Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology has driven the development of rule-based chatbots into AI-based chatbots. This development is used by various companies to use AI chatbots as the frontline of customer service. Meeting user expectations for AI chatbots requires an evaluation model to measure chatbot quality. Based on the literature, chatbot evaluation models still focus solely on technical quality, even as AI chatbots are evolving towards human-like services. This research will explore the integration of the technical dimensions of information system success with a new dimension, namely Human-Like Chatbot Interaction (HLCI) as a higher-order construct of anthropomorphism and conversational capability. This quantitative study uses an explanatory research approach. Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of users of the Veronika chatbot, owned by Telkomsel, an Indonesian telecommunications company. A total of 213 respondents had data ready for analysis using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method in SmartPLS 4, namely the measurement model and structural model tests. The analysis results show that service quality is not significantly related to user satisfaction but has a direct effect on trust. Meanwhile, information quality, system quality, and human-like chatbot interaction are positively related to trust and user satisfaction. Trust and user satisfaction are positively related to intention to continue using. The results of this study can contribute both theoretically and practically to modern AI chatbot quality evaluation models.

Keywords

AI chatbot Customer service Human-Like Chatbot Interaction Antropomorfism Conversational capability

Article Details

How to Cite
Warjiyono , W., Hadiyanto, H., & Nugraheni , D. M. K. . (2026). Evaluating human-like chatbot interaction in customer service: integrating anthropomorphism and conversational capability . Future Technology, 5(4), 34–48. Retrieved from https://fupubco.com/futech/article/view/1052
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Bookmark and Share

