Factors affecting customer satisfaction with banking chatbots in Hue City
Published: August 26, 2026
doi:10.62831/nckh.2026.3572.v1
Abstract
This study identifies and measures the factors affecting individual customers’ satisfaction with banking chatbots in Hue City. Data were collected from 230 customers between March and June 2026 and analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha, exploratory factor analysis, and multiple regression. Six factors significantly affect customer satisfaction. In descending order of importance, these are information quality (β = 0.284), service quality (β = 0.252), system quality (β = 0.247), perceived artificial emotional intelligence (β = 0.228), perceived usefulness (β = 0.139), and perceived security risk (β = -0.088). Perceived security risk has a negative effect, while the other factors have positive effects. Perceived ease of use is not statistically significant. The study proposes managerial implications for improving chatbot quality and customer experience.
Keywords
individual customersbanking chatbotscustomer satisfactionHue City
References
1.
BIDV (2024). Báo cáo phát triển bền vững BIDV 2024. BIDV.
2.
TPBank. (2025). Chạm tương lai ngành tài chính cùng ngân hàng trí tuệ TPBank. TPBank.
3.
Quỳnh Hương & Hữu Bình, (2022). Chatbot trong lĩnh vực ngân hàng - Thực trạng và xu hướng ứng dụng tại Việt Nam. Tạp chí Khoa học và Đào tạo Ngân hàng, (236+237), 67-75.
4.
Ủy ban Nhân dân tỉnh Thừa Thiên Huế. (2022). Ra mắt Ví điện tử Hue-S - giải pháp thanh toán tiện lợi thúc đẩy phát triển kinh tế số tỉnh Thừa Thiên Huế. Cổng thông tin điện tử tỉnh Thừa Thiên Huế.
5.
Al-Oraini, 2024. Chatbot dynamics: Trust, social presence and customer satisfaction in AI-driven services. Journal of Information and Digital Technologies, 2(2), 109-122.
6.
Anderson & Gerbing, 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
7.
Bolen (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.
8.
Capgemini (2024). World retail banking report 2024. Capgemini Research Institute.
9.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
10.
DeLone & McLean, 1992. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
11.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
12.
Evans et al., 2000. Management, Quality and Competitiveness. South-Western College Publishing.
13.
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451-474.
14.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
Hair et al., 2010. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
16.
McKinsey & Company (2023). The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. McKinsey & Company.
17.
Nguyen, Q. A., & Tran, T. M. (2024). Artificial intelligence-based chatbots - a motivation underlying customer experiences and behavioral outcomes in digital banking. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2443570.
18.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
19.
Park et al., 2020. Impact of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot characteristics on customer satisfaction. Emerging Science Journal, 4(4), 283-295.
20.
Rather, R. A. (2023). Chatbots, artificial intelligence and customer experience in frontline services: An emerging market perspective. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 33(3), 305-325.
