SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Malatya Turgut Özal Üniversitesi İşletme ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Erosion of Consumer Autonomy: AI Trust, Dependency, and Purchase Intention in Conversational Commerce

Tüketici Özerkliğinin Erozyonu: Konuşmacı Ticarette Yapay Zekâ Güveni, Bağımlılık ve Satın Alma Niyeti

Bülent Şen(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8561-8173
Pages
313–338
Publication Date
2026-10-22
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study advances four theoretical contributions: (1) conceptualizing AISA dependency as two qualitatively distinct constructs, functional and maladaptive, differentiated by whether consumer decision agency is preserved or compromised; (2) proposing that algorithmic transparency, under conditions of high algorithmic trust, may strengthen maladaptive dependency by reducing the motivation for independent evaluation; (3) positioning autonomy threat as an active mediating mechanism in the pathway to purchase intention rather than solely as an ethical concern arising at the end of the process; and (4) arguing that algorithmic trust is not uniformly beneficial or harmful for consumers, but produces outcomes that may vary with the form of dependency it generates and with individual and contextual conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AI-powered shopping assistants (AISAs) are increasingly integrated into consumer decision-making processes in conversational commerce.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study conceptualizes that tension through the Autonomy Paradox Framework (APF), a theory-building framework that connects the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and trust theory within an integrated explanatory mechanism describing how algorithmic trust can differentiate into two qualitatively distinct dependency pathways and why these pathways may produce divergent consequences for consumer autonomy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study advances four theoretical contributions: (1) conceptualizing AISA dependency as two qualitatively distinct constructs, functional and maladaptive, differentiated by whether consumer decision agency is preserved or compromised; (2) proposing that algorithmic transparency, under conditions of high algorithmic trust, may strengthen maladaptive dependency by reducing the motivation for independent evaluation; (3) positioning autonomy threat as an active mediating mechanism in the pathway to purchase intention rather than solely as an ethical concern arising at the end of the process; and (4) arguing that algorithmic trust is not uniformly beneficial or harmful for consumers, but produces outcomes that may vary with the form of dependency it generates and with individual and contextual conditions.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay Zekâ Alışveriş Asistanları · Konuşmacı Ticaret · Tüketici Özerkliği

Abstract

AI-powered shopping assistants (AISAs) are increasingly integrated into consumer decision-making processes in conversational commerce. At the center of this transformation lies a structural tension that existing literature has not yet fully articulated: algorithmic trust can simultaneously support functional dependency that preserves consumer decision agency and give rise to maladaptive dependency that may weaken independent evaluative capacity. This study conceptualizes that tension through the Autonomy Paradox Framework (APF), a theory-building framework that connects the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and trust theory within an integrated explanatory mechanism describing how algorithmic trust can differentiate into two qualitatively distinct dependency pathways and why these pathways may produce divergent consequences for consumer autonomy. Nine theoretically grounded hypotheses are developed, and the conceptual model is presented in a form suitable for future empirical testing. The study advances four theoretical contributions: (1) conceptualizing AISA dependency as two qualitatively distinct constructs, functional and maladaptive, differentiated by whether consumer decision agency is preserved or compromised; (2) proposing that algorithmic transparency, under conditions of high algorithmic trust, may strengthen maladaptive dependency by reducing the motivation for independent evaluation; (3) positioning autonomy threat as an active mediating mechanism in the pathway to purchase intention rather than solely as an ethical concern arising at the end of the process; and (4) arguing that algorithmic trust is not uniformly beneficial or harmful for consumers, but produces outcomes that may vary with the form of dependency it generates and with individual and contextual conditions.

