Next Article in Journal
Who Is Manipulating Corporate Wallets Amid the Ever-Changing Circumstances? Digital Clues, Information Truths and Risk Mysteries
Previous Article in Journal
Examining Consumer Impulsive Purchase Intention in Virtual AI Streaming: A S-O-R Perspective
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Seeing Is Believing: The Impact of AI Magic Mirror on Consumer Purchase Intentions in Medical Aesthetic Services

1
Business School, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China
2
School of Digital Economy and Management, Nanjing University, Suzhou 215163, China
3
School of International Education, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20(3), 205; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20030205
Submission received: 10 June 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 25 July 2025 / Published: 7 August 2025

Abstract

The integration of AI into online platforms is reshaping consumer experience and behavior. While existing research has largely focused on the role of AI in search services and experience services, few studies have examined the role of AI in the context of credence services. This study fills this gap by investigating an AI-powered preview tool in the context of online medical aesthetic platforms. Specifically, this study investigates how the AI Magic Mirror influences consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services. Using secondary data analysis and two experimental studies, we examine the main effects, as well as mediation and moderation effects. The findings consistently demonstrate that the AI Magic Mirror significantly increases consumer purchase intentions. This relationship is positively mediated by perceived value and negatively mediated by perceived risk. In addition, the main effect is stronger for procedures with higher fit uncertainty and is more pronounced for those with lower popularity. These results provide theoretical insights into AI application in credence service contexts and offer practical implications for the design of AI-enhanced online service platforms.

1. Introduction

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have served as a transformative catalyst, endowing e-commerce platforms with the capability to deliver enhanced value to consumers [1]. Specifically, AI not only autonomously develops complex technological networks based on predefined goals, thereby enhancing consumers’ perceived value of AI-enabled services [2], but also leverages data-driven learning to generate consumer benefits [3], thereby promoting the robust growth of e-commerce. The AI e-commerce market grew from USD 8.06 billion in 2024 to USD 9.19 billion in 2025 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.0%. This upward trend is projected to continue, reaching USD 16.42 billion by 2029 at a CAGR of 15.6% [4]. This rapid development has attracted considerable scholarly attention. However, existing research has predominantly focused on the role of AI in search and experience services, while its application in credence service contexts remains insufficiently explored. Compared to search and experience services, credence services involve higher uncertainty and information asymmetry [5]. These characteristics not only make the role of AI potentially distinct in such contexts but also highlight the need for AI to enhance platform effectiveness. Understanding how AI functions in the context of credence services thus presents a critical research issue. In this study, we focus on the role of AI in credence services by examining an AI-powered virtual preview tool, AI Magic Mirror, on online medical aesthetic platforms, contributing to a deeper understanding of AI in e-commerce.
Medical aesthetic services, as credence services, are characterized by information asymmetry, professional specialization, and associated risks and uncertainties [6]. Consumers find it challenging to foresee outcomes before making a purchase and to assess service quality after completion [7], resulting in a lack of consumer trust and purchase delays or even abandonment [5,8]. Traditional strategies such as reviews, free sampling, return policies, or insurance are insufficient to address these challenges, as medical aesthetic services are highly individualized and often involve irreversible outcomes [9,10,11]. AI Magic Mirror, leveraging extensive facial data and cosmetic procedure information through data mining, deep learning, and image processing, provides vivid previews of potential treatment outcomes and personalized cosmetic solutions, thereby better supporting consumers’ understanding, evaluation, and purchase of services by simulating firsthand experience prior to purchase [12].
However, the highly realistic facial analysis and predictions provided by the AI Magic Mirror may exacerbate consumers’ appearance-related anxiety and trigger psychological resistance. In particular, when judgments regarding their appearance or recommended procedures deviate from their expectations, such experiences may foster unfavorable attitudes and reduce purchase intentions. Moreover, AI is not always perceived as trustworthy [13]. Consequently, how the AI Magic Mirror influences consumer purchase decisions in medical aesthetic services remains unclear. To address this gap and advance understanding of AI in e-commerce, we propose the first research question: How does the AI Magic Mirror influence consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services? Moreover, the AI Magic Mirror has the potential to alleviate consumer concerns about medical aesthetic services by enhancing perceived value and reducing perceived risk, which are two key factors in building consumer trust and facilitating purchase decisions. Accordingly, this study draws on the theoretical frameworks of perceived value and perceived risk to examine the underlying mechanisms in the relationship between the AI Magic Mirror and consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services. This leads to our second research question: What mediating mechanisms underlie the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions in this context? Furthermore, to gain a deeper understanding of how the AI Magic Mirror influences consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services, this study investigates how its effects vary from the procedure perspectives, specifically in relation to fit uncertainty and procedure popularity. To this end, we propose the third research question: How does the impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services vary based on fit uncertainty and procedure popularity?
To investigate the above questions, we employ a dual approach that combines secondary data analysis and experimental design. First, we conduct an initial analysis using real transaction data from a leading medical aesthetic platform (Study 1) to investigate the relationship between AI Magic Mirror and service sales, along with the moderating effects of fit uncertainty and procedure popularity. Subsequently, we design and conduct two experiments (Study 2 and Study 3) to validate the main and moderating effects observed in Study 1 and to examine the mediating mechanism through perceived value and perceived risk in the relationship between AI Magic Mirror and consumer purchase intentions. We obtain consistent results across all three studies. The AI Magic Mirror enhances both service sales and consumer purchase intentions. This effect is stronger for services with high fit uncertainty, but is weakened when procedure popularity is high. Specifically, the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention is mediated by perceived value and perceived risk.
This study advances the understanding of AI applications on e-commerce platforms by examining the impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase decisions for medical aesthetic services. It holds important implications for research on AI applications, consumer behavior, and e-commerce. By investigating the mediating roles of perceived value and perceived risk, the study strengthens the theoretical foundation and provides empirical evidence for how AI Magic Mirror influences consumer decisions. Furthermore, by testing the moderating effects of fit uncertainty and procedure popularity, the study offers a more nuanced understanding of how AI applications affect consumer decision-making. These findings provide strategic insights for online medical aesthetic platforms seeking to leverage AI applications to facilitate consumer decision-making and boost service sales, and may also inform broader industries such as fitness and wellness by enhancing their development and competitiveness.

2. Literature Review

2.1. AI in E-Commerce

AI pertains to the capacity of a system to accurately capture and analyze external data, to learn from such data, and utilize this acquired learning to attain particular objectives, complete particular tasks, and resolve broad issues via adaptable adjustments [14]. In recent times, notable progress in computational power and the emergence of novel machine learning techniques, coupled with the exponential growth of volume, increase in the richness of variety, and improvement of veracity of data, have collectively enhanced platform AI capability [1]. Platform AI capability is defined as the platform’s ability to continuously learn from data and enhance products and services for each consumer [1]. This capability is evident across various dimensions of e-commerce platforms and is currently applied primarily in search services and experience services.
First, the primary means by which platform AI capability could augment value as perceived by consumers is predictive capabilities [15]. Recommender systems provide consumers with personalized suggestions by utilizing available data to predict individual needs and facilitate decision-making [16]. However, Recommender systems may also trigger algorithm aversion among consumers [17,18]. Second, AI chatbots could influence consumer trust and purchase intentions. Although the warmth and competency perceived from chatbots may arouse skepticism, it in turn affects consumer trust in the service provider, consequently influencing consumer decision-making [19]. Third, AI assistants could influence consumers’ utilitarian and hedonic values [20,21]. AI assistants elevate consumer convenience to an unprecedented level, enabling repetitive shopping tasks to be accomplished solely through voice commands [22,23,24,25]. Fourth, AI applications can impact consumers’ perceived risk of services on online platforms [21]. For example, AI word-of-mouth systems influence consumers’ word-of-mouth and purchasing behavior by affecting perceived risks [26].
Despite existing research exploring the application of AI on platforms from various perspectives, the majority of studies center around search and experience services. There is a paucity of research examining how AI can be employed in credence services on e-commerce platforms. Credence services are characterized by high uncertainty and irreversible consequences, which amplify consumers’ perceived risk [7]. Previous research indicates that consumers exhibit different attitudes and behaviors toward services depending on their type and associated level of risk [27,28]. Therefore, existing research findings may not fully apply to the context of credence services. This study addresses this gap by examining how the AI Magic Mirror influences consumer purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services, thereby contributing to research on AI applications in e-commerce platforms.

2.2. AI in Medical Aesthetics

In the field of medical aesthetics, AI technology has long been applied to medical aesthetic and plastic surgery, particularly with the advent of facial recognition algorithms and deep learning, which have fundamentally transformed the capabilities of physicians to optimize cosmetic procedures and enhance aesthetic outcomes [29]. Currently, AI technology is utilized to assist physicians in diagnosis, making decisions, and preoperative planning, as well as outcome prediction and evaluation in the realm of cosmetic procedures and medical aesthetics [30]. Given the significant visual components in medical aesthetics, the extraction and processing of essential features from images, along with the generation of realistic images related to cosmetic procedures, are focal points of AI technology in this field [31]. These technologies are commonly employed in the diagnostic process with medical images and facial images [32,33]. Nowadays, these technologies are embedded in online platforms to assist consumers in evaluating and selecting service procedures: this is the AI Magic Mirror.
The AI Magic Mirror uses data and algorithms to simulate service outcomes, allowing consumers to visually preview the outcomes in advance. This simulation helps reduce fit uncertainty and the perceived risk of irreversible outcomes. However, the effectiveness of the AI Magic Mirror in the context of medical aesthetic services remains unclear [18]. First, trust in AI remains a subject of debate. While Gerlich et al. (2024) argue that AI earns trust through its fairness and accuracy [34], Ryan (2020) contends that AI cannot build trust due to its inability to assume responsibility [13]. Second, the visualization of the AI Magic Mirror is also uncertain. Although its simulated results may support consumer judgment and decision-making, they may also increase appearance-related anxiety and perceived risk. Therefore, in the context of medical aesthetics, both consumer trust in AI and the effect of the AI Magic Mirror’s visualization warrant closer examination.

2.3. Perceived Value and Perceived Risk

Perceived value is first introduced by Zeithaml, who defines it as the consumer’s overall evaluation of the utility of a product or service, based on a subjective trade-off between the benefits received and the costs incurred during the decision-making process [35]. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) conceptualize perceived value as typically consisting of four dimensions: functional value (e.g., quality, performance), emotional value (e.g., pleasure, enjoyment), social value (e.g., social approval, status), and monetary value (e.g., price) [36]. Perceived risk, first introduced by Bauer (1969), refers to the level of uncertainty consumers associate with decision-making during the purchasing process [37]. Perceived risk is typically categorized into five dimensions, including financial, functional, physical, psychological, and social risks [38]. In the field of e-commerce, perceived value and perceived risk play a critical role in shaping consumer behavior [39]. Accordingly, how AI applications embedded in platforms influence consumer behavior through perceived value and perceived risk has attracted increasing scholarly attention.
AI technologies often enhance perceived value to promote favorable consumer behavior. For example, AI applications such as voice assistants and virtual streamers increase consumer engagement, purchase intentions, and electronic word-of-mouth by enhancing their perceived value [40,41]. Perceived value also mediates the relationship between AI experiences and sustainable behaviors, highlighting its central role in consumer and AI interaction [42]. At the same time, AI can also facilitate consumer decision-making by reducing perceived risk, especially in situations where uncertainty or ambiguity is high. AI word-of-mouth systems mitigate concerns about product quality, which fosters consumer trust and increases purchase behavior [26]. Together, perceived value and perceived risk serve as core mechanisms through which AI influences consumer responses to purchase recommendations from AI-powered voice assistants [43].
Existing studies repeatedly demonstrate that perceived value and perceived risk serve as mediators in the relationship between AI applications and consumer behavior. In the context of medical aesthetic services, we think these two constructs similarly mediate the effect of the AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions. Medical aesthetic services involve multiple dimensions of perceived value, including functional value (such as quality and performance), emotional value (such as pleasure and enjoyment), social value (such as social approval and status), and monetary value (such as price). At the same time, consumers also perceive various types of risk, including financial risk (such as money), functional risk (such as unsatisfactory outcomes), psychological risk (such as disappointment or regret), and social risk (such as negative social evaluation). Therefore, perceived value and perceived risk are essential intermediary factors in understanding how the AI Magic Mirror influences consumer purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services.

2.4. Fit Uncertainty

Uncertainty refers to a situation in which consumers are unable to accurately assess the value of a product or service due to incomplete information [12]. Prior research discusses two types of uncertainty: quality uncertainty, which relates to a consumer’s inability to evaluate the performance and quality of a product or service [44], and fit uncertainty, which refers to a consumer’s difficulty in determining whether a product or service meets their individual needs [45]. Fit uncertainty is particularly salient in credence services, as the utility of such services often depends on the degree of personalized fit with the consumer [45]. Therefore, this study focuses on the fit uncertainty associated with medical aesthetic services.
Fit uncertainty is a critical factor influencing consumer purchase intentions and satisfaction [44]. Prior studies find that fit uncertainty negatively affects purchase intentions, and reducing such uncertainty can increase purchase volume and enhance consumer loyalty [46]. As a result, mitigating fit uncertainty has been a persistent concern in research. For search services, where attribute information is clear and easily shared, providing additional information, such as reviews, textual descriptions, visual depictions, instant messaging tools, or Q&A content, is often effective in reducing fit uncertainty [47]. However, for experiential services, where service characteristics are difficult to articulate and consumer preferences vary substantially, informational approaches may be insufficient [46]. In such cases, methods like imitation, augmented reality (AR), and live streaming have been shown to reduce fit uncertainty [48,49]. Compared to search and experience services, credence services present even greater challenges in terms of fit uncertainty, as service outcomes are often more difficult to assess, even post-consumption [44,50]. In this study, the AI Magic Mirror is proposed as a tool to reduce consumers’ fit uncertainty regarding medical aesthetic services, thereby increasing their purchase intentions.
In the context of medical aesthetics, fit uncertainty refers to consumers’ difficulty in evaluating whether a service aligns with their personal preferences and whether the expected results are compatible with their individual characteristics. Previous research shows that fit uncertainty moderates the relationship between imitation and purchase intentions, suggesting that the effect of imitation varies across services with different levels of fit uncertainty [51]. Similarly, the higher the fit uncertainty of a medical aesthetic service, the more likely consumers are to rely on the AI Magic Mirror to make informed purchase decisions. Therefore, the effect of AI Magic Mirror may vary across medical aesthetic services with different levels of fit uncertainty.

3. Hypotheses Development

3.1. AI Magic Mirror and Purchase Intention

Research indicates that consumer trust is a critical factor in facilitating purchase decisions, particularly in the context of credence services [10]. Medical aesthetic services, as a type of credence service, combined with consumers’ limited familiarity with the procedures and uncertainty about the outcomes, make it difficult for consumers to develop trust, thereby hindering their purchase decisions [10]. Many existing consumer trust enhancement strategies rely on others’ experiences (such as reviews and recommendations) [52,53], which may not be entirely effective for medical aesthetic services that are personalized and involve more risks. Notably, there is no strategy more critical to consumers’ understanding, evaluation, and purchase of a service than their own service experience prior to making a purchase [12]. However, the outcomes of medical aesthetic services are inherently irreversible. The integration of an AI-based virtual preview application, the AI Magic Mirror, into medical aesthetic platforms enables consumers to virtually preview the outcomes of service procedures [30]. This not only helps consumers gain a clearer understanding of their individual service requirements but also enables them to visualize potential outcomes with greater realism and personalization, thereby boosting their trust and facilitating purchase decisions [12]. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H1: 
AI Magic Mirror increases consumer purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services compared to the non-use of the AI Magic Mirror.

3.2. Mediation by Perceived Value

Perceived value refers to a consumer’s overall evaluation of the utility of a product or service based on a trade-off between the benefits and the costs [35]. In existing studies, perceived value is widely recognized as a key driver of consumer purchase intentions [41]. Therefore, enhancing perceived value of consumers is crucial in the context of e-commerce platforms. Recent advancements in AI technologies provide new avenues for platforms to generate consumer value. AI could enhance consumers’ perceived value of AI-enabled services through goal-oriented applications and data-driven learning [1]. On medical aesthetic platforms, the AI Magic Mirror, an AI-based virtual preview application, enhances how consumers perceive the usefulness and value of medical aesthetic services [54]. Specifically, AI Magic Mirror allows individuals to preview the outcomes of service procedures, such as a more prominent nose, larger eyes, or fuller lips, and enables consumers to visualize the beauty value of these services in a vivid and realistic manner. Observing a more attractive appearance of themselves often elicits positive emotions and a desire for such improvements to become reality [55]. Therefore, the AI Magic Mirror significantly enhances the perceived value of medical aesthetic services for consumers, thereby increasing their purchase intentions. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H2: 
The impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions is mediated by perceived value.