References

  1. Smutek T, Marczuk M, Jarmul M, Jurczak E, Pliszczuk D. Chatbot to Support the Customer Service Process. Eur Res Stud J 2024;27:160–8. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/3396.
  2. Maher S, Bhable SG, Lahase AR, Nimbhore SS. AI and Deep Learning-driven Chatbots: A Comprehensive Analysis and Application Trends. Int. Conf. Intell. Comput. Control Syst., 2022, p. 994–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICCS53718.2022.9788276.
  3. Senadheera S, Yigitcanlar T, Desouza KC, Mossberger K, Corchado J, Mehmood R, et al. Understanding Chatbot Adoption in Local Governments: A Review and Framework. J Urban Technol 2024:0–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2023.2297665.
  4. Karimova GZ. Not in our image : rethinking anthropomorphism in expert chatbot design. AI Soc 2026;41:611–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02438-z.
  5. Ding Y, Najaf M. Interactivity, humanness, and trust: a psychological approach to AI chatbot adoption in e-commerce. BMC Psychol 2024;12:595. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02083-z.
  6. Albarq A, Aljaafari AI, Mabkhot H, Alsuwaidan MS. When Chatbots Feel Human : How Anthropomorphism Shapes Consumer Satisfaction , Trust , and Loyalty in AI-Driven Brand Interactions. J Cult Anal Soc Chang 2025;10:1027–36.
  7. Ma N, Khynevych R, Hao Y, Wang Y. Effect of anthropomorphism and perceived intelligence in chatbot avatars of visual design on user experience : accounting for perceived empathy and trust. Front Comput Sci 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2025.1531976.
  8. Premathilake GW, Li H. Users’ responses to humanoid social robots: A social response view. Telemat Informatics 2024;91:102146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2024.102146.
  9. Nawaz RR, Reza S, Sarwar B. Chatbot Anthropomorphism and Its Influence on Trust and Satisfaction via Perceived Value. J Soc Organ Matters 2024;3:543–68. https://doi.org/10.56976/jsom.v3i2.226.
  10. Reeves B, Nass C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press.; 1996.
  11. Short J, Williams E, Christie B. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley; 1976. ISBN: 9780608176765, 0608176761
  12. Heyselaar E. The CASA theory no longer applies to desktop computers. vol. 13. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46527-9.
  13. Fu J, Mouakket S, Sun Y. The role of chatbots’ human-like characteristics in online shopping. Electron Commer Res Appl 2023;61:101304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101304.
  14. Huang S. Why Can Fintech Chatbots Guide Consumers to Buy Banking Products? Int J Hum Comput Interact 2025;41:12229–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2453611.
  15. Gnewuch U, Morana S, Adam MTP, Maedche A. Opposing Effects of Response Time in Human – Chatbot Interaction The Moderating Role of Prior Experience. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2022;64:773–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00755-x.
  16. Følstad A, Brandtzaeg PB. Chatbots and the New World of HCI. Interactions 2017;24:38–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3085558.
  17. Nass C, Steuer JS, Tauber ER. Computers are social actors. CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 1994, p. 72–8.
  18. Horton D, Wohl RR. Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction. Psychiatry 1956;19:215–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049.
  19. Nass C, Moon Y. Machines and Mindlessness : Social Responses to Computers. J Soc 2000;56:81–103.
  20. Feine J, Gnewuch U, Morana S, Maedche A. A Taxonomy of Social Cues for Conversational Agents. J Hum Comput Stud 2019;132:138–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.009.
  21. Jin SV, Youn S. Social Presence and Imagery Processing as Predictors of Chatbot Continuance Intention in Human-AI-Interaction Social Presence and Imagery Processing as Predictors of Chatbot Continuance. Int J Human–Computer Interact 2023;39:1874–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2129277.
  22. Cao B, Wen C, Zhang R. How Conversational Contingency Shapes Trust in Human-AI Interaction : Evidence from a Two-Wave Mediation Study. J Broadcast Electron Media 2025;69:398–417.
  23. Alwahaishi S. A Smart Interactive Behavioral Chatbot: A Theoretical Prototype. 2023 8th Int. Eng. Conf. Renew. Energy Sustain., 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/iecres57315.2023.10209534.
  24. Schillaci CE, de Cosmo LM, Piper L, Nicotra M, Guido G. Anthropomorphic chatbots’ for future healthcare services: Effects of personality, gender, and roles on source credibility, user satisfaction, and intention to use. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2024;199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123025.
  25. Stinkeste C, Skantze G. Linguistic Anthropomorphism in Chatbots: Effects of Style, Topic, and Interaction on Users’ Perceptions and Behaviors. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Human-Agent Interact., 2025, p. 321–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3765766.3765773.
  26. Khan R, Khan SP, Ali SA. Conversational AI. In: Rawat R, Chakrawarti RK, Sarangi SK, Vyas P, Alamanda MS, Srividya K, et al., editors. Conversational Artif. Intell., Wiley Online Library; 2024, p. 249–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394200801.ch16.
  27. Lin CC, Huang AYQ, Yang SJH. A Review of AI-Driven Conversational Chatbots Implementation Methodologies and Challenges (1999–2022). Sustain 2023;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054012.
  28. Parasuraman AP, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail 1988;64:12–40.
  29. DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 2003;19:9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
  30. Yusof MM, Kuljis J, Papazafeiropoulou A, Stergioulas LK. An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). Int J Med Inform 2008;77:386–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.011.
  31. Noor N, Rao Hill S, Troshani I. Developing a service quality scale for artificial intelligence service agents. vol. 56. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2020-0672.
  32. Li L, Lee KY, Emokpae E, Yang SB. What makes you continuously use chatbot services? Evidence from chinese online travel agencies. Electron Mark 2021;31:575–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00454-z.
  33. Pinochet LHC, de Gois FS, Pardim VI, Onusic LM. Experimental study on the effect of adopting humanized and non-humanized chatbots on the factors measure the intensity of the user’s perceived trust in the Yellow September campaign. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2024;204:123414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123414.
  34. Liu Y li, Hu B, Yan W, Lin Z. Can chatbots satisfy me? A mixed-method comparative study of satisfaction with task-oriented chatbots in mainland China and Hong Kong. Comput Human Behav 2023;143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107716.
  35. Zhang J, Chen Q, Lu J, Wang X, Liu L, Feng Y. Emotional expression by artificial intelligence chatbots to improve customer satisfaction: Underlying mechanism and boundary conditions. Tour Manag 2024;100:104835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104835.
  36. Tumsekcali E, Ayyildiz E, Taskin A. Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP-WASPAS based public transportation service quality evaluation by a new extension of SERVQUAL Model: P-SERVQUAL 4.0. Expert Syst Appl 2021;186:115757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115757.
