How Speaking versus Writing to Conversational Agents Shapes Consumers’ Choice and Choice Satisfaction

The Academic implications section says speaking and writing induce different feeling- or reason-based focuses and can increase choice satisfaction. But the increase depends on the communication modality matching the product type; the citing sentence omits that condition. (LLM, conf=0.85)

The Introduction and Academic implications sections report that speaking versus writing affects consumers’ focus on feelings or reasons, choice, and choice satisfaction. They support the parenthetical example about modality, cognition, and satisfaction, but do not establish that interface cues determine whether autonomy feels supportive or intrusive. The paper also does not report effects of assistant initiation on reactance. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.86)

Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

The Academic implications section (page unavailable) reports that matching speaking or writing with product type increases choice satisfaction, and the Empirical overview describes five studies of communication modality. The paper does not establish the sentence’s other attributed topics—anthropomorphism, warmth/competence cues, or initiation patterns—or effects on social presence or reactance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

The Limitations and future research section says the main studies were lab and online experiments and calls for field studies to test whether their findings hold in more natural settings. It also reports an initial offline field study, so the work is not exclusively experimental. The paper does not assess the corpus-wide strength of causal evidence or the persistence of effects over time. (LLM, conf=0.83)

The Empirical overview describes five studies, and Limitations and future research identifies them as lab and online experiments designed to mirror real-world interactions rather than field studies (page not provided). The paper describes controlled conditions and calls its behavioral outcomes strong evidence, but it does not assess the internal validity of numerous studies generally or explicitly establish that its own internal validity is robust. (LLM, conf=0.82)

The Method section describes a Prolific sample and a tablet-choice task, and Limitations and future research explicitly says Study 5 was restricted to a hedonic product context. These passages support an example of a narrowly scoped study, but the paper does not establish that panels are often nonrandom or generally cover only a limited range of topics; its studies use several choice contexts. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

The Introduction and Academic implications sections report that speaking versus writing to a conversational agent affects consumers’ decision-making through verbalizing focus and preference fluency. The outcomes studied are product choice, intention to choose a product, and choice satisfaction—not willingness to rely on the agent. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

The Study 5 findings report a stronger positive effect of matching communication modality to product type on intention to choose a low-equity brand, specifically when the alternatives differ in brand equity. The Method section shows that participants rated their intention to choose; it does not establish an effect on observed brand-choice share. (LLM, conf=0.86)

The Mediation and Manipulation check passages examine speaking versus writing to conversational agents, brand equity, and intention to choose. Searches for autonomy, powerlessness or threat to freedom, and urgency or scarcity found no passage addressing the claimed mechanism or exception. (LLM, conf=0.76)

The Method and Study 5 passages measure intention to choose a product, but the reported effects concern speaking versus writing and brand equity. Searches for utility, trust, autonomy, and adoption intention found no passage in our copy supporting the claimed pathway or a decrease under high autonomy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

The Mediation passages (page not provided) link communication modality to choice satisfaction through preference fluency, and to intention to choose through verbalizing focus. Searches for quality or usefulness leading to attitude or satisfaction, then to intention, found no passage establishing that chain or saying it dominates. (LLM, conf=0.76)