3.3. Mediation by Perceived Risk

Perceived risk refers to consumers’ concerns about the possibility and severity of negative outcomes associated with a purchase decision [37]. According to Baker (1990), purchase-related perceived risk arises from both the potential consequences of making the wrong choice and uncertainty about the likelihood of adverse outcomes occurring [56]. In the context of medical aesthetics, perceived risk significantly reduces consumer purchase intentions, given the high uncertainty and irreversible outcomes of credence services [57]. The AI Magic Mirror helps mitigate this risk by leveraging visual simulation technology, which addresses core sources of perceived risk. First, by allowing consumers to preview post-treatment appearances, it reduces ambiguity about the service outcome and enhances consumers’ understanding of what to expect. Second, by enabling comparisons across different service options in a personalized and visual manner [58], the AI Magic Mirror decreases uncertainty, thereby alleviating anxiety about making the wrong choice [59]. In doing so, it reduces both outcome-related and choice-related risk perceptions, thereby increasing consumer purchase intentions. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H3: 
The impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions is mediated by perceived risk.

3.4. Moderation by Fit Uncertainty

Fit uncertainty refers to the uncertainty consumers face when evaluating whether the characteristics of a service align with their preferences and if the service outcomes are appropriate for their individual features [45]. As the adage goes, there are a “thousand people among a thousand faces,” reflecting the inherent variation in aesthetic preferences and needs. In the context of medical aesthetic services, fit uncertainty is an important consumer concern. Therefore, consumers need to mitigate the risk caused by fit uncertainty. However, the degree of fit uncertainty varies across different types of service procedures. The extent to which consumers seek to mitigate fit uncertainty depends on the level of fit uncertainty inherent in the service [60,61]. When facing services with high fit uncertainty, consumers exhibit a stronger need to evaluate the appropriateness of the service procedure [62]. In such cases, consumers are more likely to rely on the AI Magic Mirror, which helps visualize personalized treatment outcomes and alleviates fit-related concerns, thereby exerting a greater influence on their purchase intentions [45]. Conversely, for services characterized by lower fit uncertainty, the role of the AI Magic Mirror becomes less critical, and its influence on purchase intention is correspondingly reduced. Therefore, we propose the following:
H4: 
Fit uncertainty strengthens the impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services.

3.5. Moderation by Procedure Popularity

Procedure popularity refers to the level of recognition, prevalence, or widespread acceptance of a service in the market, typically reflected by indicators such as sales volume, number of reviews, or social reputation [12]. In the context of medical aesthetic services, procedures with high popularity are typically extensively purchased, thoroughly documented, and widely recognized by consumers, thereby providing them with abundant reference cases, publicly available information, and reduced concerns [63]. Therefore, consumers can more easily make purchase decisions for highly popular procedures, reducing their reliance on additional decision-support tools such as the AI Magic Mirror. In contrast, procedures with low popularity often diverge from general consumer preferences, and are characterized by limited reference information and heightened uncertainty, which collectively increase the difficulty of consumer decision-making [12]. In such cases, consumers are more likely to rely on the AI Magic Mirror to better understand the procedure and make purchase decisions [64]. Prior research indicates that products or services with lower popularity tend to derive greater benefit from enhanced information availability [65]. In line with this, the AI Magic Mirror is more effective in promoting consumer purchase intentions for low-popularity medical aesthetic procedures. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following:
H5: 
Procedure popularity weakens the impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions toward medical aesthetic services.
The theoretical model is shown in Figure 1 below.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study 1: Secondary Data Analysis

4.1.1. Data Collection Variable Measurement

To examine the role of the AI Magic Mirror on online medical aesthetic platforms, we used data crawled in July 2022 from the leading medical aesthetics platform in China. The dataset comprises four interrelated components: reviews, procedures, doctors, and hospitals. The four datasets are merged using reviewID, procedureID, doctorID, and hospitalID as key identifiers. Following the removal of missing values and outliers, the final dataset consists of 31,386 observations.
We use the number of sales of a service procedure as the dependent variable. We design the independent variable as a binary dummy variable. A value of 1 denotes a service procedure that can be simulated with the AI Magic Mirror, while a value of 0 signifies a service procedure that cannot be simulated with the AI Magic Mirror. We considered fit uncertainty and procedure popularity of service procedure as moderating variables. We classify service procedures into high- and low-fit uncertainty groups based on the extent to which their outcomes vary across individuals. Procedures whose effects differ significantly from person to person are categorized as high-fit uncertainty, whereas those with relatively consistent outcomes across users are considered low-fit uncertainty. Additionally, we categorize service procedures into high- and low-popularity groups using data from medical aesthetic industry reports. Specifically, procedures ranked among the top ten in terms of gross merchandise volume (GMV) are classified as high-popularity, while all others are considered low-popularity. Moreover, we introduce controls for hospital, physician, and product attributes that could potentially exert an influence on the dependent variable. Table 1 provides a description and summary of the variables.

4.1.2. Empirical Models and Results

We employ ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to examine the impact of AI Magic Mirror on sales of service procedure and to explore how this effect varies across the fit uncertainty and procedure popularity [66]. The models are specified as follows:
Y i = β 0 + β 1 A I i + β 2 C o n t r o l s i + ε i t
Y i = β 0 + β 1 A I i × M o i + β 4 C o n t r o l s i + ε i t
In the above models, Yi represents the sales of service procedure i. The term AIi is a dummy variable that equals 1 if the service procedure i can be simulated using the AI Magic Mirror and 0 otherwise. Controlsi include hospital, physician, and procedure attributes of service procedure i. Moi refers to fit uncertainty and procedure popularity, which are all the dummy variables of service procedure i. Fit uncertainty equals 1 for a high-uncertainty procedure and 0 for a low-uncertainty procedure; procedure popularity equals 1 for a procedure with high popularity and 0 otherwise.
We obtain the initial results from the regression analysis, which reveal a 36% increase in sales of service procedures when the AI Magic Mirror is used compared to when it is not. This finding offers initial support for the positive impact of AI Magic Mirror on service procedure sales ( β 1 = 0.308, p < 0.001). We also perform a series of robustness tests. First, to address concerns regarding potential violations of standard regression assumptions, we further estimate the model using robust standard errors. Second, considering that product sales are nonnegative count variables, we also conduct robustness checks using a negative binomial regression model. Then, we use mean-centered variables to reduce potential multicollinearity. Last, in order to make the group of procedures using AI Magic Mirror more comparable to the group of procedures not using AI Magic Mirror, we apply PSM to generate a more balanced sample of data [67]. Specially, we use hospital, physician, and product attributes as covariates and apply caliper nearest-neighbor matching, excluding 76 samples outside the common support region. After matching, all covariate differences are nonsignificant (as shown in Figure A1). All findings align with the main effect, further confirming that the AI Magic Mirror positively influences the sales of service procedures. The overall results are presented in Table 2.
Model (2) examines the moderating effects of fit uncertainty and procedure popularity on the relationship between AI Magic Mirror and sales of service procedures. As shown in Table 3, we find that the AI Magic Mirror has a stronger effect on purchase intentions for services with high fit uncertainty than on those with low fit uncertainty ( β 1 = 0.562, p < 0.001). In contrast, its effect on purchase intentions is weaker for highly popular procedures than for those with low popularity ( β 1 = −0.592, p < 0.001).
Although the initial results obtained from the secondary data analysis are consistent with our hypotheses, the inherent limitations of such data prevent us from establishing a robust causal relationship between the use of the AI Magic Mirror and consumer purchase intentions. Therefore, to further validate the causal effect of the AI Magic Mirror on purchase intentions, we conducted two experimental designs. These experiments not only confirmed the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions, but also demonstrated the moderating roles of fit uncertainty and procedure popularity. Additionally, they allowed us to further explore the underlying mechanisms by examining the mediating roles of perceived value and perceived risk.

4.2. Study 2: Experimental Study

Study 2 employs an experimental design to empirically test the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention (H1) and the moderating effect of fit uncertainty (H4) by manipulating experimental variables. Additionally, the study examines the mediating roles of perceived value (H2) and perceived risk (H3).

