Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study aims to interrogate the implicit monotonicity assumption in service-dominant logic by examining whether AI signalling intensity uniformly enhances perceived firm innovativeness (PFI) or exhibits threshold-dependent fragility. The study empirically validates relational coherence as a perception-level mediating state, thereby confirming its role as the integrator of AI-enabled capability inference, and specifies structural and demographic boundary conditions. Design/methodology/approach A two-study archival design tests the proposed threshold model. Study 1 exploits discrete AI capability announcements among 1,012 Asian service firms (2012–2024) using event-study difference-in-differences to identify dynamic shifts in customer text-based PFI. Study 2 estimates a dynamic panel system generalised method of moments model incorporating lagged PFI, non-linear AI intensity and relational coherence, addressing reverse causality and omitted capability shocks while computing turning points and moderated curvature. Findings AI signalling exhibits an inverted-U relationship with PFI: moderate intensity strengthens capability perception, whereas high intensity attenuates and reverses effects. Relational coherence mediates this relationship, with the indirect pathway weakening and becoming negative beyond a calculable threshold. The curvature steepens and the threshold occurs earlier in high-contact services and firms serving older customer segments. Originality/value The study advances service-dominant logic by introducing threshold-fragility into its resource-integration premise, repositioning technological operant resources as legitimacy-constrained rather than uniformly accretive. It conceptualises relational coherence as the perception-level integrator governing AI-enabled capability inference and embeds demographic and structural heterogeneity within a formally identified non-linear, dynamic analytical model structure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: