This study integrates two lines of research: technologies as tools and technologies as social beings, under the theoretical framework of dynamic systems, to investigate the reciprocal dynamics between functional use and relational use of artificial intelligence (AI) voice assistants, and the mediating roles of self-disclosure and privacy concerns. A two-wave longitudinal survey was conducted among 354 AI voice assistant users across 2 months. Factor analysis results supported the conceptualization and operationalization of functional use and relational use of voice assistants. Results from the cross-lagged panel model confirmed that functional use and relational use reinforced themselves over time, respectively. Relational use increased subsequent functional use, and relational use reinforced itself through self-disclosure. Surprisingly, functional use did not increase subsequent relational use; instead, longitudinal mediation analysis showed that functional use reduced subsequent relational use due to the lack of self-disclosure. Furthermore, while self-disclosure increased subsequent privacy concerns, privacy concerns did not reduce subsequent self-disclosure.
AltmanIVinselABrownBB (1981) Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: an application to social penetration and privacy regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology14: 107–160.
2.
AltmanITaylorDA (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
3.
AyaburiEWTrekuDN (2020) Effect of penitence on social media trust and privacy concerns: the case of Facebook. International Journal of Information Management50: 171–181.
4.
BandalosDLFinneySJ (2018) Factor analysis: exploratory and confirmatory. In: HancockGMuellerR (eds) The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge, pp. 98–122.
5.
BirnbaumGEMizrahiMHoffmanG, et al. (2016) What robots can teach us about intimacy: the reassuring effects of robot responsiveness to human disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior63: 416–423.
6.
BoatengGONeilandsTBFrongilloEA, et al. (2018) Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health6: 149.
7.
BuzsàkiG (2006) Rhythms of the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
CarpenterAGreeneK (2015) Social penetration theory. In: BergerCRRoloffME (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–4.
9.
ChalhoubGFlechaisI (2020) “Alexa, are you spying on me?”: exploring the effect of user experience on the security and privacy of smart speaker users. In: Proceedings of the HCI for cybersecurity, privacy and trust (HCII), Copenhagen, 19–24 July, pp. 305–325. New York: ACM.
10.
ChoMLeeSLeeKP (2019) Once a kind friend is now a thing: understanding how conversational agents at home are forgotten. In: Proceedings of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference (eds HarrisonSBardzellS), San Diego, CA, 23–28 June, pp. 1557–1569. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
11.
ColeDAMaxwellSE (2003) Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology112(4): 558.
12.
CroesEAAntheunisML (2021) Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships38(1): 279–300.
13.
De GraafMMBen AllouchSvan DijkJA (2018) A phased framework for long-term user acceptance of interactive technology in domestic environments. New Media & Society20(7): 2582–2603.
14.
DinevTAlbanoVXuH, et al. (2016) Individuals’ attitudes towards electronic health records: a privacy calculus perspective. In: GuptaAPatelVGreenesR (eds) Advances in Healthcare Informatics and Analytics. Cham; Berlin: Springer, pp. 19–50.
15.
FoehrJGermelmannCC (2020) Alexa, can I trust you? Exploring consumer paths to trust in smart voice-interaction technologies. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research5(2): 181–205.
16.
FoxJGambinoA (2021) Relationship development with humanoid social robots: applying interpersonal theories to human–robot interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking24(5): 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0181
17.
GambinoAFoxJRatanR (2020) Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-machine Communication1: 71–86.
18.
GibbsJLEllisonNBHeinoRD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research33(2): 152–177.
19.
GrangerCW (1980) Testing for causality: a personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control2: 329–352.
20.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society22(1): 70–86.
21.
HoAHancockJMinerAS (2018) Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication68(4): 712–733.
22.
HongWChanFKThongJY (2021) Drivers and inhibitors of internet privacy concern: a multidimensional development theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics168(3): 539–564.
23.
HumphryJChesherC (2021) Preparing for smart voice assistants: cultural histories and media innovations. New Media & Society23(7): 1971–1988.
24.
KarapanosEZimmermanJForlizziJ, et al. (2009) User experience over time: an initial framework. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds OlsenDArthurR), Boston, MA, 4–9 April, pp. 729–738. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
25.
Knobloch-WesterwickS (2015) The selective exposure self- and affect-management (SESAM) model: applications in the realms of race, politics, and health. Communication Research, 42(7): 959–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214539173
26.
KimKde MeloCMNorouziN, et al. (2020) Reducing task load with an embodied intelligent virtual assistant for improved performance in collaborative decision making. In: 2020 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR) (eds JohnsonKSwanJEMacIntyreB, et al.), Atlanta, GA, 22–26 March, pp. 529–538. Danvers, MA: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
27.
KokolakisS (2017) Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security64: 122–134.
28.
Kory-WestlundJM (2019) Relational AI: creating long-term interpersonal interaction, rapport, and relationships with social robots. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
29.
KraemerMFlechaisIWebbH (2019) Exploring communal technology use in the home. In: Proceedings of the halfway to the future symposium (eds FischerJMartindaleS), Nottingham, 19–20 November, pp. 1–8. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
30.
LeeYCYamashitaNHuangY, et al. (2020) “I hear you, I feel you”: encouraging deep self-disclosure through a chatbot. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds BernhauptRMuellerFVerweijD, et al.), Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April, pp. 1–12. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
LittleTD (2013) Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
33.
LucasGMRizzoAGratchJ, et al. (2017) Reporting mental health symptoms: breaking down barriers to care with virtual human interviewers. Frontiers in Robotics and AI4: 51.
34.
MaXHancockJNaamanM (2016) Anonymity, intimacy and self-disclosure in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds KayeJDruinA), San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp. 3857–3869. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
35.
MahajanKLargeDRBurnettG, et al. (2021) Exploring the effectiveness of a digital voice assistant to maintain driver alertness in partially automated vehicles. Traffic Injury Prevention22(5): 378–383.
36.
ManikondaLDeotaleAKambhampatiS (2018) What’s up with privacy? User preferences and privacy concerns in intelligent personal assistants. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (eds FurmanJMarchatGPriceH, et al.), New Orleans, LA, 2–3 February, pp. 229–235. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
37.
MartinK (2018) The penalty for privacy violations: how privacy violations impact trust online. Journal of Business Research82: 103–116.
38.
NassCMoonY (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues56(1): 81–103.
39.
ObinaliC (2019) The perception of gender in voice assistants. Perception3: 22–2019.
40.
OhYJZhangJFangML, et al. (2021) A systematic review of artificial intelligence chatbots for promoting physical activity, healthy diet, and weight loss. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity18(1): 160.
41.
PalDArpnikanondtCRazzaqueMA, et al. (2020) To trust or not-trust: privacy issues with voice assistants. IT Professional22(5): 46–53.
42.
PalanSSchitterC (2018) Prolific.ac: a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance17: 22–27.
43.
PhanT (2019) Amazon Echo and the aesthetics of whiteness. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience5(1): 1–38.
44.
PoushnehA (2021) Humanizing voice assistant: The impact of voice assistant personality on consumers’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services58: 102283.
45.
RaykovTMarcoulidesGA (2011) Introduction to Psychometric Theory. London: Routledge.
46.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
RogersE (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
48.
ShumanovMJohnsonL (2021) Making conversations with chatbots more personalized. Computers in Human Behavior117: 106627.
49.
SilverstoneRHaddonL (1996) Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: MansellRSilverstoneR (eds) Communication by Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 44–74.
50.
SkjuveMFølstadAFostervoldKI, et al. (2021) My chatbot companion: a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies149: 102601.
51.
SlaterMD (2007) Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory17(3): 281–303.
52.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersE, et al. (2007) The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177(3): 1333–1352.
TanASLeeCJChaeJ (2015) Exposure to health (mis) information: lagged effects on young adults’ health behaviors and potential pathways. Journal of Communication65(4): 674–698.
55.
TaylorDAAltmanI (1987) Communication in interpersonal relationships: social penetration processes. In RoloffMEMillerGR (eds) Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research. New York: SAGE, pp. 257–277.
56.
ValkenburgPMPeterJ (2009) The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: a longitudinal study. Journal of Communication59(1): 79–97.
57.
VimalkumarMSharmaSKSinghJB, et al. (2021) “Okay Google, what about my privacy?”: user’s privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Computers in Human Behavior120: 106763.
58.
WangZTchernevJM (2012) The “myth” of media multitasking: reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication62(3): 493–513.
59.
WangZLangABusemeyerJR (2011) Motivational processing and choice behavior during television viewing: an integrative dynamic approach. Journal of Communication61(1): 71–93.
60.
WheelessLRGrotzJ (1976) Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research2(4): 338–346.
61.
XuSWangZ (2021) Multiple selves and multitasking: a dynamic longitudinal study. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 9 February. DOI: 10.1177/0093650221991493.
62.
XuSWangZWoodsK (2019) Multitasking and dual motivational systems: a dynamic longitudinal study. Human Communication Research45(4): 371–394.
63.
ZengFYeQYangZ, et al. (2020) Which privacy policy works, privacy assurance or personalization declaration? An investigation of privacy policies and privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics176: 1–18.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
