International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pp. 33-43, Jan., 2013.

User Acceptance of Multimodal Interfaces in Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM)

Mutlaq B. Alotaibi & Dimitrios I. Rigas
Manuscript
Received: 10, Oct., 2012 Revised: 30, Oct., 2012 Accepted: 17, Dec., 2012 Published: 25, Dec., 2012

Keywords
Expressive Avatars, Facial Expressions, Usability and Trust, Knowledge-En abled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM)

Abstract There has been an increasing demand for organizations to foster real-time interactions with their customers, through the development of multimedia and Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM) systems. KCRM implementations encounter several challenges from information overload and a lack of trust. Few empirical studies have assessed the role of multimedia systems for tackling these issues. Therefore, this paper describes an empirical investigation into the implication of incorporating multimedia elements into KCRM interfaces. To achieve this, an experimental KCRM platform was implemented with three different modes of interaction: visual-only KCRM (V-CRM) with text and graphics; multimodal KCRM (M-CRM) with speech, earcons and auditory icons; and, avatar-enhanced multimodal KCRM (A-CRM). These three platforms were evaluated by 48 participants (n=48). These participants performed six common tasks and then completed a questionnaire which measured aspects of user acceptance. The results therein revealed that A-CRM was more acceptable than both M-CRM and V-CRM; furthermore, M-CRM was less acceptable than V-CRM.

fear of losing social power or intellectual rights. Indeed, dealing with customers directly can exacerbate the problem, due to the customers position of being outside the organizational boundary and only being a click away from other competitors. However, this demands higher levels of knowledge-based social interaction to take place, among the platforms that are supported by the organization. For instance, a web portal can be introduced with a set of customization and personalization capabilities, in order to accommodate groups and individuals who utilize multiple communication channels. In particular, it is possible for web channels to offer multimedia interactions which enable collaboration and self-services, and more importantly, which motivate further customer-web interactivity. Although the potential of multimedia interaction is well recognized in terms of addressing lack of trust and information overload, the empirical studies evaluating this role have generally failed to utilize the current literature on knowledge-enabled customer relationship management.

2. RESEARCH SCOPE
Many factors explain why customers are reluctant to participate in online knowledge-related activities, but the present study focused on the potential of designing interactive interfaces in order to identify the variables affecting web-based customer interactions, such as multimedia elements, knowledge exchange styles and task complexities. In fact, the scope of this study limited the use of multimedia cues to speech, earcons, auditory icons and facial expressions. Furthermore, the style of knowledge exchange examined was limited to that which related to customer interactions and which was suitable for online environments and software applications. This included the evaluation of communities of customers, as typical KCRM style and co-production of Electronic Products (E-Products). This paper presents an investigation into the users acceptance of technologies used during their interaction with KCRM. In particular, it aimed to assess the aspects relating to user attitudes, beliefs, preferences, views and intentions towards the interaction approach under similar usability conditions. The measure of user acceptance relied on an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that included: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, content quality, cognitive trust and behavioral intentions. This study therefore aimed to create a bridge between two relatively unrelated fields, namely KCRM and multimedia

1. INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in marketing theory and practice have highlighted various opportunities that harnessing customer competencies can provide essential information for value creation and sustainability. A great deal of emphasis is placed on drawing customers closer, in the pursuit of long lasting and more reliable business relationships. In this context, sophisticated customers seek personalized products and services, due to their very high expectations resulting from their experiences of using, daily, such products. Therefore, modern organizations have seriously considered tracking the changing preferences of customers, over time, and more importantly, this has emphasized a rethinking of the role that customers can play in innovation. When active engagement of a customer is sought, it is important to consider that human experts, in general, tend to be reluctant to share knowledge, due to the

34

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pp. 33-43, Jan., 2013.

interaction.

3. CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM)

CRM, as an extension of the concept of Relation Marketing (RM); ultimately, CRM aims to expand customer relationships through acquiring prospective customers, retaining existing customers, expanding transaction competences, enabling profitability, improving customer services and building customer-oriented focus [1]. In many cases, the increasing failure rate of CRM efforts (where 55-75% of efforts fail [2]) indicates that the level of service required by customers is linked to several influential factors, such as the lack of CRM strategy, integration, business process and analytical abilities [2, 3]. In CRM contexts, organizations try to offer different products and services that accommodate customer desires (acquisitions) and increase sales for the same customer through cross-selling and up-selling (enhancements) [4]. Subsequently, organizations attempt to gather knowledge about customers with the aim of providing them with adaptable services while also promoting new products that match their needs which will ultimately lead to customer retention [4]. However, although the cost of acquisition is five to ten times higher than retention [5, 6], todays business imitation (i.e. copying competitors innovations [7]) makes customer retention much harder than ever before [4]. Therefore, it can be said that CRM focuses on customer acquisition, relationship enhancement and retention. In addition, E-CRM is seen as an automation of traditional CRM, or the evolution of the concept of Sales Force Automation (SFA), which electronically gathers customer information in order to understand their buying behaviors by utilizing this information to acquire new relations as well as enhancing and retaining the existing ones [1]. The development of KCRM started when a need was identified to integrate business process with Knowledge Management (KM), due to the growing complexity of business process [8] and knowledge intensity [4]. The KCRM process is complex and requires a great deal of knowledge to be gathered from different sources, this creates not only a complex, but also a knowledge-intensive process [9]. In particular, it is argued that the process of product innovation and development is of the highest complexity and the most knowledge-intensive process in the business process categorization [8]. In addition to the two previous factors, the increasing level of user interaction increases the need for more advanced and real time solutions in the form of KCRM, instead of traditional non-real time approaches, like data mining [4]. To summarize, process complexity, knowledge intensity and better user interaction are the key factors that have contributed to the evolution of KCRM.

face-to-face KCRM [14]. An empirical study [15] into the application of KCRM in E-Commerce indicated that the perception of risk was found to negatively influence customer engagement for online behaviors, especially KCRM activities. In knowledge exchange communities, the fact that participants are involved in online interactions with others, who have never met in person, leads the community to be reliant on socially accepted behaviors that actually require trust in the first place, particularly in the absence of rules and personal cues [16]. Moreover, a study [17] into the effect of trust on virtual communities revealed that trust has been found to have a downstream influence on customer knowledge exchange and utilization. This studied argued that trust is a key factor in the facilitation of cooperative interactions, between seekers and contributors, in this context. When considering that the community nature may inhibit the development of trust, it is also important to consider that trust is essential for the success and continuation of such communities [18]. Similarly, lack of trust was raised as an obstacle to customer constructive involvement in co-production activities. In summary, the lack of customer trust is a common issue usually encountered by KCRM managers, particularly with regard to communities of customers and co-production activities.

