Pattern of relationship between contingency (contingent vs. non-contingent) and reaction latency (fast vs. sluggish) on organizational relationship with clients.
Hypotheses 4вЂ“6 worried the results of reaction contingency regarding the agentвЂ™s attractiveness, observersвЂ™ satisfaction with the talk, while the organizationвЂ™s relationship with clients. The connection results noted above had been ordinal with regards to the contingency element, and for that reason failed to compromise interpretation of contingency primary results.
Hypothesis 4 had been supported. More contingent reactions led to greater task attraction (M = 4.78, SD = 2.56) than did less contingent reactions (M = 3.62, SD = 2.29), F (1, 127) = 7.29, p = .008, d = .48. More contingency additionally triggered greater attraction that is socialM = 4.67, SD = 2.24) than less contingency (M = 3.30, SD = 1.81), F (1, 127) = 13.98, p 1 and dining dining dining Table 1), which can be described h7 that are following a relationship theory.
Hypothesis 6 centered on exactly just just exactly how a chat agentвЂ™s responses impacted participantsвЂ™ impression regarding the whole organizationвЂ™s relationship with clients, also it, too, ended up being supported: More contingent reactions stimulated a far more good organizational relationship evaluation (M = 4.80, SD = 2.88) than did less contingent reactions (M = 3.47, SD = 2.45), F (1, 127) = 8.57, p = .004, d = .50. Continue reading “Interactivity in Online Chat: Conversational Contingency and reaction Latency in Computer-mediated Communication”