CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRICustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Whether to trust chatbots: Applying the event-related approach to understand consumers’ emotional experiences in interactions with chatbots in e-commerce

Wang, Cuicui, Li, Yiyang, Fu, Weizhong, Jin, Jia·2023·Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
DOI 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103325
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chatbots can be used in marketing services to substantially improve the consumer experience. Based on cognitive appraisal theory, this study applied an event-related potential (ERP) approach to investigate consumers’ emotional experiences and consumer trust in passive interaction with chatbots versus humans, taking into account objective or subjective tasks in e-commerce. The results showed that chatbot (vs. human) service interactions automatically drew more consumer attention at the subconscious stage (i.e., a larger P2); consumers purposefully allocated more resources to regulate the negative emotions elicited by chatbots at the conscious stage (i.e., a larger LPP); and there was a lower trust in chatbots than in humans. Moreover, under subjective tasks, the differences between chatbots and human agents in emotional experience (as reflected by LPP) and trust were amplified. The findings will encourage e-retailers to improve the emotional service experience of their chatbots and prioritize the application of chatbots for objective tasks in customer service.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103325

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 126

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wang, C., Li, Y., Fu, W., & Jin, J.
Affiliations
  • Hefei University of Technology (CN)
  • Shanghai International Studies University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Fu, Weizhong
  • Jin, Jia
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-07
Volume
73
Pages
103325
ISSN
0969-6989 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103325
OpenAlex
W4323671075
Cited by
126
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 17
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (20YJAZH098)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (72271166, 2022KFKT003)
  • Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (JS2020HGXJ0032)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
chatbots, consumer trust, emotional experience, event-related potentials, appraisal theory, P2 component, e-commerce customer service, emotion regulation, e-retailers

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