5. USER ACCEPTANCE
The argument that trust incorporates cognitions and intentions derived from the Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA) [11], which states that behavioral intentions are influenced by attitudes, and that attitudes are built around beliefs [19]. When the TRA was extended, the determination of perceived behaviors was sought by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [20]. Having been validated, both of these theories (TRA and TPB) were utilized to measure cognitive and emotional behaviors, as well as being used as a basis for a more advanced proposal that evaluates the users acceptance of IT, this was labeled as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [21]. The TAM relies on perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) factors to assess and understand technology acceptance behaviors [22, 23]. PU denotes the degree to which an individual feels that the use of a particular technology would positively influence the task performance, whereas PEOU refers to the degree to which an individual feels about the amount of effort required to accomplish a task using a particular technology. With PU being a major factor and PEOU being secondary in mind [22, 23], it is argued that PEOU has a great effect on PU, because the system is perceived to be more useful, if it is perceived to be easier to use [24]. To summarize, these two earlier models evaluated user behaviors and the TAM was proposed based on the two factors identified above, namely, PU as a major and PEOU as a secondary factor. The TAM was extended to integrate the social factors and identify its effect to determining user behaviors and attitudes [25]. Labeled as TAM2, a study [24] of perceptions and changes over time suggested the inclusion of subjective norms and cognitive instrumental processes as affecting factors; this study revealed that the effect of social
International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

4. LACK OF TRUST
In the context of KCRM, lack of trust has been raised as an issue affecting customer loyalty [10, 11], knowledge sharing [12], electronic KCRM [13], and even in affecting

Mutlaq B. Alotaibi et al.: User Acceptance of Multimodal Interfaces in Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM).

35

factors and cognitive instrumental processes on user acceptance were substantial. Another study [26] into user acceptance of context-specific technologies, in various situations, proposed the modification of the TAM to accommodate technology-based self-service systems. This study concluded that consumer traits and situational factors considerably impact on user acceptance. In another study, OCass and Fenech [27] focused on the web adoption for retailing. They suggested that the TAM can be utilized as a theoretical model for technology evaluation; furthermore, they proposed seven influential factors, including: opinion leadership, buying impulsiveness, satisfaction with the interface, web shopping compatibility, shopping orientation and web security. A TAM revision study [28], which investigated the influential factors affecting the likelihood of customers revisiting web-based systems operating in highly competitive environments, suggested that perceived entertainment values and perceived presentation attractiveness had a considerable effect on technology acceptance. In summary, although the TAM appears to have been demonstrated to be a reliable model for user acceptance evaluation, a great deal of effort was devoted to revise and extend it, and further influential factors have been introduced by various studies. The TAM was initially proposed to examine correlations between factors, including beliefs and intentions, but several researchers have adapted it to extract constructs and to develop scales that are useful for measuring differences between groups. The application of the TAM for interactive KCRM or E-Commerce involves the utilization of the TAM factors, and even factors from the extended versions of the TAM to develop a measurement scale for user acceptance. For instance, a study [29] into initial trust in E-Commerce relied on a quantitative approach of measuring user attitudes towards four conditions, this was based upon an extended version of the TAM, the measures of PU, PEOU, trust beliefs and trust intentions were included. Moreover, information quality was not only introduced as a cognitive factor in trust formation and development [30], but it is also considered to be one of the satisfaction measures in KM systems [31]. In the trust model [30], perceived information quality is seen as a cognitive-based trust element that reflects the consumers perception of information accuracy, reliability and completeness, and it can be linked to several outcomes, such as: improving intentions to purchase, confidence of the vendors reliability, and reducing uncertainty and, hence risk perception. In addition, a study by Ong and Lai [31], on the satisfaction factors, proposed a well-validated instrument to measure user satisfaction in the KM context. In fact, the instrument indicates that there are four dimensions of user satisfaction with KM systems: contents, ease of use, personalization and community. In the content dimension, Ong and Lai [31] suggested that perception of content quality is linked to the fact that the content provided is correct, integral, logical and easy to read. With these two arguments, which relate to the quality of the contents, it can be said that extending the TAM to measure the following
International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

factors: PU, PEOU, cognitive trust, behavioral intentions and quality of contents, will provide a common framework for scale development, and hence a comparative evaluation of user acceptance. In fact, the comparative analysis intended in this study assumes that there will be different modes of customer interactions.

