Overcoming Breakdowns in Customer-Chatbot Interaction: Design and Impact of Collaborative Repair Strategies
Open accessAbstract
When chatbots are deployed to automate customer service, it is nearly inevitable that situations will arise in which they struggle to understand customer requests. Unfortunately, the onus of resolving such conversational breakdowns tends to fall on either the customer or the chatbot alone, turning customer-chatbot interaction into a frustrating and often unsuccessful guessing game. Despite indications that customers would be open to collaboration, we know little about repair strategies that involve the customer and chatbot working together to resolve breakdowns. Our research addresses this gap by investigating the design and impact of collaborative repair strategies in customer-chatbot interaction. Drawing upon an integration of the theory of least collaborative effort with research on human-machine communication and customer service chatbots, we propose a novel repair strategy design; we instantiated it in the chatbot of a large insurance company and conducted a naturalistic summative evaluation through a randomized field experiment. Overall, our results suggest that a collaborative repair strategy can lead to more breakdowns being resolved and mitigate the negative impacts of breakdowns on key customer outcomes. Our research offers a new way of thinking about customer-AI service interactions by shifting the narrative from confrontation to collaboration, extends the theory of least collaborative effort by integrating the perspective of customer-chatbot interaction, and provides in-depth insights into breakdown and repair in real-world conversations between customers and chatbots.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Users may accept a CA apology at an emotional level while still perceiving the system as unreliable for future interactions, rendering the decision to continue using the system contingent on unresolved uncertainty about its reliability.
“Consequently, users may accept a CA apology at an emotional level while still perceiving the system as unreliable for future interactions, rendering the decision to continue using the system contingent on unresolved uncertainty about its reliability (Gnewuch & Reinkemeier, 2025;Harland et al., 2025;Kim & Song, 2021).”
From Explainability in AI: Comparing Human-Like and System-Like Trust Repair Strategies (2026) · cites this paper as Gnewuch & Reinkemeier, 2025
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Gnewuch, U., & Reinkemeier, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Passau (DE)
- University of Göttingen (DE)
- ORCID
- Gnewuch, Ulrich
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2026-06-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 497-526
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W4414325780
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 2.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
- GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Keywords
- chatbots, conversational breakdown, repair strategies, human-machine communication, customer service automation, conversational repair
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