Based on the computers are social actors theory and social presence theory, the current study investigates the psychological mechanism by which the use of friendly language by a personalized product recommendation chatbot influences product attitudes. Results indicated that the effect of the friendly chatbot on more positive product attitudes was sequentially mediated by social presence and user satisfaction. Previous experience with product recommendation chatbots was found to moderate the serial mediation effects. Furthermore, the current study found that a friendly chatbot led to higher rates of contact information disclosure by consumers. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Market Analysis Report. Chatbot Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By End User, By Application (Bots For Service, Bots For Marketing), By Type (Standalone, Web-based), By Product Landscape, By Vertical, And Segment Forecasts, 2021–2028. 2021. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/chatbot-market (accessed July14, 2022).
2.
van NoortG, HimelboimI, MartinJ, et al.Introducing a model of automated brand-generated content in an era of computational advertising. Journal of Advertising, 2020; 49:411–427.
3.
RoyR, NaidooV. Enhancing chatbot effectiveness: the role of anthropomorphic conversational styles and time orientation. Journal of Business Research, 2021; 126:23–34.
4.
ChavesAP, DoerryE, EgbertJ, et al. (2019). It's how you say it: Identifying appropriate register for chatbot language design. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, pp. 102–109.
5.
ReevesB, NassC. (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge, United. Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ShortJ, WilliamsE, ChristieB. (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Toronto; London; New York: Wiley.
7.
NassC, MoonY. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 2000; 56:81–103.
8.
KandaT, MiyashitaT, OsadaT, et al.Analysis of humanoid appearances in human–robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2008; 24:725–735.
9.
MouY, XuK. The media inequality: comparing the initial human-human and human-AI social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 72:432–440.
10.
SundarSS, KimJ. (2019) Machine heuristic: when we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–9. [Epub ahead of print]; doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300768.
11.
IschenC, AraujoT, VoorveldH, et al. (2019) Privacy concerns in chatbot interactions. In International Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design. Cham: Springer, pp. 34–48.
12.
YangD, ChaeYJ, KimD, et al.Effects of Social behaviors of robots in privacy-sensitive situations. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2021; 12:1–4.
13.
FoggBJ. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002; 2:89–120.
BrockJK, ZhouJY. Customer intimacy. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2012; 27:370–383.
16.
AraujoT. Living up to the chatbot hype: the influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 85:183–189.
17.
GnewuchU, MoranaS, AdamMT, et al. (2018) “The Chatbot is typing...”—the role of typing indicators in human-chatbot interaction. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, pp. 0–5.
18.
NgM, CoopamootooKP, ToreiniE, et al. (2020). Simulating the effects of social presence on trust, privacy concerns & usage intentions in automated bots for finance. In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), pp. 190–199.
19.
BioccaF, HarmsC, BurgoonJK. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 2003; 12:456–480.
20.
WienerM, MehrabianA. (1968) Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
21.
PotdevinD, SabouretN, ClavelC. Intimacy perception: does the artificial or human nature of the interlocutor matter?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2020; 142:102464.
22.
OliverRL. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 1980; 4:460–469.
23.
GunawardenaCN, ZittleFJ. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 1997; 11:8–26.
24.
RichardsonJC, MaedaY, LvJ, et al.Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: a meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 71:402–417.
25.
OgaraSO, KohCE, PrybutokVR. Investigating factors affecting social presence and user satisfaction with mobile instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 36:453–459.
26.
MazerJP, MurphyRE, SimondsCJ. I'll see you on “Facebook”: the effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 2007; 56:1–7.
27.
AshfaqM, YunJ, YuS, et al.I, Chatbot: modeling the determinants of users' satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telematics and Informatics, 2020; 54:101473.
28.
ChengY, JiangH. How do AI-driven chatbots impact user experience? Examining gratifications, perceived privacy risk, satisfaction, loyalty, and continued use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2020; 64:592–614.
29.
de CosmoLM, PiperL, Di VittorioA. The role of attitude toward chatbots and privacy concern on the relationship between attitude toward mobile advertising and behavioral intent to use chatbots. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2021; 1:83–102.
30.
TrivediJ. Examining the customer experience of using banking chatbots and its impact on brand love: the moderating role of perceived risk. Journal of Internet Commerce, 2019; 18:91–111.
31.
HessTJ, FullerM, CampbellDE. Designing interfaces with social presence: using vividness and extraversion to create social recommendation agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2009; 10:1.
32.
KimAJ, KoE. Impacts of luxury fashion brand's social media marketing on customer relationship and purchase intention. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 2010; 1:164–171.
33.
LeeEJ. Effects of gendered character representation on person perception and informational social influence in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 2004; 20:779–799.
34.
LiuB, SundarSS. Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2018; 21:625–636.
35.
BergerCR, BradacJJ. (1982) Language and social knowledge: uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London: E. Arnold.
36.
HaQA, ChenJV, UyHU, et al.Exploring the privacy concerns in using intelligent virtual assistants under perspectives of information sensitivity and anthropomorphism. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2021; 37:512–527.
37.
Van den BroeckE, ZaroualiB, et al.Chatbot advertising effectiveness: when does the message get through?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019; 98:150–157.
38.
ChaikenS. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980; 39:752.
39.
KacmarKM, WittLA, ZivnuskaS, et al.The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003; 88:764.
40.
GefenD, StraubDW. Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega, 2004; 32:407–424.
41.
TeoHH, OhLB, LiuC, et al.An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2003; 58:281–305.
42.
BatraR, AhtolaOT. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 1991; 2:159–170.
43.
ZaichkowskyJL. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 1985; 12:341–352.
44.
HayesAF. (2017) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford publications.
45.
SohnS, SiemonD, StefanM. (2021) When live chats make us disclose more. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, vol. 7. pp. 1–9.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
