Next Article in Journal
An Analysis of Scotland’s Post-COVID Media Graduate Landscape
Previous Article in Journal
The Toy Department Has Grown Up: The 2021 International Sports Press Survey (ISPS) in Comparison to the 2011 Survey
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Use of Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Using Motivations, Involvement, and Satisfaction with the Case of Alexa

by
Weiwen Yu
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
Journal. Media 2025, 6(2), 82; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6020082
Submission received: 18 April 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 30 May 2025 / Published: 3 June 2025

Abstract

:
Whether it is asking Alexa to set a reminder or having Google Assistant place a call, AI-powered assistants are becoming an increasingly seamless part of our daily lives. This study aims to address what predicts the users’ satisfaction with Alexa by analyzing the using motives, cognitive involvement, and emotional involvement of its consumers. The variables include using motives, attention, elaboration, emotional involvement, and usage satisfaction. Alexa users (N = 299) completed a brief online survey, including Scales of Using Motives for Media, the Perceived Attention Scale, the Elaboration Scale, the Mood Adjective Check List Scale, and Television Viewing Satisfaction Scale. Participants who were at least eighteen years of age and owned and used Alexa were included in this study. An exploratory factor analysis revealed four distinct types of motivation for using Alexa: Companionship, Entertainment–Information, Work-Efficiency, and Pastime. The results from hierarchical regressions showed that Alexa usage satisfaction was predicted by Entertainment–Information and feeling positive emotions while using.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, artificial intelligence (AI) is a buzzword and an emerging technology hotly discussed in society, and cognitive assistants (Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant) might be the first generation of AI products that consumers can have. With the increasingly widespread growth of AI technology, its influence on the individual and even the whole of society is gradually becoming the focus of research within academia. Specifically, from the perspective of consumers, what predicts people’s satisfaction with AI products has become an issue worth studying.
Alexa (Amazon Echo), like iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch, is an intelligent personal assistant that helps you multitask and get things done. It conforms to three characteristics of the research object: First of all, it is a popular product. According to Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, by the end of September 2017, Amazon’s Echo devices (Alexa) were outselling their closest competitor, Google Home, by a ratio of three to one, with estimated sales reaching 20 million units compared to Google Home’s 7 million.1 Second, Alexa is a multifunctional device capable of performing a wide range of tasks and adapting to multi-user interactions (Purington et al., 2017). Third, Alexa is a highly engaging and intelligent product, encouraging users to personify it and incorporate it into their daily social lives (Purington et al., 2017). This paper aims to help both communication technology engineers and scholars better understand the potential demands of consumers, both technologically and psychologically, as well as to refine the existing relevant AI products and services.
This paper examines the case of Alexa through the lens of Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT), using an online cross-sectional survey to explore the underlying factors—such as usage motives and cognitive and emotional involvement—that influence consumer satisfaction with AI products.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Demographics and Mobile Device Usage

Demographic factors have long been a fundamental consideration in the study of media consumption and usage, spanning both traditional media (Burgoon & Burgoon, 1980; Schoenbach et al., 1999; Stevenson, 1977; Westley & Severin, 1964) and newer forms, such as the Internet (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000; D. S. Chung, 2008; Chyi et al., 2010; Kaye & Johnson, 2002; Larose & Eastin, 2004; Riffe et al., 2008) and mobile devices (Chan-Olmsted et al., 2013; Westlund, 2008).
Many studies on artificial intelligence focus on the speech, discourse, or rhetoric function of this technology (e.g., Hill et al., 2015; Porter, 2017; Prakken, 2011; Walton, 2015, 2016). Some studies pay attention to the application of artificial intelligence to different contexts. For example, several scholars studied AI technology’s automated surveillance in subway systems (e.g., Geoghegan, 2008; Mcclain, 2018). C. Edwards et al. (2018) examined the role of AI technology as machine agents within the context of education communication and instruction. Woods (2018) illuminated how feminine persona in artificially intelligent virtual assistants (AI VAs) such as Siri and Alexa contribute to surveillance capitalism in the platform economy. Mansell (2017) connected complex digital systems to enduring and multifaceted inequalities and warned that innovations in areas such as artificial intelligence, algorithmic computation, and machine learning could undermine human authority over the future direction of digital technologies. Galloway and Swiatek (2018) discussed the diversity and extent of AI’s uses in public relations practice. Neff and Nagy (2016) used the case of Tay, an experimental AI chatbot, to revisit theories of agency. Their study demonstrated how varying qualities of agency, expectations for technologies, and capacities for affordance emerged through interactions between people and artificial intelligence. Emerging problems with AI technology have been raised. Murdock (2018) highlighted the significant ethical concerns surrounding the social and environmental costs of AI products, arguing that the growing importance of digital technologies in shaping advanced capitalism, along with the swift expansion of artificial intelligence, brings the material aspects of media to the forefront of analysis. Interdisciplinary collaborative research was needed because AI technology involves knowledge from computer science, psychology, communication, and many other disciplines. Mansell (2017) advocated for critical interdisciplinary engagement to encourage digital economy policymakers to explore alternative innovation pathways and adopt more proactive policies for shaping a better future.
As for earlier studies that were most related to this research, Purington et al. (2017) analyzed user reviews of the Echo posted on Amazon.com to examine the extent of device personification, sociability in interactions, factors associated with personification, and their impact on user satisfaction. Similarly, Ho et al. (2018) conducted an experiment to investigate the downstream effects of emotional versus factual disclosures in conversations with either a chatbot or a human. Their findings revealed that emotional disclosure had similar effects, regardless of whether participants believed they were interacting with a chatbot or a person. In all, few studies lay emphasis on the feelings and experiences of AI users.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

Traditionally, U&G research posits that media users are active agents who select media content, giving them gratifications. Hence, using motives predict activity (Levy & Windahl, 1984; Perse, 1990; Rubin & Perse, 1987). This active participation is especially relevant in the context of AI technologies, which rely on user input and feedback for functionality.
The Uses and Gratifications (U&G) theory offers a valuable framework to analyze individual motivations and experiences with AI-powered devices across different contexts (C. Xie et al., 2024). For example, Pitardi and Marriott (2021) investigated how utilitarian, technological, social, and hedonic gratifications influence users’ trust in Alexa, an AI voice assistant. Also, Shao and Kwon (2021) found that users’ satisfaction was positively influenced by functional utility and dynamic control, whereas companionship and entertainment did not have a significant impact. Similarly, M. Chung et al. (2020) analyzed customer satisfaction with online shopping e-service agents through the lens of utilitarian, technological, and hedonic gratifications. In the retail sector, Rese et al. (2020) studied the impact of a text-based chatbot, Emma, by applying the same gratification dimensions to assess its role in customer communication.
Using Motives. Rubin (1984) identified two general types of media: ritualistic and instrumental. These categories can also be applied to consumers’ use of AI technologies (Xu et al., 2022). Ritualistic use refers to habitual engagement—individuals interact with AI-enabled mobile devices out of habit, often to pass time, seek companionship, relax, become aroused, or escape from reality. In contrast, instrumental use involves more selective and purposeful interaction with specific AI features or content. Research suggests that instrumental use represents a more active and engaged form of media consumption (Perse, 1990; Rubin, 1984; Rubin & Perse, 1987). Contributing to prior U&G research on the distinction between the instrumental and ritual use of media, Xu et al. (2022) revealed that what has been traditionally perceived as instrumental use of media could also predict users’ affinity with the medium per se. Although there are many studies on using existing classifications of using motives from the lens of U&G theory to examine user satisfaction with AI communication tools, a few explored and further identified using motives related to AI products.
Involvement. Media user activity is inherently multidimensional (Levy & Windahl, 1984). Individuals engage with media to varying degrees across several dimensions, such as selectivity, utility, and involvement (Blumler, 1979; J. Kim & Rubin, 1997; Rubin & Perse, 1987). More specifically, media users exhibit different levels of selectivity, utility, and involvement (Levy & Windahl, 1984). These different forms of activity contribute to distinct media-related outcomes (J. Kim & Rubin, 1997). Involvement plays a crucial role in media user activity and is central to media effects research. For instance, Gomez et al. (2023) found that when users were actively involved in generating AI recommendations during tasks characterized by significant knowledge asymmetry, they were more likely to accept the AI’s suggestions and view both the AI agent and their collaborative interaction more favorably. Also, Doh et al. (2021) demonstrated that both user involvement and the perceived severity of a situation significantly influenced the acceptance of decisions made by AI judge and AI jury. Involvement reflects the extent of personal engagement with media content (Perse, 1990). Involvement is defined as both “the degree to which an audience member perceives a connection between oneself and mass media content; and the degree to which the individual interacts psychologically with a medium or its messages” (Levy & Windahl, 1985, p. 112). In order to be suitable for this study on AI, the latter definition of involvement is adopted.
Message content is perceived as a sign of cognitive involvement (Rubin & Perse, 1987). Cognitive involvement refers to paying attention to media content, including the mental effort devoted to engaging with the media and evaluating its messages during consumption (Perse, 1990). A deeper aspect of this involvement is elaboration—the process by which media users interpret, derive meaning from, and respond to messages (Eveland, 2001; Perse, 1990; Rubin & Perse, 1987). Both attention and elaboration reflect an instrumental use of media, where users actively engage with content to fulfill specific goals (Levy & Windahl, 1985; Rubin & Perse, 1987).
In addition to cognitive involvement, using AI also includes emotional involvement. Emotional involvement encompasses a spectrum of feelings, from satisfaction and happiness to frustration and anger (e.g., Nabi et al., 2006). Nabi et al. (2006) found that positive emotions during TV viewing increased enjoyment, while negative emotions diminished it.
Existing research on AI mainly treated involvement as a unified concept rather than a stratified one. Therefore, this study examined the role of specific cognitive and emotional involvements in AI usage satisfaction.
Interactive Experience and Satisfaction. Satisfaction refers to an affective response to media use, stemming from the extent to which users feel their motivations for engaging with the media have been fulfilled. This concept is significant because it is linked to personal fulfillment (e.g., Hecht, 1978), enjoyment, favorable evaluations of media content, and increased media consumption (e.g., Perse & Ferguson, 1993).
Relevant research has shown that satisfaction often stems from more instrumental and active media use (J. Kim & Rubin, 1997; Perse & Rubin, 1988). Similarly, satisfaction is the consequence of instrumentally and actively using AI products. User satisfaction serves as a key indicator of a technology’s success, as it often drives both initial adoption and continued use over time (Luo & Remus, 2014). The purpose of designing AI products is to meet the different needs of consumers through the machines’ interaction with them and further improve their life quality and effectiveness.
Drawing on U&G theory as a user-centered framework, this study focuses on diverse uses of artificial intelligence by consumers and their satisfaction with Alexa:
RQ: What predicts customers’ satisfaction with using Alexa?

