CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIDigital Marketing and Social Media

Automated Versus Human Agents: A Meta-Analysis of Customer Responses to Robots, Chatbots, and Algorithms and Their Contingencies

Open access
Gelbrich, Katja, Roschk, Holger, Miederer, Sandra, Kerath, Alina·2026·Journal of Marketing
DOI 10.1177/00222429251344139
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This meta-analysis examines when three types of automated agents (AAs)—robots, chatbots, and algorithms—are equivalent to human agents (HAs) in marketing roles. An analysis of 943 effect sizes from 327 studies provides novel insights. First, customers may be skeptical of AAs; however, they value their performance and eventually choose or buy from them as if they were interacting with HAs. Second, each of the three AA types has a unique set of contingencies that affect its human equivalence; previously identified contingencies do not generalize and can even have opposing effects across AA types. This study also identifies novel contingencies, such as the multifaceted concept of artificial intelligence required to fulfill a task. Third, some contingencies make AAs more humanlike, while others make their machine characteristics salient. These findings enrich the concept of automated social presence (ASP), suggesting that AAs are hybrid beings with a social presence (i.e., the feeling of interacting with a humanlike entity) and an automated presence (i.e., the feeling of interacting with a machine entity). The authors provide recommendations on when AAs can replace HAs in marketing roles to release capacity and alleviate labor shortages. They also suggest a future research agenda.

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 · 10.1177/00222429251344139

Cites

102 of 104 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?

  • Recent literature in marketing research has largely focused on how consumers interact with AI systems and how these AI systems change customer journeys and referrals.

    “Recent literature in marketing research has largely focused on how consumers interact with AI systems and how these AI systems change customer journeys and referrals (e.g., Aggarwal et al. 2024;Blut et al. 2024;Gelbrich et al. 2025;Liu et al. 2024).”

    From Machine marketing: rethinking the customer in the age of generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Gelbrich et al. 2025

    The Data Collection section describes a review of marketing and related research on how customers respond to robots, chatbots, algorithms, and other automated agents compared with human agents. That supports the consumer-interaction part of the claim, but the passages do not establish that marketing research has largely focused on this topic or address changes to customer journeys and referrals; searches for those terms found no relevant passage. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 5

  1. Garvey, Aaron M., TaeWoo Kim, and Adam Duhachek (2022), "Bad News? Send an AI. Good News? Send a Human," Journal of Marketing, 87 (1), 1-16.
  2. Khan, Uzma, Ravi Dhar, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), "A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice," in Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, S. Ratneshwar and David G. Mick, eds. Routledge, 166-87.
  3. Luo, Xueming, Siliang Tong, Zheng Fang, and Zhe Qu (2019), "Frontiers: Machines vs. Humans: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Disclosure on Customer Purchases," Marketing Science, 38 (6), 937-47.
  4. Short, John, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie (1976), The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
  5. Yu, Shubin, Ji Xiong, and Hao Shen (2022), "The Rise of Chatbots: The Effect of Using Chatbot Agents on Consumers' Responses to Request Rejection," Journal of Consumer Psychology (34), 35-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gelbrich, K., Roschk, H., Miederer, S., & Kerath, A.
Affiliations
  • Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (DE)
  • Aalborg University (DK)
Corresponding author
Miederer, Sandra
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Marketing
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-08-26
Volume
90
Issue
2
Pages
1-26
ISSN
  • 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7185
DOI
10.1177/00222429251344139
OpenAlex
W4410219887
Cited by
38
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 4
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Marketing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt) (submittedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
automated agents, chatbots, robots, algorithms, consumer response, artificial intelligence, marketing automation, labor shortage

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