2019). “Predicting the intentions to use chatbots for travel and
tourism ”. Current Issues in Tourism,24,2, 192-210.

18
Shaf, P. M., Jawalkar, G. S., Kadam, M. A., Ambawale, R. R., & Bankar, S. V. (2020). “AI—
assisted Chatbot for e-commerce to address selection of products from multiple products”.
Internet of Things, Smart Computing and Technology: A Roadmap Ahead, 57–80.
Sheehan, B., Jin, H. S., & Gottlieb, U. (2020). “ Customer service chatbots: Anthropomorphism
and adoption”. Journal of Business Research, 115, 14–24.
Shopify. (2016). “ Conversational Commerce Definition - What is Conversational Commerce”.
Retrieved from https://www.shopify.com/encyclopedia/conversationalcommerce
Sidlauskiene, J., Joye,Y . & Auruskeviciene, V. (2023), “ AI-based chatbots in conversational
commerce and their effects on product and price perceptions”, Electronic Markets, 2-21.
Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020). “ Chatbots for learning: A review of educational
Chatbots for Facebook Messenger”. Computers and Education, 151, 103862
Steuer, J.S. (1992). “ Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence”, Journal
of Communication, Fall 1992,42,4, 21-73.
Sterne, J. (2017). “Artificial intelligence for marketing: Practical applications”. Wiley.
Sumarjan,N.,Mazlan ,N ,Saiful Azmi,N.S , Kamaruddin,M.A et Salleh, A (2023), “The Usage
Intention of Chatbot Technology in Hospitality and Tourism Industry: Customers’ Perspective”,
Journal of Tourism Hospitality and Culinary,15,1,206-224.
Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). “Explicating web site interactivity:
Impression formation effects in political campaign sites”. Communication Research, 30,1, 30–
59.
Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H.-S. (2014). “Theoretical Importance of
Contingency in Human-Computer Interaction”. Communication Research, 43,595– 625.
Thilagavathy, N., & Kumar, K. (2021). “ Artificial Intelligence on Digital Marketing- An
overview", Nat. Volatiles & Essent. Oils,8,5, 9895-9908
Tran, A.D., Pallant, J., &Johnson, L.W (2021), “ Exploring the impact of chatbots on consumer
sentiment and expectations in retail”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,63,2,102718.

Truong, D. (2008). “An empirical study of business-to-business electronic marketplace usage:

The impact of buyers’ e-readiness”. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce, 18,2,112–130.
Van Manen, T. (2016). “Bot or not: dit is waarom Facebook inzet op chatbots |Marketingfacts”
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.marketingfacts.nl/ berichten/chatbots-facebook-
inzet-chatbots- messenger
Van Eeuwen, M (2017). “Mobile conversational commerce: messenger chatbots as the text
interface between business and consumer”, Business Camputer Science,pp.1-15.

19
 Venkatesh,V., et Davis, F.D (1996). “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use:
Development and Test”, A Journal of the Decision Science Institute,27,3,451-481.
Vimal Kumar, M., Sharma, S. K., Singh, J. B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). “ Okay Google, what
about my privacy?': User's privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice-based digital assistants”.
Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106763.
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). “ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language
communication between man and machine”. Communications of the ACM, 9,1, 36–45.
Whitley, S. C., Trudel, R., & Kurt, D. (2018). “The influence of purchase motivation on
perceived preference uniqueness and assortment size choice”. Journal of Consumer Research,
45,4, 710–724.
Yang, Y., & Siau, K.L. (2018). “A qualitative research on marketing and sales in the artificial
intelligence age”. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth Midwest Association for Information Systems
Conference. Saint Louis, Missouri.
Zouinar,M . (2020), “Developments in Artificial Intelligence: what are the challenges for human
activity and the Human Machine relationship to work”, Activities, 17, 1, 1-39.

Author biography 1:
Habiba Ben Ameur holds a doctorate in marketing from the Faculty of Economics and
Management of Tunis el Manar. The theme of his thesis focuses on the impact of consumer
empowerment on purchasing intention in an online brand community. She is currently a
temporary assistant at LBS (Law and Business School). His research focuses on consumer
empowerment,online brand communities, online purchase intention,online brand experience,
online trust and satisfaction. His article are published in several journals such as the journal of
advertising and marketing communication, International Journal of Business and psychology and
International review of Management and Marketing.

Author biography 2:
Kaouther Saied Ben Rached is currently a professor rat the Faculty of Economics and
Management of Tunis, since November 2009. She is director of the doctoral School of FSEG
Tunisia and of the research laboratory "Business and Research in Marketing" (ERMA). Ms. Ben
Rached has several communications and she has participated in several national and international
conferences. She supervised several theses in management sciences at the University of Tunis el
Manar and under co-supervision. In addition, she has supervised more than a hundred master’s
theses in Management Sciences.

20

View publication stats