The use of artificial intelligence (AI) service robots is on the rise. With service frontlines gradually shifting to human–robot interactions, the question of whether the anthropomorphism of robots facilitates or constrains consumers’ experiences has emerged. This article focuses on the individual factor “consumer mindset” (competition vs collaboration) and investigates how it impacts consumers’ attitudes toward anthropomorphic AI robots during service delivery. Across three studies, we confirm our main prediction that competitive mindset consumers respond less favorably to anthropomorphic (vs. non-anthropomorphic) AI robots, whereas collaborative mindset consumers respond more favorably to anthropomorphic (vs. non-anthropomorphic) AI robots. We test the mediating role of perceived psychological closeness and the moderating role of interaction distance to explain the underlying mechanism. Our findings provide theoretical insights into the mixed results of previous studies of service robot anthropomorphism and have practical implications for service agencies using frontline robots.
AckermanEvan (2016), “Study: Nobody Wants Social Robots that Look like Humans Because They Threaten Our Identity,” IEEE Spectrum, 1-5.
2.
AlvesHansKochAlexUnkelbachChristian (2017), “The ‘Common Good’ Phenomenon: Why Similarities are Positive and Differences are Negative,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146 (4), 512-28.
3.
ApanovichV. V.BezdenezhnykhB. N.SamsM.JääskeläinenI. P.AlexandrovYuI (2018), “Event-related Potentials during Individual, Cooperative, and Competitive Task Performance Differ in Subjects with Analytic vs. Holistic Thinking,” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 123 (1), 136-42.
4.
AronArthurAronElaine (1986), Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
5.
AronArthur N.AronElaine N.TudorMichael N.NelsonGreg N. (1991), “Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (2), 241-53.
6.
AronArthurAronElaine N.SmollanDanny (1992), “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596-612.
7.
BelancheDanielCasalóLuis V.FlaviánCarlosSchepersJeroen (2020), “Robots or Frontline Employees? Exploring Customers’ Attributions of Responsibility and Stability After Service Failure or Success,” Journal of Service Management, 31(2), 267-89.
8.
BenlianAlexanderKlumpeJohannesHinzOliver (2020), “Mitigating the Intrusive Effects of Smart Home Assistants by Using Anthropomorphic Design Features: A Multimethod Investigation,” Information Systems Journal, 30 (6), 1010-42.
9.
BlutMarkusWangChengWünderlichNancy V.BrockChristian (2021), “Understanding Anthropomorphism in Service Provision: A Meta-Analysis of Physical Robots, Chatbots, and Other AI,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (4), 632-58.
10.
BroadbentElizabethKumarVinayakLiXingyanSollersJohnStaffordRebecca Q.MacdonaldBruce A.WegnerDaniel M. (2013), “Robots with Display Screens: A Robot with a More Humanlike Face Display Is Perceived to Have More Mind and a Better Personality,” PLoS ONE, 8 (8), e72589.
11.
ChenRocky PengWanEcho WenLevyEric (2017), “The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Preference for Anthropomorphized Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (1), 23-34.
12.
ChenXiao-PingXieXiaofeiChangShiqing (2011), “Cooperative and Competitive Orientation Among Chinese People: Scale Development and Validation,” Management and Organization Review, 7 (2), 353-79.
13.
CialdiniRobert B.De NicholasMaralou E. (1989), “Self-Presentation by Association,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), 626-31.
14.
ColpaertLucieMullerDominiqueFayantMarie-PierreButeraFabrizio (2015), “A Mindset of Competition versus Cooperation Moderates the Impact of Social Comparison on Self-Evaluation,” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1337.
15.
De VisserEwart J.MonfortSamuel S.MckendrickRyanSmithMelissa A. B.McknightPatrick E.KruegerFrankParasuramanRaja (2016), “Almost Human: Anthropomorphism Increases Trust Resilience in Cognitive Agents,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22 (3), 331-49.
16.
