مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد نتایج انسان انگاری برند در زمینه هوش مصنوعی – الزویر 2024

Abstract

Users’ increasing adoption of voice assistant services is fostering the growth of a novel strand of marketing research on the branding implications of brand anthropomorphism (BA). However, the branding outcomes of brand anthropomorphization in this research area remain underinvestigated. Accordingly, in the name-brand voice assistant (NBVA) interaction field, this study tests a model of the consequences of brand anthropomorphism, outlining the relationships among brand anthropomorphism, brand trust, and multidimensional consumer–brand engagement (CBE), i.e., the relevant cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, as well as the moderating role of perceived privacy risk. A survey of young adults shows that brand anthropomorphism positively affects brand trust as well as the affective and behavioral dimensions of CBE. Furthermore, perceived privacy risk positively moderates the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand trust. Specifically, the influence of brand anthropomorphism on brand trust is strengthened at higher levels of perceived privacy risk. This article thus enriches the understanding of brand anthropomorphism and user VA response by exploring underresearched branding outcomes of BA in the context of NBVA interaction.

Introduction

Voice-based artificial intelligence services, such as Alexa, Cortana, Siri, and Google Assistant, have rapidly entered our daily lives. Their adoption figures are increasing, with 4.2 billion conversational assistants (i.e., voice assistants) used globally in 2020 (Statista, 2022a). In Europe, Statista (2022b) reports that 66% of the adult population has conversed at least once with a voice assistant (VA) via devices such as smartphones, smart speakers, or in-car multimedia systems. More encouraging data come from the US market, where two out of three individuals (140 million) use these services monthly on smartphones (Voicebot, 2022a), and 91 million are monthly smart speaker users (Voicebot, 2022b). So-called name-brand VAs (NBVAs) are a particular typology among these voice assistant services characterized by 1) service activation by users via a direct call to the brand name (e.g., “Hey Google”; “Hey BMW”), 2) in-house development and 3) equipment with a unique “brand voice” (Vernuccio et al., 2021). Thus, the brand name of this device coincides with the company’s brand name (e.g., “Google”, “BMW”, “Mercedes”) and has developed the NBVA, creating a specific voice for the brand (Vernuccio et al., 2023b). Therefore, the NBVA represents an innovative touchpoint in the brand experience (Homburg et al., 2017; Vernuccio et al., 2021) whereby companies build direct and dynamic consumer-brand relationships, activated via brand name and based on brand voice (Vernuccio et al., 2023a). For the first time, in the NBVA environment, brands adopt a unique “vocal physique”, i.e., the specific voice of the brand, to be intended as a spoken brand identity sign (Jackson, 2003) developed by companies and then communicated to intended recipients (Vernuccio et al., 2023b). Hence, the brand vocal physique represents an innovative, fundamental component of brand semiotics, contributing to the creation of the central brand meaning system along with other “building blocks” (e.g., logo, colors, slogan) (Kucuk, 2015). This novel “building block” is constructed by marketing practitioners to develop a brand anthropomorphic meaning in consumers’ minds (Vernuccio et al., 2023b), as the “physical human voice” enables direct communication between humans and these intelligent “machines”, allowing users to interact as if they were talking with a real person rather than software (Kucuk, 2020a). Indeed, by dialoguing in the NBVA context, consumers can find a salient human brand personality that matches an appropriate vocal physique (Kucuk, 2020b).

Conclusion

5.1. Discussion and theoretical implications
This study has proposed a model of the consequences of brand anthropomorphism, outlining its direct effects on brand trust and multidimensional CBE (i.e., cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions) as well as the moderating role of perceived privacy risk in the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand trust in the NVBA environment. Accordingly, given that this research integrates the brand anthropomorphism literature with the emerging strand of research on consumer VA response, findings contribute to both fields.

First, the results highlight how brand anthropomorphism positively affects brand trust (H1). This finding is in line with the research of Golossenko et al. (2020), who indirectly echoed how brand anthropomorphism is a driver strengthening brand trust by endowing a brand with visual, human-like traits, e.g., a nose, eyes, and a mouth. While the literature has emphasized the positive influence of VA anthropomorphism perception on VA trust (Chérif and Lemoine, 2019; Pitardi and Marriott, 2021), this study has found that even the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand trust in the NVBA interaction context is significant and positive.

Second, the findings identify perceived privacy risk as a boundary condition that magnifies the influence of brand anthropomorphism on brand trust (H2). Specifically, when consumers perceive the context as a low-privacy risk, brand anthropomorphism has a positive but weaker impact on brand trust. On the other hand, the effect of brand anthropomorphism on brand trust intensifies when users are seriously concerned about external privacy threats. In this sense, the brand is regarded by users as a trusted “person” who safeguards their data (e.g., personal data and payment details), when interactions are deemed highly risky (e.g., voice-based shopping operations). Therefore, the findings reveal a novel role of perceived privacy risk, i.e., a contextual variable that alters the influence of brand anthropomorphism perception on brand trust in the NBVA context. Accordingly, these results provide insights into the VA literature, which has hitherto addressed perceived privacy risk as a negative driver of several consumer VA responses, such as VA trust or VA attitude (e.g., Pitardi and Marriott, 2021; Vimalkumar et al., 2021). At the same time, the moderation of perceived privacy risk in the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand trust may be indirectly echoed in the advertising and e-commerce literature (Kim and McGill, 2011; Xie et al., 2020).