This study examines how artificial intelligence (AI) anthropomorphism influences user trust and decision logic in digital environments. Drawing on theories of social cognition, trust formation, and dual-process decision-making, a moderated mediation model is developed to explain how anthropomorphic design features (e.g., human-like voice, avatars, and expressions) affect users’ cognitive processing. A controlled experimental design, complemented by simulation-based validation, provides robust evidence for the proposed relationships. The findings reveal that anthropomorphic cues significantly enhance user trust, which in turn mediates their impact on decision logic. However, this effect is contingent on contextual factors: user experience strengthens the anthropomorphism–trust pathway, while task criticality attenuates the influence of trust on decision-making. These results underscore that anthropomorphism functions as a social heuristic, effective in routine or low-risk tasks but less influential in high-stakes contexts where analytic reasoning dominates. The study contributes to the fields of human–computer interaction and information systems by clarifying when and how anthropomorphism fosters trust and shapes cognition. Practically, it offers design guidelines for adaptive AI systems that dynamically adjust anthropomorphic cues to balance engagement, trust calibration, and decision quality.
AshfaqM.YunJ.YuS.LoureiroS. M. C. (2020). I, chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telematics and Informatics, 54, 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101473
2.
AshooriM.WeiszJ. D. (2019). In AI we trust? Factors that influence trustworthiness of AI-infused decision-making processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02675. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.02675.
3.
BansalG.NushiB.KamarE.LaseckiW. S.WeldD. S.HorvitzE. (2019). Beyond accuracy: The role of mental models in human-AI team performance. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing7(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5285.
4.
BartneckC.KulićD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
5.
CarL. T.DhinagaranD. A.KyawB. M.KowatschT.JotyS.ThengY. L.AtunR. (2020). Conversational agents in health care: Scoping review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e17158. https://doi.org/10.2196/17158
6.
ChavesA. P.GerosaM. A. (2021). How should my chatbot interact? A survey on social characteristics in human–chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 151, 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630
7.
ChiO. H.DentonG.GursoyD. (2023). Investigating the customer trust in artificial intelligence: The role of anthropomorphism, empathy response, and interaction. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 8(2), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1049/cit2.12133
8.
de VisserE. J.MonfortS. S.McKendrickR.SmithM. A.McKnightP. E.KruegerF.ParasuramanR. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092
9.
de VisserE. J.PakR.ShawT. H. (2018). From ’automation’ to ’autonomy’: The importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction. Ergonomics, 61(10), 1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1457725
10.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
11.
EpsteinS.PaciniR.Denes-RajV.HeierH. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
12.
EsterwoodC.RobertL. P. (2021). Trusting artificial intelligence in human–AI collaboration: A literature review of trust building between humans and autonomous systems. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3953–3962). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.479.
13.
EvansJ. S. B. T.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
14.
FernandesT.OliveiraE. (2021). Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated technologies in service encounters: Drivers of digital voice assistants adoption. Journal of Business Research, 122, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.058
15.
FølstadA.TaylorC. (2021). Conversational repair in chatbots for customer service: The effect of expressing uncertainty and suggesting alternatives. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106911
16.
GambinoA.FoxJ.RatanR. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5
17.
GliksonE.WoolleyA. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
19.
HuangM. H.RustR. T. (2021). A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9
20.
IschenC.AraujoT.VoorveldH.van NoortG.SmitE. (2020). Privacy concerns in chatbot interactions. In Chatbot research and design: Third international workshop, conversations 2019 (pp. 34–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39540-7_3.
21.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
22.
KankS.LeeJ. (2023). The ethics of persuasive AI: Navigating the trade-offs between anthropomorphic design, transparency, and user autonomy. Journal of Responsible Technology, 15, 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100065
23.
KankanhalliA.HongW. (2023). Artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00790
24.
KrishnanS.TeoT. S.LimV. K. (2021). Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: A cross-country analysis. Information & Management, 58(3), 103427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103427
25.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
26.
McKnightD. H.ChoudhuryV.KacmarC. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
29.
ParkJ.KeilM. (2009). The impact of task criticality and information system failure on managerial assessments of blame: A moderated mediation model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(2), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2008.930557
30.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
31.
PitardiV.MarriottH. R. (2021). Alexa, she’s not human but unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 38(4), 626–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21457
32.
QiuL.BenbasatI. (2022). Human vs. AI: Understanding the impact of anthropomorphism on consumer response to chatbots from the perspective of trust and relationship norms. Information Processing & Management, 59(4), 102956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102956
33.
RheuM.ShinJ. Y.PengW.Huh-YooJ. (2021). Systematic review: Trust-building factors and implications for conversational agent design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 155, 102694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102694
34.
RyanM. (2020). In AI we trust: Ethics, artificial intelligence, and reliability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2749–2767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00228-y
35.
SchepmanA.RodwayP. (2020). Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014
36.
SongH.RuanW. J.ParkY. (2023). Exploring the effect of artificial intelligence intellect on consumer decision delegation: The role of trust, task objectivity, and anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(2), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2234
37.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
38.
WangW.BenbasatI. (2023). The allure of the human: How affective responses to anthropomorphic cues override cognitive trust in AI. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 801–834. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2022/16589
39.
WaytzA.HeafnerJ.EpleyN. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
40.
YangQ.SteinfeldA.RoséC.ZimmermanJ. (2020). Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13). Honolulu, HI: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301.
41.
ZhangB.KrepsS.McMurryN.McCainR. M. (2021). Americans’ perceptions of privacy and surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 16(2), e0249652. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249652
