Smart products will play a central role in consumer living in years to come. Close to humans because of their “intelligence,” should they also look like humans? The aim of this research is to test the impact of anatomical anthropomorphism on the acceptance of an autonomous product, the companion robot, measured by its perceived usefulness, ease of use, and use intentions. Our results show that, unlike previous marketing research on traditional product anthropomorphism, the human appearance of a companion robot does not increase its acceptance by consumers. However, we show that a partially anthropomorphic appearance improves acceptance by people with practical experience of similar technology (the smartphone), while it reduces acceptance by other people. Our results also emphasize the difficulty of extending research on the impact of anthropomorphism on consumers. They also highlight the need to integrate appearance in acceptance models, and they show how experience with products similar to the new one influences the impact of appearance. Finally, we show the role of the categorization process in the impact of appearance.
AggarwalP (2004) The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research31(1): 87–101.
2.
AggarwalPMcGillAL (2007) Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research34(4): 468–479.
3.
AggarwalPMcGillAL (2012) When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research39(2): 307–323.
4.
AmbroiseLValette-FlorenceP (2010) The brand personality metaphor and inter-product stability of a specific barometer. Recherche et Applications en Marketing25(2): 3–29.
5.
BartneckCKandaTIshiguro (2007) Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? In: RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Jeju City, South Korea, 26–29 August, pp. 368–373. New York: IEEE.
6.
BartneckCKandaTIshiguroH. (2009a) My robotic doppelgänger – A critical look at the Uncanny Valley. In: The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN 2009, Toyama, Japan, 27 September–2 October, vol. 31, pp. 269–276. New York: IEEE.
7.
BartneckCKandaTMubinO. (2009b) Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence?International Journal of Social Robotics1(2): 195–204.
8.
BartneckCKulićDCroftE. (2008) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics1(1): 71–81.
9.
BelkR (2014) If you Prick us do we not Bleed? Humanoid robots and cyborgs as consuming subjects and consumed objects. In: Advances in consumer research Latin America.
10.
Ben MimounMSPoncinIGarnierM (2012) Case study – Embodied virtual agents: An analysis on reasons for failure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services19(6): 605–612.
11.
BlowMDautenhahnKApplebyA. (2006) Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design. In: The 15th IEEE symposium on robot and human interactive communication (Ro-MAN 06), Hatfield, 6–8 September, pp. 469–474. New York: IEEE.
12.
BosmansABaumgartnerH (2005) Goal relevant emotional information: When extraneous affect leads to persuasion and when it does not. Journal of Consumer Research32(3): 424–434.
13.
BrandonM (2012) Effect of robot-user personality on the acceptance of domestic assistant robots for elderly. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
14.
BurgoonJKBonitoJABengtssonB. (2000) Interactivity in human – Computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior16: 553–574.
15.
ChandlerJSchwarzN (2010) Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer Psychology20(2): 138–145.
16.
ChandranSMorwitzVG (2005) Effects of participative pricing on consumers’ cognitions and actions: A goal theoretic perspective. Journal of Consumer Research32(2): 249–259.
17.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
18.
DelbaereMMcQuarrieEFPhillipsBJ (2011) Personification in advertising. Journal of Advertising40(1): 121–130.
19.
DiSalvoCGemperleF (2003) From seduction to fulfillment: The use of anthropomorphic form in design. In: DPPI ‘03 Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, pp. 67–72.
20.
EpleyNWaytzACacioppoJT (2007) On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review114(4): 864–886.
21.
FinkJMubinOKaplanF. (2012) Anthropomorphic language in online forums about Roomba, AIBO and the iPad. In: 2012 IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), Munich, 21–23 May, pp. 54–59. New York: IEEE.
22.
FiskeSTLinvillePW (1980) What does the schema concept buy us?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin6(4): 543–557.
23.
GarnierMPoncinI (2013) The avatar in marketing: Synthesis, integrative framework and perspectives. Recherche et Applications en Marketing28(1): 92–123.
24.
GoodeMRDahlDWMoreauCP (2013) Innovation aesthetics: The relationship between category cues, categorization certainty, and newness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation Management30(2): 192–208.
25.
Gregan-PaxtonJHoefflerSZhaoM (2005) When categorization is ambiguous: Factors that facilitate the use of a multiple category inference strategy. Journal of Consumer Psychology15(2): 127–140.
26.
GroomVNassCChenT. (2009) Evaluating the effects of behavioral realism in embodied agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies67(10): 842–849.
27.
GuthrieSE (1993) Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
HartPMJonesSRRoyneMB (2013) The human lens: How anthropomorphic reasoning varies by product complexity and enhances personal value. Journal of Marketing Management29(1–2): 105–121.
29.
HassaneinKHeadM (2007) Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies65(8): 689–708.
30.
HayesAFPreacherKJ (2014) Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology67: 451–470.
KieslerT (2006) Anthropomorphism and consumer behavior. In: Advances in consumer research proceedings, vol. 33, p. 149.
