The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

TQM
35,5 The effects of chatbots’ attributes
on customer relationships with
brands: PLS-SEM and importance–
1156 performance map analysis
Received 28 February 2022 Francesca Magno and Giovanna Dossena
Revised 14 June 2022
Accepted 21 July 2022 Universita degli Studi di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – Many firms are investing in digital services to improve customer experiences. Virtual service
agents, or “e-service agents” (“e-agents”) such as chatbots, are examples of these efforts. Chatbots are types of
virtual-assistant software programs that interact with users through speech or text. This paper aims to
investigate whether the perceived hedonic and utilitarian attributes of chatbots can influence customer
satisfaction and, consequently, their relationships with brands.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through a questionnaire-based survey among a
sample of Italian consumers. A convenience sampling technique was used. Data were then analyzed through
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling to provide a prediction-oriented model assessment. The
findings were then complemented with an importance–performance map analysis (IPMA) to gain more detailed
insights and actionable guidelines for managers.
Findings – The findings highlighted that the perceived hedonic and utilitarian attributes of chatbots
positively influenced customer satisfaction and improved customer relationships with the brands. However,
the IMPA highlighted that the performance levels of two most important attributes – system quality and
experience with chatbot – could be improved resulting in additional improvements of customer satisfaction.
Practical implications – This study suggests the importance of firms’ investments in and adoption of
e-agents to strengthen consumer–brand relationships and of considering both the hedonic and utilitarian
attributes of their e-agents.
Originality/value – This article attempts to enrich and consolidate the growing body of literature concerning
the impacts of new technologies – and, specifically, chatbots – in service marketing.
Keywords Chatbots, e-service agents, New technologies, Customer satisfaction, Consumer–brand interaction
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Technological advancements are changing the ways through which firms can manage their
customer interactions and, consequently, the customer experience (Chung et al., 2020).
Among the emerging technologies, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is considered a particularly
disruptive technology capable of radically changing firm–customer relationships in every
sector (Campbell et al., 2020). Kaplan and Haenlein (2019, p. 15) define AI as a “system’s ability
to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to
achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation systems.” The underlying idea of AI
is that, thanks to the use of software and hardware, firms can analyze data and provide real-
time interactions with customers, making technology-based interactions more human and
customer-centric (Hoyer et al., 2020; Libai et al., 2020). Therefore, many marketing
opportunities can derive from AI applications (Martınez-Lopez and Casillas, 2013).
Consequently, many firms are investing in digital services to improve customers’
experiences. Virtual service agents, or “e-service agents,” such as chatbots (an AI application),

© Francesca Magno and Giovanna Dossena. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is
The TQM Journal published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
Vol. 35 No. 5, 2023
pp. 1156-1169 distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial
Emerald Publishing Limited purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence
1754-2731
DOI 10.1108/TQM-02-2022-0080 may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
are examples of these efforts (Trivedi, 2019). A chatbot is an instant-chat service able to Effects of
operate similarly to an offline service agent (Chung et al., 2020). The most popular chatbots chatbots’
include personal assistants like Alexa, Siri and Cortana. Indeed, a chatbot interacts in a
familiar way with consumers, and its responses can consist in voice or text messages, images
attributes
and so on. Like those of offline service agents, the roles of chatbots are becoming central in
determining customer satisfaction. Indeed, chatbots represent the brand in customer
relationships (Chung et al., 2020; Zarouali et al., 2018).
However, despite the increasing relevance of this topic, academic research into the role of 1157
chatbots in influencing customer satisfaction still remains scant (Hoyer et al., 2020).
Specifically, there is a need to assess how chatbots should be designed to satisfy customers
and improve their attitudes toward the brands represented. This study addresses this gap
and investigates whether perceived hedonic and utilitarian attributes of chatbots can
influence customer satisfaction and, consequently, the customer–brand relationship. For this
purpose, a model comprising both the hedonic and utilitarian attributes of chatbots is
developed and estimated. Moreover, to gain more detailed understanding and enrich the
practical implications of the findings, the estimation of the model is complemented with
importance–performance map analysis (IPMA).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, a review of previous studies on
how chatbots affect customer satisfaction is provided. Next, the research model and
hypotheses are presented, followed by a description of the methods and results. A discussion
of the findings and conclusions completes the paper.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

