The effects of smartphone assistants' anthropomorphism on consumers' psychological ownership and perceived competence of smartphone assistants

Abstract

Few studies on the effects of smartphone assistants' anthropomorphism on consumer behavior have been conducted. This study explored the effects of anthropomorphism on consumers' psychological ownership of smartphone assistants and perceptions of their competence. Moreover, it investigated arousal during smartphone assistant use and examined how relationship norms governing the consumer–smartphone assistant relationship moderate the effects of anthropomorphism on psychological ownership. In study 1, which had a one‐factorial design (high vs. low anthropomorphism), a highly anthropomorphic smartphone assistant was perceived to be more competent. In study 2, which followed the same experimental procedure under a 2 × 2 full factorial design, the anthropomorphism–relationship norms interaction moderated psychological ownership. Psychological ownership fully mediated the effect of anthropomorphism on perceived competence. Study 3 employed a 2 (anthropomorphism: high vs. low) × 2 (arousal: high vs. low) × 2 (relationship norms: exchange vs. communal) full factorial design. In the high arousal condition, anthropomorphism and relationship norms exerted no significant effect on psychological ownership. A conditional indirect effect from anthropomorphism to perceived competence through psychological ownership was only significant under low arousal and adherence to communal relationship norms. In summary, the degree of anthropomorphism influenced perceived competence through psychological ownership. Therefore, companies should incorporate anthropomorphic cues into smartphone assistant design, thereby promoting their personification by consumers and benefiting perceptions of their competence.

Effects of service robots' anthropomorphism on consumers' attribution toward and forgiveness of service failure

“…The attribution of human features, motivations, and behaviors to inanimate objects is known as anthropomorphism (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Cheng, 2022; Herak et al, 2020; Ketron & Naletelich, 2019). Studies have reported humans frequently interact with and responded to computers in social manners despite acknowledging computers are not humans (Moon, 2000; Nass et al, 1997; Nass & Moon, 2000).…”

Retail robots as sales assistants: how speciesism moderates the effect of robot intelligence on customer perceptions and behaviour

“…van Doorn et al ., 2017). Anthropomorphism refers to the individuals' cognitive process of assigning unique human attributes and characteristics, especially physical appearance or physical reactions, to non-human agents (Abdi et al ., 2022; Cheng, 2022; Epley et al ., 2007). In this sense, AI-based intellectual intelligence can be understood as a replica of human intelligence, as it reflects humans' cognitive intelligence (Siau and Yang, 2017), making HSRs more human-like (Lv et al.…”

Matching digital companions with customers: The role of perceived similarity

“…In contrast, digital companions are considered more as friends who accompany users on their customer journey. This characterization is likely to evoke a communal relationship norm, where consumers perceive the agent more as a social entity that cares about them and with whom they wish to build a relationship (Cheng, 2022; Clark & Mills, 1979). To build such a relationship, a proposed match between the digital entity and the customer may not be sufficient, but require additional components (Pentina et al, 2023).…”

“…Specifically, we argue that this match frame is likely to induce goal‐relevant similarity perceptions only when the virtual counterpart is felt as humanlike. Only such an anthropomorphized entity is perceived as being able to experience emotions, understand human needs, and build a communal relationship (Cheng, 2022; Epley et al, 2007; Zhang et al, 2022). Yet, humanlikeness by itself is not sufficient to induce similarity perceptions either because an anthropomorphized face, voice, and body movement alone does not necessarily evoke the perception of sharing consumption goal‐relevant characteristics with the companion.…”