4.2.1. Study 2 Design

This study adopts a 2 (AI Magic Mirror: usage vs. non-usage) × 2 (fit uncertainty: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. Two representative cosmetic procedures are selected: double eyelid surgery and photon skin rejuvenation. Double eyelid surgery is characterized by high fit uncertainty, as its effectiveness largely depends on individual facial features. In contrast, photon skin rejuvenation, a relatively standardized skin care procedure, represents low fit uncertainty. To ensure internal validity, all variables are held constant across conditions except for the procedure name. In the treated condition, participants use the AI Magic Mirror feature from the medical aesthetic platform to perform facial scanning and visualize simulated outcomes. In the control condition, participants use a mobile phone camera to observe their appearance and imagine the potential results, thereby simulating a decision-making process without the support of AI Magic Mirror.
(1) Sample
A total of 500 participants are randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (125 participants per group). Responses that fail the attention check or are incomplete are excluded from the analysis. The final sample consists of 384 valid responses. Demographic analysis shows that the majority of participants are female (72.9%), and most fall within the age range of 21 to 40 years (87.0%). The educational background is generally high, with 88.3% holding at least a bachelor’s degree. Participants represent a wide range of occupations, and 58.9% report previous experience with cosmetic treatments. These sample characteristics are consistent with the primary consumer profile in the current Chinese cosmetic market, supporting the external validity of study. The sample information is presented in Table 4.
(2) Procedure
The experiment proceeds as follows. Participants are randomly assigned to one of four conditions and receive standardized instructions. Those in the AI Magic Mirror group use the designated AI Magic Mirror function on the medical aesthetic platform to scan their faces and experience a virtual simulation of the assigned procedure. In contrast, participants in the control group use their front camera to observe their faces and imagine the post-procedure effects. After the experience, all participants complete a questionnaire assessing key variables, including purchase intention, perceived value, and perceived risk, along with manipulation checks related to AI Magic Mirror and fit uncertainty, as well as demographic information. All measures are adapted from established scales in the existing literature and are assessed using a seven-point Likert scale, which is modified and adjusted to suit the context of this study (as shown in Table 5).

4.2.2. Study 2 Results

(1) Manipulation check results
To assess the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations, we conduct two checks. First, we validate the AI Magic Mirror manipulation by asking participants whether they used an AI virtual preview application to view the post-procedure effect. Participants who failed to comply with the manipulation are excluded from the analysis. Second, we test the manipulation of fit uncertainty using independent samples t-tests, which reveal that participants in the double eyelid surgery condition report significantly higher fit uncertainty than those in the photon skin rejuvenation condition (MD = 5.46 vs. MP = 5.25, t (382) = 2.136, p < 0.05). These results confirm the success of both manipulations and support the validity of the subsequent moderation analyses.
(2) Reliability and Validity Results
Before testing the hypotheses, we assess the reliability and validity of the measurement scales. All constructs demonstrate strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α values exceeding 0.87. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) shows that all items load highly on their respective factors (generally > 0.80), and the extracted single factors explained a high proportion of the total variance (all > 72%). These results support the reliability and construct validity of the measurement instruments utilized in the study (as shown in Table 5).
(3) Main Results
To test Hypothesis 1, this study conducts a one-way ANOVA to examine the main effect of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services. After controlling for procedure type, gender, age, education level, occupation, and consumer experience, the analysis reveals a significant positive effect of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions (F (1, 363) = 74.682, p < 0.001), as shown in Table 6. The corresponding effect size is 0.17, indicating that the use of the AI Magic Mirror leads to an approximate 17% increase in consumer purchase intentions [71]. In practical terms, this improvement could translate into a substantial boost in the sales of medical aesthetic services. Specifically, the mean purchase intention in the AI Magic Mirror condition is 4.614 (SE = 0.273), which is significantly higher than that in the non-AI Magic Mirror condition, with a mean of 3.604 (SE = 0.283). The mean difference between the two groups is 1.011 (95% CI [0.781, 1.241], p < 0.001). These results suggest that the AI Magic Mirror significantly enhances consumer purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services, thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
Next, we employ the PROCESS macro (Model 4) to test the mediating roles of perceived value (H2) and perceived risk (H3) in the relationship between AI Magic Mirror and purchase intention, controlling for consumer experience, procedure type, and demographic covariates. Regarding the mediating roles of perceived value, the results show that AI Magic Mirror positively impacts perceived value (β = 0.703, p < 0.001), which in turn positively impacts purchase intention (β = 0.825, p < 0.001). Bootstrap analysis with 5000 resamples confirms a significant indirect effect of perceived value (indirect effect = 0.580, 95% CI = [0.411, 0.760]), supporting H2. This suggests that the AI Magic Mirror boosts consumer purchase intentions by increasing their perceived value of the service. Regarding the mediating roles of perceived risk, the results show that AI Magic Mirror negatively influences perceived risk (β = −0.881, p < 0.001), which in turn negatively affects purchase intention (β = −0.193, p < 0.001). The mediating effect of perceived risk is also significant (indirect effect = 0.170, 95% CI = [0.093, 0.264]), providing support for H3. This suggests that the AI Magic Mirror boosts consumer purchase intentions by reducing their perceived risk of the service. After controlling for both mediators, the direct effect of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention remains significant (β = 0.252, p < 0.001), indicating that perceived value and perceived risk partially mediate the relationship.
Finally, we examine the moderating effect of fit uncertainty on the relationship between AI Magic Mirror and purchase intention. Using the PROCESS macro (Model 1), we identify a significant positive interaction between AI Magic Mirror and fit uncertainty (β = 0.6227, p < 0.001, ΔR2 = 0.014), as shown in Table 7. Specifically, when the service procedure has high fit uncertainty, the positive effect of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention is stronger (effect size = 1.220, p < 0.001), whereas the effect is weaker when the service procedure has low fit uncertainty (effect size = 0.598, p < 0.001). These findings support H4. This suggests that the AI Magic Mirror is more effective (effect size = 0.6227, p < 0.001) in enhancing purchase intentions for medical aesthetic services with greater individual outcome uncertainty. The same moderating effect is observed when fit uncertainty is treated as a continuous variable, as shown in Figure 2.
Study 2 validates the findings of Study 1. The results demonstrate that the AI Magic Mirror significantly enhances consumer purchase intentions (H1) and confirm the moderating role of fit uncertainty (H4). Importantly, the experiment identifies two underlying mechanisms through which the AI Magic Mirror affects purchase intentions: by increasing perceived value (H2) and by reducing perceived risk (H3). These findings provide causal evidence for the influence of the AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase behavior. However, Study 2 manipulates fit uncertainty by employing different service categories. Although this approach reflects real-world conditions, it may introduce unobserved confounding variables related to differences across service categories. To test the robustness of these findings and further explore the boundary condition of procedure popularity, we designed Study 3.

4.3. Study 3: Experimental Study

Study 3 aims to further validate the core findings and examine the boundary conditions of procedure popularity. To ensure the robustness of the results, this study adopts a consistent service category framework to re-examine the effect of the AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention (H1) and the mediating roles of perceived value and perceived risk (H2 and H3). Moreover, Study 3 investigates the moderating effect of procedure popularity (H5), thereby deepening our understanding of the role of AI Magic Mirror in shaping consumer purchase intentions.

4.3.1. Study 3 Design

This study adopts a 2 (AI Magic Mirror: usage vs. non-usage) × 2 (procedure popularity: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. The implementation of the AI Magic Mirror replicates the approach used in Study 2. Importantly, the stimuli in Study 3 are designed to manipulate perceived procedure popularity. To manipulate perceived procedure popularity, two service procedures with distinct levels of consumer recognition are selected: double eyelid surgery for the high-popularity condition and lower eyelid elongation for the low-popularity condition. All other webpage elements, including the basic description, reference price, and visual presentation, remain identical across conditions to ensure consistency apart from procedure popularity.
Sample. Study 3 recruited 500 participants. After excluding invalid responses, the final sample consists of 395 participants. As shown in Table A1, the demographic profile closely mirrors that of Study 2: 73.7% are female, 88.4% are aged between 21 and 40, and 87.9% hold at least a bachelor’s degree. Additionally, 59.5% report prior experience with service procedures. The consistency in sample characteristics supports cross-study comparisons and enhances the generalizability of the findings.
Procedure. The experimental procedure largely follows that of Study 2. Participants are randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions and, after reading the instructions, proceed to the experience phase. In the AI Magic Mirror condition, participants use the AI Magic Mirror to simulate the assigned procedure. In the non-AI Magic Mirror condition, participants use their phone cameras to observe their faces and imagine the potential outcome. After the experience, all participants complete a questionnaire measuring purchase intention, perceived value, and perceived risk using a seven-point Likert scale. They also respond to manipulation checks related to AI Magic Mirror usage, perceived procedure popularity, prior experience, and demographic information.

