The Effect of AI Agent Gender on Trust and Grounding
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis
2.1. AI Agents and the Gender of Agents
2.2. Brand Concept
2.3. AI Agent Trust and Grounding
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection and Sample
3.2. Stimulus Development and Measures
3.3. Procedure
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation Checks
4.2. Analysis of Trust and Grounding
4.3. Mediation Effect
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Davenport, T.; Guha, A.; Grewal, D.; Bressgott, T. How artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 24–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gesing, B.; Peterson, S.J.; Michelsen, D. Artificial intelligence in logistics; DHL Customer Solutions & Innovation: Troisdorf, Germany, 2018; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
- Brandtzaeg, P.B.; Følstad, A. Chatbots: Changing user needs and motivations. Interactions 2018, 25, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassell, J.; Sullivan, J.; Prevost, S.; Churchill, E. Embodied Conversational Agents; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Kwak, S.S. The impact of the robot appearance types on social interaction with a robot and service evaluation of a robot. Arch. Res. 2014, 27, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartneck, C.; Forlizzi, J. A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN, Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759), Okayama, Japan, 20–22 September 2004; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2004; Volume 2004, pp. 591–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyssel, F.; Hegel, F. (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 2213–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shankar, V. How artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping retailing. J. Retail. 2018, 94, vi–xi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.H.; Rust, R.T. Artificial intelligence in service. J. Serv. Res. 2018, 21, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syam, N.; Sharma, A. Waiting for a sales renaissance in the fourth Industrial Revolution: Machine learning and artificial intelligence in sales research and practice. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 69, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, M. Big data and analytics in tourism and hospitality: A perspective article. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, M.M.; Baggio, R.; Fuchs, M.; Höepken, W. Business intelligence and big data in hospitality and tourism: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 3514–3554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.K.; Miracle, G.E.; Biocca, F. The effects of anthropomorphic agents on advertising effectiveness and the mediating role of presence. J. Interact. Advert. 2001, 2, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.A.A.; Lee, K.M. The influence of regulatory fit and interactivity on brand satisfaction and trust in e-health marketing inside 3D virtual worlds (second life). Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2010, 13, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhagen, T.; Van Nes, J.; Feldberg, F.; Van Dolen, W. Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2014, 19, 529–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araujo, T. Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 85, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Cicco, R.; Silva, S.C.; Alparone, F.R. Millennials’ attitude toward chatbots: An experimental study in a social relationship perspective. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2020, 48, 1213–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adam, M.; Wessel, M.; Benlian, A. AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance. Electron. Mark. 2021, 31, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prentice, C.; Weaven, S.; Wong, I.A. Linking AI quality performance and customer engagement: The moderating effect of AI preference. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fong, T.; Nourbakhsh, I.; Dautenhahn, K. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2003, 42, 143–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, S. Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2003, 12, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Go, E.; Sundar, S.S. Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 97, 304–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nass, C.; Yen, C. The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What Machines Teach Us about Human Relationships; Current: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Nass, C.; Moon, Y.; Green, N. Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 27, 864–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broverman, I.K.; Vogel, S.R.; Broverman, D.M.; Clarkson, F.E.; Rosenkrantz, P.S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. J. Soc. Issues 1972, 28, 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiske, S.T.; Cuddy, A.J.; Glick, P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2007, 11, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ashton-James, C.E.; Tybur, J.M.; Grießer, V.; Costa, D. Stereotypes about surgeon warmth and competence: The role of surgeon gender. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 2012, 32, 113–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huddy, L.; Terkildsen, N. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1993, 37, 119–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Pol, G.; Park, J.W. The role of brand logos in firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, J.E. The impact of brand concept on brand equity. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep. 2017, 11, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Jaworski, B.J.; MacInnis, D.J. Strategic brand concept-image management. J. Mark. 1986, 50, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brakus, J.J.; Schmitt, B.H.; Zarantonello, L. Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? J. Mark. 2009, 73, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; MacInnis, D.J.; Priester, J.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Iacobucci, D. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorman, C.; Zaltman, G.; Deshpande, R. Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. J. Mark. Res. 1992, 29, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holbrook, M.B.; Hirschman, E.C. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chattaraman, V.; Kwon, W.S.; Gilbert, J.E.; Ross, K. Should AI-based, conversational digital assistants employ social-or task-oriented interaction style? A task-competency and reciprocity perspective for older adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 90, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holzwarth, M.; Janiszewski, C.; Neumann, M.M. The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nass, C.; Moon, Y. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 81–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westerman, D.; Tamborini, R.; Bowman, N.D. The effects of static avatars on impression formation across different contexts on social networking sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, K.L.; Fox, J. Avatars and computer-mediated communication: A review of the definitions, uses, and effects of digital representations. Rev. Commun. Res. 2018, 6, 30–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bickmore, T.W.; Picard, R.W. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2005, 12, 293–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, S.; Fogg, B.J. Credibility and computing technology. Commun. ACM 1999, 42, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, L.; Pantidi, N.; Cooney, O.; Doyle, P.; Garaialde, D.; Edwards, J.; Spillane, B.; Gilmartin, E.; Murad, C.; Munteanu, C.; et al. What makes a good conversation? Challenges in designing truly conversational agents. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; p. 3300705. [Google Scholar]
- Madhavan, P.; Wiegmann, D.A. Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2007, 8, 277–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horvitz, E. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15–20 May 1999; pp. 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kontogiorgos, D.; Pereira, A.; Gustafson, J. Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: Effects of embodiment and failures. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 2021, 15, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, D.C.; Dale, R. Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cogn. Sci. 2005, 29, 1045–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundar, S.S.; Jung, E.H.; Waddell, T.F.; Kim, K.J. Cheery companions or serious assistants? Role and demeanor congruity as predictors of robot attraction and use intentions among senior citizens. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017, 97, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzman, A.L. Voices in and of the machine: Source orientation toward mobile virtual assistants. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 90, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parulekar, A.A.; Raheja, P. Managing celebrities as brands: Impact of endorsements on celebrity image. In Creating Images and the Psychology of Marketing Communication; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 161–169. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, A.M.; Hill, R.P. The universality of warmth and competence: A response to brands as intentional agents. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Choi, J. Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: Effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017, 103, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Looy, J.; Courtois, C.; De Vocht, M.; De Marez, L. Player identification in online games: Validation of a scale for measuring identification in MMOGs. Media Psychol. 2012, 15, 197–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, R.; Wise, K.; Bolls, P. How avatar customizability affects children’s arousal and subjective presence during junk food–sponsored online video games. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd Tuah, N.; Wanick, V.; Ranchhod, A.; Wills, G.B. Exploring avatar roles for motivational effects in gameful environments. EAI Endorsed Trans. Creat. Technol. 2017, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szolin, K.; Kuss, D.J.; Nuyens, F.M.; Griffiths, M.D. ‘I am the character, the character is me’: A thematic analysis of the user-avatar relationship in videogames. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 143, 107694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, C.; Lee, S.G.; Kang, M. I became an attractive person in the virtual world: Users’ identification with virtual communities and avatars. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1663–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yee, N.; Bailenson, J.N.; Ducheneaut, N. The Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Commun. Res. 2009, 36, 285–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, J.E. The effect of ideal avatar on virtual brand experience in XR platform. J. Distrib. Sci. 2023, 21, 109–121. [Google Scholar]
- Park, B.W.; Lee, K.C. Exploring the value of purchasing online game items. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 2178–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bickmore, T.; Cassell, J. Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. Adv. Nat. Multimodal Dial. Syst. 2005, 30, 23–54. [Google Scholar]
- Weger, H.; Castle Bell, G.C.; Minei, E.M.; Robinson, M.C. The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. Int. J. List. 2014, 28, 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, H.H.; Brennan, S.E. Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition; Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M., Teasley, S.D., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; pp. 222–233. [Google Scholar]
- Reis, H.T.; Lemay, E.P., Jr.; Finkenauer, C. Toward understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2017, 11, e12308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergner, A.S.; Hildebrand, C.; Häubl, G. Machine talk: How verbal embodiment in conversational AI shapes consumer–brand relationships. J. Consum. Res. 2023, 50, 742–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultze, U. Performing embodied identity in virtual worlds. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, S.J.; Mattsson, J. Exploring the fit of real brands in the second-life virtual world. J. Mark. Manag. 2011, 27, 934–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papagiannidis, S.; Pantano, E.; See-To, E.W.K.; Bourlakis, M. Modelling the determinants of a simulated experience in a virtual retail store and users’ product purchasing intentions. J. Mark. Manag. 2013, 29, 1462–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, S.J.; Fox, J.; Bailenson, J.N. Avatars. In Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook; Bainbridge, W.S., Ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 695–702. [Google Scholar]
- Garnier, M.; Poncin, I. The avatar in marketing: Synthesis, integrative framework and perspectives. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2013, 28, 85–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Chen, R.P.; Zhang, K. Anthropomorphized helpers undermine autonomy and enjoyment in computer games. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 282–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, H.; Singh, A. ChatGPT: Systematic review, applications, and agenda for multidisciplinary research. J. Chin. Econ. Bus. Stud. 2023, 21, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, H.S. Asking more of Siri and Alexa: Feminine persona in service of surveillance capitalism. Crit. Stud. Media Commun. 2018, 35, 334–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonnell, M.; Baxter, D. Chatbots and gender stereotyping. Interact. Comput. 2019, 31, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.; Ribas, L. AI becomes her: Discussing gender and artificial intelligence. Technoetic Arts J. Specul. Res. 2019, 17, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill-Yardin, E.L.; Hutchinson, M.R.; Laycock, R.; Spencer, S.J. A Chat (GPT) about the future of scientific publishing. Brain Behav. Immun. 2023, 110, 152–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Constructs | Items | |
---|---|---|
Functional Brand | This brand represents the functional benefits that I can expect from the brand. This brand ensures that it assists me in handling my daily life competently. This brand represents a solution to certain problems. | Jeon [31], Park et al. [30] |
Experiential Brand | This brand expresses a luxurious image. I have to pay a lot to buy this brand. This brand makes life richer and more meaningful. | |
AI Agent Trust | I trust an AI agent. I have faith in the AI agent. This AI agent gives me a feeling of trust. | Nass and Moon [41] |
Grounding | This AI agent provided feedback of having understood my input. This AI agent provided feedback on having accepted my input. I felt that this AI agent understood what I had to say. | Bergner et al. [68] |
AI Agent Identification | This AI agent is similar to me. I identify with this AI agent. This AI agent and I are similar in reality. | Schultze [69] Szolin et al. [59] |
Recommendation | I would recommend this brand to my friends. If my friends were looking to buy a product, I would tell them to try this brand. | Barnes and Mattsson [70] Papagiannidis et al. [71] |
Brand Attitude | I like this brand. This brand makes me favorable. This brand is good. | Jeon [31] Park et al. [34] |
Dependent Variable | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Corrected Model | Trust | 29.708 a | 4 | 7.427 | 7.588 | 0.000 |
Grounding | 19.125 b | 4 | 4.781 | 3.827 | 0.005 | |
Intercept | Trust | 65.061 | 1 | 65.061 | 66.474 | 0.000 |
Grounding | 101.102 | 1 | 101.102 | 80.932 | 0.000 | |
attitude | Trust | 21.548 | 1 | 21.548 | 22.015 | 0.000 |
Grounding | 11.162 | 1 | 11.162 | 8.935 | 0.003 | |
Brand Concept (A) | Trust | 1.708 | 1 | 1.708 | 1.745 | 0.188 |
Grounding | 0.007 | 1 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.941 | |
Gender of AI Agent (B) | Trust | 1.819 | 1 | 1.819 | 1.859 | 0.174 |
Grounding | 0.435 | 1 | 0.435 | 0.348 | 0.556 | |
A × B | Trust | 7.461 | 1 | 7.461 | 7.623 | 0.006 |
Grounding | 5.740 | 1 | 5.740 | 4.595 | 0.033 | |
Error | Trust | 178.133 | 182 | 0.979 | ||
Grounding | 227.359 | 182 | 1.249 | |||
Total | Trust | 3088.889 | 187 | |||
Grounding | 3469.444 | 187 | ||||
Corrected Total | Trust | 207.841 | 186 | |||
Grounding | 246.485 | 186 |
Outcome Variable: Trust | |||||||
Coeff | Standardized coeff | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | |
Identification | 0.3002 | 0.3397 | 0.0611 | 4.9119 | 0.000 | 0.1796 | 0.4208 |
Outcome variable: Grounding | |||||||
Coeff | Standardized coeff | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | |
Identification | 0.0494 | 0.0513 | 0.0576 | 0.8577 | 0.3922 | −0.0642 | 0.1629 |
Trust | 0.6830 | 0.6272 | 0.0651 | 10.4872 | 0.000 | 0.5545 | 0.8115 |
Outcome variable: Recommendation | |||||||
Coeff | Standardized coeff | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | |
Identification | 0.1058 | 0.1046 | 0.0624 | 1.6946 | 0.0918 | −0.0174 | 0.2290 |
Trust | 0.1208 | 0.1055 | 0.0891 | 1.3550 | 0.1771 | −0.0551 | 0.2966 |
Grounding | 0.5347 | 0.5088 | 0.0798 | 6.700 | 0.0000 | 0.3773 | 0.6922 |
Outcome variable: Recommendation | |||||||
Coeff | Standardized coeff | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | |
Identification | 0.2781 | 0.2749 | 0.0715 | 3.888 | 0.0001 | 0.1370 | 0.4192 |
Indirect effect of X on Y | |||||||
Effect | BootSE | BootLLCI | BootULCI | ||||
TOTAL | 0.1723 | 0.0452 | 0.0842 | 0.2625 | |||
Ind1 | 0.0363 | 0.0395 | −0.0376 | 0.1196 | |||
Ind2 | 0.0264 | 0.0313 | −0.0290 | 0.0975 | |||
Ind3 | 0.1096 | 0.0339 | 0.0495 | 0.1814 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jeon, J.-E. The Effect of AI Agent Gender on Trust and Grounding. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 692-704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19010037
Jeon J-E. The Effect of AI Agent Gender on Trust and Grounding. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2024; 19(1):692-704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19010037
Chicago/Turabian StyleJeon, Joo-Eon. 2024. "The Effect of AI Agent Gender on Trust and Grounding" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 1: 692-704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19010037