6. CUSTOMER INTERACTION
In addition to the shift in the customers role, the knowledge exchanged between customers with similar backgrounds and interests has resulted in an increased demand for direct interaction with customers to facilitate effective elicitation of Customer Knowledge (CK) [14]. It is argued that such interactions need to be aided and managed during the customer buying cycle (need, evaluation, buying, using and disposal), especially in web-based environments [32]. With emphasis on interaction management, KCRM facilitates the instant delivery of knowledge by offering real-time and two-way dialogue with customers [6]. This supports the argument that interactive systems are among the three CRM components that enable KCRM [5]. Another argument suggests that the real-time interaction with customers, and the fostering of communities of customers, can be deemed, among several proposed approaches, to contribute toward the improvement of CK elicitation [13] and exploitation [33]. In particular, the customer-company interaction [34] can be established in one-way or two-way forms [14] and face-to-face or Electronic Dialogue (E-Dialogue) [35]. Face-to-face interaction is helpful in transferring tacit knowledge [36], while E-Dialogue utilizes electronic means to deal with both explicit and tacit knowledge. Moreover, compared to human-to-human dialogues, it is argued that IT, with the aid of multimedia, is likely to tackle knowledge hoarding by improving the perception of trust [32]. Thus, customer interaction has been identified as contributing toward several outcomes which relate to CK elicitation and, hence, organizational growth. Typically, the role of innovative interaction is curial to the improvement of user performance in general Information Systems (IS), as opposed to traditional interactions. The significance of this approach has been evaluated and demonstrated to be useful in different fields of studies, such as music interface design [37-39], score collections [40], visual target spotting [41], software engineering [37-39, 42-45], information retrieval [46, 47], simulation [48], E-Learning [49, 50], E-Commerce [29, 51-55] and E-Mail [56, 57]. The evaluation of multimedia interaction can be categorized into usability and user attitude approaches. The usability evaluation measures system effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction [37-39, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 58], whereas attitude evaluation measures the users beliefs, feelings, preference s and intentions towards the system [29, 51, 53-55, 59, 60]. In these studies, textual and graphical interfaces were complemented by multimedia interactions in order to convey information that was either complex, or communicated more rapidly, as opposed to traditional visual interfaces. In fact, multimedia-aided interfaces were initially designed to tackle several problems, such as information

36

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pp. 33-43, Jan., 2013.

overload [37-39, 41, 52], lack of modalities [51, 53], extensive use of text [49], identification of document relevancy in web search results [46, 47], lack of trust [29, 54, 55] and other issues [40, 48, 50, 58]. Some of these interfaces communicated information visually (text with graphics [37, 39, 40, 46-52, 58]), vocally (speech recognition [37, 39, 40]), aurally (speech [37, 39, 41, 46, 47, 49-52, 58] and non-speech sounds [47, 48, 58]), or by combining speech with expressive and non-expressive avatars [29, 51, 53, 55, 61]. In summary, the role of the multimedia approach was investigated in different fields, based on the usability and user attitude evaluation approaches. The findings indicate that when information is communicated to the end user by various multimedia cues, such as speech, earcons, auditory icons and facial expressions, it is more significant. The evaluation of user preferences and the use of the TAM were suggested as a means to evaluate customer interactions. In fact, multimedia interactions were examined in E-Commerce contexts in terms of user preferences and the application of extended TAM evaluation techniques. In the user satisfaction and preferences techniques, a set of facial expressions and body gestures were presented in the presence and absence of content, and the users were
V-CRM

instructed to identify which they deemed to be satisfactory and which they preferred. Rigas and Gazepidis conducted a series of experiments [51, 53] to investigate the role of speech, avatars with facial expressions and with body language in E-Commerce systems, their research was based on a within-participants design. A comparative evaluation, by Rigas and Gazepidis [53] into the role of expressive avatars for improving E-Commerce capabilities, evaluated three interface conditions: text with graphics, avatars with facial expressions and avatars with body gesture. They found that the complementing of avatars with facial expressions was the most preferable condition. A further investigation by Rigas and Gazepidis [51], into the possibility of combining various modalities in interfaces of E-Commerce systems, found that complementing facial expressions with body gestures was perceived to be the most preferred modality combination. More recently, Gazepidis and Rigas [59] evaluated various facial expressions and body gestures in terms of user preferences, but in the absence of content. They found that a set of various facial expressions contributed positively toward enriching the interaction experience, compared with several other negative expressions.

M-CRM

A-CRM

(a) Product catalogue

(b) Co-production interface

Fig. 1. Snapshots of the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM interfaces according to (a) product catalogue (b) and co-production interface

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

Mutlaq B. Alotaibi et al.: User Acceptance of Multimodal Interfaces in Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM).

37

It is noteworthy that the investigations into expressive avatars failed to combine facial modalities with other metaphors, such as earcons. In addition, the avatar contribution was compared with other media cues to investigate their effects on trust and user acceptance. A study by Aldiri, Hobbs and Qahwaji [29] investigated the use of personal media cues for tackling lack of trust in E-Commerce web-based systems. They found that the presence of video clips and photographs related positively toward initial trust. Furthermore, Aldiri, Hobbs and Qahwajis [29] investigation emphasized cultural aspects by introducing avatars in different cultural styles, and by applying an extended version of the TAM to measure aspects relating to PU, POEU, trust beliefs and intentions. Their experiment utilized a within-participants experimental design, where 72 participants examined these four systems. The variation in system usability was assessed by utilizing checklists designed to measure the usability index [29]. Therefore, the presence of avatars in E-Commerce interfaces was evaluated either by user preference measures or by an application extended TAM version. Overall, it can be said that multimedia interactions can address: trust, structure and content questions in KCRM. This potential was well recognized in the KCRM literature, but it had not been empirically evaluated. Therefore, this research attempts to fulfill this gap in the literature.

