CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,194AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRICustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI

Open access
Blut, Markus, Wang, Cheng, Wünderlich, Nancy V., Brock, Christian·2021·Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
DOI 10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

An increasing number of firms introduce service robots, such as physical robots and virtual chatbots, to provide services to customers. While some firms use robots that resemble human beings by looking and acting humanlike to increase customers’ use intention of this technology, others employ machinelike robots to avoid uncanny valley effects, assuming that very humanlike robots may induce feelings of eeriness. There is no consensus in the service literature regarding whether customers’ anthropomorphism of robots facilitates or constrains their use intention. The present meta-analysis synthesizes data from 11,053 individuals interacting with service robots reported in 108 independent samples. The study synthesizes previous research to clarify this issue and enhance understanding of the construct. We develop a comprehensive model to investigate relationships between anthropomorphism and its antecedents and consequences. Customer traits and predispositions (e.g., computer anxiety), sociodemographics (e.g., gender), and robot design features (e.g., physical, nonphysical) are identified as triggers of anthropomorphism. Robot characteristics (e.g., intelligence) and functional characteristics (e.g., usefulness) are identified as important mediators, although relational characteristics (e.g., rapport) receive less support as mediators. The findings clarify contextual circumstances in which anthropomorphism impacts customer intention to use a robot. The moderator analysis indicates that the impact depends on robot type (i.e., robot gender) and service type (i.e., possession-processing service, mental stimulus-processing service). Based on these findings, we develop a comprehensive agenda for future research on service robots in marketing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At the core of AI-mediated intimacy lies not narrative alone, but algorithmically sustained relational simulations: systems that operationalize companionship, memory, and emotional responsiveness without sentient reciprocity.

    “At the core of AI-mediated intimacy lies not narrative alone, but algorithmically sustained relational simulations: systems that operationalize companionship, memory, and emotional responsiveness without sentient reciprocity”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Blut et al. 2021

    The Relational mediators section says anthropomorphism can foster perceived social connectedness and emotional attachment to service robots. The paper also discusses robots perceived as companions and chatbots that mimic human behavior. These passages do not establish the claim about memory, algorithmically sustained intimacy, or the absence of sentient reciprocity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing review articles only focus broadly on anthropomorphic AI technologies or robotics without a specific emphasis on chatbots.

    “However, existing review articles only focus broadly on anthropomorphic AI technologies or robotics (e.g., Blut et al. 2021; Li and Suh 2022), without a specific emphasis on chatbots.”

    From Consumer Response to Anthropomorphism of Text‐Based <scp>AI</scp> Chatbots: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Blut et al. 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 108

