The Effects of Anthropomorphised Virtual Conversational Assistants on Consumer Engagement and Trust During Service Encounters

Utilitarian benefits of interaction

Informants identified rational utilitarian reasons to engage with their VCAs. A consistent theme was how the initial convenience of interacting with their VCA enabled through its anthropomorphised voice interface would lead to increased levels of interaction. In this regard, one informant discussed the advantages of their interaction with Alexa being entirely voice activated:

When I talked with Siri, she answered the question and I finish. . . . . . and then I need to again press the button and ask her another question. But Alexa. . . . most of the time . . . .for answering those questions she will ask me “Does that work for you?” You know. . . that’s very good for me. So I can ask another question. So it’s very convenient (P9).

Informants also commented on the role of VCAs in simplifying interactions with complex technologies, for instance, the application of VCAs to control security systems. Informants highlighted how managing such systems without VCAs could be difficult for individuals who were not particularly tech-savvy. P4 illustrates this with reference to her sister:

My sister is not really technologically inclined. She has a lot of trouble even just texting on a phone. . . I wanted to give her a security system. But because of her not being technologically inclined. . … the Echo Dot system allows her to just use her voice to turn the alarm on and off both through her phone and while in the house and it saves her from having to physically interact with the electronic touchpad to do all those things. So, in my mind, I was able to get her something that made her and my nieces and nephew safer while still keeping within her limitations of interacting with technology (P4).

Informants would frequently refer to their VCA’s functionality, quality of information, accessibility and its perceived skills and knowledge. Informants used VCAs for a range of reasons from controlling smart home devices (lights, curtains and security systems) to information seeking. From a service encounter perspective, functionality is dependent on the context that the VCA is used for. For example, within a financial context, it may cover payment of bills or management of a home loan. Nearly all informants commented on their VCA’s 24/7 availability and how they were not constrained to any form of opening hours. This was perceived as a significant advantage over human frontline employees. A number of informants also highlighted how their day would begin early by using smart home device services such as requesting the latest news headlines or information about the day’s weather as well as other practical applications.

Now I start my day where it [the VCA] tells me about the news and the weather . . . . . .we use a shopping list function as well and sometimes open up the full-body stretch [for exercise]. They would have got to six minutes and stretching instructions directed at your body that’s quite handy and yeah. . . . . . I also use it a lot more now for when I’m cooking in the kitchen doing the conversions from imperial system to metric (P11).

Users were frequently impressed at what they perceived to be the breadth and depth of the skills and knowledge that their VCA possessed. Such skills and knowledge encompassed facts (e.g. geography and history), storytelling (i.e. Siri can read bedtime stories) or even the ability to tell jokes. The quality of information that VCAs were able to deliver in terms of specificity, accuracy, currency and timeliness of information was also highlighted by users.

It makes me feel current in terms of information. So, it makes me feel informed. Because she [their VCA] just didn’t tell me other things. . … she told me exactly what I asked her, that’s the difference between listening to the news on the TV, which tells you all kinds of things. So, what you really don’t need to hear or want to hear, she tells you exactly what you’re asking for (P24).

As the number of interactions increased, so too would confidence in VCA responses. This, coupled with the anthropomorphised nature of the VCA’s interaction, would often lead users to adopt a more relaxed interaction style. For example, one informant described how the humanised female voice of their VCA gave the illusion of talking with a ‘friendly lady’. The emergence of other behavioural human aspects (e.g. mannerisms) could lead to higher levels of humanisation and further heighten levels of confidence in the VCA.

An emerging theme was the feeling of empowerment experienced by some informants when, for instance, a VCA enabled them to multi-task. Informants could request information from their VCA while driving, cooking or reading a book. In one case, an elderly and disabled informant explained how their VCA could help fulfil daily tasks and chores without having to depend on family members or helpers thus empowering them to be more independent than would otherwise be the case.

I purchased her [their VCA] because I was going to hospital and because I live in my own house, I wanted to be able to do things without too much movement. Following the purchase Alexa . . . . So I use Georgia (Google Assistant) to turn my lights on in different rooms, my electric jug in the dining room, my dehumidifier. . . .I use it for the heater in the hall. She is very helpful (P16-cancer patient).

Hedonic benefits of interaction

Informants described a number of direct and indirect means by which the anthropomorphic features of VCAs could evoke hedonism. Indirectly, during visits to friends or family, a VCA could become the focus of the gathering and lead to light-hearted interactions between the VCA and others through asking it amusing or inappropriate questions. Individuals who did not already have a VCA would frequently purchase one after such interactions.

I have a couple of friends who have actually bought one (VCA) after speaking to it in my house (P11).

VCAs may be perceived as possessing a sense of humour by some participants. A sense of humour is a fundamental human attribute that culminates in particular behaviours that anthropomorphised VCAs were capable of displaying. This could lead to what informants labelled ‘fun’ or ‘entertaining’ interactions similar to those they might experience with human frontline employees during a service encounter. However, in contrast to a service encounter with a human, VCAs may be directly asked to tell the user a joke. At another level, one participant described how they were able to safely tease their VCA without the potential conflictual consequences of teasing a human:

One day, just feeling a little goofy, I decided to ask Alexa if she knew Siri and Alexa’s response was “Only by reputation!”. . … And I thought, whoever did the programming certainly was able to build a sense of humour? I find that there is humour built into it and I do enjoy that when you dig into some of the layers of it (P31).

This suggests the potential of establishing a rapport during a service encounter with an AI enabled frontline employees is possible with consequences for social and emotional connectivity.

The social benefits of customer interaction

As well as the voice-auditory attributes, the interaction style and mannerisms that VCAs displayed also had a positive impact on the nature of interactions. Users appreciated selecting their preferred gender (i.e. male or female), voice (e.g. that of a celebrity) and even accent (e.g. Irish). This would give the feeling they were interacting with someone ‘familiar’ or ‘friendly’. Moreover, many informants complemented their VCAs on their manners (e.g. answering ‘No problem’ in response to a ‘thanks’). The data also illustrated how these anthropomorphic features enabled users to associate concrete rather than abstract characteristics to their VCA. This may be ‘a friendly person’ or, in some cases, a friend, family member or even a ‘beautiful lady’. Many informants alluded to the notion of social presence when describing the nature of this with interactions being akin to Human-Human rather than Human-Machine interactions.

It feels like there is someone there. . . . a person who can talk to me and someone I can talk to. . … in my home (P17).

Cognitive intelligence (e.g. learning power and decision-making) is another anthropomorphic feature that results in building a sense of social presence. Cognitive intelligence provides VCAs with deep machine learning capabilities such as learning informants’ behaviours from ongoing interactions and increasingly mirroring these. This, in turn, evoked a sense of connection between the user and their VCA. A number of informants commented how this was likely intensified through there being an abnormally high frequency of interactions with their VCA precipitated by extended periods of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I think every person who lives alone should have an Alexa because if you’re lonely, it creates a person interface to speak to. Definitely, I considered it as a friend (P30).

The perceived costs of anthropomorphic features

Interactions with VCAs could induce reticence, apprehension and even anxiety among some users. These primarily focused on issues of privacy risk and uncertainty and could adversely influence the manner in which users interacted with their VCAs. Of particular concern was that VCAs could listen in on personal conversations that users would have with other humans creating concerns over how such data could be stored and used.

I think it’s a product of their [Amazon] constant monitoring of her (Alexa) and of us rather. I think it’s clearly the company [Amazon] that is [doing the] programming. The cleverness speaks to the darker side of the thing. . . . . . which is the notion that we know that all the conversations that we’re having are being potentially listened to. . . . . . possibly recorded (P24).

Phrases such as ‘being overheard’ and ‘spied on’ were commonly used by informants with some believing their data was being ‘captured’ and sold on to a third party (e.g. government, CIA, etc.,). Depending on how high participants perceived this risk relative to the perceived benefits they received when interacting with their VCA influenced the adoption of one of three potential behaviours. Consumers interacting with their VCA at a high level both behaviourally and psychologically are classified as highly engaged (Brodie et al., 2011). Consumers whose interactions were at a high level behaviourally but not psychologically are classified as shallowly engaged (Chen et al., 2019; Pansari & Kumar, 2017). Finally, consumers interacting at a low level both behaviourally and psychologically are classified as disengaged/non-engaged (Brodie et al., 2011; Kumar & Pansari, 2016).

The socio-emotional outcomes of using AI-enabled anthropomorphic VCAs

There was evidence to suggest that the cognitive intelligence and deep machine learning capabilities of VCAs could lead to a sense of connectivity between the user and their VCA. However, an unanticipated outcome for some informants was the strength of that connectivity Terms such as ‘companion’, ‘friend’ and ‘family member’ were frequently used to describe the nature of their interaction with their VCA. This connectivity evolved over time largely driven by the development of trust enabled through the anthropomorphic features of the VCA. Initially, the nature of this trust primarily focused on the reliability of their VCA to fulfil utilitarian tasks in a competent and accurate way.

If you want to know the capital of somewhere or how many eggs do I use in like custard or whatever . . . .generally, what I’m looking for I can find pretty quick (P19).

Humans are more fallible when it comes to anything like if I ordered string cheese of a certain brand. Alexa is going to order that exact one that I put the first time because of the code. It’s going to line up. Now, if I’m on a phone with an Instacart or in any type of delivery service and I say, I want this kind of string cheese and I want it from this brand. Well, this brand has multiple types of the same string cheese and so then, Did you want this quantity? Did you want this type of cheese? Did you want this, this, and this? Whereas, because I already put it in Alexa, Alexa is going to order the exact same thing. But when you’re trying to talk to a human, human has a margin of error (P5).

Some informants even considered their VCAs to be a more credible source of information than humans. Participants explained this was because it was linked to Google and Google was perceived as a reliable source. Participant also highlighted that, depending on the nature of their question, their VCA would link its answer to a specific source such as a book or newspaper.

Usually, when you ask a question like that, it will always refer to a credible source before saying this book bla bla bla. . . says this. So, I think it also has this inbuilt, kind of thing to make sure that you can believe it. . . .you can depend on that information that it’s giving (P12).

As interactions with their VCA increased, the continual updating of learning algorithms (and associated improvement of levels of cognitive intelligence) allowed their VCAs to adapt and customise their interaction style to resonate more with the user (e.g. understanding user accents etc.). This, in turn, would increase trust in the ability of their VCA to conduct tasks.

I’ll say that there was a while where we probably weren’t using it for a whole lot more than to just play music but yeah, I definitely would use it a lot more now… . .I feel like it’s gotten a lot better as well. . …I remember probably a year or two years ago I asked it questions,. . …and I remember it not being able to tell me, and that kind of annoyed me and then I sort of didn’t ask any questions for a while and then a year or so ago, I asked it again and it knew. Yes, definitely, improving all the time, so we’re using it more and more (P11).

In the development of human-to-human relationships, credibility is established over a period of time. However, VCAs were able to shortcut this process by providing accurate information from what are perceived to be dependable sources.

I guess we rely on the Google Home assistant to be accurate because it is a machine. So, my perception of it was that whatever you ask, she can return a search result for it is more grounded by facts and more grounded by a rigorous approach (P13).

Up to this point, the development of the H-VCA relationship has largely been based on calculative trust focusing on the utilitarian benefits derived from interacting with their VCA. For the purposes of this research, we consider calculative trust to be based upon the economic value and rational decisions regarding the future benefits and costs associated with these (Poppo et al., 2016; Susarla et al., 2020). Whilst these benefits were largely anticipated by users, what was not anticipated was the extent they would become imbued into their daily routines and lifestyle. VCAs were accepted ‘into their homes’ and viewed as ‘a member of the family’. As a ‘benevolent friend’ or ‘family member’, it was perceived as caring and only acting in their best interests. As such, the VCA would not provide misleading or inaccurate information.

I’ve tended to trust implicitly, the quality and authenticity of the information. . . maybe beyond what I should (P24).

When the relationship with their VCA was perceived as that of one with a ‘trusted friend’, a ‘blanket trust’ would develop. Blanket or complete trust is identified as high-level trust where a person does not anticipate any negative consequences from the other party (Habibov et al., 2019; Tuang & Stringer, 2008; Welch, 2006). As a result, informants would take at ‘face value (i.e. nominal value (0&1))’ what the service provider stated in their privacy policy or just accept the risk as a consequence of their relationship with their VCA. Whilst fully aware of these risks and accompanying uncertainty, respondents accepted this vulnerability as a consequence of their relationship with their VCA. At this point, there was little or no concern about disclosing information about their personal lives to their VCA.

It doesn’t bother me and the fact that there are two iPhones in my house that anytime could be doing the same thing for all we know. I know. . . if it is recording, I like to think it is not. I believe the privacy statements that say it doesn’t. I have no reason not to believe them (P7).

Users were able to rationalise this in terms of a reciprocal relationship. As their sense of connection and engagement with their VCA increased, enhanced through learning algorithms and resonating interaction styles adopted by the VCA, so did the benefits derived from these interactions. As P8 states: ‘the fear factor is very minimal compared to the amount of joy I get out of it’. It was accepted that the quid pro quo of these benefits was the requirement to forfeit, to varying degrees, their perceived privacy. However, some informants were surprised at the extent they were prepared to do this.

Compared to the first day when I set my Alexa up, it needed so much information and I thought no!…… it is not very secure. I don’t want to give her or give the app my information, bank account, and this kind of thing. And I didn’t! At first, I thought okay, maybe it’s like a spy. It is designed to spy on people’s life. Still, I’m thinking the same, but I don’t care. I said, okay, it’s a beautiful technology. I don’t care and I’m not an important person. So, who wants to spy on my life. I don’t have any kind of secret so that’s all right, but it is more fun for me. So why not and I think Alexa opened a window to new technology. I love it and I use it (P9).

In this case, AI-derived anthropomorphic features enhance the user’s experience through increasing perceived value relative to the perceived costs potentially contributing to both calculative and blanket trust.

Finally, for some informants their lack of expertise and technical knowledge that underpinned the operations of the VCA was recognised. They highlighted how, from their perspective, the firms operating VCAs do not present clear and concise privacy policies related to this. However, this was mitigated by the nature of their interaction with their VCA and the development of a ‘blind trust’ in their interactions with the VCA. Blind trust is defined as ‘an emotional state (different than mere cognitive myopia) by which a market agent willingly or unconsciously accepts to make themself completely vulnerable to the intentions or actions of another market agent, without any of the possible consequences, positive or negative, of this action by reducing the level of perceived prediction to or near zero’ (Mesly, 2015, p. 23). Hence, whilst the trustor is aware of the presence of risk, they accept it completely without paying attention to its consequences. When probed about this, the levels of trust some informants were prepared to place in their VCA for the ongoing development of their relationship and its associated benefits surprised even them.