Cited by 307AI in Service InteractionsCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyEmotional Labor in Professions

Bots with Feelings: Should AI Agents Express Positive Emotion in Customer Service?

Han, Elizabeth, Yin, Dezhi, Zhang, Han·2023·Information Systems Research

Abstract

The rise of emotional intelligence technology and the recent debate about the possibility of a “sentient” artificial intelligence (AI) urge the need to study the role of emotion during people’s interactions with AIs. In customer service, human employees are increasingly replaced by AI agents, such as chatbots, and often these AI agents are equipped with emotion-expressing capabilities to replicate the positive impact of human-expressed positive emotion. But is it indeed beneficial? This research explores how, when, and why an AI agent’s expression of positive emotion affects customers’ service evaluations. Through controlled experiments in which the subjects interacted with a service agent (AI or human) to resolve a hypothetical service issue, we provide answers to these questions. We show that AI-expressed positive emotion can influence customers affectively (by evoking customers’ positive emotions) and cognitively (by violating customers’ expectations) in opposite directions. Thus, positive emotion expressed by an AI agent (versus a human employee) is less effective in facilitating service evaluations. We further underscore that, depending on customers’ expectations toward their relationship with a service agent, AI-expressed positive emotion may enhance or hurt service evaluations. Overall, our work provides useful guidance on how and when companies can best deploy emotion-expressing AI agents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2022.1179

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • The task of reporting a missing item from an online order and requesting a replacement was chosen because it is one of the most frequent e-commerce customer service requests.

    “This task was chosen for our research because it is one of the most frequent e-commerce customer service requests (Han et al., 2023).”
  • The selection of the e-commerce domain for the experiment was driven by the industry's rapid transition toward replacing or supplementing human customer support agents with CAs.

    “The selection of this domain for the experiment was driven by the industry's rapid transition toward replacing or supplementing human customer support agents with CAs (Han et al., 2023;Haupt et al., 2023).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 74 · Cited by 307

Authors
Han, E., Yin, D., & Zhang, H.
Affiliations
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2023-09
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
1296-1311
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W4311111985
Cited by
307
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 128 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 13 · 2019: 1
FWCI
14.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Emotional Labor in Professions
Keywords
AI agents, positive emotions, emotional expression, chatbots, customer service, service evaluation, human-AI interaction, customer expectations

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