  37. Patil K, Pramod D, Kulkarni M. Information Quality Dimensions in Generative Conversational AI for Financial Inclusion. Proc - 2024 6th Int Conf Comput Intell Commun Technol CCICT 2024 2024:64–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCICT62777.2024.00021.
  38. Guo Y, Dong P. Factors Influencing User Favorability of Government Chatbots on Digital Government Interaction Platforms across Different Scenarios. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 2024;19:818–45. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020043.
  39. Cai N, Gao S, Yan J. How the communication style of chatbots influences consumers’ satisfaction, trust, and engagement in the context of service failure. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 2024;11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03212-0.
  40. Kim J, Yum K. Enhancing Continuous Usage Intention in E-Commerce Marketplace Platforms: The Effects of Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Trust. Appl Sci 2024;14. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177617.
  41. Aoki N. An experimental study of public trust in AI chatbots in the public sector. Gov Inf Q 2020;37:101490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101490.
  42. Nilapun M, Jensuttiwetchakul T. The Effect of System Quality, Information Quality, and Service Quality on the Continued Usage of Mobile Payment Application in Thailand. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., 2023, p. 101–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3584871.3584886.
  43. Schillaci CE, de Cosmo LM, Piper L, Nicotra M, Guido G. Anthropomorphic chatbots’ for future healthcare services: Effects of personality, gender, and roles on source credibility, user satisfaction, and intention to use. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2024;199:123025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123025.
  44. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Acad Manag Rev 1995;20:709–34.
  45. Gao J, Promise A, Jawad C, Zhan M. The influence of artificial intelligence chatbot problem solving on customers ’ continued usage intention in e-commerce platforms : an expectation-confirmation model approach. J Bus Res 2025;200:115661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115661.
  46. Bhattacherjee A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quartely 2001;25:351–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921.
  47. Chen Q, Gong Y, Lu Y, Tang J. Classifying and measuring the service quality of AI chatbot in frontline service. vol. 145. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.088.
  48. Bergmann M, Maçada ACG, de Oliveira Santini F, Rasul T. Continuance intention in financial technology: a framework and meta-analysis. Int J Bank Mark 2023;41:749–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2022-0168.
  49. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. Sage Publishing; 2022.
  50. Bell E, Bryman A, Harley B. Sampling in Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.003.0030.
  51. Meade AW, Craig SB. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods 2012;17:437–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085.
  52. Kock N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. Int J e-Collaboration 2015;11:1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101.
  53. Jais R, Ngah AH. The moderating role of government support in chatbot adoption intentions among Malaysian government agencies. Transform Gov People, Process Policy 2024;18. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-02-2023-0026.
  54. Li L, Lee KY, Emokpae E, Yang SB. What makes you continuously use chatbot services? Evidence from chinese online travel agencies. Electron Mark 2021;31:575–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00454-z.
  55. Liu W, Jiang M, Li W, Mou J. How does the anthropomorphism of AI chatbots facilitate users’ reuse intention in online health consultation services? The moderating role of disease severity. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2024;203:123407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123407.
  56. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Science. 2nd ed. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
  57. Shmueli G, Hair JF, Ting H, Ringle CM. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM : guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur J Mark 2019;53:2322–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189.
  58. Goh TS, Rohim A. AI Chatbots Driving Fintech User Satisfaction via Trust and Service Quality. 2025 4th Int. Conf. Creat. Commun. Innov. Technol., IEEE; 2025, p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIT65724.2025.11167781.
  59. Huang MH, Rust RT. A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. J Acad Mark Sci 2021;49:30–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9.
  60. Al-Shafei M. Navigating Human-Chatbot Interactions: An Investigation into Factors Influencing User Satisfaction and Engagement. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2024;0:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2301252.
  61. Hsu CL, Lin JCC. Understanding the user satisfaction and loyalty of customer service chatbots. J Retail Consum Serv 2023;71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103211.
  62. Masri NW, You JJ, Ruangkanjanases A, Chen SC, Pan CI. Assessing the effects of information system quality and relationship quality on continuance intention in e-tourism. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010174.
  63. Shahzad MF, Xu S, An X, Javed I. Assessing the impact of AI-chatbot service quality on user e-brand loyalty through chatbot user trust, experience and electronic word of mouth. J Retail Consum Serv 2024;79:103867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103867.
  64. Nguyen VT. The impact of AI chatbots on customer trust: an empirical investigation in the hotel industry. Consum Behav Tour Hosp 2023;18:293–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/CBTH-06-2022-0131.
  65. Chen J-H, Guo F, Ren Z, Li M, Ham J. Effects of Anthropomorphic Design Cues of Chatbots on Users’ Perception and Visual Behaviors. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2023:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2193514.
  66. Wut TM, Lee SW, Xu J, Kwok MLJ. Do Trusting Belief and Social Presence Matter? Service Satisfaction in Using AI Chatbots: Necessary Condition Analysis and Importance-Performance Map Analysis. Informatics (Basel) 2025;12:91. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics12030091.
  67. Orden-Mejía M, Carvache‐Franco M, Huertas A, Carvache‐Franco O, Carvache‐Franco W. The Role of AI-Based Destination Chatbots in Satisfaction, Continued Usage Intention, and Visit Intention: A Study from Quito, Ecuador. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2024;41:9384–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2425882.
  68. Alhasasneh S, Shishan F, Balushi W Al. Factors influencing continuous intention to use chatbots and their socio-economic development implications: evidence from Jordan’s telecommunications industry. J Bus Socio-Economic Dev 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbsed-07-2025-0295.
  69. Nguyen DM, Chiu YTH, Le HD. Determinants of continuance intention towards banks’ chatbot services in vietnam: A necessity for sustainable development. Sustain 2021;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147625.