Technology has assumed a key role in enabling companies to achieve competitive advantage
(Chaiprasit and Swierczek, 2011). At the same time, in today’s highly globalized competitive
environment, companies are paying extreme attention to total quality management (TQM)
methods, tools and techniques. Continuous improvement, innovation and standardization
through TQM play a key role in increasing competitiveness (Tasleem et al., 2019).
Following this perspective, from the management point of view, it therefore becomes
essential to integrate elements of technology management (TM) and TQM. The first is related
to dimensions such as product technology, process technology and information technology
and more recently industry 4.0 and Industrial Internet of things. The second is both a
philosophy and a strategy oriented toward continuous change (de Souza et al., 2021).
Although there is still no agreement on the factors that constitute TQM, many researchers
have attempted to overcome this lack of consensus through the use of a multidisciplinary
approach. This work has led to the identification of the following six factors as the elements
that make up TQM: leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, workforce focus, process
management, and information and knowledge management (Agarwal, 2017). Hence, again,
technology plays a fundamental role for quality management and improvement. Moreover,
these factors represent the components of one of the world’s major awards for excellence
namely the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, established by the U.S. Congress in
1987. The award aims to promote a culture of quality, raise awareness of the importance of
quality management and give recognition to organizations that have implemented a
successful quality management system (Tasleem et al., 2019). TQM and technology are thus
becoming two key elements of successful organizations that complement and influence each
other (Brah and Lim, 2006; Chiarini, 2020; Prajogo and Sohal, 2006).
Among the multiple technologies which have the potential to contribute to quality
improvements, chatbots are exponentially gaining popularity in many sectors, such as
education and health (Laranjo et al., 2018; Perez et al., 2020). However, it is in the area of firms’
customer services that chatbots have the greatest application. In this context, as the
competition has increased, providing quality customer service has become a strategic
TQM element for a firm’s success (Scheidt and Chung, 2019). Thus, service agents who personally
35,5 interact with customers in representing the brand are central in solving customer problems
and play fundamental roles in determining customer satisfaction. Due to the advent of digital
technologies, firms increasingly are shifting to digital services, and the roles of service agents
are changing profoundly. Indeed, many firms are transforming their traditional customer-
service approaches to digital methods (Cheng and Jiang, 2022). E-service agents, such as
chatbots, are new technology tools that attempt to satisfy customers in a similar way as
1158 offline service agents (Chung et al., 2020). Indeed, chatbots are virtual assistants that simulate
human conversations, not only by providing information but also by interacting, using a
familiar language and attempting to transmit emotions (Hoyer et al., 2020; Schmitt, 2019).
Clients can interact with e-service agents from any location on a 24-h basis (Cheng and Jiang,
2022). As a result of this digital revolution, people must increase their technological ability,
while the technology itself must become humanized (Schmitt, 2019). Chatbots are crucial in
determining customer satisfaction and, therefore, in enhancing the brand relationship.
To analyze these effects, we follow the Consumer Acceptance of Technology (CAT) model
(Kulviwat et al., 2007). Unlike the traditional Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989),
which considers only cognitive elements, the CAT model also includes affective elements.
This aligns with the work of several researchers (Fiore et al., 2005; Nasco et al., 2008), who
suggest that in consumer relationships, technology must reach two types of goals: utilitarian
and hedonic. Utilitarian goals are guided by cognitive elements and oriented to problem-
solving (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). These components are connected strictly to the
technology’s analytical characteristics. They represent the value derived from elaborating on
the information received by the chatbot (Hoyer et al., 2020). Hedonic goals are related to
affective aesthetics – fun and enjoyable elements (Batra and Ahtola, 1991). They represent
the value that consumers receive from emotional stimulation (Hoyer et al., 2020). In our model,
we identified two utilitarian elements in particular – information quality and system quality –
and one hedonic element related to the chatbot experience.
Information quality represents the semantic success of the technology (DeLone and
McLean, 1992). In general, the concept encompasses both the intrinsic and extrinsic elements
of information quality. Specifically, the term “intrinsic elements” refers to objective elements,