to two styles of KCRM: communities of customers and co-production. It aims, therefore, to also compare perception of trust with respect to cognitive and behavioral components during the interaction with the three systems. Finally, the experiment aims to evaluate the ranking of user preferences of the three interaction approaches. B. Objectives It was particularly important to pursue the research aims in order to identify a set of objectives that were realistic and achievable. These objectives are listed below, they aimed: To assess the three interaction modes in terms of user attitudes toward the usefulness of metaphors and the ease of use, by providing ordinal rankings. To assess the three interaction approaches in terms of the user perceptions of trust and quality of content by providing ordinal rankings. To measure the user preferences of communities of customers and co-production metaphors in terms of user numerical ratings. To measure the users overall preferences of the three approaches in terms of user provided numerical ratings. C. Experimental Hypotheses Six experimental hypotheses have been identified as a means to examine the differences among the three approaches. These are now stated below: Overall, KCRM interfaces with multimedia will be perceived as more acceptable to users than the text with graphics. KCRM interfaces that utilized multimedia will be perceived as more useful and easier to use than the text with graphics. KCRM interfaces aided by multimedia will be perceived as more trustworthy than the text with graphics. Content presented by audio-visual KCRM interfaces will be perceived as of higher quality than text with graphics. A-CRM will be perceived as more useful, easier and more preferred than V-CRM. M-CRM will be perceived as more useful, easier and more preferred than V-CRM. D. Variables This section will now describe the dependent, independent and control variables. Five dependent variables were measured by a questionnaire that was devised specifically for this study, as shown in Appendix A. Perceived ease of use (PEOU): this was measured by a set of five items, including: ease of use, ease of learning, flexibility of interaction, clarity of interaction and ease of interaction. Perceived usefulness (PU): PU was assessed by a set of five items, including: usefulness of the system, convenience, benefit of time saving, benefit of productivity and benefit of accuracy.

7. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
In a previous experiment, conducted by Alotaibi and Rigas [62], comparative evaluations were conducted to investigate the use of multimodal metaphors to improve the usability of KCRM systems to increase the users trust, satisfaction and knowledge. This experiment relied on an extended TAM version to extract the constructs utilized to measure user acceptance of the three KCRM experimental platforms that were evaluated in the previous experiment [62]. In addition, the experimental design differed from that in the previous research, the use of a within-participants design allowed the user to compare the three interaction modes (used in the previous experiment [62]), in order to rank their most proffered one. This paper enriches the overall experimental program further by looking into the use of multimodal metaphors in KCRM interfaces, from a different angle. Fig. 1 illustrates the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM interfaces in accordance to (a) product catalogue and (b) co-production. The three modes of interactions were described in more detail in the previous research [62]. A. Aims This paper aims at evaluate aspects of user acceptance of: the texts with graphics (V-CRM), multimodal with speech, earcons and auditory icons (M-CRM) and avatar-enhanced multimodal (A-CRM) platforms. It aims to provide an overall picture of KCRM perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, quality of contents, cognitive trust and behavioral intentions, with regard to user attitudes toward V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM. Another aim of this experiment was to assess the users views of the usefulness and ease of use for the three interaction modes with regard
International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

38

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pp. 33-43, Jan., 2013.

Quality of contents (QOC): QOC was measured by a set of six items, including: decent and correct content, ease of content understanding, logical and integral content, sufficient content, reliable content and overall satisfaction with content. Cognitive trust (CT): this was measured by several items, such as trustworthiness of the vendor, attractiveness of the system, anticipation of user needs and the providing of advice. Behavioral intention (BI): this was measured be a set of six items which were directly related to the users intentions toward purchasing from the website. In addition, there were two dependent variables, as follows: Interaction mode: this involved the three interaction modes: V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM. KCRM styles: this included two conditions: communities of customers and co-production. Control variables were also utilized, the control variables included factors that could influence the dependent variable, these variables usually need to be controlled (or removed) during the course of the experiment [187]. The control variables included: System familiarity: all of the users were introduced to a system that they had not experienced prior to the experiment. All participants were provided with a short training session to explain the provided features. Perceptual context: all of the users were provided with the mapping to identify the perceptual context between the information represented and the metaphors used to communicate the information in both systems. The ability of the user to interpret such metaphors was tested prior to the experiment through specifically designed tasks in which the users were provided with help until they demonstrated their ability to interpret the metaphors themselves. Contents of the system: the two versions of the system were linked to the same database, and they accessed the same data. Required tasks: all users were required to accomplish the same tasks. Learning effect: because user performance increases as the interaction with the system increases, the order of
V-CRM 120%

the tasks were counterbalanced between the users in order to neutralize a possible task learning effect. Task criterion time (determined prior to the experiment through a pilot study): each task was associated with a maximum criterion time per task, after which the user was instructed to stop the specific task and proceed to the next one. Usability condition: the users attitudes were measured under similar usability conditions, because it became apparent that the difference among the three interaction modes increased, as the task complexity increased. Therefore, task complexity and system usability were controlled in this experiment by the tasks being designed on one complexity level.

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig. 2 shows the mean values of: perceived use of use (a); perceived usefulness (b); quality of contents (c); cognitive trust (d); behavioral intention (e); and, overall (f) scores for using the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM experimental systems. Regarding the reliability of scales, the Cronbachs results suggest that all of the user acceptance variables that derived from the summated scales were reliable, including: PEOU (=0.907); PU (=0.916); QOC (=0.873); CT (=0.856); and, BI (=0.842). Overall, it can be seen in Fig. 2 that the three experimental platforms were ordered as A-CRM, V-CRM and M-CRM with regard to the five factors of user acceptance. In Fig. 2 (a), the mean score of perceived ease of use appeared to vary considerably among the three interaction modes. The mean value for V-CRM was considerably greater (25%) than that for M-CRM and slightly lower (12%) than that for A-CRM; whereas, the mean value for M-CRM was over three-quarters that for A-CRM. The paired t-test comparison also showed that the difference in the score of perceived ease of use was found to be statistically significant, between V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=4.9, cv=2.009, p<0.05), M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=8.6, cv=2.009, p<0.05), and between V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=5.1, cv=2.009, p<0.05).

M-CRM

A-CRM

78% 62% 88%

75% 57% 85%

100%
Average Score

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Perceived Perceived Quality of Cognitive trust Behavioural ease of use (a) usefulness (b) contents (c) (d) intention (e)

Overall (f)

Fig. 2. Mean values of: perceived use of use (a); perceived usefulness (b); quality of contents (c); cognitive trust (d); behavioral intention (e); and, overall (f) scores for using the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM experimental systems

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

74% 65% 85%

74% 66% 85%

72% 71% 85%

71% 66% 84%

Mutlaq B. Alotaibi et al.: User Acceptance of Multimodal Interfaces in Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM).