3. Method

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was used to distribute the survey, and Qualtrics Survey Software was used to collect the data. If the participants were not at least 18 years of age and owned or used Alexa, they were excluded from the study immediately. If the participants were eligible based on the requirements, they moved on to complete the survey. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for demographic variables. Notably, the mean value of age is close to the minimum value, indicating that limited variation may affect the results.

4. Measurement

4.1. Exposure to Alexa

Respondents indicated how frequently they used Alexa on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The responses were then summed to generate a measure of exposure to Alexa.

4.2. Using Motives

Prior studies identified a number of key motivations that drive users’ media usage, such as Information–Learning, Exciting Entertainment, Habit–Pastime, Companionship, Relax–Escape, Social Interaction, and Work-Efficiency. In this study, all measurement items were adapted from existing U&G literature with minor modifications to suit the context of the current research (e.g., Godlewski & Perse, 2010; Rubin, 1983; Y. Kim et al., 2016). To measure these using motives with a total of 26 motivation items, respondents evaluated the statements based on their own reasons for using Alexa on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all, 5 = exactly). These scales were chosen over others because of their flexibility in being applied to emerging media technologies and their well-documented multidimensional structure.
The responses to the 26 motive statements underwent exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation, acknowledging the interrelated nature of the motives for using Alexa. These variables are sufficiently correlated to perform EFA because Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ2(325, n = 299) = 4765.15, p < 0.001, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was 0.95 > 0.60. Four meaningful factors composed of 16 items were finally created based on the 0.50/0.30 decision rule and the content of the variables for each factor. Table 2 summarizes the exploratory factor analysis.
Factor 1, Relax–Companionship, included four Relax–Escape items and three Companionship items. Relaxation and companionship are typically ritualistic using motives (Rubin, 1984). The first factor accounts for a 45.70% variation among the original variables. Factor 2, Entertainment–Information, included two Exciting Entertainment items and two Information–Learning items. Entertainment and Information learning are typically instrumental using motives (Rubin & Perse, 1987; Y. Kim et al., 2016). The second factor accounts for a 7.68% variation among the original variables. Factor 3, Work-Efficiency, included two Work-Efficiency items. Work-Efficiency is an instrumental using motive (Y. Kim et al., 2016). The third factor accounts for a 4.50% variation among the original variables. Factor 4, Habit–Pastime, included three Habit–Pastime items. This factor is a motive driven by ritualistic use (Rubin, 1984). The fourth factor accounts for a 4.43% variation among the original variables.
The item scores were averaged to create motive scores. The most strongly endorsed motive was Entertainment–Information (M = 3.72, SD = 0.74; Cronbach’s α = 0.81), followed by Relax–Companionship (M = 3.56, SD = 0.91; Cronbach’s α = 0.91), Work-Efficiency (M = 3.55, SD = 1.00; Cronbach’s α = 0.82), and Habit–Pastime (M = 3.20, SD = 0.91; Cronbach’s α = 0.75). All of the four using motives were interrelated. All the motives examined were positively and significantly associated with exposure to Alexa. Table 3 displays the Pearson correlations between the various variables in this study.