such as the provision of correct, credible and congruent information. These are important
aspects that cannot, however, be separated from extrinsic considerations relating to the
context in which they are applied (Lee et al., 2002) and representational aspects (Wang and
Strong, 1996). Contextual elements involve the completeness and currency of information.
From this point of view, one must evaluate the quality of the information to the users and
whether the information provided by the technology is capable of helping them complete an
activity – for example, making a decision (Nelson et al., 2005). The representational
component involves the way in which the presentation of the information (the format) allows
the receiver to better understand and interpret the information itself. In conclusion,
information quality encompasses the accuracy, currency, completeness and format of the
information, shaping perceptions of quality in the context of use. Following this reasoning,
the information provided by a chatbot should be relevant, correct, accurate, credible, and, of
course, useful (Chung et al., 2020; Zarouali et al., 2018). The literature also highlighted that
poor information quality can diminish the total performance of a firm by increasing costs
(Swanson, 1997). Thus, the role of the communicator – even if it is computer-mediated –
becomes fundamental. In any case, consumers must have the perception that the chatbot is
able exactly to understand their problems and provide appropriate answers. Chatbots must
therefore be credible, experienced and competent (Chung et al., 2020). According to Trivedi
(2019), the quality of information offered by chatbots is critical in determining the customer
experience. If the information is not correct, accurate or up-to-date, it can lead to a negative
perception of the entire business and in particular to the belief that the company’s offerings
(of products/services) are of limited quality (Gao et al., 2015). Based on these arguments, we Effects of
hypothesize the following: chatbots’
H1. The quality of the information provided by chatbots has a positive impact on attributes
customer satisfaction.
System quality is related to the technical aspects of a chatbot. In particular, the quality of a
chatbot is determined by aspects such as usability, reliability, availability, adaptability and
timeliness (Trivedi, 2019). “Usability” refers to the ease of use of a chatbot. In particular, if 1159
consumers perceive a chatbot as difficult to use, it can negatively influence customer
satisfaction. Reliability involves the ability to interact with the chatbot continuously, at any
time and in any place. “Adaptability” refers to the capacity to keep up with changing
developments. Simultaneously, consumers expect that a chatbot’s answer is given in a couple
of seconds. If the time is too long, this can negatively influence customer satisfaction (Chung
et al., 2020; Trivedi, 2019; Zarouali et al., 2018). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H2. System quality has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.
In general, customer experience has become a key factor for the success of a business. In the
digital age, when enterprises must be continuously available 24 h a day, optimizing and
improving online experiences are critical today more than in the past (Lemon and Verhoef,
2016). Indeed, consistent with offline occurrences, Rose et al. (2012) highlight how important
emotions are, even in the online context. In this context, online communication becomes
essential in enhancing the customer experience. Experiences with chatbots are related to the
hedonic goal of using a technology – that is, to be engaged in an emotional experience. An
emotional experience involves the enjoyable aspects of interaction: pleasure, arousal and
dominance. “Pleasure” refers to the pleasantness or enjoyment of a chatbot conversation, but
emotional experience involves not only enjoyment but also the arousal of being involved in a
mentally stimulating conversation (Zarouali et al., 2018). “Domain” (“dominance”) refers to the
fact that consumers, when interacting with a chatbot, feel that they can act freely and are in
absolute control of their actions (Coyle et al., 2012). Previous studies have highlighted that
these aspects can determine whether consumers will respond positively to e-service agents
(Godey et al., 2016). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H3. Experience with a chatbot has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.
Finally, we know that when a product or a service meets customers’ expectations, the
customers are satisfied (Wiedmann et al., 2009). Therefore, customer satisfaction derived
from interactions with a chatbot can enhance and empower the quality of the overall brand
relationship. Hence, we suggest the following:
H4. Customer satisfaction has a positive impact on brand-relationship quality.
In sum, as shown in Figure 1, following the CAT model in our research, we evaluate the effects
of cognitive elements on customer satisfaction (H1 and H2) and the effects of emotional
elements on customer satisfaction (H3). Finally, we test the effects of customer satisfaction on
quality (H4).