39

In Fig. 2 (b), a considerable variation between the mean score of perceived usefulness of the three experimental systems can be observed. The mean value of perceived usefulness for M-CRM was three-quarters and two-thirds of those for V-CRM and A-CRM, respectively; whereas, the mean score for V-CRM was slightly lower than that for A-CRM. This difference was statistically significant between V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=5.4, cv=2.009, P<0.05), M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=10, cv=2.009, p<0.05), as well as for V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=5.3, cv=2.009, p<0.05). In Fig. 2 (c), the levels for the quality of contents showed a similar picture for V-CRM and M-CRM, but this was improved upon for A-CRM. The mean score of content quality was relatively constant in interaction mode 1 and mode 2, whereas mode 3 showed higher levels (17% to 18%) of perceived quality. The variance in content quality did not reach statistical significance between interaction mode 1 and mode 2 (t47=0.3, cv=2.009, p>0.05), but it was found to be significant between M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=4.6, cv=2.009, p<0.05), and between V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=5.2, cv=2.009, p<0.05). In Fig. 2 (d), it can be seen that the levels and trends of cognitive trust varied slightly among the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM experimental systems. The mean value of cognitive trust for M-CRM and V-CRM was five-sixths and six-sevenths for A-CRM, respectively; whereas, the mean value of cognitive trust for M-CRM was slightly lower than that for V-CRM. Although the variation between the levels of cognitive trust were very low, the paired t-test results show that the difference was significant between V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=2.1, cv=2.009, p<0.05), M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=7.7, cv=2.009, p<0.05), and between V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=5.4, cv=2.009, p<0.05). In Fig. 2 (e), the mean values for behavioral intention for M-CRM and V-CRM were almost four-fifths and five-sixths for A-CRM, respectively; whereas the mean value for M-CRM was slightly lower (12%) than that for V-CRM. The results obtained from the t-test suggest that the difference in behavioral intention was significant between V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=3.2, cv=2.009, p<0.05),
V-CRM 150%

M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=7.1, cv=2.009, p<0.05), and between V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=4.4, cv=2.009, p<0.05). Finally, in Fig. 2 (f), it can be seen that the variation in user acceptance was in favor of A-CRM over V-CRM and M-CRM. The mean value of user acceptance for A-CRM was slightly higher than for V-CRM and considerably greater than for M-CRM; whereas, V-CRM was 14% more acceptable than for V-CRM. Furthermore, the difference in user acceptance reached statistical significance between V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=4.2, cv=2.009, p<0.05), M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=9.6, cv=2.009, p<0.05), and between V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=7, cv=2.009, p<0.05). In addition, the results obtained from the repeated-measures ANOVA indicate that the difference among the three experimental systems was statistically significant with regard to all aspects of user acceptance. This included PEOU (F=41.3, cv=3.07, p<0.05); PU (F=45.1, cv=3.07, p<0.05); QOC (F=12.9, cv=3.07, p<0.05); CT (F=26.6, cv=3.07, p<0.05); BI (F=20.4, cv=3.07, p<0.05); and, for overall scores (F=43.1, cv=3.07, p<0.05). In summary, the levels of user acceptance indicate that A-CRM was the most acceptable interface to users, whereas M-CRM was the least. Fig. 3 shows the mean ranking values for: overall score, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), according to: communities of customers (a) and co-production (b) for KCRM styles using the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM experimental systems. At first glance, A-CRM can be considered to be the most useful and easiest interface for both contexts of co-production and communities of customers; whereas, V-CRM was the next preferred and M-CRM was perceived as the least preferred. In Fig. 3 (a), it can be seen that the mean value for overall score (communities of customers) for M-CRM was almost four-fifths that for V-CRM and just two-thirds that for A-CRM; whereas, the mean value for A-CRM was slightly higher (by 15%) than that for V-CRM. In fact, the mean value for PU in the context of communities of customers for M-CRM was 19% and 42% lower than that for V-CRM and A-CRM, respectively.
A-CRM

M-CRM

82% 61% 94%

84% 63% 94%

Average Score

90%

60%
30% 0% Overall PU PEOU Overall PU PEOU

Communities of Customers (a)

Co-Production (b)

Fig. 3. Mean ranking values of: overall score, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), according to: communities of customers (a) and co-production (b) for KCRM styles using the V-CRM, M-CRM and A-CRM experimental systems

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

81% 61% 93%

120%

83% 61% 95%

82% 65% 94%

80% 67% 95%

40

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pp. 33-43, Jan., 2013.

