The effect of required warmth on consumer acceptance of artificial intelligence in service: The moderating role of AI-human collaboration

Understanding Users' Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence Applications: A Literature Review

In recent years, with the continuous expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) application forms and fields, users' acceptance of AI applications has attracted increasing attention from scholars and business practitioners. Although extant studies have extensively explored user acceptance of different AI applications, there is still a lack of understanding of the roles played by different AI applications in human-AI interaction, which may limit the understanding of inconsistent findings about user acceptance of AI. This study addresses this issue by conducting a systematic literature review on AI acceptance research in leading journals of Information Systems and Marketing disciplines from 2020 to 2023. Based on a review of 80 papers, this study made contributions by (i) providing an overview of methodologies and theoretical frameworks utilized in AI acceptance research; (ii) summarizing the key factors, potential mechanisms, and theorization of users' acceptance response to AI service providers and AI task substitutes, respectively; and (iii) proposing opinions on the limitations of extant research and providing guidance for future research.

Can artificial intelligence’s limitations drive innovative work behaviour?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is deemed to increase workers’ productivity by enhancing their creative abilities and acting as a general-purpose tool for innovation. While much is known about AI’s ability to create value through innovation, less is known about how AI’s limitations drive innovative work behaviour (IWB). With AI’s limits in perspective, innovative work behaviour might serve as workarounds to compensate for AI limitations. Therefore, the guiding research question is: How will AI limitations, rather than its apparent transformational strengths, drive workers’ innovative work behaviour in a workplace? A search protocol was employed to identify 65 articles based on relevant keywords and article selection criteria using the Scopus database. The thematic analysis suggests several themes: (i) Robots make mistakes, and such mistakes stimulate workers’ IWB, (ii) AI triggers ‘fear’ in workers, and this ‘fear’ stimulates workers’ IWB, (iii) Workers are reskilled and upskilled to compensate for AI limitations, (iv) AI interface stimulates worker engagement, (v) Algorithmic bias requires IWB, and (vi) AI works as a general-purpose tool for IWB. In contrast to prior reviews, which generally focus on the apparent transformational strengths of AI in the workplace, this review primarily identifies AI limitations before suggesting that the limitations could also drive innovative work behaviour. Propositions are included after each theme to encourage future research.

Can artificial intelligence’s limitations drive innovative work behaviour?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is deemed to increase workers’ productivity by enhancing their creative abilities and acting as a general-purpose tool for innovation. While much is known about AI’s ability to create value through innovation, less is known about how AI’s limitations drive innovative work behaviour (IWB). With AI’s limits in perspective, innovative work behaviour might serve as workarounds to compensate for AI limitations. Therefore, the guiding research question is: How will AI limitations, rather than its apparent transformational strengths, drive workers’ innovative work behaviour in a workplace? A search protocol was employed to identify 65 articles based on relevant keywords and article selection criteria using the Scopus database. The thematic analysis suggests several themes: (i) Robots make mistakes, and such mistakes stimulate workers’ IWB, (ii) AI triggers ‘fear’ in workers, and this ‘fear’ stimulates workers’ IWB, (iii) Workers are reskilled and upskilled to compensate for AI limitations, (iv) AI interface stimulates worker engagement, (v) Algorithmic bias requires IWB, and (vi) AI works as a general-purpose tool for IWB. In contrast to prior reviews, which generally focus on the apparent transformational strengths of AI in the workplace, this review primarily identifies AI limitations before suggesting that the limitations could also drive innovative work behaviour. Propositions are included after each theme to encourage future research.