Creepiness: Its antecedents and impact on loyalty when interacting with a chatbot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Consumers sometimes describe their experience of interacting with artificial intelligence‐based human‐like chatbots as creepy. This study investigates the antecedents of creepiness (i.e., the chatbot's usability, privacy concerns, and user variables such as technology anxiety and the need for human interaction) and its impact on consumer loyalty. Grounded in the technology paradox, it deepens the understanding of creepiness in light of the theoretical underpinnings of the privacy paradox and privacy cynicism. Presented with the task of obtaining a car insurance quote, 430 consumers participated in a simulation involving interaction with a chatbot, followed by a questionnaire. The findings show that creepiness decreases loyalty and indirectly impacts it through trust and negative emotions. While usability reduces perceptions of creepiness, privacy concerns raised by the interaction with the chatbot increase creepiness, which is positively associated with consumer traits (i.e., technology anxiety and need for human interaction). The main contribution of the research lies in its focus on creepiness, a concept under‐researched in the marketing literature, and which can be seen from the perspective of a coping mechanism for consumers’ privacy concerns. This paper provides practical implications to orient managers in the design and implementation of chatbots, as a promising touch point to build customer loyalty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".