  1. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694.
  2. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307-323.
  3. Albers, S., Mantrala, M. K., & Sridhar, S. (2010). Personal selling elas- ticities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 840-853.
  4. Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. (2011). The adoption of online shopping assistants. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(5), 347-374.
  5. Aroyo, A. M., Rea, F., & Sciutti, A. (2017). Will you rely on a robot to find a treasure?. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/ IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 71- 72.
  6. Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, per- ceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
  7. Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Schepers, J. (2020). Service robot implementation: A theoretical framework and research agen- da. Service Industries Journal, 40(3-4), 203-225.
  8. Benlian, A., Klumpe, J., & Hinz, O. (2019). Mitigating the intrusive effects of smart home assistants by using anthropomorphic design features. Information Systems Journal, 2019, 1-33.
  9. Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., Lau, C. L., & Joo, H. (2016). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 477-497.
  10. Blut, M., & Wang, C. (2020). Technology readiness: A meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4), 649- 669.
  11. Blut, M., Wang, C., & Schoefer, K. (2016). Factors influencing the ac- ceptance of self-service technologies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 19(4), 396-416.
  12. Blut, M., Wünderlich, N., and Brock, C. (2018). Innovative technologies in branded-service encounters. In 39th International conference on information systems, Association for Information Systems, San Francisco, CA.
  13. Bolton, R. N., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L., & Zaki, M. (2018). Customer experience challenges. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 776-808.
  14. Bosmans, A. (2006). Scents and sensibility: When do (in) congruent ambient scents influence product evaluations? Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 32-43.
  15. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future direc- tions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319-330.
  16. Broadbent, E., Jayawardena, C., Kerse, N., Stafford, R.Q., and MacDonald, B.A. (2011). Human-robot interaction research to im- prove quality of life in elder care: An approach and issues. In 25th conference on artificial intelligence. AAAI Workshop, San Francisco, CA.
  17. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., & Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human-computer inter- action. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6), 553-574.
  18. Canning, C., Donahue, T.J., and Scheutz, M. (2014). Investigating human perceptions of robot capabilities in remote human-robot team tasks based on first-person robot video feeds. In Proceedings of intelligent robots and systems, L. Kevin and P. Lynne (eds.), Chicago, IL: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Curran Associates, Inc, 4354-4461.
  19. Carpenter, J., Davis, J. M., Erwin-Stewart, N., Lee, T. R., Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. (2009). Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), 261-265.
  20. Castro-González, A., Alcocer-Luna, J., Malfaz, M., Alonso-Martín, F., & Salichs, M. A. (2018). Evaluation of artificial mouths in social robots. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(4), 369-379.
  21. Chan, A. P. H., & Tung, V. W. S. (2019). Examining the effects of robotic service on brand experience. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 36(4), 458-468.
  22. Coghlan, S., Waycott J., Neve, B.B., Vetere, F. (2018). Using robot pets instead of companion animals for older people. In 30th Australian conference on computer-human interaction, 172-183.
  23. Dabholkar, P. A. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 29-51.
  24. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  25. van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., & Petersen, J. A. (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.
  26. Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3-4), 177-190.
  27. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143-155.
  28. Eyssel, F., & Hegel, F. (2012). (S)he's got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2213-2230.
  29. Fan, A., Wu, L. L., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). Does anthropomorphism influence customers' switching intentions in the self-service tech- nology failure context? Journal of Services Marketing, 30(7), 713- 723.
  30. Ferrari, F., Paladino, M. P., & Jetten, J. (2016). Blurring human-machine distinctions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 287- 302.
  31. Fink, J. (2012). Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. In Ge S.S., Khatib O., Cabibihan J.J., Simmons R., Williams M.A. (eds.) Social R o b o t i c s . I C S R 2 0 1 2 . L e c t u r e N o t e s i n C o m p u t e r Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 199-208.
  32. Fishbach, A., & Labroo, A. A. (2007). Be better or be merry: How mood affects self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 158-173.
  33. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P.H., and Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware compan- ions? What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human- robotic relationship. In SIGCHI conference, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 273-280.
  34. Fussell, S.R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L.D., and Yew, V. (2008). How people anthropomorphize robots. In 3rd ACM/IEEE International confer- ence on human-robot interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 145-152.
  35. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., and Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In 12th IEEE International workshop on robot and human interactive communication, IEEE, Millbrae, CA, 55-60.
  36. Goudey, A., & Bonnin, G. (2016). Must smart objects look human? Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 31(2), 2-20.
  37. de Graaf, M. M., & Allouch, S. B. (2013). Exploring influencing vari- ables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1476-1486.