4.3. Involvement

Involvement is measured in three different subscales. Those subscales include attention, elaboration, and emotional involvement. These scales were selected because they capture both cognitive and emotional involvement, which are central to understanding user engagement with interactive media. They were preferred over broader engagement scales, which often conflate emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects, making it difficult to isolate the specific role of cognitive and emotional efforts in satisfaction.
Attention. To assess attention to Alexa, participants indicated their level of agreement with seven statements using the Perceived Attention Scale (Cegala, 1981; Perse, 1998). Responses were measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), reflecting participants’ typical thoughts and feelings while using Alexa. Questions three and six needed reverse coding so as to uphold the validity of the scale. Previous studies have demonstrated that this scale is reliable: Cronbach’s α = 0.90 (Perse, 1998). The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability in this study (Cronbach’s α = 0.78).
Elaboration. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each item on the Elaboration Scale (Perse, 1998), using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Previous studies demonstrate this scale is reliable: Cronbach’s α = 0.83 (Perse, 1998). The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability in this study (Cronbach’s α = 0.87).
Emotional Involvement. Emotional reactions to using Alexa were measured using an adapted version of the Mood Adjective Check List (Nowlis, 1965; Perse, 1998). Participants rated their agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with statements reflecting the intensity of 10 positive emotions (e.g., amused, content, happy) and 10 negative emotions (e.g., angry, bored, worried) experienced during their interaction with Alexa. The MACL scale upholds a high level of reliability in other studies. The positive emotion scale demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.90), and the negative emotion scale was also reliable (Cronbach’s α = 0.97) in this study.

4.4. Satisfaction

On the Television Viewing Satisfaction Scale (Ferguson & Perse, 2004; Godlewski & Perse, 2010), ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely), respondents indicated how pleasing and satisfying they found their experience using Alexa. This scale was selected for its conceptual alignment with situational satisfaction in AI research and its prior use in studies involving utility-driven technology adoption. Previous studies have demonstrated that this scale is reliable: Cronbach’s α = 0.86 (Ferguson & Perse, 2004). The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability in this study (Cronbach’s α = 0.79).

5. Results

Following scale construction and reliability analyses, several steps were taken to address the research question. First, two-tailed correlations were examined among motives, involvement, and usage satisfaction. Next, hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to assess the multivariate relationships between satisfaction and the independent variables. Age, gender, education level, and income level were included in the regression models as control variables to account for potential demographic influences on the dependent variable.

Alexa Using Satisfaction

The research question examined how usage motives, as well as cognitive and emotional involvement, are associated with users’ satisfaction with Alexa. Two-tailed Pearson correlations revealed several significant relationships. First, satisfaction with Alexa usage was positively correlated with all identified usage motives. The correlation between Entertainment–Information and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.75, p = 0.000. The correlation between Work-Efficiency and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.52, p = 0.000. The correlation between Relax–Companionship and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.49, p = 0.000. The correlation between Habit–Pastime and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.36, p = 0.000.
Second, Alexa usage satisfaction is positively linked to cognitive and feeling positive emotions, but satisfaction is unrelated to feeling negative emotions. The correlation between Attention and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.55, p = 0.000. The correlation between Elaboration and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.55, p = 0.000. The correlation between Positive emotions and Alexa usage satisfaction was positively significant, r(297) = 0.70, p = 0.000. The correlation between Negative emotions and Alexa usage satisfaction was not significant, r(297) = 0.04, p = 0.453. See Table 3.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine the multivariate relationships between the variables in this study, which was used to explore the research question. Table 4 presents a summary of the regression results.
Multicollinearity is not problematic because, in model 4, all values of TOL are greater than 0.29, ranging from 0.29 to 0.93. According to Meyers et al. (2013), some scholars say TOL should be greater than 0.40; others say TOL values should be greater than 0.10.
The demographic variables (age, gender, education level, and income level) entered in the first step explained 0.5% of the variance in Alexa satisfaction: R2-change = 0.005, F-change(4, 294) = 0.39, p = 0.813. At this stage, age, gender, education level, and income level were not significant predictors. In the second step, the portion of the variation in Alexa satisfaction explained by Entertainment–Information, Work-Efficiency, Relax–Companionship, and Habit–Pastime was statistically significant: R2-change = 0.59, F-change(4, 290) = 105.79, p < 0.001. In the third step, exposure to Alexa contributed an additional 0.2% to the variance in Alexa satisfaction: R2-change = 0.002, F-change(1, 289) = 1.55, p = 0.214. At this stage, exposure was not a significant predictor. In the fourth step, the inclusion of cognitive and emotional involvement (such as attention, elaboration, positive emotion, and negative emotion) accounted for a significant proportion of variation in Alexa satisfaction: R2-change = 0.04, F-change(4, 285) = 8.25, p < 0.001.
In the final analysis, the proportion of variation in Alexa using satisfaction explained by the set of predictors was statistically significant: R2 = 0.64, adjusted R2 = 0.62; F(13, 285) = 38.88, p < 0.001. Both Entertainment–Information (β = 0.45, p < 0.001) and experiencing positive emotions while using Alexa (β = 0.26, p < 0.001) were positive predictors of Alexa satisfaction. However, there is no significant negative predictor of Alexa using satisfaction.