4.3.2. Study 3 Results

(1) Manipulation Check Results
Manipulation check results confirm the effectiveness of the experimental design. The manipulation of AI Magic Mirror is validated through direct questioning and participant screening. The manipulation of procedure popularity proves successful, as participants in the high-popularity condition report significantly greater perceived popularity than those in the low-popularity condition (MH = 5.89 vs. ML = 5.63, t (361.846) = 2.829, p = 0.005).
(2) Reliability and Validity Test Results
The reliability and validity tests for the main variables, including purchase intention, perceived value, and perceived risk, show results consistent with those of Study 2. Cronbach’s α coefficients remain high (generally > 0.80), and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) confirms the structural validity of the scale all > 72%, as shown in Table A2. These results indicate that the measurement instruments used in this study are both reliable and valid.
(3) Main Results
We examine the impact of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention. After controlling for gender, age, education level, occupation, and consumer experience, a one-way ANOVA analysis shows that AI Magic Mirror significantly increases consumer purchase intentions (F (1,374) = 35.381, p < 0.001), as shown in Table A3. The corresponding effect size is 0.086 in this sample [71]. Specifically, the mean purchase intention in the AI Magic Mirror condition is 4.667 (SE = 0.275), significantly higher than 3.954 (SE = 0.277) in the control group, with a mean difference of 0.713 (95% CI [0.477, 0.948], p < 0.001). These findings are highly consistent with those of Study 1 and Study 2, confirming the positive effect of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intentions.
We then test the mediating effects of perceived value and perceived risk. Using the PROCESS macro (Model 4) and controlling for relevant covariates, the results for the perceived value pathway show that AI Magic Mirror significantly enhances perceived value (β = 0.52, p < 0.001), and perceived value significantly increases purchase intention (β = 0.79, p < 0.001). The indirect effect through perceived value is significant (Indirect effect = 0.41, 95% CI [0.24, 0.57]), supporting H2. For the perceived risk pathway, AI Magic Mirror significantly reduces perceived risk (β = −0.35, p = 0.012), and perceived risk significantly decreases purchase intention (β = −0.15, p < 0.001). The indirect effect through perceived risk is also significant (Indirect effect = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.11]), supporting H3. The direct effect of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention remains significant after including both mediators, indicating partial mediation.
Finally, we test the moderating effect of procedure popularity (H5). Using the PROCESS macro, we find a significant negative interaction between AI Magic Mirror and procedure popularity on purchase intention (β = −1.075, p < 0.001, ΔR2 = 0.041), as shown in Table A4. Conditional effects analysis shows that under low procedure popularity, the positive effect of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention is strong and significant (effect size = 1.302, p < 0.001). However, under high procedure popularity, the effect is no longer significant (effect size = 0.227, p = 0.157). This result supports H5. This result suggests that, compared to low-popularity procedures, the AI Magic Mirror is significantly less effective in enhancing purchase intentions for high-popularity medical aesthetic services (effect size = –1.075, p < 0.001). The same moderating pattern is observed when procedure popularity is treated as a continuous variable, as shown in Figure A2.
Study 3 validates the moderating effect of product popularity (H5) in the relationship between the AI Magic Mirror and purchase intention, which is consistent with the findings of Study 1. The results indicate that the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intention is stronger for low-popularity procedures than for high-popularity ones. In addition, this study reconfirms the positive main effect of the AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention and the mediating roles of perceived value and perceived risk (H1–H3), further strengthening the robustness of these core findings.

5. General Discussion

5.1. Findings

This study investigates the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services, as well as its underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions. First, using online platform data (Study 1), we conduct an initial examination of how the AI Magic Mirror influences consumer purchase intentions and explore the moderating roles of fit uncertainty and procedure popularity. Subsequently, we conduct two experimental studies (Study 2 and Study 3) to further validate the impact of the AI Magic Mirror on purchase intentions and to examine the moderating effects of fit uncertainty and service popularity, respectively. In addition, we explore the mediating roles of perceived value and perceived risk in the relationship between the AI Magic Mirror and purchase intentions.
We identified several important findings. First, the AI Magic Mirror significantly increases consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services. This suggests that by allowing consumers to preview potential post-treatment outcomes, the AI Magic Mirror enhances their understanding of procedures and reduces uncertainty, leading to increased purchase intention. Although it may also induce appearance-related anxiety and algorithmic bias that reduces purchase intentions, the positive effect of AI Magic Mirror appears to outweigh the negative impact. Second, perceived value and perceived risk mediate the relationship between the AI Magic Mirror and purchase intentions. This suggests that the AI Magic Mirror shapes consumer purchase intention by altering how they evaluate the service. AI applications thus do not merely offer convenience but actively reframe consumers’ assessment of personalized and potentially irreversible services, carrying important implications for marketing design and trust-building strategies for credence services. Third, fit uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between the AI Magic Mirror and purchase intentions, implying that services with higher fit uncertainty pose greater risks and thus require more support from the AI Magic Mirror during decision-making. Finally, procedure popularity negatively moderates this relationship, suggesting that consumers are less familiar with less popular service procedures and therefore rely more heavily on the AI Magic Mirror when making purchase decisions.

5.2. Theoretical Contributions

The study holds substantial theoretical significance. First, this study investigates the impact of AI Magic Mirror on consumer purchase intentions in the context of online medical aesthetic platforms, extending the exploration of AI applications in credence services on online platforms. An increasing number of platforms have enhanced their AI capabilities, such as personalizing recommendations [62], enhancing trust through AI chatbots [19], improving convenience and perceived value via AI assistants [20], and reducing perceived risk through AI systems [28]. However, existing research has primarily focused on the role of AI applications in search and experience services [18]. By extending AI-based virtual preview applications to credence services, this study broadens the understanding of platform AI capabilities in e-commerce.
Second, this study extends the theory of perceived value and perceived risk. Given the importance of perceived value and perceived risk in consumer purchase decision-making in e-commerce, existing studies have explored how various AI applications promote consumer behavior by enhancing perceived value or reducing perceived risk. However, few studies investigate how these two constructs function as mediators in the relationship between AI-based virtual preview applications and credence services. By examining perceived value and perceived risk as mediating mechanisms between the AI Magic Mirror and consumer purchase intentions in medical aesthetic services, this study extends the theoretical boundaries of perceived value and perceived risk.
Third, by examining the moderating roles of fit uncertainty and product popularity, this study advances the theoretical understanding of the role of AI Magic Mirror on medical aesthetic services. In the context of medical aesthetic services, fit uncertainty and product popularity, as two key characteristics of service procedures, shape the relationship between the AI Magic Mirror and consumer purchase intentions. The findings reveal that the AI Magic Mirror has a stronger impact on purchase intentions for procedures with high fit uncertainty than on those with low fit uncertainty. Conversely, the effect is more pronounced for less popular procedures than for highly popular ones. These insights deepen our understanding of how AI-based virtual preview applications influence consumer decision-making on medical aesthetic platforms.

5.3. Managerial Implications

This study offers several practical implications. First, the consistent finding that AI Magic Mirror enhances consumer purchase intentions is notable. To maximize its effectiveness, platforms should integrate AI Magic Mirror functionalities directly into service-specific pages, providing consumers with immersive visual previews that facilitate decision-making. Moreover, the application of such AI applications can extend beyond medical aesthetics platforms to other platforms, such as fitness or wellness platforms, where simulated outcomes (e.g., body shaping or weight loss) could guide consumer choices.
Second, since the AI Magic Mirror enhances purchase intentions by increasing perceived value and reducing perceived risk, platforms should tailor its functionality to specific medical aesthetic services, offering more immersive and procedure-specific simulations to elevate perceived value. Additionally, enhancing data training and image processing capabilities could improve simulation realism, thereby increasing consumer trust and lowering perceived risk. However, these implementations must comply with regulatory standards and data privacy, and must also ensure that informed user consent is properly obtained [72,73]. Furthermore, ethical considerations such as preventing user manipulation and avoiding the reinforcement of appearance-based anxiety should be integrated into the system design to support responsible AI deployment [54,74].
Third, the results indicate that the impact of AI Magic Mirror on purchase intention is stronger for procedures with higher fit uncertainty and lower popularity. Therefore, platforms should prioritize promoting the AI Magic Mirror for such services. For procedures characterized by high fit uncertainty or low popularity, platforms may enhance conversion by integrating trial programs, personalized recommendations, or targeted social media campaigns to increase user engagement with the AI Magic Mirror in these contexts.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, the secondary data used in Study 1 were incomplete and served only as preliminary evidence; while the experimental designs simulated AI Magic Mirror scenarios, they may not fully reflect real-world service contexts. Future research could collaborate with platforms to conduct natural experiments and obtain more robust data. Second, this study uses a China-based online sample, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Cultural differences may influence consumer responses to AI. Future research can explore other cultural to enhance the robustness of the results [75,76]. Third, the study primarily focused on perceived value and perceived risk, overlooking deeper psychological and social factors that may influence medical aesthetic decisions, such as appearance anxiety, self-identity, and social comparison pressure [77,78]. Future work could incorporate psychological risks and identity distortions to explore more effects. Last, the study examined only procedure-related characteristics, fit uncertainty and popularity, as boundary conditions. Future research may consider incorporating attributes related to hospitals and physicians to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how AI Magic Mirror affects consumer purchase intentions [79,80].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L.; methodology, Y.L.; software, C.Z.; validation, T.S.; formal analysis, Y.L. and C.Z.; investigation, Y.L.; resources, X.C.; data curation, T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, T.S. and X.C.; visualization, C.Z.; supervision, X.C.; project administration, T.S.; funding acquisition, X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 21BGL223), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72071104).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request from the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial intelligence