3. Methods
To achieve our research goals, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey among a sample
of Italian consumers. Data collection took place in April 2021. The questionnaire was
distributed online through the personal networks of the authors, relying on a convenience
sampling technique. Overall, we received 275 questionnaires; however, 19 were excluded
from the analysis because respondents had no experience with chatbots. Hence, the final
sample was composed of 256 participants. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the
TQM Utilitarian
(cognitive) elements
35,5
Information quality
H1
System quality

1160 H2 Customer Brand-relationship

satisfaction H4 quality
Hedonic
(affective) element

Experience with H3
Figure 1.
The research model chatbot

Variables Frequencies (n 5 256)

Gender
Women 152 (59.4%)
Men 104 (40.6%)
Age
<20 years 4 (1.6%)
20–29 years 63 (24.6%)
30–39 years 96 (37.5%)
40–49 years 82 (32.0%)
50þ years 11 (4.3%)
Education
Middle school degree 4 (1.6%)
High school degree 97 (37.9%)
Bachelor/Master’s degree 138 (53.9%)
Doctoral and other postgraduate degrees 17 (6.6%)
Occupation
Student 45 (17.6%)
Employee 137 (53.5%)
Self-employed 31 (12.1%)
Unemployed 5 (2.0%)
Other 38 (14.8%)
Why did you interact with a chatbot?
Asking information 89 (34.6%)
Buying products/services 41 (16.0%)
Asking for assistance 91 (35.6%)
Making complaints 35 (13.8%)
To what sector do your most frequent chatbots belong?
Fashion 21 (8.4%)
Personal (health)care 16 (6.2%)
Technology 72 (28.0%)
Telecommunications 75 (29.4%)
Table 1. Travel and entertainment 34 (13.1%)
Sample description Financial and insurance services 38 (14.9%)
sample. Participants reported using chatbots mostly to ask information or ask for assistance. Effects of
Chatbots that were mostly used by participants belonged to telecommunications and chatbots’
technology, while chatbots from industries such as personal (health)care and fashion were
rarely mentioned. While these data reflect the respondents’ actual experience, they also
attributes
suggest that the results of our analysis cannot be directly generalized to all industries.
The questionnaire included multiple-item measures for each construct developed from
previous studies. Specifically, information quality, system quality and customer experience
with the chatbot were measured, using four, five and three items, respectively, from the study 1161
by Trivedi (2019). Customer satisfaction was determined on the basis of four items from
Chung et al. (2020). Finally, three items from Algesheimer et al. (2005) were used to measure
brand relationship quality. Respondents were asked to refer to their latest experience with a
chatbot and then give their ratings. All items were measured on five-point Likert scales, with
extremes being 1 5 totally disagree and 5 5 totally agree. Consistently with the original
scales, constructs were modeled as reflective. Table 2 shows the complete list of items.
Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)
(Hair et al., 2020). The analysis was conducted using the software SmartPLS 3 (Ringle et al.,
2015). PLS-SEM is a nonparametric method and, unlike covariance-based structural equation
modeling, makes no distributional assumptions (Hair et al., 2017). This method is suitable
when the purpose is the assessment of a model’s predictive power, the main focus of this
study (Hair et al., 2019).
The “standard” PLS-SEM estimations was then complemented with an IPMA. This is a
well-established method of analysis to assess customer acceptance of specific features of the
offering and is based on the assumption that “consumer satisfaction is a function of both
expectations related to certain important attributes and judgments of attribute performance”
(Martilla and James, 1977, p. 77). Available studies particularly emphasize how IPMA can
provide managerially relevant insights, helping organizations to prioritize important
attributes to work on (Phadermrod et al., 2019). Specifically IPMA has been extensively
applied to quality improvement (Roy et al., 2020) and to technology design, such as in the case

Outer
Construct Items loadings

Information quality IQ1: (Brand) chatbot provided me with the necessary information 0.966
IQ2: (Brand) chatbot provided responses to queries as I expected 0.907
IQ3: (Brand) chatbot provided sufficient information 0.912
IQ4: The information provided by (brand) chatbot was helpful 0.883
regarding my questions or problems
System quality SQ1: I found it easy to become skillful at using (brand) chatbot 0.831
SQ2: I believe that (brand) chatbot is easy to use 0.865
SQ3: Using (brand) chatbot required minimal mental effort 0.726
SQ4: (Brand) chatbot was quick in response 0.856
SQ5: Chatbots from (brand) are reliable 0.751
Experience with the EWC1: I enjoyed using (brand) chatbot 0.859
chatbot EWC2: The experience of using (brand) chatbot was interesting 0.831
EWC3: I am happy with the experience of using (brand) chatbots 0.900
Customer satisfaction CS1: I am satisfied with the chatbot 0.921
CS2: The chatbot did a good job 0.907
CS3: The chatbot did what I expected 0.879
CS4: I am happy with the chatbot 0.945
Brand-relationship BRQ1: This brand says a lot about the kind of person I am 0.694
quality BRQ2: This brand’s image and my self-image are similar in many 0.868
respects Table 2.
BrQ3: This brand plays an important role in my life 0.815 Measurement scales
TQM of mobile applications’ features (Chen et al., 2016). Prior applications of IMPA have shown
35,5 that direct measures of attributes’ importance – i.e. measures obtained from participants’
ratings using Likert scales – can provide biased findings (Oh, 2001). Thus, indirect measures
of importance such as those derived for example from correlation or multiple regression
analysis have been recommended (Azzopardi and Nash, 2013). Therefore, in this work, we
used an indirect measure of importance, which is equal to the total effects on the target
construct, provided by the PLS-SEM analysis.
1162 IPMA has been recently applied in the context of PLS-SEM to enable researchers to gain richer
and more precise insights from their findings because it simultaneously considers both the path
coefficients estimates and the average values of the latent variable scores (Ringle and Sarstedt,
2016). In our study, the “standard” PLS-SEM analysis allowed to understand the magnitude of the
effects of the three independent variables information quality, system quality and experience with
chatbot on customer satisfaction. However, this analysis did not evaluate the average values of
these three independent variables. In other words, it did not consider whether, according to
participants’ ratings, chatbots performed well or not in terms of information quality, system
quality and experience. The joint evaluation of these constructs’ importance (i.e. of their effects of
customer satisfaction) and performance (i.e. of their average values) enabled us to completement
“standard” PLS-SEM results with relevant insights to guide managerial action (Hair et al., 2018).
The final output of the IPMA is a map in which the x-axis shows the importance and the
y-axis the performance of each attribute. In particular, the performance latent results from the
rescaling of each attribute’s average scores on a scale from 0 to 100 (where 0 and 100 indicate
the lowest and highest levels of performance, respectively). The map can further be divided
into four areas through the addition of a vertical line representing the mean importance value
and a horizontal line depicting the mean performance value. As a result, each attribute will be
placed within one specific area characterized by a certain level of importance (low or high) and
a certain level of performance (low or high) (Hair et al., 2018).
Finally, we extended IPMA on the indicator level, meaning that we examined the
importance and performance of each of the items used to measure the three independent
variables (Table 2). This additional level of analysis made it possible to identify more specific
areas of intervention (Hair et al., 2022; Ringle and Sarstedt, 2016).