33.
KimSMcGillAL (2011) Gaming with Mr. slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research38(1): 94–107.
34.
KrishnaA (2012) An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology22(3): 332–351.
35.
LabrooAALeeAY (2006) Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research43(3): 374–385.
36.
LabrooAADharRSchwarzN (2008) Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research34(6): 819–831.
37.
LamSMukherjeeA (2005) The effects of merchandise coordination and juxtaposition on consumers’ product evaluation and purchase intention in store-based retailing. Journal of Retailing81(3): 231–250.
38.
LandwehrJRMcgillALHerrmannA (2011) It’s got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive Facial expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing75(2): 132–146.
39.
LeeAYLabrooAA (2004) The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research41(2): 151–165.
40.
LeeSLauIYHongY (2011) Effects of appearance and functions on likability and perceived occupational suitability of robots. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making5(2): 232–250.
41.
LinCSherPJ (2007) Readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing24: 641–657.
42.
MacDormanKFGreenRDHoCC. (2009) Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior25(3): 695–710.
43.
MacDormanKFVasudevanSKHoCC (2008) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. Ai & Society23(4): 485–510.
44.
MenneckeBEPetersA (2013) From avatars to mavatars: The role of marketing avatars and embodied representations in consumer profiling. Business Horizons56(3): 387–397.
45.
MenonGRaghubirP (2003) Ease-of-retrieval as an automatic input in judgments: A mere-accessibility framework. Journal of Consumer Research30(3): 230–243.
46.
MeuterMLBitnerMJOstromAL. (2005) Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing69(2): 61–83.
47.
MoreauCPMarkmanABLehmannDR (2001) “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. Journal of Marketing Research27(1): 489–499.
48.
MoriM (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy7(4): 33–35.
NanXAnghelcevGMyersJR. (2006) What if a web site can talk? Exploring the persuasive effects of web-based anthropomorphic agents. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(3): 615–631.
51.
NassCMoonYGreenN (1997) Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology27(10): 864–876.
52.
NowakKLRauhC (2006) The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(1): 153–178.
53.
NowakKLRauhC (2008) Choose your “buddy icon” carefully: The influence of avatar androgyny, anthropomorphism and credibility in online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior24: 1473–1493.
54.
Pantin-SohierG (2009) The influence of the product package on functional and symbolic associations of brand image. Recherche et Applications en Marketing24(2): 53–72.
55.
PoncinIBen MimounMS (2011) Coexistence et complémentarité entre vendeur virtuel ubiquitaire et vendeurs réels. Gestion200028(5): 31–46.
56.
PorterMEHeppelmannJE (2014) How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business ReviewNovember, pp. 64–88.
57.
PuzakovaMKwakHRoceretoJF (2013) When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing77(2): 81–100.
58.
RayCMondadaFSiegwartR (2008) What do people expect from robots? In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Nice, 22–26 September, pp. 3816–3821. New York: IEEE.
59.
RijsdijkSAHultinkEJ (2003) Honey, have you seen our hamster? Consumer evaluations of autonomous domestic products. Journal of Product Innovation Management20(3): 204–216.
60.
RijsdijkSAHultinkEJ (2009) How today’s consumers perceive tomorrow’s smart products. Journal of Product Innovation Management26(1): 24–42.
61.
RijsdijkSAHultinkEJDiamantopoulosA (2007) Product intelligence: Its conceptualization, measurement and impact on consumer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science35(3): 340–356.
62.
SchwarzNStrackFKlumppG. (1991) Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61(2): 195–202.
63.
SungJGuoLGrinterRE. (2007) My Roomba is Rambo: Intimate home appliances. In: UbiComp2007 proceedings, pp. 145–162.
64.
TabachnickBGFidellLS (2013) Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
65.
ThompsonDVHamiltonRWRustRT (2005) Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research42(4): 431–442.
66.
TonduB (2012) Anthropomorphism and service humanoid robots: An ambiguous relationship. Industrial Robot: An International Journal39(6): 609–618.
67.
TyboutAMSternthalBMalaviyaP. (2005) Information accessibility as a moderator of judgments: The role of content versus retrieval ease. Journal of Consumer Research32(2): 76–85.
68.
VenkateshVThongJXuX (2012) Consumer acceptance and user of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly36(1): 157–178.
69.
ViotCBressollesG (2012) Les agents virtuels intelligents: Quels atouts pour la relation client. Décisions Marketing65(1): 45–56.
70.
YeeNBailensonJNRickertsenK (2007) A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems – CHI ‘07. New York: ACM Press.
71.
YoungJEHawkinsRSharlinE. (2008) Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. International Journal of Social Robotics1(1): 95–108.
72.
ZhaoXLynchJGChenQ (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research37(2): 197–206.
73.
ZinkhanG (2003) A look to the future of JAMS: Three years out, thirty years out. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science31(3): 225–228.