Appendix A

Figure A1. PSM results.
Figure A1. PSM results.
Jtaer 20 00205 g0a1
Table A1. Demographic characteristics of the sample in Study 3.
Table A1. Demographic characteristics of the sample in Study 3.
VariableCategoryFrequencyPercentage (%)
GenderMale10426.33
Female29173.67
Age Group (years)≤20194.81
21–3020351.39
31–4014636.96
41–50194.81
51–6071.77
>6010.25
Education LevelHigh school/Vocational school92.28
Associate degree399.87
Bachelor’s degree27569.62
Master’s degree6817.22
Doctoral degree41.01
OccupationStudent6817.22
State-owned enterprise employee4310.89
Public institution employee307.59
Civil servant174.3
Private enterprise employee21253.67
Foreign-invested enterprise employee153.8
Freelancer/Self-employed61.52
Other41.01
Consumer ExperienceNo16040.51
Yes23559.49
Table A2. Reliability and validity results of Study 3.
Table A2. Reliability and validity results of Study 3.
VariableItemFactor LoadingCronbach’s α
Purchase IntentionPurchaseIntent10.9270.896
PurchaseIntent20.917
PurchaseIntent30.890
Perceived ValuePerceivedValue10.8650.884
PerceivedValue20.850
PerceivedValue30.891
PerceivedValue40.849
Perceived RiskPerceivedRisk10.8400.912
PerceivedRisk20.895
PerceivedRisk30.909
PerceivedRisk40.900
PerceivedRisk50.750
Table A3. Main effect in Study 3.
Table A3. Main effect in Study 3.
VariableSquare SumFreedomF Valuep
AI Magic Mirror45.333135.381 ***<0.001
Procedure Type6.35814.962 *0.027
Gender0.41910.3270.568
Age14.40152.248 *0.049
Education5.89541.1500.333
Occupation9.80971.0940.366
Consumer experience35.636127.813 ***<0.001
Adj R20.245
N395
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table A4. Moderating effect of product popularity.
Table A4. Moderating effect of product popularity.
VariableCoefficientStandard Errort-Valuep-Value95% Confidence Interval
Constant2.9350 ***0.54165.41910.0000[1.8702, 3.9999]
AI Magic Mirror1.3019 ***0.16377.95070.0000[0.9799, 1.6238]
Product Popularity0.8462 ***0.17204.91830.0000[0.5079, 1.1844]
AI Magic Mirror × Product Popularity−1.0751 ***0.2275−4.72540.0000[−1.5224, −0.6278]
ΔR20.0414 *** 0.0000
Low Product Popularity1.3019 ***0.16377.95070.0000[0.9799, 1.6238]
High Product Popularity0.22680.15981.41910.1567[−0.0874, 0.5411]
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure A2. Moderating effects of procedure popularity.
Figure A2. Moderating effects of procedure popularity.
Jtaer 20 00205 g0a2