DuffyBrian R. (2003), “Anthropomorphism and the Social Robot,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42 (3-4), 177-90.
17.
EpleyNicholasWaytzAdamCacioppoJohn T. (2007), “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864-86.
GaiPhyliss J.PuntoniStefano (2021), “Language and Consumer Dishonesty: A Self-Diagnosticity Theory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 48(2), 333-51.
21.
GrayKurtWegnerDaniel M. (2012), “Feeling Robots and Human Zombies: Mind Perception and the Uncanny Valley,” Cognition, 125 (1), 125-30.
22.
GursoyDoganChiOscar HengxuanLuLuNunkooRobin (2019), “Consumers Acceptance of Artificially Intelligent (AI) Device Use in Service Delivery,”International Journal of Information Management, 49, 157-69.
23.
HallEdward T. (1966), The Hidden Dimension: Man's Use of Space in Public and Private. London, UK: The Bodley Head Ltd.
24.
HayesAndrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
25.
HoTing HinTojibDewiTsarenkoYelena (2020), “Human Staff vs. Service Robot vs. Fellow Customer: Does It Matter Who Helps Your Customer Following a Service Failure Incident?” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102501.
HuangMing-HuiRustRoland T. (2018), “Artificial Intelligence in Service,” Journal of Service Research, 21 (2), 155-72.
28.
HuangMing-HuiRustRoland T. (2021), “Engaged to a Robot? The Role of AI in Service,” Journal of Service Research, 24 (1), 30-41.
29.
HuangYunhuiSenguptaJaideep (2020), “The Influence of Disease Cues on Preference for Typical versus Atypical Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 47(3), 393-411.
JohnsonDavid W.JohnsonRoger T. (1989), Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
32.
JuIlyoungHeYiChenQimeiHeWeiShenBinSarSela (2017), “The Mind-Set to Share: An Exploration of Antecedents of Narrowcasting Versus Broadcasting in Digital Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 46 (4), 473-86.
33.
KangHyunjinKimKi Joon (2020), “Feeling Connected to Smart Objects? A Moderated Mediation Model of Locus of Agency, Anthropomorphism, and Sense of Connectedness,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 133, 45-55.
34.
KimHye-YoungMcgillAnn L (2018), “Minions for the Rich? Financial Status Changes How Consumers See Products with Anthropomorphic Features,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (2), 429-50.
35.
KimSaraChenRocky PengZhangKe (2016), “Anthropomorphized Helpers Undermine Autonomy and Enjoyment in Computer Games,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (2), 282-302.
36.
KimYunkyungMutluBilge (2014), “How Social Distance Shapes Human–Robot Interaction,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72 (12), 783-95.
37.
KohnAlfie (1992),No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
LambertDavid (2004), Body Language. New York: Harper Collins.
39.
LeichtmannBenediktNitschVerena (2020), “How Much Distance Do Humans Keep Toward Robots? Literature Review, Meta-Analysis, and Theoretical Considerations on Personal Space in Human-Robot Interaction,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101386.
40.
LiXingeSungYongjun (2021), “Anthropomorphism Brings Us Closer: The Mediating Role of Psychological Distance in User–AI Assistant Interactions,” Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106680.
41.
MendeMartinScottMaura L.van DoornJennyGrewalDhruvShanksIlana (2019), “Service Robots Rising: How Humanoid Robots Influence Service Experiences and Elicit Compensatory Consumer Responses,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535-56.
42.
MoriMasahiro (1970), “The Uncanny Valley,” Energy, 7(4), 33-5.
43.
MoriMasahiroMacdormanKarlKagekiNorri (2012), “The Uncanny Valley [From the Field],” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19 (2), 98-100.
44.
MoureyJames A.OlsonJenny G.YoonCarolyn (2017), “Products as Pals: Engaging with Anthropomorphic Products Mitigates the Effects of Social Exclusion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 414-31.
45.
MummJonathanMutluBilge (2011), “Human-Robot Proxemics: Physical and Psychological Distancing in Human-Robot Interaction,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (March), 331–38.