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model assessment
All constructs’ measurement models were specified as reflective. Hence, they were evaluated
based on outer loadings, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity (Hair et al., 2020). As shown in Table 2, outer loadings were above the recommended
value of 0.707, with only one exception, which was nonetheless very close to that value (BRQ1,
0.694). Hence, the underlying factor explains more than 50% of each indictor’s variance. Next,
the internal-consistency reliability was assessed (Table 3). For all latent variables, the values of
Cronbach’s alpha, exact reliability, ρA and composite reliability were greater than 0.70, showing
that the internal-consistency reliability was met (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015; Hair et al., 2017).
Moreover, convergent validity was assessed because, for all constructs, the values of the average
variance extracted (AVE) were greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2019). Finally, discriminant validity
was met as well because the square root of each construct’s AVE was greater than its highest
correlation with any other construct, as requested by the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981) (Table 4).

4.2 Structural model assessment

After we successfully assessed the measurement models of the five constructs, we evaluated
the structural model. First, we checked the absence of collinearity issues by inspecting the
values of the inner variance inflation factor. All the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values are Effects of
well below 5 (the highest being 2.28), highlighting that collinearity was not an issue (Hair et al., chatbots’
2019). We then assessed the relevance and significance of the structural-model relationships
based on the bootstrapping routine (5,000 subsamples, bias-corrected and accelerated
attributes
bootstrap, two-tailed test). Table 5 and Figure 2 provide the detailed results of the
estimations.
The analysis showed that information quality (β 5 0.721, p < 0.01) and experience with the
chatbot (β 5 0.239, p < 0.01) had positive effects on customer satisfaction with the chatbot. 1163
Therefore, both H1 and H3 were supported. However, system quality had no significant effect
on customer satisfaction with the chatbot (β 5 0.046, p > 0.10) and was thus rejected. Finally,
the findings supported H4, indicating a positive effect of customer satisfaction on brand-
relationship quality (β 5 0.748, p < 0.01).
The results of the IPMA allowed to enrich the understanding and interpretation of these
findings (which highlighted the importance of each construct) by considering also the
performance of the constructs. As shown in Figure 3, system quality is the attribute
registering the lowest importance and the higher performance. Hence, investing on system
quality improvements should not be the top priority for chatbots’ designers. The high level of
performance reported by system quality may to a certain extent explain its nonsignificant
effect on customer satisfaction. In fact, good system quality may have been taken for granted
by chatbots’ users, thus causing a sort of ceiling effects (i.e. when the independent variable is
above certain levels, it has no more effects on the dependent variable). On the contrary, the

Cronbach’s Composite Average variance extracted

Latent variable alpha rho_A reliability (AVE)

Information quality 0.937 0.940 0.955 0.842

System quality 0.870 0.920 0.903 0.652
Experience with the 0.830 0.832 0.898 0.747
Chatbot
Customer satisfaction 0.933 0.935 0.953 0.834 Table 3.
Brand-relationship 0.715 0.768 0.837 0.634 Reliability and validity
quality statistics

Brand-
relationship Customer Experience with Information System
quality satisfaction the chatbot quality quality

Brand- 0.796
relationship
quality
Customer 0.748 0.913
satisfaction
Experience with 0.709 0.716 0.864
the Chatbot
Information 0.694 0.902 0.623 0.918
quality Table 4.
System quality 0.682 0.704 0.612 0.711 0.808 Discriminant validity:
Note(s): Correlations among constructs are shown below the diagonal; the square roots of the AVEs shown on Fornell-Larcker
the diagonal criterion
TQM HP Path 95% confidence
35,5 number Effect coefficients t values intervals

1 Information Quality → Customer 0.721 12.241* [0.599, 0.831]

Satisfaction
2 System Quality → Customer Satisfaction 0.046 0.655 [0.105, 0.168]
3 Experience with Chatbot → Customer 0.239 4.882* [0.157, 0.352]
1164 Satisfaction
4 Customer Satisfaction → Brand- 0.748 18.176* [0.639, 0.811]
Table 5. Relationship Quality
Model estimates Note(s): *p < 0.01

Figure 2.
Model estimates

Figure 3.
The results of IMPA
(construct level)

performance of the two most important attributes (information quality and experience with
chatbot) is below the average value of performance, indicating that there is room for
improvement. Specifically, a one-unit increase in information quality’s performance (from the
current level of 61.65–62.65) would increase customer satisfaction by 0.72 points (from the
current level of 58.94–59.66). A one-unit increase in customer experience’s performance would Effects of
increase customer satisfaction by 0.23 points. Therefore, chatbot designers should prioritize chatbots’
actions to increase information quality.
Finally, Table 6 shows the results of the IPMA on the indicator level. These data highlight the
attributes
specific aspects to improve. Among the items that measure information quality, IQ3 shows a
high level of importance and a relatively low level of performance, suggesting that designers
could focus on the improvement of the quantity of information provided by the chatbot. On the
contrary all system quality’s items have high levels of performance and low levels of importance. 1165
These findings indicate that currently there is no urgency to enhance these aspects.
To complete the PLS-SEM analysis we evaluated the model explanatory power.
The coefficients of determination R2 of the endogenous constructs were high. Specifically, for
customer satisfaction, R2 was 0.854, and for brand-relationship quality, R2 was 0.559. Hence, we
concluded that the model had high explanatory power. Finally, we assessed the model’s
predictive power using the PLSpredict routine instead of the blindfolding procedure, as suggest
by recent methodological works (Sarstedt et al., 2022a, b). We ran PLSpredict with 10 folds and
10 repetitions. The findings showed that, for all items except one (BRQ1), the PLS-SEM
estimation generated a lower prediction error (root mean squared error) compared with the
linear-model benchmark. In addition, all the items measuring brand relationship quality had a
value of Q2predict higher than 0. This analysis confirmed that the model had suitable predictive
power (Shmueli et al., 2019).

5. Discussion and conclusions

The results of this study enhance the available knowledge concerning the effects of e-service
agents (chatbots) on customer satisfaction and on customer–brand relationships. In
particular, while previous studies have approached the topic from the perspective of
technology acceptance (Meyer-Waarden et al., 2020; Murtarelli et al., 2022), the present study
represents one of the first concrete attempts to assess the impact of chatbots on a brand
relationship. Therefore, the results of the study allow us to obtain significant information
related to the effects after actual use of this technology in customer services.
Regarding the utilitarian (cognitive) elements, our study confirms the importance of the
information quality provided by chatbots. At the same time, unlike other studies (Trivedi,
2019), in our work, the technical element is not important in determining customer

Importance Performance
Indicator (0.00–1.00) (0–100)

IQ1: (Brand) chatbot provided me with the necessary information 0.210 64.440
IQ2: (Brand) chatbot provided responses to queries as I expected 0.199 63.362
IQ3: (Brand) chatbot provided sufficient information 0.192 57.974
IQ4: The information provided by (brand) chatbot was helpful regarding my 0.184 60.129
questions or problems
EWC3: I am happy with the experience of using (brand) chatbots 0.096 57.543
EWC1: I enjoyed using (brand) chatbot 0.091 53.879
EWC2: The experience of using (brand) chatbot was interesting 0.090 55.819
SQ1: I found it easy to become skillful at using (brand) chatbot 0.017 60.129
SQ4: (Brand) chatbot was quick in response 0.013 77.371
SQ2: I believe that (brand) chatbot is easy to use 0.011 76.940
SQ5: Chatbots from (brand) are reliable 0.009 76.724 Table 6.
SQ3: Using (brand) chatbot required minimal mental effort 0.007 80.172 The results of the
Note(s): *The items are ordered according to their levels of importance IPMA (indicator level)*
TQM satisfaction. However, as noted in our analysis, this unexpected finding may be related to a
35,5 sort of ceiling effect. Regarding the hedonic (affective) elements, our study confirms the role of
the emotional experience in determining customer satisfaction. Information quality and
emotional experiences with chatbots are crucial in determining customer satisfaction and,
finally, enhancing the brand relationship. Therefore, while e-service agents are typically the
results of technological advancements, firms must not forget what consumers truly require
from service agents: the quality of information and an emotional experience. Consumers do
1166 not expect technical perfection, but, overall, consumers appear interested in the quality of the
information received and in the emotions derived by their relationships with chatbots. The
results confirm the trend to humanize the technology. Therefore, firms are encouraged to
consider both the utilitarian and hedonic aspects of the consumer experience carefully when
designing their chatbots. In addition, from the managerial point of view, the results also
confirm the need to integrate elements of TQM with elements related to TM. Thus, it becomes
essential in the perspective of continuous improvement of customer services to take into
account the growing importance of the impacts of these new technologies.
Of course, this study presents several limitations. More data should be collected to
corroborate the results. In the future, it will be useful to deepen the analysis by comparing the
estimations in different sectors to identify whether the roles of chatbots change in relation to
the sector (e.g., the advanced technological versus the traditional sectors). Customer
perceived importance of chatbots’ attributes may also vary depending on the industry. For
example, system quality may register higher importance in the health-care industry (May and
Denecke, 2022). It also will be useful also to repeat the survey in the future in different
countries to capture potential differences.

References
Agarwal, N. (2017), “Insights to Performance excellence 2017-2018: using the Baldrige framework and
other integrated management systems”, Quality Progress, Vol. 50 No. 12, p. 76.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand community:
evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Azzopardi, E. and Nash, R. (2013), “A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp. 222-233.
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Brah, S.A. and Lim, H.Y. (2006), “The effects of technology and TQM on the performance of logistics
companies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 192-209.
Campbell, C., Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Tsao, H.-Y.J. and Mavrommatis, A. (2020), “From data to action:
how marketers can leverage AI”, Business Horizons, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 227-243.
Chaiprasit, S. and Swierczek, F.W. (2011), “Competitiveness, globalization and technology
development in Thai firms”, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 188-204.
Chen, M.-M., Murphy, H.C. and Knecht, S. (2016), “An importance performance analysis of smartphone
applications for hotel chains”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 29,
pp. 69-79.
Cheng, Y. and Jiang, H. (2022), “Customer–brand relationship in the era of artificial intelligence:
understanding the role of chatbot marketing efforts”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 252-264.
Chiarini, A. (2020), “Industry 4.0, quality management and TQM world. A systematic literature review
and a proposed agenda for further research”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 603-616.
Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H. and Kim, S.J. (2020), “Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction Effects of
regarding luxury brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 587-595.
chatbots’
Coyle, J.R., Smith, T. and Platt, G. (2012), “‘I’m here to help’: how companies’ microblog responses to
consumer problems influence brand perceptions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
attributes
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
1167
de Souza, F.F., Corsi, A., Pagani, R.N., Balbinotti, G. and Kovaleski, J.L. (2021), “Total quality
management 4.0: adapting quality management to Industry 4.0”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 749-769.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), “Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-71.
Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent partial least squares path modeling”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Fiore, A.M., Jin, H.J. and Kim, J. (2005), “For fun and profit: hedonic value from image interactivity and
responses toward an online store”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 669-694.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gao, L., Waechter, K.A. and Bai, X. (2015), “Understanding consumers’ continuance intention towards
mobile purchase: a theoretical framework and empirical study–A case of China”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 53, pp. 249-262.
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R. and Singh, R. (2016), “Social
media marketing efforts of luxury brands: influence on brand equity and consumer behavior”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5833-5841.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2018), Advanced Issues in Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 2-24.
Hair, J.F., Hult, T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., Magno, F., Cassia, F. and Scafarto, F. (2020), Le Equazioni
Strutturali Partial Least Squares. Introduzione Alla PLS-SEM, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2022), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hoyer, W.D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B., Kraume, K. and Shankar, V. (2020), “Transforming the customer
experience through new technologies”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 57-71.
Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2019), “Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the
interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G.C., II, Kumar, A., Nasco, S.A. and Clark, T. (2007), “Toward a unified theory of
consumer acceptance technology”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1059-1084.
Laranjo, L., Dunn, A.G., Tong, H.L., Kocaballi, A.B., Chen, J., Bashir, R., Surian, D., Gallego, B.,
Magrabi, F. and Lau, A.Y. (2018), “Conversational agents in healthcare: a systematic review”,
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1248-1258.
Lee, Y.W., Strong, D.M., Kahn, B.K. and Wang, R.Y. (2002), “AIMQ: a methodology for information
quality assessment”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 133-146.
TQM Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2016), “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer
journey”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 69-96.
35,5
Libai, B., Bart, Y., Gensler, S., Hofacker, C.F., Kaplan, A., K€otterheinrich, K. and Kroll, E.B. (2020),
“Brave new world? On AI and the management of customer relationships”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 44-56.
Martınez-Lopez, F.J. and Casillas, J. (2013), “Artificial intelligence-based systems applied in industrial
marketing: an historical overview, current and future insights”, Industrial Marketing
1168 Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 489-495.
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977), “Importance-performance analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 77-79.
May, R. and Denecke, K. (2022), “Security, privacy, and healthcare-related conversational agents: a
scoping review”, Informatics for Health and Social Care, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 194-210.
Meyer-Waarden, L., Pavone, G., Poocharoentou, T., Prayatsup, P., Ratinaud, M., Tison, A. and Torne,
S. (2020), “How service quality influences customer acceptance and usage of chatbots”, Journal
of Service Management Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Murtarelli, G., Collina, C. and Romenti, S. (2022), “Hi! How can I help you today?”: investigating the
quality of chatbots–millennials relationship within the fashion industry”, The TQM Journal,
No. ahead-of-print.
Nasco, S.A., Kulviwat, S., Kumar, A. and Bruner Ii, G.C. (2008), “The CAT model: extensions and
moderators of dominance in technology acceptance”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 10,
pp. 987-1005.
Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A. and Wixom, B.H. (2005), “Antecedents of information and system quality: an
empirical examination within the context of data warehousing”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 199-235.
Oh, H. (2001), “Revisiting importance–performance analysis”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 617-627.
Perez, J.Q., Daradoumis, T. and Puig, J.M.M. (2020), “Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: a
systematic literature review”, Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Vol. 28 No. 6,
pp. 1549-1565.
Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R.M. and Wills, G.B. (2019), “Importance-performance analysis based
SWOT analysis”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 44, pp. 194-203.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2006), “The relationship between organization strategy, total quality
management (TQM), and organization performance––the mediating role of TQM”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 168 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: the importance-
performance map analysis”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9,
pp. 1865-1886.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS, B€onningstedt.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P. and Hair, N. (2012), “Online customer experience in e-retailing: an
empirical model of antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 2,
pp. 308-322.
Roy, A.S., Bose, D. and Bera, U. (2020), “Assessment of residential institute foodservice using Kano
categorization and importance–performance analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 401-428.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B.D., Radomir, L. and Ringle, C.M. (2022a), “Progress in
partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1035-1064.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Jr and Ringle, C.M. (2022b), ‘PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet’–retrospective
observations and recent advances”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, pp. 1-15.
Scheidt, S. and Chung, Q. (2019), “Making a case for speech analytics to improve customer service Effects of
quality: vision, implementation, and evaluation”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 45, pp. 223-232. chatbots’
Schmitt, B. (2019), “From atoms to bits and back: a research curation on digital technology and
attributes
agenda for future research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 825-832.
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S. and Ringle, C.M. (2019),
“Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 2322-2347. 1169
Swanson, E.B. (1997), “Maintaining IS quality”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 39 No. 12,
pp. 845-850.
Tasleem, M., Khan, N. and Nisar, A. (2019), “Impact of technology management on corporate
sustainability performance: the mediating role of TQM”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 1574-1599.
Trivedi, J. (2019), “Examining the customer experience of using banking chatbots and its impact on
brand love: the moderating role of perceived risk”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 91-111.
Wang, R.Y. and Strong, D.M. (1996), “Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 5-33.
Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N. and Siebels, A. (2009), “Value-based segmentation of luxury
consumption behavior”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 625-651.
Zarouali, B., Van den Broeck, E., Walrave, M. and Poels, K. (2018), “Predicting consumer responses to
a chatbot on Facebook”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 491-497.

Corresponding author
Francesca Magno can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]