References

  1. Gregory, R.W.; Henfridsson, O.L.A.; Kaganer, E.; Kyriakou, S.H. The role of artificial intelligence and data network effects for creating user value. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2021, 46, 534–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schilling, M.A. Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 312–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Meyer, G.; Adomavicius, G.; Johnson, P.E.; Elidrisi, M.; Rush, W.A.; Sperl-Hillen, J.M.; O’Connor, P.J. A Machine Learning Approach to Improving Dynamic Decision Making. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 239–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Artificial Intelligence Market Report in E-Commerce Global. Available online: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/artificial-intelligence-in-e-commerce-global-market-report (accessed on 20 July 2025).
  5. Hsieh, Y.-C.; Chiu, H.-C.; Chiang, M.-Y. Maintaining a committed online customer: A study across search-experience-credence products. J. Retail. 2005, 81, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dulleck, U.; Kerschbamer, R. On Doctors, Mechanics, and Computer Specialists: The Economics of Credence Goods. J. Econ. Lit. 2006, 44, 5–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kerschbamer, R.; Neururer, D.; Sutter, M. Credence goods markets, online information and repair prices: A natural field experiment. J. Public Econ. 2023, 222, 104891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, J.; Kang, J. Less stress, fewer delays: The role of sophisticated AI in mitigating decision fatigue and purchase postponement in luxury retail. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2025, 85, 104268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, K.Z.K.; Zhao, S.J.; Cheung, M.K.; Lee, M.K.O. Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 67, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, H.; Peng, J.; Li, X.; Stallaert, J. When More Can Be Less: The Effect of Add-On Insurance on the Consumption of Professional Services. Inf. Syst. Res. 2023, 34, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lin, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Tan, Y. An Empirical Study of Free Product Sampling and Rating Bias. Inf. Syst. Res. 2019, 30, 260–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tan, Y.-C.; Chandukala, S.R.; Reddy, S.K. Augmented Reality in Retail and Its Impact on Sales. J. Mark. 2022, 86, 48–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ryan, M. In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 2749–2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kaplan, A.; Haenlein, M. Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Meinhart, W.A. Artificial Intelligence, Computer Simulation of Human Cognitive and Social Processes, and Management Thought. Acad. Manag. J. 1966, 9, 294–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sangaiah, A.K.; Rezaei, S.; Javadpour, A.; Zhang, W. Explainable AI in big data intelligence of community detection for digitalization e-healthcare services. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 136, 110119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xie, Z.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, M. The searching artificial intelligence: Consumers show less aversion to algorithm-recommended search product. Psychol. Mark. 2022, 39, 1902–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Longoni, C.; Cian, L. Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Effect. J. Mark. 2022, 86, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pizzi, G.; Vannucci, V.; Mazzoli, V.; Donvito, R. I, chatbot! the impact of anthropomorphism and gaze direction on willingness to disclose personal information and behavioral intentions. Psychol. Mark. 2023, 40, 1372–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yuan, C.; Zhang, C.; Wang, S. Social anxiety as a moderator in consumer willingness to accept AI assistants based on utilitarian and hedonic values. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 65, 102878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yeo, S.F.; Tan, C.L.; Kumar, A.; Tan, K.H.; Wong, J.K. Investigating the impact of AI-powered technologies on Instagrammers’ purchase decisions in digitalization era–A study of the fashion and apparel industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 177, 121551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bawack, R.E.; Wamba, S.F.; Carillo, K.D.A. Exploring the role of personality, trust, and privacy in customer experience performance during voice shopping: Evidence from SEM and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kang, W.; Shao, B. The impact of voice assistants’ intelligent attributes on consumer well-being: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 70, 103130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Klaus, P.; Zaichkowsky, J.L. The convenience of shopping via voice AI: Introducing AIDM. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 65, 102490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dellaert, B.G.C.; Shu, S.B.; Arentze, T.A.; Baker, T.; Diehl, K.; Donkers, B.; Fast, N.J.; Häubl, G.; Johnson, H.; Karmarkar, U.R.; et al. Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants. Mark. Lett. 2020, 31, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, W.; Sun, L.; Wang, X.; Wu, A. The influence of AI word-of-mouth system on consumers’ purchase behaviour: The mediating effect of risk perception. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2022, 39, 516–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yu, X.; Xu, Z.; Song, Y.; Liu, X. The cuter, the better? The impact of cuteness on intention to purchase AI voice assistants: A moderated serial-mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1036848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gupta, S.; Kamboj, S.; Bag, S. Role of Risks in the Development of Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Healthcare Domain. Inf. Syst. Front. 2021, 25, 2257–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Elder, A.; Ring, C.; Heitmiller, K.; Gabriel, Z.; Saedi, N. The role of artificial intelligence in cosmetic dermatology—Current, upcoming, and future trends. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2021, 20, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rokhshad, R.; Keyhan, S.O.; Yousefi, P. Artificial intelligence applications and ethical challenges in oral and maxillo-facial cosmetic surgery: A narrative review. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2023, 45, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lim, B.; Seth, I.; Kah, S.; Sofiadellis, F.; Ross, R.J.; Rozen, W.M.; Cuomo, R. Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Cosmetic Surgery: A Study on Rhinoplasty, Facelifts, and Blepharoplasty Procedures. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 6524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koseki, K.; Kawasaki, H.; Atsugi, T.; Nakanishi, M.; Mizuno, M.; Naru, E.; Ebihara, T.; Amagai, M.; Kawakami, E. Assessment of skin barrier function using skin images with topological data analysis. NPJ Syst. Biol. Appl. 2020, 6, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rew, J.; Kim, H.; Hwang, E. Hybrid segmentation scheme for skin features extraction using dermoscopy images. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2021, 69, 801–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gerlich, M. Exploring Motivators for Trust in the Dichotomy of Human—AI Trust Dynamics. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bauer, R.A. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking; Allyn, Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1969; pp. 119–127. [Google Scholar]
  38. Roehl, W.S.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Risk Perceptions and Pleasure Travel: An Exploratory Analysis. J. Travel Res. 1992, 30, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, X.; Guo, X.; Wu, Y.; Lai, K.-h.; Vogel, D. Exploring the inhibitors of online health service use intention: A status quo bias perspective. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 987–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, F.; Ying, T.; Liu, X. Echoes of Innovation: Exploring the Use of Voice Assistants to Boost Hotel Reputation. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, H.; Zhang, P.; Cheng, H.; Hasan, N.; Chiong, R. Impact of AI-generated virtual streamer interaction on consumer purchase intention: A focus on social presence and perceived value. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2025, 85, 104290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mahajan, A.; Sharma, S.; Agrawal, V.; Nikalje, V. Influence of artificial intelligence on consumers’ lifestyle product choices and the key to driving sustainable behaviour. Young Consum. 2025. forthcoming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bawack, R.E.; Bonhoure, E.; Mallek, S. Why would consumers risk taking purchase recommendations from voice assistants? Inf. Technol. People 2025, 38, 1686–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dimoka, A.; Hong, Y.; Pavlou, P.A. On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 395–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hong, Y.; Pavlou, P.A. Product Fit Uncertainty in Online Markets: Nature, Effects, and Antecedents. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Matt, C.; Hess, T. Product fit uncertainty and its effects on vendor choice: An experimental study. Electron. Mark. 2016, 26, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yan, R.; Gong, X. Mitigating property quality uncertainty and property fit uncertainty in online peer-to-peer accommodation platforms: An uncertainty reduction theory perspective. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 35, 302–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sun, C.; Fang, Y.; Kong, M.; Chen, X.; Liu, Y. Influence of augmented reality product display on consumers’ product attitudes: A product uncertainty reduction perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, X.; Shen, J.; Wei, S. What reduces product uncertainty in live streaming e-commerce? From a signal consistency perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nugroho, A.; Wang, W.-T. Credibility of Youtube product reviews and customers’ product return intention: A product fit uncertainty perspective. Inf. Technol. People 2024, 37, 1560–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Davison, R.M.; Liu, Y. The impact of imitation on Chinese social commerce buyers’ purchase behavior: The moderating role of uncertainty. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56, 102262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luo, P.; Ma, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; He, H. How to make money with credit information? Information processing on online accommodation-sharing platforms. Tour. Manag. (1982) 2021, 87, 104384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Song, R.; Zhang, X.; Guo, F. Not just for the money? An examination of the motives behind physicians’ sharing of paid health information. J. Inf. Sci. 2023, 49, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, X.; Guo, X.; Guo, F.; Lai, K.-H. Nonlinearities in personalization-privacy paradox in mHealth adoption: The mediating role of perceived usefulness and attitude. Technol. Health Care 2014, 22, 515–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pappas, I.O.; Kourouthanassis, P.E.; Giannakos, M.N.; Chrissikopoulos, V. Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: The role of cognitive and affective perceptions. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 794–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Baker, M.J. Dictionary of Marketing & Advertising, 2nd ed.; Nichols Pub: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  57. Peter, J.P.; Tarpey, L.X. A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bonnin, G. The roles of perceived risk, attractiveness of the online store and familiarity with AR in the influence of AR on patronage intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Grigsby, J.L.; Michelsen, M.; Zamudio, C. Service ads in the era of generative AI: Disclosures, trust, and intangibility. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2025, 84, 104231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rains, S.A.; Tukachinsky, R. Information Seeking in Uncertainty Management Theory: Exposure to Information About Medical Uncertainty and Information-Processing Orientation as Predictors of Uncertainty Management Success. J. Health Commun. 2015, 20, 1275–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, Y.; Ren, C.; Shi, D.; Li, K.; Zhang, X. Evaluating the social value of online health information for third-party patients: Is uncertainty always bad? Inf. Process. Manag. 2020, 57, 102259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wu, Y.; Liu, T.; Teng, L.; Zhang, H.; Xie, C. The impact of online review variance of new products on consumer adoption intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 136, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Luan, J.; Shan, W.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, J. How easy-to-process information influences consumers over time: Online review vs. brand popularity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 97, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Goedegebure, R.P.G.; van Herpen, E.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Using product popularity to stimulate choice for light products in supermarkets: An examination in virtual reality. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tucker, C.; Zhang, J. How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment. Manag. Sci. 2011, 57, 828–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, Y.; Sun, F.; Zhang, X.; Ma, X. Are Multiple information sources better? The effect of multiple physicians in online medical teams on patient satisfaction. Inf. Process. Manag. 2025, 62, 103889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, X.; Xie, K.; Gu, B.; Guo, X. Engaging physicians with introductory incentives: The role of online and offline references. MIS Q. 2025. forthcoming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chiu, Y.-T.H.; Lee, W.-I.; Chen, T.-H. Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tseng, S.-Y.; Wang, C.-N. Perceived risk influence on dual-route information adoption processes on travel websites. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2289–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Plotkina, D.; Saurel, H. Me or just like me? The role of virtual try-on and physical appearance in apparel M-retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 362–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, X.; Lai, K.-h.; Guo, X. Promoting China’s mHealth market: A policy perspective. Health Policy Technol. 2017, 6, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhou, C.; Li, K.; Zhang, X. Why do I take deviant disclosure behavior on internet platforms? An explanation based on the neutralization theory. Inf. Process. Manag. 2022, 59, 102785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Guo, F.; Zhou, A.; Zhang, X.; Xu, X.; Liu, X. Fighting rumors to fight COVID-19: Investigating rumor belief and sharing on social media during the pandemic. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 139, 107521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhang, X.; Guo, X.; Lai, K.H.; Yin, C.; Meng, F. From offline healthcare to online health service: The role of offline healthcare satisfaction and habits. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2017, 18, 138–154. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chen, S.; Lai, K.-h.; Guo, X.; Zhang, X. The influence of digital health technology on the allocation of regional medical resources in China. Health Policy Technol. 2025, 14, 101013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, L.; Wu, T.; Guo, X.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, W. Exploring mHealth monitoring service acceptance from a service characteristics perspective. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2018, 30, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, X.; Pu, J.; Lu, Y.; Guo, F. Team Makes You Better: Evidence from Online Medical Consultation Platforms. Inf. Syst. Res. 2025. forthcoming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tan, H.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Y. Satisfaction or gratitude? Exploring the disparate effects of physicians’ knowledge sharing on patients’ service evaluation in online medical consultations. Inf. Syst. J. 2023, 33, 1186–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, X.; Yin, C.; Guo, X.; Lai, K.-H. The Role of Previous Affective Responses in the Continuance of mHealth Monitoring Services: A Longitudinal Investigation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 6982–6994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Jtaer 20 00205 g001
Figure 2. Moderating effects of fit uncertainty.
Figure 2. Moderating effects of fit uncertainty.
Jtaer 20 00205 g002
Table 1. Description and summary of the variables.
Table 1. Description and summary of the variables.
VariableDescriptionNMeanMinMaxSD
LogSalesLog of procedure sales31,3863.2990.6939.9351.581
AIEquals 1 if the procedure can be simulated using the AI Magic Mirror and 0 otherwise31,3860.648010.478
PAveScoreAverage rating of procedure31,3864.767050.845
ProPricePrice of the procedure31,38640221228,9008432
ReRatioPlatform return rate for unused procedure31,3860.304010.439
DRatingRating of the doctor31,3863.01704.5501.691
DServNumProcedure sales of the doctor31,3861240016,2592423
DTitleEquals 1 if the doctor is a doctor, 2 if attending doctor, 3 if associate chief doctor, 4 if chief doctor31,3861.711140.837
DoctorNumThe number of doctors in a hospital31,3867.5110306.642
ReputNumThe number of reputations in a hospital31,3861.921120.269
HosFollowThe number of followers in a hospital31,3864659030,0006540
PRevNumThe number of procedure reviews31,38616.54010624.81
FRevTimeDuration until the first review31,38622,24421,25822,807437.9
FitUncerDummy variable: 1 for high-uncertainty procedure, and 0 for low-uncertainty procedure31,3860.253010.435
ProPopDummy variable: 1 for high-popularity procedure, and 0 for low-popularity procedure31,3860.157010.364
Table 2. Main effects.
Table 2. Main effects.
Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
OLSOLS robustNegative binomialCenteredPSM
AI0.308 ***0.308 ***0.098 ***0.308 ***0.306 ***
(22.57)(21.84)(21.06)(21.84)(21.67)
PAveScore0.023 **0.023 **0.010 ***0.023 **0.023 **
(2.97)(2.84)(3.45)(2.84)(2.85)
ProPrice−0.000 ***−0.000 ***−0.000 ***−0.000 ***−0.000 ***
(−37.76)(−21.99)(−22.85)(−21.99)(−21.87)
ReRatio0.169 ***0.169 ***0.055 ***0.169 ***0.168 ***
(11.11)(10.72)(11.58)(10.72)(10.64)
DRating0.0050.0050.0020.0050.005
(1.31)(1.34)(1.21)(1.34)(1.35)
DServNum0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***
(7.69)(6.67)(6.81)(6.67)(6.59)
DTitle0.045 ***0.045 ***0.016 ***0.045 ***0.045 ***
(5.70)(5.69)(6.31)(5.69)(5.69)
DoctorNum0.015 ***0.015 ***0.004 ***0.015 ***0.016 ***
(12.73)(11.94)(11.87)(11.94)(12.01)
ReputNum0.447 ***0.447 ***0.182 ***0.447 ***0.439 ***
(18.10)(20.27)(19.88)(20.27)(19.82)
HosFollow0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***
(6.03)(6.18)(6.64)(6.18)(6.09)
PRevNum0.032 ***0.032 ***0.007 ***0.032 ***0.032 ***
(110.31)(87.16)(90.64)(87.16)(86.40)
FRevTime−0.001 ***−0.001 ***−0.000 ***−0.001 ***−0.001 ***
(−51.79)(−49.49)(−52.45)(−49.49)(−49.29)
_cons20.142 ***20.142 ***6.319 ***16.843 ***20.103 ***
(54.21)(51.72)(54.93)(43.25)(51.56)
N3138631386313863138631310
R20.4830.483 0.4830.482
t statistics in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Moderated effects.
Table 3. Moderated effects.
Variable(1)(2)
LogSalesLogSales
AI0.106 ***0.433 ***
(6.83)(29.03)
AI × FitUncer0.562 ***
(34.93)
AI × ProPop −0.592 ***
(−33.60)
PAveScore0.024 **0.020 *
(3.10)(2.56)
ProPrice−0.000 ***−0.000 ***
(−22.43)(−22.33)
ReRatio0.159 ***0.169 ***
(10.22)(10.87)
DRating0.0040.006
(0.95)(1.48)
DServNum0.000 ***0.000 ***
(6.76)(6.14)
DTitle0.041 ***0.039 ***
(5.28)(4.99)
DoctorNum0.013 ***0.015 ***
(10.25)(11.49)
ReputNum0.421 ***0.399 ***
(19.39)(17.96)
HosFollow0.000 ***0.000 ***
(5.53)(6.00)
PRevNum0.030 ***0.031 ***
(83.54)(84.86)
FRevTime−0.001 ***−0.001 ***
(−44.38)(−46.64)
_cons18.427 ***19.132 ***
(47.13)(49.40)
N3138631386
R20.5000.496
t statistics in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Sample information of Study 2.
Table 4. Sample information of Study 2.
VariableCategoryFreqPerce (%)VariableCategoryFreqPerce (%)
Age≤20133.39GenderMale10427.08
21–3019250.00Female28072.92
31–4014236.98OccupationStudent6015.62
41–50277.03State-owned enterprise employee4110.68
51–6092.34Public institution employee287.29
>6010.26Civil servant194.95
Education Level Private enterprise employee20653.65
High school/
Vocational school
92.34Foreign-invested enterprise employee225.73
Associate degree369.38Freelancer/Self-employed71.82
Bachelor’s degree26869.79Other10.26
Master’s degree6416.67Prior ExperienceNo15841.15
Doctoral degree71.82Yes22658.85
Table 5. Measurement scales and reliability analysis.
Table 5. Measurement scales and reliability analysis.
ScaleItemsFactor LoadingCronbach’s α
Perceived Value
[68]
(1)
The overall quality of this medical aesthetic service is acceptable.
(2)
This medical aesthetic service is worth the money.
(3)
This medical aesthetic service makes me feel good.
(4)
Undergoing this medical aesthetic service makes a good impression on other people.
0.9250.908
0.924
0.915
0.873
Perceived Risk
[69]
(1)
I would worry that this medical aesthetic service did not provide value for my money.
(2)
I would worry about service quality or equipment problems if I underwent this medical aesthetic service.
(3)
I would worry about physical danger or injury if I underwent this medical aesthetic service.
(4)
I would worry about disappointment with the outcome of this medical aesthetic service.
(5)
There is a risk of disapproval from friends, family, or associates regarding my decision to undergo this medical aesthetic service.
0.8250.873
0.869
0.848
0.879
0.897
Purchase Intention
[70]
(1)
It is very likely that I would purchase this medical aesthetic service.
(2)
The probability that I would consider buying this medical aesthetic service is very high.
(3)
If I were going to purchase a medical aesthetic service, I would very probably choose this one.
0.9020.916
0.889
0.758
Table 6. Main effect in Study 2.
Table 6. Main effect in Study 2.
VariableSquare SumFreedomF Valuep
AI Magic Mirror89.087174.682 ***0.000
Procedure Type3.53412.9620.086
Gender0.01710.0140.906
Age17.29152.899 *0.014
Education1.10840.2320.920
Occupation33.78274.046 ***0.000
Consumer experience12.382110.380 **0.001
Adj R20.273
N384
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Moderating effect of fit uncertainty.
Table 7. Moderating effect of fit uncertainty.
VariableCoefficientStd. Errort-Valuep-Value95% Confidence Interval
Constant5.1657 ***0.54199.53300.0000[4.1002, 6.2312]
AI Magic Mirror−0.02480.3395−0.07310.9418[−0.6923, 0.6427]
Fit Uncertainty−0.5408 ***0.1544−3.50240.0005[−0.8444, −0.2372]
AI × Fit Uncertainty0.6227 **0.21832.85280.0046[0.1935, 1.0518]
ΔR20.0144 ** 0.0046
Low Fit Uncertainty0.5979 ***0.15103.96020.0001[0.3010, 0.8947]
High Fit Uncertainty1.2205 ***0.16017.62390.0000[0.9057, 1.5353]
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Zhang, C.; Shen, T.; Chen, X. Seeing Is Believing: The Impact of AI Magic Mirror on Consumer Purchase Intentions in Medical Aesthetic Services. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20030205

AMA Style

Li Y, Zhang C, Shen T, Chen X. Seeing Is Believing: The Impact of AI Magic Mirror on Consumer Purchase Intentions in Medical Aesthetic Services. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2025; 20(3):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20030205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yu, Chujun Zhang, Tian Shen, and Xi Chen. 2025. "Seeing Is Believing: The Impact of AI Magic Mirror on Consumer Purchase Intentions in Medical Aesthetic Services" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 20, no. 3: 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20030205

APA Style

Li, Y., Zhang, C., Shen, T., & Chen, X. (2025). Seeing Is Believing: The Impact of AI Magic Mirror on Consumer Purchase Intentions in Medical Aesthetic Services. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(3), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20030205

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop