The latest advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) not only highlight exceptional intelligence quotient but also emphasize remarkable emotional intelligence or emotional quotient. The current research investigates how interactions with empathetic AI affect individuals’ propensity to engage in prosocial behavior. Across six experiments, including a real-time human-AI interaction study and an incentivized behavioral study, we demonstrate that interactions with high- (vs. low-) empathy AI significantly increase individuals’ inclinations to donate, the amount donated, and their intentions to volunteer. Drawing on observational learning theory, we show that this effect occurs because high-empathy AI enhances perceptions of AI humanness. This heightened humanness facilitates empathetic influence, whereby the AI’s modeled empathic behaviors elevate users’ own empathic states, ultimately promoting greater prosocial action. Furthermore, this positive effect of high-empathy AI is strengthened by AI’s human-identification marks (i.e., human name and icon). The research findings offer theory-based, actionable recommendations for effectively leveraging AI in service encounters to promote prosocial behaviors.
AsadaMinoru (2015), “Development of Artificial Empathy,” Neuroscience Research, 90, 41-50.
4.
BagozziRichard P.MooreDavid J. (1994), “Public Service Advertisements: Emotions and Empathy Guide Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 56-70.
5.
BanduraAlbert (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
6.
BasilDebra Z.RidgwayNancy M.BasilMichael D. (2006), “Guilt Appeals: The Mediating Effect of Responsibility,” Psychology & Marketing, 23 (12), 1035-54.
7.
BatsonC. Daniel (1990), “How Social Is the Animal? The Human Capacity for Caring,” American Psychologist, 45 (March), 336–46.
8.
BehlAbhishekDuttaPankajLuoZongweiSheoreyPratima (2022), “Enabling Artificial Intelligence on a Donation-Based Crowdfunding Platform: A Theoretical Approach,” Annals of Operational Research, 319, 761–789.
9.
BendapudiNeeliSinghSurendra N.BendapudiVenkat (1996), “Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning,” Journal of marketing, 60 (3), 33-49.
10.
BenkMichaeleKerstanSophievon WangenheimFlorianFerrarioAndrea (2024), “Twenty-four Years of Empirical Research on Trust in AI: A Bibliometric Review of Trends, Overlooked Issues, and Future Directions,” AI & Society, 40 (4), 2083-2106.
11.
BockDora. E.WolterJeremy S.FerrellO. C. (2020), “Artificial Intelligence: Disrupting What We Know About Services,” Journal of Services Marketing, 34 (3), 317-334.
12.
BorauSylvieOtterbringTobiasLaporteSandraWambaSamuel F. (2021), “The Most Human Bot: Female Gendering Increases Humanness Perceptions of Bots and Acceptance of AI,” Psychology & Marketing, 38 (7), 1052-68.
13.
CampbellMargaret C.KirmaniAmna (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69-83.
14.
ČehajićSabinaBrownRupertGonzálezRoberto (2009), “What Do I Care? Perceived Ingroup Responsibility and Dehumanization as Predictors of Empathy Felt for The Victim Group,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12 (6), 715-729.
CheshinArikRafaeliAnatBosNathan (2011), “Anger and Happiness in Virtual Teams: Emotional Influences of Text and Behavior on Others’ Affect in the Absence of Non-Verbal Cues,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116 (1), 2-16.
17.
Der Pütten Rosenthal-VonFrank P. SchulteEimlerSabrina C.SobierajSabrinaHoffmannLauraMaderwaldStefanBrandMatthias (2014), “Investigations on Empathy Towards Humans and Robots Using fMRI,” Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 201-12.
18.
ErlandssonArvidBjörklundFredrikBäckströmMartin (2015), “Emotional Reactions, Perceived Impact and Perceived Responsibility Mediate the Identifiable Victim Effect, Proportion Dominance Effect and Ingroup Effect Respectively,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1-14.
19.
FlaviánCarlosBelkRussell W.BelancheDanielCasalóLuis V. (2024), “Automated Social Presence in AI: Avoiding Consumer Psychological Tensions to Improve Service Value.” Journal of Business Research, 175, 114545.
ForgasJoseph P.GeorgeJennifer M. (2001), “Affective Influences on Judgments and Behavior in Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (1), 3-34.
23.
GirouxMarilynKimJungkeunLeeJacob C.ParkJongwon (2022), “Artificial Intelligence and Declined Guilt: Retailing Morality Comparison Between Human And AI,” Journal of Business Ethics, 178 (4), 1027-41.
24.
GoEunSundarS. Shyam (2019), “Humanizing Chatbots: The Effects of Visual, Identity and Conversational Cues on Humanness Perceptions,” Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 304-16.
25.
HaslamNickLoughnanSteve (2014), “Dehumanization and Infrahumanization,” Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 399-423.
26.
HaslamNickLoughnanStephenKashimaYoshihisaBainPaul (2008), “Attributing and Denying Humanness to Others,” European Review of Social Psychology, 19 (1), 55-85.
27.
HayesAndrew F. (2022), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
28.
Hennig-ThurauThorstenGrothMarkusPaulMichaelGremlerDwayne D. (2006), “Are All Smiles Created Equal? How Employee–Customer Emotional Contagion Impacts Service Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 70, 58-73.
29.
HillJenniferFordW. RandolphFarrerasIngrid G. (2015), “Real Conversations with Artificial Intelligence: A Comparison Between Human–Human Online Conversations and Human–Chatbot Conversations,” Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 245-50.
30.
HortensiusRuudHekeleFelixCrossEmily S. (2018), “The Perception of Emotion in Artificial Agents,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 10 (4), 852–64.
31.
HuangMing-HuiRustRoland T. (2018), “Artificial Intelligence in Service,” Journal of Service Research, 21 (2), 155-72.
32.
KimSungjinGuptaSachinLeeClarence (2021), “Managing Members, Donors, and Member-Donors for Effective Nonprofit Fundraising,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (3), 220-39.
33.
KimYoujeongSundarS. Shyam (2012), “Anthropomorphism of Computers: Is It Mindful or Mindless?” Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (1), 241-50.
34.
LeeSaeromWinterichKaren P.RossWilliam T.Jr.(2014), “I’m Moral, but I Won’t Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 678-96.
35.
LeyensJacques-PhilippeRodriguez-PerezArmandoRodriguez-TorresRamonGauntRuthPaladinoMaria-PaolaVaesJeroenDemoulinStephanie (2001), “Psychological Essentialism and the Differential Attribution of Uniquely Human Emotions to Ingroups and Outgroups,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 31 (4), 395-411.
36.
Liu-ThompkinsYupingOkazakiShintaroLiHairong (2022), “Artificial Empathy in Marketing Interactions: Bridging the Human-AI Gap in Affective and Social Customer Experience,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50 (6), 1198-218.
37.
LongoniChiaraCianLuca (2022), “Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Effect,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (1), 91-108.
38.
LongoniChiaraBonezziAndreaMorewedgeCarey K. (2019), “Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (4), 629-50.
39.
LuLlincolnMcDonaldCasyKelleherTomLeeSusannaChungYoo JinMuellerSophiaVielledentMarcYueCen April (2022), “Measuring Consumer-Perceived Humanness of Online Organizational Agents,” Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107092.
40.
LuoXuemingTongSiliangFangZhengQuZhe (2019), “Frontiers: Machines vs. Humans: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Disclosure on Customer Purchases,” Marketing Science, 38 (6), 937-47.
41.
LvXingyangYangYufanQinDazhiCaoXingpingXuHong (2022), “Artificial Intelligence Service Recovery: The Role of Empathic Response in Hospitality Customers’ Continuous Usage Intention,” Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106993.
NofzMichael P.VendyPhil (2002), “When Computers Say It with Feeling: Communication and Synthetic Emotions in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey,” Journal of Communication Inquiry, 26 (1), 26-45.
44.
NookErik C.OngDesmond C.MorelliSylvia A.MitchellJason P.ZakiJamil (2016), “Prosocial Conformity: Prosocial Norms Generalize Across Behavior and Empathy,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 8, 1045-62.
ParasuramanAnanthanarayananZeithamlValarie A.BerryLeonard L. (1988), “Servqual: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.
47.
ParkGainMyungokChris Y.ChungJinyunLeeSeyoung (2023), “Effect of AI Chatbot Empathy and Identity Disclosure on Willingness to Donate: The Mediation of Humanness and Social Presence,” Behaviour & Information Technology, 42 (12), 1998-2010.
48.
ParkGainChungJiyunLeeSeyoung (2024), “Scope and Limits of AI Fundraisers: Moderated Serial Multiple Mediation Model Between Artificial Emotions and Willingness to Donate via Humanness and Empathy,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123211.
49.
PennerLouis A.DovidioJohn F.PiliavinJane A.SchroederDavid A. (2005), “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives,” Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-92.
SchepersJeroenBelancheDanielCasalóLuis V.FlaviánCarlos (2022), “How Smart Should a Service Robot Be?” Journal of Service Research, 25 (4), 565-582.
52.
SchererKlaus R.CeschiGrazia (2000), “Criteria for Emotion Recognition from Verbal and Nonverbal Expression: Studying Baggage Loss in the Airport,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (3), 327-39.
SmallDeborah A.VerrochiNicole M. (2009), “The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 777-87.
55.
WatsonDavidClarkLee A.TellegenAuke (1988), “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063.
56.
WaytzAdamHeafnerJoyEpleyNicholas (2014), “The Mind in the Machine: Anthropomorphism Increases Trust in an Autonomous Vehicle,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113-7.
57.
WeihrauchAndreaHuangSzu-Chi (2021), “Portraying Humans as Machines to Promote Health: Unintended Risks, Mechanisms, and Solutions,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (3), 184-203.
58.
WiesekeJanGeigenmüllerAnjaKrausFlorian (2012), “On the Role of Empathy in Customer-Employee Interactions,” Journal of Service Research, 15 (3), 316-31.
59.
YalcinӦzge NilayDiPaolaSteve (2018), “A Computational Model of Empathy for Interactive Agents,” Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 26, 20-5.
60.
ZhouXinyueWildschutTimSedikidesConstantineShiKanFengCong (2012), “Nostalgia: The Gift That Keeps on Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 39-50.
61.
ZhouYuanyuanFeiZhouyingHeYuanqiongYangZhilin (2022), “How Human–Chatbot Interaction Impairs Charitable Giving: The Role of Moral Judgment,” Journal of Business Ethics, 178 (3), 849-65.
62.
ZhouYuqingHanShihuiKangPyungwonToblerPhilippe N.HeinGrit (2024), “The Social Transmission of Empathy Relies on Observational Reinforcement Learning,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 (9), e2313073121.
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.