Özet

Yapay zekâ destekli alışveriş asistanları (YAZAA), sohbet tabanlı ticarette tüketicilerin karar verme süreçlerine giderek daha fazla dâhil olmaktadır. Bu dönüşümün merkezinde, mevcut literatürün henüz tam olarak ortaya koyamadığı yapısal bir gerilim bulunmaktadır: Algoritmik güven, tüketicinin karar verme özerkliğini koruyan işlevsel bağımlılığı desteklerken aynı zamanda bağımsız değerlendirme kapasitesini zayıflatabilecek uyumsuz bağımlılığa da yol açabilmektedir. Bu çalışma, söz konusu gerilimi Özerklik Paradoksu Çerçevesi (ÖPÇ) aracılığıyla kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Kuram geliştirmeye yönelik bu çerçeve; Teknoloji Kabul Modeli (TAM), Öz Belirleme Kuramı (SDT) ve güven kuramını, algoritmik güvenin nitelik bakımından birbirinden farklı iki bağımlılık yoluna nasıl ayrışabileceğini ve bu yolların tüketici özerkliği açısından neden farklı sonuçlar doğurabileceğini açıklayan bütünleşik bir mekanizma içinde bir araya getirmektedir. Kuramsal temellere dayanan dokuz hipotez geliştirilmiş ve kavramsal model, gelecekteki ampirik sınamalara uygun bir yapıda sunulmuştur. Çalışma dört kuramsal katkı sunmaktadır: (1) YAZAA bağımlılığını, tüketicinin karar verme özerkliğinin korunmasına veya zedelenmesine göre birbirinden ayrılan, işlevsel ve uyumsuz olmak üzere nitelik bakımından farklı iki yapı olarak kavramsallaştırmak; (2) algoritmik şeffaflığın, algoritmik güvenin yüksek olduğu koşullarda bağımsız değerlendirme motivasyonunu azaltarak uyumsuz bağımlılığı güçlendirebileceğini ileri sürmek; (3) özerklik tehdidini yalnızca sürecin sonunda ortaya çıkan etik bir kaygı olarak değil, satın alma niyetine uzanan süreçte etkin bir aracı mekanizma olarak konumlandırmak; (4) algoritmik güvenin tüketiciler açısından her koşulda yararlı veya zararlı olmadığını, ortaya çıkardığı sonuçların yol açtığı bağımlılık biçimine, bireysel koşullara ve bağlamsal koşullara göre farklılaşabileceğini savunmak.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şen, B. (2026). Erosion of Consumer Autonomy: AI Trust, Dependency, and Purchase Intention in Conversational Commerce. Malatya Turgut Özal Üniversitesi İşletme ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 313–338. https://ajindex.com/articles/1595784

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Adam, M., Wessel, M., & Benlian, A. (2021). AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance. Electronic Markets, 31(2), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00414-7
  2. Balakrishnan, J., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024). Conversational commerce: Entering the next stage of AI-powered digital assistants. Annals of Operations Research, 333(2–3), 653–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04049-5
  3. Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00762-y
  4. Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021). To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), Article 188. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
  5. Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851788
  6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  7. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  9. Dietvorst, B. J., Logg, J. M., & Simmons, J. P. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
  10. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800305
  11. Dul, J. (2021). Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Logic and methodology of 'necessary but not sufficient' causality. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 10–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118773349
  12. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing the human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
  13. Eren, B. A. (2021). Determinants of customer satisfaction in chatbot use: Evidence from a banking application in Turkey. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 39(2), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-02-2020-0056
  14. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
  15. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Managing user trust in B2C e-services. e-Service Journal, 2(2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2979/esj.2003.2.2.7
  16. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  17. Han, J., & Ko, D. (2025). Consumer autonomy in generative AI services: The role of task difficulty and AI design elements in enhancing trust, satisfaction, and usage intention. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 534. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040534
  18. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  19. Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903439003
  20. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  21. Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9
  22. Kim, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless? Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006
  23. Komiak, S. Y. X., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 941–960. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148760
  24. Lee, J. D. (2018). Dynamics of trust in automated systems. In R. Pak & A. McLaughlin (Eds.), Aging, technology and health (pp. 315–342). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811272-4.00013-8
  25. Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
  26. Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
  27. Luo, X., Tong, S., Fang, Z., & Qu, Z. (2019). Frontline education: The bright side and dark side of artificial intelligence in consumer interactions. Journal of Marketing, 83(6), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919900506
  28. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
  29. McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353
  30. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
  31. Moriuchi, E. (2021). An empirical study of consumers' engagement and trust in e-commerce: Chatbots and AI. Psychology & Marketing, 38(10), 1791–1808. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21537
  32. Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
  33. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
  34. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  35. Puntoni, S., Reczek, R. W., Giesler, M., & Botti, S. (2021). Consumers and artificial intelligence: An experiential perspective. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920953847
  36. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS GmbH. https://www.smartpls.com
  37. Roy, S. K., Singh, G., Hope, M., Nguyen, B., & Harrigan, P. (2022). The rise of smart consumers: Role of smart servicescape and smart consumer experience co-creation. Journal of Marketing Management, 38(9–10), 1096–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2021.2011028
  38. Sheehan, B., Jin, H. S., & Gottlieb, U. (2020). Customer service chatbots: Anthropomorphism and adoption. Journal of Business Research, 115, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.030
  39. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
  40. Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021). My chatbot companion: A study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601
  41. Sundar, S. S. (2020). Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human-AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026
  42. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1086/321947
  43. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  44. Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(4), 217–246. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230410
  45. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
  46. Wirtz, J., Kunz, W. H., Hartley, M. A., & Tarbit, N. (2021). Corporate digital responsibility in service firms and their ecosystems. Journal of Service Research, 24(3), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670521996444
  47. Zhu, L., Li, H., Wang, F.-K., He, W., & Tian, Z. (2020). How online reviews affect purchase intention: A new model based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(4), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2019-0310