CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 182AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification

Trojan horse or useful helper? A relationship perspective on artificial intelligence assistants with humanlike features

Open access
Uysal, Ertugrul, Alavi, Sascha, Bezençon, Valéry·2022·Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
DOI 10.1007/s11747-022-00856-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence assistants (AIAs) such as Alexa are prevalent in consumers’ homes. Owing to their powerful artificial intelligence, consumers may perceive that AIAs have a mind of their own, that is, they anthropomorphize them. Past marketing research points to beneficial effects of AIA anthropomorphism for consumers and companies, while potential harmful effects have not been empirically explored. In examining both beneficial and harmful effects, this paper adopts a relationship perspective. Indeed, consumers spend large amounts of time with their AIAs, potentially developing a relationship over time that builds on an exchange of benefits and (psychological) costs. A preliminary survey and user interviews, a field study and a field experiment with AIA users show that AIA anthropomorphism may threaten users’ identity, which disempowers them, creates data privacy concerns and ultimately undermines their well-being. These harmful effects particularly emerge in close, long relationships. The field experiment uncovers three empowering interventions which attenuate harmful effects of AIA anthropomorphism in relationships with consumers. With AI-powered technologies taking larger roles in our daily lives, our research highlights key future directions to investigate the permanent ongoing nature of the consumer–AI relationships.

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/s11747-022-00856-9

Cites

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?

  • Recent research suggests that anthropomorphizing AI agents may be harmful to users by threatening their identity, creating data privacy concerns and undermining well-being.

    “Recent research suggests that anthropomorphizing AI agents may be harmful to users by threatening their identity, creating data privacy concerns and undermining well-being61.”

    From A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [61]

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 102 · Cited by 182

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. Alavi, S., Habel, J., Guenzi, P., & Wieseke, J. (2018). The role of lead- ership in salespeople's price negotiation behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 703-724.
  2. Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831-858.
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 271-284.
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458.
  5. Benlian, A., Klumpe, J., & Hinz, O. (2020). Mitigating the intrusive effects of smart home assistants by using anthropomorphic design features: A multimethod investigation. Information Systems Journal, 30(6), 1010-1042.
  6. Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life (1st ed.). Routledge.
  7. Bleier, A., Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2020). Consumer privacy and the future of data-based innovation and marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(3), 466-480.
  8. Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta- analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 632-658.
  9. Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identities (1st ed.). Psychology Press.
  10. Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809- 825.
  11. Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178-184.
  12. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social ex- change. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). Oxford University Press.
  13. Cukier, K. (2021). Commentary: How AI shapes consumer experiences and expectations. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 152-155.
  14. Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020). How arti- ficial intelligence will change the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 24-42.
  15. 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.
  16. de Ruyter, K., Keeling, D. I., & Ngo, L. V. (2018). When nothing is what it seems: A digital marketing research agenda. Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(3), 199-203.
  17. Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292-339.
  18. Emerson, R. M. (1981). Social exchange theory. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 30-65). Basic Books.
  19. Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 498-541).
  20. Ferrari, F., Paladino, M. P., & Jetten, J. (2016). Blurring human-machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 287-302.
  21. Foehr, J., & Germelmann, C. C. (2020). Alexa, can I trust you? Exploring consumer paths to trust in smart voice-interaction technologies. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(2), 181-205.
  22. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfac- tion, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.
  23. Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898-915.
  24. Golossenko, A., Pillai, K. G., & Aroean, L. (2020). Seeing brands as humans: Development and validation of a brand anthropomorphism scale. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(4), 737- 755.
  25. Grewal, D., Kroschke, M., Mende, M., Roggeveen, A. L., & Scott, M. L. (2020). Frontline cyborgs at your service: How human enhancement technologies affect customer experiences in retail, sales, and service settings. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51(2020), 9-25.
  26. Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78-92.
  27. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271.
  28. Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 475-492.
  29. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230-247.
  30. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self- regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276-286.
  31. Hildebrand, C., & Bergner, A. (2021). Conversational robo advisors as surrogates of trust: Onboarding experience, firm perception, and consumer financial decision making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 659-676.
  32. Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2021a). Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service. Journal of Service Research, 24(1), 30-41.
  33. Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. (2000). Control mechanisms and the relation- ship life cycle: Implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 227-245.
  34. Kozinets, R. V., & Gretzel, U. (2021). Commentary: Artificial intelli- gence: The Marketer's dilemma. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 156-159.
  35. Krafft, M., Arden, C. M., & Verhoef, P. C. (2017). Permission marketing and privacy concerns-why do customers (not) grant permissions? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 39-54.
  36. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the pos- itive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234.
  37. Lin, J. S. C., & Hsieh, P. L. (2007). The influence of technology readiness on satisfaction and behavioral intentions toward self-service tech- nologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1597-1615.
  38. Lin, Y. T., Doong, H. S., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2021). Avatar design of virtual salespeople: Mitigation of recommendation conflicts. Journal of Service Research, 24(1), 141-159.
  39. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.
  40. Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S., Kroschke, M., & Wirtz, J. (2021). Corporate digital responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 122, 875-888.
  41. Maedche, A., Legner, C., Benlian, A., Berger, B., Gimpel, H., Hess, T., Hinz, O., Morana, S., & Söllner, M. (2019). AI-based digital assis- tants. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(4), 535- 544.
  42. Malkin, N., Deatrick, J., Tong, A., Wijesekera, P., Egelman, S., & Wagner, D. (2019). Privacy attitudes of smart speaker users. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2019(4), 250- 271.
  43. Marinova, D., de Ruyter, K., Huang, M. H., Meuter, M. L., & Challagalla, G. (2017). Getting smart: Learning from technology- empowered frontline interactions. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 29-42.
  44. Martin, K. D., & Palmatier, R. W. (2020). Data privacy in retail: Navigating tensions and directing future research. Journal of Retailing, 96(4), 449-457.
  45. Mishra, A., Shukla, A., & Sharma, S. K. (2021). Psychological determi- nants of users' adoption and word-of-mouth recommendations of smart voice assistants. International Journal of Information Management, 102413.
  46. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
  47. Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98- 100.
  48. Moriuchi, E. (2021). An empirical study on anthropomorphism and en- gagement with disembodied AIs and consumers' re-use behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 38(1), 21-42.
  49. Müller, V. C. (2021). Ethics of artificial intelligence 1. In A. Elliott (Ed.), The Routledge social science handbook of AI (pp. 122-137). Routledge.
  50. Okazaki, S., Eisend, M., Plangger, K., de Ruyter, K., & Grewal, D. (2020). Understanding the strategic consequences of customer pri- vacy concerns: A Meta-analytic review. Journal of Retailing, 96(4), 458-473.
  51. Olivero, N., & Lunt, P. (2004). Privacy versus willingness to disclose in e-commerce exchanges: The effect of risk awareness on the relative role of trust and control. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(2), 243-262.
  52. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta- analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136-153.
  53. Petrin, A., & Train, K. (2010). A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 3-13.
  54. Pfeuffer, N., Benlian, A., Gimpel, H., & Hinz, O. (2019). Anthropomorphic information systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(4), 523-533.
  55. Pitardi, V., & Marriott, H. 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.
  56. Plangger, K., & Montecchi, M. (2020). Thinking beyond privacy Calculus: Investigating reactions to customer surveillance. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 50, 32-44.
  57. Poushneh, A. (2021). Humanizing voice assistant: The impact of voice assistant personality on consumers' attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102283.
  58. Rijsdijk, S. A., Hultink, E. J., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Product intelligence: Its conceptualization, measurement and impact on con- sumer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3), 340-356.
  59. Sande, J. B., & Ghosh, M. (2018). Endogeneity in survey research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(2), 185-204.
  60. Schmitz, C., Friess, M., Alavi, S., & Habel, J. (2020). Understanding the impact of relationship disruptions. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 66- 87.
  61. Sharma, S., & Sharma, M. (2010). Self, social identity and psychological well-being. Psychological Studies, 55(2), 118-136.
  62. Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150-167.
  63. Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals' concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167-196.
  64. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
  65. Steinhoff, L., Arli, D., Weaven, S., & Kozlenkova, I. V. (2019). Online relationship marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 369-393.
  66. Stucke, M. E., & Ezrachi, A. (2018). Alexa et al., what are you doing with my data? Critical Analysis of Law, 5(1), 148-169.
  67. Van Dyke, T. P., Midha, V., & Nemati, H. (2007). The effect of consumer privacy empowerment on trust and privacy concerns in e-commerce. Electronic Markets, 17(1), 68-81.
  68. Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2006). Turning visitors into customers: A usability-centric perspective on purchase behavior in electronic channels. Management Science, 52(3), 367-382.
  69. 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.
  70. Wells, J. D., Campbell, D. E., Valacich, J. S., & Featherman, M. (2010). The effect of perceived novelty on the adoption of information tech- nology innovations: A risk/reward perspective. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 813-843.
  71. Wichmann, J. R., Wiegand, N., & Reinartz, W. J. (2022). The Platformization of brands. Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 109-131.
  72. Yang, L. W., Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2020). The 3 C's of anthro- pomorphism: Connection, comprehension, and competition. Consumer Psychology Review, 3(1), 3-19.
  73. Yi, M. Y., Fiedler, K. D., & Park, J. S. (2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT-based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 393-426.
  74. Złotowski, J., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2017). Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48-54.

Authors
Uysal, E., Alavi, S., & Bezençon, V.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of Neuchâtel (CH)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-03-22
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
1153-1175
ISSN
  • 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7824
DOI
10.1007/s11747-022-00856-9
OpenAlex
W4220969689
Cited by
182
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 7
FWCI
11.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Neuchâtel
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 › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Keywords
AI assistants, anthropomorphism, identity threat, disempowerment, data privacy concerns, well-being, long-term relationships

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