  38. Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 9-30.
  39. Ham, J., Cuijpers, R. H., & Cabibihan, J. J. (2015). Combining robotic persuasive strategies: The persuasive power of a storytelling robot that uses gazing and gestures. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 479-487.
  40. Haring, K.S., Watanabe, K., Silvera-Tawil, D., Velonaki, M., and Takahashi, T. (2015). Changes in perception of a small humanoid robot. In 2015 6th International conference on automation, robotics and applications, 83-89.
  41. Haring, K. S., Silvera-Tawil, D., Takahashi, T., Watanabe, K., & Velonaki, M. (2016). How people perceive different robot types: A direct comparison of an android, humanoid, and non- biomimetic robot. In 2016 8th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST). IEEE 265-270
  42. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2008). The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2), 33-34.
  43. Ho, C. C., & MacDorman, K. F. (2010). Revisiting the uncanny valley theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1508-1518.
  44. Hollebeek, L. D., Sprott, D. E., Andreassen, T. W., Costley, C., Klaus, P., Kuppelwieser, V., Karahasanovic, A., Taguchi, T., Ul Islam, J., & Rather, R. A. (2019). Customer engagement in evolving technolog- ical environments: Synopsis and guiding propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 2018-2023.
  45. Hoyer, W. D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B., Kraume, K., & Shankar, V. (2020). Transforming the customer experience through new technol- ogies. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, 57-71. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.intmar.2020.04.001. · DOI
  46. Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2017). Technology-driven service strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 906-924.
  47. Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2020). Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service. Journal of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1094670520902266. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive: How anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 340-358.
  49. Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A., & Grayson, K. (1995). Distinguishing service quality and customer satisfaction: the voice of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 277-303.
  50. Iyer, G. R., Blut, M., Xiao, S. H., & Grewal, D. (2020). Impulse buying: A meta-analytic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 384-404.
  51. Joerling, M., Böhm, R., & Paluch, S. (2019). Service robots: Drivers of perceived responsibility for service outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 22(4), 404-420.
  52. Kamide, H., Kawabe, K., Shigemi, S., & Arai, T. (2013). Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid. Advanced Robotics, 27(1), 3-17.
  53. Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., & Takala, T. (2015). A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-16.
  54. Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94-107.
  55. Kim, K. J., Park, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2013). Caregiving role in human- robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1799- 1806.
  56. Kim, A., Cho, M., Ahn, J., & Sung, Y. (2019). Effects of gender and relationship type on the response to artificial intelligence. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 22(4), 249- 253.
  57. Kleine, S. S., & Baker, S. M. (2004). An integrative review of material possession attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1-39.
  58. Kompatsiari, K., Ciardo, F., Tikhanoff, V., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A. (2019). It's in the eyes: the engaging role of eye contact in HRI. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-11.
  59. Kuo, I.H. et al. (2009). Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. The 18th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication Toyama, IEEE, Japan, Toyama, 2009, 214-219.
  60. Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323-342.
  61. Leong, B., and Selinger, E. (2019). Robot eyes wide shut: Understanding dishonest anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, Association for Computing Machinery, Atlanta, GA, 299-308.
  62. Li, D., Rau, P. P., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(2), 175-186.
  63. Lowry, P. B., Gaskin, J., Twyman, N., Hammer, B., & Roberts, T. (2012). Taking "fun and games" seriously. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(11), 617-671.
  64. Lussier, D. A., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1979). Task complexity and contin- gent processing in brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 154-165.
  65. MacDorman, K. F., Vasudevan, S. K., & Ho, C. C. (2009). Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and ex- plicit measures. AI and Society, 23(4), 485-510.
  66. MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355-374.
  67. Mazodier, M., Henderson, C. M., & Beck, J. T. (2018). The long reach of sponsorship. Journal of Marketing, 82(6), 28-48.
  68. Melson, G. F., Kahn Jr., P. H., Beck, A., & Friedman, B. (2009). Robotic pets in human lives. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 545-567.
  69. Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.
  70. Moshkina, L. V. (2011). An integrative framework of time-varying af- fective robotic behavior, Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.
  71. Munro, M. C., Huff, S. L., Marcolin, B. L., & Compeau, D. R. (1997). Understanding and measuring user competence. Information and Management, 33(1), 45-57.
  72. Nenkov, G. Y., & Scott, M. L. (2014). "So cute I could eat it up": Priming effects of cute products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 326-341.
  73. Niemelä, M., Heikkilä, P., and Lammi, H. (2017). A social service robot in a shopping mall: Expectations of the management, retailers and consumers. In HRI '17: ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY.
  74. Nittono, H., & Ihara, N. (2017). Psychophysiological responses to kawaii pictures with or without baby schema. SAGE Open, 7(2), 1-11.
  75. Nomura, T. (2017). Robots and gender. Gender and the Genome, 1(1), 18-25.
  76. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI and Society, 20(2), 138-115.
  77. Norouzi-Gheidari, N., Archambault, P. S., & Fung, J. (2012). Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 49(4), 479- 495.
  78. Novikova, J. (2016). Designing emotionally expressive behaviour: Intelligibility and predictability in human-robot interaction, doctoral dissertation, University of Bath.
  79. Orsingher, C., Valentini, S., & de Angelis, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of satisfaction with complaint handling in services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 169-186.
  80. Otto, A. S., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, R. (2020). Customer satisfaction and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 543-564.
  81. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 765-769.
  82. Pfeifer, R., Lungarella, M., & Iida, F. (2007). Self-organization, embodi- ment, and biologically inspired robotics. Science, 318(5853), 1088- 1093.
  83. van Pinxteren, M. M. E., Ruud, W. H., Wetzels, J. R., Pluymaekers, M., & Wetzels, M. (2019). Trust in humanoid robots. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 507-518.
  84. Powers, A., and Kiesler, S. (2006). The advisor robot: Tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes. Conference on human-robot interaction (HRI 2006), Association for Computing Machinery, Salt Lake City, UT, 218-225.
  85. Pu, L., Moyle, W., Jones, C., & Todorovic, M. (2019). The effectiveness of social robots for older adults. The Gerontologist, 59(1), e37-e51.
  86. Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating anthropomorphic product rec- ommendation agents. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145-182.
  87. Qiu, H., Li, M., Shu, B., & Bai, B. (2020). Enhancing hospitality expe- rience with service robots. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 29(3), 247-268.
  88. Rae, I., Takayama, L., and Mutlu, B. (2013). In-body experiences: Embodiment, control, and trust in robot-mediated communication. In SIGCHI conference, Association for Computing Machinery, 1921-1930.
  89. Ruijten, P., and Cuijpers, R. (2017). Dynamic perceptions of human- likeness while interacting with a social robot. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction, 273-274.
  90. Schneider, S., Häßler, A., Habermeyer, T., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2019). The more human, the higher the performance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 57-72.
  91. Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, S., & Joublin, F. (2013). To err is human (-like): Effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomor- phism and likability. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 313-323.
  92. Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2011). The rights and wrongs of robot care. In Lin et al. (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 267-282). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  93. Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral carefulness. Emotion, 9(2), 282-286.
  94. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attri- butes questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and mascu- linity-femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service, 4, 1-42.
  95. Stafford, R. (2014). The contribution of people's attitudes and percep- tions to the acceptance of eldercare robots. Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland.
  96. Stroessner, S. J., & Benitez, J. (2019). The social perception of humanoid and non-humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(2), 305-315.
  97. Swoboda, B., Puchert, C., & Morschett, D. (2016). Explaining the differ- ing effects of corporate reputation across nations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 454-473.
  98. Veerbeek, J. M., Langbroek-Amersfoort, A. C., Van Wegen, E. E., Meskers, C. G., & Kwakkel, G. (2017). Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 31(2), 107-121.
  99. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
  100. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of ac- ceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
  101. Vlachos, E., Jochum, E., & Demers, L. P. (2016). The effects of exposure to different social robots on attitudes toward preferences. Interaction Studies, 17(3), 390-404.
  102. Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D.J., Shell, D.A., and Mataric, M.J. (2006). The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In IEEE International symposium, IEEE, 117-122.
  103. Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113-117.
  104. Wirtz, J., and Lovelock, C. (2016). Services marketing: People, technol- ogy, strategy. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Company.
  105. Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., & Martins, A. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the front- line. Journal of Service Management, 29(50), 907-931.
  106. Wünderlich, N.V., and Paluch, S. (2017). A nice and friendly chat with a bot. 38th International conference on information systems, Association for Information Systems, 1-11.
  107. Zhang, T., Kaber, DB., Zhu, B., Swangnetr, M., Mosaly, P., Hodge , L. (2010). Service robot feature design effects on user perceptions and emotional responses. Intelligent Service Robotics, 3 (2), 73-88.
  108. Zlotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2015). Opportunities and challenges in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347-360.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (CN)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
  • University of Rostock (DE)
Corresponding author
Blut, Markus
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-01-06
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
632-658
ISSN
  • 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7824
DOI
10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
OpenAlex
W3119676664
Cited by
1,194
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 304 · 2025: 314 · 2024: 252 · 2023: 188 · 2022: 116 · 2021: 20
FWCI
10.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Durham
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
anthropomorphism, service robots, chatbots, artificial intelligence, uncanny valley, robot design, computer anxiety, robot intelligence, human-robot interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review