Cited by 233AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

An Initial Model of Trust in Chatbots for Customer Service—Findings from a Questionnaire Study

Open access
Nordheim, Cecilie Bertinussen, Følstad, Asbjørn, Bjørkli, Cato Alexander·2019·Interacting with Computers

Abstract

Chatbots are predicted to play a key role in customer service. Users’ trust in such chatbots is critical for their uptake. However, there is a lack of knowledge concerning users’ trust in chatbots. To bridge this knowledge gap, we present a questionnaire study (N = 154) that investigated factors of relevance for trust in customer service chatbots. The study included two parts: an explanatory investigation of the relative importance of factors known to predict trust from the general literature on interactive systems and an exploratory identification of other factors of particular relevance for trust in chatbots. The participants were recruited as part of their dialogue with one of four chatbots for customer service. Based on the findings, we propose an initial model of trust in chatbots for customer service, including chatbot-related factors (perceived expertise and responsiveness), environment-related factors (risk and brand perceptions) and user-related factors (propensity to trust technology). RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: We extend the current knowledge base on natural language interfaces by investigating factors affecting users’ trust in chatbots for customer service. Chatbot-related factors, specifically perceived expertise and responsiveness, are found particularly important to users’ trust in such chatbots, but also environment-related factors such as brand perception and user-related factors such as propensity to trust technology. On the basis of the findings, we propose an initial model of users’ trust chatbots for customer service.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/iwc/iwz022

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nordheim, C. B., Følstad, A., & Bjørkli, C. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • SINTEF Digital (NO)
Corresponding author
Følstad, Asbjørn
Venue
Interacting with Computers
Published
2019-05-01
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
317-335
ISSN
  • 0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-7951
OpenAlex
W2970416896
Cited by
233
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Interacting with Computers (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Research Council of Norway (270940)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
chatbots, trust in chatbots, customer service, perceived expertise, responsiveness, brand perception, risk perception, trust model, natural language interfaces, human-chatbot 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