## 5 Results  
3 \(\times\) 3 MANOVA was conducted to analyze the effects of review type and product type on the dependent variables. The results from the MANOVA and Tukey (HSD) post  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Measurement** & **M (SD)** & **[PERSON]’s \(\alpha\)** & **Sources** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Purchase intention} & I would return to voice shopping. & 2.938 & & \\  & (1.686) & & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & I would consider purchasing from voice & 2.660 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & shopping in the next three months. & (1.694) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & I would consider purchasing from voice & 3.007 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & shopping in the next year. & (1.844) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & If I could, then I would discontinue my use of & 4.562 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & voice shopping. & (1.907) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & If this product is significantly less expensive & & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & from voice shopping than from a well-known & 5.131 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & online merchant, then I would consider & (1.776) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & purchasing it from the former. & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Trust in voice shopping} & Voice shopping is reliable. & 4.127 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Voice shopping is trustworthy. & (1.548) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Voice shopping is trustworthy. & 4.095 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Voice shopping includes integrity. & 4.350 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Even if it not monitored, I would trust the & 3.772 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & vendor to perform the job correctly. & (1.479) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & The vendor of this product is reliable. & 3.810 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Trust in vendor & (1.481) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & I trust the vendor of this product. & 3.791 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & The vendor of this product is trustworthy. & (1.456) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The Dependent Variables.  
hoc analysis indicated that while rating condition, compared to no review condition, had significantly higher purchase intention (F = 4.216, \(p\) = 0.016).  
For this experiment, Jamovi (Version 1.0.8.0) and IBM SPSS (23.0) statistical software were used to analyze the data. We tested the effect of the review conditions on the purchase intention, trust in voice shopping, trust in vendor (H1-H4) and the effect of the product types on such conditions (RQ 1). According to the results, the effect of the review conditions ([PERSON] \(\lambda\) = 0.947, F(6, 590) = 2.73, \(p\) < 0.05) was significant, but not the effect of the product types conditions ([PERSON] \(\lambda\) = 0.977, F(6, 590) = 1.14, \(p\) > 0.1). Thus, product type did not have significant effect on purchase intention, trust in voice shopping, and trust in vendor and therefore RQ1 was not supported. The review conditions had a significant impact on users' purchase intentions (F(2, 297) = 4.22, \(p\) < 0.05) and trust in voice shopping (F(2, 297) = 2.65, \(p\) < 0.1), but not on trust in the vendor (F(2, 297) = 2.28, \(p\) > 0.1).  
[PERSON]'s post hoc test was also performed to determine the differences between the review conditions (see Table 2). There was no significant difference between the review by feature condition and the no review condition; both no review condition and review by feature condition did not have significant effect on purchase intention, trust in voice shopping, and trust in vendor. Hence, H1 and H4 are not supported. Meanwhile, the review by rating condition showed significantly better performance compared the no review condition for trust in voice shopping and purchase intention but not for trust in vendor. Therefore, partial of H1 and H3 were supported.