Hey Alexa! A Magic Spell of Social Glue?: Sharing a Smart Voice Assistant Speaker and Its Impact on Users’ Perception of Group Harmony

Abstract

Unlike most other computing devices that are known to isolate their users, Smart Voice Assistant Speaker (SVAS) appears to improve the perception of social cohesion (i.e., Group Harmony) among its co-users. We hypothesize that the social cues emanated from the continued, and habituated, use of SVAS develop the “illusion of intimacy” which, in turn, ripples through the entire group, and help fulfill the need for social integration. The data collected from 218 families support this hypothesis. We argue that just as a puppy dog contributes to a happy family, so does the SVAS contributes to the social dynamics by making the users unconsciously fulfill their psychological needs and by increasing actual conversations among its users. Incidentally, the study compared the relative influence of three factors (the beta weight of “Hedonic Motivation” being the highest, followed by “Compatibility,” and then “Perceived Security”) that, as a whole, explain over 60% of the variance in Satisfaction of post-adoption SVAS use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Defined as a computational artifact designed to establish social-emotional relationships with its user (Bickmore and Picard 2005)

  2. 2.

    Under this definition, therefore, SVAS does not include the non-stand-alone voice-activated assistant software such as Siri, Cortana, or Google Assistant.

  3. 3.

    Chartrand and Lakin name it as verbal mimicry and categorize it along with the chameleon effect under a broader phenomenon called “social contagion” which encompasses emotional contagion, attitudinal contagion, and goal contagion (See Chartrand and Lakin 2013, p. 297). The ripple effect (Barsade 2002), we discuss in the next section, also can be categorized as a social contagion in a broader sense.

  4. 4.

    In consumer psychology literature, products that emphasize the necessary and functional benefits (e.g., telephone, microwaves) are referred to as utilitarian products, whereas the products that emphasize the pleasure-oriented and experiential benefits (e.g., sports cars, designer clothes) are referred to as hedonic products (Chernev 2004; Chitturi et al. 2008; Crowe and Higgins 1997). While most products have both benefits, a product is classified either as hedonic or utilitarian product depending on the relative salience of hedonic or utilitarian attributes. It is argued that in determining post-consumption value, consumers tend to rely more on the product attribute (i.e., utilitarian vs. hedonic) that better matches the goal orientation facilitated by the context of its use (Chernev 2004). Thus, in the context of pursuing a prevention goal (seeking an “ought goal,” that minimizes the negative outcomes), consumers rely more on utilitarian attributes, whereas in the context of pursuing a promotion goal (seeking an “ideal goal,” that maximizes the positive outcomes), consumers rely more on hedonic attributes in evaluating a product (Chernev 2004).

  5. 5.

    Voicebot Voice Shopping US consumer Adoption and Attitude 2018 Report; retrieved from the web on June 5, 2018, from https://voicebot.ai/2018/06/03/u-s-smart-speaker-market-share-apple-debuts-at-4-1-amazon-falls-10-points-and-google-rises/

References

  1. Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1355–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adendorff, C., Venter, E., & Boshoff, C. (2008). The impact of family harmony on governance practices in South African Greek family businesses. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, 17(3), 28–44.

  3. Alpay, G., Bodur, M., Yılmaz, C., Çetinkaya, S., & Arıkan, L. (2008). Performance implications of institutionalization process in family-owned businesses: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of World Business, 43(4), 435–448.

  4. Amoroso, D., & Lim, R. (2017). The mediating effects of habit on continuance intention. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 693–702. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.05.003].

  5. Arpaci, I., Kilicer, K., & Bardakci, S. (2015). Effects of security and privacy concerns on educational use of cloud services. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644–656.

  8. Bajpai, N. (2018). Worldwide smart speaker market: Installed base to hit 100 million in 2018. https://dazeinfo.com/2018/07/11/smart-speaker-installed-base-2018/. Accessed 11 July 2018.

  9. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall https://books.google.com/books?id=mjpbjgEACAAJ.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. Unintended Thought, 3, 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644. ADM [https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912].

  12. Beehr, T. A., Drexler Jr., J. A., & Faulkner, S. (1997). Working in small family businesses: Empirical comparisons to non-family businesses. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(3), 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351. ADM [https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921].

  14. Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 12(2), 293–327.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Buswell, L., Zabriskie, R. B., Lundberg, N., & Hawkins, A. J. (2012). The relationship between father involvement in family leisure and family functioning: The importance of daily family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 34(2), 172–190.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social integration. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cain, A. (2017). The life and death of Microsoft Clippy, the paper clip the world loved to hate. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-life-death-microsoft-clippy-paper-clip-loved-hate. Accessed 21 Aug 2019.