In addition, the mean value of PU (communities of customers) for A-CRM was higher (19%) than that for V-CRM. In PEOU, the mean value of PEOU in the context of communities of customers for M-CRM was three-quarters that for V-CRM and almost 50% lower than that for A-CRM; whereas, the mean value for A-CRM was slightly higher (12%) than that for V-CRM. In addition, the difference in overall score was found to be significant not only in the paired comparison between V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=5.2, cv=2.009, p<0.05), V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=5.5, cv=2.009, p<0.05) and M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=12.1, cv=2.009, p<0.05), but also in the overall comparison among all interfaces (F=6.4, cv=3.07, p<0.05). In summary, it can be said that A-CRM was the most useful and easiest interface in the context of communities of customers, while M-CRM was ranked to be the least useful. In Fig. 3 (b), the level of overall scores for PU and PEOU, in the context of co-production, showed relatively identical variations to those for communities of customers. The mean value of overall score for M-CRM was almost three-quarters that for V-CRM and just two-thirds that for A-CRM; whereas, the mean value of the V-CRM score was five-sixths that for A-CRM. In fact, the mean value of PU in the context of co-production for A-CRM was 56% and 15% higher than for M-CRM and V-CRM respectively; whereas, the mean value for M-CRM was three-quarters that for V-CRM. In PEOU of the co-production interface, the mean value for V-CRM was considerably greater (33%) than that for M-CRM and slightly lower (13%) than that for A-CRM; whereas, the mean value for A-CRM was 53% higher than that for M-CRM. Furthermore, the difference reached statistical significance not only during the paired comparisons of V-CRM and M-CRM (t47=6.7, cv=2.009, p<0.05), V-CRM and A-CRM (t47=5.7, cv=2.009, p<0.05) and M-CRM and A-CRM (t47=11.3, cv=2.009, p<0.05), but also in the overall comparison among all modes of interaction (F=73.7, cv=3.07, p<0.05). In summary, A-CRM was shown to be the most useful and easiest among the three modes with regard to communities of customers and co-production styles, followed by V-CRM in second place and M-CRM was perceived as being the least useful. In terms of user rankings of the interface which was proffered the most, A-CRM was ranked as the most preferred interface for both communities of customers and co-production styles; whereas, M-CRM was ranked in third place. It can be said that 90% of the users preferred A-CRM as the most preferred interface for communities of customers, compared to 10% for V-CRM. V-CRM was actually ranked to be the second preferred interface for communities of customers after A-CRM, by 71% of the users, compared to 19% for M-CRM and 10% for A-CRM. In addition, the least preferred interface for communities of customers was ranked to be M-CRM by 81% of the users, in comparison with 19% to V-CRM. In addition, 90% of the users selected A-CRM as the most preferred co-production interface, in comparison with 10% given to V-CRM. In the second preferred interface, 77% of the users ranked V-CRM in second place after A-CRM, compared to 13% for M-CRM and 10% for A-CRM. For the third preferred

interface, 88% of the users ranked M-CRM as the least preferred interfaces, compared with 13% given to V-CRM. In summary, it can be concluded that A-CRM was the most preferred interface (by 90% of the users) for both KCRM styles (communities of customers and co-production). The two platforms (M-CRM and V-CRM) fluctuated between the second and the least preferred positions.

9. CONCLUSION
User acceptance reflects the users first impression toward the appearance of E-Business initiatives [29]. In KCRM, it is important to consider multimodal interaction when designing acceptable user interfaces. In particular, the use of multimodal metaphors of social presence can significantly affect user acceptance and enhance the interaction experience. It can be said that the positive effect of expressive avatars is linked to the lack of human warmth and sociability in online environments. The pleasant appearance of user interfaces appears to be a major contributor toward enhancing the perception of usefulness, ease of use, quality of content and trustworthiness, which causes increasing intentions toward using a system. In addition, a socially rich user interface improves the relationship with prospective customers, who usually rely on their first impressions of whether to continue browsing a web-based system or shift to a competitors system. Great emphasis has been placed on trust beliefs and intentions; but, it is also important to consider other affecting factors that may undermine or improve trust, such as familiarity with the system and reputation of the E-Business system. This investigation into user acceptance could be regarded as a basis for evaluating the effect of familiarity and reputation, but this area would merit from further experimental work.

References
[1] D. Ross, "E-CRM From a Supply Chain Management Perspective," (2005) Information Systems Management, vol. 22, pp. 37-44. [2] J. Chan, "Toward a Unified View of Customer Relationship Management," (2005) The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge (JAABC), vol. 6, pp. 32-38. [3] A. Such, K. Principles, K. Methods, I. Roles, K. Mapping, and K. P. R. Reasoning, "Linking E-Business and Operating Orocesses: The Role of Knowledge Management," (2001) IBM Systems Journal, vol. 40. [4] A. Tiwana, The Essential Guide to Knowledge Management: E-Business and CRM Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ. London: Prentice Hall PTR, Prentice-Hall International (2001). [5] A. Massey, M. Montoya-Weiss, and K. Holcom, "Re-Engineering the Customer Relationship: Leveraging Knowledge Assets at IBM," (2001) Decision Support Systems, vol. 32, pp. 155-170. [6] S. Pan and J. Lee, "Using E-CRM for a Unified View of the Customer," (2003) Communications of the ACM, vol. 46, pp. 95-99.

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

Mutlaq B. Alotaibi et al.: User Acceptance of Multimodal Interfaces in Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM).

41

[7] A. Goh, "Harnessing Knowledge for Innovation: An Integrated Management Framework," (2005) Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 9, pp. 6-18. [8] M. Eppler, P. Seifried, and A. Rpnack, "Improving Knowledge Intensive Processes Through an Enterprise Knowledge Medium," (1999) Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, pp. 222-230. [9] A. Bueren, R. Schierholz, L. M. Kolbe, and W. Brenner, "Improving Performance of Customer-Processes with Knowledge Management," (2005) Business Process Management Journal, vol. 11, pp. 573-588. [10] T. Feng and J. Tian, "Customer Knowledge Management and Condition Analysis of Successful CKM Implementation," (2005) Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 4, pp. 22392244. [11] V. Casalo, C. Flavian, and M. Guinaliu, "Fundaments of Trust Management in the Development of Virtual Communities," (2008) Management Research News, vol. 31, p. 324. [12] T. Davenport and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press (1998). [13] M. Gibbert, M. Leibold, and G. Probst, "Five Styles of Customer Knowledge Management, and How Smart Companies Use Them To Create Value," (2002) European Management Journal, vol. 20, pp. 459-469. [14] M. Garca-Murillo and H. Annabi, "Customer Knowledge Management," (2002) Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 53, pp. 875-884. [15] C. Lopez-Nicolas and F. Molina-Castillo, "Customer Knowledge Management and E-Commerce: The Role of Customer Perceived Risk," (2008) International Journal of Information Management, vol. 28, pp. 102-113. [16] A. Karl and D. Zoran, "Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System," (2001) in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ACM. [17] C. Ridings, D. Gefen, and B. Arinze, "Some Antecedents and Effects of Trust in Virtual Communities," (2002) Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 11, pp. 271-295. [18] Z. Yan and S. Holtmanns, "Trust Modeling and Management: From Social Trust to Digital Trust," (2008) in Computer Security, Privacy and Politics: Current Issues, Challenges and Solutions Pennsylvania, USA: IGI Global, pp. 290-323. [19] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall: New York (1980). [20] I. Ajzen, "From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior," in J. Kuhland and J. Beckman (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, New York: Springer, pp. 11-39 (1985). [21] F. Davis, "A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results," (1986) in Sloan School of Management. vol. PhD: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [22] F. Davis, R. Bagozzi, and P. Warshaw, "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," (1989) Management Science, vol. 35, pp. 982-1003.