46.
MutluBilgeForlizziJodi (2008), “Robots in Organizations: The Role of Workflow, Social, and Environmental Factors in Human-Robot Interaction,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (March), 287–94.
47.
PuzakovaMarinaKwakHyokjin (2017), “Should Anthropomorphized Brands Engage Customers? The Impact of Social Crowding on Brand Preferences,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (6), 99-115.
48.
QiuLingyunBenbasatIzak (2009), “Evaluating Anthropomorphic Product Recommendation Agents: A Social Relationship Perspective to Designing Information Systems,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 (4), 145-82.
49.
RussellStuart J.NorvigPeter (2002), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50.
RustRoland T.HuangMing-Hui (2014), “The Service Revolution and the Transformation of Marketing Science,” Marketing Science, 33 (2), 206-21.
51.
SprecherSusanTregerStanislavWondraJoshua D. (2013), “Effects of Self-Disclosure Role on Liking, Closeness, and Other Impressions in Get-Acquainted Interactions,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30 (4), 497-514.
52.
StapelDiederik A.KoomenWillem (2005), “Competition, Cooperation, and the Effects of Others on Me,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (6), 1029-38.
53.
TajfelHenri (1982), “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,” Annual Review of Psychology, 33 (1), 1-39.
54.
TauerJohn M.HarackiewiczJudith M. (2004), “The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (6), 849-61.
55.
ThomasLaura E.DavoliChristopher C.BrockmoleJames R. (2014), “Competitive Interaction Leads to Perceptual Distancing Between Actors,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40 (6), 2112-16.
56.
TomaClaudiaYzerbytVincentCorneilleOlivier (2010), “Anticipated Cooperation vs. Competition Moderates Interpersonal Projection,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (2), 375-81.
57.
TuYanpingShawAlexFishbachAyelet (2016), “The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 669-87.
58.
UzzellDavidHorneNathalie (2006), “The Influence of Biological Sex, Sexuality and Gender Role on Interpersonal Distance,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (3), 579-97.
59.
Van DoornJennyMendeMartinNobleStephanie M.HullandJohnOstromAmy L.GrewalDhruvPetersenJ. Andrew (2017), “Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of Automated Social Presence in Organizational Frontlines and Customers’ Service Experiences,” Journal of Service Research, 20 (1), 43-58.
60.
Van PinxterenMichelle M. E.WetzelsRuud W. H.RügerJessicaPluymaekersMarkWetzelsMartin (2019), “Trust in Humanoid Robots: Implications for Services Marketing,” Journal of Services Marketing, 33 (4), 507-18.
61.
WaltersMichael L.DautenhahnKerstinKoayKheng L.KaouriChristinate BoekhorstRenéNehanivChrystopherWerryIainLeeDavid (2005), “Close Encounters: Spatial Distances between People and A Robot of Mechanistic Appearance,” in 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, IEEE, Tsukuba, Japan (05 December 2005), 450-55.
62.
WaytzAdamHeafnerJoyEpleyNicholas (2014), “The Mind in the Machine: Anthropomorphism Increases Trust in an Autonomous Vehicle,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52 (May), 113-17.
63.
WirtzJochenPattersonPaul G.KunzWerner H.GruberThorstenLuVinh NhatPaluchStefanieMartinsAntje (2018), “Brave New World: Service Robots in the Frontline,” Journal of Service Management, 29 (5), 907-31.
64.
YamKai ChiBigmanYochanan E.TangPok ManIliesRemusDe CremerDavidSohHaroldGrayKurt (2021), “Robots at Work: People Prefer—and Forgive—Service Robots with Perceived Feelings,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (10), 1557-72.
65.
YangLinyun W.AggarwalPankaj L.McGillAnn L. (2020), “The 3 C's of Anthropomorphism: Connection, Comprehension, and Competition,” Consumer Psychology Review, 3 (1), 3-19.
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.