  20. Chae, M., Kim, J., Kim, H., & Ryu, H. (2002). Information quality for mobile internet services: A theoretical model with empirical validation. Electronic Markets, 12(1), 38–46. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1080/101967802753433254].

  21. Chambers, D. (2012). ‘Wii play as a family’: The rise in family-centred video gaming. Leisure Studies, 31(1), 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chang, H. H., & Chen, S. W. (2009). Consumer perception of interface quality, security, and loyalty in electronic commerce. Information & Management, 46(7), 411–417.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chen, C. C., Ünal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the workplace: Conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4), 903–934.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng, T. E., Lam, D. Y., & Yeung, A. C. (2006). Adoption of internet banking: an empirical study in Hong Kong. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1558–1572.

  27. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal–attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 141–150.

  28. Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1237–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of marketing, 72(3), 48–63.

  30. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Coskun-Setirek, A., & Mardikyan, S. (2017). Understanding the adoption of voice activated personal assistants. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications (IJESMA), 9(3), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Stockdale, L., & Day, R. D. (2011). Game on… girls: Associations between co-playing video games and adolescent behavioral and family outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(2), 160–165.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117–132.

  34. Damaševičius, R., Woźniak, M., Alarcon-Aquino, V., Ganchev, I., & Wei, W. (2018). Advances in security and privacy of multimodal interfaces J. UCS special issue. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(4), 338–340.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. ADM [https://doi.org/10.2307/249008].

  36. Dickson, B. (2018). Beware the privacy and security risks of smart speakers. https://bdtechtalks.com/2018/06/05/google-home-amazon-echo-privacy-security-risks/. Accessed 1 July 2018.

  37. Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior across cultures. Oxford University Press on Demand.

  38. Easwara Moorthy, A., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2015). Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(4), 307–335.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Feng, H., Fawaz, K., & Shin, K. G. (2017). Continuous authentication for voice assistants. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (pp. 343–355). ACM.

  41. Forlizzi, J., & DiSalvo, C. (2006). Service robots in the domestic environment: A study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 258–265). ACM.

  42. Gallivan, M. J., Spitler, V. K., & Koufaris, M. (2005). Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ influence on IT usage in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 153–192.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gebhart, A. (2017). Google Home gets an edge on Alexa with multi-user support. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-home-gets-an-edge-on-alexa-with-multi-user-support/. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

  44. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012). Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Quarterly, 981–1001.

  46. Gupta, A., Deokar, A., Iyer, L., Sharda, R., & Schrader, D. (2018). Big data & analytics for societal impact: Recent research and trends. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(2), 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Halvorson, H. G., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Focus: Use different ways of seeing the world for success and influence. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Han, S., & Yang, H. (2018). Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A parasocial relationship perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(3), 618–636.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. Psychology Press.

  51. Holmquist, L. E. (2000). Breaking the screen barrier. rapport nr.: Gothenburg Studies in Informatics, 16.

  52. Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hoy, M. B. (2018). Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: An introduction to voice assistants. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 37(1), 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hsiao, C. H., Chang, J. J., & Tang, K. Y. (2016). Exploring the influential factors in continuance usage of mobile social apps: Satisfaction, habit, and customer value perspectives. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 342–355. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.014].

  55. Idemudia, E. C., Raisinghani, M. S., & Samuel-Ojo, O. (2018). The contributing factors of continuance usage of social media: An empirical analysis. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(6), 1267–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Igbaria, M., & Tan, M. (1997). The consequences of information technology acceptance\ron subsequent individual performance. Information and Management, 32(3), 113–121 Igbaria_IM97.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Jennings, N. A., & Wartella, E. (2013). Digital technology and families. In The Routledge handbook of family communication (pp. 448–462).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jolley, B., Mizerski, R., & Olaru, D. (2006). How habit and satisfaction affects player retention for online gambling. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 770–777.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jung, M., & Hinds, P. (2018). Robots in the wild: A time for more robust theories of human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 7(1), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kääriä, A. (2017). Technology acceptance of voice assistants: Anthropomorphism as factor. University of Jyväskylä, pp. 1–61

  61. Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 781–804.

  62. Kim, S. S., & Malhotra, N. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management Science, 51(5), 741–755. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0326].

  63. Kim, S. S., Malhotra, N. K., & Narasimhan, S. (2005). Two competing perspectives on automatic use: A theoretical and empirical comparison. Information Systems Research, 16(4), 418–432. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0070].

  64. Kim, C., Jahng, J., & Lee, J. (2007). An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information technology success model: Integrating task-performance and social influence perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 22(2), 152–160.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kim, Y., Kim, D., & Wachter, K. (2013). A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN): Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement intention. Decision Support Systems, 56(1), 361–370. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.002].

  66. Kinsella, B. (2018). Amazon Alexa skill count surpasses 30,000 in the U.S. https://voicebot.ai/2018/03/22/amazon-alexa-skill-count-surpasses-30000-u-s/. Accessed 11 July 2018.

  67. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. ADM [https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101].

  68. Krishnaraju, V., Mathew, S. K., & Sugumaran, V. (2016). Web personalization for user acceptance of technology: An empirical investigation of E-government services. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(3), 579–595.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kulesza, W., Dolinski, D., Huisman, A., & Majewski, R. (2014). The echo effect: The power of verbal mimicry to influence prosocial behavior. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 183–201.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lai, T. L. (2004). Service quality and perceived value’s impact on satisfaction, intention and usage of short message service (SMS). Information Systems Frontiers, 6(4), 353–368.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(3), 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lallmahamood, M. (2007). An examination of individual’s perceived security and privacy of the internet in Malaysia and the influence of this on their intention to use e-commerce: Using an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(3), 1–26.

  73. Langer, E. J. (1992). Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 1(3), 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lankton, N. K., Wilson, E. V., & Mao, E. (2010). Antecedents and determinants of information technology habit. Information & Management, 47(5–6), 300–307.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lee, N., & Kwon, O. (2013). Para-social relationships and continuous use of mobile devices. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 11(5), 465. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmc.2013.056956].

  76. LeFebvre, R. (2017). Amazon’s Alexa can recognize the voices of multiple users. https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/11/amazon-alexa-multiple-users/. Accessed 20 May 2018.

  77. Lei, X., Tu, G.-H., Liu, A. X., Li, C.-Y., & Xie, T. (2017). The insecurity of home digital voice assistants-Amazon Alexa as a case study. arXiv preprint, arXiv, 1712.03327.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Leonard-Barton, D., & Sinha, D. K. (1993). Developer-user interaction and user satisfaction in internal technology transfer. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1125–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 201–220.

  80. Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). The work–family research agenda in changing contexts. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 382.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 657–678.

  82. Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2011). Predicting the continued use of Internet-based learning technologies: The role of habit. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(1), 91–99. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.490956].

  83. Limayem, M., & Hirt, S. G. (2003). Force of habit and information systems usage: Theory and initial validation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Lopatovska, I., Rink, K., Knight, I., Raines, K., Cosenza, K., Williams, H., et al. (2018). Talk to me: Exploring user interactions with the Amazon Alexa. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618759414.

  86. López, G., Quesada, L., & Guerrero, L. A. (2018). Alexa vs. Siri vs. Cortana vs. Google assistant: A comparison of speech-based natural user interfaces. In Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 592, pp. 241–250). Springer. ADM {ADM [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60366-7_23]}.

  87. Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016). “Like having a really bad PA”: The Gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’16, 5286–5297. ADM {ADM [https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858288]}.

  88. Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. (2006). Achieving relationship harmony in groups and its consequence for group performance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 195–202.

  89. Mallat, N., Tuunainen, V., & Wittkowski, K. (2017). Voice activated personal assistants–consumer use contexts and usage behavior.

  90. Martelaro, N., Nneji, V. C., Ju, W., & Hinds, P. (2016). Tell me more: Designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. The Eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 181–188). IEEE Press.

  91. Martin, T. (2018). 34 Alexa tips and tricks. https://www.cnet.com/how-to/amazon-echo-alexa-tips/. Accessed 7 Nov 2018.

  92. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  93. McConnell, J. (2017). Are smart speakers spying on you? Privacy and security fears rise as devices’ popularity grows. https://business.financialpost.com/technology/personal-tech/are-smart-speakers-spying-on-you-privacy-security-fears-grow-as-devices-get-more-popular. Accessed 1 July 2018.

  94. McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85.

    Google Scholar 

  95. McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda. Sage Publications, Inc.

  96. Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family relations and the Internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. The Journal of Family Communication, 6(2), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Moore, G. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3),192–222.

  98. Morrison, M., & Krugman, D. M. (2001). A look at mass and computer mediated technologies: Understanding the roles of television and computers in the home. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(1), 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems – CHI ’94, 204. ADM {ADM [https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288]}.

  102. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1093–1109.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G., & Campos, F. (2016). Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 61(2016), 404–414. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030].

  104. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 460–469.

  105. Oliver, R. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(December 1993), 418–430. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1086/209358].

  106. Oliver, R. L., & Linda, G. (1981). Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on consumer preference and intention.in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, eds. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Abor, MI : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 88–93.

  107. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high-speed family connection: Associations between family media use and family connection. Family Relations, 61(3), 426–440.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Pearl, C. (2016). Designing voice user interfaces: Principles of conversational experiences. Beijing: O’Reilly Media, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Perez, S. (TechChrunch). (2018). 47.3 million U.S. adults have access to a smart speaker, report says | TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/07/47-3-million-u-s-adults-have-access-to-a-smart-speaker-report-says/. Accessed 7 Mar 2018.

  111. Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 36, 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Polyakov, E. V., Mazhanov, M. S., Rolich, A. Y., Voskov, L. S., Kachalova, M. V, & Polyakov, S. V. (2018). Investigation and development of the intelligent voice assistant for the Internet of Things using machine learning. Electronic and Networking Technologies (MWENT), 2018 Moscow Workshop on (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

  113. Purington, A., Taft, J. G., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N. N., & Taylor, S. H. (2017). Alexa is my new BFF: Social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2853–2859). ACM.

  114. Rea, D. J., & Young, J. E. (2019). Backseat Teleoperator: Affective feedback with on-screen agents to influence teleoperation. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 19–28). IEEE.

  115. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  116. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly (MISQ), 36(1), iii.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., Rideout, V. J., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids and media at the new millenium: A comprehensive national analysis of children’s media use. Menlo Park: Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, 12

  119. Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Sacks, E. (2018). Alexa privacy fail highlights risks of smart speakers. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/alexa-privacy-fail-highlights-risks-smart-speakers-n877671. Accessed 1 July 2018.

  121. Scheutz, M., Schermerhorn, P., Kramer, J., & Middendorff, C. (2006). The utility of affect expression in natural language interactions in joint human-robot tasks. In ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Human-Robot Interaction: Proceeding of the 1 st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 226–233).

  122. Siegel, J. M. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The moderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1081.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Siegel, J. M., Angulo, F. J., Detels, R., Wesch, J., & Mullen, A. (1999). AIDS diagnosis and depression in the multicenter AIDS cohort study: The ameliorating impact of pet ownership. AIDS Care, 11(2), 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Strohkorb Sebo, S., Traeger, M., Jung, M., & Scassellati, B. (2018). The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot’s vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 178–186). ACM.

  125. Sung, J.-Y., Guo, L., Grinter, R. E., & Christensen, H. I. (2007). “My Roomba is Rambo”: Intimate home appliances. Intimate home appliances. In International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 145–162). Springer.

  126. Tam, C., Santos, D., & Oliveira, T. (2018). Exploring the influential factors of continuance intention to use mobile apps: Extending the expectation confirmation model. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–15.

  127. Thong, J. Y., Hong, S. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 799–810.

  128. Thorngate, W. (1976). Must we always think before we act? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(1), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Turkle, S. (2007). Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 501–517.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. London: Hachette UK.

  132. Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D., & Dasté, O. (2006). Relational artifacts with children and elders: The complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347–361.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Turner, J. R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predictors of parasocial interaction with different television performers. Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 443–453. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369904].

  134. Turner, P. (2017). A psychology of user experience: Involvement, affect and aesthetics. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Valcour, P. M., & Hunter, L. W. (2005). Technology, organizations, and work-life integration. In Work and life integration (pp. 76–98). Psychology Press

  136. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36, 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Venter, E., Van der Merwe, S., & Farrington, S. (2012). The impact of selected stakeholders on family business continuity and family harmony. Southern African Business Review, 16(2), 69–96.

  138. Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology, 10(1), 101–134.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Vijayasarathy, L. R. (2004). Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 41(6), 747–762.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Yoo, H., Kwon, O., & Lee, N. (2016). Human likeness: Cognitive and affective factors affecting adoption of robot-assisted learning systems. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 22(3), 169–188. ADM [https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2016.1152312].

  141. Zhang, N., Mi, X., Feng, X., Wang, X., Tian, Y., & Qian, F. (2018). Understanding and mitigating the security risks of voice-controlled third-party skills on Amazon Alexa and Google home. arXiv preprint, arXiv, 1805.01525.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kiljae Lee.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Constructs and Instruments

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, K., Lee, K.Y. & Sheehan, L. Hey Alexa! A Magic Spell of Social Glue?: Sharing a Smart Voice Assistant Speaker and Its Impact on Users’ Perception of Group Harmony. Inf Syst Front 22, 563–583 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09975-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • CASA
  • Group harmony
  • Echo effect
  • Parasocial relationship
  • Ripple effect
  • Habit