[23] F. Davis, "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," (1989) MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 319-340. [24] V. Venkatesh, "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," (2000) Information Systems Research, vol. 11, pp. 342-365. [25] S. Alsuliman, "Investigating the Factors Affecting the Use of B2C E-Commerce in Saudi Arabia," (2008) in School of Management. vol. MBA Bradford: University of Bradford. [26] P. Dabholkar and R. Bagozzi, "An Attitudinal Model of Technology-Based Self-Service: Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Situational Factors," (2002) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 30, pp. 184-201. [27] A. OCass and T. Fenech, "Web Retailing Adoption: Exploring the Nature of Internet Users Web Retailing Behaviour," (2003) Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 10, pp. 81-94. [28] H. Heijden, "E-Tam: A Revision of the Technology Acceptance Model to Explain Website Revisits," (2000) Research Memoranda, VU University Amsterdam, vol. 29. [29] K. Aldiri, D. Hobbs, and R. Qahwaji, "The Human Face of E-Business," (2008) International Journal of E-Business Research, vol. 4, pp. 58-8. [30] D. Kim, D. Ferrin, and H. Rao, "A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and their Antecedents," (2008) Decision Support Systems, vol. 44, pp. 544-564. [31] C. Ong and J. Lai, "Measuring User Satisfaction with Knowledge Management Systems: Scale Development, Purification, and Initial Test," (2007) Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 23, pp. 1329-1346. [32] E. Senger, S. Gronover, and G. Riempp, "Customer Web Interaction: Fundamentals and Decision Tree," (2002) in the Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems Dallas, pp. 1966-1976. [33] E. Lesser, D. Mundel, and C. Wiecha, "Managing Customer Knowledge," (2000) Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 21, pp. 34-7. [34] M. Dous, H. Salomann, L. Kolbe, and W. Brenner, "Knowledge Management Capabilities in CRM: Making Knowledge For, From and About Customers Work," (2005) in the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems Omaha, NE, USA, pp. 167-178. [35] G. Gurgul, M. Rumyantseva, and E. Enkel, "Customer IntegrationEstablish a Constant Bilateral Knowledge Flow," (2002) Diskussionspapier des Research Centers Knowledge Source der Universitt St. Gallen. [36] K. Mertins, P. Heisig, and J. Vorbeck, Knowledge Management: Concepts and Best Practices (2nd Ed). Berlin: Springer (2003). [37] M. Alsuraihi and D. Rigas, "Efficiency on Speech Recognition for Using Interface Design Environments by Novel Designers," (2007) in the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communications Athens, Greece. [38] D. Rigas and M. Alsuraihi, "A Toolkit for Multimodal Interface Design: an Empirical Investigation," (2007) in the 12th International Conference of HCI Beijing, China.

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

42

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pp. 33-43, Jan., 2013.

[39] M. Alsuraihi and D. Rigas, "How Effective is it to Design by Voice?" (2007) in the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK. [40] L. Smith, E. Chiu, and B. Scott, "A Speech Interface for Building Musical Score Collections," (2000) in the 5th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, United States, pp. 165-173. [41] S. Kieffer and N. Carbonell, "Computer Science> Human-Computer Interaction Title: How Really Effective are Multimodal Hints in Enhancing Visual Target Spotting? Some Evidence From a Usability Study," (2007) Journal Reference: Journal on Multimodal Interfaces (JMUI), vol. 1, pp. 1-9. [42] D. Rigas and J. Alty, "Using Sound to Communicate Program Execution," (1998) Proceedings of the 24th EUROMICRO Conference, vol. 2, pp. 625632. [43] M. Cohen and L. Ludwig, "Multidimensional Audio Window Management," (1991) International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 34, pp. 319-336. [44] C. DiGiano, R. Baecker, and R. Owen, "LogoMedia: A Sound-Enhanced Programming Environment for Monitoring Program Behavior," (1993) Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, pp. 301-302. [45] D. Sonnenwald, B. Gopinath, G. Haberman, W. Keese Iii, and J. Myers, "InfoSound: An Audio Aid to Program Comprehension," (1990) in the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Hawaii. [46] D. Rigas and A. Ciuffreda, "An Empirical Investigation of Multimodal Interfaces for Browsing Internet Search Results," (2007) in the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communications Athens, Greece. [47] D. Rigas and A. Ciuffreda, "The Use of Multimodality in Delivering Web Results: An Empirical Investigation," (2007) in IADIS International Conference in Computer Graphics and Visualization Lisbon, Portugal. [48] W. Gaver, R. Smith, and T. O'Shea, "Effective Sounds in Complex Systems: The ARKOLA Simulation," (1991) in CHI 91 ACM Press, pp. 85-90. [49] D. Rigas, D. Hopwood, and H. Yu, "The Role of Multimedia in Interfaces for On-Line Learning," (2003) in the 9th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI'2003) Thessaloniki, Greece. [50] S. Rashid and D. Rigas, "E-Learning: An Experimental Note-Taking Platform," (2006) WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research, vol. 1, pp. 254-259. [51] D. Rigas and N. Gazepidis, "A Further Investigation of Facial Expressions and Body Gestures as Metaphors in E-Commerce," (2007) in the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communications Athens, Greece. [52] D. Rigas and A. Stergiou, "An Empirical Approach to Audio-Visual Guided Electronic Commerce," (2007) WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research, vol. 2, pp. 177-182. [53] D. Rigas and N. Gazepidis, "Facial Expressions and Body Gestures as Metaphors for B2C Interfaces: An Empirical Study," (2006) in the International Conference on e-Business Setubal, Portugal. [54] N. Almojel, "Fostering Trust for Middle-Eastern B2C E-Commerce," (2007) in Department of Department of