6. Discussion

As for using motives, previous research has indicated that program satisfaction is influenced by program expectations (e.g., Perse & Ferguson, 1993; Perse & Rubin, 1988). In this study, correlation results show that every using motive is significantly linked to all other using motives, which is similar to the findings of previous research on traditional media that using motives were interrelated (Godlewski & Perse, 2010). Moreover, correlation results also illustrate that usage satisfaction is positively related to all of the using motives; however, among these using motives, only Entertainment–Information (instrumental motive) is a significantly positive predictors of Alexa satisfaction. This finding aligns with previous research, which suggests that many users interact with Alexa primarily for entertainment or assistant functions (Purington et al., 2017; Orden-Mejía et al., 2023).
The non-significant effects of other motivational dimensions, including Relax–Companionship, Work-Efficiency, and Habit–Pastime, suggest that user satisfaction with voice-based AI systems may depend more on instrumental gratification than on habitual or situational one. The findings are inconsistent with the studies by Yu et al. (2024), Arpaci et al. (2022), and Z. Xie et al. (2024) that habit influences usage behavior in an interactive relationship such as with AI, and the relationship exhibits cultural variations.
In relation to cognitive involvement (attention and elaboration), it was not a significant predictor of Alexa’s satisfaction, which was different from other online activities, like reality TV programs. It suggests that interactive communication did not have a main effect on cognitive involvement (Jiang et al., 2010). It contradicts many prior results that cognitive involvement is a good predictor of satisfaction (K. Kim, 2008). One possible explanation is that the nature of interaction with Alexa may be more task-oriented and less cognitively demanding compared to content-rich platforms that require sustained attention and critical engagement (Vtyurina & Fourney, 2018). Although interactivity has been shown to create cognitively involving experiences (Liu & Shrum, 2002), the type of interactivity offered by voice assistants may not be rich enough to elicit deep cognitive processing, especially in routine or command-based interactions.
The non-significant effects of both cognitive involvement and several usage motives suggest important boundary conditions for existing theories of media satisfaction. These results underscore the need for more nuanced theoretical models that account for the specific interaction modalities and usage contexts of AI-driven interfaces like Alexa. From a design perspective, the findings also highlight potential areas for enhancement—such as developing features that stimulate deeper cognitive engagement or broaden the range of satisfying experiences beyond entertainment and utility.
Concerning emotional involvement, the results from Pearson correlations and the regression indicated that satisfaction is irrelevant to feeling negative emotions, and feeling negative emotions was also not a predictor of Alexa usage satisfaction. It is understandable that feeling positive emotions while using was a positive predictors of Alexa satisfaction. A similar research finding on reality television programs is that more satisfied viewers are those who feel positive emotions while viewing (Godlewski & Perse, 2010). It is surprising, however, that experiencing negative emotions did not significantly predict lower satisfaction. Even though there are some negative feelings from consumers, negative feelings are much less than positive ones. However, it may be too early to say that feeling negative emotions is not a significant predictor of usage satisfaction in the whole population of Alexa users because of the current development stage of AI products (Fidler, 1997).

7. Limitations and Future Directions

This study, like all studies, has limitations. One limitation of this study is that different diversities of AI products were not considered because they were hard to control. Obviously, different kinds of AI products for different uses highlight different features, which might give rise to different pictures of using motives, cognitive and emotional involvement, and satisfaction. Future research should examine and compare how motives, involvement, and satisfaction differ across various AI product types, such as those based on assistance, gaming, romance, art creation, image recognition, and more. Also, further studies should investigate the intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing user satisfaction with different AI products in the evolving and interactive media landscape.
Furthermore, the data may be relatively small and less typical. Although an online survey was used in order to collect responses from people of different ages and backgrounds, the majority of survey respondents were still young people, which will possibly bring about less accurate results. More observation or experiment participants should be recruited. Future studies could adopt more diversified sampling strategies—such as quota sampling or stratified random sampling—to ensure broader demographic representation and enhance external validity. The data for this study were collected when that use of AI products was gradually rising. The popularity of some types of AI products has even increased. According to Clark (2015), 2015 was a landmark year for artificial intelligence, with the number of software projects that use AI within Google increasing from a “sporadic usage” in 2012 to more than 2700 projects.
In addition, although Entertainment–Information and feeling positive emotions while using were identified as all positive predictors of Alexa satisfaction in this study, all of the scales were drawn from traditional media research and social media research, which may not best fit the research on AI products. Admittedly, AI products, traditional media, and social media have a lot in common, but there are still many detailed and nuanced differences. While these measures provided a useful starting point, they may not fully capture the nuanced dynamics unique to human–AI interactions. Future research could consider validating these scales specifically within the AI context or developing new instruments that more accurately reflect the affordances, interactivity, and perceived agency of AI systems. In order to self-construct more suitable scales to measure the relationship of Alexa satisfaction with using motives and cognitive and emotional involvement, a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative research methods, should be employed. Also, it is possible that some ignored variables contribute to usage satisfaction, such as other using motives. The mixed research method will not only help us deeply explain the reasons behind the existing research findings but also help us discover many new variables and relations.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (the ASU IRB STUDY00007878 2018-03-21).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Note

1
See Gerald Lynch, Amazon Echo is three times as popular as Google Home, says new sales research, 19 December 2017, available at https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-echo-is-three-times-as-popular-as-google-home-says-new-sales-research.

References

  1. Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17(1), 21–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arpaci, I., Karatas, K., Kusci, I., & Al-Emran, M. (2022). Understanding the social sustainability of the Metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and big five personality traits: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Technology in Society, 71, 102120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6(1), 9–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Burgoon, J. K., & Burgoon, M. (1980). Predictors of newspaper readership. Journalism Quarterly, 57(4), 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cegala, D. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30(2), 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chan-Olmsted, S., Rim, H., & Zerba, A. (2013). Mobile news adoption among young adults. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(1), 126–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chung, D. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 658–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2020). Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, 117, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chyi, H., Yang, M., Lewis, S., & Zheng, N. (2010). Use of and satisfaction with newspaper sites in the local market: Exploring differences between hybrid and online-only users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(1), 62–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Clark, J. ((2015,, December 8)). Why 2015 was a breakthrough year in artificial intelligence. Bloomberg News. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/why-2015-was-a-breakthrough-year-in-artificial-intelligence (accessed on 30 April 2022).
  11. Doh, E. Y., Lee, G. H., & Jung, J. E. (2021). The effect of involvement and severity on acceptance of artificial intelligence judgment. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 32(4), 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Lin, X. (2018). I, teacher: Using artificial intelligence (AI) and social robots in communication and instruction. Communication Education, 67(4), 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28(5), 571–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2004). Audience satisfaction among TiVo and ReplayTV users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 4(2), 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fidler, R. F. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding new media. Pine Forge Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Galloway, C., & Swiatek, L. (2018). Public relations and artificial intelligence: It’s not (just) about robots. Public Relations Review, 44(5), 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Geoghegan, B. D. (2008). Agents of History: Autonomous agents and crypto-intelligence. Interaction Studies, 9(3), 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Godlewski, L., & Perse, E. (2010). Audience activity and reality television: Identification, online activity, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 58(2), 148–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gomez, C., Unberath, M., & Huang, C. M. (2023). Mitigating knowledge imbalance in AI-advised decision-making through collaborative user involvement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 172, 102977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hecht, M. L. (1978). Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64(1), 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hill, J., Ford, W. R., & Farreras, I. G. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human-human online conversations and human-chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ho, A., Hancock, J., & Miner, A. (2018). Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. The Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 11(1), 34–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 24(2), 107–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kim, K. (2008). Analysis of structural equation model for the student pleasure travel market: Motivation, involvement, satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(4), 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, Y., Kim, Y., Wang, Y., & Lee, N. Y. (2016). Uses and gratifications, journalists’ Twitter use, and relational satisfaction with the public. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(3), 503–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Larose, R., & Eastin, M. (2004). A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(3), 358–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11(1), 51–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1985). The concept of audience activity. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 109–122). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 31(4), 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Luo, M. M., & Remus, W. (2014). Uses and gratifications and acceptance of Web-based information services: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mansell, R. (2017). The mediation of hope: Communication technologies and inequality in perspective. International Journal of Communication, 11, 4285–4304. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mcclain, N. (2018). The horizons of technological control: Automated surveillance in the New York subway. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  36. Murdock, G. (2018). Media Materialties: For a moral economy of machines. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nabi, R. L., Stitt, C. R., Halford, J., & Finnerty, K. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media Psychology, 8(4), 421–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Neff, G., & Nagy, P. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| talking to Bots: Symbiotic agency and the case of Tay. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4915–4931. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nowlis, V. (1965). Factor analytic studies of the mood adjective checklist. Rochester Univ Ny Dept of Psychology. [Google Scholar]
  40. Orden-Mejía, M., Carvache-Franco, M., Huertas, A., Carvache-Franco, O., & Carvache-Franco, W. (2023). Modeling users’ satisfaction and visit intention using AI-based chatbots. PLoS ONE, 18(9), e0286427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Perse, E. M. (1990). Audience selectivity and involvement in the newer media environment. Communication Research, 17(5), 675–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Perse, E. M. (1998). Implications of cognitive and affective involvement for channel changing. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Perse, E. M., & Ferguson, D. A. (1993). The impact of the newer television technologies on television satisfaction. Journalism Quarterly, 70(4), 843–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap opera. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pitardi, V., & Marriott, H. R. (2021). Alexa, she’s not human but … Unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 38(4), 626–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Porter, J. E. (2017). Professional communication as phatic: From classical eunoia to personal artificial intelligence. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 174–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Prakken, H. (2011). Argumentation without arguments. Argumentation, 25(2), 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Purington, A., Taft, J. G., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N. N., & Taylor, S. H. (2017, May). Alexa is my new BFF: Social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2853–2859). ACM. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rese, A., Ganster, L., & Baier, D. (2020). Chatbots in retailers’ customer communication: How to measure their acceptance? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Varouhakis, M. (2008). Media system dependency theory and using the Internet for in-depth, specialized information. Web Journal of Mass Communication Research, 11(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 27(1), 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14(1), 58–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schoenbach, K., Lauf, E., McLeod, J. M., & Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Distinction and integration: Sociodemographic determinants of newspaper reading in the USA and Germany, 1974-96. European Journal of Communication, 14(2), 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2021). Hello Alexa! Exploring effects of motivational factors and social presence on satisfaction with artificial intelligence-enabled gadgets. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 978–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stevenson, R. L. (1977). The frequency of newspaper readership. ANPA News Research Report, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vtyurina, A., & Fourney, A. (Eds.). (2018). Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Digital Library. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Walton, D. (2015). Profiles of dialogue: A method of argument fault diagnosis and repair. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(2), 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Walton, D. (2016). Some artificial intelligence tools for argument evaluation: An introduction. Argumentation, 30(3), 317–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Westley, B. H., & Severin, W. J. (1964). A profile of the daily newspaper non-reader. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 45–156. [Google Scholar]
  61. Westlund, O. (2008). From mobile phone to mobile device: News consumption on the go. Canadian Journal of Communication, 33(3), 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Woods, H. S. (2018). Asking more of Siri and Alexa: Feminine persona in service of surveillance capitalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 35(4), 334–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xie, C., Wang, Y., & Cheng, Y. (2024). Does artificial intelligence satisfy you? A meta-analysis of user gratification and user satisfaction with AI-powered chatbots. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(3), 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xie, Z., Hui, H., & Wang, L. (2024). Will virtual companionship enhance subjective well-being—A comparison of cross-cultural context. International Journal of Social Robotics, 16(11), 2153–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xu, K., Chan-Olmsted, S., & Liu, F. (2022). Smart speakers require smart management: Two routes from user gratifications to privacy settings. International Journal of Communication, 16, 23. [Google Scholar]
  66. Yu, X., Yang, Y., & Li, S. (2024). Users’ continuance intention towards an AI painting application: An extended expectation confirmation model. PLoS ONE, 19(5), e0301821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables.
NMinMaxMeanS.E.SDVarianceSkewness
Age29918.0061.0029.440.3986.88147.351.682
Gender2990.001.000.390.0280.4890.240.445
Education2991.006.004.910.0540.9260.86−1.654
Income2991.009.003.320.1001.7313.000.645
Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis of consumers’ Alexa use motives.
Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis of consumers’ Alexa use motives.
Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4
Factor 1: Relax–Companionship
  Because it relaxes me0.8350.0710.029−0.122
  Because it makes me feel less lonely0.727−0.085−0.0760.084
  Because it’s a pleasant rest0.6800.255−0.017−0.067
  When there’s no one else to talk to or be with0.639−0.0210.0020.257
  Because it allows me to unwind0.5690.089−0.215−0.007
  So I won’t have to be alone0.556−0.005−0.0800.240
  So I can forget about school, work, or other things0.5530.0470.0320.206
Factor 2: Entertainment–Information
  Because it’s enjoyable−0.0130.7460.0590.016
  Because it helps me learn about lots of information0.0020.656−0.265−0.029
  Because it entertains me0.1180.6270.0900.046
  Because by using it, I can know what I want to know0.0580.598−0.203−0.113
Factor 3: Work-Efficiency
  To do something related to my job−0.0040.099−0.7420.153
  To make it easier to do my work0.1330.038−0.6920.037
Factor 4: Habit–Pastime
  Because I had nothing better to do−0.0410.002−0.0880.678
  Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored0.1320.1090.0210.589
  Just because it was on0.106−0.088−0.1810.549
Note. Factor loadings at least 0.50 were bolded to indicate items that meaningfully load onto a given factor.
Table 3. Pearson correlations between the variables.
Table 3. Pearson correlations between the variables.
Relax
Companionship
Entertainment
Information
Work
Efficiency
Habit
Pastime
AttentionElaborationPositive EmotionNegative EmotionSatisfaction
Entertainment–Information0.557 **
Work-Efficiency0.597 **0.506 **
Habit–Pastime0.648 **0.374 **0.510 **
Attention0.622 **0.553 **0.606 **0.597 **
Elaboration0.729 **0.543 **0.642 **0.633 **0.742 **
Positive Emotion0.530 **0.725 **0.526 **0.364 **0.605 **0.622 **
Negative Emotion0.358 **−0.0140.272 **0.450 **0.406 **0.394 **0.059
Satisfaction0.492 **0.753 **0.523 **0.359 **0.552 **0.550 **0.699 **0.044
Exposure0.481 **0.470 **0.486 **0.425 **0.533 **0.453 **0.339 **0.299 **0.446 **
Note. N = 299. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4. Hierarchical regression predicting Alexa using satisfaction.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression predicting Alexa using satisfaction.
Predictor VariablesStepBSE BFinal βR2 ChangeAdjusted ΔR2
Demographics1 0.005−0.008
  Age −0.0030.004−0.031 0
  Gender −0.0230.059−0.014
  Education 0.0000.031−0.001
  Income −0.0100.017−0.022-
Using Motives2 0.59 **0.59
  Relax–Companionship −0.0530.052−0.061
  Entertainment–Information 0.4700.0620.447 **
  Work-Efficiency 0.0660.0400.084
  Habit–Pastime −0.0050.045−0.006
Exposure30.0680.0370.0860.0020.001
Involvement4 0.04 **0.04
  Attention 0.0560.0680.051
  Elaboration 0.0640.0540.079
  Positive Emotion 0.2860.0650.261 **
  Negative Emotion −0.0320.030−0.049
Note. Step 1: F(4, 294) = 0.39, p = 0.813; Step 2: F(8, 290) = 53.37, p < 0.001; Step 3: F(9, 289) = 47.71, p < 0.001; Step 4: F(13, 285) = 38.88, p < 0.001. ** 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

Yu, W. The Use of Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Using Motivations, Involvement, and Satisfaction with the Case of Alexa. Journal. Media 2025, 6, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6020082

AMA Style

Yu W. The Use of Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Using Motivations, Involvement, and Satisfaction with the Case of Alexa. Journalism and Media. 2025; 6(2):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6020082

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Weiwen. 2025. "The Use of Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Using Motivations, Involvement, and Satisfaction with the Case of Alexa" Journalism and Media 6, no. 2: 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6020082

APA Style

Yu, W. (2025). The Use of Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Using Motivations, Involvement, and Satisfaction with the Case of Alexa. Journalism and Media, 6(2), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6020082

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop