Chatbots don’t judge! Customers prefer robots over humans when it comes to those ’um, you know’ purchases
In a revealing study on consumer behavior, researchers have uncovered a surprising preference among shoppers for chatbots over human service representatives when purchasing products associated with embarrassment, such as acne treatments, diarrhea medication, and adult toys. This finding challenges the conventional wisdom that consumers prefer human interaction for customer service. In fact, the study, which included over 6,000 participants, demonstrated that when faced with potentially embarrassing purchases, more than 80% of participants preferred a chatbot pharmacist to a human counterpart when shopping for diarrhea medication. In contrast, those seeking hay fever treatments showed a strong preference for human assistance, indicating that the nature of the product significantly influences consumer preferences for interaction.
The study further explored the implications of chatbot design. In an experiment where participants were presented with different types of service agents—human, humanlike chatbots, and clearly machine-like chatbots—willingness to engage dropped as the chatbot appeared more human. The results revealed that consumers felt more comfortable interacting with bots that were distinctly nonhuman, suggesting that the perception of a chatbot having “no mind” alleviates concerns about judgment or evaluation during sensitive purchases. This insight underscores the importance for brands to reconsider their approach to chatbot design, particularly in contexts where embarrassment is a factor. Instead of striving for human-like qualities, businesses may find that a straightforward, machine-like chatbot can provide a more comfortable shopping experience for consumers.
As the retail landscape increasingly incorporates AI technology, understanding when and how to deploy chatbots effectively is crucial. While many companies may instinctively believe that humanlike chatbots enhance customer service, this research indicates that such an approach could be counterproductive in sensitive purchasing situations. The findings suggest that brands should be mindful of the emotional context of their consumers and consider utilizing clearly machinelike chatbots to mitigate discomfort and improve service outcomes. This research opens the door for further exploration into other contexts where embarrassment might factor into consumer decisions, such as women seeking car repair quotes or men purchasing cosmetic products, highlighting the potential for chatbots to serve as a valuable tool in navigating delicate shopping scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjPZlQAE0E
When it comes to inquiring about – ahem – certain products, shoppers prefer the inhuman touch.
That is what we found in a
study of consumer habits
when it comes to products that traditionally have come with a degree of embarrassment – think acne cream, diarrhea medication, adult sex toys or personal lubricant.
While brands may assume consumers hate chatbots, our series of studies involving more than 6,000 participants found a clear pattern: When it comes to purchases that make people feel embarrassed, consumers prefer chatbots over human service reps.
In one experiment, we asked participants to imagine shopping for medications for diarrhea and hay fever. They were offered two online pharmacies, one with a human pharmacist and the other with a chatbot pharmacist.
The medications were packaged identically, with the only difference being their labels for “diarrhea” or “hay fever.” More than 80% of consumers looking for diarrhea treatment preferred a store with a clearly nonhuman chatbot. In caparison, just 9% of those shopping for hay fever medication preferred nonhuman chatbots.
This is because, participants told us, they did not think chatbots have “minds” – that is, the ability to judge or feel.
In fact, when it comes to selling embarrassing products, making chatbots look or sound human can actually backfire. In
another study
, we asked 1,500 people to imagine buying diarrhea pills online. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: an online drugstore with a human service rep, the same store with a humanlike chatbot with a profile photo and name, or the same store with a chatbot that was clearly botlike in both its name and icon.
We then asked participants how likely they would be to seek help from the service agent. The results were clear: Willingness to interact dropped as the agent seemed more human. Interest peaked with the clearly machinelike chatbot and hit its lowest point with the human service rep.
Why it matters
As a scholar of
marketing and consumer behavior
, I know Chatbots play an increasingly large part in e-retail. In fact, one report found
80% of retail and e-commerce business
use AI chatbots or plan to use them in the near future.
When it comes to chatbots, companies want to answer two questions: When should they deploy chatbots? And how should the chatbots be designed?
Many companies may assume the best strategy is to make bots look and sound more human, intuiting that consumers don’t want to talk to machines.
But our findings show the opposite can be true. In moments when embarrassment looms large, humanlike chatbots can backfire.
The practical takeaway is that brands should not default to humanizing their chatbots. Sometimes the most effective bot is the one that looks and sounds like a machine.
What still isn’t known
So far, we’ve looked at everyday purchases where embarrassment is easy to imagine, such as hemorrhoid cream, anti-wrinkle cream, personal lubricant and adult toys.
However, we believe the insights extend more broadly. For example, women getting a quote for car repair may be more self-conscious, as this is a purchase context where women have been traditionally more stigmatized. Similarly, men shopping for cosmetic products may feel judged in a category that has traditionally been marketed to women.
In contexts like these, companies could deploy chatbots – especially ones that clearly sound machinelike – to reduce discomfort and provide a better service. But more work is needed to test that hypothesis.
The
Research Brief
is a short take on interesting academic work.
Jianna Jin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