Electronic Imaging and Media Communications (EIMC). PhD Bradford: University of Bradford. [55] K. Al-Diri, D. Hobbs, and R. Qahwaji, "Are Media Cues Really a Key Driver Towards Trust in Business to Consumer E-Commerce," (2007) in the 2nd International Conference on E-Business ICE-B07 Barcelona, Spain, pp. 227-234. [56] D. Rigas, "Empirically Derived Multimedia Design Guidelines for Browsing Large Volumes of E-Mail Data," (2003) Annals of Mathematics, Computing & Teleinformatics (AMCT), vol. 1, pp. 77-83. [57] D. Rigas and D. Memery, "Multimedia E-Mail Data Browsing: The Synergistic Use of Various Forms of Auditory Stimuli," (2003) in International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 582-586. [58] D. Rigas and I. Bahadur, "A Two Platform Empirical Study to Investigate the Use of Audio in a Stock Control Application," (2006) WSEAS Transactions on Computers, vol. 5, pp. 21-40. [59] N. Gazepidis and D. Rigas, "Evaluation of Facial Expressions and Body Gestures in Interactive Systems," (2008) International Journal of Computers, vol. 2, pp. 92-97. [60] N. G. Gazepidis and D. Rigas, "Facial Expressions and Body Gestures in E-Commerce: An Empirical Investigation," (2008) in Department of Computing, School of Informatics. PhD Bradford: University of Bradford. [61] K. Al-Diri, D. Hobbs, and R. Qahwaji, "Effects of Social Presence and Cultural Representation on Websites for Promoting Trust in B2c E-Commerce: A Saudi Arabian Study," (2006) in the IADIS E-Commerce International Conference Barcelona, Spain, pp. 323-327. [62] M. B. Alotaibi and D. I. Rigas, "An Empirical Approach to Multimodal Customer Knowledge Management," (2010) Intelligent Decision Technologies, vol. 4, pp. 181-195. [63] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, "Inexperience and Experience with Online Stores: The Importance of TAM and Trust," (2003) Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 50, pp. 307-321. [64] D. Gefen, "E-Commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust," (2000) The International Journal of Management Sciences, vol. 28, pp. 725-737. [65] K. Al-Diri, "The Effect of Visual Media Cues on Initial Trust in Business to Consumer Electronic Commerce Websites in Saudi Arabia," (2008) in Department of Electronic Imaging and Media Communications (EIMC), PhD Bradford: University of Bradford. Mutlaq B. Alotaibi is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems (IS) at Imam University. In 2010, Dr. Alotaibi was appointed Head of the IS department. In 2012, he was appointed as the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs at the College of Computer and Information Sciences. His main research interests are in the area of interactive systems, particularly in multimodal interaction and adaptive user interfaces. He is also interested in IS research, particularly consumer behavior, and in the application of user acceptance of technologies. He has publications in the fields of, customer International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

Mutlaq B. Alotaibi et al.: User Acceptance of Multimodal Interfaces in Knowledge-Enabled Customer Relationship Management (KCRM).

43

knowledge management (CKM), customer relationship management (CRM), e-business and e-commerce, usability testing and usability heuristics.

Dimitrios Rigas is a Professor in Computer Science with several years of experience from six UK universities, as an academic and as a student. His professional career demonstrates an excellent record of research in interactive systems with multimedia and multimodal metaphors (with over 150 peer reviewed research papers in international journals and conferences). In recognition of his research, teaching and management abilities, he was appointed, in April 2000, to Senior Lecturer, Founding Head of Intelligent Information Systems and Founding Director (Associate Dean) of Academic Programmes and Development in the newly formed School of Informatics at the University of Bradford. In 2001, he was also appointed Honorary Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Loughborough. In 2009, he was appointed Professor, and Head of Department, at De Montfort University.

Appendix A Questionnaire Statements

Construct Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) Measurement items The website was easy to use. It was easy to become skilful at operating and using this website. I found this website flexible to interact with (flexibility of interaction). The interaction with this website was clear and understandable. It was ease to interact with this website. This website was useful for searching for and customizing products. I felt that this website was convenient The website allowed me to complete tasks more quickly. Using this website increased my productivity. Using this website increased my accuracy of completing tasks. The website provided decent and correct information about products. The information provided by the website was easy to understand. The website communications appeared consistent, stable and not contradictory. The website provided sufficient and reliable information about products. Overall, I felt satisfied with the information provided by the website. I believe that the website vendor is trustworthy. The website seems attractive, entertaining and positive. The website seems to anticipate customer needs. The website advice seems impartial and objective. The vendor seems to have a personal interest in doing business with me. I am likely to re-visit this website, when searching for another product online. I am likely to purchase from this website, if it would offer the product I am looking for. I would provide this website with my credit card details to make a purchase. I am likely to provide this website with my personal details and email address to be informed about further offers. I would not like this website to analyze my historical purchases and navigational activities. I am likely to bookmark this page and recommend it to a friend. Adapted from [63] [63] [63] [63] [63] [30] [30] [30] [30] [30] [30, 31] [31] [31] [30] [30] [30, 63, 64] [10, 63] [65] [65] [63] [63] [30] [30] [30] [30]

Perceived Usefulness (PU)/ Perceived Benefit Quality of Content (QOC)

Cognitive Trust (CT)

Behavioral Intention (BI)

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)