IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v24y2013i3p861-876.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Note —A Contingency Approach to Investigating the Effects of User-System Interaction Modes of Online Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Weiquan Wang

    (Department of Information Systems, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China)

  • Izak Benbasat

    (Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada)

Abstract

Interactive online decision aids often employ user-decision aid dialogues as forms of user-system interaction to help construct and elicit users' attribute preferences about a product type. This study extends prior research on online decision aids by investigating the effects of a decision aid's user-system interaction mode (USIM), which can be either user-guided or system-controlled, on users' effort-related (number of iterations of using the aid and perceived cognitive effort expended in using it) and quality-related (perceived quality of the aid and acceptance of the product advice it provides) assessments. A contingency approach with two moderating factors is employed. One factor is the decision strategy (additive-compensatory or elimination) employed by the aid, and the other is the users' product knowledge (high or low).A laboratory experiment was conducted to compare online decision aids with different USIMs. Although the results largely confirm that users assess the user-guided USIM more positively than the system-controlled USIM, the effects of USIM are stronger in two settings: for the elimination-based aid than for the additive-compensatory-based aid and for users with low product knowledge than for those with high product knowledge, especially in terms of effort assessments. This research advances the theoretical understanding of the effects of interaction between two critical components of online decision aids (USIMs and decision strategies) and the moderating role of user characteristics (product knowledge) in affecting users' evaluations. It also provides practitioners with design advice for developing these aids.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiquan Wang & Izak Benbasat, 2013. "Research Note —A Contingency Approach to Investigating the Effects of User-System Interaction Modes of Online Decision Aids," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 861-876, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:24:y:2013:i:3:p:861-876
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1120.0445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0445
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1120.0445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Detmar Straub & Moez Limayem & Elena Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995. "Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(8), pages 1328-1342, August.
    2. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    3. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    4. Detmar W. Straub & Richard T. Watson, 2001. "Research Commentary: Transformational Issues in Researching IS and Net-Enabled Organizations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 337-345, December.
    5. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1987. "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 411-454, March.
    6. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    7. Jay P. Carlson & Leslie H. Vincent & David M. Hardesty & William O. Bearden, 2009. "Objective and Subjective Knowledge Relationships: A Quantitative Analysis of Consumer Research Findings," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(5), pages 864-876, October.
    8. Mohamed Khalifa & RonChi-Wai Kwok & Robert Davison, 2002. "The Effects of Process and Content Facilitation Restrictiveness on GSS-Mediated Collaborative Learning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 345-361, September.
    9. D. Harrison McKnight & Vivek Choudhury & Charles Kacmar, 2002. "Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 334-359, September.
    10. Jane M. Mackay & Joyce J. Elam, 1992. "A Comparative Study of How Experts and Novices Use a Decision Aid to Solve Problems in Complex Knowledge Domains," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 150-172, June.
    11. Oswald, Andrew J. & Wu, Stephen, 2010. "Objective Confirmation of Subjective Measures of Human Well-being: Evidence from the USA," IZA Discussion Papers 4695, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Huber, Joel & Ariely, Dan & Fischer, Gregory, 2002. "Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 66-90, January.
    13. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke & Goldsmith, Ronald E., 1999. "A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 57-66, September.
    14. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    15. Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chattaraman, Veena & Kwon, Wi-Suk & Ross, Kassandra & Sung, Jihyun & Alikhademi, Kiana & Richardson, Brianna & Gilbert, Juan E., 2024. "‘Smart’ Choice? Evaluating AI-Based mobile decision bots for in-store decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Weiquan Wang & Jingjun (David) Xu & May Wang, 2018. "Effects of Recommendation Neutrality and Sponsorship Disclosure on Trust vs. Distrust in Online Recommendation Agents: Moderating Role of Explanations for Organic Recommendations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5198-5219, November.
    3. Sunghun Chung & Animesh Animesh & Kunsoo Han & Alain Pinsonneault, 2019. "Software Patents and Firm Value: A Real Options Perspective on the Role of Innovation Orientation and Environmental Uncertainty," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 1073-1097, September.
    4. Zhang, Hong & Zhao, Ling & Gupta, Sumeet, 2018. "The role of online product recommendations on customer decision making and loyalty in social shopping communities," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 150-166.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Key Pousttchi & Maik Dehnert, 2018. "Exploring the digitalization impact on consumer decision-making in retail banking," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(3), pages 265-286, August.
    2. Mesbah, Neda & Tauchert, Christoph & Buxmann, Peter, 2021. "Whose Advice Counts More – Man or Machine? An Experimental Investigation of AI-based Advice Utilization," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 124796, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    3. Peschel, Anne & Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2016. "How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-country latent class analysis of food labels," MPRA Paper 69864, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Köcher, Sören & Jugovac, Michael & Jannach, Dietmar & Holzmüller, Hartmut H., 2019. "New Hidden Persuaders: An Investigation of Attribute-Level Anchoring Effects of Product Recommendations," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 24-41.
    5. Wirawan Dony Dahana & HeeJae Shin & Sotaro Katsumata, 2018. "Influence of individual characteristics on whether and how much consumers engage in showrooming behavior," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 665-692, December.
    6. Cristiane Pizzutti & Renata Gonçalves & Maura Ferreira, 2022. "Information search behavior at the post-purchase stage of the customer journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 981-1010, September.
    7. Jaeki Song & Fatemeh Mariam Zahedi, 2005. "A Theoretical Approach to Web Design in E-Commerce: A Belief Reinforcement Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1219-1235, August.
    8. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    9. Sara Moussawi & Marios Koufaris & Raquel Benbunan-Fich, 2021. "How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 343-364, June.
    10. Catherine Viot & Juliette Passebois-Ducros, 2010. "Wine brands or branded wines? The specificity of the French market in terms of the brand," Post-Print hal-01803728, HAL.
    11. Sarv Devaraj & Ming Fan & Rajiv Kohli, 2002. "Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 316-333, September.
    12. Bierstaker, James & Janvrin, Diane & Lowe, D. Jordan, 2014. "What factors influence auditors' use of computer-assisted audit techniques?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 67-74.
    13. Li-Su Huang & Cheng-Po Lai, 2014. "Knowledge Management Adoption And Diffusion Using Structural Equation Modeling," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 8(1), pages 39-56.
    14. Erjon Nexhipi, 2022. "The difference in consumer attitudes of locally grown apples with imported apples. the case of Korca Region, Albania:," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 37(1), pages 250-264, November.
    15. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2020. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.
    16. Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Suzanne B. Shu & Theo A. Arentze & Tom Baker & Kristin Diehl & Bas Donkers & Nathanael J. Fast & Gerald Häubl & Heidi Johnson & Uma R. Karmarkar & Harmen Oppewal & Bernd H. S, 2020. "Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 335-347, December.
    17. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    18. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    19. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    20. Andrews, J. Craig & Netemeyer, Richard & Burton, Scot & Kees, Jeremy, 2021. "What consumers actually know: The role of objective nutrition knowledge in processing stop sign and traffic light front-of-pack nutrition labels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 140-155.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:24:y:2013:i:3:p:861-876. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.